NMBCU@CUNYVM (02/20/90)
I think one of the big reasons as to why there was so much controversy
when sci.aquaria got created, was its name. No one including me can
argue that everyone thinks keeping an aquarium is a hobby. We all found
not too long ago that most of us (including me) can be stubborn with our
opinions and steadfast. There were those who were diehard "Its a science!"
fans and there were "Its a hobby!" fans (me included). My big complaint
back then (among other things) was the choice of the name. I would have been
a little less upset with a more meaningful sci.* name for the aquaria group
under the hierarchy of sci, but sci.aquaria was a name that I just would not
and could not accept. Unfortunately, a name suggestion that I made never caught
back then, so I would like to offer it again. Because perhaps if sci.aquaria
were renamed to a name more meaningful and closer to what its charters
all about, we would have less cross postings (by me and others). Perhaps
a new name would help relieve the current problem. And if so, we could then
phase out alt.aquaria for rec.aquaria. And if it doesn't work out we could all
go back to where we are now - debating over what to do. Lets stop debating and
start acting. Netters of the world unite! :)
The name that I had previously mentioned to Richard Sexton, if I'm remembering
correctly was SCI.AQUARIA.RESEARCH. So lets give renaming a try. What do you
say?
P.S. - Please post follow-ups to news.groups only. Thank you.
Nelson Broatwerner@zephyr.sw.mcc.com (Werner Uhrig) (02/21/90)
> The name that I had previously [suggested] was SCI.AQUARIA.RESEARCH
how about something simple like SCI.BIO.FISH
(I'm sure there is a Latin name akin to flora and fauna, but
I can't remember it). it simply makes no sense to have AQUARIA
as a name directly under SCI. I can envision the day when a
group named SCI.BIO.FISH.AQUARIA would deserve to get created
(when the superior group overflows with traffic) - and I can even
imagine someone having a problem because he has only plants and
no fishes in the water) - but maybe someone can then suggest a
SCI.BIO.FLORA or the appropriate Latin word for plant-life in water.
and if someone is absolutely enamoured with the pure science involved
in aquariums, well then let's have a group SCI.TECH.AQUARIUMS,
by all means (and 100+ votes) otherwise create a private or
semi-public mailing-list, for all I know there already may be
one around. And please do consider that electronic news can
in many aspects never come close to what you can get out of a
paper-magazine !!!
I deplore that rec.aquaria is getting a bad name because some
idiots insisted on creating sci.aquaria and it is high time that
reasonable people adjust things so hobbyist can have their forum
and those who discuss fishies on a scientific level have a respected
and well-distributed forum also. I mean it is not so hard to admit
that discussing fishies in sci.bio (which currently has only one
subgroup, named "technology") is not as appealing as having a
subgroup SCI.BIO.FISH
--
--------------------------> please send REPLIES to <------------------------
INTERNET: werner@cs.utexas.edu
or: werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet # 128.83.144.1)
UUCP: ...<well-connected-site>!cs.utexas.edu!wernerhalo@cognos.UUCP (Hal O'Connell) (02/21/90)
In article <90051.100511NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: >The name that I had previously mentioned to Richard Sexton, if I'm remembering >correctly was SCI.AQUARIA.RESEARCH. So lets give renaming a try. What do you >say? How about SCI.AQUACULTURE. Certainly aquaculture qualifies as a scientific subject with all of the work done with salmon, seaweed (mostly Chondrus crispus), and a host of other areas. You can argue about the scale and commercial applications, but any large national aquarium is on a similar scale. And you won't be arguing about pluralization :-) -- Hal O'Connell Cognos Incorporated UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!halo P.O. Box 9707 INET: halo%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net 3755 Riverside Dr. VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x5933 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K1G 3Z4