bbc@titan.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (10/04/89)
Greg S. Hennessy <gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU> writes: > IHMO the best name for this is rec.pets.aquaria. I'd say the choices are more like: rec.pets.aquatic rec.aquaria sci.aquaria alt.aquaria [separations of these names into fresh and saltwater omitted for 10,000 good reasons, which are also omitted] And of course, not wanting to be divisive, IMHO the best name at this point is "sci.aquaria". A bit pretentious, but I think it's acceptable. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas "It's almost enough to make a eukaryote blush."
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/04/89)
Yes, it's about time. Too many people at sites not carrying ALT hierarchy
are unable to participate in the discussions and contribute/benefit.
SCI sounds like a correct hierarchy. (comp.fish would have been great too)
--
"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!olegBRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) (10/04/89)
Richard, hum-de-dah-dah-dah-de-boop-de-boop
BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) (10/04/89)
I support the suggestion that alt.aquaria be renamed sci.aquaria.
I have been receiving 4 messages per week from people interested in the
subject but unable to post on alt.xxxxx boards. It appears that we
have a group with continuing serious interest in aquaria science and
art and it is time to establish a permanent group.
Johngary@grc.UUCP (Gary Sutcliffe) (10/06/89)
In article <31734@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> elm@chilli.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) writes: >In article <3191@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: >It's a hobby. For you, it's a big-deal hobby, but it's still >a hobby. It's like gardening. There are those who plant some >seeds, fertilize them, and hope. There are also people who read >huge volumes on the subject and use every scientific method available. >It's still a hobby (and it's still in rec.gardens). The group >should either be rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria. Sci is the wrong >hierarchy for it. I also read sci.electronics although most of the posting are hobby related (although I keep an eye on it for professional reasons too). I read sci.astronomy. Like most of the readers of that group I am an amateur that likes to take my telescope out on clear nights when the mosquitos are not too bad. I have two pets, a dog and a cat. I also have about 25 aquariums. I never let my fish crawl up on my lap when I am reading a book. Fish and plants are not pets by my definition. I have no problem with sci.aquaria, although when it finally gets down to a call for votes, I will vote yes for the first group that gets us out of alt. -- Gary Sutcliffe W9XT GENROCO, Inc. Slinger, Wis. (414) 644-8700 {ames, rutgers, harvard} uwvax!uwm!grc!gary **** Note path change ****
ahaley@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Alexander Haley) (10/09/89)
I agree with Scott Paisley, we should have two or three votes. The first couple for the name of the new group and then the third for the formation. IMHO the group should not be called rec.pets.* I personally cannot imagine how anyone can interpret *.aquaria to be a new age or zodiac discussion. I don't know much about new age things, so I can't truly say one way or another about it, but if it were zodiac, then why isn't there *.taurus, *.capricorn, or *.libra?? If someone were truly interested in this group then they would understand *.aquaria. My vote is first for sci.aquaria and then for rec.aquaria. No for rec.pets.*!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ahaley@hmcvax.claremont.edu | Anyone know of a way to go to school ahaley@jarthur.claremont.edu | without having to do a lot of work or or Alex Haley, Fido 1:205/106 | pay a lot of money? :-) during breaks ONLY --^^^^^ | It would make it a bit more enjoyable! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (10/09/89)
In article <20649@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <1989Oct6.230732.11458@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >> I'm going to feel almost duty-bound to flame at times on >>sci.aquaria, so watch it. >That would not altogether be a bad thing. We like your flames Gene. ... That tears it. If it's going to be a damn mutual admiration society it should be a soc group. But should it be soc.aquaria.flame or soc.flame.aqaria? Seriously, my preference would be a rec group, but I'd vote for either. Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)
willil@mentor.com (Willi Lohmann) (10/09/89)
(I got a msg saying this didn't get posted in news.groups, so here it is.
If it did make it to news.groups, ignore it.)
When I set up an aquarium, I set up an environment which fish are just
a part of. I agree with the idea that plants aren't exactly pets and
since plants aren't specifically necessary to "keep fish" but are a
large part of aquaria, I don't agree with the pets part of any naming
convention. I don't know that the simple chemistries involved in
maintaining an aquarium contain enough hard core science to warrent
the sci hiearchy. But natural environment reproduction and breeding
can become as scientific as you want to make it. So... I guess I'd
vote for rec now and see if it needs to be changed in the future or
maybe even add sci.aquaria as a second group.
Conclusion? --> 1st choice: rec.aquaria
2nd choice: sci.aquaria
bye - williwally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) (10/09/89)
In article <20583@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: > > And I, for one, would much rather not see those articles at all. I accept > the fact that this type of article will show up in ALT.AQUARIA now and then, > but I would much rather not deal with this at all. The very reason > ALT.AQUARIA has been this successful is the high level of discussin. > Ichtiology, ichtiopathology, aquatic ecology, behavioural research, > chemistry, taxonomy etc. are exactly why we are all reading that group. I have been thinking about getting an aquarium, so I was pleased to see this newsgroup being discussed. However, if the purpose of this newsgroup is for pompous discussions on a level that mere mortals such as myself cannot hope to grasp, then I'll just have to skip it and look for more mundane information (such as whether this type of fish will get along with that type of fish, or whether this type of fish will eat the plants, etc) in other places. However, if there is room in the newsgroup for such imbeciles as myself, then I think that the proper name would be rec.pets.aquaria. Here's why: sci.* -- No. If I were looking for help with my aquarium, it would never occur to me to look under sci.*. You folks seem to feel that we have insulted you by suggesting rec.*. It's not meant as an insult. It's just a simple fact that 90% of the people looking for such a newsgroup would not think to look under sci.*. Most of us consider it recreation, technical though it might be, so rec.* is where we would look. It is not meant to be an insult to the merits of aquarium keeping, so please don't take it that way. rec.aquaria -- No. When I saw "sci.aquaria", I first thought it was for discussion of astrology and horoscopes. (I was also shocked to see it under "sci.*".) :-) If you make the name "rec.aquaria", probably 50% of the potential readers will miss it due to that confusion. rec.fish -- No. Half the people who saw that would assume it was about fishing (eg. rods and reels, lures, trolling motors, etc). rec.pets.fish -- No. Aquariums ("aquaria" to you English majors) are more than just fish. rec.pets.aquaria -- Yes. True, plants are not pets, but I don't think we want to call it "rec.plantsandfishinwater". If you are looking for info about keeping aquariums, you would look in the bookstores in the "pets" or "hobbies" section, not under "science". You would go to a "pet store" (assuming your town wasn't large enough to have a specialist dealer). "rec.pets.aquaria" seems to be the least confusing of the choices. Now, if a few months go by and it becomes obvious that there are those who are hobbyists and those who take the hobby a bit more seriously than that, then perhaps a separate group called "sci.aquaria" could be created. By then perhaps those of us who cut our teeth in rec.pets.aquaria would be ready to join in some high-brow discussions with the gods of the water world.
wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) (10/09/89)
Well, now that Steve Steir has brought up the fact that rec.pets is not subdivided at all yet and has proposed rec.aquarium as an alternative to rec.aquaria, I'm changing my mind. (Hey, it's a free country!) The best name (ie. least confusing) would be rec.aquarium.
wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) (10/09/89)
Flames in rec.aquarium? ...About what? I don't own an aquarium yet, but I just can't think of anything that would get someone worked up enough to flame over in a topic like that. As for the problem of serious vs. novice aquariasts (sp?), perhaps a "*.tech" subgroup would be needed for the more techy stuff, leaving the general "rec.aquarium" group for the novices such as myself.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (10/10/89)
In article <165@pallas.UUCP>, wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) writes: > > If you are looking for info about keeping aquariums, you would look in the > bookstores in the "pets" or "hobbies" section, not under "science". You > would go to a "pet store" (assuming your town wasn't large enough to have a > specialist dealer). Excellent! Excellent! The most convincing argument yet! Now can we get on with creating the newsgroup? Jeff PS - If a person went searching for a bewhiskered aquatic animal, would that person be a Catfish Hunter? -- My vocabulary can beat up your vocabulary.
news@elrond.la.locus.com (- Netnews) (10/10/89)
I've only recently gotten back into usenet, after several years away,
and it is obvious that the naming is no better (and perhaps it is worse)
than it was years ago. Please, don't make a bad situation worse by
naming the aquaria group 'sci.aquaria'.
To me, the sci.* groups are for scientific discussions of current
scientific research or science history. Aquarium keeping, for most
people, is not a research topic but rather a recreational activity.
The fact that discussions on the current 'alt.aquaria' are technical
doesn't enter into it. Almost all the newsgroups have discussions
that would be considered technical to 75% of the population.
The sci.* groups should be for scientific purposes and discussions,
while the rec.* groups should be for recreational activities. I
would agree that rec.aquaria is a good name, I would probably vote
against sci.aquaria.
George Bray
Locus Computing Corporation, 9800 La Cienega Blvd, Inglewood, CA 90301-4440
213-337-5171
lcc.ghb@seas.ucla.edu
{randvax,sdcrdcf,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-se!lcc!ghb
{gryphon,turnkey,attunix,oblio}!lcc!ghbjohn@starfire.UUCP (John Lind) (10/10/89)
I am very much in favor of going mainstream. I agree with the arguments against "rec.pets.whatever". I also agree that "sci.aquaria" is at least somewhat inappropriate. Therefore, I vote "yes" for "rec.aquaria". I do not keep my aquariums because of scientific curiosity, nor does anyone pay me to do research. Neither the direct work nor the hours reading benefit my vocation. I find it relaxing and enjoyable to watch my fish. That sounds suspiciously like recreation to me. I will also admit that fish are sold at "pet stores" along with birds, dogs, cats, etc., so I wouldn't balk at posting to "rec.pets.aq*". I would think twice, however, before posting to "sci.aq*". -- John Lind, Starfire Consulting Services E-mail: john@starfire.UUCP USnail: PO Box 13001, Mpls MN 55414
jps@wucs1.wustl.edu (James Sterbenz) (10/10/89)
In article <8106@cbmvax.UUCP> bryce@cbmvax.UUCP (Bryce Nesbitt) writes: >I slightly prefer the less ambiguous "aquarium"; until today I thought >alt.aquaria was for "new-age fruitcakes". ^^ Wouldn't that be aquarius? ^^^ {rec|sci}.{aquaria|aquariuum} are all OK. It's not worth the bandwidth to nitpick the name. Science can be recreational, and recreation need not be void of science. I do agree that rec.pets.whatever makes less sense. I think about the arawana in my tank, not "Mr. Fish". -- James Sterbenz Computer and Communications Research Center Washington University in St. Louis +1-314-726-4203 INTERNET: jps@wucs1.wustl.edu 128.252.123.12 UUCP: wucs1!jps@uunet.uu.net
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (10/10/89)
In article <2213@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) writes:
)I have two dogs I consider pets, and 3 tanks I consider an aquatic habitat,
)I dont consider the animal life in them pets.
)From The American Heritage Dictionary:
)pet (pet) n. 1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship. 2. An object of
)affections. 3. A person esp. loved or indulged; favorite: teachers's pet. -adj.
)Nothing in this definition seems to apply to my aquarium, does it apply to
)yours? Aquariums don't house pets they house a simulated aquatic environment,
)fish happen to be part of that environment.
xwebster returns: A domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than
utility.
Therefore I would say that both this and the definition you list
place your fish (and other things kept in your tanks) as pets. Or are
you claiming that you milk your 20 stonefish daily for their poison?
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
"People are beer's way of ensuring that there will be more beer."john@starfire.UUCP (John Lind) (10/10/89)
Having already contributed to the plethora of "discussion" on this subject, I feel free to do so again. This specious discussion over the appropriateness of "aquarium" and "aquaria" is driving me NUTS!!!!! The word "aquaria" is purely and simply the ALTERNATE (not preferred) PLURAL of the word "aquarium". Sheesh! Let's just say they are interchangable for our purposes, OK? You can make it "aquarium" or "aquariums" or "aquaria" if you like, but let's not go off into some high-sounding discussion of the nuances of meaning. Blech! As for those of you who have trouble with grep, I don't have huge amounts of sympathy. I noted some time ago that news group names are just TOO SHORT to carry a great deal of information. To find this group, I did a remarkably unremarkable thing. Here is the command and the output: - egrep "aqua|fish" /usr/lib/news/newsgroups alt.aquaria The aquarium & related as a hobby. alt.fishing Fishing as a hobby and sport. - How astounding! This tells me both the group I want and the fact that we are pursuing it as a hobby. Do tell. Which brings us back to the much more mainline discussion: where in the hierarchy... My gut distinction which causes me to prefer "rec" over "sci" is that the other "sci" groups are RECOGNIZED and NAMED branches of science. I haven't checked to see if this is absolutely observed, but I don't really care -- just because someone else has made a mistake doesn't mean we should repeat it. It was pointed out by someone that you can't get a degree in aquari* science, and that point has becoming increasingly significant to me as the discussion has proceeded. By all means, let's go mainstream, under any name. I just think that "rec" is more sensible. -- John Lind, Starfire Consulting Services E-mail: john@starfire.UUCP USnail: PO Box 13001, Mpls MN 55414
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/10/89)
In article <165@pallas.UUCP> wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) doubts his ability to follow "SCI.AQUARIA" discussions. What makes you think that a highly technical discussion of a subject will necessarily go so far over your head that you will never find any use for the info? EVERYONE who thinks about setting up an aquarium will benefit from discussions of nitrogen cycles, filtration mechanisms, food culturing, breeding, rearing, wild specimens collection, etc. Every little bit of data helps. >If you are looking for info about keeping aquariums, you would look in the >bookstores in the "pets" or "hobbies" section, not under "science". I would (and DO) go to "Natural Sciences" and, in better stores, "Ichtiology" and "Botany" shelves. "Aquaculture" and "Fish farming" are also good subjects to look for, usually under Agriculture. There are also some gems that can be found under "Sewage treatmen" (where do you think the idea of trickle filters came from). Just because a whole bunch of illiterates think of fish as pets means very little. Some people think of Creationism and Astrology as sciences. >You >would go to a "pet store" (assuming your town wasn't large enough to have a >specialist dealer). I would mail order. The store I go to in LA is "Jim's Exotic Fish". No pets. Just fish. >Now, if a few months go by and it becomes obvious that there are those who >are hobbyists and those who take the hobby a bit more seriously than that, >then perhaps a separate group called "sci.aquaria" could be created. By >then perhaps those of us who cut our teeth in rec.pets.aquaria would be >ready to join in some high-brow discussions with the gods of the water >world. This is silly. The level of discussion in ALT.AQUARIA should be sufficient to pass the criteria in the 1st sentence. And the second one is simply silly when you think about the fact that there are always new people joining the NET and that getting bad advice from people who know less than you is likely to help you kill all your fish and sell your aquarium at the next garage sale. -- "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
des@yatton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) (10/10/89)
In article <165@inmos.co.uk (Wally Hartshorn) writes: >However, if there is room in the newsgroup for such imbeciles as myself, >then I think that the proper name would be rec.pets.aquaria. Here's why: (discussion of other names) >sci.* >rec.aquaria >rec.fish >rec.pets.fish >rec.pets.aquaria Given the popularity (on both sides of the Atlantic) of "A fish called Wanda" shouldn't we have rec.food.aquaria as well ;-) david shepherd INMOS ltd
popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) (10/10/89)
In article <165@pallas.UUCP>, wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) writes: > > If you are looking for info about keeping aquariums, you would look in the > bookstores in the "pets" or "hobbies" section, not under "science". You > would go to a "pet store" (assuming your town wasn't large enough to have a > specialist dealer). "rec.pets.aquaria" seems to be the least confusing of > the choices. The B. Dalton up the street from here has the books on aquaria in with the nature books (next to the "Audobon Birds of North America" etc.) and Crown Books across the street from Daltons also has them in that section. Dogs, Cats, and Parrots are under "Pets" in both stores. rec.(misc, sci)aquarium is not confusing. I don't know anyone who has a pet aquarium, do you? Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Laboratories Indian Hill 6G410 Naperville, Illinois (312) 979-4578 ...!ihlpa!kai
kevin@ttidca.TTI.COM (Kevin Carothers) (10/11/89)
In article <31734@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> elm@chilli.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) writes: > >Guess again. I don't like to lose fish. I take good care of them, [---] >a hobby. It's like gardening. There are those who plant some >seeds, fertilize them, and hope. There are also people who read >huge volumes on the subject and use every scientific method available. >It's still a hobby (and it's still in rec.gardens). The group >should either be rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria. Sci is the wrong >hierarchy for it. > Very true Ethan. Following your point about gardening for a monment, I think those who grow carrots in their backyard would do well by just about any kind of general gardening information, as alt.aqu was for over a year or so. Those homever, who want to grow Sambutium Orchids would soon be out of luck with just the most general of informational sources. People can make as much or as little out of an aquarium as they like. from the simplest to the most complex, it is a completely enclosed environmental system, and as such has all the problems and factors associated that are similar to the discussions that are undertaken in groups like sci.environment. BTW- ANY science can be taken on as a recreational pastime. It's pointless to bring in the "professionals-only" vs. recreational-hobby argument. INterest in any scientific matter should be discussed in a scientific context. -- Kevin Carothers {philabs,csun,psivax}!ttidca!kevin
popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) (10/11/89)
In article <152@ark1.nswc.navy.mil >, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: > In article <2213@cbnewsd.ATT.COM >, popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) writes: > > Aquariums don't house pets they house a simulated aquatic environment, > > fish happen to be part of that environment. > > And where do the unwashed masses buy their self-constained artificial > aquatic environments? Probably 90% use *pet* shops exclusively, but > certainly a majority. Look up "Aquariums" in your yellow pages, then > look up "Pets". In my phone book there's one entry under Aquariums, > and it's a *pet shop*. I don't know about there but in the Chicago area the "Aquarium" listings are usually distributors, leasing agents, and commercial services (ie. cleaning the tank in some executives office). The Chicago Consumer Yellow pages lists the more serious ornamental fisheries under "Tropical Fish". A lot of the "pet shops" around here have only token stock in dog and cat toys and specialize in aquaria, I can think of several that have over 80% of their floor space dedicated to aquaria. > > ... An aquaria group is unrelated [to rec.pets] and > > should not be the first to be a sub-group. Sub-groups should be a > > reorganization of the parent group, not an unrelated subject. > > Sez who? There's a clear relationship between pets and aquaria, and > the group would fit well under rec.pets. Even IF you view the animals in an aquarium as pets (which I don't) it seems to me that when more attention in the hobby is focused on creating the environment than on the inhabitants of that environment, it's hard for me to understand why you would name the group after the lesser aspect. > > Aquarium related topics generate very little traffic and are not an > > outgrowth of rec.pets. By this logic rec.motorcycles would be > > rec.autos.motorcycles (ie. motorcycles are self motavating). > > The relationship between cars and motorcycles is not nearly as strong > as that between pets and aquaria. How many pet shops do you know of > that *don't* sell aquaria, fish, and other related paraphernalia? How > many car dealerships sell MC's too? Big ticket items such as motorcycles and cars have elaborate dealer networks, by the same token how many car dealerships carry directly competitive brands? (as in Ford/Chevy, Mercury/Buick, Lincoln/Cadilac, Toyota/Nissan) I don't get this reasoning, almost all sporting goods stores carry fishing tackle, so if alt.fishing petitions for a mainstream group will you argue that it should be grouped with basketball and football under rec.sport? And since most woodworking tools come from places that cater to the home building trade (harware stores, contractor tool distributors, home improvement) should rec.woodworking really be misc.consumers.house.woodworking? > > rec.pets.fish (Discussions about pet fish named Eric) > > (kinda leaves out filtration, tanks, plants and inverts) > > No it doesn't, it just says the *primary focus* of the group is > fishkeeping as a hobby. Nobody's going to try to exclude any topic > relevant to the subject, as the above examples obviously are. The primary focus of the hobby is the tank and its environment, the fish are a major element, but this is like changing misc.consumers.house to a soc. group. > Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil) Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Laboratories Indian Hill 6G410 Naperville, Illinois (312) 979-4578 ...!ihlpa!kai
ansok@stsci.EDU (Gary) (10/11/89)
Nobody asked me, but here's MHO anyway...
