bbc@nysa.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (12/15/89)
[Note the lack of cross-post to *.aquaria, etc. Note the presence of "aquaria" in the "Subject:" field. If you don't like this thread, don't whine to me or the net, but rather blame yourself for not editing your kill file two months ago.] Okay, I was sooooo patient. Peter is done collecting his "data". Now that there is no fish vote in progress, and apparently no pending action resulting from Peter's name survey... Would some patient, thick-skinned, even-handed soul please run a terse discussion (Oxymoron Alert, duck and cover...) and non-controversial vote (OA., ...) on the creation of an additional newsgroup, called rec.aquaria, for the discussion of the recreational aspects of keeping aquaria? (No, Oleg, not you. Your exceptionally thick skin doesn't make up for your uneven hands. And I don't think anyone else at Gryphon need apply for this dangerous job. The fish-haters think you're all RJS clones. :-) Alien Wells tendered a feeler on this some weeks back. Perhaps he would be willing to brave the slings and arrows? My eventual hope is that rec.aquaria be created. Then after the dust settles (eg. 2-3 months after creation, when cross-posting between the old and new groups falls), a vote of either confidence or removal should be held on sci.aquaria. This vote would be intented to convince news managers to alter the propagation of that group in one manner or another, either removing hindrances and renamings, or flushing it wholesale. As it stands now, sci.aquaria is the thalidomide baby of the newsgroup hierarchy. Something should be done, one way or the other. If in the end sci.aquaria is removed, and nothing created to satisfy its charter (scientific or technical discussion of maintaining aquaria?), then I plan on being disappointed. If sci.aquaria does go away, perhaps alt.aquaria will still be around, and can be retreaded to serve the diabolical purposes of "aquarium science". And now, a (schizophrenic?) Q&A session: Why another fish group? I believe the need exists. I believe the support exists. Why rec.aquaria? Peter's poll showed support for this name. Why not just rename sci.aquaria to be rec.aquaria? All things in good time. If rec.aquaria becomes the roaring success that everyone claims, and sci.aquaria languishes, then later we can hold a vote to remove sci.aquaria. Thus the renaming is accomplished. I feel that creating rec.aquaria first, and then seeing what happens, is the simplest course. Yes, my solution takes more time. I haven't noticed any shortage of time. I have observed far too many flames. I feel my plan avoids those. Why do anything? As I see it now, the distribution of sci.aquaria is flawed, because of the anarchy and rebellion caused by the name controversy. Also, alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria currently overlap rather than complement each other. As evidence, I point to the number of crossposts between these two groups. [End of meta-meta discussion] Yes, if someone else hasn't done this by January SomethingOrOther, then I'll take it up myself, unless someone convinces me that it's a bad idea. I think Greg W. could convince me. Peter da Silva or Jeff D., no chance. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas (First one up against the wall when the fish police arrived.)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/15/89)
In article <BBC.89Dec14164631@nysa.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: > Why another fish group? I believe the need exists. I believe the > support exists. Agreed. I'm not a "fish hater". And I don't see the need for another vote. The poll I held satisfies all the requirements of a vote save the discussion period... and I hardly think there's any shortage of that. > Why rec.aquaria? Peter's poll showed support for this name. It certainly did. > Why not just rename sci.aquaria to be rec.aquaria? Renaming groups doesn't work very well. > Why do anything? As I see it now, the distribution of sci.aquaria is > flawed, because of the anarchy and rebellion caused by the name > controversy. Also, alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria currently overlap > rather than complement each other. As evidence, I point to the number > of crossposts between these two groups. That's the purpose of my poll. To settle the question of which name was preferred. For some reason, a large number of people seemed to think that Richard's vote results meant that sci.aquaria was the preferred name. > Yes, if someone else hasn't done this by January SomethingOrOther, > then I'll take it up myself, unless someone convinces me that it's a > bad idea. I think Greg W. could convince me. Peter da Silva or Jeff > D., no chance. Go ahead and run a vote. But I don't see why it's needed. My poll is at least as valid as Richard's, and shows overwhelming support for the creation of rec.aquaria. At this point I could care less what happens to sci.aquaria. -- `-_-' 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
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (12/18/89)
In article <7316@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Go ahead and run a vote. But I don't see why it's needed. My poll is at >least as valid as Richard's, and shows overwhelming support for the >creation of rec.aquaria. At this point I could care less what happens >to sci.aquaria. So, where is rec.aquaria? Get it created and Ben and I will crawl into the rec.aquaria hole and not bother news.groups about fish again. If it doesn't get created, then yet another vote will have to be held to make it happen and I won't be able to unsubscribe to news.groups ... -- --------| 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