woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (10/09/89)
In article <20686@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Personal correspondence woth Greg Woods indicates that we both >believe that something is needed to bridge the gap between >rec and sci - perhaps ``tech'' Actually that isn't QUITE what I said. What I said was that during the Great Renaming, "sci" was created to hold all groups dealing with technical subjects other than computers, and that maybe it should have been called "tech" in the first place. I did NOT say that I wanted to form a new hierarchy. Sorry for the confusion on that point, Richard. --Greg
popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) (10/10/89)
Richard and Others have made very good arguments for sci.aquaria, and though
it may be very applicable to the current content of alt.aquaria, somthing
must be considered: A group should have the broadest appeal possible, and any
group created should be created with a broad defined user base. Should the
readers find a group to be too general in nature and contain too much "excess
bandwidth" then a group tailored to the special intrest subset should be
proposed to cater to that subset. First you need something to be a subset of.
Starting with a special intrest subset as a basis for group creation is in
my opinion, the wrong way to go about it. I think more people will vote against
sci.aquaria because of name than would vote against rec.aquaria, or even
misc.aquaria, and I think even more people could identify with "aquarium" than
"aquaria" ("Aquaria" may indeed be more proper given that the subject is not
about just one aquarium, but how many people even know what "aquaria" means?).
I don't think many of the rec.pets.aquarium (or fish, aquatic, fishes, etc..)
would vote against "rec.aquarium" because of name, and it would be an easy
group to relate name to subject, and it seems it would be a heavily used group.
This is the type of group that should be created without question. (IMHO unless
rec. has the same broad distribution as misc. the group should be misc.aquarium,
again IMHO).
Many groups have spit up thriving spin-offs due to enough intrest in a narrower
field of discussion. I like and agree with all the arguments for sci.aquaria,
but I feel that if a rec.aquarium (or misc.) were started first it would be
that much easier to get support for such a group. Lets face it there is a need
for an aquarium group that caters to both the coral reef and fish breeder types
as well as to the guppy goldfish types. This talk about distroying the high
level atomosphere of the current group, and using the "sci" heading as an
intimidation factor is a selfish attitude. The purests can always burp up their
own group later. As far as the technical aspects of fish keeping, there is
enough examples of this level of discussion in misc. and rec. to null that
argument;
rec.autos(.tech) rarely have threads about how to change the oil. More often
its "what are the benifits of synthetic oil?"
(compare to medications vs. environment to cure fish disease)
misc.consumers.house rarely has threads about 3 prong outlet adapters. more
often its "how do I retrofit new outlets in a house wired in Al?"
(compare to aquarium construction)
rec.woodworking rarely has threads about what kind of saw to use. More often
its "How does an import compare to a Delta?"
(compare to who makes the best power filter)
rec.railroading rarely has threads about snackbars on Amtrak. More often its
"What is the principle behind Dynamic Braking?"
(compare to explanation of the bacteria bed)
etc....
All these groups are for the most part technical in nature, they all deal with
design, mechanical sciences, and engineering, and all deal with product
availability and standards. These groups are no less technical in nature than
alt.aquaria. Every group has its self appointed experts that set the pace of
the group and effect its level of content. Every group has a certain level of
articles that do not appeal to some readers (remember the "please include an
"(F)" or an "(M)" in your header discussion?"). The point is a mainstream group
is needed that appeals to all levels (did Richard raise Killiefish from birth
or did he mature to his current level of expertease?).
Traffic has dropped off to barely a couple of articles a day in alt.aquaria
if you discount this thread, compromise, there are only two arguments, aquaria
are more recreational than scientific and fish arn't pets. So give up on pets
and give up on sci and get the group in distribution. If both sides hold their
ground alt.aquaria will remain alt, as both sides have enough following to
kill the other, and both sides agree there should be a group on this subject.
I personally will vote against "pets". I would vote for "misc", "rec" either
"aquaria" or "aquarium". I would have to think about "sci", even though I
thought it was a good idea at first.
Ken A. Irwin
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Indian Hill 6G410
Naperville, Illinois
(312) 979-4578
...!ihlpa!kaigil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan) (10/10/89)
In article <20686@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Hade I given much thought to the mechanics of how an uninitiated user >would find what group to post/read, I would probably conclude that >one way NOT to do it would be to examine all the groups on the net, >by title, in hierarchical order. >Perhaps: ``grep aq $HOME.newsrc'' or ``grep fish $HOME/.newsrc'' This still begs the question of how an uninitiated user is supposed to know that _this_ is the optimal way to look for a group. Call me stupid (go ahead, many people do) but when I see something organized in a tree structure I assume it's built that way for a _purpose_. I thought that the namespace was orgainzed the way it is _in_ _part_ as an aid to finding groups of mutual-interest (as well as to aid in distribution decisions, etc.). I can't be the only one prone to this "mistake". If we're going to treat the namespace as flat both when creating and searching for groups then let's make it explicit and stop _pretending_ it's a tree. However, I still maintain that a well organized tree-like namespace is better than a flat namespace. People don't always know _exactly_ what they're looking for. It is much easier to browse a library, for instance, than an unorganized used book store. In addition a flat namespace has the problem of correct key(s) selection. Someone mentioned being unable to find "alt.aquaria" because they were searching on "aquarium". Once you've winnowed out the extraneous possibilities by traveling down a tree such mistakes are much easier to recover from than the more or less random method of "pick another key". >I was thinking that there would be a small amount of intimidation >involved becasue it is a SCI group. Several posters have mentioned >this already, which conforms my suspicions. They will probably >mail their question ot a high profile poster rather that not ask >it. In this day and age of expanding USENETism, anything that >makes a user question whether they should post or not post >is most likely a good thing. Why not carry this to it's logical extreme and moderate the group ? If a controlled discussion is what you want it seems somewhat inadequate to leave the door open to anybody who stumbles across the group. Frequently the biggest bozos (such as myself) don't have the _brains_ to be intimidated by big words like SCIENCE. *YEEHAH* !! The good lord gave us hands to type with and our addle-headed opinions are as good as anyone _else's_, Tommy Jefferson said so ! "come back to Boston as soon as you can the whole thing ain't gone down according to the plan in the morning when I wake I don't like what I see late night my dreams they are terrifying me" - dream syndicate Delbert de la Platz @ Church of the Holy Nuclear Holocaust (chemotherapy for Mother Nature) (gil@banyan.com)
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/16/89)
In article <526@ryn.esg.dec.com> taber@pstjtt.enet.dec.com writes: >OK, so the gauntlet was thrown down, and I picked it up. We shouldn't >comment on renaming the fish-fancier's group unless we aquire an idea of >what (I'm sorry, "WHAT") the group IS. So I looked into it. We had >about 300 articles stashed on our server, and I read 100 (sequential)of them >and checked the titles of all of them. > >There were the standard "This is a test" messages, the usual childish >flames over someone who nominated participants to the "Bandwidth >Waster's Hall of Fame", a number of questions on the subject of "how do >I get started?" and "why did my fish die?", there were the usual number >of way-off-the-subject replies to specific questions, there was a note >that went from books to mexican restaurants to fish. alt.aquaria is >("IS") J.random, run-of-the-mill hobby group. Most of these were before >the proposal to move to sci, so I assume the contents are reasonably >unself-conscious. My goodness, what an absolutly revolting analysis. I did see one test message - which can hardly be held against the quality of a group, and yes there were severel followups to Kent Paul Dolans brief excusrion to the dark side of sanity, as there were in news.groups, but one would get the impression from reading the above that there is no usefull information to be gleaned from the group, which is just plain false. Poor alt.aquaria. It is akin to a halfbreed who is not accepted by the race of either parent. We are told is does not belong in sci because it is not a science (unless of course you *eat* your tilapia, in which case it is aquaculture), yet submission of many of the articles to any of the three aquarian hobbyist magazines would be equally fruitless, as they would be rejected for being ``too technical''. Yes, I checked. -- Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/16/89)
In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >In article <33610@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >>In other words, who the fuck cares? All this fuss about whether a group >>goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution? And that 5% >>mostly marginal sites that will prune any group they don't like anyway? > >The issue is not distribution. In this case it is. All things being equal, I still can't tip the scales one way or another for rec. vs. sci. aquaria. There are convincing arguments for both. What does make a big diference is sci goes to all of Europe. An aquarium group not propogating to Europe is like a Unix group not getting to California, Massachusetts and Bell Labs. -- Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/16/89)
In article <1989Oct16.042758.456@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > >Just compare talk.philosophy with sci.skeptic. It was >because I *knew* what sci.skeptic was going to be like that I >opposed it; it was (and is, and will remain) a "talk" group in >"sci". Funny. The world hasn't ended. People voted for it, passed it; they must want it there. Funny. The world hasn't ended. > Sci.aqauria will *never* be a real "sci" group. It's not a >matter of only a little science discussion--there is NONE. The >people calling for this don't seem to know the difference between >talking about technical features of their hobby, such as how to >kill snails, and a scientific discussion. You can't kill snails. Saying there is *NONE* is a little final, Gene. You could say there is little, or ``not much''. You'de be wrong there as well, but *NONE* ? Suck on this: # # There's been a lot of requests for "hard" data about O2 and CO2. Well, # here it is! My wife (a PhD in Biochemistry) and myself (a EE) have a few # tanks set up and have been doing some experiments with CO2 and O2. First, # some background. # # We have 4 tanks of interest. The largest is an 85 gallon, plexiglass tank # oriented towards plants. We have an UGF and 2 Aqua-clear 200's for filters # with a Magnum 330 for special occasions. Powerheads are used to run the # UGF. The tank is densely planted with wildly growing plants of all kinds # (which was our goal). There are 4 large anglefish, 8 large Rainbows, 15 # cardinals and a dozen assorted scavengers/algae-eaters. This tank uses # a Dupla CO2 injector. # # The next tank is a 55 gallon cichlid tank. It has an UGF with powerheads # and an Aqua-clear 200 outside filter. It has mostly plastic plants with # a large Anubia and a large sword of some kind (which are barely living). # There are 6 medium size Severums, 2 Festivums and a half dozen scavengers. # There is no CO2 injection. # # The third tank is a 29 gallon tank set up to breed angels. It has an UGF # with one powerhead and an Aqua-clear 200. There are a couple of Anubias, # some scraggly Amazon swords and an Aponogeton or two. There are currently # two large angelfish in it. No CO2 injection. # # The last tank is a 10 gallon tank set up as a control. It is bare except # for a powerhead, a large (6") airstone and a heater. # # Now, DATA! # # We have some LaMotte O2 and CO2 test kits which we use to measure the # dissolved gases. They are extremely well designed (and I assume, fairly # accurate). One word of note - we are at 5000 feet (Colorado) so the # O2 numbers may seem low. I show the percentage of saturation as a data # point. # # DESIRED LEVELS: # # This is difficult to determine (surprised, huh?). Using the tables in the # "Optimum Aquarium", it shows freshwater to be saturated with O2 when the # level is 8.1 mg/l at 25 degrees C. This varies quite a bit with temperature, # dropping about 1.5 mg/l per degree C increase in temperature. Using some # other reference, we determined that at our altitude (5000 ft), saturation # should occur at 6.8 mg/l. The _O_A_ also states that their 2500 gallon # tank will vary between 90% and 112% O2 saturation (more on this later). # So I guess this is the "desired" level. # # The desired level of CO2 varies with the amount of carbonate hardness in # the tank. The 2500 gallon tank has a KH of 10 degrees, requiring 28 mg/l # of CO2. We have about 4.5 degress KH, requiring about 15 mg/l CO2. # # CONTROL TANK: # # The control tank was filled with tap water and allowed to "settle" for 2 # days with just the heater and the powerhead running. The 10 gallon has # a pretty good surface to volume ratio and the powerhead was directed to # "ruffle" the surface. The temperature was kept at 77 degrees. # # When tested, the O2 measured 6.0 mg/l (also "parts per million"). This # corresponds to 88% saturation. The CO2 showed about 3 mg/l or Not Very # Much. Note that this tank has nothing living in it (at least nothing # visible) to use or generate CO2 or O2. Just plain water happily exchanging # gases at the surface. # # For fun we turned off the powerhead and turned on the airstone. This created # a "wall of bubbles" so should be representative of typical areation. After # running for a day, guess what happened. Nothing. No O2 increase, no CO2 # decrease (but, of course, there wasn't much CO2 to remove anyway). Draw # your own conclusions. # # 29 GALLON BREEDER TANK: # # We've measured the O2 once, at the end of a day. It measured 5.4 mg/l or # about 79% saturation. Our conclusion is that the fish use up the oxygen # and it can't be replenished fast enough through simple surface diffusion. # # 55 GALLON CICHLID TANK: # # We measured O2 and CO2 twice during a day, once just after the lights went # on (10:00 AM) and once at 4:00 PM. The intitial O2 reading was 5.0 mg/l # or about 73% saturation and the second reading was 4.8 mg/l or 70% # saturation. Obviously, the big cichlids are heavy breathers! BTW, they # don't appear stressed or oxygen starved and have good color. I suppose # fish get used to low oxygen levels just like humans (we lucky folks at # high altitudes have more red blood cells then you flat landers - nyah, nyah). # # The CO2 in the cichlid tank measured 5 mg/l at the first reading and 3 mg/l # at the second reading. I'm not sure why both O2 andf CO2 would drop during # the day. At these levels, the test kits have a poorer resolution and could # account for the differences. # # 85 GALLON PLANT TANK: # # OK, here's the interesting part. The 85 gallon has CO2 injection and very # healthy plants. We maintain the CO2 at about 20 mg/l (a bit high, but # we had no way of knowing). We have measured the CO2 at various times # during the day (11:00 AM, 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM) and found the levels # didn't vary more than 1 mg/l (20-22 mg/l). We were surprised because # we have a steady flow to the tank at all times and we thought when the # plants gave off CO2 at night, it would drive the level up. Apparently # the excess just diffuses into the air. # # The O2 was an entirely different story. In the morning, it measured 4.8 # mg/l or about 70% saturation, just like the cichlid tank. At 4:00 PM, # after 5 hours of light, it measured 7.2 mg/l or 105% saturation! Also # at this time, you can see little bubbles forming on the plant leaves and # the side of the tank. At 8:00 PM, the O2 measured 8.6 mg/l or 126% !! # We are careful not to light matches around the tank! Conclusion: those # healthy plants really do make O2, just like the book says! # # OTHER DATA: # # For reference, we use Dupla fertilizers in the plant tank. Duplagan, # DuplaPlant and Dupla KH Generator at water changes and DuplaPlant 24 # (daily drops) every day. We have 3 40w flourescent lamps, 2 Phillips # UltraLume (USA) and 1 Cool White, and run them 10 hours per day. We change # 25% of the water every 2 1/2 weeks. There is no algae that we can detect. # # One thing we found: if you use ultraviolet sterilyzers, you will remove # any iron from the water. We were adding enormous amounts of Dupla daily # drops each day and couldn't get the proper level of iron. Now we add 6 # drops per day and have 0.1 mg/l of iron as recommended. Currently, the # GH is 5.0 degrees, the KH is 4.5 - 5.0 degrees and the ph is 6.9. We # need to raise the ph to 7.0 by lowering the amount of CO2 being injected. # # We are not using a "reactor" for the CO2. The Dupla starter kit has a # "diffuser" that makes really teeny bubbles and seems to work just fine. # A five gallon tank of CO2 lasts 2-3 months and costs $8.50 to refill. # # Any questions? # # ---------------- # George and Karla # # ============================================================================== # DUPLA ANALYSIS # ============================================================================== # # We've had some of the Dupla products analyzed to determine what is in them # and we thought the Net might be interested. The analysis was done with # an Inductively-Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometer. This machine will # vaporize a sample to reduce all components to the atomic level and then # determine the concentration of 21 different metals. # # Note that this analysis DOES NOT tell you how to make these products. There # is no way of knowing if the various metals are in the product as "trace # elements" or as contaminants. There is also no way of knowing, for # example, if all the iron is in a form useable by plants or if certain # elements are present because they bind other elements (sodium could be # used to chelate the iron, for example). # # Note also that the concentrations listed here are what is present in the # product and that it will be diluted A Whole Lot when it is added to the # tank. For example, DuplaPlant 24 (daily drops) has a concentration of # 11800 ppm of Fe. However, only 6 drops are added to an 85 gallon tank. # # PRODUCT USE: # # Duplagan and DuplaPlant tablets are added at each water change. Among # other things, they are supposed to add "bulk" trace elements, that is, # trace elements that can be added in a large enough concentration to last # for 2 weeks (or whatever) and not be toxic to the plants or fish. The # DuplaPlant 24 (daily drops) contains trace elements that must be added # in small doses due to toxic effects. # # ANALYSIS (all concentrations in parts per million): # # Dupalgan DuplaPlant DuplaPlant 24 # Metal water cond. tablets daily drops # ------------------------------------------------------------------ # # Ca calcium 30.5 55.0 14.6 # Mg magnesium 509.0 2.9 0.5 # Na sodium 54.0 1160.0 4840.0 # K potassium 9.6 24900.0 <0.5 # P phosporous 0.8 2.5 6.5 # Al aluminum 0.5 3.5 4.8 # Fe iron 0.3 2340.0 11800.0 # Mn manganese 0.02 368.0 12.5 # Ti titanium 0.1 5.9 0.2 # Cu copper 0.05 1.8 1.3 # Zn zinc 0.3 5.7 1.1 # Mo molybdenum 0.05 6.7 0.9 # Cd cadmium 0.01 0.2 0.7 # Si silicon 2.07 57.0 8.2 # Cr chromium 0.07 0.9 1.8 # Sr strontium 0.3 0.3 0.04 # B boron 0.03 66.7 20.2 # Ba barium 0.08 0.05 <0.01 # Pb lead 0.26 1.3 4.72 # V vanadium 0.07 0.6 2.06 # # ------------------ # George and Karla -- Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/16/89)
In article <20984@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <1989Oct16.042758.456@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >>Just compare talk.philosophy with sci.skeptic. It was >>because I *knew* what sci.skeptic was going to be like that I >>opposed it; it was (and is, and will remain) a "talk" group in >>"sci". >People voted for it, passed it; they must want it there. People voted for Hitler as Chancellor too. A vote is not to determine what is best, or what is right, but what is going to happen. A winning vote is not evidence that the winning voters were correct. >> Sci.aqauria will *never* be a real "sci" group. It's not a >>matter of only a little science discussion--there is NONE. The >>people calling for this don't seem to know the difference between >>talking about technical features of their hobby, such as how to >>kill snails, and a scientific discussion. >You can't kill snails. I've killed snails. I've even fed them to my duck. >Saying there is *NONE* is a little final, Gene. You could say there >is little, or ``not much''. You'de be wrong there as well, but >*NONE* ? >Suck on this: What follows is a scientific discussion of sorts. It is more or less research, though not exactly earth-shaking: the conclusions drawn are of the sort "Wow! Plants produce oxygen, just like They say!". The general level is about that of a high school science fair project for a kid with rich parents (Daddy can afford some equipment for Junior to play with). Needless to say, this posting is not typical of the "what can I do to keep my guppies alive?" stuff which makes up the majority of alt.aquaria. Once again, the bottom line is that there aren't aqarium science people out there exchanging data, but a bunch of hobbyists. Richard doesn't seem to know what the difference is. Well, too bad. It's there. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "Slime is the agony of water" -- Jean-Paul Sartre
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/17/89)
