richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/16/89)
Since there was no clear cut resolution on the name issue
(public sentiment ran high against sci.aquaria in news.groups,
and in favour of rec.aquaria, while in my mailbox the opposite
was true, along with echos of ``I didn't want to post this
becasue I didn't want to get flamed'') I have decided to
go ahead and call for votes.
Some articles in alt.aquaria belong in a rec group, some
articles belong in a sci group.
Whats the difference ? It turns out that sci goes to Europe
and rec, for the most part, doesn't. (rec, for example
doesn't go to Germany and Holland).
Now, this is probably for a reason, ie. they don't want the
volume, which is understandable. But to restrict a low volume,
high quality technical group like .aquaria from these countries
is less than desirable.
So how can a compromise be met ?
I propose then, to move alt.aquaria to sci.aquaria to ensure
world wide distribution.
I propose I will also act as an informal moderater in that
the group will not be moderated, but I will keep a close
eye on what is going around the world vs. what is kept
within North America. Technical articles should be allowed
to propogate worldwide. Requests such as ``what kind of
fish go good with pearl gouramis'' should be kept within
the continent.
If in 6 months (and 12, and 18) the number of non-technical
articles with a Distribution: world line exceeds twenty five,
the group will become moderated. Probbaly with me as moderator,
although I have no problems with anybody else doing it.
The vote begins Monday, October 16, 1989 at Midnight, and
ends, thirty days later on November 15, 1989 at midnight, when
the results will be tallied and posted.
As usual, posted votes do not count, mail your votes to:
--
Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOVNMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (10/16/89)
In article <20986@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) says: >Since there was no clear cut resolution on the name issue >(public sentiment ran high against sci.aquaria in news.groups, >and in favour of rec.aquaria, while in my mailbox the opposite >was true, along with echos of ``I didn't want to post this >becasue I didn't want to get flamed'') I have decided to >go ahead and call for votes. In 2 days I post the results from my name survey. The sentiment from all the mail that I have received seems to be same as above. Those who are in favour of rec.* said they would vote against sci.*, but those that said they were in favour of sci.* never said that they were against rec.* and would vote no for rec.*. I don't seem to be getting anymore mail, and since you are calling for your vote now, perhaps I should post the results of that survey. I will say this, I was surprised at the light turn out. Based on the heated discussion in news.groups and alt.aquaria, I thought the name survey would have received a larger response (at least double of what it did receive). Oh well, I suppose everyone was worn out from the discussion and decided to just make thier No's and Yes's known at vote time. Just the same it was interesting and fun to hold the survey. >Some articles in alt.aquaria belong in a rec group, some >articles belong in a sci group. All alt.aquaria articles belong in a rec group, not a sci group. Especially not a moderated SCI group. >So how can a compromise be met ? >I propose then, to move alt.aquaria to sci.aquaria to ensure >world wide distribution. >I propose I will also act as an informal moderater in that >the group will not be moderated, but I will keep a close >eye on what is going around the world vs. what is kept >within North America. Technical articles should be allowed >to propogate worldwide. Requests such as ``what kind of >fish go good with pearl gouramis'' should be kept within >the continent. I call that censorship. Who are you to decide what goes where. If I post an article about Gouramis and give it a world wide distribution, then world wide distribution it is. What is this all of a sudden I'm living in a communist society. With big brother watching over my shoulder. Where are we? In China? Who are you, TASS? Spot any Aliens lately. "That's a joke son". >If in 6 months (and 12, and 18) the number of non-technical >articles with a Distribution: world line exceeds twenty five, >the group will become moderated. Probbaly with me as moderator, >although I have no problems with anybody else doing it. > Now you're saying that if there are 25 articles like the one about Gouramis, then the group will have to be moderated. Why? Because articles of that nature don't appeal to you? Why? Because they are not on your level of expertise, as far as Aquariums go? This ladies and gentleman is a farce. I urge all of you to vote NO, not because you dislike the name, but because of Richard's reason of why and when it should be moderated. SCI.* was controversial enough. Now we have what appears to be "I want you all to post what I like talking about, otherwise I won't let it get posted" moderation. A NO vote for this type of censorship is a YES vote for a free and uncensored aquaria newsgroup. >The vote begins Monday, October 16, 1989 at Midnight, and >ends, thirty days later on November 15, 1989 at midnight, when >the results will be tallied and posted. I have sent Richard my NO vote. For the following reasons: (A) More world wide access or not, aquaria belongs in the rec hierarchy, as it is more of a hobby than a science. (B) I do not wish to see this group moderated in any way. There is no reason for that. Nelson Broat P.S. - If the vote should pass. I think I will call for the discussion of rec.aquaria. An unmoderated group which would augment his group or put it out of business. :) "That may or may not be a joke sa-sa-son".
