Re: CFV: sci.philosophy.natural moderated

Elliot Richmond (
24 Nov 1995 15:28:27 GMT

In article <492d5k$>, wrote:

> >Newsgroups line:
> >sci.philosophy.natural Ancient natural philosophy. (Moderated)
> I guess there has been a Request For Discussion, although I haven't
> seen any.

Since the rules require an RFD to precede a CFV, this is a safe assumption.

The RFD was posted here and on other groups. What little discussion there
was took place on news.groups (the appropriate forum). I followed the
instructions and posted two separate comments to news.groups, thus
becoming (I think) the most active discussant. 8-)

> The proposed name for the group is misleading. The full line
> quoted above indicates that the intended content is not
> natural philosohy but history; and the charter makes that clear.
> A better name could be sci.history.philosophy.natural or
> sci.philosohy.natural.ancient -- there should be some indication
> about the actual content.

The point mentioned by the above poster was mentioned and discussed.
However there has been little discussion of this proposal in any forum. I
hope this doesn't indicate a general lack of interest.

Elliot Richmond | Opinions expressed are mine alone
(lurking in the halls of) | No one else would have them
Science Education Center |
The University of Texas at Austin | |