peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/17/89)
Still no votes from Richard Sexton. I've received a total of two votes in the grace period: NA gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) NA- Tom Haapanen <uunet!mims-iris.waterloo.edu!tom> One other person sent mail saying their vote wasn't counted, but didn't bother to include a vote. This brings the final total to: 5 Not voting. 2 No Group. 135 rec.aquaria 30 sci.aquaria I have sent the results of the vote to Spaf. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/18/89)
In article <7327@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.lonestar.org (Peter da Silva) writes: >I have sent the results of the vote to Spaf. Why? What is Gene going to do with them? I as this rhetorical question in public, rather than by private mail, because I have seen the same sort of message several time. Gene voluntarily maintains a list of newsgroups and other regular postings, and these days he tries to have as little else to do with USENET as possible. (Much like almost all the other people who did volunteer work in building this net.) He doesn't have any special authority, and unless I miss my guess, is a sane human being and doesn't want to open up pandora's can of worms here by changing the name. Be like sealing the aquarium after all the fish have escaped. (Or locking the asylum after all the loonies have escaped, to be more accurate.) It's OVER. STOP POSTING ABOUT FISHES IN NEWS.GROUPS. Thank you. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/18/89)
In article <63050@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > In article <7327@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.lonestar.org (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I have sent the results of the vote to Spaf. > Why? What is Gene going to do with them? inews -C rec.aquaria Re-read my results message. Does it say "rename sci.aquaria to rec.aquaria"? No, it says "create rec.aquaria". If he doesn't, I will. My poll was certainly no further from the letter of the guidleines than Richard's, and far closer to the spirit. It has established, as Richard's didn't, a group name that is widely accepted and appropriate. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (12/18/89)
In article <7332@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > My poll was certainly no further from the letter of the >guidleines than Richard's, and far closer to the spirit. That's good, Peter, tell us another one. Just what letter of the guidelines did Richard break? -- John Berryhill 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/19/89)
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >In article <7332@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >> My poll was certainly no further from the letter of the >>guidleines than Richard's, and far closer to the spirit. >That's good, Peter, tell us another one. >Just what letter of the guidelines did Richard break? Fourth paragraph, second sentence, third word, second letter. Seriously, on at least one occasion I've done postings describing four or five different violations of the guidelines in Sexton's sci.aquaria bid. The fact is, nobody seems to care about the guidelines. Which begs the question "why bother?" -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] For herein may be seen noble chivalry, courtesy, humanity, friendliness, cowardice, murder, hate, virtue and sin. Do after the good and leave the evil, and it shall bring you to good fame and renown. -- Malory
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/19/89)
In article <6409@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > Just what letter of the guidelines did Richard break? Well, he completely ignored the parts that talk about waiting for a consensus on the name and charter. That's pretty major. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
hwt@.uucp (Henry Troup) (12/19/89)
In article <7327@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.lonestar.org (Peter da Silva) writes: > 5 Not voting. > 2 No Group. > 135 rec.aquaria > 30 sci.aquaria Based on the number of newsreaders in the arbitron list, that's 500,000 Not voting. 2 No Group. and so on. Can we drop the subject now, please ? Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions ..utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bmerh490 or HWT@BNR.CA
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/19/89)
In article <37355@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > >>Just what letter of the guidelines did Richard break? > >Fourth paragraph, second sentence, third word, second letter. > >Seriously, on at least one occasion I've done postings describing four or >five different violations of the guidelines in Sexton's sci.aquaria bid. >The fact is, nobody seems to care about the guidelines. Which begs the >question "why bother?" Oh geez. There's nothing wrong with rules or guidelines, you just don't have to anal about adhering to them. I mean really, you aren't supposed to post email or drive faster than 55. Those are rules, not guidelines, yet they get broken and *somehow* life goes on. Go figure. RJS "Gawd, some people even smoke pot and hold down a job"
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/19/89)
In article <6409@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >> Just what letter of the guidelines did Richard break? In article <7343@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Well, he completely ignored the parts that talk about waiting for a >consensus on the name and charter. That's pretty major. Nah! Who cares about that stuff? -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" - The Censored Hacker
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (12/19/89)
In article <63050@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >It's OVER. STOP POSTING ABOUT FISHES IN NEWS.GROUPS. Thank you. It is hardly over yet. You were one of the people trying very hard to make a travesty of sci.aquaria. You suceeded. Congratulations. It isn't over yet, due to you and others like you. It won't be over until rec.aquaria is created. I don't care if it is a renamed sci.aquaria or a new group. If Peter's vote is NOT used to create rec.aquaria, I will start up a proper Call for Discussion followed (after the appropriate grace period) by a Call for Votes. Lots of flamage will be generated (a lot of it by you), the votes will come in, and it will pass. The group WILL be created. The support is there. The ONLY thing that you can do, Brad, is to delay the inevitable and cause lots of fish postings in news.groups. It isn't going to die until the mess is cleaned up. -- --------| Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Alien | would scarcely get your feet wet. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (12/20/89)
In article <7332@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > If he doesn't, I will. My poll was certainly no further from the letter of the > guidleines than Richard's, and far closer to the spirit. It has established, as > Richard's didn't, a group name that is widely accepted and appropriate. All it really established was the fact that a large group of people found your "poll": a). Uncalled for b). Useless c). A major whining fest by a major whiner d). Silly e). Wasn't it a "vote?" f). In very poor taste g). all of the above and ignored it. Dave
" Maynard) (12/20/89)
In article <3181@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: >In article <63050@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>It's OVER. STOP POSTING ABOUT FISHES IN NEWS.GROUPS. Thank you. >It is hardly over yet. You were one of the people trying very hard to make >a travesty of sci.aquaria. You suceeded. Congratulations. It isn't over >yet, due to you and others like you. Hardly. The travesty was due to you and others like you, who insisted on putting a hobby group in the science hierarchy. sci.aquaria is indeed a travesty, but that's because it started that way. >It won't be over until rec.aquaria is created. [...] I got a newgroup today for rec.aquaria from Chuq Von Rospach. Hopefully, the net's admins will honor it...even those that (rightfully) objected to sci.aquaria. >The group WILL be created. The support is there. The ONLY thing that you >can do, Brad, is to delay the inevitable and cause lots of fish postings in >news.groups. It isn't going to die until the mess is cleaned up. The group should have been created first. If it had, the flame war would never have started. It may not die yet; the only way to douse the flames (except from the Richard Sexton Sycophant Club) is to rmgroup sci.aquaria. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/21/89)
jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >It may not die yet; the only way to douse the flames (except from the >Richard Sexton Sycophant Club) is to rmgroup sci.aquaria. Not true. Let it die of neglect and boredom -- the natural deaths on USENET. Rmgrouping it will simply start another wave of fights over the group. Better to ignore it and let its usefullness (or lack of) be proved by its use, abuse or nonuse. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] For herein may be seen noble chivalry, courtesy, humanity, friendliness, cowardice, murder, hate, virtue and sin. Do after the good and leave the evil, and it shall bring you to good fame and renown. -- Malory
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (12/21/89)
In article <7332@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <63050@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >> In article <7327@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.lonestar.org (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >I have sent the results of the vote to Spaf. > >> Why? What is Gene going to do with them? > >inews -C rec.aquaria Shouldn't that be done by our newgroup czar ? >Re-read my results message. Does it say "rename sci.aquaria to rec.aquaria"? >No, it says "create rec.aquaria". > >If he doesn't, I will. My poll was certainly no further from the letter of the >guidleines than Richard's, and far closer to the spirit. I dunno. Richard at least didn't use an unapproved voting technique, nor call for one vote immediately after another had finished. >It has established, as >Richard's didn't, a group name that is widely accepted and appropriate. How can you claim that ? You got only 135 names of people who liked rec.aquaria, which Richard produced 400 (if memory serves) who liked sci.aquaria. Sounds like his name is much more widely accepted. The fact that you got only 5 votes for sci.aquaria only indicates that the "scilent" majority (ahem), having already got what they want, ignored your vote, while the rec crowd felt they still had an axe to grind. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (12/21/89)
In article <3181@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: >In article <63050@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>It's OVER. STOP POSTING ABOUT FISHES IN NEWS.GROUPS. Thank you. >It is hardly over yet. You were one of the people trying very hard to make >a travesty of sci.aquaria. You suceeded. Congratulations. It isn't over >yet, due to you and others like you. >It won't be over until rec.aquaria is created. Well, it's over now. I can hear the fat lady singing. Let's move on to more important matters. Like comp.aquaria, talk.aquaria, vms.aquaria ... 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. - as sung by Sally Rogers
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/21/89)
In article <12488@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >In article <7332@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >>It has established, as >>Richard's didn't, a group name that is widely accepted and appropriate. >How can you claim that ? You got only 135 names of people who liked >rec.aquaria, which Richard produced 400 (if memory serves) who liked >sci.aquaria. Sounds like his name is much more widely accepted. I agree -- Peter's vote doesn't "prove" anything. Heavens, he didn't even get close to to ~320 who voted against s.a much less the 460 or so netters who voted for it. I do have one question, however: now that Peter's new vote-taking scheme has been declared legitimate, does this mean anyone can call for a similar vote to duplicate any other duly-elected newsgroup? In particular I was wondering about talk.skeptic, but certainly this could be applied to virtually any other newsgroup. And am I correct in thinking that this kind of vote is also not subject to the 14 day discussion period just as Peter's vote was not? And what's going to happen at those sites that aliased s.a to rec. pets.fish? Rec.aquaria -and- rec.pets.fish? That should be inter- esting, huh.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/22/89)
In article <37433@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Not true. Let it die of neglect and boredom. I agree. If it is not used, it should die. But what do you think should happen, Chuq, if rec.aquaria gets all the (easy|beginner|quick) questions and sci.aquaria provides a forum for month long discussions on redox potentials, chlorophyll absorbtion spectra and other subjects that certainly bored and confused me when I was a beginninig aquarist ?
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/22/89)
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >I do have one question, however: now that Peter's new vote-taking >scheme has been declared legitimate, does this mean anyone can call >for a similar vote to duplicate any other duly-elected newsgroup? In the specific case of rec.aquaria, the arguments of Richard Sexton about sci.aquaria and the official charters of the two groups convinced me that they are, at best, kissing cousins. rec.aquaria's audience is much different than sci.aquaria. So it's not a duplicate vote. If it was, Richard wouldn't have fought so hard against rec.aquaria in the first place. Scientific discussions go in sci.aquaria. Hobbyist discussions in rec. Seems clear to me. They're complimentary, but not overlapping. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] For herein may be seen noble chivalry, courtesy, humanity, friendliness, cowardice, murder, hate, virtue and sin. Do after the good and leave the evil, and it shall bring you to good fame and renown. -- Malory
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (12/22/89)
In article <10693@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >I do have one question, however: now that Peter's new vote-taking >scheme has been declared legitimate, does this mean anyone can call >for a similar vote to duplicate any other duly-elected newsgroup? Sure! Go ahead! Try news.aquaria if you like! Only *.aquaria groups count, though. >In particular I was wondering about talk.skeptic, but certainly this >could be applied to virtually any other newsgroup. And am I correct >in thinking that this kind of vote is also not subject to the 14 day >discussion period just as Peter's vote was not? Hey, why bother. Just newgroup it. Remember: A group will exist if there are 100 more NEWGROUPS than RMGROUPS! -- 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. - as sung by Sally Rogers
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/22/89)
In article <10693@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In particular I was wondering about talk.skeptic, but certainly this > could be applied to virtually any other newsgroup. And am I correct > in thinking that this kind of vote is also not subject to the 14 day > discussion period just as Peter's vote was not? When in doubt, apply common sense. There had been considerable discussion on the subject for the immediately preceding 6 weeks. I felt that extending that discussion period to 2 months was a little redundant. Certainly that was the aspect of my call for votes that got the *fewest* flames. Now holding a second vote for talk.skeptic immediately after sci.skeptic would probably have been reasonable. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/22/89)
In article <7395@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > I felt that extending >that discussion period to 2 months was a little redundant. So you're agreeing that if someone wishes to create a group by the new da Silva process that a discussion period is not necessary. Hey, that's great -- I commend you on your wisdom. That will cut down on at least some traffic in this newsgroup. Just out of curiosity, Peter dear, what other existing guidelines concerning the creation of new groups do you also feel may be bro- ken in service to common sense?
