X-Message-Number: 829
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 20:54:06 +0200
From:  (David Stodolsky)
Subject: CYRONICS: Re: USENET Cryonics Newsgroup

Sci.cryonics is probably a bad choice on UseNet, because its too specific and
too cryptic. Many people simple don't know what cryonics is. The most general
acceptable name is the best strategy.

sci.life-extension, shortened to sci.lifex, to fit UseNet conventions on naming
would probably be better.

alt has almost as good distribution as sci, so alt.cryonics should be created
immediately, and discussion could continue there.

David S. Stodolsky                Messages: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 24 41
Department of Computer Science                 Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82
Bldg. 20.1, Roskilde University Center        Internet: 
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark        Fax: + 45 46 75 42 01

[ I plan to submit a Request For Discussion for a USENET cryonics
  newsgroup to news.announce.newgroups within the next day or two.
  The name of the newsgroup will, of course, be open for discussion
  during the discussion period.  As you can see, my thinking about the
  necessity of using the name alt.cryonics has changed since I posted
  message #779, largely due to Keith Henson's efforts.  He produced
  evidence (from a nearly if not completely net.god) that it would be OK
  to create alt.cryonics if a vote for a sci.* cryonics group fails,
  which means that we do indeed have that fall-back position, unlike
  what I expected.  Also, I estimate that the people in the cryonics
  mailing list and other, friendly-to-cryonics mailing lists and newsgroups
  can generate about 200 "Yes" votes.  Even though some of the sci.med "No"
  voters are quite vocal, it is not clear that there are 100 of them.
  It should be interesting to see what happens! - KQB ]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=829