rdouglas@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Douglas) (10/09/89)
Well, it seems that the move has finally been made to make alt.aquaria 'legitimate'. All I can say is, it's about time.:-) As to what the new name is to be seems to be causing quite a fuss. I don't know why people are getting so defensive and edgy over this, but then I never claimed to understand humanity well at all. So, instead of flaming everyone else on their choices, I just go ahead and enumerate what I think. sci.aquaria -- I like this. Having gotten into fish-keeping with a ten gallon tank and a couple of guppys, I have really fallen in a big way. I keep a couple of community tanks now, along with a tank of Africans, and some small tanks of killies (hi Richard). As I have progressed further and further I found out I wasn't interested in the fish just because they were pretty or had some weird body shape. I was interested because of the rich diversity of behavior and physiology present in the different species. I also became interested in the 'scientific' side of the hobby, dealing with filtration, O2 levels, CO2 levels, pH, water hardness, etc and how they interacted with the species that I kept. I also became interested in plants which entailed knowing more about chelated elements such as iron and magnesium, and CO2 injectors. Then there are the mechanics of protein skimmers, wet-dry filters, ultra-violet filters, etc that always catch my attention. If this isn't sci, I don't know what is. rec.aquaria -- Okay. But I really feel that fish-keeping is much more then a recreation to me. I guess you could call people who go home and work math and physics equations all night as having a 'recreation', but this seems more like a science to me. Just because people enjoy doing it doesn't mean it can't be scientific. rec.pets.aquaria, rec.pets.fish., etc -- I think people have enumerated enough good reasons *not* to make this choice that I won't rehash the arguments. A last point. I like aquaria instead of aquarium. Although it doesn't really matter in the long run, as the same things will be discussed no matter where it is located, I feel aquaria is broader then aquarium, and better reflects the contents of conversations within this group. Robert Douglas ------------------------------ rdouglas@hpda.HP.COM
richardb@fear+loathing.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (10/10/89)
I think this discusion is bordering on the verge of the absurd. Imagine if all the traffic generated by the sci.aquaria naming proposal were actually the traffic IN alt.aquaria. We would never need a new-named group to attract traffic. Therefore, let me propose the following observation: Richard Sexton (the guy who started this discussion) is actually an AI program (or Construct, if you will) running on some AT&T (R) 3B somewhere deep in the bowels of a research building in New Jersey. This AI program, while crude, is generated more incoming for AT&T. :^) (Actually, this is a theory floating around the net...) Lets stop this silly discusion and realize what we are; a bunch of pet-owners that are trying to raise our hobby to the same level as our professional careers. Yes, computer science is a science. Fish keeping and breeding at the hobbyist level is not. If you really think sci.aquaria is justifyable, check out the currently top-rated technical rag on the subject _Aquaculture_. Compare the rantings of dead-pleco owners with those of the top workers in the field. See you in rec.aquaira. The king has no clothes. Long live the king. -- Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/22/89)
In article <7217@fear+loathing.UUCP> richardb@cognos.UUCP () writes: >Lets stop this silly discusion and realize what we are; a bunch >of pet-owners Would you call a bunch of caulerpa a "pet"? Or have you given a name to every worm in your grindal worm culture? Do you take your crypts out for walks? You may own pets. I own aquariums with working ecologies, I breed fish and I culture food for these fish. No pets in my house. >See you in rec.aquaira. I have very little argument against rec.aquaria, yet there can be no doubt that sci groups propagate to more sites than rec. I would rather see sci.aquaria pass. If it does not, there are several people ready to call for votes on rec.aquaria, which will definitely pass. If you disagree with sci hierarchy placement, send in your vote and stop trying to belittle what is a hobby to some and a science to others. -- "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
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (10/28/89)
In article <21184@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
# ... I would rather see
#sci.aquaria pass. If it does not, there are several people ready to call for
#votes on rec.aquaria, which will definitely pass.
So you're saying that you accept that rec.aquaria would be a more popular
choice, but you think the name should be sci.aquaria? So you're supporting
Richard's attempt to get sci.aquaria through a vote, which then commits the
net (more or less) to that name, when with more discussion and a possible
concensus the new group could have had a name most people would have
prefered?
In other words, you agree that Richard is trying to bounce the net into
doing things his way?
Just asking :-)
Note: this is not an objection to Richard, but to this particular campaign
of his. In previous controversies I have usually agreed with Richard's
side of the argument.
--
Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
At last: a "new group" proposal with a good reason to vote NOrichard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/30/89)
In article <2375@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >In article <21184@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: ># ... I would rather see >#sci.aquaria pass. If it does not, there are several people ready to call for >#votes on rec.aquaria, which will definitely pass. > >So you're saying that you accept that rec.aquaria would be a more popular >choice, but you think the name should be sci.aquaria? Err, no. What he said was: ># ... I would rather see >#sci.aquaria pass. If it does not, there are several people ready to call for >#votes on rec.aquaria, which will definitely pass. Oleg, lke me, has a few dozen aquaria and a couple of hundred fish and also feels that more science and less black magic would make this a whle lot easier and clearer. Failing that we'll co-exist with the beer, pretzel and startrek crowd if need be. -- ``Hacker: a human being whose sense of humor has been surgically removed'' - Kent Paul Dolan richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV