oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/23/89)
Someone asked me why I conisdered Bryce Nesbitt's "call for votes" an attempt to sabotage .aquaria by someone who does not have any interest in the substance of the group. The article I am following up was posted to SCI.MISC. Not to news.groups. Not to alt.aquaria. Look at the subject line. Does that look like a posting of a someone who cares about aquaria as either a hobby, or a science or an art? Or an action of a malicious and subversive zealot of the nonexistent "purity of hierarchy"? In article <8220@cbmvax.UUCP> bryce@commodore.COM (Bryce Nesbitt) writes: >A formal propsal has been made to convert the current "alt.aquaria" group >into "sci.aquaria". This is a counter-proposal. It's an attempt to subvert the vote, to interfere and to create even more chaos than the SCI.AQUARIA proposal has stirred up already. >The name "rec.aquarium" was chosen for several reasons. Yes. Let me enumerate them. One, you have no interest or understanding of aquaria, in any form. What's more, you seem to have an accute hostility toward the very subject of aquariums. Why else would you have conveniently ignored a poll conducted by another person opposed to sci.aquaria creatin, which conclusively has shown that the name preferred for the groub by an overwhelming majority was "aquaria", in whatever hierarchy it'd get created? Two, you are ignorant and not very bright, so the trivial effort of deducing that the plural of "aquarium" is "aquaria" is beyound you. Three, you would dearly love to see the already volatile situation get even worse through the offering of yet another contentious proposal (outside of the current SCI.AQUARIA vs. REC.AQUARIA vs. MISC.AQUARIA debate). >I feel that distribution in "sci" would be inappropriate. Without any justification, other than your hatered of aquaria and the related "hobby oriented talk", that sounds like a petty bigotry. >A rec.aquarium group probably makes sense even if a more technical aquarium >group is passed. If any group got created under REC hierarchy, it should definitely not be "aquarium". The existing group is names "aquaria", almost all the people involved in the naming debate agree that it should be "aquaria", the international usage of the word "aquaria" was what prompted the naming of the ALT group to begin with! >Please decide for yourself based on the wealth of opinions >expressed in news.groups. Exactly. Go read the opinions in news.groups and decide for yourself. But whatever hierarchy you agree with, please wait for one vote to complete before another one starts. And send Bryce Nesbitt a NO vote because (a) he is being the biggest asshole in this whole affair, (b) because Nesbitt has blatantly violated voting guidelines, (c) because the other vote has not yet completed (if it succeeds, what's the point of a duplicate group? and if it fails, there will be a proposal for REC.AQUARIA made -- there are at least 3 people aching to do it -- and that will definitely pass; so what's the point of yet another duplicate group, again?) and (d) because it's "aquarium". -- "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