oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/19/89)
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! >Improperly formatted votes will be returned to sender uncounted. And this miscreant is even too lazy to worry about the "improper" formats! Does this sound to you like an honest effort by a person with a genuine concern for the group and for the aquaria in general?! >A grab for better distribution is not reason for a new "sci" group. There is a real chance that the aquarium scientists will join that group (the names of Cabrillo Museum and Monterey Bay Aquariums have been mentioned). Those people are NOT hobbyists and what they do is not recreation. Then again, this "proposal" is made by someone who works for a toy computer manufacturer, so I guess he is just acting out his guilt over slipping "commodore" and "amiga" groups into COMP hierarchy, rather than rec.games.* where they belong. >The name "aquarium" is used for absolute clarity. No, it's chosen out of ignorance! Aquaria is a PLURAL of aquarium. PLEASE VOTE NO! -- "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
NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (10/19/89)
In article <21087@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) says: > >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! > >PLEASE VOTE NO! I agree with Oleg. We must wait for the call for votes for sci.aquaria to end before we may start again. Though I am dead set against the hierarchy for the group being sci., and am even more dead set against the new mainstream group being moderated, two wrongs do not make a right. Though I feel Richard is being a little stubborn on this matter, and should not have called for the vote so soon, let alone use a name that most readers are unhappy with (this is based on what I have read, not the poll I have taken), I feel that Mr. Nesbitt is making another wrong. I myself have already stated that *IF* Richards vote fails (as I think and hope it will), I will call for a brand new and official call for discussion for a rec.* group to be created. But WE MUST WAIT!. Please, recall and undo you call for votes Mr. Nesbitt, as it is (a) illegal, and (b) poorly timed. I know that you feel strongly for a rec.aqua* group, but so do a lot of readers. Lets not spoil it for them or ourselves. Please call of your vote, which I might add most Netnews Administrators will probably ignore anyway, should it pass. I thank you for your cooperation in this matter. P.S. - Hey Richard, after Sci.aquaria (moderated) fails and rec.* (unmoder- ated) passes, you could call for the discussion and vote for a new moderated group called: "sci.aquarium.research". Now isn't that the best comprimise that you heard to date. :) You experts get yours and we novices who may one day get to your level, get ours. Bet ya never thought of that one. :) Nelson Broat
gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) (10/20/89)
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. >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 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. >>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. 'Sides, how do YOU know he is ignorant? Does he have a reason to lie? Do you know him better than he does? Really? Such ad hominem is unwarranted, and usually denotes having no really good reason for wanting things a certain way. Rec is where a group on pet fishies, a definite hobby, should go; it will get to Europe, as has been seen in large volume. Aquarium makes it crystal clear it's about fish, rather than something 60's-newageish. (There's a place for that, but not amongst the guppies.) Vote YES on rec.aquarium; let's put this newsgroup in its proper, rightful place. Glenn R. Stone <gs26@prism.gatech.edu> CCASTGS@GITNVE2 ..!gatech!pyr!ccastgs Box 30372, Atlanta, GA 30332 Greeting from 'quake victim: "Hey, dude, what's shakin'?" Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.aquaria,rec.pets Subject: Re: Formal propsal: "rec.aquarium", not to be confused with "sci.aquaria". Summary: Expires: References: <8215@cbmvax.UUCP> <21087@gryphon.COM> Sender: Reply-To: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: when necessary Keywords: 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. >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 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. >>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. 'Sides, how do YOU know he is ignorant? Does he have a reason to lie? Do you know him better than he does? Really? Such ad hominem is unwarranted, and usually denotes having no really good reason for wanting things a certain way. Rec is where a group on pet fishies, a definite hobby, should go; it will get to Europe, as has been seen in large volume. Aquarium makes it crystal clear it's about fish, rather than something 60's-newageish. (There's a place for that, but not amongst the guppies.) Vote YES on rec.aquarium; let's put this newsgroup in its proper, rightful place. Glenn R. Stone <gs26@prism.gatech.edu> CCASTGS@GITNVE2 ..!gatech!pyr!ccastgs Box 30372, Atlanta, GA 30332 Greeting from 'quake victim: "Hey, dude, what's shakin'?"
rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux) (10/20/89)
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! Exactly what evidence do you have to back up your claim that Bryce has no interest in this newsgroup? Why do you consider this blatant sabatoge. If anything, he is taking a stand that should help this newsgroup. Someone has already mentioned that the sci.aquaria vote is already in violation of net rules because the discussion has gone on for too long. I believe this same person has claimed that the sci.aquaria vote is no longer valid. (Not really knowing the rules, I realize that this might not be true, but if it's not true, please quote me the rules proving that its not.) > There is a real chance that the aquarium scientists will join that group > (the names of Cabrillo Museum and Monterey Bay Aquariums have been > mentioned). Those people are NOT hobbyists and what they do is not > recreation. No matter which hierarchy this newsgroup is in, it will still be oriented towards the hobbyist. Face it, there are more hobbyists out there than professionals. You might consider yourself very knowledgable about aquarium management, but I'm sure, compared to them, you are still just a hobbyist. What I saying is that the technical content of this newsgroup will be low enough, and the number of professionals out there will be low enough that they won't contribute much (no matter what hierarchy this group is in). They're more likely to talk on their own via mail. > Then again, this "proposal" is made by someone who works for a > toy computer manufacturer, so I guess he is just acting out his guilt over > slipping "commodore" and "amiga" groups into COMP hierarchy, rather than > rec.games.* where they belong. Now what kind of statement is this? It's rather childish and it certainly lowers people's view of you. The amiga is no more a toy than any other personal computer and it's actually more advanced than all of them. Sure, it has some features that allow it to do games very well, but you will find as many games, if not more, on the IBM-PC and the MAC. Perhaps the IBM-PC is not considered a game machine because it so poorly supports features required by games. By the way, these features are very valuable for business like things such as desktop video. Also, I played Tetris on a Sun 4 the other day. It was a very good version of the game and it played very well. Gee, I guess I'll have to call up Sun and tell them that their computer is just a game computer now. > > >The name "aquarium" is used for absolute clarity. > > No, it's chosen out of ignorance! Aquaria is a PLURAL of aquarium. Your right, I looked it up in the dictionary and aquaria is a plural form of aquarium. But, you should notice that it's listed after aquariums, meaning that is the less used form of the word. By your definition, I bet 90% of the english speaking population is ignorant (I'll even go as far as 90% of the english speaking college graduates are ignorant.) Have you really ever used the word aquaria (speaking that is), or every heard it used? Which would you say, "I have 10 aquariums" or "I have 10 aquaria"? Just because it is a, and I stress "a", plural form of aquarium, doesn't mean that most people are familiar with it. I suppose that we could really go off the deep end and determine the latin word for aquariums, aquarium, fish, etc, use it for the name of the newsgroup, and say that anyone that doesn't recognize it is ignorant. Yes, I realize this is an exaggeration, but it points out the flaw in his argument. > Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM Chill out Oleg. It doesn't really do any good to rant and rave. Rich Champeaux (rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/21/89)
As quoted from <21087@gryphon.COM> by oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev): +--------------- | 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! +--------------- Methinks he doth protest too much. ++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 (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie), comp-sources-misc@backbone [comp.sources.misc-related mail should go ONLY to comp-sources-misc@<backbone>] *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/21/89)
As quoted from <21087@gryphon.COM> by oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev): +--------------- | In article <8215@cbmvax.UUCP> bryce@commodore.COM (Bryce Nesbitt) writes: | >Improperly formatted votes will be returned to sender uncounted. | | And this miscreant is even too lazy to worry about the "improper" formats! +--------------- Oleg, have you read the vote guidelines recently, or have you decided that You and Only You Know The One True Way to Vote, or are you just looking for flame-bait? Lighten up, for crying out loud. The *.aquari* debate isn't going to change the nature of the universe, so why get so worked up over it? ++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 (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie), comp-sources-misc@backbone [comp.sources.misc-related mail should go ONLY to comp-sources-misc@<backbone>] *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (10/22/89)
