CFV for SCI.PHILOSOPHY.NATURAL Moderated
Will Wagers (wagers@computek.net)
25 Nov 1995 12:21:48 GMT
The first call for votes (CFV) for the moderated group
sci.philosophy.natural has been posted in news.groups.
HOW TO VOTE
Just call up the CFV in news.groups, delete everything but the
ballot, type your name and your vote, and forward it to the
votetaker.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 12 Dec 1995.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about
the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Mentor: Mark James <jamesm@dialogic.com>
Votetaker: David Bostwick
<david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu>
RATIONALE: sci.philosophy.natural
sci.philosophy.natural will meet a long-standing demand for a
moderated
newsgroup for the scholarly discussion of and publications on
ancient
natural philosophy (science) without flames and without
unfounded
'speculative' postings. The proposed newsgroup would not
replace any
existing groups. There is a small overlap with *many* existing
newsgroups
and mailing lists in that subjects appropriate to
sci.philosophy.natural
are occasionally discussed there. One purpose of
sci.philosophy.natural is
to bring these discussions under one roof to facilitate
interdisciplinary
scholarship. In some cases, this may result in offloading some
traffic from
high volume newsgroups and mailing lists. It would still leave
any and all
posters the forums that currently exist, so there is no question
of denying
anyone an outlet for their ideas. The small number of newsgroups
and
mailing lists which regularly deal with topics appropriate to
sci.philosophy.natural may regard the proposed newsgroup as a
means of
publishing finished articles after the rounds of specialist
comment and
criticism have occurred.
Minority viewpoints are seldom embraced and are often actively
discouraged
on many specialist moderated newsgroups and mailing lists
which are
dominated by a small group of established "experts".
sci.philosophy.natural
welcomes minority and controversial viewpoints which are
*justified by
scholarship and which pass moderation*.
Thanks for your participation.
|