kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/22/89)
I voted YES for both the "sci" and the "aquaria" part of the name. As for the name "rec.pets.fish", there's really no comparison between alt.aquaria and rec.pets. Fish are not pets, any more than a milk cow is a pet. There's no friendly interaction between owner and the fish. You don't teach fish to do tricks, or scratch their ears, or get them to fetch the newspaper. A lot of people have the notion that if you want to keep fish all you need is a glass bowl, some gravel out of the driveway in the backyard, some tap water, and some fish. Some may notice that thing that blows bubbles into the water, but nonetheless, if aquarists kept fish the way people keep pets, in a short time they'd have a lot of dead fish. I doubt if the SPCA would be interested in boarding unwanted or neglected fish. As for aquaria being a hobby, someone here already mentioned the irony of "If you keep fish then it's a hobby, if you don't keep fish then it's a science." Should sci.astro be under the "rec" hierarchy just because some of its readers have telescopes, cameras, filters and so forth? The Q&A and discussions in alt.aquaria are at least as science oriented as the groups currently under the sci hierarchy, more so than some of them. I wonder how many people who've been flaming here have actually read both rec.pets and alt.aquaria for any length of time. How many of you are going on heresay? (No, I don't want a show of hands.) If you've read both groups, I do not see how you could fail to see the difference. These are my opinions. kyle jones <kjones@talos.uu.net> ...!uunet!talos!kjones
bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (11/22/89)
Said kjones@talos.uu.net: (in article <1989Nov21.165220.16634@talos.uucp>) | |As for the name "rec.pets.fish", there's really no comparison between |alt.aquaria and rec.pets. Fish are not pets, any more than a milk cow |is a pet. [ etc. ] Sigh. Supposing we're arguing about the difference between rec.aquaria and rec.pets.aquaria, the reason for the latter rather than the former is that rec.pets is the most appropriate second-level hierarchy for an aquaria group inside the rec hierarchy. The idea is that we don't want boatloads of second-level hierarchies, for the same reason that we don't want boatloads of top-level hierarchies. Fish aren't pets, but they're close enough for Usenet naming purposes. If we're going to start ignoring the hierarchies entirely, then why don't we just have aquaria.beginners, aquaria.tech, etc., with Richard controlling the aquaria hierarchy? [ Note for the brain-dead: I am not even remotely suggesting this as a proposal. ] B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | "Ich bin ein Berliner!" -- President Kennedy, 1961 (alias B. Elmore) | "Tear down this wall!" -- President Reagan, 1987 bee@cs.purdue.edu | ..!purdue!bee | Berlin Wall RIP 1961-1989
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (11/23/89)
ARGH!!!
Shut up! ALL of you!
The vote has been completed. For better or worse, sci.aquaria *was* created.
It's DONE. Finished. Complete. Kaput. Over.
So can we finally STOP arguing about aquaria? If you want to yell at each
other while trying to sound important to the net, *generalize* the discussion.
Just stop beating a dead sea-horse.
I thank you, and Usenet thanks you.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
" -- they're normal. terrifyingly, appallingly normal -- like they've gone
through normal and come out the other side." - neil gaiman in _Sandman_ #11