chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/27/89)
Richard asked me the following question last night: ]And show me the ``rule'' (your words) I broke, Chuq. To which I replied: -- begin excerpt -- Rule breaking: >1) A call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted > to news.announce.newgroups, and also to any other groups or mailing lists > at all related to the proposed topic if desired. You posted to news.groups, not news.announce.newgroups. It was later transferred, but that's against protocol. You also neglected to include rec.pets, even though there was a significant overlap of interest there because of the naming. >3) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated > or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s) will be) should be > determined during the discussion period. If there is no general agreement > on these points among the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days > of discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail instead of > news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the details among themselves. > Once that is done, a new, more specific proposal may be made, going back > to step 1) above. There is *no* way you can argue that there is general agreement in the naming. But it wasn't taken offline, it wasn't ironed out or negotiated, and it wasn't held up until it was resolved. You bulled it through anyway. If *I* were Greg, I would have rejected the call for votes on this point. You also tried to define the group as 'semi-moderated' which isn't an acceptable form of newgroup. Effectively, it's unmoderated, exept that you promise to keep an eye on it and cry home to mommy if people don't do it your way -- which, once the group is created, means absolutely nothing. >1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is > really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, A good argument can be made that the charter wasn't agreed upon, since you can't agree on a charter for a group that has no agreed upon name. >3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote, > provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for > casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat > of the call for votes on the SAME proposal (see #5 below). You have been politicking this vote mercilessly since the announcement, which is in violation of this rule. Two serious violations and one trivial one. We'll see what else comes up later in the voting. But you're in obivous violation of the letter, not to mention the spirit, of the rules. -- End of excerpt -- I want to thank Richard for bringing this to mind, because it wasn't until he asked me that I sat down and thought about it. There are multiple rule violations in the sci.aquaria voting. The major one is that the voting was started even though there is clearly *no* consensus on the name. That's a specific requirement of the rules, and Richard is ignoring it. The second major violation bothers me even more -- I've had some people write and tell me that they've been asked to vote *for* sci.aquaria, even though they aren't interested one way or another. Richard continues to actively politick the voting in news.groups and elsewhere, even though the rules state that this isn't to be done (example: "A bunch of things" posted the other night. One can argue that he's simply continuing to argue his position in the debate over the group and the name, but that simply returns to the point that the name was never made a consensus, and therefore the vote call was incorrect there. My position on this, then, is simple. I wish to see the sci.aquaria vote declared invalid for rule infractions. It's obvious that this whole thing is a politicking sham, that the rules are being used when convenient and ignored when not, and that the spirit of the rules are being demolished at the same time the letter of the rules is being ignored. I've asked Greg to invalidate the vote for these reasons. Whether he does or not I don't know. My suggestion is the following: o the current sci.aquaria vote is thrown out completely. o a vote to create a naming consensus is run for a period of ten days by a party to be appointed by Greg and to exclude anyone screaming loudly on either side (specifically myself and Richard -- and anyone else Greg feels is too deeply involved). o Once that is done, a normal, 21 day vote on the group is run for the consensus group, again by an appointed party. My sources, by the way, currently show that the voting is running about 270 Yes to 200 No (or some such -- it's about 70 positive; not currently enough to succeed -- and with an exceptionally large NO contingent). I've also been told that Richard is pushing to get yes votes -- so I hereby wish to request that everyone who thinks this situation is out of control but hasn't voted yet to please send in a "no" vote, so if Greg doesn't rule the vote invalid we can still keep from creating sci.aquaria until we figure out what the right thing really is. Please send richard a no vote if you haven't already. Normally I wouldn't do this, but I feel it's only fair considering the kind of flogging for votes Richard's been doing. The addresses, if you need them, are: richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV I should *also* point out that I have notified both Richard and Greg of my intention to challenge and verify the voting should sci.aquaria succeed. I've heard enough rumors of questionable votes that I feel it has to be checked out. Note that I am *not* accusing Richard of vote fraud -- just that there are enough rumors that I want to make sure. And I'm making sure that Richard has enough notice of this that he can be sure that no vote fraud of any kind occurs. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/27/89)
