Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!kilo!hougen
From: hougen@kilo.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen)
Subject: Re: testing the waters for split of comp.robotics
Message-ID: <CvDr33.75p@news.cis.umn.edu>
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: kilo.cs.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
References: <334fp9$d5l@scratchy.reed.edu> <33fvj9$j2j@Athena.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> <njacobs.777985414@access1>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 03:21:12 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <njacobs.777985414@access1> njacobs@access1.digex.net (Nick Jacobs) writes:
>I disagree. Robotics is inherently a practical subject.
>
>Nick
>
If you are right, then comp.robotics.theory would be an empty group
and comp.robotics.practice would continue just as comp.robotics does
today.  There are already a million empty or nearly empty newsgroups
on the net (mostly joke ones) and another one won't hurt anything.
Further, most newsreaders do not require you to type the group name,
so a slightly longer name for comp.robotics will hurt almost no one.
In other words, if we go ahead with the suggested split and you are
right, then there's no harm, no foul.

On the other hand, if you are wrong (as I contend), then a .theory
group would be of great benefit to those of us in robotics theory
who find ourselves drowned out in the current comp.robotics group.
Therefore, if you are wrong and we fail to split the group, then we
have missed out on an opportunity to improve the net for some people.

So, I say lets split it.  We've got nothing to loose and something
to gain by trying.

Dean Hougen
--
"Split."  - the Clash
