oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/09/89)
In article <530@banyan.UUCP> gil@banyan.com writes: >I think you're missing an important aspect of the namespace here. What >about people who are already into aquariums, fish etc. but are >relatively new to the net ? Where are they going to "logically" look >for a group on this subject ? I think *you* are missing an important aspect of new user's best approach to USENET - read news.announce.newuser. There is a list of all newsgroups there with short blurbs explaining their purpose and charter. This simple and ingenious strategy can save the new users a lot of trouble and time. >I think the majority of people likely to use this net who >own/maintain aquariums do so for *recreational* purposes. While, of course, the majority of the people who subscribe to sci.astro are the career astronomers? Let's not be silly. Just because people do something as a hobby does not invalidate its scientific unredpinnings. -- "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
gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (10/09/89)
In article <20766@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
#While, of course, the majority of the people who subscribe to sci.astro
#are the career astronomers?
I would be willing to wager that both the number and percentage of
professional astronomers who read/post to sci.astro will be larger
than the number of professional fish breeders who will read/post to
[rec,sci].aquaria.
If the argument is that sci.astro should be rec.astro, that arguments
may have some points, but a second inappropiate name should not be
added just because one is there.
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7walien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/10/89)
In article <2084@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: >I would be willing to wager that both the number and percentage of >professional astronomers who read/post to sci.astro will be larger >than the number of professional fish breeders who will read/post to >[rec,sci].aquaria. I'm unconvinced. I suspect I would take the wager. While I am not a 'professional' now, I have - in the past - financed my fish operations with sales of fish that I bred. There have been lots of discussions in alt.aquaria on breeding fish. There are also a number of killie buffs, and you aren't 'allowed' to own killies unless you breed them (1/2 :-). I will grant you that there probably isn't anyone in the group that earns his entire living off breeding or collecting fish, but there isn't exactly the level of governmental and academic subsidy for aquaria either. When I was the president of the MIT Exotic Fish Society, we looked at getting together a proposal to get a grant to do some research in raising/breeding the Snail Darter (remember the Snail Darter?) and keeping it from extinction by commercially introducing it as a hobbyist fish (they are quite attractive). We got a resounding yawn as a response. The closest things to aquaria that get government support are trout hatcheries and a few public aquaria. On the other hand, the people that ARE involved in research (primarily European, I'm afraid) we WANT involved in this group ... thus the request for sci.aquaria. -- --------| Sometimes I feel like a ball Alien | in the great pinball game of life. --------| - Steve Steir decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (10/11/89)
news.groups's own gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) said:
-
-If the argument is that sci.astro should be rec.astro, that arguments
-may have some points, but a second inappropiate name should not be
-added just because one is there.
Why not? It's never stopped the net in the past...
Seriously, though...I'm of the feeling that as long as sci.skeptic remains,
that's more than enough reason to ignore any namespace pollution arguments.
Sci.aquaria *does* have merit. Rec.aquaria has merit also. Personally,
I don't care much. But I'd like to see this petty bickering ended so we
could get to some more important bickering.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
Well you can just die then.mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (10/11/89)
In article <136@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: >Sci.aquaria *does* have merit. Rec.aquaria has merit also. Personally, >I don't care much. But I'd like to see this petty bickering ended so we >could get to some more important bickering. The problem here is that we have both technical and nontechnical postings in a single group, alt.aquaria. The attempt to replace that with a single group in the sci.* hierarchy has produced a truly delightful little flamefest between the Propagationists, who want sci.aquaria, and Purificationists, who want rec.aquaria. Allow me to pour a little oil on these troubled fires with this suggestion: since the technically minded in alt.aquaria are primarily interested (apparently) in marine ecosystems, perhaps what is needed is sci.environment.{aquaria,marine,aquatic}, and possibly a rec group for the non-technical aspects, like "what color tank sand should I get to go with tetras?" I suggest that separate votes be held for sci.environment.{aquaria, aquatic,marine} and rec.{aquaria,pets.fish,whatever}. We might also want to consider a vote on a marine biology group, to include imprisoned water-dwellers, as well as the free ones. sci.bio.marine, anyone? Yours for a more chaotic net, -- Dave Mack McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems uunet!inco!mack, inco%mack@uunet.uu.net (703)883-3911 All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of MDESC. Ever.
birwin@ficc.uu.net (Bob Irwin) (10/13/89)
Aquaria? Do you want lousy-spelling Flower Children pursuing the
Age of Aquarius? Please use the more common plural of *ium. Do
we say, "Put aquaria in the atria." ? Is aquaria suggested because
it might 'sound' more scientific?
Sci? Will we have to type Lebistes reticlatus, instead of guppy?
Using the fruits of science does not make one a scientist.
I favor: alt.aquarium{s}, rec.aquarium{s}.
"Is there a Nobel prize for aquariums, yet?" - Ima Smilin
--
---- uunet!ficc!birwin Tidak Apa!fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (10/14/89)
In article <798@pmafire.UUCP> geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) writes: >In article <6402@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> >Personally, I like rec.pets.aquaria. I would definitely vote against >sci.aquaria, and I think a lot of other people will, too. Well, I second that motion. But rec.aquaria is fine too. For me even alt was fine. See how easy I am? Fred Rump -- This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net 609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller