🚀 go-pugleaf

una@dodolium.biology.yale.edu (Una Smith) wrote:


> Thus, I support the proposal to rename sci.chem to sci.chem.misc.

Not surprising since you are a current member of Usenet Group-Advice 
and, in that capacity, a strong proponent of renaming parent 
newsgroups, as well as being the author of the current RFD which 
calls for removal/renaming of the parent newsgroup sci.bio  :-) 

Your renaming rationale seems far from convincing, being speculative 
in its objectives and rather lacking in substance and credibility.  


> I have set followups to news.groups, where any further discussion 
> of this issue really belongs, as I am sure most sci.chem readers 
> are not very interested...

Really ?  I think perhaps sci.chem readers may be far more 
interested than you give them credit for.

Actually we are now, in theory, out of the discussion stage and 
into the voting and campaigning stage but inevitably comment will 
continue.  Incidentally during the discussion phase there was 
scarcely any discussion in news.groups on this important proposal on 
sci.chem and I suspect that many readers never even sighted the RFD 
( Request for Discussion ) or even knew of the proposal.  

It is now the voting which remains, as always, the most important 
part of the whole process. It is up to the sci.chem readership to 
defend their newsgroup if they wish it to survive.  
At least we do have the vote, so use it or lose it :-)


re: sci.bio newsgroup

> Here is my article (posted to sci.bio in the thread marked 
> "sci.bio --> sci.bio.misc") rebutting his assertions 

Sorry but your message in sci.bio has still not appeared at my 
access site. This was the first I knew of it. What date was it 
posted ?  There have been several satellite and cable outages which 
result in loss of news.

Bye,