In article <6829@hubcap.clemson.edu> rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux) writes: > Exactly what evidence do you have to back up your claim that Bryce has no >interest in this newsgroup? I do not recall any tremendous contribution by Bryce Nesbitt to the exsiting group, alt.aquaria. That suggests to me that his interest is not in aquaria, but in politicking. >Why do you consider this blatant sabatoge. Because in violation of the voting guidelines he uses to justify his machinations, he calls for an interfering vote on a similar news group without having gone through the 2-week discussion period. >Someone has >already mentioned that the sci.aquaria vote is already in violation of net >rules because the discussion has gone on for too long. I believe this same >person has claimed that the sci.aquaria vote is no longer valid. That person was Bryce Nesbitt, I believe, and he was quite wrong about the length of the discussion. Quite self-serving. > No matter which hierarchy this newsgroup is in, it will still be oriented >towards the hobbyist. True. The same is true, of course, for 90% of other SCI groups. What does that prove? That sci.space should be rec.space or talk.space? >The amiga is no more a toy than any other personal >computer and it's actually more advanced than all of them. Technical superiority does not make a machine any less of a toy. An advanced and sophisticated toy, but a toy never the less. >Also, I played Tetris on a Sun 4 the other day. UNIX versions of Tetris (Sun version included) are not commercial products and you'd be hard pressed to show that the majority of Sun workstations were bought for the purposes of game playing. Your example is irrelevant. >Have you really ever used >the word aquaria (speaking that is), or every heard it used? Which would you >say, "I have 10 aquariums" or "I have 10 aquaria"? Yes, I have. It's not accidental that the original group, alt.aquaria, was named that way. >Chill out Oleg. It doesn't really do any good to rant and rave. Sometimes it's the only way to get through to the duller and more stubborn minds. -- "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
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/23/89)
>In article <6829@hubcap.clemson.edu> rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux) writes: >The amiga is no more a toy than any other personal >computer and it's actually more advanced than all of them. I've been programming on a Commodore Amiga for the last 1.5 years (professionally). The place I worked made the decision to use the Amiga before I arrived, and we've been paying for it since (well, it is cheap ...). Not even Apple has the chutzpa to try to sell a toy machine based around a 7MHz 68000. And why haven't they increased their clock speed or processor chip for 5 YEARS? Why, they would have to do a rev to their graphics chip set. Gee, they would have to spend some $$ on R&D, huh? And how about that chip set? It was revolutionary when it came out, but it really isn't much better than a VGA, and certainly a full generation behind the DVI and UVC technologies available for IBM PC clones. Of course, I guess you can't expect Commodore to maintain a technology they didn't even develop. Amiga corp (an Atari spin-off) developed the Amiga chip set under contract and funding from Atari. After spending 5M$ of Atari money, they regretfully informed Atari they couldn't get the chip set to work (this despite the fact that Atari had spent more M$ developing machines around the chip). Three months later, Amiga sold the chip set to Commodore (did those lawsuits come to trial yet?). And don't tell me about the 7K$ 68030 Unix machine they hope to have out next year some time. Not only do I not have any faith in them, but it is already old news. In the mean time, Commodore has had its market share drop so much that the major computer industry market research firms don't even cover them any more. Of course, the toy industry market research firms do ... -- --------| You've got the political savvy Alien | of a hangnail. --------| - John Meneghini decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
sonia@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Sonia E. Marx) (10/24/89)
In article <2701@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: >>In article <6829@hubcap.clemson.edu> rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux) writes: > [lots of stuff about the Amiga deleted] Folks, I've kept quiet about having the *.aquaria* discussion here, even though I thought it was pretty unrelated to rec.pets (why can't they discuss it on alt.aquaria?) but I *know* that discussions of Amigas and Macs have *nothing* to do with rec.pets. Please... Sonia Marx "Murphy was an optimist"
richardb@fear+loathing.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (10/24/89)
In article <2701@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: +>In article <6829@hubcap.clemson.edu> rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux) writes: +>The amiga is no more a toy than any other personal +>computer and it's actually more advanced than all of them. [lots of computer talk deleted] Mayby we should chose a name like sci.amiga.aquaria :^) Lets try to keep *.aquaria fish-related. Arguement over naming should be posted to news.groups. I haven't read 1 fish-releated article here for the past 2 weeks.... +-- +--------| You've got the political savvy +Alien | of a hangnail. +--------| - John Meneghini + decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien -- Help wipe out sci.aquaria in your lifetime. Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb