dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (11/13/89)
It may be that Richard has done us a disservice by pushing the name
sci.aquaria against the will of those people who care about the
group name-space. A group for aquarium hobbiests is certainly
welcome on USENET, but, because of the name, it may not be generally
available.
Many people seem to be under the impression that this is a democracy --
it isn't -- USENET is an anarchy. No system administrator is constrained
in the least by the "will of the majority". The voting guidelines are
there to provide a method of suggesting popular groups to be voluntarily
carried by individual systems.
Unlike a true democracy, lobbying, ballet-box stuffing, and other political
actions don't matter, as the system administrators aren't sworn to abide
by the vote. When an attempt is made to force the creation of a group
with an inappropriate content (i.e. when someone tries to copyright
the material in the group, or make money on it), or an inappropriate
name (i.e. sci.aquaria), system administrators may simply choose not
to carry it.
This system won't be carrying sci.aquaria.
--
Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or-
| Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!davedianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) (11/13/89)
In article <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper (David Messer) writes: >It may be that Richard has done us a disservice by pushing the name >sci.aquaria against the will of those people who care about the >group name-space. As opposed to the will of the people who voted for it... >A group for aquarium hobbiests is certainly welcome on USENET, but, >because of the name, it may not be generally available. On the contrary, because of the name it will be more widely distributed than it was before, or than it would be under the rec hierarchy. Unless of course, you've got a total yo-yo for a system administrator. >Many people seem to be under the impression that this is a democracy -- >it isn't -- USENET is an anarchy. No system administrator is constrained >in the least by the "will of the majority". [...] When an attempt is made >to force the creation of a group with an [...] inappropriate name [^--at gunpoint? -- just curious] >(i.e. sci.aquaria), system administrators may simply choose not to carry it. > >This system won't be carrying sci.aquaria. Let me see if I've got this -- you'd carry rec.aquaria but not sci.aquaria, simply because you don't happen to like the name, yet it's Richard who's done a "disservice"? >Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- Indeed, indeed. Remember it well. Diane Holt (dianeh@binky.UUCP) "When the music's over, turn out the lights."
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/14/89)
In article <22209@gryphon.COM> dianeh@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: > In article <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper (David Messer) writes: > >It may be that Richard has done us a disservice by pushing the name > >sci.aquaria against the will of those people who care about the > >group name-space. > As opposed to the will of the people who voted for it... For the THOUSANDTH time, I'm sure. All together now: "They didn't vote for "sci.aquaria", they voted for ".aquaria"" Not to mention the fact that the people who care about the namespace are by and large the people who are making the system work... Let's dump this whole thing. I will hold a vote, using the approval system, for an aquarium group. During this vote, I will unsubscribe from news. groups. Let's find out what the *real* will of the people is, with no politicking and partisan bullshit. Of course Richard might choose to disrupt *this* poll, in which case I think we can assume that he doesn't care about the will of the people and we can discard both his poll and mine... and end up with rec.aquarium. The vote will be held from "aquarium@sugar.hackercorp.com". If there is no excessive flamage in the next week I'll send the call for votes something like next monday. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (11/14/89)
In article <22209@gryphon.COM> dianeh@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: #In article <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper (David Messer) writes: # #>A group for aquarium hobbiests is certainly welcome on USENET, but, #>because of the name, it may not be generally available. # #On the contrary, because of the name it will be more widely distributed #than it was before, or than it would be under the rec hierarchy. I find it interesting that the 4 articles that have arrived here so far for 'sci.aquaria' are all cross-posted to alt.aquaria. Could it be that the posters (including Richard, who sent one of them) have recognised that because of the controversy over the name, alt.a will continue to reach parts of the net that sci.a will not? Or could it be that 'pure' sci.aquaria postings do not even reach the UK, so I only see the cross-posted ones? Interesting either way; it implies that the net is driven not by the 'dictatorship of the majority' but by consensus arrived at by ballots with a clear majority -- arguably getting almost full agreement to what you want (which is what most successful new group proposals in effect do) is far *more* democratic than pushing your proposal through against strong dissent, getting it passed by (in this case) a fairly small majority, and then expecting everyone else to fall into line with it. [By the way, there will be no sci.aquaria at this site. My users won't loose out, as I'll alias any articles that arrive for it to alt.aquaria. I understand that a number of other admins are doing the same, including some major feeds.] -- Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in the Good Will of the Government and the Generosity of Civil Servants.
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (11/15/89)
In article <6951@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <22209@gryphon.COM> dianeh@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: >> In article <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper (David Messer) writes: >> >It may be that Richard has done us a disservice by pushing the name >> >sci.aquaria against the will of those people who care about the >> >group name-space. > >> As opposed to the will of the people who voted for it... > >For the THOUSANDTH time, I'm sure. All together now: > >"They didn't vote for "sci.aquaria", they voted for ".aquaria"" If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who state opinions with the weight of facts. You'r wrong, Peter. I, for one, didn't vote at all based on .aquaria; my vote was based on sci. I won't even read the new group. The point you keep overlooking is a simple one. Sci is more widely distributed than rec, misc, or alt. This was verified by my recent announcement that pure history discussions would no longer be welcome in sci.military, and should instead be posted to soc.misc. I got numerous letters of complaint from my readers, who were upset because their sites didn't carry the soc groups. Now, I understand why some sites don't want to carry these groups, and that's their business. But quite simply, any group in the sci heirarchy will get a larger audience than the same group in soc or rec or talk; and it will, therefore, be a *better* newsgroup. Richard, and the readers of .aquaria, had a very good, if selfish, reason to want their group in the sci. heirarchy. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com Free the Lagrange 5 !
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/15/89)
This posting is notworthy in two respects. First, it is my lat posting to news.* for a while. You people can whine all you want, I got my group and I intend to work very hard to make it a much of a success as alt.aquria was. Let me know if you people decide the net is about to die or something. Second, this is a flame. If you don't want to read it, this would be a good time to bail out. In article <6951@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter "duh" Silva) writes: > >For the THOUSANDTH time, I'm sure. All together now: > >"They didn't vote for "sci.aquaria", they voted for ".aquaria"" Wong, you pinheaded twit. You don't know. You can't prove it, you stated you OPINION once, it was ignored. Repetative attempts to restate your opinion in hopes it will osmose into a fact will be in vain. This is a fact, Peter, not an opinion. Here is another fact, Peter: you are wrong about the above statement. >Not to mention the fact that the people who care about the namespace >are by and large the people who are making the system work... Bwah ha ha ha. You unctuous windbag. Why don't you pompously storm out of here, anf you can set up your own net. The much vaulte "duh" hierarchy. Then you and Jeff can make run on jokes in duh.news.groups.according.to.peter all day long. You can declare what happend, who says what, what goes where. Think of it Peter. Isn't this what you want ? Doesn't this just sound fucking smashing ? >Let's dump this whole thing. Oh sure. Vote passes, groups is created, people post to it, but Peter doesnt like it, so lets rmgroup it so Peter can pick the name he likes. Makes sense to me. Take it to duh.news.admin, Peter. > I will hold a vote, using the approval system, >for an aquarium group. Sure, why not use unproven methods. Since your blatently violating every other rule, why not break one more. Better post your results to duh.rec.statistics though, so you have the obligitory 7 different interpretations of one set of data. > During this vote, I will unsubscribe from news. >groups. ``Peter with your brains so light, won't you leave this net tonight.'' >Let's find out what the *real* will of the people is, with no >politicking and partisan bullshit. Oh I see. Of course you don't mean ``lets get the answer *I* want, no, no, you want to get the REAL WILL OF THE PEOPLE, because god knows ONLY PETER DUH SILVA can do thet. He is after all, so objective about these things. And you'll consider this binding, will you ? If the will of the people is for you to kill yourself in a particularly messy and painful fashion, you will do it ? Take it to duh.suicide, Peter. >Of course Richard might choose to disrupt *this* poll, in which case I >think we can assume that he doesn't care about the will of the people >and we can discard both his poll and mine... and end up with rec.aquarium. .aquaria Will of the poeple, remember. Oops. Sorry. I forgot, thats not what you want, is it. Richard can be found in alt.flame, talk.bizarre, or one of the other technical groups. -- This article was made from the finest quality words and sentances. Minor imperfections in syntax, like the grain in fine leather, serve to enhance it's beauty. richard@gryphon.COM {routing site}!gryphon!richard
davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison) (11/15/89)
dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) writes: } On the contrary, because of the name [sci.aquaria] will be more widely } distributed than it was before, or than it would be under the rec hierarchy. With this sort of reasoning, we should move all of rec into sci so that we can slip something by those eeeevil sysadmins who have chosen to NOT carry the recreation-oriented netnews hierarchy. Really folks, TOPIC determines whether a newsgroup gets created in sci or rec, NOT distribution. If one (or more) rec group(s) are not getting the distribution that they deserve, then the proper thing to do is to ask the sites to voluntarily carry the group(s); or to set up your own feed from another source (like uunet) and distribute the group(s) yourself. Not to slip the group(s) into a more-widely distributed hierarchy. [Please note that this article is not passing judgment on whether sci.aquaria is indeed a science group -- that remains to be seen, since I don't get alt.] -- Wayne Davison \ /| / /| \/ /| /(_) davison@drivax.UUCP (_)/ |/ /\| / / |/ \ ...!amdahl!drivax!davison
rdouglas@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Douglas) (11/15/89)
>In article <22209@gryphon.COM> dianeh@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: >> In article <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper (David Messer) writes: >> >It may be that Richard has done us a disservice by pushing the name >> >sci.aquaria against the will of those people who care about the >> >group name-space. > >> As opposed to the will of the people who voted for it... > >For the THOUSANDTH time, I'm sure. All together now: > >"They didn't vote for "sci.aquaria", they voted for ".aquaria"" Are you sure? Not to start an argument, but who was the one who conducted the name survey while the discussion phase of sci.aquaria was under way? Maybe he'll post his results again, but of the people who responded the greatest percentage was for sci.aquaria. > >-- >`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. > 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. >"*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" > -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu >---------- Robert Douglas ------------------------------ rdouglas@hpda.HP.COM
sartin@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Rob Sartin) (11/15/89)
>Richard, and the readers of .aquaria, had a very good, if selfish, reason >to want their group in the sci. heirarchy. 1. Given the number of people who got all worked up over the arguments and the system administrators who have announced that they won't carry the group, I'm beginning to wonder if the propagation will be better. I suspect rec.aquaria might have had better propagation. 2. Wanting better propagation is not a valid reason for placing a group in a certain hierarchy. By this argument all groups should go under whatever top level gets the best propagation. Hopefully that is not what will happen. [Hit 'n' - or whatever - now to skip my rantings on hierarchies] An aside on hierarchies (general and news hierarchies in particular): The use of hierarchies to model various natural (and unnatural) structures seems prevalent. We find it in biology, library science, Unix file system, our educational system (Cornell, at least, has University->colleges->schools(departments)->specialties when you look at Engineering as the college, different hierarchies for different colleges), and the newsgroup structure among others. We also saw it (and thankfully discarded it) as a model for inheritance in C++. Hierarchies are often insufficient to model the structure of the information, but are attractive because of the simplifications they offer. We have seen, in the alt/sci/rec.aquaria events, that the notion of hierarchical structuring of newsgroups is arbitrary. Many groups out there could well be in multiple top level hierarchies (it's "a hobby that has a strong technical content" or "a science that happens to be my hobby" applies to many groups other than .aquaria). In some areas we see various modifications to systems to work around the fact that hierarchies don't model reality well. I don't know biology, but I do know that there are arguments and reclassifications continually occurring due to our forced notion of hierarchy. Library science (again, to the best of my understanding) sticks with a "major classification" and uses cross referencing and multiple listings extensively. The Unix filesystem has symbolic links and hard links. In school we had "multi-discipline" groups and design-it-yourself degrees. C++, in its evolution from 1.2 to 2.0, added multiple inheritance which (at least) made inheritance a DAG instead of a tree. The news software and users needs a method for jumping out of the system (of hierarchies) when it appears to be inadequate. Instead we have pointless flame wars. Rob Sartin internet: sartin@hplabs.hp.com Software Technology Lab uucp : hplabs!sartin Hewlett-Packard voice : (415) 857-7592
dsa@dlogics.UUCP (David Angulo) (11/15/89)
In article <6951@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <22209@gryphon.COM> dianeh@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: > > In article <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper (David Messer) writes: > > >It may be that Richard has done us a disservice by pushing the name > > >sci.aquaria against the will of those people who care about the > > >group name-space. > > > As opposed to the will of the people who voted for it... > > For the THOUSANDTH time, I'm sure. All together now: ^^^^^^^^ > "They didn't vote for "sci.aquaria", they voted for ".aquaria"" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Can you understand this Peter: "You're WRONG!" You don't have any idea why I voted the way I did. I know you can't read my mind - you have to have one of your own first. -- David S. Angulo (312) 266-3134 Datalogics Internet: dsa@dlogics.UUCP 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!dsa Chicago, Il. 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473
