bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (10/12/89)
Said alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells): (in article <2674@cpoint.UUCP>) |I think that a lot of news.groups people are missing the entire point here. |This is NOT a proposal to create a new group. This IS a proposal to take an |EXISTING group, alt.aquaria, and move it into the mainstream heirarchy. | |Arguments about what kind of postings you philosophically think the newsgroup |ought to carry, and what kind of people it ought to be aimed at are NOT |APPROPRIATE unless you are currently part of alt.aquaria or are interested |in subscribing. Comments like 'alt.aquaria ought to go to rec.pets because |there are lots of people who would like a group there, even if it drives all |of you away' (OK, so I'm heavily paraphrasing, but I think that's the basic |idea) is like saying 'sci.physics ought to be in talk.physics because there |are a lot of people taking introductory physics in college who would love to |contribute'. And comments like 'if serious people want the group to be |serious, it doesn't matter where it it, they will steer it that way' are |total BS, there wouldn't be so many moderated groups if that were the case. | |<soapbox on> | |The APPROPRIATE discussion to have here is where should alt.aquaria be put |so it will get more mainstream distribution while keeping its present character. |If you DON'T know what alt.aquaria is currently like, what it's character is, |and what sort of people make it up - either subscribe for a while or kindly |leave the discussion to people who care more about the group than flaming. | |<soapbox off> I think it's time to start rating the level of bogosity in these *.aquaria postings. Logic like the above ("the people who post to the group should be the ones who decide where the group goes") is what gave us sci.skeptic and other such misnamed groups. I rate this posting as having about 1 milligilly of bogosity. 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_
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/13/89)
In article <8239@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox) writes: >I think it's time to start rating the level of bogosity in these >*.aquaria postings. Logic like the above ("the people who post to the >group should be the ones who decide where the group goes") is what >gave us sci.skeptic and other such misnamed groups. I rate this >posting as having about 1 milligilly of bogosity. It's clear you missed the entire point. I was NOT saying that only people who post to the group should decide, what I DID say is that only people who have an idea WHAT the group IS should decide. I grant you 27 milligillies ... ;-) -- --------| 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
taber@pstjtt.enet.dec.com (10/14/89)
OK, so the gauntlet was thrown down, and I picked it up. We shouldn't
comment on renaming the fish-fancier's group unless we aquire an idea of
what (I'm sorry, "WHAT") the group IS. So I looked into it. We had
about 300 articles stashed on our server, and I read 100 (sequential)of them
and checked the titles of all of them.
There were the standard "This is a test" messages, the usual childish
flames over someone who nominated participants to the "Bandwidth
Waster's Hall of Fame", a number of questions on the subject of "how do
I get started?" and "why did my fish die?", there were the usual number
of way-off-the-subject replies to specific questions, there was a note
that went from books to mexican restaurants to fish. alt.aquaria is
("IS") J.random, run-of-the-mill hobby group. Most of these were before
the proposal to move to sci, so I assume the contents are reasonably
unself-conscious.
There was nothing that really separated the group from any other
reasonably technical hobby group. It was not discernably different from
rec.photo or rec.ham-radio, both of which are hobbies that include a
scientific/technical content but are (properly) in the rec hierarchy.
Now that I'm confident I know WHAT alt.aquaria IS, I feel that I would
have to vote NO if the proposal is to put it in sci.
>>>==>PStJTT
Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber
Mail address: ahhhhh, you don't want to send me mail....