Just a simple "aquaria" is not enough of a description for the person
scanning the newsgroup list as to what the group is about. Frankly,
my first thought when I saw "alt.aquaria" was "new-age stuff", and my
second was "wonder if there's an alt.sagittaria, too" (although in that
case it would have been alt.aquarii anyway ;-). Granted, alt.* lends
itself to that sort of assumption, but I think "rec.aquaria" is non-
obvious as a newsgroup name.
My first choice would honestly be "rec.pets.fish", followed by
"rec.pets.aquaria". If people feel strongly about putting it
in the sci. heirarchy, I think "sci.bio.aquaria" would be the
best name. (You could call it "sci.piscean" if you really want
to confuse the astrology fans!)
Gary
ansok@stsci.{edu,bitnet}
"I don't know anything. I've been in California the last three years."
-- N. Charlescej@ll1a.att.com (Jones) (10/11/89)
In article <2287@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>, popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) writes: > > I don't get this reasoning, almost all sporting goods stores carry > fishing tackle, so if alt.fishing petitions for a mainstream group > will you argue that it should be grouped with basketball and football > under rec.sport? Sure. rec.sport.fishing. That's what fishing is! A recreational sport - unless you happen to captain, or man, a charter or commercial fishing boat. It's even called "sport fishing" so you can tell the difference. (Though it has precious little to do with newsgroup names, I'm willing to gamble that this is the reason that sporting goods stores do, in fact, carry fishing tackle.) Where in the wide USENET world would you plan to put it?? > [...] should rec.woodworking really be misc.consumers.house.woodworking? (Talk about not following someone's reasoning.) Okay, *be* silly. Richard, since you don't want to try STV until the issue is settled, would you consider a moderated sci.aquaria? (I'm not trying to use it as a hammer, but I do believe that a vote on an unmoderated sci.aquaria will fail.) If it's moderated, *then* I could believe that it would live up to your proposed charter. ...att!ll1a!cej Llewellyn Jones [Just me, not AT&T] cej@ll1a.att.com >> This article may NOT be forwarded by the 'In Moderation Network' << How many would vote for putting Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, *and* taking his picture *off* of Wheaties? - Mark Russel
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (10/11/89)
I really can't understand why the sci.aquaria proponents are being so pig-headed. First they say they want to move alt.aquaria under a mainstream domain. Okay, I'll buy that. Tropical fish are a widely popular hobby. Then they say the right name for the new group is sci.aquaria because what they're really about is the science of maintaining artificial microbiospheres, not keeping tropical fish. Huh? That sounds suspiciously like photographers calling for sci.cameras because they're not into photographs, they're into the science of the 3D->2D photoconversion process. I say that's a bunch of crap. I've paid my fishkeeping dues. I've spent many a dollar and many an hour on the hobby. I'm sure some of the sci.aquaria proponents are more dedicated than I ever was, but I do feel qualified to have insider's opinion. What we need is a newsgroup dedicated to the hobby of tropical fish, not aquarium science. This newsgroup should have the most obvious, logical name we can find. Think of the newsgroup name as a kind of textual icon. The mental images conjured by the name should point the majority toward the newsgroup's topic. Alt.aquaria, sci.aquaria, and even rec.aquaria mislead a good number of not-so-naive newreaders into thinking the group is devoted to astrology. Some just don't instantly make the association between aquaria and aquariums. Many have argued that the level of discussion in the `aquaria' group will depend greatly on whether it's under rec or sci. I say that's another bunch of crap. The major factor effecting the content, quality, level-of-technicality, and signal-to-noise ratio will be the articles posted to the group. If there are as many aquarium scientists out there as there claim to be, they should have no trouble directing the newsgroup towards their topics. If it later turns out that there's a need for a technical subgroup, we'll create it. But let's not create it before the mainstream, general purpose group. In article <2287@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) writes: >Even IF you view the animals in an aquarium as pets (which I don't) it seems to >me that when more attention in the hobby is focused on creating the environment >than on the inhabitants of that environment, it's hard for me to understand why >you would name the group after the lesser aspect. When I kept fish, my interest was in keeping fish. If could have done that without an aquarium, I would have. I enjoyed watching the fish, observing their different behaviors. I didn't study them, though. I didn't dissect then when they died. I didn't spend hours at the library researching water chemistry literature. I followed the advice of the how-to book I had and the person who sold me the fish. I never had any desire to be a professional aquarium keeper, biologist, or breeder. It was a *hobby* dammit. >I don't get this reasoning, almost all sporting goods stores carry fishing >tackle, so if alt.fishing petitions for a mainstream group will you argue that >it should be grouped with basketball and football under rec.sport? I don't know, but if you ask me it *should* go under rec.sport. That's why we have a hierarchy, for Pete's sake. >And since most woodworking tools come from places that cater to the >home building trade (harware stores, contractor tool distributors, >home improvement) should rec.woodworking really be >misc.consumers.house.woodworking? No, because most people don't consider woodworking to be a part of home improvement or maintenance. Woodworking is a hobby, craft, or trade depending upon how seriously one pursues it and whether one is an amateur or a professional. >The primary focus of the hobby is the tank and its environment, the fish are >a major element, but this is like changing misc.consumers.house to a soc. >group. This is obviously where we differ. To you the fish are a major element. To others, such as myself, they're all that counts. All the rest is peripheral: tanks, plants, filtration, etc. I will vote NO on sci.aquaria if it comes to a vote. I'll vote for rec.aquariums, rec.pets.fish, rec.pets.aquatic, rec.pets.aquarium... I'm not sure what I'd do with rec.aquaria. Right now I'm leaning toward a NO because it's not as obvious as it could be. -- Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
susans@cfi.COM (susans) (10/11/89)
In article <3179@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: > > Richard, hum-de-dah-dah-dah-de-boop-de-boop I don't know what it means, but it made me laugh! Why not rec.fishtanks?? That covers plants, fish, salt, and fresh. -- Susan Scheide Just Another Friend of Bill's
john@starfire.UUCP (John Lind) (10/11/89)
In article <2660@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > First, rec. groups seem to bring the worst out of people. They are dominated > with long flame-war threads. They are frequently subjected to cross-posting > wars. ... ... > Second, sci. groups are often not as formidable as I had imagined. They vary > from quite serious (like sci.physics) to virtually total fluff dominated by > college students (like sci.physics.fusion). All in all, I was much less > impressed than I thought I would be. ... I'm sorry Alien, but I just don't buy your conclusion that what you observed was a result of where in the hierarchy those newsgroups appear! Some topics tend to collect "religious" adherents and "religious" intolerants regardless of where in the net hierarchy they are placed. Do you seriously mean to imply that the "alt" heirarchy is less flame- prone than "rec?" I'm sorry, but that makes me smile (pleasantly :-). I do not believe that the reason for the high-quality of the group has been where it is in the hierarchy, but simply the subject matter. Yes, I suspect we will pick up a few weemby posters when we go mainstream, but that would happen in either hierarchy. The people that buy a betta and put in a bowl as an immobile dog probably won't have the level of interest to bother us. If they wanted to do serious things with fish, they wouldn't be keeping a betta bowl, and if they are changing their focus, I would think they would be ideal contributors and learners who could profit from the group more than any others. In my idealistic moments, I could even hope that we might open a few eyes. That doesn't mean that I don't care which hierarchy we join. However, I feel the value of going mainstream outweighs my taxonomic prejudices. Being rather a hopeless idealist, I say we go "rec" because that is where we belong, and I don't think that we will be any more flame-prone in "rec" than in "alt". However, I would certainly not vote against a "sci.aq*" group. I believe that the reason we have been a high-quality group is because the aquarium hobby takes a sort of serious, determined mind-set to be successful, and that just so happens to be the same sort of mindset needed for good net newsgroups. We are profitting from a happy coincidence that most groups do not enjoy. I have a hard time imagining a flame-war developing over whether or not to use airstones in your uplift tubes... There is also the fact that successful aquariists (another possible group name? just kidding...) are not hatched overnight -- it takes patience and judicious use of resources to even get started right. These are not characteristics that I would use to describe the high-volatility and high-flammability crowd. I admit, however, that these are merely conjectures on my part, and I have no hard data to "prove" or pretend to "conclude" anything. P.S. To the poster who called the "sci" proponents pig-headed, and then went on to say that he would uneqivocally vote against a "sci.aq*" group: Nuts. Your hypocrisy is showing. Do you read what you write? -- John Lind, Starfire Consulting Services E-mail: john@starfire.UUCP USnail: PO Box 13001, Mpls MN 55414
john@starfire.UUCP (John Lind) (10/11/89)
Do you mean to suggest that our European colleagues consider themselves armchair scientists rather than hobbyists? Bosh. Of course we use science and technology, but I'd love a setup that kept my fish (and plants) happy without it. You may be the greater expert on European psychology, but I suggest that they will not be so pretentious as to avoid a good newsgroup just because it is in the "rec" hierarchy. -- John Lind, Starfire Consulting Services E-mail: john@starfire.UUCP USnail: PO Box 13001, Mpls MN 55414
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/12/89)
In article <156@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: > I'll vote for rec.aquariums ... I'm not sure what I'd do with rec.aquaria. >Right now I'm leaning toward a NO because it's not as obvious as it could be. Gee, with friends like this ... aquariums isn't even a WORD! If you're going to propose that, I'll propose: rec.containers_with_living_things_and_water_in_them Obvious enough? :-) ;-) :-) >Lots of other arguments about whe the writer would like to see in the news >group, leading to what he thinks the right name should be ... I think that a lot of news.groups people are missing the entire point here. This is NOT a proposal to create a new group. This IS a proposal to take an EXISTING group, alt.aquaria, and move it into the mainstream heirarchy. Arguments about what kind of postings you philosophically think the newsgroup ought to carry, and what kind of people it ought to be aimed at are NOT APPROPRIATE unless you are currently part of alt.aquaria or are interested in subscribing. Comments like 'alt.aquaria ought to go to rec.pets because there are lots of people who would like a group there, even if it drives all of you away' (OK, so I'm heavily paraphrasing, but I think that's the basic idea) is like saying 'sci.physics ought to be in talk.physics because there are a lot of people taking introductory physics in college who would love to contribute'. And comments like 'if serious people want the group to be serious, it doesn't matter where it it, they will steer it that way' are total BS, there wouldn't be so many moderated groups if that were the case. <soapbox on> The APPROPRIATE discussion to have here is where should alt.aquaria be put so it will get more mainstream distribution while keeping its present character. If you DON'T know what alt.aquaria is currently like, what it's character is, and what sort of people make it up - either subscribe for a while or kindly leave the discussion to people who care more about the group than flaming. <soapbox off> -- --------| Sometimes I feel like a ball Alien | in the great pinball game of life. --------| - Steve Steir decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
kevin@ttidca.TTI.COM (Kevin Carothers) (10/12/89)
In article <6482@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <165@pallas.UUCP>, wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) writes: >> >> If you are looking for info about keeping aquariums, you would look in the >> bookstores in the "pets" or "hobbies" section, not under "science". You >> would go to a "pet store" (assuming your town wasn't large enough to have a >> specialist dealer). > >Excellent! Excellent! The most convincing argument yet! Now can we >get on with creating the newsgroup? > NO!! Most books in bookstores are 50% worthless. Old information printed which usually results in poorly maintained marine aquaria. About the ONLY place I can get good, factual scientific information on marine biological matters is in Science, and Science News magazine - Crown-of-Thorns Starfish colonies on the Great Barrier Reef Science, 25 Aug, 1989 Cyanidocyte Mechanoreceptors (purple thingy's on anemones) and movements of swimming prey. Science: 24 March, 1989 Savannah River Ecology Science: 21 Oct. 1988 Oceanic Primary Production Science: 23 Sept. 1988 Aquatic virus production and transmission Science News: Aug 12 1989 And these are just a few copies out of around a dozen in my file cabinet. Granted, this isn't light stuff, but a lot of us *LIKE* to read and converse on aquaria issues other than what brand of airstones and power heads are best. YOU go to the pet shop. I would prefer to discuss real issues and problems in a scientific forum. -- Kevin Carothers {philabs,csun,psivax}!ttidca!kevin
