BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) (02/22/90)
Logging on to news.groups is always a thrill! Few of my active groups
have 875 unread notes. I will comment on the new name discussion although
I have not read all the "discussion" on the topic of late. Seems to be
mostly frustrated monitors trying to be "funny"? There are several points
concerning the present names which are evident to real users of these
groups.
1. sci.aquaria (through cross postig on sites that bar it) has attracted
the sort of discussion it was hoped by those who wanted a group with
a sci. prefix. The discussions have certainly been science though not
necessarily biology. The ecology and other scientific understanding one
gains by studying a small aquarium community is very important to our
society and to the individuals who are interested in this subject.
2. rec.aquaria has also served its purpose. It seems to have drawn a
very goodly number of beginners and people with questions to ask of more
experienced hobbiests. It is doubtful that many of them are interested
in the more specialized discussions that occur in sci.aquaria.
3. It is apparent to this user that both groups have there place and
represent a more important division than say freshwater -- saltwater.
I would like to see them both (sci. and rec.) continue provided
sci. is "unlocked" from those sites still banning it. The reason for
that banning seems to be gone. However many feelings were hurt over
its creation seem irrelevant at this point in time.
3. I would in general like to see these forums not put in the bio.
category as the scientific forum is crossdisciplinary and the rec.
forum is where it belongs. I don't think on the scientific side that
all people interested in water pollution and its effects on aquatic
communities, fish habitat, waste processing equipment and techniques,
etc. are all necessarily biological scientists. The general sci.
prefix has been used in other such crossdisciplinary areas as well.
4. Lastly, the name should be as short as possible without causing
confusion. I have always wondered what was the logic of calling the NASA
group sci.space.shuttle when sci.shuttle would have sufficed.
The present names sci.aquaria and rec.aquaria meet that requirement
for a clear unconfusing name.
I don't intend to enter into this forums' ranting and raving about
minutia, but if anyone wants to discus these ideas with me, feel
free to send email.
Johnpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/22/90)
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. If in fact the group has turned out to be an appropriate and well behaved sci group, then you should have little problem getting the votes needed to create the group. To do this you have to accept that the vote might be lost and be prepared to remove the group in this case. -- _--_|\ 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?" `-_-'
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (02/23/90)
In article <F5X1JK8xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >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. Not another vote! PLEASE?!?! Rmgroup it at your site if it bothers you so. No wonder there are more and more alternate hierarchies springing up. 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
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/24/90)
BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: >I would like to see them both (sci. and rec.) continue provided >sci. is "unlocked" from those sites still banning it. The reason for >that banning seems to be gone. However many feelings were hurt over >its creation seem irrelevant at this point in time. I disagree with you that "the reason for that banning" is gone. The problem that I see with your reasoning is that of setting precedence. The way I look at it (read: IMO), saying okee dokee to sci.acquaria is, in essence, saying, "The way to get what you want around here is to ignore input, feeback, group consensus, and group will; if you just hammer it in you'll get what you want." I feel strongly that this is a precedence I don't want set. My experience tells me that there are many people out there who will judge how to act in the future by the results we produce now. To me, the issue has nothing to do with hurt feelings; it has everything to do with a bigger picture. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "Clearly, the idea of human beings as units remains at war with the notion of the interdependence of all things." -- Salvador Minuchin