Re: CFV: sci.philosophy.natural moderated
Whittet (Whittet@shore.net)
25 Nov 1995 22:09:16 GMT
In article <elliot-2411950929550001@slip-15-14.ots.utexas.edu>, elliot@mail.utexas.edu says...
>
>In article <492d5k$qnr@lilja.vtt.fi>, mikko.levanto@vtt.fi 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
Steve
>
>--
>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 |
>elliot@mail.utexas.edu |
|