Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ucbvax!agate!usenet
From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc vs talk (was Re: soc.drugs)
Message-ID: <1990Feb8.074349.24094@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 90 07:43:49 GMT
References: <131368@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Feb8.063402.20723@agate.berkeley.edu> <38445@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc.
Lines: 17
In-reply-to: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)

In article <38445@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

>It was pragmatic: stuff went into talk because it had a high signal/noise
>ratio (or it figured to when created).

  As I rather tiresomely pointed out at the time, this is FALSE.
It is not true now, and never was true. Stuff went into "soc"
because the Gurus of the Great Renaming wanted it there, and into
talk for the same reason. In order to put a veneer of reason over
it all, it was decreed that soc.singles was "signal" and
talk.philosophy.misc was "noise". I was there, I remember.

  I wish people could distinguish between facts and excuses.  The
same problem we had with Sexton over sci.aquaria, isn't it?
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!bosco!gsmith    "Slime is the agony of water" -- Jean-Paul Sartre