Xref: utzoo news.groups:17455 alt.drugs:2369
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!think!dfl
From: dfl@Think.COM (David Lively)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: soc.drugs
Message-ID: <DFL.90Feb7151324@agrius.think.com>
Date: 7 Feb 90 20:13:24 GMT
References: <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Feb7.030722.15380@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 20
In-reply-to: russotto@eng.umd.edu's message of 7 Feb 90 03:07:22 GMT

In article <1990Feb7.030722.15380@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

   In article <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes:
   >
   >	What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups?
				   [much deleted]
   >	A 'mainstream' group to discuss societal impact might be a good
   >addition.
   >
   Good group, bad name.  This sounds like a perfect candidate for
   'talk.politics.drugs', with the other highly-charged political
   issues.

This sounds like a great idea.  It would make some of the alt.drugs purists
happy by removing the political discussions.  Being in the mainstream
groups would probably result in more diversity, so we (some of us) won't do
as much "preaching to the choir".  Of course, this might cause AT&T to drop
Usenet entirely :-)

David