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (10/12/89)
In article <2674@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: >In article <156@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: >> I'll vote for rec.aquariums ... I'm not sure what I'd do with rec.aquaria. >>Right now I'm leaning toward a NO because it's not as obvious as it could be. > >Gee, with friends like this ... aquariums isn't even a WORD! Look it up, Mr. Wells. In my collegiate Webster's, `aquariums' is *preferred* to `aquaria'. Do you deny that the former is more obvious? We've seen several articles mentioning the confusion caused by `aquaria'. How could `aquarium' be misunderstood? >I think that a lot of news.groups people are missing the entire point here. >This is NOT a proposal to create a new group. This IS a proposal to take an >EXISTING group, alt.aquaria, and move it into the mainstream heirarchy. Which I believe has been vehemently opposed on the grounds that placing it in a mainstream domain, without there being a tropical fish hobbyist group elsewhere in the mainstream hierarchy, will either pollute the renamed alt.aquaria with novice questions, confuse folks looking for a hobbyist group, or, most likely, both. >The APPROPRIATE discussion to have here is where should alt.aquaria be put >so it will get more mainstream distribution while keeping its present character. Also appropriate is discussion about the *feasibility* of such a move. I don't think it is for the abovementioned reason of the lack of a mainstream hobbyist newsgroup. >If you DON'T know what alt.aquaria is currently like, what it's character is, >and what sort of people make it up - either subscribe for a while or kindly >leave the discussion to people who care more about the group than flaming. I can't subscribe to alt.aquaria because we don't get alt. I resent the implication that I'm not interested in the topic covered by the group in question and that I'm simply flaming for the hell of it. I know this discussion has dragged on far too long, and contributed toward many people's high-ranking position on the Bandwidth Waster's Hall of Fame (myself included), but I *really* do think it's important that we get it right. The goal is to move alt.aquaria to a mainstream domain. I have no problem with that goal, per se. I don't think it's going to be a successful move until there's a mainstream fish hobbyist group available. Why not propose rec.aquariums now, with a general hobbyist-oriented charter, keeping alt.aquaria for the tech talk? Then later propose moving alt.aquaria to rec.aquariums.tech or sci.aquaria or whatever. Even proposing both groups simultaneously now would be better than trying to simply move alt.aquaria. -- Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/12/89)
>Do you mean to suggest that our European colleagues consider themselves >armchair scientists rather than hobbyists? >but I >suggest that they will not be so pretentious as to avoid a good newsgroup >just because it is in the "rec" hierarchy. Actually, the Europeans might not have a choice about avoiding it. See, Europe doesn't take a full feed of USENET, just selected groups and heirarchies. Europe takes sci.all, so if aquaria is created in sci, they'll get it automatically. If it's created in rec.*, however, the people who want the aquaria group will have to fight to convince the owners of the feed to carry it. That's why the europeans are fighting for sci.aquaria -- it's in their best interest to put the group there, even if it isn't the correct name. Isn't politics wonderful? -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) (10/13/89)
In article <156@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: > I really can't understand why the sci.aquaria proponents are being so > pig-headed. In a previous article I wrote: Many groups have spit up thriving spin-offs due to enough intrest in a narrower field of discussion. I like and agree with all the arguments for sci.aquaria, but I feel that if a rec.aquarium (or misc.) were started first it would be that much easier to get support for such a group. Lets face it there is a need for an aquarium group that caters to both the coral reef and fish breeder types as well as to the guppy goldfish types. This talk about distroying the high level atomosphere of the current group, and using the "sci" heading as an intimidation factor is a selfish attitude. The purests can always burp up their own group later. As far as the technical aspects of fish keeping, there is enough examples of this level of discussion in misc. and rec. to null that argument; [...] I personally will vote against "pets". I would vote for "misc", "rec" either "aquaria" or "aquarium". I would have to think about "sci", even though I thought it was a good idea at first. And in another article I wrote: rec.(misc, sci)aquarium is not confusing. I don't know anyone who has a pet aquarium, do you? > First they say they want to move alt.aquaria under a mainstream > domain. Like sci OR REC OR MISC. > Huh? That sounds suspiciously like photographers calling for > sci.cameras because they're not into photographs, they're into the > science of the 3D->2D photoconversion process. No, my only problem is with "pets" and to a lesser extent "sci". I wouldn't argue against rec.photo but would argue against misc.consumers.camera as a group to cater to photographic hobbiests. And I MIGHT suggest misc.photo as a means of getting better international distribution! (rehash argument in this context: how many professional photographers have net access? So they are just consumers not creaters, right?) > I say that's a bunch of crap. I've paid my fishkeeping dues. I've > spent many a dollar and many an hour on the hobby. I'm sure some of > the sci.aquaria proponents are more dedicated than I ever was, but I > do feel qualified to have insider's opinion. Did you consider them "pets" though? Or did you consider it more of a window into an aquatic landscape? Neons (common aquaria inhabitants) have almost no traditional pet qualities on there own, but lend a lot to the "landscape". My two dogs are the household "pets", my tanks are my hobby not my pets. Your flaming a posting that only argues against the "pets" subheading, not against rec or for sci. > What we need is a newsgroup dedicated to the hobby of tropical fish, > not aquarium science. This newsgroup should have the most obvious, > logical name we can find. Think of the newsgroup name as a kind of > textual icon. The mental images conjured by the name should point the > majority toward the newsgroup's topic. Alt.aquaria, sci.aquaria, and > even rec.aquaria mislead a good number of not-so-naive newreaders into > thinking the group is devoted to astrology. Some just don't instantly > make the association between aquaria and aquariums. geesh! I've been saying rec or misc.aquarium all along! > In article <2287@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) writes: > >Even IF you view the animals in an aquarium as pets (which I don't) it seems to > >me that when more attention in the hobby is focused on creating the environment > >than on the inhabitants of that environment, it's hard for me to understand why > >you would name the group after the lesser aspect. > > When I kept fish, my interest was in keeping fish. If could have done > that without an aquarium, I would have. I enjoyed watching the fish, > observing their different behaviors. I didn't study them, though. I > didn't dissect then when they died. I didn't spend hours at the > library researching water chemistry literature. I followed the advice > of the how-to book I had and the person who sold me the fish. I never > had any desire to be a professional aquarium keeper, biologist, or > breeder. It was a *hobby* dammit. If its a hobby than it doesn't belong under "pets" dammit! I don't consider my dogs my hobby, I have two mutts, I don't show them in my spare time or try to refine them or develop my mutt keeping skills, or treat them for illnesses (thats what vets are for) they're much more of a responsibility than a hobby. I am responsable for their care and feeding, and they show love and affection in return, traditional pet. Most pets get the connection between their owner and their well being if let loose they will probably return. Throw a fish in the lake and it will swim off and never look back, no loyalty what-so-ever! > >And since most woodworking tools come from places that cater to the > >home building trade (harware stores, contractor tool distributors, > >home improvement) should rec.woodworking really be > >misc.consumers.house.woodworking? > > No, because most people don't consider woodworking to be a part of > home improvement or maintenance. Woodworking is a hobby, craft, or > trade depending upon how seriously one pursues it and whether one is > an amateur or a professional. Most people don't consider aquariums to be pets or think of their inhabitants as pets in the traditional sense. aquarium keeping is a hobby, craft, or trade depending upon how seriously one pursues it and whether one is an amateur or a professional. (argument rehash in this context: how many professional cabinet makers have net access. These are hobbiests hence consumers... etc, etc, etc...) > >The primary focus of the hobby is the tank and its environment, the fish are > >a major element, but this is like changing misc.consumers.house to a soc. > >group. > > This is obviously where we differ. To you the fish are a major > element. To others, such as myself, they're all that counts. All the > rest is peripheral: tanks, plants, filtration, etc. A PC is useless with out an input device, output device, and some form of communication capacity. In fact with out these peripheral it doesn't even belong in a comp. group, it belongs in an electronics group. With out the peripheral of the aquarium its just a bunch of dead fish and belongs in either rec.food or alt.fishing (Subject: bait). > I will vote NO on sci.aquaria if it comes to a vote. I'll vote for > rec.aquariums, rec.pets.fish, rec.pets.aquatic, rec.pets.aquarium... ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I'm not sure what I'd do with rec.aquaria. Right now I'm leaning > toward a NO because it's not as obvious as it could be. Then why, with all the talk on this subject, do you single out my article as an example. I have said that the group should be called REC.AQUARIUM or MISC. AQUARIUM (misc giving better distribution). I have said that aquarium is more legible than aquaria and identifies with the subject better. Do you disagree with either of my prefered choices? > -- > Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil) Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Laboratories Indian Hill 6G410 Naperville, Illinois (312) 979-4578 ...!ihlpa!kai
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/13/89)
In article <161@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: >Why not propose rec.aquariums now, with a general hobbyist-oriented >charter, keeping alt.aquaria for the tech talk? Then later propose >moving alt.aquaria to rec.aquariums.tech or sci.aquaria or whatever. >Even proposing both groups simultaneously now would be better than >trying to simply move alt.aquaria. I see ... so this is sort of like extortion? The net.gods decide that it would be nice to have a rec.aquariums or rec.pets.aquariums for the masses of goldfish and guppy fans, so we can't have our group until they get thiers? This despite the fact that we have demonstrated a consistent, long-term interest and, for all you know, the K-Mart fish department crowd may not support the traffic? I don't propose rec.KMart.aquariums because I don't want it. If we started a bozo group while maintaining alt.aquaria, I wouldn't subscribe to it. Go check out rec.pets and see if there is enough traffic there on fish to justify rec.pets.aquariums. If so, suggest that they start it. If not, please don't try to get us to 'jump on our sword' and create a group for them. -- --------| Sometimes I feel like a ball Alien | in the great pinball game of life. --------| - Steve Steir decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (10/13/89)
In article <2678@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > In article <161@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: > >Why not propose rec.aquariums now, with a general hobbyist-oriented > >charter, keeping alt.aquaria for the tech talk? Then later propose > >moving alt.aquaria to rec.aquariums.tech or sci.aquaria or whatever. > >Even proposing both groups simultaneously now would be better than > >trying to simply move alt.aquaria. > > I see ... so this is sort of like extortion? Not at all. The fact is, you just can't expect the masses to respect the charter of a group. Let's say sci.aquaria is created, and its charter is technical/scientific discussion related to fresh and saltwater aquariums. Now, along comes Joe Frosh looking for a place to ask about what color background would look good with his multicolored gravel and bubbling treasure-chest. Where's he going to post? You guessed it. There are three solutions I see. The first is to create a more general-purpose aquarium newsgroup (which would *not* belong under sci). Give the group a chance to get going, say two months. Then propose creating the tech/sci aquarium group, either as a subgroup or under sci. With the general-purpose group available, Joe Frosh won't even be tempted to post his article to the inappropriate tech/sci group. The second solution is to propose both of the above groups simultaneously. The problem with this is if the hobbyist group fails, but the tech group passes. Perhaps we could make the creation of the tech group contingent upon the passage of the hobbyist group. The third solution is to create a moderated tech/sci group. > The net.gods decide that it > would be nice to have a rec.aquariums or rec.pets.aquariums for the masses > of goldfish and guppy fans, so we can't have our group until they get thiers? First, I don't know why you're dragging "net.gods" into this. Resistance to sci.aquaria has come pretty evenly from all levels. What makes you think there'd be anything gained by holding your group hostage? The net community is perfectly capable of creating whatever groups it needs. The point is that the sci.aquaria proposal is seriously flawed. > This despite the fact that we have demonstrated a consistent, long-term > interest and, for all you know, the K-Mart fish department crowd may not > support the traffic? Stand back, folks, he's getting elitist on us now. It's highly unlikely that the hobbyist group will fail if there is enough interest to support a tech/sci group. Don't forget that the hobbyist group will have to pass a vote too. If your group's not moderated, and there's no hobbyist group, how do you expect to keep hobbyist pollution out? > I don't propose rec.KMart.aquariums because I don't want it. Wrong answer. If you want your unmoderated, mainstream, technical aquarium group, that may be the only way it'll happen. > If we started a bozo group while maintaining alt.aquaria, I wouldn't > subscribe to it. Who's asking you to? > Go check out rec.pets and see if there is enough traffic there on fish > to justify rec.pets.aquariums. Umm, doesn't alt.aquaria get most of the current fish hobbyist traffic? > If so, suggest that they start it. If not, please don't try to get > us to 'jump on our sword' and create a group for them. Please explain how proposing a hobbyist group would be detrimental to your goal. The whole point is that it would make your group viable by directing inappropriate novice discussion elsewhere. At this point, it would be out of line for anyone but the original proposer of sci.aquaria, Richard Sexton, to alter the proposal, withdraw it, or propose a related tropical fish hobbyist group. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/22/89)
In article <6798@ttidca.TTI.COM> kevin@ttidcb.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes: >About the ONLY place I can get good, factual scientific information on >marine biological matters is in Science, and Science News magazine - Add to that Natural History. -- "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) (10/22/89)
>The ... solution is to create a moderated tech/sci group. There is nothing wrong with that idea. This way the irrelevant (like a discussion of commercial tuna fishing) and idiotic (like Kent Paul Dolan's "Bandwidth Wasters" opus) articles will not reach the readers and keep the noise level down. >Umm, doesn't alt.aquaria get most of the current fish hobbyist >traffic? Most, not all. Many people do not have ALT hierarchy (AT&T sites, for instance). -- "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
popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) (10/24/89)
In article <21186@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: > >Umm, doesn't alt.aquaria get most of the current fish hobbyist > >traffic? > > Most, not all. Many people do not have ALT hierarchy (AT&T sites, for > instance). Sorry but I've been reading alt.aquaria for quite some time now (at least since before the FIDO thing) and it was carried on our local mainframe in Naperville and is now carried on the Netnews Server Machines. Of the over 8000 people that read it at Bell Labratories, over 8000 of them get alt. groups, excluding alt.sex.* and maybe alt.drugs and those were removed in the not to distant past. As far as I know we've (at Naperville) ALWAYS gotten alt.. I find little assuance in your stance on Europe if you believe this about AT&T. > Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Laboratories Indian Hill 6G410 Naperville, Illinois (312) 979-4578 ...!ihlpa!kai
rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux) (10/25/89)
In article <345@grc.UUCP>, gary@grc.UUCP (Gary Sutcliffe) writes: > In article <31734@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> elm@chilli.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) writes: > I also read sci.electronics although most of the posting are hobby > related (although I keep an eye on it for professional reasons too). > I read sci.astronomy. Like most of the readers of that group I > am an amateur that likes to take my telescope out on clear nights > when the mosquitos are not too bad. > One of the most often used defenses of sci.aquaria is "Look, a lot of the other sci groups aren't very technical either." The fact that they are misnamed isn't a terribly good reason to misname another group. It reminds me of: Child: "But Mom, everyone else is doing it." (whimper ... whine) Mother: "If everyone was jumping off a bridge, does that mean you should too?" Let's stop the blurring of hierarchies instead of furthering it. Soon we'll just need one hierarchy: Misc. > Gary Sutcliffe W9XT GENROCO, Inc. Slinger, Wis. (414) 644-8700 Rich Champeaux (rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu)
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (10/25/89)
In article <6865@hubcap.clemson.edu> rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux) writes: >Let's stop the blurring of hierarchies instead of furthering it. Soon we'll >just need one hierarchy: Misc. Perhaps what is needed is some guidelines as to how to select the "proper" hierarchy. It sounds unlikely, though, given the `debate' on the "new" voting procedures, etc. 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
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/26/89)
In article <2534@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) writes: >As far as I know we've (at Naperville) ALWAYS gotten alt.. Then I have been misinformed. I do not claim omniscience. -- "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
fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (10/29/89)
In article <21466@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
< I do not claim omniscience.
< Oleg Kiselev
*********
How does one send this to comp.unix.aix?
fr
--
This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news.
26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net
609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schillerkaren@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (10/30/89)
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) writes: >Perhaps what is needed is some guidelines as to how to select the "proper" >hierarchy..... >Terry This makes sense. If guidelines were more precise in their description of what each domain holds, that might circumvent some of the endless debate that's going on now. As it is now, the only description of the domains that I've been able to find describes each domain in a short phrase. (If there's some more lengthy descriptive passage somewhere, I haven't seen it.) Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen "You have to be a delinquent. If you are not a delinquent, I cannot be a judge." (The judge to the whore in Genet's _The Balcony_)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/31/89)
>>Perhaps what is needed is some guidelines as to how to select the "proper" >>hierarchy..... >This makes sense. If guidelines were more precise in their description of >what each domain holds, that might circumvent some of the endless debate >that's going on now. I'll both agree and disagree. I agree that in light of recent events we should sit down and tighten up definitions and procedures. I disagree that it'll do any good, because the only times there have been any serious problems with the hierarchy definitions have been times when people have chosen to either ignore them or re-define them in arbitrary, politica ways to match their notions of what they want the outcome to be [references: comp.society.women, sci.aquaria. your mileage may vary] So we can define things all we want. If people choose to ignore or hack definitions to suit their purposes, it won't help. -- 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.