" Maynard) (11/15/89)
In article <11414@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >But quite simply, any group in the sci >heirarchy will get a larger audience than the same group in soc or >rec or talk; That's correct. Many siteadmins take sci.all because they believe that "discussions relating to the established sciences" are a Good Thing to have on their system. >and it will, therefore, be a *better* newsgroup. BZZT! Larger audience doesn't imply better. By your argument, we should immediately rename soc.* to sci.* so we can improve an obvious cesspool. (Not my opinion.) Also, talk.bizarre must be a better newsgroup than, say, sci.military because the audience is bigger. >Richard, and the readers of .aquaria, had a very good, if selfish, reason >to want their group in the sci. heirarchy. The reason was selfish and fraudulent: hardly qualifies as good. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? - Brandon Allbery
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (11/15/89)
In article <2403@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >#On the contrary, because of the name it will be more widely distributed >#than it was before, or than it would be under the rec hierarchy. >[By the way, there will be no sci.aquaria at this site. My users won't >loose out, as I'll alias any articles that arrive for it to alt.aquaria. That will happen at this site as well (trivial to do with Cnews aliasing mechanisms). I am encouraging other sites to do likewise. Interesting how, with so many sites refusing to take/pass sci.aquaria, the net result of the flamefest may be that *fewer* site will get it than would have carried a non-controversial rec.aquaria. -- Men. They can put one on the moon. | Evan Leibovitch, Telly Computing, Why can't they put 'em all there? | located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario - CBC's "Street Legal" | evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/15/89)
In article <11414@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: > You'r wrong, Peter. I, for one, didn't vote at all based on .aquaria; > my vote was based on sci. I won't even read the new group. One vote. When another 400 folks come up and say the same thing that'll mean something. > The point you keep overlooking is a simple one. Sci is more widely > distributed than rec, misc, or alt. I'm not overlooking it. There is a good reason: most of the "sci" groups are more closely related to the things that make money for the people paying for the newsfeeds. Comp has an even higher distribution, which makes sense: this is a computer network. So your argument comes down to, to me, an assertion that one should support sci.aquaria so people who keep fish should be able to steal bandwidth. You should hope I'd overlook an argument like that. > Now, I understand why some sites don't want to carry these groups, > and that's their business. But quite simply, any group in the sci > heirarchy will get a larger audience than the same group in soc or > rec or talk Like I said. At least until people stop taking "sci" as it gets filled with more and more fishy groups. > Richard, and the readers of .aquaria, had a very good, if selfish, reason > to want their group in the sci. heirarchy. I have said this was the only reason for putting it in "sci". Sounds like a good time for a global rmgroup and a new vote... run by someone with better ethics. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/15/89)
In article <245@dlogics.UUCP> dsa@dlogics.UUCP (David Angulo) writes: > Can you understand this Peter: "You're WRONG!" That's two. Four hundred and sixty three to go. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) (11/16/89)
In <256079A9.3D19@drivax.UUCP> davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison) writes: >dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) writes: >} On the contrary, because of the name [sci.aquaria] will be more widely >} distributed than it was before, or than it would be under the rec hierarchy. > >With this sort of reasoning, we should move all of rec into sci so that we >can slip something by those eeeevil sysadmins who have chosen to NOT carry >the recreation-oriented netnews hierarchy. It wasn't a "sort of reasoning" to get past "eeeevil sysadmins"; it was a counter to this: In article <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper (David Messer) writes: A group for aquarium hobbiests is certainly welcome on USENET, but, because of the name, it may not be generally available. Get it? -- "...but, because of the name, it may not be generally available." The statement made no sense; therefore, it was countered. Geez, isn't there any discussion-oriented group on the Net that has people who keep track of what's been said? Diane Holt (dianeh@binky.UUCP) "<urp>"
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/16/89)
In <22279@gryphon.COM> dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) writes:
Diane> Get it? -- "...but, because of the name, it may not be
Diane> generally available."
Diane> The statement made no sense; therefore, it was countered.
The statement makes fine sense for anyone who has been paying
attention. Many site admins have reported that they will not be
carrying the group. How could anyone see all of these people coming
out to say that the group will not exist at their site yet still
believe it would be as widely distributed as most other groups in the
Big Seven?
Diane> Geez, isn't there any discussion-oriented group on the Net that
Diane> has people who keep track of what's been said?
Oh, like you are?
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))jbaltz@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) (11/16/89)
In article <11414@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: > >Now, I understand why some sites don't want to carry these groups, >and that's their business. But quite simply, any group in the sci >heirarchy will get a larger audience than the same group in soc or >rec or talk; and it will, therefore, be a *better* newsgroup. Huh? I don't exactly follow that argument, that a larger readership makes for a better newsgroup. soc.culture.esperanto is probably one of the best groups that I read, it doesn't have the readership of rec.humor... >Richard, and the readers of .aquaria, had a very good, if selfish, reason >to want their group in the sci. heirarchy. Right. They wanted to defraud everyone by forcing into sci.* a group that probably belongs in rec.* Look at what you said. They made it sci.aquaria only for the distribution, not that it belonged there. OK, so maybe I'm a Namespace Fascist (to quote Richard's response to my "no" vote...) but it should be rec.aquaria.... > >- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - >Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com > Free the Lagrange 5 ! DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. Columbia is them. This is me. //jbaltz jerry b. altzman "We've got to get in to get out" 212 854 3538 jbaltz@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!jbaltz (bang!) NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)
dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) (11/16/89)
In <1989Nov15.224305.6345@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >In <22279@gryphon.COM> dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) writes: >> Get it? -- "...but, because of the name, it may not be generally available." >> >> The statement made no sense; therefore, it was countered. > >The statement makes fine sense for anyone who has been paying >attention. Many site admins have reported that they will not be >carrying the group. How could anyone see all of these people coming >out to say that the group will not exist at their site yet still >believe it would be as widely distributed as most other groups in the >Big Seven? "Many site admins"? "All of these people"? Yeah, like what? -- 4, 5, maybe 6 or so?... Do you understand the difference between the word "generally" and the word "specifically"? Like, do you understand that generally you're not too bright, but specifically, you're a yutz? >> Geez, isn't there any discussion-oriented group on the Net that >> has people who keep track of what's been said? > >Oh, like you are? Yes. Exactly. (And who told you to put those stupid name things in front of the quoted lines of text? I hate that shit. That's why I edited them out. Don't do that anymore. I mean it.) Diane Holt (dianeh@binky.UUCP) "'Big Seven' *this*, pal."
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (11/16/89)
In article <9660002@hpcuhb.HP.COM> rdouglas@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Douglas) writes: Peter said: >>"They didn't vote for "sci.aquaria", they voted for ".aquaria"" > >Are you sure? Not to start an argument, but who was the one who conducted >the name survey while the discussion phase of sci.aquaria was under way? >Maybe he'll post his results again, but of the people who responded the >greatest percentage was for sci.aquaria. There was one problem with the name vote that was taken. It was *not* a vote of rec. vs. sci. There was one sci. choice, sci.aquaria. There were several rec. choices, rec.aquaria, rec.pets.aquaria, rec.aquarium, etc. A better indicator of where people wanted the group would have been a simple rec. vs. sci. vote, but, alas, that didn't happen. -- Geoff Allen \ Driggs, Idaho -- cultural hub of the west! {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \ (Tom Harper in rec.skiing)
karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/17/89)
dianeh@gryphon.COM writes:
"Many site admins"? "All of these people"? Yeah, like what? -- 4, 5,
maybe 6 or so?...
You might try asking around before flaming. When I sent mail to (what
was once) the backbone admins the other day to ask who was and wasn't
carrying sci.aquaria, responses showed sci.aquaria losing 9:5.
The tendency appears to be to alias sci.aquaria -> alt.aquaria.
--Karlallbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/17/89)
As quoted from <9660002@hpcuhb.HP.COM> by rdouglas@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Douglas): +--------------- | >"They didn't vote for "sci.aquaria", they voted for ".aquaria"" | | Are you sure? Not to start an argument, but who was the one who conducted | the name survey while the discussion phase of sci.aquaria was under way? | Maybe he'll post his results again, but of the people who responded the | greatest percentage was for sci.aquaria. +--------------- Yeah. All eleven or so of them. (I don't remember the actual number, but it was less than twenty.) Hold the survey in news.groups next time, and get a *real* survey. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
bnews@nixpbe.UUCP (Martin Boening) (11/17/89)
dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) writes: >As opposed to the will of the people who voted for it... Why would they not have voted for a rec.aquaria group, eh? Why must it be a 'sci.' group? >On the contrary, because of the name it will be more widely distributed >than it was before, or than it would be under the rec hierarchy. >Unless of course, you've got a total yo-yo for a system administrator. On the contrary sci.aquaria will probably NOT be as widely distributed as you think because of so many administrators you choose to call yo-yos. The name sci.aquaria is badly chosen, and that's it. Distribution is no argument. If you want REAL distribution, why not make it comp.aquaria or better yet news.aquaria (since every news site is supposed to distribute news stuff and also carry it.) Sounds stupid but essentially it's the same argument. >Let me see if I've got this -- you'd carry rec.aquaria but not sci.aquaria, >simply because you don't happen to like the name, yet it's Richard who's done >a "disservice"? The disservice Richard has done to USENET is not that he wanted and pushed a group for fish keeping! The disservice is that it is in the WRONG TOP LEVEL GROUP. If people don't carry recreational stuff, why should they continue to carry sci stuff now that it's become a mere extension of the rec stuff (or rather, threatens to do so). Think about it. This might very well impair the distribution of sci groups, includeing those that REALLY have to do with some science (physics, math, etc.) >Diane Holt >(dianeh@binky.UUCP) Martin Boening -- Martin Boening, c/o Nixdorf Computer AG, DS-CC2, Paderborn, West-Germany Email: | Phone: (+49) 5251 146155 USA: uunet!linus!nixbur!mboening.pad | Fax : (+49) 5251 146108 !USA: mcvax!unido!nixpbe!mboening.pad |
davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison) (11/18/89)
dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) writes: >In <256079A9.3D19@drivax.UUCP> davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison) writes: >>With this sort of reasoning, we should move all of rec into sci so that we >>can slip something by those eeeevil sysadmins who have chosen to NOT carry >>the recreation-oriented netnews hierarchy. >It wasn't a "sort of reasoning" to get past "eeeevil sysadmins"; it was a >counter to [...] "because of the name, it may not be generally available." >The statement made no sense; therefore, it was countered. >Geez, isn't there any discussion-oriented group on the Net that has people who >keep track of what's been said? First off, I know full well what has been said. Some people were complaining that a rec group would not get as much distribution as they desired, especially in Britain. Did you ever stop to wonder WHY? Do you think that this was some sort of an error? A glitch to be worked-around by simply throwing the group into sci because it is better distributed? It just so happens that someone has to PAY for the phone calls that make usenet possible, and if these people choose not to carry rec, they do so (in many cases) because they don't want to pay for it. Especially in Britain where a trans-Atlantic call costs big bucks. So when someone decides to place a recreation newsgroup in the sci hierarchy, you are forcing sysadmins that do not wish to transfer recreational material to take extra steps to implement the policy they had already put in place. Since some of them won't know or won't bother, you have "slipped something by" them. They are now paying to transfer your recreational material when what SHOULD have happened is that the people who want a rec group should setup an additional feed for whatever groups their neighbors don't carry. Maybe even <horrors>, PAY to call uunet themselves. -- Wayne Davison \ /| / /| \/ /| /(_) davison@drivax.UUCP (_)/ |/ /\| / / |/ \ ...!amdahl!drivax!davison
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/19/89)
The problem is that the top-level hierarchies, which supposed to be topic categories, were actually created mostly to be distribution hiearchies. And while I have said all along that the problems we are having stem from people trying to treat the hiearchies as distributions, perhaps I have been wrong. Perhaps the problems stem from people try to treat them as topics. (An honest mistake, given their names.) More correctly, problems come when we treat them as both. But think about it, what kind of "topic" is "talk?" It's a pure distribution, not a topic at all. We should go to one of two extremes. On one end, we could create true distribution categories, from 'high' to 'low' or even 'comp', 'biz-tech', 'rec-tech', 'rec', 'talk' (reflecting, in part, the type of sites on the net.) On the other end we could decide to remove distribution from the names completely, unless it is desired by the readers and creator of the group. (As is the case with a local group like usa.politics) -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (11/19/89)
In article <25652331.6441@drivax.UUCP> davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison) writes:
#First off, I know full well what has been said. Some people were complaining
#that a rec group would not get as much distribution as they desired, especially
#in Britain.
Just in case anyone is *still* unaware of the situation in the UK: all alt
and rec groups are available here. We've been getting alt.aquaria since
early September (before the vote on sci.aquaria started). However, as
far as I can tell from looking at our news logs, we do NOT get sci.aquaria
here, except for articles cross-posted to alt.aquaria.
We even get the *talk* groups now for goodness sake! Everything, in fact,
except sci.aquaria. (Which is just as it should be in my opinion).
Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in
the Good Will of the Government and the Generosity of Civil Servants.peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/20/89)
> The news software and users needs a method for jumping out of the system > (of hierarchies) when it appears to be inadequate. We do. It's called "crossposting". You have a technical question for rec.aquaria? Crosspost to sci.misc, sci.bio, or maybe even comp.realtime. > Instead we have pointless flame wars. Yeh, we have them anyway. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (11/20/89)
In article <3043@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >In article <11414@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >>But quite simply, any group in the sci >>heirarchy will get a larger audience than the same group in soc or >>rec or talk; and it will, therefore, be a *better* newsgroup. > >BZZT! What is this, Wheel of Flatulance ? >Larger audience doesn't imply better. It does, at least in a group that operates in an adult fashion. It gives you that much better chance of having a reader able to answer some knotty question, or give a novel insight into some problem. On sci.military, for example, we get frequent contributions from European readers, who add much value to the newsgroup. It's simply fact that sci.military would not be as good a newsgroup were it in the rec or soc heirarchy. Obviously, that's not the only consideration. Too large of audiences have been detrimental to groups such as rec.humor and comp.sys.amiga, at least for my taste. So my generalization was too broad; I should say that *some* groups will be better in sci rather than rec, because of increased readership. I would, though, consider sci.aquaria to be such a group. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com Free the Lagrange 5 !
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (11/20/89)
In article <6976@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <11414@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >> You'r wrong, Peter. I, for one, didn't vote at all based on .aquaria; >> my vote was based on sci. I won't even read the new group. > >One vote. When another 400 folks come up and say the same thing that'll >mean something. I'm sure Richard can arrange that, if you really want to subject yourself to it. >So your argument comes down to, to me, an assertion that one should >support sci.aquaria so people who keep fish should be able to steal >bandwidth. You should hope I'd overlook an argument like that. Not exactly. Rather, that people have an interest in putting their groups in heirarchies where they don't belong. For the readers of alt.aquaria, a move to sci.aquaria would be better than one to rec.aquaria. It was in their best interest to approve of this move. Peter's insistance that the proposal of sci.aquaria was some twisted, evil machination of Richard Sexton, without the support of the readers, is pure fantasy. I'm attempting to point out the the readers had plentiful reason to support sci, rather than rec. - - - - - - - - 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
sartin@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Rob Sartin) (11/21/89)
In article <7052@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> The news software and users needs a method for jumping out of the system >> (of hierarchies) when it appears to be inadequate. >We do. >It's called "crossposting". I don't think crossposting solves the problem. Ibelieve there are two reasons: 1) Crossposting does not address the problem of *group* classification, it only solves article classification. The hierarchy that I was talking about is the one that names groups. 2) Articles get posted to the wrong groups because crossposting is too easy to do, but too hard to do correctly. >You have a technical question for rec.aquaria? Crosspost to sci.misc, sci.bio, >or maybe even comp.realtime. Nah, I'd just post it to rec.aquaria where I think it belongs. Unfortunately, rec.aquaria never got created and because my hypothetical question about my nonexistant aquarium is about my hobby, I never even thought to look under sci. ---- I was in the Sunnyvale public library yesterday and (for reasons that would befuddle most people) found a copy of one of the Yourdon books on Structured Analysis and Design surrounded by books on women managers and how to manage. There were no other technical books nearby. I guess everyone does have trouble classifying things. Rob >"vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." > -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu) (Gosh, that's strange. I couldn't get emacs to work when my spider plant got dumped on my keyboard in the earthquake. Should I switch editors?:-)
" Maynard) (11/21/89)
In article <11565@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: (re increased distribution means better group:) >It does, at least in a group that operates in an adult fashion. [...] >Obviously, that's not the only consideration. Too large of audiences have >been detrimental to groups such as rec.humor and comp.sys.amiga, at >least for my taste. So my generalization was too broad; I should say that >*some* groups will be better in sci rather than rec, because of increased >readership. I would, though, consider sci.aquaria to be such a group. OK, that version of the assertion I'll buy. Sci.aquaria, however, is not an example of the above: Richard Sexton has now admitted, in an article in alt.config, that sci.aquaria has *worse* distribution than alt.aquaria. This, I feel, is a direct consequence of the placement of the group in sci.*. (Side note: Richard called it "subversion". To me, this is only subversion if you also admit that placing it in sci in the first place is subversion: subversion begets subversion.) The only groups that would be better in sci rather than rec are - surprise! - those dealing with the established sciences. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? - Brandon Allbery
pett@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) (11/22/89)
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >Now, I understand why some sites don't want to carry these groups, >and that's their business. But quite simply, any group in the sci >heirarchy will get a larger audience than the same group in soc or >rec or talk; and it will, therefore, be a *better* newsgroup. Look, the sci hierarchy is not the rec hierarchy. Sites that do not want to receive the rec hierarchy do not want to receive sci groups that properly should be rec groups. If pollution of the sci hierarchy with groups that have little scientific content continues, sites who *must* restrict newsgroup reception due to limited resources will have to drop the sci hierarchy. I do not believe for a second that sci.aquaria will not be largely hobbyist oriented. So people want sci.aquaria to go to Europe. Why do you think Europe *doesn't* want to get the rec hierarchy? Because they don't want to foot a Trans-Atlantic phone bill for recreation-oriented discussions. "So let's end-around that policy by hiding these rec groups in the sci hierarchy." This attitude is a crock of shit that undermines the entire rationale for the hierarchy naming scheme reorganization (mod/net -> comp/sci/talk/rec/news), which was done to ease restriction on unwanted news flow. Naming the group sci.aquaria *will* give it a larger distribution, until people start dropping the sci [hidden rec] hierarchy. Eric Pettersen pett@cgl.ucsf.edu ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!pett
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (11/22/89)
pett@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > So people want sci.aquaria to go to Europe. Why do you think Europe > *doesn't* want to get the rec hierarchy? Because they don't want to foot a > Trans-Atlantic phone bill for recreation-oriented discussions. That's the second time this morning I've seen someone take Bill Thacker's word for that. He's wrong. *** EUROPE NOW GETS A COMPLETE FEED OF ALL "rec" GROUPS *** And it had done for weeks before all this fish twaddle got started. -- Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6044 wk 041 556 1878 ho INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
richardb@fear+loathing.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (11/22/89)
In article <11566@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: +In article <6976@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: +>In article <11414@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: +>> You'r wrong, Peter. I, for one, didn't vote at all based on .aquaria; +>> my vote was based on sci. I won't even read the new group. +> [stuff deleted] + +Not exactly. Rather, that people have an interest in putting their groups +in heirarchies where they don't belong. For the readers of alt.aquaria, +a move to sci.aquaria would be better than one to rec.aquaria. It was in +their best interest to approve of this move. This is of course false. It was a question of egos. +- - - - - - - - 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 -- Help wipe out sci.fraud in your lifetime. Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (11/23/89)
In article <11566@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >In article <6976@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >>So your argument comes down to, to me, an assertion that one should >>support sci.aquaria so people who keep fish should be able to steal >>bandwidth. You should hope I'd overlook an argument like that. > >Not exactly. Rather, that people have an interest in putting their groups >in heirarchies where they don't belong. For the readers of alt.aquaria, >a move to sci.aquaria would be better than one to rec.aquaria. It was in >their best interest to approve of this move. > >Peter's insistance that the proposal of sci.aquaria was some twisted, >evil machination of Richard Sexton, without the support of the readers, >is pure fantasy. I'm attempting to point out the the readers had plentiful >reason to support sci, rather than rec. It doesn't much matter whether it was an evil twisted plot of Richard's alone (and the aquariites were too unconcerned to fight it), or whether a large number of the people interested in aquaria choose (in your words) "to put their group in a hierarchy where it didn't belong". The result is the same: sci.aquaria has been chosen as its name in an attempt to fraudulently increase its distribution. Presumably some system administrators used to say "we take sci and selected or no portions of rec". (i.e. The ones who cause sci to have wider distribution than rec.) The fact that some of these now say "we take sci, except sci.aquaria, and selected portions of rec" shows that the fraud has to some extent failed. These sites were not thoughtlessly trying to make rec a backwater with bad distribution, but made a decision that the sci groups were not worth individually pruning while the rec groups were, now they have decided to apply individual pruning choices to sci as well. Quite possibly, one unanticipated result of this whole affair has been that some *other* sci groups have lost a small amount of their distribution - I would expect that there are probably a few (but not many) system admins who have decided that if they had to tune the aquaria entry for their sci feed anyhow it was about time that they got around to killing some of the other sci groups that they had never bothed to get rid of before. -- 80386 - hardware demonstrating the fractal nature of warts. | John Macdonald EMS/LIM - software demonstrating the fractal nature of warts. | jmm@eci386