xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (02/10/90)
In article <##701$@rpi.edu> michelob@pawl6.pawl.rpi.edu (Michael R.
Shea) writes:
= I posted before about my guppies having babies. I have heard some
= discussion about selling fish back to stores for credit. I have
= looked in the capital district (of New York). Unfortunately, there
= have been no stores in the area that will buy them from me. Is it
= that fancy tailed guppies are too common? I am getting annoyed,
= because the fish are getting crowded where they are. I have about
= 15-18 fish in a ten gallon tank. When they were just born, it was
= fine, but now they are up to 1/2" or bigger. Does anyone in the
= capital district want some guppies?
= Also, the male that spawned these babies is having some trouble with
= tail rot. The other fish in the tank seem to be okay, but his tail
= keeps splitting. What could I do to help him?
I think we can kill several aviforms with one lithoform here.
Build a large cage around your aquarium, and populate it with one or
several green herons (the compact, downscale, apartment-suitable
version of the blue heron). This will associate some birds with an
aquarium, allowing the recent condemnation of sci.aviary to be
sidetracked into an expansion of the fastest growing redundant
newsgroup lowarchy on the net, *.aquaria[.*]. At the same time, the
green herons, being wading piscavores, will save you the trouble of
finding outlets for your excess swimming stock, and also save you the
trouble of disposing of the less fit, slower swimming (and more easily
speared) members of your captive fancy fish. Everyone will be happy,
your overabundance of inches of fish per square inches of tank surface
will repair itself, and the herons will grow fat and perhaps assume
breeding plumage.
[What you do with the subsequent crop of baby herons is _your_
problem!]
--
Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.
xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan)
xanthian@ads.com - expiring soon; please use Well address for replies.
Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian
kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile.
-> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (02/12/90)
In article <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >I think we can kill several aviforms with one lithoform here. > >This will associate some birds with an >aquarium, allowing the recent condemnation of sci.aviary to be >sidetracked into an expansion of the fastest growing redundant >newsgroup lowarchy on the net, *.aquaria[.*]. OK. Now I *know* there are others who share my opinion. Rec.aquaria suffices. I'm sick of cross postings, Let's spare the taxpayers (remember them?) the cost, and me the time, of these unnecessary duplications in 3 newsgroups. Consider the traffic in *.aquaria.*. compared to rec.music.*, where the latter * is *any* single newsgroup. Richard Link, Ph.D. Space Sciences Laboratory University of California, Berkeley
briang@bari.Sun.COM (Brian Gordon) (02/13/90)
In article <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: > >OK. Now I *know* there are others who share my opinion. >Rec.aquaria suffices. > >I'm sick of cross postings, Let's spare the taxpayers (remember them?) >the cost, and me the time, of these unnecessary duplications in 3 >newsgroups. Consider the traffic in *.aquaria.*. compared to >rec.music.*, where the latter * is *any* single newsgroup. Pardon my ignorance, but how does a cross-posted article (which is a SINGLE text file with bits set (or whatever) to indicate that is is intended to be visible in multiple groups) cost any more than the same article posted to a single group. For multiple identical postings, I can see the complaint, but cross-postings? Are other news readers THAT different from ``rn'' and its relatives? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Brian G. Gordon briang@Corp.Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) | | ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
oleg@electra.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev) (02/13/90)
In article <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >Rec.aquaria suffices. While I agree with Richard... >I'm sick of cross postings, Let's spare the taxpayers (remember them?) >the cost, Cross-posted articles cost exactly the same to transmit and to store (plus extra entries in the directory block) as a single article posted to a single group. Adding groups does not cost extra. Richard Sexton has a theory that creating a group creates traffic in that group (supply side voodoo economics of the USENET), but I have seen no support for that theory. DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself only, unless otherwise indicated. "No regrets, no apologies" -- R.Reagan Oleg Kiselev lcc!oleg@seas.ucla.edu (213)337-5230 ...!{att|ucla-se|turnkey|alphacm}!lcc!oleg
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) (02/13/90)
In article <1190Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu>, link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >In article <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont >Consultant Account) writes: >>... the fastest growing redundant [1]^ >>newsgroup lowarchy on the net, *.aquaria[.*]. >I'm sick of cross postings, Let's spare the taxpayers (remember them?) >the cost, and me the time, of these unnecessary duplications in 3 [2]^ [3]^ >newsgroups. Consider the traffic in *.aquaria.*. compared to ... [4]^ In reverse order: 4. Just because other newsgroups have too damn much traffic to keep up with is no reason that all newsgroups should suffer from this obvious shortcoming. 3. The duplications in the three newsgroups are made necessary by a number of numbscull site.admins who refuse to carry one or more of the groups. Most authors would be happy to stick their article in the one group in which it best fits, saving cross-posting for those rare occasions where the subject matter fits equally well in two or more groups. But, thanks to the afore- mentioned idiots, following that quite reasonable procedure results in the article's not getting everywhere that it should. Thus, many articles get cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end will recieve them. 2. What cost? 1. The groups are not intended to be redundant. Although they may currently be redundant to some extent (see moronic site.admins point under 3) there is room for difference, if only the users would get a chance to post the way they would like to without having to worry about distribution. Sci.aquaria, for example would be perfect for the recent postings about the effect of various medicines on filter bacteria. (These effects were determined through scientific testing, BTW.) On the other hand, the recent discussion about Tiger-Barbs being little shits falls properly in rec.aquaria. Alt.aquaria will be redundant when the sci and rec groups get proper distribution, and should be eliminated at that time. Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, and on the turkeys who listened to them. Dean Hougen -- "The news groups are not concerned, With what there is to be learned." - the Clash
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/13/90)
In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: > Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where > it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, > and on the turkeys who listened to them. Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net that they refuse to carry it. If you really feel you need a sci.aquaria group, hold a straight vote on the name without any hidden agenda and behind-the-scenes campaigning. If it passes, well and good. If it fails, then issue a "rmgroup sci.aquaria" and try again in a few months. As Richard found out, it helps to pay attention to the intent of the group creation guidelines, rather than playing lawyer with the text. -- _--_|\ 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?" `-_-'
bbc@libya.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (02/14/90)
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >3. The duplications in the three newsgroups are made necessary by a number >of numbscull site.admins who refuse to carry one or more of the groups. Most >authors would be happy to stick their article in the one group in which it >best fits, saving cross-posting for those rare occasions where the subject >matter fits equally well in two or more groups. But, thanks to the afore- >mentioned idiots, following that quite reasonable procedure results in the >article's not getting everywhere that it should. Thus, many articles get >cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end >will recieve them. Let's question a few assumptions in this paragraph, lest someone accidentally confuse them with truths. a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. b) Would most authors really be happy to choose just one of the *.aquaria groups? (First it may help to define "most authors". Offhand, I would say that Richard S. and Oleg are "most authors" in *.aquaria by at least one metric. :-) If authors really would be happy picking one group, why are there currently so many cross-posts between alt.aquaria and rec.aquaria (this thread being only one of many)? Don't both of these groups have good propagation? c) "[Posting to just one *.aquaria group] results in the article's not getting everywhere that it should." But to where _should_ an article get? Everywhere? Why? Because the author needs the extra audience, and hence attention? Because they want it to? d) "many articles get cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end will recieve [sic] them." Is the typical message delivered on *.aquaria so burningly important that every soul must be reached? If so, perhaps a aquarist magazine such as FAMA, etc., would accept it for publication, and then the author would even be able to reach those unfortunate people without any access to USENET. >1. The groups are not intended to be redundant... >Alt.aquaria will be redundant when the sci and rec groups get proper >distribution, and should be eliminated at that time. Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. It may be beneficial to cross-post between alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria, since sci.aquaria has poor propagation. When and if sci.aquaria gets propagated better, then alt.aquaria will be redundant. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (02/14/90)
In article <RHQ15BAggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: #In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> # hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: #> Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where #> it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, #> and on the turkeys who listened to them. # #Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent #vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net #that they refuse to carry it. # #-- # _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. Will you please stop your whining. If you have proof then bring it out, otherwise shut up already. People are tired of the back-biting from the children at FICC. Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)
richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) (02/14/90)
In article <1124@mtxinu.UUCP> frk@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: >In article <RHQ15BAggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >#In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> ># hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >#> Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where >#> it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, >#> and on the turkeys who listened to them. ># >#Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent >#vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net >#that they refuse to carry it. ># >#-- ># _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. > >Will you please stop your whining. > >If you have proof then bring it out, otherwise shut up already. > >People are tired of the back-biting from the children at FICC. > >Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com) Frank, Do you really think that Peter wrote that note? One never knows? Last time I read a "PDS" article, it was claimed to be a forgery! No doubt the work of that scurrilous Sexton. Reverse psychology! C'mon folks, lets retire this #$*! from the aquaria groups once and for all. (:-) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = 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 =
link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (02/14/90)
Ommagawd! I didn't mean to start all this internecine squabbling about the merits of *.aquaria. I much prefer to read articles about fish and aquaria. However ..... To those of you who (presumably correctly, I don't know) informed me that cross posted articles don't take up any more bandwidth than articles posted in a single newsgroup ----- so what? That's not the point. The point is that I read this stuff at home, and I pay toll charges to dial into the lab computer. Cross-posted articles cost me time and money. ...Rick
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/14/90)
In article <1124@mtxinu.UUCP>, frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: > In article <RHQ15BAggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > #In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> > # hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: > #> Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where > #> it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, > #> and on the turkeys who listened to them. > # > #Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent > #vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net > #that they refuse to carry it. > # > #-- > # _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. > > Will you please stop your whining. > > If you have proof then bring it out, otherwise shut up already. I think we should remember that: even if Tricky Dicky's conduct of the vote was pristine, an admitted motive in naming the group sci.aquaria was to defraud siteadmins who didn't want to pay to receive a rec group. Jeff -- Pun for the day: "I'm a sucker for vampire stories." -- Chuq von Rospach
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/14/90)
If I may be permitted to quote from a recent message in another thread:
"Group votes should be based on an individual's feelings
for the merits of a group, not political machinations."
-- Mark H. Weber
--
_--_|\ 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?" `-_-'frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (02/16/90)
In article <77R1VL7xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >I think we should remember that: even if Tricky Dicky's conduct of the >vote was pristine, an admitted motive in naming the group sci.aquaria >was to defraud siteadmins who didn't want to pay to receive a rec >group. > >Jeff > I keep hopeing that somday you will realize that your habit of name calling does not change peoples opinion of your target, it changes peoples opinion of YOU. It also lowers the civility level of the net, but you seem not to care about that. I prefer to look at sci.aquaria as empowering the users. I consider this good, as there are more users than siteadmins. It is also an example of looking at the good side of things rather than focusing on the bad. There are times when life just does not go a persons way, you have the choice of going on and putting it behind you, or of bitching and makeing other people get tired of you. Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/16/90)
In article <77R1VL7xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >vote was pristine, an admitted motive in naming the group sci.aquaria >was to defraud siteadmins who didn't want to pay to receive a rec >group. Jeff, did you know that there is a soc newsgroup being voted on right now that was changed from a talk group to a soc group sim- ply to take advantage of the better connectivity the soc hier- archy affords? Why aren't you just as concerned about sysadmins having to pay for a talk group they didn't order, hmmm? Just curious.
richardb@cognos.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (02/16/90)
In article <1990Feb14.051455.3720@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes:
+Do you really think that Peter wrote that note? One never knows?
+Last time I read a "PDS" article, it was claimed to be a forgery!
+No doubt the work of that scurrilous Sexton. Reverse psychology!
Yep, Sexton has aquired quite the reputation as a forger. Disagree with
him and BANG!; forged articles in your name appear. Funny, but quite
childish.
+
+C'mon folks, lets retire this #$*! from the aquaria groups once and
+for all. (:-)
Yes, lets get back to the guppy discusion. I find it SO interesting!.
--
RIP Gryphon:198?-1990:'The day-care center from hell finally died'
Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardboleg@electra.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev) (02/17/90)
>a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. You are wrong. The groups propagations are not identical and there are large gaps of discontinuity in ALL of the aquaria groups that make cross-posting necessary. >b) Would most authors really be happy to choose just one of the >*.aquaria groups? ... If authors really would be happy >picking one group, why are there currently so many cross-posts between >alt.aquaria and rec.aquaria (this thread being only one of many)? >Don't both of these groups have good propagation? No, they don't. ALT.aquaria doesn't and that's why there was a call for SCI.aquaria. REC.aquaria doesn't and I have no idea why, but at least *this* site does not always get one or the other group's full traffic. Some sites do not carry ALT.aquaria, some don't carry REC.aquaria, some do not carry SCI.aquaria. The safest thing to do is x-post to all of them. It costs the same to transmit as an article posted to one group only and is much more likely to deliver the article to the readers. >c) "[Posting to just one *.aquaria group] results in the article's not >getting everywhere that it should." But to where _should_ an article >get? Everywhere? Why? Because the author needs the extra audience, >and hence attention? Because they want it to? Because I am not happy about replying to a followup of an article I had never seen. People ask questions and expect answers. If I do not see the question, how can I answer it?! And yes, the extra audience. Some of the postings made to .aquaria groups are of interest to all people reading these groups. Why should they be denied the ability to read it just because some self-righteous self-appointed crussaders have screwed up the distributions? >Is the typical message delivered on *.aquaria so burningly important that >every soul must be reached? If so, perhaps a aquarist magazine such >as FAMA, etc., would accept it for publication, and then the author >would even be able to reach those unfortunate people without any >access to USENET. Eat your sarcasm, Ben. There are some people on USENET who can't find FAMA and some who don't even know it exists. "Every soul" does not need to subscribe to these groups and could hit the "n" key. >Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and >alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. Wrong. I have seen a lot of evidence of just the opposite. DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself only, unless otherwise indicated. "No regrets, no apologies" -- R.Reagan Oleg Kiselev lcc!oleg@seas.ucla.edu (213)337-5230 ...!{att|ucla-se|turnkey|alphacm}!lcc!oleg
link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (02/17/90)
In article <3485@oolong.la.locus.com> oleg@electra.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >>a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. >It costs the same to transmit as an article posted to one group >only and is much more likely to deliver the article to the readers. OK. But it costs *me* in toll charges when I have to by-pass cross-posted articles. I readnews at home, since I don't have time at work. Others obviously don't have this problem. I don't see the necessity of having 3 newsgroups, when 2 would more than suffice. Rec.aquaria for (relative) amateurs, and sci.aquaria for the more advanced. Or even just Rec.aquaria, since the total traffic just doesn't compare to things like Comp.sys.ibm.pc or Rec.music.misc. Rick Link link@ssl.berkeley.edu
bbc@legia.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (02/18/90)
oleg@electra.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.aquaria [Oleg, did _you_ add sci.aquaria to the Newsgroups line, or did someone else do it for you? I thought I'd set follow-ups to news.groups, and hope you didn't intentionally perpetuate this spew on sci.aquaria, of all places.] >>a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. >You are wrong. How, Oleg, can one be "wrong" about their own opinions? Opinions are opinions. But why do you state your opinion as fact? >The groups propagations are not identical and there are >large gaps of discontinuity in ALL of the aquaria groups that make >cross-posting necessary. Once again, that word, "necessary". Necessary? Necessary to satisfy the ego of the poster, IMO. Where is Eugene Miya when you need him? >REC.aquaria doesn't [have good propagation] and I have no idea why... Let's blame Peter for that. It's the easiest choice, and a reasonable assignment of the blame, IMO. > The safest thing to do is x-post to all of them. Safest? As if it would be "unsafe" if your article failed to reach someone? > It costs the same to transmit as an article posted to one group only > and is much more likely to deliver the article to the readers. As Richard Link has pointed out, there are unforeseen costs in cross-posting. >>c) "[Posting to just one *.aquaria group] results in the article's not >>getting everywhere that it should." But to where _should_ an article >>get? Everywhere? Why? Because the author needs the extra audience, >>and hence attention? Because they want it to? >Because I am not happy about replying to a followup of an article I had >never seen. People ask questions and expect answers. If I do not see the >question, how can I answer it?! There's always the option of not replying. Perhaps someone else will answer it. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (02/19/90)
In article <3485@oolong.la.locus.com> oleg@electra.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >>a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. > >You are wrong. The groups propagations are not identical and there are >large gaps of discontinuity in ALL of the aquaria groups that make >cross-posting necessary. > >do not carry SCI.aquaria. The safest thing to do is x-post to all of >them. It costs the same to transmit as an article posted to one group >only and is much more likely to deliver the article to the readers. This goes against everything Oleg and the proposer of sci.aquaria argued for. They wanted a distinctly separate group for high falutin scientific fish stories. Thos of us who read alt.aquaria or rec.aquaria are not interested in fish science. Mostly its a hobby of intermittent nature. So lets at least not clutter up alt.aquaria with sci.aquaria cross postings. Fred Rump -- This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net 609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller
krogers@esunix.UUCP (Keith Rogers) (02/22/90)
> >Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and > >alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. > > Wrong. I have seen a lot of evidence of just the opposite. Seconded; our site only gets sci.aquaria. Before that group was created I was tearing out my hair because we didn't get alt.aquaria. Now I go crazy when people cross-post their responses to *.aquaria but the origional question was generated in one of the two groups we don't get. I'd just as soon that all traffic was posted to *.aquaria. I should probably note that I was one of those for rec.aquaria, but now I'm glad that sci.aquaria made it too because that's all I get. Keith Rogers Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp. uucp: utah-cs!esunix!krogers