In article <1989Oct16.115545.12476@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > > People voted for Hitler as Chancellor too. A vote is not to >determine what is best, or what is right, but what is going to >happen. A winning vote is not evidence that the winning voters >were correct. You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participents drags out Hitler and the Nazis. >>You can't kill snails. > > I've killed snails. I've even fed them to my duck. Alright, You can't kill *all* the snails. >What follows is a scientific discussion of sorts. Oh. Objective. >It is more or less research, Oh. Objective. >though not exactly earth-shaking: Yeah, it's *just fish*. Subjective. >the conclusions >drawn are of the sort "Wow! Plants produce oxygen, just like They >say!". No, thats a given. The point is this this information has been around for a ong time (although CO2 injection to enhance aquaric plant growth is new, even though is discovered to be the limiting factor by Scheel in '66) but *nobody has ever quantified it*. ``Which curve should I use for this animation here ? I have a bunch of equations'' ``Uh, dunno. we don't really know, they're all about the same. Bezier I guess.'' It's *just math*. >The general level is about that of a high school science I for one would be delighted if sci.bio was elevated to the high school level. > Needless to say, this posting is not typical of the "what can I >do to keep my guppies alive?" stuff which makes up the majority >of alt.aquaria. You must see a different majority than I do. -- Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/17/89)
>> People voted for Hitler as Chancellor too. >You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of >the participents drags out Hitler and the Nazis. It's the Brahms Gang, Richard. They can't help it -- it's the water in Berkeley. Hmm. Come to think of it, use net.gods haven't been called fascists in a long time. I must be slipping... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
zmacx07@doc.ic.ac.uk (Simon E Spero) (10/17/89)
>>>>> On 16 Oct 89 08:42:46 GMT, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) said: Richard> In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: > >The issue is not distribution. Richard> In this case it is. Richard> All things being equal, I still can't tip the scales one way or another Richard> for rec. vs. sci. aquaria. There are convincing arguments for both. Richard> What does make a big diference is sci goes to all of Europe. An aquarium Richard> group not propogating to Europe is like a Unix group not getting to Richard> California, Massachusetts and Bell Labs. From: ih@ukc.ac.uk (I.Harding) Newsgroups: uk.news Subject: "New" newsgroups Date: 2 Oct 89 14:56:48 GMT Reply-To: ih@ukc.ac.uk (I.Harding) Distribution: uk Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Ian> The EUnet backbone, mcsun, from where UKnet gets almost all its news, has Ian> decided to carry all "world" newsgroups. This means that many newsgroups Ian> previously unavailable on UKnet, are now arriving at ukc from mcsun. As they Ian> arrive, these "new" newsgroups are being forwarded on to the sites that ukc Ian> feeds news to directly. Piet@mcsun intends to shortly issue a checkgroups Ian> message listing all newsgroups valid across all of EUnet. I'll issue a Ian> checkgroups message for those newsgroups valid across only UKnet - the uk.* Ian> newsgroups. Until then, here is a list of the "new" newsgroups: Ian> alt.activism ****************** Ian> alt.aquaria ****************** Ian> alt.bbs Ian> alt.co-ops Ian> alt.config Ian> alt.conspiracy -- zmacx07@doc.ic.ac.uk | sispero%cix@specialix.co.uk | ..!ukc!slxsys!cix!sispero ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Are you a fish? Are you a fish?" | (describe-no-warranty) "Too much coffee, I'm afraid"-J.P.Blaylock| my opinions are precisely that
newsuser@lth.se (LTH network news server) (10/17/89)
In article <20983@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >What does make a big diference is sci goes to all of Europe. An aquarium >group not propogating to Europe is like a Unix group not getting to >California, Massachusetts and Bell Labs We DO get all newsgroups here now (at least in the nordic countries). _Everything_ passes through uunet -> mcsun these days. We get alt, bit, biz, pubnet, rec, soc, talk... you name it. Just for your information (This is fairly new, it has worked for a month or so, "bit" & "biz" for maybe a week). I think the group should be called "rec.aquaria" anyway. -- Bengt Larsson - Dep. of Math. Statistics, Lund University, Sweden Internet: bengtl@maths.lth.se SUNET: TYCHE::BENGT_L
karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/17/89)
In article <1989Oct16.115545.12476@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > People voted for Hitler as Chancellor too. Oh yes, Gene, certainly the results of creating sci.skeptic are as reprehensible as the holocaust. talk.skeptic will be forthcoming and very few people died in the process. whew. Get a life. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first." -- Pascal
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (10/17/89)
In article <20983@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >>The issue is not distribution. > >In this case it is. AAAAAUGH! The comp.women debate again. Desire for better distribution is NOT a valid argument for putting a group in a certain hierarchy! It wasn't for that group (which has now proven that it indeed belongs in soc) and it isn't for the aquaria group either. Now that the B.S. about technical aspects of the hobby and other smokescreens are cleared away we can go to work on the heart of the matter. This is simply an invalid argument made by people who think the distribution of their pet group is more important than the entire hierarchical organization of USENET. Now that we know this is all there is to it, I urge EVERYONE to vote NO on sci.aquaria. >What does make a big diference is sci goes to all of Europe. An aquarium >group not propogating to Europe is like a Unix group not getting to >California, Massachusetts and Bell Labs. Say WHAT?? How do you figure? The European admins have (collectively) said that they DON'T WANT RECREATIONAL GROUPS. Excuse me for being old fashioned, but I believe that this decision should be RESPECTED, not circumvented. And if the admins in Massachusetts had said they didn't want UNIX groups (which they haven't, so this entire analogy is flawed) then I would want to respect THAT decision too. Personally I care more about respecting the decisions of European site administrators than I do about the propogation of one pet (pun intended :-) newsgroup. --Greg
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/18/89)
In article <4732@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >Now that the B.S. about technical >aspects of the hobby and other smokescreens are cleared away we can go >to work on the heart of the matter. ... Now that we know this >is all there is to it, I urge EVERYONE to vote NO on sci.aquaria. Why am I beginning to wonder why I bother posting? There are a LOT of reasons why some people want .aquaria in sci. Picking one of them, flaming it, and calling everything else 'BS' and 'smokescreens' is acting far more self-serving than you even accusing Richard of being. <soapbox on> My MAJOR reason for wanting sci. and opposing rec. is that I BELIEVE that a sci. category will help DETER ASSHOLE FLAMERS LIKE YOU from entering the group. The major counter argument is 'rec. is where hobbies are SUPPOSED to be, and so what if you get flooded by drek, that's what hobby groups are FOR'. My SECONDARY reason for wanting sci. is that Europeans ARE the state of the art in aquaria, and I want to learn from them. The counter arguments are 'so what, Europeans don't want rec stuff, and that's what WE think you are' and 'distribution of rec. may have improved recently to Europe'. The MAJOR counterargument AGAINST sci. is 'sci. is meant for serious discussions of scientists about scientific research. The counter arguments are 'sci. already contains lots of things like sci.military, sci.skeptic, sci.space.shuttle, etc that don't have any more justification than sci.aquaria to the namespace', and 'even the established sci groups don't live up to the lofty charter that people are trying to measure .aquaria by'. The SECONDARY counterargument against sci. is 'fish keeping is a hobby, just like other hobbies, and the existence of such things as rec.pets makets it obvious where to put the group'. The counter argument is 'aquaria keepers are much more into the ecology and environment than pet keepers, it really isn't the same thing'. Of course, all of these arguments and counter-arguments can be followed in endless flame-threads, and each individual will have different priorities associated with them, but the above list contains basically ALL of the arguments, pro and con, that have come out. There has not been anything new in quite a while. Even the wider distribution of sci. was discussed openly from the beginning, even though Greg's inflammatory posting makes it look like a conspiracy that he has just unveiled. Since it is clear that no-one has anything else to say, what does it serve us to twiddle our thumbs watching the flame-mongers try to raise everyone's tempers. Just look at the above list of arguments, make up your mind, and vote. If there is someone out there who really hasn't made up his mind and wants to see some more discussion to help, I'll be more than willing to do all I can - but I don't see any reason to pamper pyromaniacs who haven't emptied their napalm cannisters yet. Everyone's decided, let's just vote. Tantrums like 'if the vote doesn't go my way, I'll try to get the vote invalidated' just make me think that news.groups ought to be moderated. -- --------| You've got the political savvy Alien | of a hangnail. --------| - John Meneghini decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (10/19/89)
Said alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells): (in article <2688@cpoint.UUCP>) |In article <4732@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: |>Now that the B.S. about technical |>aspects of the hobby and other smokescreens are cleared away we can go |>to work on the heart of the matter. ... Now that we know this |>is all there is to it, I urge EVERYONE to vote NO on sci.aquaria. | |Why am I beginning to wonder why I bother posting? There are a LOT of reasons |why some people want .aquaria in sci. Picking one of them, flaming it, and |calling everything else 'BS' and 'smokescreens' is acting far more |self-serving than you even accusing Richard of being. | |<soapbox on> | |My MAJOR reason for wanting sci. and opposing rec. is that I BELIEVE that a |sci. category will help DETER ASSHOLE FLAMERS LIKE YOU from entering the |group. The major counter argument is 'rec. is where hobbies are SUPPOSED to |be, and so what if you get flooded by drek, that's what hobby groups are FOR'. Such a soul of tact. Perhaps what we need instead is sci.aquaria.flame. Ever heard of a group called talk.bizarre? Ask someone from there how much trouble they have with people posting what they consider drek more than once. |My SECONDARY reason for wanting sci. is that Europeans ARE the state of the |art in aquaria, and I want to learn from them. The counter arguments are |'so what, Europeans don't want rec stuff, and that's what WE think you are' |and 'distribution of rec. may have improved recently to Europe'. Europeans select out of the rec groups what they want. The chance of European sites carrying rec.aquaria is pretty zarking high, if there's half as many Europeans in aquaria as you claim there are. |The MAJOR counterargument AGAINST sci. is 'sci. is meant for serious |discussions of scientists about scientific research. The counter arguments |are 'sci. already contains lots of things like sci.military, sci.skeptic, |sci.space.shuttle, etc that don't have any more justification than |sci.aquaria to the namespace', and 'even the established sci groups don't |live up to the lofty charter that people are trying to measure .aquaria by'. Adding $#!+ to the already-building pile of it doesn't make it stink any less. |The SECONDARY counterargument against sci. is 'fish keeping is a hobby, just |like other hobbies, and the existence of such things as rec.pets makets it |obvious where to put the group'. The counter argument is 'aquaria keepers |are much more into the ecology and environment than pet keepers, it really |isn't the same thing'. Call for rec.aquaria.tech then. |[...] Even the wider distribution of sci. was discussed |openly from the beginning, even though Greg's inflammatory posting makes it |look like a conspiracy that he has just unveiled. Apparently you haven't been following the discussion. When this was first proposed, a bunch of people immediately said, "This group belongs in rec, not sci. The only reason to have it in sci is to increase the distribution, ala comp.women." The response from the .aquaria folks was, "No no no no no. Aquaria is a SCIENCE, not a HOBBY. Hobbies go in rec, sciences go in sci." The discussion about sci having wider distribution was peripheral at best, and was largely limited to people accusing the .aquaria folks of wanting to have their group in sci mainly for distribution purposes, with aquaria people disclaiming this, saying that aquaria REALLY IS a science. When it became apparent that people weren't buying this, they changed their tune to "If we can't have the Europeans in our poor little aquaria group, it'll dry up and blow away. We GOTTA have it in sci so the Europeans can be with us." |Since it is clear that no-one has anything else to say, what does it serve us |to twiddle our thumbs watching the flame-mongers try to raise everyone's |tempers. Just look at the above list of arguments, make up your mind, and |vote. If there is someone out there who really hasn't made up his mind and |wants to see some more discussion to help, I'll be more than willing to do |all I can - but I don't see any reason to pamper pyromaniacs who haven't |emptied their napalm cannisters yet. This from the same guy that wrote in previous articles: |I see ... so this is sort of like extortion? The net.gods decide that it |would be nice to have a rec.aquariums or rec.pets.aquariums for the masses |of goldfish and guppy fans, so we can't have our group until they get thiers? |This despite the fact that we have demonstrated a consistent, long-term |interest and, for all you know, the K-Mart fish department crowd may not |support the traffic? | |I don't propose rec.KMart.aquariums because I don't want it. If we |started a bozo group while maintaining alt.aquaria, I wouldn't subscribe to |it. Go check out rec.pets and see if there is enough traffic there on fish |to justify rec.pets.aquariums. If so, suggest that they start it. If not, |please don't try to get us to 'jump on our sword' and create a group for |them. And: |Richard's compromise is an attempt to reach them while addressing the concerns |that some people have about other rammifications of the naming. If you were |basing your arguments on reason instead of religion, you might have seen that. And: |The following universities offer PhDs in skepticism: | Befuddle U. | Pittsburgh Puzzle University | Illinois Institute of Conundrums | Quandary Community College | Rochester Institute of Riddles | Chaos College | The Paradox Institute | University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople | Northwestern Enigma University | Incoherent Institute of Mystery IMHO, those qualify as the types of articles he is deriding. What a dimwit. |Everyone's decided, let's just vote. Tantrums like 'if the vote doesn't go |my way, I'll try to get the vote invalidated' just make me think that |news.groups ought to be moderated. Tantrums? What, pray tell, do you call your articles? I certainly respect the opinion of Greg Woods a lot more than yours. Ever consider that if news.groups were moderated, it would be Greg or someone like him moderating it? One of the "net.gods" you've been accusing of being everything but a Republican? We hear so much from the .aquaria folks about "you don't know what's in our group; don't tell us where our group should go in the hierarchy". My response to that is: "You don't know a damned thing about the net hierarchy; quit telling us where groups belong in it." B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | "Some girl with psychic powers asked me, (alias B.E.E.) | 'T-Bone, what's your sign?'; bee@cs.purdue.edu | I blinked and answered, 'Neon'. ..!purdue!bee | I thought I'd blown her mind!" -- _Existential Blues_
cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (10/19/89)
[alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) recently posted that: | |<soapbox on> | |My MAJOR reason for wanting sci. and opposing rec. is that I BELIEVE that a |sci. category will help DETER ASSHOLE FLAMERS LIKE YOU from entering the |group. The major counter argument is 'rec. is where hobbies are SUPPOSED to |be, and so what if you get flooded by drek, that's what hobby groups are FOR'. | Well if sci.skeptic can be generalized, this doesn't work. Most of the really stupid whining there is of the nature "see I *told* you this group didn't belong in sci" mostly eminating from Bezerkley. I don't happen to agree that the proposed aquaria group belongs in sci, but if it does go there I'm sure the Brahms group will be glad to double your volume with carp-o-la (that's a technical term only used in sci groups, son... :-) - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "Being good through life `cause you might UUCP: buita \ go to heaven is like shutting your eyes talcott } !encore!cook through a movie `cause you might get your bellcore / money back." - A. Whitney Brown
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/20/89)
In article <8348@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox) writes: >IMHO, those qualify as the types of articles he is deriding. What a dimwit. > >Tantrums? What, pray tell, do you call your articles? I certainly >respect the opinion of Greg Woods a lot more than yours. Actually, I consider the 'debate' in news.groups to be a perfect example of what I fear from a mainstream distribution in rec. Flaming begets flaming, and once the heat is turned up, any voice of reason is lost in the din. It can be fun for a while, but it pales quickly (which is why the 'professional' flamers change goups so often). I would also point out that what looks like a flame depends a lot on what your point of view is. People are a lot more forgiving of postings that agree with them. PS: 'What a dimwit' certainly qualifies your posting ... As for myself, I will agree that I've been turning the temperature up, but after 2 weeks of being bombarded by pompous, deriding BS by the likes of Chuq, I'm not in a mood to be gracious. If you had followed the threads to the beginning, you would have seen that I was originally in the rec. camp. Unlike a lot of others, I actually paid attention to what the opposition was saying and spent a good amount of time thinking about it, and ended up changing my mind. Had the early sci. proponents flamed me as viciously as the rec. proponents flamed me after I switched, I probably would never have changed my mind. And to answer your implied question, alt.aquaria has less flaming (virtually none) than any group I've seen, anyone that flames gets condemned - even by people who agree with his position - about his lack of ettiquette, and I am not interested in seeing a rec.aquaria.flames - either in name or in content. >We hear so much from the .aquaria folks about "you don't know what's >in our group; don't tell us where our group should go in the >hierarchy". My response to that is: "You don't know a damned thing >about the net hierarchy; quit telling us where groups belong in it." I was not aware that Usenet protocol had appointed some group of people (yourself included, apparently) to decide what name each group should have. I will grant you that I am net.naive, but I had thought that the proper protocol was to publicly announce a discussion period with a proposed name, have the discussion, and then call a vote. I thought that Richard stacked the deck against sci. by including rec.pets in the distribution of his proposal and call for votes (as you have seen, most aquarists do not consider themselves to own pets), but I thought that was a touch of class on his part. Now, if you had simply informed us two weeks ago that we were violating Usenet protocol, and that we should be going throught the officially appointed name bureaucracy instead of proposing a name ourselves (quotes of the appropriate documents would be most convincing) you would have saved us all a lot of bother. So - what happens now? I assume that any vote currently in progress is invalidated since we didn't go through the appropriate naming committee. It is clear that you are a member, can you tell us who the other members are? How do we submit a formal request to the committee? When can we expect to get the benefit of your official wisdom? -- --------| You've got the political savvy Alien | of a hangnail. --------| - John Meneghini decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
bbc@eunomia.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (10/21/89)
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > If you had followed the threads to the > beginning, you would have seen that I was originally in the rec. camp. > ... I actually paid attention to what the opposition was saying and spent > a good amount of time thinking about it, and ended up changing my > mind. Me too. So, why is it that all the "compromises" I've seen posted are of the form: "I don't care that you want to form a group to discuss technical issues relating to keeping aquaria, I want my rec group first, so I can talk about my pet goldfish. Then, you are quite welcome to try and start all over with another call for sci.aquaria, once I've totally annoyed with the mindless drivel I'll post to the *.*aqua* group that _I_ want." How come none of these people have suggested that Richard and his backers go off to sci.aquaria, and leave alt.aquaria in place for the rank amateurs and hobbyists? That seems like the _easiest_ thing for all the guppy afficionadoes that currently read alt.aquaria. And then later, if they find _their_ distribution lacking, then they can certainly try to upgrade the status of _their_ discussions. Why is it that all of these people must come first, even though Richard had the initiative and energy to start the process to create the group _he_ wanted, whereas these other people did not? If you need your rec group so badly, why didn't you propose it long ago? To me, it looks like we're going to need two groups for the *.*aqua* traffic, regardless of how Richard's vote goes. (If for no other reason than because of all the ill will generated during this discussion.) I think alt.aquaria already has sufficient traffic to exist as two separate groups, even without all the recent flamage. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas I've got four mullet in my aquarium. I like mullet. They're very tasty. (And best of all, they're native Texans!)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/21/89)
> So, why is it that all the "compromises" I've seen posted are of the > form: > "I don't care that you want to form a group to discuss > technical issues relating to keeping aquaria, I want my rec > group ... Because you haven't been paying attention, perhaps? I suggested that Richard Sexton moderate the group (not pseudo-moderate it: really moderate it, filtering out rec-type messages by answering them). That was apparently too much work for him (for all he told me he'd do it). If he can't make the effort to make it work, why *should* we give him a chance? -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "ERROR: trust not in UUCP routing tables" 'U` -- MAILER-DAEMON@mcsun.EU.net
