richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/21/89)
In article <2645@hydra.gatech.EDU> gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >Rarely do I post to this group, but.... > >In article <21087@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >>In article <8215@cbmvax.UUCP> bryce@commodore.COM (Bryce Nesbitt) writes: >>>I hereby formally propose a new newsgroup to be called "rec.aquarium". >>This is a complete idiocy and I appeal to ALL OF YOU (those who are in favour >>of sci.aquaria or rec.aquaria or misc.aquaria) to vote NO on this attempt of >>blatant sabotage by someone who does not have any interest in the group or at >>least ignore it! > >Oleg, hush fussing. The man took the time to take a name survey, >waited his 14 days (unlike Richard, who saw fit to jump the gun), >and is posting a perfectly legit request. Wrong. Richard waited his 14 days. If you'd read the article I posted on the subject you'd know that people who only read news.announce.newgroups and not news.groups saw 2 less days of, ahem, discussion. Since the, ahem, discussion was going nowhere, I decided to just call for the damn vote and get it over with. I really didn't think any great resiltion would take place in two days (or two months). I started the discussion on a monday, and called for votes two Mondays later. The man did *not* take a name survey. Nelson Broat did. The winner was sci.aquaria. Hierarchical preferences aside, the species name winner was ``aquaria'' not ``aquarium''. Careful reading of the .aquaria discission will reveal that ``.aquarium'' is considered less than desirable name by the majority and favored by the two people who thought ``.aquaria'' was some new age magic stuff. Bryce Nesbitt, who called for the vote on rec.aquarium was one of these two people. Is is not a perfectly legit request for these reasons. Additionally, nobody knows what the outcome of the sci.aquaria vote will be. One possability is that it may pass but rec.aquaria will be created. And ha ben stated previous, Chuq and Nelson have both stated their intentions to take a vote for rec.aquaria. Both od them have the good sense and common decency to wait until the sci.aquaria vote is over, *just to see what happens*. I join Greg Woods is asking Bryce to reconsider this premature call for votes, and urge everybody to either ignore it or vote no. Lets take this a bit slower. >>There is a real chance that the aquarium scientists will join that group > >(much excess flaming about "Real Science" deleted) > >USENET isn't just for elite scientists, it's for all us little >people, too. Unless someone wants to moderate (and neither party Look pal. You and Oleg may be short, but I'm not. (TAJS) >seems to want that), I have the sneaking suspicion that, regardless >of name, there will be entirely too much of the "gee, nice rocks" >kind of thing for "Real Science" to take the group seriously. You can suspect that all you want, but based on past history of alt.aquria, it's not likeley to be true. Very few poeple care how pretty the rocks look (they just get covered with algea anyway (TAJS)), a more pertinent interest is what the chemical composition of the rocks is. >>>The name "aquarium" is used for absolute clarity. >>No, it's chosen out of ignorance! Aquaria is a PLURAL of aquarium. > >You don't have to know Latin to have fishies, Oleg. Turns out you do. There are so many species of plants and fishes, that many do not have common (or ``English'') names and are known soley by their latin names. The common names don't work across international borders. Even common names in fairly widespread use cause doubt and uncertainty. One reaosnably common Cyprinidont is Fundulopanchax sjoestedti, which has been known for over 100 years as the ``blue gularis''. At a convention this summer in Milwaukee I asked a man from Holland about blue gularis. He looked at me with a puzzled expression on his face until somebody from England said ``sjoestedti'' and all was clear. There are about a dozen fish known as ``red tetra'', ranging from Cheirodon axelrodi to Petitellia georgiae. But, you might say. I only keep sword and platies, I'm a rank beginner. What kind of platies may be a reply to a question asked by rank beginner, who will need to know that they are variatus platies, as in Xiphopherus variatus. I'm not trying to give the impresion that all aquarists go around speaking in latin, but it is very common to use the latin species name (every living organism has a Latin or Latinized name. It consists of two words, the first is the genus name, and is always capitalized, the second is the species name and is never capitalized, even when derived from a proper noun. The international committee of Zoological Nomenclature keeps track of this stuff) instead of the common name, or even the whole latin name. There are entire groups of fishes that don't even have common names - mbuna, cyprinodonts, dwarf cichlids - all members of these groups these all go solely by latin names. If you are talking about more than one of 12 species of aquatic plants, you'll need to know the latin name. So yes, you do need to know some latin. >Rec is where a group on pet fishies, Pets has been ruled out, if you've been paying attention. If I have Fundulopanchax congicum they're pets, but if there's an exhibit of them in the Steinhart aquarium (at least there was before tuesday) they're not? Piffle. I don't buy it. They are no more pets than my orchids are. >a definite hobby, As I've said, seemingly twice a day, so is most of comp. >it will get to Europe, The ruling I got jut last week from Europe is the same as I've been getting for 1.5 years from them. Rec.aquaria won't, sci.aquaria will. No, I don't believe all .aquaria discusion warrents global distribition, For that there is Distribution: na. But there is a class of discussion that does warrent Distribution: world, and this is the *only* way to acheive it. >Aquarium makes it crystal clear it's about fish, rather than >something 60's-newageish. Oh please. I'd understand if it was ``.aquarius'' instead of ``.aquaria'', but please don't let your ignorance get in the way of the correct name favored by the majority. -- Surgical tools for mutant women richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
mcwill@inmos.co.uk (Iain McWilliams) (10/21/89)
In article <21129@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <2645@hydra.gatech.EDU> gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >>[rec.aquaria] it will get to Europe, > >The ruling I got jut last week from Europe is the same as I've >been getting for 1.5 years from them. Rec.aquaria won't, >sci.aquaria will. Can you explain why you believe rec.aquaria will not reach Europe ??? ( Who gave the ruling ??? ) The reason I'm asking is because as of 3 weeks ago mcsun is importing *ALL* newsgroups to Europe. Therefore all newsgroups make it to Europe and it is then up to each countries' backbone as to what groups they carry. The UK receives everything bar alt.drugs and alt.sex. IF some countries are choosing not to carry rec.all because of bandwidth limitations, then surely that is their right, and should be respected not short circuited. Iain. -- Iain McWilliams Inmos Ltd, Bristol | EMail(UK) ukc!inmos!mcwill ---------------------------------------| or mcwill@inmos.co.uk The opinions above are my personal | Internet: mcwill@inmos.com views and do not refelect Inmos policy.| UUCP:(US) uunet!inmos!mcwill
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/22/89)
A note to people on both sides. The *guidelines*, as they say themselves, are just *guidelines*. Got it? Good. As they themselves, say, a "vote" is NOT "invalid" just because it doesn't follow one or more (or indeed *all*) of the guidelines. So don't all get up and shout about it. The guidelines themselves tell you that it is the spirit of them that matters, not the letter. Thus, in a roundabout way, to follow the spirit and not the letter *is* to follow the letter! For example, the 14 day suggestion on discussion was put in to give time for ample discussion and thought. Even if the votes started 7 days ago, can anybody here doubt for one second that there has not be more than ample discussion? And while there has been no call for discussion on a group rec.aquarium, can anybody deny that there has been more than ample discussion about this concept, too? So please, people, if you posted something about votes being invalid or violating the guidelines, you were wrong. Reread the guidelines, and (I hope) cancel your message. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473