rmr Split...a clarification

rmr Split...a clarification

Post by rml!j.. » Thu, 23 Jun 1994 16:19:18



Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to respond so far in this
discussion. I've been archiving them all and so far it looks like
the "no's" are outpacing the "yes's" but the latter seem to be
very passionate!

There also seem to be quite a few responses saying that the volume
isn't too big so there's no need to split. I admitted in my original
posting that r.m.r's volume is still tiny by most standards, but used
the perhaps unfortunate example of r.a.startrek as a group that split
due to volume. Some of you then though that I was complaining about
getting too many postings! The reason I thought we should discuss this
is due to a percieved split in subject matter with a clear division
between the technical issues of flying rockets, and the legal/social
issues of being allowed to.

- Jack

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Robotic Midwives, Ltd.      |                                             |
| Livermore, CA               |   "Spread'nest stuff I ever did see!"       |
| (510) 455-1143              |       - W.C. Fields, "It's a Gift"          |
| NAR #55105, LUNAR #002      |                                             |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

rmr Split...a clarification

Post by Peter G. Olivo » Thu, 23 Jun 1994 21:12:02



Quote:

>Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to respond so far in this
>discussion. I've been archiving them all and so far it looks like
>the "no's" are outpacing the "yes's" but the latter seem to be
>very passionate!

>There also seem to be quite a few responses saying that the volume
>isn't too big so there's no need to split. I admitted in my original
>posting that r.m.r's volume is still tiny by most standards, but used
>the perhaps unfortunate example of r.a.startrek as a group that split
>due to volume. Some of you then though that I was complaining about
>getting too many postings! The reason I thought we should discuss this
>is due to a percieved split in subject matter with a clear division
>between the technical issues of flying rockets, and the legal/social
>issues of being allowed to.

Maybe it's just my old, liberal, Democarat mentality, but I don't see any
way to separate the technical from the legal/social.  Believing it can be
done, it seems to me, is partly why we have regulatory problems that may not
have a technical solution.
--



 
 
 

rmr Split...a clarification

Post by al jacks » Thu, 23 Jun 1994 16:41:12



Quote:

>Subject: Re: rmr Split...a clarification
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 12:12:02 GMT


>>Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to respond so far in this
>>discussion. I've been archiving them all and so far it looks like
>>the "no's" are outpacing the "yes's" but the latter seem to be
>>very passionate!

>>There also seem to be quite a few responses saying that the volume
>>isn't too big so there's no need to split. I admitted in my original
>>posting that r.m.r's volume is still tiny by most standards, but used
>>the perhaps unfortunate example of r.a.startrek as a group that split
>>due to volume. Some of you then though that I was complaining about
>>getting too many postings! The reason I thought we should discuss this
>>is due to a percieved split in subject matter with a clear division
>>between the technical issues of flying rockets, and the legal/social
>>issues of being allowed to.
>Maybe it's just my old, liberal, Democarat mentality, but I don't see any
>way to separate the technical from the legal/social.  Believing it can be
>done, it seems to me, is partly why we have regulatory problems that may not
>have a technical solution.
>--


I second this motion.

Al