wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/13/89)
In article <28357@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >The question should not be do we want alt.acquaria, rec.pets.fish or >sci.water-chemistry. That's a silly question. The question is, "Assuming >that a good name can be chosen, do we want a group for aquariums?" > >At least that's what the question should be. It does seem that much of >the silly argument here is about the boring question of names. I think this is most incorrect, here. The question of "do we want an aquarium group" has already been settled, by the existance of alt.aquaria. Now, the drive is to increase the readership base of that group by changing its name to something more "respectable" to increase distribution; and it is alleged (and makes sense) that the sci. name is particularly desirable as it would include European aquaculturists (or whatever you call a fishmonger). If that is what's going on here, I can't say as I'd blame 'em; sci.aquaria would be a *better* group than rec.aquaria. So the name is, and should be, the issue in this particular case. I have no doubt that a CFV for rec.aquaria would would pass by a comfortable margin. I think what's going on here is to see whether a CFV for sci.aquaria would make it. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/15/89)
In article <10193@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >I think this is most incorrect, here. The question of "do we want an >aquarium group" has already been settled, by the existance of alt.aquaria. >Now, the drive is to increase the readership base of that group by changing >its name to something more "respectable" to increase distribution .... > >So the name is, and should be, the issue in this particular case. I think this is more incorrect, here. Otherwise I might ask how you would answer the question "do we want a weemba group?" Ah, I see, because there is alt.weemba (or pick your favourite alt group that has come or gone) it means that we want such a group, and the issue is simply the name! The name is the issue in this case, but it's a bogus issue. It just plain isn't important, and I am disturbed to see people attributing so much importance to this non-issue. There's been more traffic on the right name for aquariums than on many far more important issues. And to top it off, alt.aquaria, which makes it to 73% of the arbitron sites (gosh, sci.aquaria, with all the controversy, will probably make it to around 60%) still doesn't manage to get a single reader on half the machines it goes to. That's right, out of 719 sites surveyed, 525 had alt.aquaria and there were only 260 readers. And people say this has to go out to the whole net, and not only that, it should be put in the best distribution possible? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
kayvan@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) (10/16/89)
>>>>> "William" == William B. Thacker <wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM> writes:
William> I have no doubt that a CFV for rec.aquaria would would pass
William> by a comfortable margin. I think what's going on here is to
William> see whether a CFV for sci.aquaria would make it.
I have no doubt that a CFV for sci.aquaria would not make it.
According to the new voting guidelines (>100 NO votes cans the group).
There are many people (including myself) who would vote NO on the
basis of the name alone.
---Kayvan
--
Kayvan Sylvan @ Transact Software, Inc. -*- Los Altos, CA (415) 961-6112
Internet: kayvan@Transact.COM -*- UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,mips}!mrspoc!kayvan
= Interested in story telling group? Mail yarn-spinners-request@transact.com =peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/16/89)
[the referenced article was along the lines of "well, with 100 NO votes in
effect the group sci.aquaria won't pass" ]
Unfortunately, the proposed new voting rule (100 NO votes) is *not* in effect.
--
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
'U`
Quote: Structured Programming is a discipline -- not a straitjacket.tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/17/89)
In <KAYVAN.89Oct15143117@mrspoc.Transact.COM> kayvan@mrspoc.Transact.COM
(Kayvan Sylvan) writes:
Kayvan> I have no doubt that a CFV for sci.aquaria would not make it.
Kayvan> According to the new voting guidelines (>100 NO votes cans the group).
This is not "officially" part of the voting guidelines. In fact, I
thought the tide pretty much went against that proposal.
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/19/89)
In article <33729@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <10193@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >>I think this is most incorrect, here. The question of "do we want an >>aquarium group" has already been settled, by the existance of alt.aquaria. >>Now, the drive is to increase the readership base of that group by changing >>its name to something more "respectable" to increase distribution .... >> >>So the name is, and should be, the issue in this particular case. > >I think this is more incorrect, here. Obviously wrong, as the point I was responding to was *most* incorrect. How can something be more than most ? >Otherwise I might ask how you >would answer the question "do we want a weemba group?" Ah, I see, because >there is alt.weemba (or pick your favourite alt group that has come or gone) >it means that we want such a group, and the issue is simply the name! Nonsense. We *already have* an aquarium group, and a weemba group. The point is that people are displeased that its name, *alt*.aquaria, places it in some (disputable) net.ghetto. They want a better name for the group, in the hope that it will make it a better group. Whatever name is proposed, the group still needs to pass a creation vote. The name is, obviously, the critical factor in that passage; it is rightly the focus of the issue at hand. >The name is the issue in this case, but it's a bogus issue. It just plain >isn't important, and I am disturbed to see people attributing so much >importance to this non-issue. This illustrates no more than your boredom with the topic. For those who want European participation in an aquarium newsgroup, the name is very important. If it bores you, stop wasting time and put it in your killfile already. >And to top it off, alt.aquaria, which makes it to 73% of the arbitron sites >(gosh, sci.aquaria, with all the controversy, will probably make it to around >60%) still doesn't manage to get a single reader on half the machines it >goes to. That's right, out of 719 sites surveyed, 525 had alt.aquaria and >there were only 260 readers. And people say this has to go out to the >whole net, and not only that, it should be put in the best distribution >possible? You keep bringing up this statistical marvel as if it's somehow important. If my site doesn't carry, say, talk.origins because nobody here reads it, then our downstream feeds can't read it, either. The group stops here. Now, when everyone starts applying this logic, perhaps rec.equestrian will be cut off upstream from us; a pity, because, for this argument, someone here reads rec.equestrian; or rather, did, until it was cut off upstream. The result of this silliness is that only a few of the universally popular groups will be carried. Instead, we carry talk.origins, and they carry rec.equestrian, and we're both satisfied. That leave only Brad who's upset with the situation, which is OK, because he's got his own net and can carry whatever he wants. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (10/21/89)
In article <6544@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Unfortunately, the proposed new voting rule (100 NO votes) is *not* in effect. Hey, I used to be strongly opposed to the 100 NO votes rule. But then this fishy thing started.... -- Copyright 1989 Lars Fischer; you can redistribute only if your recipients can. Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk, {...}!mcvax!iesd!fischer Department of Computer Science, University of Aalborg, DENMARK. Radical social changes begins on the street! So if your looking for some action... cut the crap and get out there. -- Joe Strummer