In article <35951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Rule breaking: > >You posted to news.groups, not news.announce.newgroups. It was later >transferred, but that's against protocol. You also neglected to include >rec.pets, even though there was a significant overlap of interest there >because of the naming. What ? What has the name sci.aquaria have to do with rec.pets ? Further, how can you expect all "significant" groups to be included in the crosspost ? Will a call for votes for talk.styrofoam be invalidated if the vote taker forgets to crosspost to, say, comp.misc, where they sometimes complain about poorly-packaged computer equipment ? Clearly, this can't be considered a violation. >>3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote, >> provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for >> casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat >> of the call for votes on the SAME proposal (see #5 below). > >You have been politicking this vote mercilessly since the announcement, >which is in violation of this rule. This is meaningless. I don't recall the guidelines stating that discussion must stop when voting starts; certainly, this is not the case for a large number of groups. The above quote only specifies that the *calls for votes* themselves should be limited. >One can argue that he's simply continuing to argue his >position in the debate over the group and the name, but that simply returns >to the point that the name was never made a consensus, and therefore the >vote call was incorrect there. If you intend to hold this as a requirement, no controversial group can ever be created. A dozen people can continually attack the group during the vote, and if the vote-taker responds, poof. It's a little like penalizing the visiting team for excessive crowd noise. >My position on this, then, is simple. I wish to see the sci.aquaria vote >declared invalid for rule infractions. It's obvious that this whole thing >is a politicking sham, that the rules are being used when convenient and >ignored when not, and that the spirit of the rules are being demolished at >the same time the letter of the rules is being ignored. Bah. Why do you care if the vote is invalidated or not ? Consider the possibilities: 1) the vote fails. If you declare it invalid, Richard would theoretically be free to immediately call for another vote, rather than having to wait 6 months. 2) the vote passes. Why do you care if other people consider the vote valid or not ? You still have the option to not carry the group on *you* machine. >I've asked Greg to invalidate the vote for these reasons. Whether he does >or not I don't know. My suggestion is the following: > >o the current sci.aquaria vote is thrown out completely. >o a vote to create a naming consensus is run for a period of ten days by > a party to be appointed by Greg and to exclude anyone screaming loudly on > either side (specifically myself and Richard -- and anyone else Greg > feels is too deeply involved). >o Once that is done, a normal, 21 day vote on the group is run for the > consensus group, again by an appointed party. Again, bah. Who died and left Greg in charge ? From what I've seen, he's no more qualified than you or Richard to remain impartial in this matter. If you want an impartial arbitrator, I suggest grep'ing a random Portal user. Further, I object because your proposal would stretch this thing out for another month or more. Finally, a vote cannot create a naming *consensus*; it can only determine majority view. Those who want a different name than that winning the vote will still press for it. And what if sci.aquaria wins that vote ? >My sources, by the way, currently show that the voting is running about 270 >Yes to 200 No (or some such -- it's about 70 positive; not currently enough >to succeed -- and with an exceptionally large NO contingent). You've just violated guidelines, which state that vote tallies are verboten. I hereby declare your opinion in this matter invalid. You'll have to form a new consensus opinion, and then discuss it for 14 days, before you may post again on this topic. >I've also >been told that Richard is pushing to get yes votes -- so I hereby wish to >request that everyone who thinks this situation is out of control but >hasn't voted yet to please send in a "no" vote, >Normally I wouldn't do this, but I feel it's only fair >considering the kind of flogging for votes Richard's been doing. It had previously been argued that, just because some sci groups, like sci.skeptic, didn't deserve to be there was no reason to allow sci.aquaria there, as well; a.k.a. "two wrongs don't make a right." Now Chuq has refuted that old adage with this action... I do agree that this situation is wonderfully out of control; a perfect example of anarchy in action. For that reason, and prompted by your plea for no votes, I now intend to doff my neutrality and send Richard my Yes vote... just to see what happens if the vote passes. Will Usenet as we know it end ? Will the net.gods vanish in a puff of logic ? Tune in next week, same net-time, same net-channel ! >I've heard enough rumors of questionable votes that I feel it has to be >checked out. Note that I am *not* accusing Richard of vote fraud -- just >that there are enough rumors that I want to make sure. Where do you get your information, Chuq ? I've cracked Richard's password, and even *I* don't hear all the rumors you're getting. 8-) >And I'm making sure >that Richard has enough notice of this that he can be sure that no vote >fraud of any kind occurs. I'm sure that Richard is capable of ensuring that you will find no vote fraud. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com Free the Lagrange 5 !
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (10/27/89)
In article <35951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >The major one is that the voting was >started even though there is clearly *no* consensus on the name. That's a >specific requirement of the rules, and Richard is ignoring it. True. When I wrote the guidelines I put the name agreement requirement in SPECIFICALLY to avoid ridiculous situations such as we now have with the aquaria vote where we are clearly voting on the name instead of the group. >Richard continues to >actively politick the voting in news.groups and elsewhere, even though the >rules state that this isn't to be done Yes, hardly "unbiased instructions for casting a vote" which is the only thing allowed by the guidelines to be posted after the call for votes. >My position on this, then, is simple. I wish to see the sci.aquaria vote >declared invalid for rule infractions. It's obvious that this whole thing >is a politicking sham, that the rules are being used when convenient and >ignored when not, and that the spirit of the rules are being demolished at >the same time the letter of the rules is being ignored. Despite what some people think, I have never been a fan of rigid enforcement of the letter of the guidelines. However, it seems clear to me that the entire intention of them has been violated in this case. This is not a trivial procedural infraction, it is a total ignoring of accepted guidelines, and the creating of a situation that is clearly detrimental to the entire net, just to get a single newsgroup created. As a system administrator, I do not feel like I have to honor this vote even if it passes. It's a joke. >I've asked Greg to invalidate the vote for these reasons. I'd like to, but I really don't have the power to single-handedly invalidate a vote. The best I can do is ask the other site admins on the net not to honor it if it should pass. I'm not sure what to do about this now. Personally, I think Richard has blown it and that the only reasonable thing to do is leave the group in alt where it is doing just fine, and then maybe after this whole thing blows over someone can try running a vote for rec.aquaria or some other reasonable name which will probably be completely uncontroversial and pass easily. --Greg
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/28/89)
>And >what if sci.aquaria wins that vote ? As I've said multiple times, if it wins the votes, I shut up and stop whining. Doesn't, however, imply that I have to stand by and not try to keep it from winning. >You've just violated guidelines, which state that vote tallies are >verboten. I hereby declare your opinion in this matter invalid. Sorry, it's just a guideline, not a rule. So my opinion is still valid. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/29/89)
In article <4848@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > True. When I wrote the guidelines I put the name agreement requirement >in SPECIFICALLY to avoid ridiculous situations such as we now have with >the aquaria vote where we are clearly voting on the name instead of the group. GUIDELINES, Greg. Not laws, GUIDELINES. The "ridiculous" situation has been created by a few vociferous zealots like you, who have taken upon themselves the burden of looking out for our good, because obviously we are not capable of taking care of ourselves and making rational decisions. I am afraid to sound Libertarian, but what right do YOU have to enforce your biases on very large groups of people who have the education and the intellect to make a group decision of their own?! The fate of SCI.AQUARIA should be decided by a vote. So far over 700 people have cast their votes (last number qouted to me by Sexton). I suspect that these 700 people's opinions are far more important than your prejudices or your threats to throw the weight of your authority with the less sophisticated and/or irrationally loyal to you system administrators. > Yes, hardly "unbiased instructions for casting a vote" which is the only >thing allowed by the guidelines to be posted after the call for votes. There were such instructions posted. Very simple ones. YES or NO vote on SCI.AQUARIA, editorial comments optional. I am somehow not surprised that you do not remember them. >>It's obvious that this whole thing is a politicking sham And disclosure of (bogus) voting statistics is not? And active attempts to subvert the vote by running interfering votes, like Bryce's, are not? And you, Greg, already threatening to disrupt the group's distribution -- not a clear case of politicking of the most despicable sort?! > Despite what some people think, I have never been a fan of rigid enforcement >of the letter of the guidelines. However... However your "unbiased objectivity" crumbles into dust when a group proposal you have a visceral objections to comes along and calls for a "name czar" are issued forth along with blatant threats. Ever wonder why ALT hierarchy had been created? To avoid little petty fascists like you, Greg. To allow the individuals who are most interested in existance of a group to create it. Yes, there are "rmgroup" wars breaking out on ALT now and then, but