Xref: utzoo news.groups:18276 sci.bio:2752 sci.physics:11793
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!lanl!mwj
From: mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: call for discussion : SCI.PALEONTOLOGY
Summary: How about using sci.misc for a while first?
Message-ID: <44826@lanl.gov>
Date: 1 Mar 90 16:51:02 GMT
References: <1031@athen.sinix.UUCP> <25349@ut-emx.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 39
Followups-to: news.groups

In article <25349@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
> In article <1031@athen.sinix.UUCP>, es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes:
> > On behalf of friends having only read access to the net (so far) I want to ask
> > for the possibility of creating a group dealing with paleontology.
> > ........ 
> > I would appreciate comments about the following questions:
> > - does  the request for creation seem justified
> > - would there be enough traffic to make it worth while
> 
> I would be very interested in reading such a group.  I am not
> likely to contribute and cannot comment on the likely level of
> traffic.  I think a lot of people have a general interest in 
> the topic who are not paleontologists, and who have no interest
> in other biological topics.

I'd probably contribute occasionally, having dabbled in the field, but
really: there's already a group (sci.misc) for "other" scientific topics,
and if there were to be enough postings on paleontology to justify a
separate newsgroup, surely at least one or two sci.misc postings would have
addressed paleontological issues lately.  I have seen none.  Must we have
yet *another* sci group to divide the readership of existing ones and
generate flamage?

> The charter of the group should explicitly exclude creationist discussions,
> which will otherwise overwhelm the group.  There is already a talk.
> group covering this with a very low signal/noise ratio.

Amen, Ethan.  But I can't even conceive of a charter compelling enough to
prevent this from happening.  The only way would be if the proposed s.p
group was moderated -- and *I'm* sure not going to touch that one ...

So "No" to sci.paleontology, at least until sci.bio and sci.misc
demonstrate that there's a compelling need for the group.  Followups
to news.groups, please.

-- 
Bill Johnson                      | Anticipating computer news systems by 
Los Alamos National Laboratory    | 1900 years, Juvenal wrote: "Difficile
(mwj@beta.lanl.gov)               | est saturam non scribere."