richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/18/89)
In article <2833646442@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: > rec.autos.tech ^^^ ^^^^ Thats what I love about the current namespace. Self contradictory names. Would it be cleaner to have rec.autos and tech.autos ? -- Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
" Maynard) (10/19/89)
In article <21042@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <2833646442@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >> rec.autos.tech > ^^^ ^^^^ >Thats what I love about the current namespace. Self contradictory names. >Would it be cleaner to have rec.autos and tech.autos ? This shows the basic flaw with your arguments against rec.aquaria, and your insistence on putting it in sci: Recreation and hobbies does not necessarily mean non-technical. The name above is not self-contradictory. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- Send richard@gryphon.com your NO vote on sci.aquaria; it belongs in rec.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/19/89)
In article <2952@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >In article <21042@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>In article <2833646442@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >>> rec.autos.tech >> ^^^ ^^^^ >>Thats what I love about the current namespace. Self contradictory names. >>Would it be cleaner to have rec.autos and tech.autos ? > >This shows the basic flaw with your arguments against rec.aquaria, and >your insistence on putting it in sci: >Recreation and hobbies does not necessarily mean non-technical. >The name above is not self-contradictory. Taxonomically speaking, rec.aquaria.tech is less desirable than sci.aquaria. Think about it - rec (it's recreational) aquaria (its about aquatic life) tech (it's technical in nature). As opposed to sci (it's highly techncal) aquaria (it's about aquatic life). When I think rec I think TV and football. I believe that technical groups in rec as as misplaced as .philosophy is in sci. I have no doubts that rec.aquaria can pass. There will quite likely be one, one day. But even putting the distribution aspect aside and limiting our discourse solely to the North American continent, my belief in sci.aquaria is unshaken. Also, it has recently been brought to my attention that when (not if) the Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums come online it seems more natural that they would contribute to a sci group than a rec.pets.whales thing. -- Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
jduston@kitten.prime.com (Jack Duston) (10/19/89)
In article <21042@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <2833646442@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >> rec.autos.tech > ^^^ ^^^^ > >Thats what I love about the current namespace. Self contradictory names. > This comment from someone who has been stating all along that hobbies can be very technical to support his choice of group hierarchy. >Would it be cleaner to have rec.autos and tech.autos ? > Unfortunately, there is no tech.* hierarchy, so maybe you should suggest sci.autos. Rec.autos.tech seems to be a very appropriate name, and by your own arguments, not contradictory at all. This is also an excellent argument for the alt.aquaria to go into rec.aquaria and have another level for the more technical aspects of the hobby. BTW- yes I own an aquarium, and before you flame me for not posting to alt.aquaria, I would if this site recieved it. As it is now, I only get alt.aquaria articles if they are cross-posted to a group that this site does recieve. People have opinions, Companies have policies! Jack Duston - a division of Computervision - a division of Prime . . . a division of J.H. Whitney . . . Next?
" Maynard) (10/19/89)
In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >When I think rec I think TV and football. I believe that technical >groups in rec as as misplaced as .philosophy is in sci. When I think rec I think hobbies. Everyone, yourself included, agrees that aquaria is a hobby subject. What's the problem? Next, you'll be proposing sci.ham-radio. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- Send richard@gryphon.com your NO vote on sci.aquaria; it belongs in rec.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/20/89)
In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > When I think rec I think TV and football. Yes, we know there's a major attitude problem in the United States, with non-participatory activities chewing up a huge amount of people's free time. It seems your reaction to this is to classify what you do in your free time as something other than "recreation". That's a perfectly valid reaction, but you really shoudl try to limit to your personal life, and not try to impose it on others. > Also, it has recently been brought to my attention that when (not if) > the Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums come online it seems more natural > that they would contribute to a sci group than a rec.pets.whales thing. Yes, I look forward to sci.bio.marine and rec.oceanaria. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the 'U` participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis" -- Richard Sexton
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (10/20/89)
Anyone who hasn't written off this whole discussion as totally absurd must be a glutton for punishment. In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Taxonomically speaking, rec.aquaria.tech is less desirable than >sci.aquaria. >Think about it - rec (it's recreational) aquaria (its about aquatic life) >tech (it's technical in nature). >As opposed to sci (it's highly techncal) aquaria (it's about aquatic life). Technical discussions about aquaria are a subset of the total volume of aquaria-related postings. This is more logically done (and easier to find for novices) with rec.aquaria.tech being a subset of rec.aquaria. >When I think rec I think TV and football. I believe that technical >groups in rec as as misplaced as .philosophy is in sci. This kind of closed-mindedness about what contitutes a 'recreation' (or what contitutes philosophy, for that matter) sorta says it all, doesn't it? >But even putting the distribution aspect aside >and limiting our discourse solely to the North American continent, >my belief in sci.aquaria is unshaken. How courageous. So what? >Also, it has recently been brought to my attention that when (not if) >the Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums come online it seems more natural >that they would contribute to a sci group than a rec.pets.whales thing. So if it's rec.* and not sci.* they won't read or post? This is getting stupider each day. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan Canada could have enjoyed: English government,French culture,American know-how; Instead we ended up with: English know-how,French government,American culture.
maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) (10/20/89)
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
\...
