🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov9.135719.18651@cs.yale.edu> jhh@waldzell.physics.yale.edu (Jim Horne) writes:
>In article <1deevpINNl33@bigboote.WPI.EDU> phillies@bigwpi.WPI.EDU  
>(George D. Phillies) writes:
>> Is it just me, or is the crackpot and fringe material
>> drowning out the real physics?  Perhaps it is time for
>>  
>> sci.physics.orthodox (moderated?)
>> 
>
>I think a much better name would be sci.physics.research, and it
>would have to be moderated, though lightly. There is already a  
>successful moderated group sci.math.research which could serve
>as an example of how to encourage substantive discussions of current
>research.
>
>> My motivation for this is the suspicion that this group 
>> is not in contact with the physics community at all.  
>> 
>> George Phillies
>> phillies@wpi.wpi.edu
>
>Yes, very few real physicists read sci.physics. Most have been driven
>out by the crackpots.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jim Horne
>jhh@waldzell.physics.yale.edu
> 


This sounds good to me, too.  I think some kind of split would be helpful.
A large amount of the posts in this newsgroup appear to be discussions
of the philosophy of science, and the politics of science funding; and
*highly* speculative stuff that should be in alt.sci.physics.new-theories.
Though somewhat interesting, I don't really enjoy wading through them
on a daily basis.  

John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu