🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <COLUMBUS.92Dec16103152@strident.think.com> columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.075642.19770@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
>
>       Philosophy of science, and non-technical subjects should also be 
>       excluded, no matter how 'serious'.
>
>I like the philosophy of science stuff --- within limits.  Sci.physics
>would be better if postings on the Many Worlds Interpretation or Is Physics
>Discrete or Religion And Science were cut off when they stopped saying
>anything really new.  (The same goes for Should the Govt. Fund the SSC.)
>
>For that matter, despite the enormous volume on the misnamed Many Worlds
>Interpretation, I still haven't seen the definitive posting--- one that
>would give a brief account of decoherence, or Griffith's histories
>or Omnes' logical interpretation.  Perhaps it was there, but I missed it
>under all the chaff.
>
>And let's keep the non-serious stuff, at least when it's like the "Happy
>Birthday Isaac" posting.

     This wasn't for sci.physics.  This was for some pre-proposed
     new group sci.physics.moderated (or thereabouts).  Sci.physics
     would still exist for such discussions.

                              dale bass



-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926