Re: CFV: sci.philosophy.natural moderated

Whittet (
25 Nov 1995 22:09:16 GMT

In article <>, says...
>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.

Personally I would be very interested, but agree that the proper forum
for discussion of new groups (including sci.arch.research) is news.groups

>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 |
> |