how is that different from your threats, Greg? >a situation that is clearly detrimental to the entire net, "You know a discussion has been going ot too long when the imminent death of the entire NET is forecast" >As a system administrator, I do not >feel like I have to honor this vote even if it passes. It's a joke. So is your alleged objectivity. > I'd like to, but I really don't have the power to single-handedly >invalidate a vote. Oh, but don't you wish you did! You do not feel, obviously, that if a few hundred people vote and there are 100 more people who want the group than who don't -- then the group should be created. It should be created only if YOU agree with it. How unbiased. You and your ilk have destroyed net.flame in the renaming and then refused to allow it to come back in the new name scheme. ALT hierarchy was used to provide a place for it. The same has happened with the drugs group. Remember the blatant demonstration of the "backbone cabal" when the sex group, voted on and passed, was not created? ALT.sex was created. >The best I can do is ask the other site admins >on the net not to honor it if it should pass. That's a SCI group, mind you. Not an ALT or REC or TALK. >I'm not sure what to do about this now. Personally, I think Richard has >blown it and that the only reasonable thing to do is leave the group in >alt where it is doing just fine, and then maybe after this whole thing >blows over someone can try running a vote for rec.aquaria or some other >reasonable name which will probably be completely uncontroversial and >pass easily. I remember some time ago Richard called for rec.aquaria. That was before alt.aquaria was created. The vote failed. There wasn't enough interest. Richard created alt.aquaria -- and it succeeded spectacularly. Notice that your stupid guidelines quashed the original group proposal. Alt.aquaria does well without any help from you or Chuq. It succeeded despite the fact that there was little or no interest in it early on. Yet now, when sci.aquara is proposed, the interest in the group seems beyond any that I have seen in the voting for a long, long time. I will tell you what you can do about this now. Send your vote, if you yet had not, sit back and wait for the vote to run its course. If the group proposal passes, the group will be created and you will shut up and go away. If you really want to, you can issue a call for votes on [whatever] and see what that will get you. If the group vote fails, you can cackle gleefully and mutter "I told you so! I told you so!". And *I* will call for rec.aquaria and I will guarrantee you that it will pass. -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/30/89)
Oh fiddlesticks, Oleg. If you think alt is so bloody superior, why do you want to move the group out of it? If you wanted the name 'rec.aquaria' before, then what's wrong with it now? Don't worry. Nobody will ever confuse you with a Libertarian. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/30/89)
In article <4848@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <35951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >>Richard continues to >>actively politick the voting in news.groups and elsewhere, even though the >>rules state that this isn't to be done > > Yes, hardly "unbiased instructions for casting a vote" which is the only >thing allowed by the guidelines to be posted after the call for votes. This is news to me, but if you say it's in the guidelines, I'll believe you. I'll also call for a revision of the guidelines, because it's completely unworkable. Do you mean to say that once Richard calls for a vote on a group, you and Chuq and others are free to attack it at will, but he's not allowed to defend himself ? > Despite what some people think, I have never been a fan of rigid enforcement >of the letter of the guidelines. However, it seems clear to me that the >entire intention of them has been violated in this case. This is not a trivial >procedural infraction, it is a total ignoring of accepted guidelines, and >the creating of a situation that is clearly detrimental to the entire net, >just to get a single newsgroup created. As a system administrator, I do not >feel like I have to honor this vote even if it passes. It's a joke. Hoo-hah. I both agree and disagree. It *is* a "trivial procedural infraction", because the procedures themselves are trivial. Let's take a step back for a moment; why do we vote on newsgroups ? My understanding is that the vote justifies to the various net administrators that there is sufficient interest in the group to warrant their creating it. (Otherwise, we'd go back to the "newgroup anything you want; run it up the flagpole and see who carries it" philosophy). Thus, the only reason to have the vote is to gain immediate acceptance. To whatever extent the guidelines are violated, the vote becomes less convincing. That means that some administrators may choose not to carry it, as Greg has. Others, though, probably don't care. As for this situation being "clearly detrimental to the entire net," hogwash. Suppose this unguideline-like vote passes, someone issues a newgroup, and 75% of the sites carry it. What does that tell us ? Simply, that 75% of the sites don't give a hoot about the guidelines, or other peoples' notions of what's good for the net. If nobody carries it, then the reverse is shown. *But in either case*, I submit that all this grandstanding is quite pointless, because when it comes right down to it, that decision should be made at each site, not centrally by Greg, Chuq, or Richard. The vote is flawed. Let it run its course, then publish the results. If the results pass, newgroup it as usual. If you don't want it on your site, rmgroup it. Let the rest of the net think for themselves, OK ? > I'd like to, but I really don't have the power to single-handedly >invalidate a vote. The best I can do is ask the other site admins >on the net not to honor it if it should pass. Why ? Why bother ? Let 'em do what they want. Now, what I'm hoping to see is that both sci.aquaria and rec.aquarium pass, so we'll have *three* groups for this topic. To that end, I've voted for both groups, and encourage others to do likewise; just to see what happens. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (10/31/89)
In article <21596@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >I am afraid to sound Libertarian, but what right do YOU >have to enforce your biases on very large groups of people who have the >education and the intellect to make a group decision of their own?! None, but I do have the right to state my opinions and to attempt to convince others to think as I do. Just as anyone else does. And unlike you, I do it without flame-provoking and needless ad hominem personal attacks. Your comments are more appropriate for alt.flame than news.groups --Greg
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (10/31/89)
In article <4848@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > I'd like to, but I really don't have the power to single-handedly >invalidate a vote. The best I can do is ask the other site admins >on the net not to honor it if it should pass. This will ensure that unix.cis.pitt.edu will honor it if it does pass. Terry -- (UUCP) {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore, cadre}!pitt!cisunx!cisvms!tjw (BITNET) TJW@PITTVMS (or) TJW@PITTUNIX (Internet) tjw%vms.cis.pitt.edu@unix.cis.pitt.edu (CC-Net) CISVMS::TJW (or) 33801::TJW (or) CISUNX::tjw (or) 33802::tjw
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (10/31/89)
In article <35978@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>And >>what if sci.aquaria wins that vote ? >As I've said multiple times, if it wins the votes, I shut up and stop >whining. Doesn't, however, imply that I have to stand by and not try to >keep it from winning. But Richard is "wrong" for campaigning "for" the group, eh? HE and he alone broke the "rules"? >>You've just violated guidelines, which state that vote tallies are >>verboten. I hereby declare your opinion in this matter invalid. >Sorry, it's just a guideline, not a rule. So my opinion is still valid. One day they're "rules" and the next the day they're "guidelines". Amazing. Terry -- (UUCP) {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore, cadre}!pitt!cisunx!cisvms!tjw (BITNET) TJW@PITTVMS (or) TJW@PITTUNIX (Internet) tjw%vms.cis.pitt.edu@unix.cis.pitt.edu (CC-Net) CISVMS::TJW (or) 33801::TJW (or) CISUNX::tjw (or) 33802::tjw
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (10/31/89)
In article <4848@ncar.ucar.edu>, woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes: | | I'd like to, but I really don't have the power to single-handedly | invalidate a vote. The best I can do is ask the other site admins | on the net not to honor it if it should pass. | | I'm not sure what to do about this now. Personally, I think Richard has | blown it and that the only reasonable thing to do is leave the group in | alt where it is doing just fine, and then maybe after this whole thing | blows over someone can try running a vote for rec.aquaria or some other | reasonable name which will probably be completely uncontroversial and | pass easily. | | --Greg Personally, I think Richard has blown it too. In addition to urging NO votes, I would certainly urge any site admins on net not to honor it if it should pass. Jim Winer -- The opinions expressed here are not necessarily and do not represent nor in any way imply of any other sane person and especially not employer. "My reply is that such pre-theoretical conceptual essences are often riddled with deep ambiguity and internal incoherence, despite strong convictions people have that they know what they mean." -- Aaron Sloman
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (11/01/89)
In article <10763@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >This is news to me, but if you say it's in the guidelines, I'll believe >you. > >I'll also call for a revision of the guidelines, because it's completely >unworkable. Do you mean to say that once Richard calls for a vote on a >group, you and Chuq and others are free to attack it at will, but he's >not allowed to defend himself ? Obviously, you haven't read the secret guidelines. If you check your local dev/null you'll not find them there. ;-) They're secret, after all! Terry -- (UUCP) {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore, cadre}!pitt!cisunx!cisvms!tjw (BITNET) TJW@PITTVMS (or) TJW@PITTUNIX (Internet) tjw%vms.cis.pitt.edu@unix.cis.pitt.edu (CC-Net) CISVMS::TJW (or) 33801::TJW (or) CISUNX::tjw (or) 33802::tjw
