richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/06/89)
In article <2768@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >What we should do is create a new hierarchy under sci. For instance >we could have sci.rec.all, sci.misc.all, sci.soc.all, sci.talk.all, and >sci.comp.all. The we could have sci.rec.aquaria and sci.talk.sceptic. >Of course we would reserve sci.sci.all for the 'real' sciences. The real sciences. That would be, no doubt, sci.bio, sci.math, and sci.physics. Now, I've don't read .math or .physics, but I've tried reading sco.bio. Lets not kid ourselves. There arnt a bunch of Linus Paulings running around posting there, there are just a bunch of programmers killing time. It's not a very technical group. It is named sci.bio, because *in theory* biology is a scince. In reality, if you were to name the group based on the the content it should probably be called talk.philosophy.guesses.bio. Sci.physics seeme to be more technical - but then I don't know anything about physics. So what about the applied sciences: sci.electronics sci.space sci.space.shuttle sci.philosophy.tech sci.physics.fusion sci.energy sci.aeronautics sci.skeptic sci.econ sci.military. There's no great deal of hard science here. Certainly no more or less than in alt.aquaria on a good day. I made a comment a day os so ago along the lines that sci.space was probably more of a hobby group; how many posters hade really gone into space. I got a nice letter from a test pilot at NASA Ames saying that she had indeed gone into space, and no she didnt read those groups (.space and .aeronautics) because they were hobbyists with not much knowledge of the technical aspects of what she did. Somebody had mentioned that if it is a hobby it belongs in rec. What about the seemingly endless proliferation of comp.sys.home.micro groups ? Those are certainly hobbies, for the most part. The namespace rules are not perfectly well formed, nor are they hard and fast. Chuq has pointed out that sci groups get a slightly better distribution. This is parhaps true, but we have comp.society.women; the world, and the NET did not cease to exist. Somebody mentioned that they would feel embarassed asking why their gouramis are sick in a sci group. This is silly. You would'nt feel embarassed asking a vet for help for your sick dog just because the vet was a man of science ? In a sense, it somebody is slightly intimidated by the fact they are posting to a sci group, this works for us. I feel they will make that much more of an effort formulating their post, and may perhaps send mail to a high profile poster instead, all to the betterment of the group in particular and the net at large. Back two years ago, the conventional wisdom on the net was that there was no need for a tropical fish group. A mailing list should be used, or rec pets could be used. There was no demonstrable traffic. I lobbied for an aquarium group, and proved this wrong. A year ago, I called for a fonts group, and anybody who was anybody on the net said it was a bad idea and would vote against it. I held the vote, and the fonts group passed, and is also a success. I feel I have worked very hard to help make alt.aquaria the success it is. It has been used as an example of an alt group that works. It is consistantly of high calibre, filled with people who have a firm foundation in the sciences as they apply to aquaria. I feel the sci.aquaria will meet with the same sort of success. I care about the net a great deal. I care about the aquarium hobby a great deal. I want the best for both, and will do nothing to hurt either. Have some faith when I tell you sci.aquaria is the right thing. -- Live free or drive richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
richardb@cognos.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (12/13/89)
Well, that does it.... I just discovered sci.econ (economics) as a news group. If we can have that without the net bitching and ranting, then I think we should all accept the presence of sci.aquaria. -- .sig in the shop Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb