From: kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski)
Subject: Re: Starting an alternative medicine newsgroup
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: The Information Deli - via Netcom / San Jose, California
            <1992Sep28.194350.3213@anasazi.com> <16666@pitt.UUCP>
            <1992Oct4.172059.17157@spdcc.com> <BvM81z.AAD@wpg.com>
            <1992Oct5.205204.5875@island.COM>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:57:05 GMT

Hi, folks!  I've been hoping somebody (or me) would do this for a while,
and Gordon has kindly obliged.  This is a quick catch up for me on the
thread here, with followups directed to news.groups for the main
discussion.

Gordon Banks, <16666@pitt.UUCP>:
>I really wish that one of the proponents of alternative medicine would
>start the group rather than us doing it...

Thanks for the kick in the pants over in news.groups, Gordon -- I
volunteer, although the name I like is "misc.health.alternative".

"health" because alternative therapies tend to be more holistic, and
because there are many that really aren't medicine.  "misc" because that's
where "health" fits, along with the other misc-type groups that are
already there (e.g.  "consumers", "education", "fitness", "kids", "taxes",
etc.)

Note that this implies the creation of a sub-hierarchy (of at least one
group) called "misc.health.*", presumably dealing with consumer-level
health issues.  This seems like a good side effect to me -- does anyone
have any problems with "misc.health.*"?

>I think one of the causes of flames here comes from someone asking
>questions about alternative medicine here.  If there was such a group,
>they would go there instead and wouldn't set us off.

Agreed.  (Does this mean we can send some of our flames over here? :)


Steve Dyer, <1992Oct4.172059.17157@spdcc.com>:
>I don't think anything whatsoever is gained by isolating these morons
>into groups of their own, letting them feed on each other's credulousness
>until their faculties turn to mush.  They're living in the 20th century,
>using 20th century equipment to spread such nonsense:  let a little
>enlightenment shine on their pre-scientific fingers (I hesitate to use
>the word "brains".)

Steve, a good flame is a joy to behold!  I hope you will pop by once in
a while and spread a little enlightenment.


Russell Lawrence, <BvM81z.AAD@wpg.com>:
>The best way of dealing with false or unverified claims is to challenge
>them, both logically and empirically.

Agreed, whole-heartedly.  All I ask from the scientists posting in an
alternative health newsgroup is that they act scientifically.  Post facts,
with references as appropriate.  Judge wild claims by examining the
(alleged) facts presented, instead of with prejudice.  Opinions are fine,
but pointless flames aren't.


Robert Greenstein, <1992Oct5.205204.5875@island.COM>:
>So no, I am against the formation of an alt.med or a soc.med or sci.med.not
>or whatever you want to call it. I will still post on sci.med as I see fit.
>If conventional medicine really is the greatest thing since sliced bread,
>then it can withstand the occasional post from crackpots like myself,
>blathering on about adventures with qi or questioning the value of some
>conventional treatment.

I'd still like those qualified to make posts to sci.med, et al., as they
feel appropriate.  But there really is a need for a separate newsgroup
where health care consumers who are interested in alternative therapies
can talk about those therapies without creating or receiving a lot of
antagonism.

And I'd appreciate anybody from sci.med who can stand it to check out the
new group.

I'm motivated, folks, and it'll be a win for everybody, I think.  Mail
me comments, or post 'em to news.groups!

-- 
Peter Kaminski
kaminski@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.med