" Maynard) (11/02/89)
In article <21596@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >The "ridiculous" situation has been created by a few vociferous zealots like >you, who have taken upon themselves the burden of looking out for our good, >because obviously we are not capable of taking care of ourselves and making >rational decisions. I am afraid to sound Libertarian, but what right do YOU >have to enforce your biases on very large groups of people who have the >education and the intellect to make a group decision of their own?! The "ridiculous" situation was created by Richard Sexton, who - in his best vociferous zealot manner - insisted on putting it in sci.* simply to improve distribution. He admitted it in a quote which has been repeatedly re-posted here. He has a few vociferous zealots backing him up, with repeated flames and politicking. The people who oppose the name sci.aquaria do so out of a real concern: that a new user won't be able to understand how to find a group. Remember the discussion that Greg and I had a month or so ago? I feel that more groups is better than fewer, but that that is only true when the groups are properly named so as to be quickly found without having to resort to grepping the newsgroups file - something a new user isn't likely to know how to do. In addition, we feel that misnaming a group to improve its distributiuon is fraud of the worst sort committed upon the news administrators of the net. I doubt that there would have been any controversy at all if the name rec.aquaria had been chosen. It was even Richard's original choice, before alt.aquaria was created. Why, all of a sudden, does this belong in sci.*? Before you say, "Well, it's scientific", tell me why a detailed mathematical explanation of why an aircraft which stalls in an uncoordinated turn flops over and starts spinning should not go in rec.aviation, or why an in-depth analysis of collisions on a radio network as a function of how many stations can hear each other should not go in rec.ham-radio.packet. Be specific. >> I'd like to, but I really don't have the power to single-handedly >>invalidate a vote. >Oh, but don't you wish you did! You do not feel, obviously, that if a few >hundred people vote and there are 100 more people who want the group than who >don't -- then the group should be created. It should be created only if YOU >agree with it. How unbiased. The problem comes when, as in the current situation, the vote really mixes two issues with differing desirabilities: 1) Should there be a group to discuss aquaria in the mainstream Usenet? I don't know of anyone who has disagreed with this idea. I certainly don't. 2) Should that group be named "sci.aquaria"? This is the controversial issue. Lots of well-reasoned argument - yes, and some flamage - has gone into this one. In the end, Richard decided to bull ahead with his idea, and the rest of the net be damned. >>The best I can do is ask the other site admins >>on the net not to honor it if it should pass. >That's a SCI group, mind you. Not an ALT or REC or TALK. So? Greg has that right, just as you have the right to ask the site admins on the net to honor it if it should pass. You also seem to forget that Greg, in addition to being moderator of news.announce.newgroups, also has another job, and that's one he gets paid for: site administrator of ncar.ucar.edu (and possibly others). His actions as admin of that site are his business alone. If he chooses not to carry a group that he feels that strongly about, then that's his choice - and the only people who can make him change it are his employers. >I remember some time ago Richard called for rec.aquaria. That was before ^^^ >alt.aquaria was created. The vote failed. There wasn't enough interest. >Richard created alt.aquaria -- and it succeeded spectacularly. Notice that >your stupid guidelines quashed the original group proposal. Alt.aquaria does >well without any help from you or Chuq. It succeeded despite the fact that >there was little or no interest in it early on. Yet now, when sci.aquara is ^^^ >proposed, the interest in the group seems beyond any that I have seen in the >voting for a long, long time. Why the switch? Even Richard thought at first it should be under rec. If Richard had stuck with his original idea, then rec.aquaria would have overwhelmingly passed with little controversy. Instead, Richard chose to commit fraud upon the news administrators of the net. I have no trouble believing why the controversy started. Richard has damaged the group - if it does get created - by his choice of the name and hardheaded insistence on sticking with it, just like Trish Roberts damaged a good group on the problems of women in computing by hardheadedly sticking with a grossly inappropriate name. Of course, Richard's hardheadedness will prevent his seeing this. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- Gandhi II: no more Mr. Passive Resistance...he's out to kick some butt!
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (11/02/89)
In article <6719@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >If you think alt is so bloody superior, why do you >want to move the group out of it? Distribution and connectivity. I hate seing follow-ups to postings that never show up at my site because of the ALT connectivity spasms. >If you wanted the name 'rec.aquaria' before, then what's wrong with it now? Other than smaller distribution? Nothing. But without the idiocy that we have been witnessing for the last 3-4 weeks, the result of a call for rec.aquaria would have been exactly the same as before (when there weren't even 100 people bothering to reply!). (Did you notice a quiet failure of rec.sports.{basketball,football}? Think about that.) >Don't worry. Nobody will ever confuse you with a Libertarian. You'd be surprised. -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (11/02/89)
In article <4882@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >... I do have the right to state my opinions and to attempt to >convince others to think as I do. Just as anyone else does. Then why attach Richard for trying to do the same? You can't have it both ways. >And unlike >you, I do it without flame-provoking and needless ad hominem personal attacks. You have been less than objective, Greg. And you have been failing to see where you yourself have been behaving most irrationally. But I am now tired of this. I simply don't have the time. I have cast my vote and I have made an effort of convincing others. I am now quite fed up with all this banter. I care, but not enough to waste all my free time on this. -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (11/02/89)
In article <2995@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >The people who oppose the name sci.aquaria do so out of a real concern: >that a new user won't be able to understand how to find a group. Ah, yes, those stupid new users. They're such ignorant dolts. Not a one of them will think of asking someone who's been on the net a bit longer than they if there's a group for aquarists. They won't think of posting a question to news.newusers.questions, or news.groups, or rec.pets. They won't even think to save a copy of spaf's monthly newsgroups posting. And why is this? Because they're STUPID. >Before you say, "Well, it's scientific", tell me why a detailed >mathematical explanation of why an aircraft which stalls in an >uncoordinated turn flops over and starts spinning should not go in >rec.aviation, Depending on how detailed it is, it probably ought to go in SCI.aeronautics, don't you think? Aviation, like aquarium-keeping, has both its scientific and its recreational aspects. How many pilots really want or need a detailed mathematical description of the fluid dynamics of a stall? > or why an in-depth analysis of collisions on a radio >network as a function of how many stations can hear each other should >not go in rec.ham-radio.packet. Be specific. Be braindead. How interesting that you should choose an example that would probably make a rather good topic for a Ph. D. thesis. Probability theory, antenna theory, queuing theory, and god knows what else would be involved. Of course, none of these things are related to Science. They're all hobbies. >The problem comes when, as in the current situation, the vote really >mixes two issues with differing desirabilities: >1) Should there be a group to discuss aquaria in the mainstream Usenet? >I don't know of anyone who has disagreed with this idea. I certainly >don't. >2) Should that group be named "sci.aquaria"? >This is the controversial issue. Lots of well-reasoned argument - yes, >and some flamage - has gone into this one. In the end, Richard decided >to bull ahead with his idea, and the rest of the net be damned. You're absolutely right, Jay. Richard should have done the decent thing, and proposed the creation of TWO newsgroups, one for the purely recreational aquarists and the other for the scientifically-inclined aquarist. Not only would this completely end this dispute over whether it should be in sci or rec, it would double a new user's chances of finding a group where someone would point him in the right direction. Shame on you, Richard! -- Dave Mack
eck@dasys1.UUCP (Mark Eckenwiler) (11/14/89)
In article <36260@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) pontificates: >But, as usual, I explain the obvious. So, Tschuk, tell us why the original subject was Sci.ad.nauseum.aquaria redux which includes an obvious misspelling of "ad nauseam." Followups to alt.peeves, sci.chuq.rectalgia. -- I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. --R.M. Nixon Mark Eckenwiler {yale,columbia}!cmcl2!dasys1!eck dasys1!eck@nyu.edu