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/22/89)
In article <21259@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) writes: >Sure! Go ahead! Try news.aquaria if you like! Only *.aquaria groups No, thank you. I think we already have too many *.aquaria groups as it is. >Remember: A group will exist if there are 100 more NEWGROUPS than RMGROUPS! Does this mean we can liberate alt.rissa and alt.weemba now? yours for nets & mods, . t r i s h a o t u a m a
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/24/89)
In article <10708@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > So you're agreeing that if someone wishes to create a group by the > new da Silva process that a discussion period is not necessary. Hello. Hello. Anyone home, McFly? No, maam. That ain't what I said. Ah'm jest a simple country boy down heyah in thuh great state o' Texas, but even Ah kin tell the differnce between whut I said an' what you said. > Just out of curiosity, Peter dear, what other existing guidelines > concerning the creation of new groups do you also feel may be bro- > ken in service to common sense? Any of 'em. Just be sure that common sense is what you're operating on, instead of bullheadedness. Or you might find people just plain ignoring your newgroups. Just like Richard found out. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/24/89)
In article <7407@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> So you're agreeing that if someone wishes to create a group by the >> new da Silva process that a discussion period is not necessary. >No, maam. That ain't what I said. Ah'm jest a simple country boy down >heyah in thuh great state o' Texas, but even Ah kin tell the differnce >between whut I said an' what you said. So you're saying that if someone wishes to create a group by the new da Silva process that a discussion period -is- necessary? I mean, either a discussion period is required or it's not, Peter. This is real simple. If you want to qualify your answer by saying it's not necessary if you're taking a vote within one week or one month or six months or a year of the first group being created, go right ahead. I just want to know whether it's required or not un- der the new da Silva guidelines. >> Just out of curiosity, Peter dear, what other existing guidelines >> concerning the creation of new groups do you also feel may be bro- >> ken in service to common sense? >Any of 'em. Just be sure that common sense is what you're operating on, Why? You didn't.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/24/89)
> So you're saying that if someone wishes to create a group by the > new da Silva process that a discussion period -is- necessary? Yes, maam. There ain't no "da Silva process". > >Any of 'em. Just be sure that common sense is what you're operating on, > Why? You didn't. Well, ah guess we'll hafta agree to disagree on that, maam. It's mah considerd 'pinion that ah call for discussion is jest a mite less important than agreement on th' name. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
fitz@wang.UUCP (Tom Fitzgerald) (12/27/89)
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >But what do you think should happen, Chuq, if rec.aquaria gets >all the (easy|beginner|quick) questions and sci.aquaria provides >a forum for month long discussions on redox potentials, chlorophyll >absorbtion spectra and other subjects that certainly bored and confused >me when I was a beginninig aquarist ? (I know I'm not Chuq, but this one's easy even for me.) Here's what "should" happen, barring any fundamental change in human nature: Phase 1: The beginners post their questions to rec.aquaria and the experts, in a friendly fashion, help them out. Deep wizardly discussions occur in sci.aquaria. Phase 2: The experts, getting tired of answering the same questions over and over again, and seeing that they're spending too much time reading news, unsubscribe to rec.aquaria and continue their discussions in sci.aquaria. The amateurs keep posting questions to rec.aquaria, but none of the experts are there to answer. The few helpful responses are posted by other beginners, who turn out to be often wrong, resulting in many dead fish. Phase 3: The beginners buy more fish and realize that the experts are all over in sci.aquaria, so post their questions there. The experts still don't want to answer beginners' questions, and flame the beginners for posting in the wrong newsgroup. Phase 4: Sci.aquaria now contains a large quantity of beginners' questions ad flames. Those experts without lots of spare time unsubscribe to sci.aquaria because of the volume, and when they do post, say "Please e-mail responses because I don't follow this group". In response, they get flamed. Those beginners who still post to rec.aquaria get more dead fish. Phases 3 and 4 repeat indefinitely. The only way out is to create a single fishy group, or to moderate sci.aquaria. --- Tom Fitzgerald fitz@wang.com It's a mistake to believe that Wang Labs ...!uunet!wang!fitz the die is cast. In reality, it Lowell MA, USA 1-508-967-5278 is injection-molded.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/27/89)
In article <7412@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> So you're saying that if someone wishes to create a group by the >> new da Silva process that a discussion period -is- necessary? >Yes, maam. Good, we really are making progress now. >There ain't no "da Silva process". Well, whatever we're calling it, I referred to it as the da Silva process since you were the first person to use it. >Well, ah guess we'll hafta agree to disagree on that, maam. It's mah >considerd 'pinion that ah call for discussion is jest a mite less important >than agreement on th' name. Fine with me, clearly you don't think either one is worth a hill of beans so it hardly matters which one you think is more important.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/27/89)
Sorry, folks: I've tried to take this to email but Rissa here flamed me for it. It seems this sort of ranting is too imprtant for email. After this message I'm gonna take it to alt.dev.null. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (12/28/89)
In article <759@wang.UUCP> fitz@wang.UUCP (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
Phase 1:
[... tech.* and fun.* work as "intended" ...]
Phase 2:
[... wizards stop reading and answering fun.*; beginners' fish die ...]
Phase 3:
[... beginners move to tech.*, wizards resent the intrusion ...]
Phase 4:
[... tech.* becomes beginner questions & wizard flames, fish die ...]
Phases 3 and 4 repeat indefinitely. The only way out is to create
a single fishy group, or to moderate sci.aquaria.
Remember comp.unix.{wizards,questions}? comp.graphics{.wizards}?
comp.sys.ibm-pc.tech? comp.sys.mac.programmer? Or any number of
similar closely-related groups? Self-selecting constituencies don't
work, for just the reasons you describe. Arbitrarily segregated
communities will find a way to re-mix because the collective benefits
of topical community outweigh the disadvantages of segmented,
hypothetically reduced traffic. Luckily, fish don't usually die as a
result, else things would smell a lot worse than they do now.
{sci,rec}.aquaria isn't an intentional distinction for the purpose of
smoothing the flow of discussion, else the above points would have
arisen and the idea quickly discarded. The existence of the two
groups is the result of ego-political machinations and bidirectional
whining about subversion. Don't try to use rational thought to
explain them, or to convince either to go away. The net is stuck with
two (or three, depending upon how you count them) fish groups now.rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/28/89)
In article <7426@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Sorry, folks: I've tried to take this to email but Rissa here flamed me for >it. I flamed you??? Gee, Peter, I think we'd better take a look at the mesg I sent you: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From To:texbell!Postmaster Sun Dec 24 00:17:56 1989 Date: Sun, 24 Dec 89 0:17:56 CST To: texbell!Postmaster (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Complimentary but not overlapping In-Reply-To: <m0gfLPL-0000ibC@texbell>; from "Peter da Silva" at Dec 23, 89 5:45 pm Xxxxx, xxxx, X xxxx'x xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx. Xxxxx xxx x 6 xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xx xx xxxx xxx xxxxx. Xxxx xxxx xx xxx xxxxxx xx Xxxxxxx, xxx xx. i'll discuss this with you in public but not in email -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure doesn't look like a flame to me, Peter. (Just out of curiosity, how did you manage to fix up the headers so your message appears to have come from postmaster at texbell? I asked my sysop here about this but he wasn't sure either) The only other message I've received from you in the past three or four weeks was that silly thing you sent me today and as you know I simply bounced that back to you without bothering to reply.
@ficc.uu.net (12/29/89)
In article <10708@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, Patricia O Tuama writes: > In article <7395@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > I felt that extending > >that discussion period to 2 months was a little redundant. > > So you're agreeing that if someone wishes to create a group by the > new da Silva process that a discussion period is not necessary. > Hey, that's great -- I commend you on your wisdom. That will cut > down on at least some traffic in this newsgroup. > > Just out of curiosity, Peter dear, what other existing guidelines > concerning the creation of new groups do you also feel may be bro- > ken in service to common sense? Try again, Trisha. Peter did not say that a discussion period was unnecessary. He said stretching it to 2 months was. And your "Peter dear" was a tad patronizing, don't you think? Jeff Daiell -- "In the carriages of the past, you can't go anywhere." -- Maxim Gorky
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/30/89)
In article <7:U7TGxds8@ficc.uu.net> @ficc.uu.net writes: Jeff honey, why did you take your login and your name out of your postings? >Try again, Trisha. Peter did not say that a discussion period was >unnecessary. He said stretching it to 2 months was. I know that -- he's already responded to this article. I can see you're just catching up on netnews, Jeff. And your >"Peter dear" was a tad patronizing, don't you think? Oh, probably but I'm sure he can take it. Peter bristles with self- importance (to borrow a phrase from Peter Honeyman). I doubt some- thing like that would bother him too much. Although, on the other hand, he did misinterpret a simple non-inflammatory statement as a scathing flame, so who knows... Oh btw, Peter dear -- you know that "explanation" you sent me about smail 3 and the strange headers in your mail? My sysop and I loved it -- I could hear Charlie laughing all the way from Dallas.
ra@asuvax.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) (01/03/90)
In article <7:U7TGxds8@ficc.uu.net>, Jeff Daiell writes: > Try again, Trisha. Peter did not say that a discussion period was > unnecessary. He said stretching it to 2 months was. And your > "Peter dear" was a tad patronizing, don't you think? No, Jeff, her "Peter dear" was quite clearly a trisha patronizing. Your saying it was a tad patronizing was somewhat insulting, don't you think? --Starcap'n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^ ^---------------The Wrong Choice csnet, arpa: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu