Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!hobbes!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: testing the waters for split of comp.robotics
Organization: The Armory
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 12:34:23 GMT
Message-ID: <CvEG9G.LqE@armory.com>
References: <334fp9$d5l@scratchy.reed.edu> <33fvj9$j2j@Athena.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> <njacobs.777985414@access1> <CvDr33.75p@news.cis.umn.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deeptht.armory.com
Lines: 51

In article <CvDr33.75p@news.cis.umn.edu>,
Dean Hougen <hougen@kilo.cs.umn.edu> wrote:
>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
----------------------------------------------
I have watched this group almost since its inception, and I have yet to see
real theory be discussed here, unless it was electronic theory!!! If all
the theory people are such a bunch of loser lurker weenies, then they are
not likely to change if the hardware and practical people disappear!!! And
the thing about robotics is that you need both theory and practice to
complete a robot!!! Now someone who only wants to read about algorithms or
such is going to hang around the AI newsgroups or the finite math and
neuronet/fuzzy geeks who never talk here! Likewise game theory folks. They
must either know that they don't have anything really together enough to
discuss it here, or else they are discussing it elsewhere! I would LIKE to
see what they have to say, but they don't talk much! There is no need to
split a sandwich with someone if they aren't hungry!!! NO-SPLIT!!!!
Theory and practice are inseparable in robotocs. So I really don't know
what theory you are talking about developing here. We haven't that much
traffic! If you want to talk theory, then do it a while and we will see if
you have enough to say to follow it and help work with it! But I think that
most theory folks are into graphic simulation and are not really into
robotics anyway. If they ever decide to get their hands "dirty" with the
nitty-gritty of metalwork, PCB fab, and motor testing and advice, then I
guess we'll see them. But I don't know who it is that the "splitters" want
to give space to in here!!! I seldom see over 30 postings a day here, and I
hit n or kill 3/4th's of them!! NO-SPLIT COMP.ROBOTICS!!!
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