\As opposed to sci (it's highly techncal) aquaria (it's about aquatic life).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No! It's SCIENCE!
(Don't you give me that capitals stuff.)
\When I think rec I think TV and football.
When I think aquarium I think fish 'n chips.
Come on!
\I believe that technical
\groups in rec as as misplaced as .philosophy is in sci.
Philosophy can be studied at universities: it is considered a science.
I've never heard of an aquarium science...
\... Also, it has recently been brought to my attention that when (not if)
\the Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums come online it seems more natural
\that they would contribute to a sci group than a rec.pets.whales thing.
rec.pets.* would be another wrong name indeed.
--
A symbolic link is a POINTER to a file, | Maarten Litmaath @ VU Amsterdam:
a hard link is the file system's GOTO. | maart@cs.vu.nl, mcsun!botter!maartwsinrn@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (r.nauta) (10/20/89)
In article <2957@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>When I think rec I think TV and football. I believe that technical >>groups in rec as as misplaced as .philosophy is in sci. > >When I think rec I think hobbies. Everyone, yourself included, agrees >that aquaria is a hobby subject. What's the problem? Next, you'll be >proposing sci.ham-radio. > Hmmm, Richard is almost totally wrong. Half the rec. groups are called rec.arts, the rest are about computer games. One of them, rec.games.programmer, is a very scientific group. But please don't put it in sci. Why ? Because I believe rec. to be a more interesting and valuable domain than sci. I never had any inten- tions to go and read about how to calculate PI in 1000 decimals, or get bored to death with physics discussions. Why, the only interesting sci group is sci.skeptic, and that should be in talk. ... What do you think of comp.games.* ???? Greetings Rob
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/20/89)
In article <2957@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > >When I think rec I think hobbies. Everyone, yourself included, agrees >that aquaria is a hobby subject. What's the problem? Next, you'll be >proposing sci.ham-radio. Every day, I hear: ``if it's a hobby, it goes in rec''. Half of the comp groups cover hobbies - go ahead, TELL ME people play hack for a living (yeah, *I know* they get paid for it already). I've consistently seen more science in talk.origins than sci.bio. But no, I don't think a ham radio group shoul go in sci. It should goin tech. Of course at this point I'm trying to figure out what should go in sci. -- Surgical tools for mutant women richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) (10/21/89)
In article <1989Oct19.190808.8770@telly.on.ca>, evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: > Anyone who hasn't written off this whole discussion as totally absurd > must be a glutton for punishment. That discussion belongs in alt.aquaria.bondage or rec.aquaria.funny, lets call for votes! > In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > > >Taxonomically speaking, rec.aquaria.tech is less desirable than > >sci.aquaria. > > >Think about it - rec (it's recreational) aquaria (its about aquatic life) > >tech (it's technical in nature). > > >As opposed to sci (it's highly techncal) aquaria (it's about aquatic life). > > Technical discussions about aquaria are a subset of the total volume of > aquaria-related postings. This is more logically done (and easier to > find for novices) with rec.aquaria.tech being a subset of rec.aquaria. As opposed to the natural growth group for sci.aquaria catering to guppy and goldfish: sci.aquaria.non.scientific the perfect self contradicting group (or maybe that would be sci.non.scientific.misc? or wait a minute we already have that in misc.misc!) [...] > >Also, it has recently been brought to my attention that when (not if) > >the Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums come online it seems more natural > >that they would contribute to a sci group than a rec.pets.whales thing. > > So if it's rec.* and not sci.* they won't read or post? > This is getting stupider each day. I think that the traffic of this discussion merits its own group, this is an official call for discussion on the creation of misc.create.sci.or.rec.aquaria. > Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Laboratories Indian Hill 6G410 Naperville, Illinois (312) 979-4578 ...!ihlpa!kai
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (10/21/89)
In article <2957@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >When I think rec I think hobbies. Everyone, yourself included, agrees >that aquaria is a hobby subject. What's the problem? Next, you'll be >proposing sci.ham-radio. No, Jay, if anything, non-hams will propose sci.radio.amateur as they don't understand why we call it ham-radio. Personally, I would prefer sci.code.no but I don't want to start an even bigger war.flame. Wood.Terry.J -- (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
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/21/89)
In article <6597@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >> When I think rec I think TV and football. > >Yes, we know there's a major attitude problem in the United States, with >non-participatory activities chewing up a huge amount of people's free >time. It seems your reaction to this is to classify what you do in your >free time as something other than "recreation". That's a perfectly valid >reaction, but you really shoudl try to limit to your personal life, and >not try to impose it on others. > >> Also, it has recently been brought to my attention that when (not if) >> the Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums come online it seems more natural >> that they would contribute to a sci group than a rec.pets.whales thing. > >Yes, I look forward to sci.bio.marine Wait a minute. If people talk about a marine environment it's a sci group, but if they actually have one, it's rec ? At any rate I take it sci.bio.marine is about, uh, marine biology. Right now on USENET, thats a subset of alt.aquaria postings. If you can demonstrate enought traffic in sci.aquaria, Peter. maybe you can go and make sci.bio.marine. You're taking the taxa too far in the theoretical sense without any regards to prgamaticism. >and rec.oceanaria. Well thats fine for the marine stuff, but what about freshwater ? -- Surgical tools for mutant women richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (10/21/89)
Said richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton): (in article <21126@gryphon.COM>) |In article <2957@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: |> |>When I think rec I think hobbies. Everyone, yourself included, agrees |>that aquaria is a hobby subject. What's the problem? Next, you'll be |>proposing sci.ham-radio. | |Every day, I hear: ``if it's a hobby, it goes in rec''. | |Half of the comp groups cover hobbies - go ahead, TELL ME |people play hack for a living (yeah, *I know* they get paid for it |already). You wanna propose splitting comp.* into rec.comp.* and sci.comp.* ??? Go right ahead. Is it really worth the trouble? I don't think so. If you're concerned about both hobbies and sciences being in comp, ask Spaf to change his top-level descriptions so that it clearly states that rec is for non-computer-related hobbies and that sci is for non-computer-related sciences. B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | "Some girl with psychic powers asked me, (alias B.E.E.) | 'T-Bone, what's your sign?'; bee@cs.purdue.edu | I blinked and answered, 'Neon'. ..!purdue!bee | I thought I'd blown her mind!" -- _Existential Blues_
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/22/89)
In article <21126@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > Half of the comp groups cover hobbies - go ahead, TELL ME > people play hack for a living (yeah, *I know* they get paid for it > already). Well, if you can convince people to perform the following transformations: rename comp.sources.games rec.sources rename comp.sources.games.d rec.sources.d rename comp.sys.ibm.pc comp.pc.ibm rename comp.sources.ibm.pc comp.pc.ibm.sources rename comp.binaries.ibm.pc comp.pc.ibm.binaries for i in cbm amiga atari.st ... do rename comp.sys.$i comp.pc.$i rename comp.sources.$i comp.pc.$i.sources rename comp.binaries.$i comp.pc.$i.binaries done ...and so on... I could sure simplify my sys file. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "ERROR: trust not in UUCP routing tables" 'U` -- MAILER-DAEMON@mcsun.EU.net
baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) (10/22/89)
> |In article <2957@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > |> > |Half of the comp groups cover hobbies - go ahead, TELL ME > |people play hack for a living ... Nethack discussion is in rec (rec.games.hack). Perhaps comp.sources.games* should be renamed to rec.sources.games* ? steve baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM -- steve baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/22/89)
> >> Also, it has recently been brought to my attention that when (not if) > >> the Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums come online it seems more natural > >> that they would contribute to a sci group than a rec.pets.whales thing. > >Yes, I look forward to sci.bio.marine > Wait a minute. If people talk about a marine environment it's a sci > group, but if they actually have one, it's rec ? I would say the "Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums" have a marine environment. If you don't understand what I'm saying, go re-read the last few weeks of news.groups. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "ERROR: trust not in UUCP routing tables" 'U` -- MAILER-DAEMON@mcsun.EU.net
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/23/89)
In article <6623@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >> Wait a minute. If people talk about a marine environment it's a sci >> group, but if they actually have one, it's rec ? > >I would say the "Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums" have a marine environment. Alright, granted. But what about the Steinhart and Buffalo aquariums ? -- Surgical tools for mutant women richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/24/89)
Said richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton): (in article <21126@gryphon.COM>) | |Every day, I hear: ``if it's a hobby, it goes in rec''. | |Half of the comp groups cover hobbies - go ahead, TELL ME |people play hack for a living (yeah, *I know* they get paid for it |already). You're kidding. You never heard of rec.games.hack? -- -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (10/25/89)
In article <3757@pinas.cs.vu.nl>, maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes: > richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > \I believe that technical > \groups in rec as as misplaced as .philosophy is in sci. > > Philosophy can be studied at universities: it is considered a science. Oh? What does current theory say about the results of accelerating a philosopher to 26TeV and slamming him into a brick wall target? I hereby propose we rename news.groups to alt.flame.groups.