🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1951@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes:
> 
> A few weeks ago I posted an article in sci.misc and news.groups
> about starting a new group for
> chemistry.  I have only seen one reply to that article.  Is anyone
> interested?  Which groups should I post to to find any interested
> parties?

I'm not exactly sure what net.protocol calls for on this count, but
between the ones you posted to here and in the previous article, you
probably have covered the necessary bases.

> There are many groups for sci and bio but none of them are appropriate
> for the four areas of chemistry.  I envision four new news.groups for
> this subject. [i.e., for organic, inorganic, etc.] [...]

Clearly excessive.  If one rummages throug sci.misc and sci.physics,
which have been the most active chemistry "groups" that I've read,
a modest number of chemistry postings emerge, but not nearly enough
to justify subgroups.  Settle for sci.chem; I'd vote for that one.

> Is there anyone else who shares my views?

Sure; do it.
-- 
"One thing they don't tell you about doing	| Bill Johnson
experimental physics is that sometimes you	| Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory
must work under adverse conditions ... like	| {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj}
a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann)	| (mwj@lanl.gov)