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/16/89)
>Whats the difference ? It turns out that sci goes to Europe >and rec, for the most part, doesn't. (rec, for example >doesn't go to Germany and Holland). >Now, this is probably for a reason, ie. they don't want the >volume, which is understandable. But to restrict a low volume, >high quality technical group like .aquaria from these countries >is less than desirable. >I propose then, to move alt.aquaria to sci.aquaria to ensure >world wide distribution. On the other hand, if rec.aquaria really *is* as good a group as you claim it is going to be, the Europeans should have no trouble convincing themselves that it's worth adding to the newsfeed, like they have for other useful groups outside of comp.* and sci.*. This is not a good reason for warping the name space. Aquaria belongs in rec. In fact, this kind of argument is self-defeating -- if sci.aquaria goes through just to get european distribution, then you can bet that other groups are going to try the same ploy. Once you set that precedent, you're simply going to open the door to making sci the same kind of domain that soc or rec are -- and force the europeans to consider whether a full feed of sci is really a good idea after all. I strongly suggest a no vote on sci.aquaria. This should be a rec group. If sci.aquaria fails, I will immediately call for a vote on either rec.pets.aquaria or rec.aquaria to create the group in the proper name location. I strongly suggest that the net turn down Richards proposal and wait for the vote to create the group where it belongs. If the Europeans really want it, they can get it in rec. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) (10/17/89)
I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for
this group quite self serving. If he was a regular participant in the
discussions in this group I would accept his comments as an opinion
worth considering. As it stands his comments are those of a kibitzer.
Johnschinder@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Paul Schinder) (10/17/89)
In article <3248@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: > >I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for >this group quite self serving. If he was a regular participant in the >discussions in this group I would accept his comments as an opinion >worth considering. As it stands his comments are those of a kibitzer. > John But Chuq is *not* a kibitzer on the net as a whole. The issue here is not whether an aquarium group should exist, but whether it should be sci or rec; this is a question of how groups are named, which has some importance beyond this particular new group. Unless someone can quickly send me a list of 10 or more Ph.D. granting institutions in "aquarium science", I will vote NO (at 12:01 tonight) to sci.aquaria. I would not vote at all if the name were proper (rec.whatever). -- Paul J. Schinder Department of Astronomy, Cornell Univ. schinder@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (10/17/89)
>I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for >this group quite self serving. If he was a regular participant in the >discussions in this group I would accept his comments as an opinion >worth considering. As it stands his comments are those of a kibitzer. *SIGH* Can't we ever have a discussion like this without attacking people's motives? Chuq's comments are those of an experienced net user and former administrator who is at least *trying* to provide some consistency in the namespace. His participation in the group or lack thereof is irrelevant. We used to have a lot of people who did this sort of thing. Now we only have a few, since the flamers chased away most of the oldtimers. <csg>
BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) (10/17/89)
Perhaps Dr. Schindler will send us a list of 10 PhD granting inst. which grant degrees in sci.space.shuttle? John
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/17/89)
>Perhaps Dr. Schindler will send us a list of 10 PhD granting inst. >which grant degrees in sci.space.shuttle? John Perhaps this discussion is silly? On both sides? -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
schinder@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Paul Schinder) (10/17/89)
In article <3252@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: > >Perhaps Dr. Schindler will send us a list of 10 PhD granting inst. >which grant degrees in sci.space.shuttle? John The vote is not on sci.space.shuttle. sci.space.shuttle should in fact be moved somewhere else. That's no reason to create another misnamed group. -- Paul J. Schinder Department of Astronomy, Cornell Univ. schinder@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu
BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) (10/17/89)
Some people feel that a network providing a communication link
between people interested in scientific subjects is only "scientific"
if it concerns sciences of which they have an interest. I find that
somewhat selfserving. If the people who believe our discussions in
this group are not scientific enough for them were interested
enough to read along with us for a while and criticize the content
of the forum instead of the name I would have no argument with them.
The facts are that learning about the small ecosystem of an aquarium
is a great educational experience is an area of science much neglected
these days. When I compare our discussions with those in other sci.
forums such as sci. space (not to be confused with sci.space.shuttle)
or sci.physics.fusion this group has nothing to feel inferior about.
I don't expect technical papers in one of these forums, just serious
discussions about some aspect of the sciences. That we have now and
it would be to the advantage of all to know that we are interested
in scientific discussion in this group along with other friendly
conversation.
If one reads some of the rec.pets forums for a while (as I have) you
will notice a great distinction in the topics discussed. They do
on occassion discuss disease problems, but mostly it is anecdotal
stories about the cat that does his thing on the couch instead of
the kitty litter box. I see nothing wrong with that as a topic for
that group. Our discussions are far more involved with the biological,
botanical, and ichthyological sciences. I don't want to insult
people for their opinions, but it is irritating when people present
pompous opinions of other peoples interests with a superficial knowledge
of the subject of their criticizm. Johnrcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) (10/17/89)
BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes about Chuq's posting against sci.aquaria: > I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for > this group quite self serving. If he was a regular participant in the > discussions in this group I would accept his comments as an opinion > worth considering. As it stands his comments are those of a kibitzer. I suspect that Chuq's article was simply a followup to Richard's article, hence used the same set of "Newsgroups:" in the header, to reach the same audience. Obviously John wasn't objecting to the news.groups posting-- Chuq is nothing if not a "regular participant" there. If he's targeting the inclusion of rec.pets, I'll echo Chuq's position. Since I'm a regular participant in rec.pets, will you accept my opinion as "worth considering?" As often as I've written about "scientific" viewpoints (i.e., biology, behavior studies, etc.) on cats in rec.pets, and occasionally even written about business aspects of raising cats, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that discussions of cats go anywhere but in a rec group. I see more self- serving aspects to Richard's approach--which now seems to be admitted as selecting "sci" over "rec" to force the distribution wider. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...No DOS. UNIX.
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/17/89)
In article <2604NMBCU@CUNYVM> NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: > <see below ...> Despite your apparent lack of appreciation (the TASS comments below), Richard really is trying to come up with a compromise that will satisfy the critics afraid that sci.aquaria will attract a new wave of novices that will flood Europe with 'sick guppy' articles that will turn off European system managers to the point where they yank the Usenet plug totally. Unfortunately, there are always people who are 'morally offended' by compromises. Europeans are the acknowledged experts in aquaria (and yes, they do call them aquaria). To be perfectly clear: Europe is to aquaria as the US is to software I'm not proud of it, I wish it wasn't so, but there it is. One of my personal interests is mini-reef marine aquaria. These are relatively large tanks with very state-of-the-art filtration (similar to scaled down sewage waste treatment systems) and special lighting that allows complete marine eco-systems to be kept. These are to fish tanks what Interstate freeways are to dirt roads. These are just becoming available in the US. Europe, particularily England and Germany, has been doing this for many years. This is but one example of their superiority in the hobby. This is not a case where we are happy hobbyists wanting more happy hobbyists on line. This is a case where we have a legitimate need for advice and contact with a group of people that cannot be reached any other way. Richard's compromise is an attempt to reach them while addressing the concerns that some people have about other rammifications of the naming. If you were basing your arguments on reason instead of religion, you might have seen that. > ... What is this > all of a sudden I'm living in a communist society. With big > brother watching over my shoulder. Where are we? In China? Who > are you, TASS? Spot any Aliens lately. Actually, Alien was number 5 in the Bandwidth Waster's Hall of Fame for alt.aquaria ... >P.S. - If the vote should pass. I think I will call for the discussion of > rec.aquaria. An unmoderated group which would augment his group > or put it out of business. :) Gee, haven't noticed you posting very regularily to alt.aquaria. Do you honestly think that if you manage to create an alternate group and take your 'wisdom' and 'experience' to it, that it will put us 'out of business'? Gee, rec.pets never put us out of business ... >"That may or may not be a joke sa-sa-son". Couldn't have said it better myself ... ;-) -- --------| You've got the political savvy Alien | of a hangnail. --------| - John Meneghini decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (10/17/89)
> Richard Sexton writes: > > Since there was no clear cut resolution on the name issue > (public sentiment ran high against sci.aquaria in news.groups, > and in favour of rec.aquaria, while in my mailbox the opposite > was true, along with echos of ``I didn't want to post this > becasue I didn't want to get flamed'') I have decided to > go ahead and call for votes. If you had actually been reading news.groups, you would also have seen the series of articles that requested a multiple vote with several names. The idea was that a YES or NO vote could be made for each name. Then, if more than one name passed, either the name with the most YES votes, the name with the least NO votes, or the name with the most spread between YES and NO (or all of them) could be further considered. Many people indicated that they were in favor of this scheme. You have chosen to ignore public sentiment by your own admission (see above quote). I therefore feel that you will similarly ignore my wishes as a reader of, and regular contributor to *.aquari*. > I propose I will also act as an informal moderater in that > the group will not be moderated, but I will keep a close > eye on what is going around the world vs. what is kept > within North America. Technical articles should be allowed > to propogate worldwide. Requests such as ``what kind of > fish go good with pearl gouramis'' should be kept within > the continent. > > If in 6 months (and 12, and 18) the number of non-technical > articles with a Distribution: world line exceeds twenty five, > the group will become moderated. Probbaly with me as moderator, > although I have no problems with anybody else doing it. If I can get mail through to you, you will receive my NO vote on sci.aquaria. Please do not interpret this as a vote against becoming a mainstream group or even as a vote against a specific name for this group. Please interpret it as a vote specifically against you as a pseudo-moderator. Based on your performance in this matter, I do not feel that your interests coincide with my interests. I further do not feel that your "offer" to "volunteer" as a pseudo-censor are in the best interests of *.aquari*. You will never, under any circumstances receive my vote as censor. You have demonstrated your insensitivity. Jim Winer -- The opinions expressed here are not necessarily and do not represent nor in any way imply of any other sane person and especially not employer. "I'd like to see this petty bickering ended so we could get to some more important bickering." -- David Bedno
bub@Morgan.COM (Bubbette McLeod) (10/17/89)
In article <3248@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>, BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: > > I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for > this group quite self serving. chuqui is a big know it all and always has been. i don't expect him to change in the immediate future
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (10/18/89)
In article <3252@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
Perhaps Dr. Schindler will send us a list of 10 PhD granting inst.
which grant degrees in sci.space.shuttle? John
I'm not Dr. Schindler, but UCLA, Ohio State (where John posts from),
Purdue, MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford, Berkeley, USC, Iowa State, Princeton,
and a whole lot more all grant PhDs in sci.space.shuttle. Of course
they call it Aerospace Engineering or Mechanical Engineering, but a
rose by any other name .... Practically everybody who works on the
Shuttle, from the Administrator of NASA on down, has a degree in AeroE
or ME, although a few EEs have sneaked in here and there.
I'm not going to claim that everything posted in sci.space.shuttle is
of burning interest to the "scientific" community but I read it and
I'm a member of the community. Signal-to-noise isn't a lot different from
most management briefings. Of course, I only have an MS in the
field, but I have worked on the Shuttle (I even have flown flags to
prove it).
--
Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASAalien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/18/89)
The following universities offer PhDs in skepticism:
Befuddle U.
Pittsburgh Puzzle University
Illinois Institute of Conundrums
Quandary Community College
Rochester Institute of Riddles
Chaos College
The Paradox Institute
University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople
Northwestern Enigma University
Incoherent Institute of Mystery
Sci. groups are NOT meant as a forum for scientists to discuss scientific
research. If they WERE meant to be, then they are dismal failures and
should be renamed into the rec. heirarchy. Until then, we should treat them
as they are - a forum for researchers, hobbyists, and interested lay people
to talk about matters related to a scientific subject matter.
There are lots of legitimate reasons to question whether sci. is the right
place for .aquaria, but the number of degree granting programs isn't one of
them.
--
--------| You've got the political savvy
Alien | of a hangnail.
--------| - John Meneghini
decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien" Maynard) (10/18/89)
In article <2684@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: >Despite your apparent lack of appreciation (the TASS comments below), Richard >really is trying to come up with a compromise that will satisfy the critics >afraid that sci.aquaria will attract a new wave of novices that will flood >Europe with 'sick guppy' articles that will turn off European system managers >to the point where they yank the Usenet plug totally. Unfortunately, there >are always people who are 'morally offended' by compromises. This "compromise" doesn't address the main bone of contention: that a hobby group doesn't belong in sci. Some compromise. >Europeans are the acknowledged experts in aquaria (and yes, they do call them >aquaria). To be perfectly clear: > Europe is to aquaria as the US is to software If this is so, it would stand to reason that the management at mcvax would pick up rec.aquaria, since they do get some selected rec groups. >This is not a case where we are happy hobbyists wanting more happy hobbyists >on line. This is a case where we have a legitimate need for advice and >contact with a group of people that cannot be reached any other way. If the need is that great, then the folks in Europe would have no trouble bringing the group over. Even if it was talk.aquaria. >Richard's compromise is an attempt to reach them while addressing the concerns >that some people have about other rammifications of the naming. If you were >basing your arguments on reason instead of religion, you might have seen that. ...and a poor attempt, at that. This group simply doesn't belong in sci. It belongs in rec, like other technical hobbies, such as rec.aviation, rec.ham-radio.*, rec.autos.tech, ... >--------| You've got the political savvy >Alien | of a hangnail. >--------| - John Meneghini So, apparently, does Richard Sexton; he stuck to his guns in the face of overwhelming opposition. Calling his current proposal a compromise is like calling planting a shrub in a slum major urban renewal. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Send richard@gryphon.com your NO vote on sci.aquaria; it belongs in rec.
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/19/89)
In article <1475@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >If you had actually been reading news.groups, you would also >have seen the series of articles that requested a multiple >vote with several names. The idea was that a YES or NO vote could >be made for each name. Then, if more than one name passed, either >the name with the most YES votes, the name with the least NO votes, >or the name with the most spread between YES and NO (or all of >them) could be further considered. > >Many people indicated that they were in favor of this scheme. As one of the people who was in news.groups pushing for multiple votes (I was actually the one that posted the (to me simple and obvious) scheme that has gotten the recent support), let me play devil's advocate (how appropriate ;-) and stick up for Richard. The multiple vote proposal is just that, a proposal. It is not the accepted Usenet protocol for generating a new group or renaming an existing group. If Richard had tried to use a multiple vote proposal, others would be well within their rights to contest the entire vote - and given the rather high temperature over there in news.groups, I'm sure someone would have. Richard did the accepted thing in current Usenet protocol. He was the original poster who asked for the group creation, so he has the right to decide the name to be used for the vote. If you don't like the name so much that you find it offensive, just vote no. If sci. fails, he has the right to resubmit the vote with a different name. If he does not, someone else can. Please calm down just a bit. If you disagree with him, just vote no. If he is really doing something slimy (as you imply), you will be joined by enough people that Richard won't be able to get the name to pass (you need 100 more yes votes than no votes). -- --------| You've got the political savvy Alien | of a hangnail. --------| - John Meneghini decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (10/19/89)
In article <2684@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) says: > >In article <2604NMBCU@CUNYVM> NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: >> <see below ...> > >Despite your apparent lack of appreciation (the TASS comments below), Richard >really is trying to come up with a compromise that will satisfy the critics >afraid that sci.aquaria will attract a new wave of novices that will flood >Europe with 'sick guppy' articles that will turn off European system managers >to the point where they yank the Usenet plug totally. Unfortunately, there >are always people who are 'morally offended' by compromises. Okay then how about this for a compromise. Since Richard, you and all those others that you referred to as critics, are all at a very experienced level of aquaria-ism, and don't wish to be bothered by all us lowly novices who are just starting out or who are not novices but yet not into aquaria-ism as much as rich and the others are, you guys can have a moderated group called sci.critics.aquaria or sci.aquaria.for.experienced.people.like.rich. Meanwhile, we will create our own open (non-moderated) forum called rec.aquaria or rec.something (whatever we lowly novices (who shudder the thought happen to believe aquaria-ism is more of a hobby than a science) happen to decide on. :) Note the smiley face, which is something you neglected to take note of below. >> ... What is this >> all of a sudden I'm living in a communist society. With big >> brother watching over my shoulder. Where are we? In China? Who >> are you, TASS? Spot any Aliens lately. > >Actually, Alien was number 5 in the Bandwidth Waster's Hall of Fame for >alt.aquaria ... > >>P.S. - If the vote should pass. I think I will call for the discussion of >> rec.aquaria. An unmoderated group which would augment his group >> or put it out of business. :) >> >>"That may or may not be a joke sa-sa-son". > >Gee, haven't noticed you posting very regularily to alt.aquaria. Thats right I'm a newcomer to the group, do you have a problem with that? Maybe we should step outside. :) > Do you >honestly think that if you manage to create an alternate group and take your >'wisdom' and 'experience' to it, that it will put us 'out of business'? I never at any time in any of my postings stated that I had years of experience with aquariums. Nor do I consider myself a wise old man. A wise guy, perhaps :), but never a wise man with years of experience. Apparently, you do not understand my sense of humor. Fair enough. Thats hard to do via the net. I did put a smiley face on at the end of it, though. I'll tell you this much, if his vote fails, and I feel confident that it will (I base this on the negative response that I have read on the net to his proposal), then I will immediately call for a discussion for rec.aquaria (this was the name that scored highest among rec.* choices, in that name poll that I took). I will hold the discussion for the usual time rather than call for a new vote for another name. This will give everyone time to re-think their positions. But I'm also doing this because, I think the guidelines state that you have to wait 6 months before another vote can be held, but since this group will have a different name and a different charter (its charter won't call for moderation and will allow aquarists of all levels of experience to participate), I will consider it a call for a discussion of a new group. The standard time period for discussion, will allow all those that have participated in the discussion and/or vote to tell me whether what I plan to do is really legal or not. And then when everyone is done and the time period has passed, I will go ahead and call for the vote anyway. :) Why? Because... I'm a stubborn group champion, just like Richard. :) Nelson "There's that id again" - Richard Sexton Broat
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/19/89)
In article <2687@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint (Alien Wells) writes: > >Sci. groups are NOT meant as a forum for scientists to discuss scientific >research Maybe if the turkeys would take their droppings elsewhere, they would work better at this job. As it is, research problems are sometimes discussed on sci groups. I think if people get the idea that sci is another word for rec or talk, this will be less likely to happen. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 This posting was made possible by a grant from the Mobil Corporation
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/19/89)
In article <2620NMBCU@CUNYVM> NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: > [a complaint that inexperienced aquarists will have no place to post] Call me crazy but I though that with one group, sci.aquaria, propagating more or less world wide (not australia, which is ok, tropical fish are illegal in australia) the postings of the type ``what kind of gravel do you guys think is neat'' could get posted to sci.aquaria, with a state wide, or country wide or continent wise distribution, while the postings on the order of ``has anybody noticed a decrease in rhizome production in Aponogetons in calciferous gravel'' would warrent a world distribution to address the smalled number of people in the worls qualified to comment on it (in spite of the fact it is of intrest of almost all aquarists, regardless of experience level) > Nelson > Broat How do we know it's the REAL Nelson Broat? Seems to me we've had this problem before. -- Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (10/19/89)
In article <21079@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) says: > >In article <2620NMBCU@CUNYVM> NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: >> >[a complaint that inexperienced aquarists will have no place to post] > >Call me crazy but I though that with one group, sci.aquaria, propagating >more or less world wide (not australia, which is ok, tropical fish >are illegal in australia) the postings of the type ``what kind >of gravel do you guys think is neat'' could get posted to sci.aquaria, >with a state wide, or country wide or continent wise distribution, >while the postings on the order of ``has anybody noticed a decrease >in rhizome production in Aponogetons in calciferous gravel'' would >warrent a world distribution to address the smalled number of people >in the worls qualified to comment on it (in spite of the fact it >is of intrest of almost all aquarists, regardless of experience level) > It has been said before and I will say it again. The aquaria group that gets created should be in the rec hierarchy (unmoderated). Later after the sci.aquaria vote fails and the rec.* vote passes then you could go ahead and call for a discussion and subsequent vote for a new moderated tech aquarium group. Sci.aquarium.research sounds like a reasonable name that you might wish to use. I implore everyone to send a NO vote for the vote being held for sci.aquaria (moderated). Nelson Broat