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/22/89)
>> So, why is it that all the "compromises" I've seen posted are of the >> form: >Because you haven't been paying attention, perhaps? Definitely. I (and others) have suggested or recommended a number of compromises, including a binding vote on the name of the group. *All* attempts at compromose have been ignored by Richard and friends -- they have been completely unwilling to discuss, consider or listen to any recommendations other than what they originally planned on doing. chuq ("here's my compromise: you stop yelling at me, and we do it my way.") -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/22/89)
In article <35817@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>> So, why is it that all the "compromises" I've seen posted are of the >>> form: > >>Because you haven't been paying attention, perhaps? > >Definitely. I (and others) have suggested or recommended a number of >compromises, including a binding vote on the name of the group. Hrmph. Oh alright. Nelson ? Would you please take a name poll on the fish thing ? Thanks. Okay, everybody vote. Dum de di de di do de oh. Ok, got it? Good. What won? Sci.aquaria ? Good. thanks Nelson. Nelson posted the results of his survey. I read it in alt.aquaria and don't remember if he x-posted it or not. Isn't it time to feed your bird, Chuq ? -- Surgical tools for mutant women richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/23/89)
In article <21183@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > Nelson posted the results of his survey. I read it in alt.aquaria > and don't remember if he x-posted it or not. Since he didn't post the results, or even more importantly the survey, in news.groups it sounds like just another political move. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "I feared that the committee would decide to go with their previous 'U` decision unless I credibly pulled a full tantrum." -- dmr@alice.UUCP
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/23/89)
>Nelson ? Would you please take a name poll on the fish thing ? Thanks. >Okay, everybody vote. Dum de di de di do de oh. >Ok, got it? Good. What won? Sci.aquaria ? Good. thanks Nelson. Richard, you are *so* full of crap it is coming out of your ears. Do anything you damn well want to with sci.aquaria. Want a newgroup? I'll send it out now as newgroup czar. Nelson's survey was so poorly subscribed to it was ludicrous, and you know it. The naming survey should be send through n.a.newgroups just like any other vote, and should be handled rationally. If it'd gone against you, you would have simply ignored it like you've ignored every other piece of anytrhing you didn't agree with. Go do any goddamn thing you want, Richard. I'm tired of the bullshit, it's been a bad week (for some reason) and frankly, I no longer give a shit whether you win or lose your petty political net.games. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
bbc@titan.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (10/23/89)
In article <35817@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > I (and others) have suggested or recommended a number of > compromises, including a binding vote on the name of the group. Chuq, I've reviewed all the articles you've posted to news.groups that are still available to me. Locally, we have 17 postings from you over the past 3 three weeks, and in these articles I can find no evidence of attempts of compromise on your part. Given the number and length of some of these articles, perhaps I have overlooked the compromises that you mention. I would very much appreciate you identifying to which postings your refer. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas (First one up against the wall when the fish police arrived.)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/23/89)
>> I (and others) have suggested or recommended a number of >> compromises, including a binding vote on the name of the group. >the past 3 three weeks, and in these articles I can find no evidence >of attempts of compromise on your part. Given the number and length >of some of these articles, perhaps I have overlooked the compromises >that you mention. Then you missed the one a long ways back where I said "run a vote on the name -- if sci.aquaria wins, I'll shut up and support whatever the net thinks is the best name." -- if that isn't a compromise, I don't know what is. Of course, Richard wasn't even willing to poll the net to see what it thinks -- he obviously knew better all along. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/23/89)
In <2696@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes:
Alien> Actually, I consider the 'debate' in news.groups to be a
Alien> perfect example of what I fear from a mainstream distribution
Alien> in rec. Flaming begets flaming, and once the heat is turned
Alien> up, any voice of reason is lost in the din.
To reiterate, the flaming has nothing to do with the hierarchy. Do
you really think that there will be more flames in rec.aquaria then
there would be in sci.aquaria? Given the statements of some people
here, it seems quite the opposite. Frankly, I would be very surprised
to see _any_ flaming in rec.aquaria.
Further example of the hierarchy being less important than the people,
as far as flaming is concerned: rec.humor versus rec.motorcycles. I
won't follow rec.humor because of all of the noise in there, but the
occasional flame I do see spill into rec.humor.d is usually in reply
to four or five flames preceding it. Conversely, rec.motorcycles is a
very high-quality group. Even in a community typically saddled by the
likes of "JapCrap vs HD Boar" wars the atmosphere of the group is
highly informative and flames are virtually never seen.
Alien> I would also point out that what looks like a flame depends a
Alien> lot on what your point of view is. People are a lot more
Alien> forgiving of postings that agree with them.
I have more respect for the intelligence of the people that use USENET
and the higher quality groups than that. I think most people here are
capable of knowing a flame when they see one, even if they agree with
the sentiment.
Alien> And to answer your implied question, alt.aquaria has less
Alien> flaming (virtually none) than any group I've seen, anyone that
Alien> flames gets condemned - even by people who agree with his
Alien> position - about his lack of ettiquette, ...
See? You see examples of it yourself.
Alien> ... and I am not interested in seeing a rec.aquaria.flames -
Alien> either in name or in content.
And just what do you think is going to happen in there? The idiots
will come crawling out of the woodwork because it was stamped "rec"?
What sort of flaming is it that you doomsay?
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/24/89)
In article <35836@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Then you missed the one a long ways back where I said "run a vote on the >name -- if sci.aquaria wins, I'll shut up and support whatever the net >thinks is the best name." -- if that isn't a compromise, I don't know what >is. Of course, Richard wasn't even willing to poll the net to see what it >thinks -- he obviously knew better all along. Someone else ran a poll. The name SCI.AQUARIA won. The results were posted, at least to alt.aquaria. Meanwhile, Chuq's philosophical purity orthodoxy had gotten obscured by the audacity of Bryce Nesbitt's conniving subterfuge. Now THERE is the real asshole. -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (10/24/89)
Said alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells): (in article <2696@cpoint.UUCP>) |In article <8348@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox) writes: |>We hear so much from the .aquaria folks about "you don't know what's |>in our group; don't tell us where our group should go in the |>hierarchy". My response to that is: "You don't know a damned thing |>about the net hierarchy; quit telling us where groups belong in it." | |I was not aware that Usenet protocol had appointed some group of people |(yourself included, apparently) to decide what name each group should have. |I will grant you that I am net.naive, but I had thought that the proper |protocol was to publicly announce a discussion period with a proposed name, |have the discussion, and then call a vote. I thought that Richard stacked |the deck against sci. by including rec.pets in the distribution of his |proposal and call for votes (as you have seen, most aquarists do not |consider themselves to own pets), but I thought that was a touch of class |on his part. | |Now, if you had simply informed us two weeks ago that we were violating |Usenet protocol, and that we should be going throught the officially |appointed name bureaucracy instead of proposing a name ourselves (quotes |of the appropriate documents would be most convincing) you would have |saved us all a lot of bother. | |So - what happens now? I assume that any vote currently in progress is |invalidated since we didn't go through the appropriate naming committee. |It is clear that you are a member, can you tell us who the other members |are? How do we submit a formal request to the committee? When can we |expect to get the benefit of your official wisdom? This points out precisely the point I was trying to make, namely that you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how the net is run (or not run, depending on your point of view :-) ) Let it hereby be known the following facts about Usenet: 1) There is NO "official Usenet" ANYTHING. Usenet is a cooperating anarchy. Each site decides which newsgroups it wants to carry, and which it doesn't, and no other site can change that decision. Any news admin can send out a newgroup for any group at any time. The chance of other sites keeping the group, however, is quite dependent on the circumstances regarding who sent out the newgroup, and the circumstances surrounding the newgroup. What this means roughly is that currently, a group that has been run through a vote conducted in the manner specified by Greg's guidelines and designated as successful by same, and is created by a "well-known" personality (Greg, Spaf, Chuq, and others), has a high probability of being carried by a particular site. Other groups have a lesser chance of being carried depending on how far and in what way they deviate from this "formula". There are of course innumerable other factors that also contribute to this; the most important one being that basically only the "mainstream" groups (comp, rec, sci, talk, soc, misc, and news) are affected by this. Groups in other hierarchies (most notably alt) have their own little set of "rules". The mere fact that certain individuals have more "influence" in what happens on the net than your average net.user has NOTHING to do with any particular official position they hold. "Official" Usenet policy is reached by consensus; when no concensus is reached, there is no policy (as is currently the case with deleting groups). If someone doesn't like the current consensus, they can try to change it by persuading others. When there are two (or more) groups of people with strongly-held contrasting views re some subject (like *.aquari*), then one gets a large quantity of flames. IMHO, the net is MUCH better off this way than to have someone running the net with an iron fist who says that this group will be created, this group will not be created, etc. Anyway, since I've probably bored half the net to death by now, I guess I better stop here. B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | "Some girl with psychic powers asked me, (alias B.E.E.) | 'T-Bone, what's your sign?'; bee@cs.purdue.edu | I blinked and answered, 'Neon'. ..!purdue!bee | I thought I'd blown her mind!" -- _Existential Blues_
ronald@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ronald Khoo) (10/24/89)
In article <35836@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > Then you missed the one a long ways back where I said "run a vote on the > name -- if sci.aquaria wins, I'll shut up and support whatever the net > thinks is the best name." NO! Please Don't! Not until we get the 100 No votes VETO in first. "Sci.aquaria must go. This is not negotiable" -- Ronald.Khoo@ibmpcug.CO.UK (The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360, Harrow HA1 4LQ) Path: ...mc$CPU!ukc!ibmpcug!ronald Phone: +44-1-863 1191 Fax: +44-1-863 6095 $Header: /users/ronald/.signature,v 1.2 89/10/16 17:14:28 ronald Exp $ :-)
popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) (10/24/89)
In article <21183@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > In article <35817@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >>> So, why is it that all the "compromises" I've seen posted are of the > >>> form: > > > >>Because you haven't been paying attention, perhaps? > > > >Definitely. I (and others) have suggested or recommended a number of > >compromises, including a binding vote on the name of the group. > > Hrmph. Oh alright. > > Nelson ? Would you please take a name poll on the fish thing ? Thanks. > Okay, everybody vote. Dum de di de di do de oh. > > Ok, got it? Good. What won? Sci.aquaria ? Good. thanks Nelson. > > Nelson posted the results of his survey. I read it in alt.aquaria > and don't remember if he x-posted it or not. First "Alien" flames everybody about "sci." saying fish are pets, then Richard and Oleg tell everyone "it's really science, it's not for the distribution". Then some guy flames me for being a sci.monger, then some guy posts a call for vote for a name, some one else posts a call for vote for another name, "Alien" tells him it should be in sci., Richard says it won't get to Europe, and now the guy who held the call for votes for a name (which Richard denounced) is being used in support of Richards argument. Are you sure this isn't rec.arts.tv.daytime. I'm confused. Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Laboratories Indian Hill 6G410 Naperville, Illinois (312) 979-4578 ...!ihlpa!kai
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/24/89)
In article <21254@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >Someone else ran a poll. The name SCI.AQUARIA won. The results were posted, >at least to alt.aquaria. In the only poll I saw posted, sci.aquaria lost. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahmsgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/24/89)
In article <35824@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >I no longer give a shit Sure you do. If you didn't you wouldn't have posted that article or would have unsubscribed to the group. Now *where* have I heard that before ? -- Surgical tools for mutant women richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/24/89)
> "Sci.aquaria must go. This is not negotiable" >-- >Ronald.Khoo@ibmpcug.CO.UK (The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360, Harrow HA1 4LQ) No, Ronald, *everything* is negotiable. (Richard take note). I think sci.aquaria is a stupid, *wrong* name -- but if the will of the net is that they *want* a stupid, *wrong* name, I, for one, am not going to stand in front of the net and try to force something down their throats. That's also stupid -- it's like standing in front of a herd of stampeding elephants and yelling "Stop! It's stupid to stampede!" -- it's also stupid to get stomped on. This is why I've suggested, more than once, a formal vote on the name of the group (not these informal, hidden in the corner surveys). I think it should be a rec group. Richard disagrees. Neither of us are the ultimate authority here -- the net is. Let the net speak, and no matter what my *personal* feelings on the name are, I'll abide by the answer. I know, that's being too reasonable. Fortunately, Richard has ignored this from day 1, giving us lots and lots of chances to sit and argue and flame when it could have been settled early on like rational humans. chuq (on the other hand, the rumor I've heard is the vote isn't going well. Somewhere about 200 yes, 200 no, so it's unlikely sci.aquaria will fly) -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/26/89)
In article <1989Oct24.050816.9206@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >>Someone else ran a poll. The name SCI.AQUARIA won. The results were posted, >>at least to alt.aquaria. > > In the only poll I saw posted, sci.aquaria lost. ``You LIE!!'' - Tim Maroney Sorry couldn't resist. Nelsons survey was posted to news.groups and alt.aquaria. Since you missed it the first time, Gene: >From henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm.bitnet!nmbcu Wed Oct 25 10:32:22 PDT 1989 > > >Well, here it is, as promised, the results of the name survey that I took. >At first, I was surprised at the low response, but then I realized it was >probably due (but not necessarily), to the heated debate that has been going >on. My name survey poll probably went unnoticed under all the articles of >discussion. Anyway, as promised here are the results. It may be of interest >to note that some of those who voted for sci.* and who stated thier reasons >as to why, did not say that they were entirely against rec.*, but most of those >that voted for rec.* and who stated thier reasons as to why, did say that they >would vote against sci.*. To all the participants, I thank you. > > ****** Results of Name Survey ****** > >Name Votes Received >**** ************** > >rec.aquarium 5 >sci.aquarium 0 >rec.pets.aquarium 0 > >rec.aquaria 11 >sci.aquaria 16 >rec.pets.aquaria 0 > >rec.fish 1 >sci.fish 0 >rec.pets.fish 0 > >Others: > >rec.aquariums 1 > > >Votes for rec.aquarium Total number of votes = 5 >********************** > >Ken A. Irwin - kai@ihlpa.att.com >Bryce Nesbitt - bryce@cbmvax.commodore.com >Gene W. Smith - gsmith%garnet.berkeley.edu@jade.berkeley.edu >Mike Bryan - acd4!mjb@uunet.uu.net >Karl F. Fox - zip!karl@cis.ohio-state.edu > > > >Votes for rec.aquaria Total number of votes = 11 >********************* > >Richard Michael Jungclas - rjungcla@ihlpa.att.com >Brian G. Gordon - briang@sun.com >Chris Faylor - ednor!cgf@uunet.uu.net >Ethan Miller - elm%chilli.berkeley.edu@ginger.berkeley >David Lawrence - tale@pawl.rpi.edu >Dave - dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil >Nancy J. Medd - njm@oxtrap.aa.ox.com >Tim Shimall - shimall@cs.nps.navy.mil >James Winer - jwi@lzfme.att.com >John Ockerbloom - john.ockerbloom@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu >Nelson Broat - nmbcu@cunyvm.cuny.edu > > >Votes for sci.aquaria Total number of votes = 16 >********************* > >Oleg Kiselev - oleg@gryphon.com >Terry Steyart - steyaert@unix.secs.oakland.edu >John Bridge - bridge%rcgl1@eng.eng.ohio-state.edu >Brian Klaas - bklaas%cmdfs2.intel.com.@relay.cs.net >Jerry Durand - portal!cup.portal.com!jdurand@sun.com >David Browning - browning@math.ucla.edu >Cliff - cstein@jarthur.claremont.edu >Steve Kanefsky - kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu >Alexander Haley - ahaley@jarthur.claremont.edu >Mark S. Warren - msw%chem@ucsd.edu >Dave - dave%mipon3.intel.com@relay.cs.net >Peter A. Rosenthal - rosentha@sierra.stanford.edu >David Robinson - daver%tekfdi.fdi.tek.com@relay.cs.net >Valerie Drake - vdra_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu >"OAK::PBC" - pbc%oak.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu >Alien - frog!cpoint!alien@harvard.harvard.edu > > >Votes for rec.aquariums Total number of votes = 1 >*********************** >Alan Char - atari!achar@ames.uucp > > >Votes for rec.fish Total number of votes = 1 >****************** >David Wright - dww@stl.stc.co.uk > > > > Nelson Broat > > -- ``They care more about the name than the content? Amazing.'' - Mark R. Horton richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/26/89)
In article <21442@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <1989Oct24.050816.9206@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >> In the only poll I saw posted, sci.aquaria lost. >``You LIE!!'' - Tim Maroney >Sorry couldn't resist. >Nelsons survey was posted to news.groups and alt.aquaria. >Since you missed it the first time, Gene: >>rec.aquarium 5 >>rec.aquaria 11 >>sci.aquaria 16 >>rec.fish 1 >>rec.aquariums 1 You've been hanging around with fish too long, Richard. I've heard crows can count to five, maybe you should take up birdwatching instead. Look at the above. Count the numbers: those who wanted sci.something: 16 out of 34, or 47%. Those who wanted rec.something: 18 out of 34, or 53%. I guess fisheadology isn't very big on mathematical models, though we all know how scientific it is. Really, we do. In other words, YOU LIE!!! Sci.aquaria *lost*. -- 'Still, if you were at Brahms and the room flashed as another idea was captured from the ebb and flow of that vast sea of cosmic intelligence, the idea might be considered to have been "created"' -- Paul M. Koloc ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/26/89)
In article <8395@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox) writes: >Said alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells): >|In article <8348@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox) writes: >|>We hear so much from the .aquaria folks about "you don't know what's >|>in our group; don't tell us where our group should go in the >|>hierarchy". My response to that is: "You don't know a damned thing >|>about the net hierarchy; quit telling us where groups belong in it." >|I was not aware that Usenet protocol had appointed some group of people >|(yourself included, apparently) to decide what name each group should have. >|I will grant you that I am net.naive, but I had thought that the proper >|protocol was to publicly announce a discussion period with a proposed name, >|have the discussion, and then call a vote. >This points out precisely the point I was trying to make, namely that >you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how the net is run (or not run, >depending on your point of view :-) ) Gee, I had thought that my sarcasm was so obvious that I didn't need the ;-). Apparently, I was wrong. Sorry. -- --------| You've got the political savvy Alien | of a hangnail. --------| - John Meneghini decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/27/89)
From that poll, it would be correct to say that "sci.aquaria" lost. But it is also correct to say that "rec.aquarium" lost, too. A poll with 20 reponses means NOTHING. You can conclude nothing from it, other than the fact that probably almost nobody, except a tiny noisy minority, cares at all. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
sartin@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Rob Sartin) (10/27/89)
In article <21442@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) reposts
the results of a survey:
=discussion. Anyway, as promised here are the results. It may be of interest
=to note that some of those who voted for sci.* and who stated thier reasons
=as to why, did not say that they were entirely against rec.*, but most of those
=that voted for rec.* and who stated thier reasons as to why, did say that they
=would vote against sci.*. To all the participants, I thank you.
=
= ****** Results of Name Survey ******
=
=Name Votes Received
=**** **************
=rec.aquarium 5
=sci.aquarium 0
=rec.pets.aquarium 0
=rec.aquaria 11
=sci.aquaria 16
=rec.pets.aquaria 0
=rec.fish 1
=sci.fish 0
=rec.pets.fish 0
=rec.aquariums 1
rec.* 17
sci.* 16
Another way of interpreting these results (other than "see, people want
sci.aquaria!") is that people want it under rec.* and that they want it
enough to vote against sci.*.
Of course, this whole argument no longer (never did?) have much to do
with logic and what people want, so I don't know why I'm bothering to
bring this up.
Rob Sartin internet: sartin@hplabs.hp.com
Software Technology Lab uucp : hplabs!sartin
Hewlett-Packard voice : (415) 857-7592bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (10/27/89)
Said alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells): (in article <2723@cpoint.UUCP>) |Gee, I had thought that my sarcasm was so obvious that I didn't need the ;-). |Apparently, I was wrong. Sorry. Well, you didn't seem to know what was going on in other things, so I had to presume that you were actually being serious. :-) B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | "Some girl with psychic powers asked me, (alias B.E.E.) | 'T-Bone, what's your sign?'; bee@cs.purdue.edu | I blinked and answered, 'Neon'. ..!purdue!bee | I thought I'd blown her mind!" -- _Existential Blues_
reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) (10/27/89)
In article <38940@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > You can conclude nothing from it, >other than the fact that probably almost nobody, except a tiny noisy >minority, cares at all. Exactly. That's the USENET tradition. Tiny noisy majorities have always run USENET. That's what "anarchy" means. I think sci.aquaria is a wonderful idea. There will be about as many professional marine biologists reading it as there are professional astronomers reading sci.astronomy or professional linguists reading sci.lang. I'll read it, for sure.
schinder@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Paul Schinder) (10/27/89)
In article <211@jove.dec.com> reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) writes: > >I think sci.aquaria is a wonderful idea. There will be about as many >professional marine biologists reading it as there are professional >astronomers reading sci.astronomy or professional linguists reading sci.lang. >I'll read it, for sure. Excuse me, but several professional astronomers actively post to sci.astro, and I know several more here (including me) that actually read it and occasionally post; there must be many more around the country. Sci.astro often serves at times as a conduit for news of interest to professionals, in particular in February-March-April 1987 when SN1987A went off, and earlier this year when a sub-millisecond pulsar was possibly detected (still unconfirmed) in SN1987A. Professionals in the sciences actually do read at least some of the sci groups. -- Paul J. Schinder Department of Astronomy, Cornell Univ. schinder@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (10/27/89)
>I think sci.aquaria is a wonderful idea. There will be about as many >professional marine biologists reading it as there are professional >astronomers reading sci.astronomy or professional linguists reading sci.lang. >I'll read it, for sure. Well, it makes me wonder. Although I teach ESL and 3 foreign languages as well as continue my studies in linguistics, am I a "professional" linguist or not? I do, however, read sci.lang. It does make me wonder... Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%% They're from Aliens.....I seen 'em! %%%%%%%%%%%%
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/28/89)
In article <1989Oct26.044435.23101@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >In article <21442@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes: >>In article <1989Oct24.050816.9206@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >>> In the only poll I saw posted, sci.aquaria lost. > >>``You LIE!!'' - Tim Maroney > > >>Nelsons survey was posted to news.groups and alt.aquaria. > >>Since you missed it the first time, Gene: >>>rec.aquarium 5 >>>rec.aquaria 11 >>>sci.aquaria 16 >>>rec.fish 1 >>>rec.aquariums 1 > > You've been hanging around with fish too long, Richard. I've >heard crows can count to five, maybe you should take up >birdwatching instead. Look at the above. Count the numbers: those >who wanted sci.something: 16 out of 34, or 47%. Those who wanted >rec.something: 18 out of 34, or 53%. I guess fisheadology isn't >very big on mathematical models, though we all know how >scientific it is. Really, we do. Hmm. Interesting analysis, Gene. Of course, I don't have quite the training of math that you do (obligatory jibe: ```but at least I was in a *Faculty* of Mathematics, not just some run down old shed out back of Berkeley with a bunch of slide rules and legal pads donated by goodwill'' (astute readers of the net will note that this is the old ploy of insulting the institution where the poster posts from and is required when a discussion has gone on for as long as this one)) but it seems to me that without getting something as *complicated* as percentages involved, simply eyeballing the numbers would indicate that the name sci.aquaria had the most votes. Even ardent mathematicians such as yourself must admit this means *something*. Now, if the question raised by the poll had been ``which hierarchy do you think the group belongs in'' then ``sci'' lost, but I cannot see any interpretation which indicates sci.aquaria lost. Indeed, if this were to mean anything, and if you were to continue this practice of drawing conclusions of part of a name when, clearly, the vote called for a consensus on the whole name, then attention would have to be paid to the fact that 27 out of 34 votes were for an ``.aquaria'' group, *not* an ``aquarium'' group. Think of this as a homework assignment, Gene: what percantage would that be ? Extra points for explaining the relevence to the other vote that is going on. -- ``Mathematics is a fiction created by man to rationalize the universe. It is not a science'' - Thomas Silverton, 1799. richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/28/89)
In article <21567@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > Now, if the question raised by the poll had been ``which hierarchy do you > think the group belongs in'' then ``sci'' lost, but I cannot > see any interpretation which indicates sci.aquaria lost. Since that's what this whole bloody debate is over, I can't see what other possible interpretation you could possibly give the results. Unless, of course, you've got this heavy ego problem putting a really twisted spin on things. Even after your whole political agenda has collapsed into ruins along with any rational need to be pigheaded about it. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan) (10/31/89)
In article <6712@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <21567@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >> Now, if the question raised by the poll had been ``which hierarchy do you >> think the group belongs in'' then ``sci'' lost, but I cannot >> see any interpretation which indicates sci.aquaria lost. >Since that's what this whole bloody debate is over, I can't see what other >possible interpretation you could possibly give the results. Unless, of >course, you've got this heavy ego problem putting a really twisted spin on >things. Bingo. After you've invested as many ego points on the game as Richard has it becomes almost impossible to quit. Why do you think it took so long to get us out of Vietnam (or the Russian's Afghanistan) ? It's simply 'betting into a losing hand' (I hope it's a losing hand). Actually, though I disagree with Richard and co. I'm begining to admire their all-out, gonzo aproach to this thing. Anything worth doing is worth over-doing and all that . . more fun than the whole comp.eniac.tcp-ip flap. I think the rest of you would have more fun if you wised up to the fact that this argument no longer has anything to do with anything, having become purely a political battle of wills. The field is big, the rules are loose, there are no referee's . . all we need is some beer. gil@banyan.com
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/01/89)
In article <567@banyan.UUCP> gil@banyan.com writes: > >Bingo. After you've invested as many ego points on the game as Richard >has it becomes almost impossible to quit. Why do you think it took so >long to get us out of Vietnam (or the Russian's Afghanistan) ? It's >simply 'betting into a losing hand' (I hope it's a losing hand). Even if I were not to believe in the idea of sci.aquaria (I do) quitting thw whole thing would violate the trust the people who have voted yes. We newsgroup Tsars are pretty sensitive to issues like this. Vietnam huh ? Another one for you, Peter. -- You don't want to send mail to Richard. He's dead.
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/23/90)
In article <EPY1163xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: > > > Like, if the group were in the right domain, there would be no > controversy. Like, if the vote hadn't smelled, there might still > have been no controversy afterward. Just what I like, an unbiased opinion. And tell me, jeff, why ISN'T sci.aquaria in the right domain? No fair asking Peter, you try to answer this one yourself. > So, as suggested before, why don't we, like, either take a > head-to-head vote, like, or rmgroup con.aquaria and better > propagate rec.aquaria, or rename, like, sci.aquaria > sci.icthyology? Oh REAL unbiased. Con.aquaria? You must have been up all night thinking up with that one. What's wrong with just leaving things alone? The rec people have their fish group, the hard core have their sci group... HEY!! It looks like things are solved already!!! Dave
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/23/90)
In article <9002222341.AA23822@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, rsex@stb.UUCP writes: > >From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) <F5X1JK8xds13@ficc.uu.net> > > > >In article <4291@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: > >> The reason for that banning seems to be gone. > > > >In a manner of speaking. The reason sci.aquaria is blocked at many sites is > >that a number of people do not accept the validity of the vote creating it. > >If you were to hold a new vote and it were to pass, I think that you would > >discover that the blockage would go away as well. > > "I think" the blockage would go away ? Like, you have this theory ? > Like, we should have another vote on sci.aquaria based on the > hope that a semi-ordered synaptic discharge in Peter da Silvas > brain will indeed manifest itself as reality in 30,000 computer > sites around the world. > Like, if the group were in the right domain, there would be no controversy. Like, if the vote hadn't smelled, there might still have been no controversy afterward. So, as suggested before, why don't we, like, either take a head-to-head vote, like, or rmgroup con.aquaria and better propagate rec.aquaria, or rename, like, sci.aquaria sci.icthyology? That's something that would indeed be like-able. Jeff -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (02/27/90)
In article <59874@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: >What's wrong with just leaving things alone? The rec people >have their fish group, the hard core have their sci group... >HEY!! It looks like things are solved already!!! There is one way to end this fish oriented discussion. Administrators can take an example from the Guiness Book people and simply refuse to honor any more of this fish nonsense. When no more Newgroups/Rmgroups are honored, this topic will die. So, go ahead and conduct a "vote" if you like. I know that this site isn't going to honor it regardless of what the outcome is. Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - Craig Johnson
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/28/90)
In article <22573@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) writes: > > So, go ahead and conduct a "vote" if you like. I know that this site > isn't going to honor it regardless of what the outcome is. I haven't been calling for a vote. I haven't even suggested talking about thinking about maybe discussing calling a vote. The issue isn't just fishies. It's how the net is/isn't going to function not only in the future but also in the here and now. We carry every single newsgroup through here. I thought that was part of the deal, good neighbors and all that. Probably 90% of what passes through here doesn't even get looked at by the 400 or so people at this site ... we move it through anyway. Picking and choosing what groups you're going to get is your business, when it's done as a class. Many sites don't carry ANY rec or ANY talk or ANY alt. Their downstream neighbors know of the limitations and either live with them or work around them. Selectively stopping individual newsgroups because YOU have a problem with them is not very neighborly. And not very good for the net either. Think of what would happen if every admin at every site decided to just carry what they felt like. Dave
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (03/01/90)
In article <22573@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) writes: | [...] | There is one way to end this fish oriented discussion. Administrators | can take an example from the Guiness Book people and simply refuse to | honor any more of this fish nonsense. When no more Newgroups/Rmgroups | are honored, this topic will die. | | So, go ahead and conduct a "vote" if you like. I know that this site | isn't going to honor it regardless of what the outcome is. | | Terry In fact a lot of sysadmins have done that long since - hence the poor connectivity of both {sci,rec}.aquaria. You aren't switching to the anti-aquaria camp are you, Terry? :-) -- Algol 60 was an improvment on most | John Macdonald of its successors - C.A.R. Hoare | jmm@eci386
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (03/01/90)
In article <60091@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: >In article <22573@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) writes: >> >> So, go ahead and conduct a "vote" if you like. I know that this site >> isn't going to honor it regardless of what the outcome is. >I haven't been calling for a vote. I haven't even suggested >talking about thinking about maybe discussing calling a vote. Sorry, Dave, I guess my E-mail doesn't travel as fast as my news. The YOU in the above is the plural "you", not the singluar you (Dave Hill). The point to my article is this: All these "votes" and "revotes" are getting out of hand. Will we next "revote" comp.lang.whatever if the next net.pseudo.celeb calls for it? Will we "revote" news.groups? It's better to drop this whole thing than stir the pot again. Enough is enough. There's been more traffic, byte for byte about the "vote" than there is in the fish newsgroups themselves. It will end when the admins say (as the Guiness people do when they feel things are getting out of hand), "go ahead, but we're not going to publish it". This keeps people from trying to collect post cards, kill themselves with alcohol consumption records or rmgroup/newgroup every six weeks. These groups exist and they're being used. We'll keep taking and passing on traffic in them. Even if they're "voted" out of existance we'll not honor the rmgroup. For better or worse, this ends my participation in this. Your mileage will, of course, vary. Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - Craig Johnson
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/01/90)
> Selectively stopping individual newsgroups because YOU have > a problem with them is not very neighborly. And not very > good for the net either. Think of what would happen if every > admin at every site decided to just carry what they felt like. I agree entirely. It's not very neigborly. And two wrongs don't make a right and all that. But that's the situation we have right now. So what do you propose to do about it? A new vote is obviously not going to fly... have you a better solution? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
NMBCU@CUNYVM (03/01/90)
In article <60091@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) says: > >Think of what would happen if every admin at every site decided to just >carry what they felt like. > > Dave Lots of people in higher managerial postions above them might be pleased to know that the Net Admin they hired takes his or her job seriously enough to w know when to say when. Thus keeping the traffic at their site down to a managable level. Thus keeping the spool space from getting clogged up by just news articles alone. And other such useful and sound reasoning. But perhaps Dave is right it would be rather rude of a net admin not to take in every newsgroup hierarchy available in today's world. :) Right Dave? :) I mean who am we to complain that we just don't have enough space to put it all or who are we to listen to other people at our site who complain that our DVM is causing to many traffic woes or taking up too much of the much needed and precious spool space. Silly thoughts on my part. Right Dave? :) Nelson Broat
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (03/02/90)
In article <1990Feb28.195849.19585@eci386.uucp> jmm@eci386.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: >In fact a lot of sysadmins have done that long since - hence the poor >connectivity of both {sci,rec}.aquaria. You aren't switching to the >anti-aquaria camp are you, Terry? :-) I'm switching to the "This is silly" camp. Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - Craig Johnson
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (03/03/90)
In article <90060.092750NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: > In article <60091@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) says: > > > >Think of what would happen if every admin at every site decided to just > >carry what they felt like. > > > > Dave > > Lots of people in higher managerial postions above them might be pleased to > know that the Net Admin they hired takes his or her job seriously enough to w > know when to say when. Thus keeping the traffic at their site down to a > managable level. Thus keeping the spool space from getting clogged up by just > news articles alone. And other such useful and sound reasoning. I was talking about the deletion of specific newsgroups in a hierarchy for spite, not the removal of entire sections of news for either admin or company (ie uptight management) reasons. There are many sites that do not carry entire sections of news: alt, soc, talk, etc. Their neighbors know about the limitations and get those groups from elsewhere. Obviously, leaf nodes can pick and choose what they want to get, but anyone with a large number of connections SHOULD carry as much as they can handle. Dave
bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) (03/03/90)
<about it not being neigbourly to stop newsgroups> First Peter da Silva writes: >I agree entirely. It's not very neigborly. And two wrongs don't >make a right and all that. But then he writes: >But that's the situation we have right now. >So what do you propose to do about it? A new vote is obviously not >going to fly... have you a better solution? Saying that it might not be so bad after all. Just in this case. Because he is _right_. AAAAAAAARRRRGH. Hypocrite. -- Bengt Larsson - Dep. of Math. Statistics, Lund University, Sweden Internet: bengtl@maths.lth.se SUNET: TYCHE::BENGT_L
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/03/90)
> >I agree entirely. It's not very neigborly. And two wrongs don't > >make a right and all that. But that's the situation we have right now. > >So what do you propose to do about it? A new vote is obviously not > >going to fly... have you a better solution? > Saying that it might not be so bad after all. Just in this case. Because > he is _right_. AAAAAAAARRRRGH. Hypocrite. I didn't say that "it might not be so bad after all". I said that it's where we're at right now. We also have horrible persecution of minorities going on all over the world... saying "that's the situation we have right now, and complaining isn't going to do anything about it... have you a better solution?" hardly counts as support for the criminal regimes carrying out the persecution. Have you a better way of solving the problem than by holding a new vote and proving that sci.aquaria does actually have the support that Richard's bogus vote implied? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' --
richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) (03/04/90)
In article <09=1T3Exds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >I agree entirely. It's not very neigborly. And two wrongs don't >> >make a right and all that. But that's the situation we have right now. >> >So what do you propose to do about it? A new vote is obviously not >> >going to fly... have you a better solution? > >> Saying that it might not be so bad after all. Just in this case. Because >> he is _right_. AAAAAAAARRRRGH. Hypocrite. > >I didn't say that "it might not be so bad after all". I said that it's where >we're at right now. We also have horrible persecution of minorities going >on all over the world... saying "that's the situation we have right now, and >complaining isn't going to do anything about it... have you a better >solution?" hardly counts as support for the criminal regimes carrying out >the persecution. > >Have you a better way of solving the problem than by holding a new vote and >proving that sci.aquaria does actually have the support that Richard's bogus >vote implied? >-- > _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. >/ \ >\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! > v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' >-- Peter, The people who want a legitimate rec.* group to post their aquaria related posts to already have one. It's called: rec.pets -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Mike Richman smart internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu = = U of Illinois old bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd = = Water Survey old uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman =
bbc@rhea.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (03/04/90)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) asks: >Have you a better way of solving the problem than by holding a new vote and >proving that sci.aquaria does actually have the support that Richard's bogus >vote implied? I think it would be constructive at this point to define consider what the problem is. Er, what the problems are: (1) too much flamage in news.groups (2) too much cross-postings between *.aquaria (3) poor propagation of sci.aquaria (4) lousy propagation of rec.aquaria (I'm leaving out "world hunger", and probably lots of other things.) I see (1) as a chronic and insolvable problem. Holding a new vote won't help (2), unless you end up with one group, which certainly might reduce the number of crossposts. To people concerned with excessive cross-posting (eg. me), one group is not the desired result. I wish to increase the separate identities of the groups involved. Removing one or more of them will cause all the readers and writers to be lumped into a single group. I'm not seriously concerned about (3). If someone doesn't want sci.aquaria, let them deprive their readers and those readers downstream. I think that group's quality is improving. Perhaps someday eons from now, the offending sysadmins' names will be cursed by aquarists that were deprived over the years. I'm not sure that holding another vote for sci.aquaria would improve its propagation. I haven't heard anyone who's blocking or aliasing it now state _any_ conditions under which they'd stop dorking with it. But I really don't care. I've seen one solution to (4), which is cross-post between rec.aquaria and rec.pets. This is fine with me. It might annoy rec.pets subscribers, perhaps enough for them to turn out en masse to push throuh a vote of confidence to get the fish traffic out of their playground. Then again, they might like it... -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas