woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (10/09/89)
In article <20645@gryphon.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes: >However, it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of the people hacking >this to death would probably not care either were it not our notorious >Richard who proposed sci.aquaria. I've been staying out of this, but I want to take the time to emphatically deny this accusation. This is NOT about personalities (other than the fact that Richard is being totally stubborn, which is certainly not unique to him) This is about NAMING HIERARCHIES. It is clear to everyone but a small minority that keeping aquariums, for most people on the net involved with it, is a HOBBY, and therefore clearly belongs in REC, not sci. I would be arguing that just as strongly if it were Gene Spafford proposing sci.aquaria as I do with Richard. The personality of the proposer has NOTHING to do with it. --Greg
wsdwgk@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (g.v.rooij) (10/10/89)
Hmmm. All this talk about 100 no votes is clearly useless as we are watching a new way of creating groups develop. The way it's done ? - propose a group - create controversy - swamp news.groups with hundreds of useless arguments on how other people's hobbies are rubish and how divine theirs is... - someone creates tre group they want just to get the traffic out of news. groups There it is, and there is not much we can do about it i'm afraid. I will oppose to sci.* for everything concerning their fish. Give 'em a rec group or a fish dinner. Someone stated that as the sci. people were clearly more well-spoken and had better arguments, he would vote in their favour. Don't forget that for something as elementary as this I don't have to indulge in pages full of rhetoric to prove it, and it should not be expected of me... Greetings, Guido
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/13/89)
As quoted from <20645@gryphon.COM> by mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel): +--------------- | However, it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of the people hacking | this to death would probably not care either were it not our notorious | Richard who proposed sci.aquaria. (And, yes, it should be aquaria. These | guys are serious enough to have more than one tank. Lots more than one.) +--------------- Wrong. I read alt.aquaria when it was created, and occasionally look in on it still. (And still hope to convince Aquarium Systems to either get a second direct phone line or ditch that retrograde Merlin phone system they installed, so they can get back on the net again. The fax and the modem got into a fight, and the modem lost, so ASI was on the net for about a week.) Anyway, alt.aquaria is pretty clearly not a "scientific" oriented group, but a "hobby" oriented one. Thus, sci.* is not the correct hierarchy. More Usenetters are becoming active on the subject of correct newsgroup naming; it is becoming less and less acceptable to create a newsgroup which is in the wrong place. This is a good trend, IMHO. And it means that sci.aquaria would get as short shrift if *I* were to propose it. I have nothing against Richard, just his proposed group name. Were he to change it to rec.aquaria, I would probably abstain from the vote, but I might consider putting in a YES for it. As it is, it gets a definite NO. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)