richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/05/89)
[As everyone undoubtedly knows, this discussion is already going on in
news.groups with the major point being whether the group should be
in "sci" or "rec" --moderator]
Over the past two years there has existed in the alt.hierarchy a news-
group called alt.aquaria that is concerned with maintenance of marine
and freshwater aquarium fishes. Many of us feel the time has come to
incorporate alt.aquaria into mainstream USENET. To this end, I would
like to start a discussion into the possibility of creating sci.aquaria.
In an attempt to head off certain questions that are bound to come up,
I have included the following dialogue:
Q: What's wrong with alt ?
A: Well, nothing, really, it just doesn't have the circulation that
mainstream USENET has. After two years of hearing: "We don't get
alt.aquaria, why don't you move it into regular USENET" and reply-
ing with "Get an alt feed," perhaps it is time to concede the point
that not everybody is willing or able to get the alt.groups. Some
of the reasons for this are political while others simply reflect
pockets of poor connectivity.
Q: Can't people just mail their articles to a site that can post them
to the group ?
A: Yes, and people do. Every now and then someone posts an article to
rec.pets reminding netters that this works and for a few weeks we
get a bunch of articles dispatched from, say, ucbvax. These are
dutifully posted and the posters no doubt receives some email in re-
ply but of course they never get to see the discussion that ensues.
After awhile these kinds of postings disappear, no doubt due to lack
of feedback.
Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
A: Rec.pets.aquaria is not appropriate because the discussion in rec.
pets centers around the pet per se, and the activities one pursues
with pets such as cats or dogs or small rodents. Fish are not real-
ly pets in that sense of the word. What the owner of an aquarium
is trying to do is maintain an environment that represents a micro-
cosm of a very complex habitat.
Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
belongs in the sci.hierarchy. The questions of ichthyological
taxonomy, water chemistry, the characteristics of artificial light
are subjects that are constantly under discussion. Simulating the
aquarium environment is a science, not an art. The great strides
that have been made in aquarium science over the past 20 years were
entirely the result of scientific investigation and to a great ex-
tent using this knowledge requires a detailed understanding of the
science involved.
Q: Just one group and not one each for freshwater and marine ?
A: Right. So many of the topics cross over that a separate group for
each is unwise. And has been demonstrated, many posters use key-
words and subject lines quite effectively in order to differentiate
between articles about freshwater fish exclusively from those about
marine fish.
Q: What is the current volume of alt.aquaria and how do you expect it
to change if the group is moved to the mainstream USENET?
A: Traffic averages about 10 articles a day. At most volume might
double although I think a 50% increase in volume would be closer to
the mark. No doubt there will be the initial leap in volume charac-
teristic of "new newsgroup syndrome."
Q: Is there any coffee left ?
A: No, I just drank the last cup.
--
Live free or drive
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
--
Live free or drive
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOVrichard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/18/89)
[As everyone undoubtedly knows, this discussion is already going on in
news.groups with the major point being whether the group should be
in "sci" or "rec" --moderator]
Over the past two years there has existed in the alt.hierarchy a news-
group called alt.aquaria that is concerned with maintenance of marine
and freshwater aquarium fishes. Many of us feel the time has come to
incorporate alt.aquaria into mainstream USENET. To this end, I would
like to start a discussion into the possibility of creating sci.aquaria.
In an attempt to head off certain questions that are bound to come up,
I have included the following dialogue:
Q: What's wrong with alt ?
A: Well, nothing, really, it just doesn't have the circulation that
mainstream USENET has. After two years of hearing: "We don't get
alt.aquaria, why don't you move it into regular USENET" and reply-
ing with "Get an alt feed," perhaps it is time to concede the point
that not everybody is willing or able to get the alt.groups. Some
of the reasons for this are political while others simply reflect
pockets of poor connectivity.
Q: Can't people just mail their articles to a site that can post them
to the group ?
A: Yes, and people do. Every now and then someone posts an article to
rec.pets reminding netters that this works and for a few weeks we
get a bunch of articles dispatched from, say, ucbvax. These are
dutifully posted and the posters no doubt receives some email in re-
ply but of course they never get to see the discussion that ensues.
After awhile these kinds of postings disappear, no doubt due to lack
of feedback.
Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
A: Rec.pets.aquaria is not appropriate because the discussion in rec.
pets centers around the pet per se, and the activities one pursues
with pets such as cats or dogs or small rodents. Fish are not real-
ly pets in that sense of the word. What the owner of an aquarium
is trying to do is maintain an environment that represents a micro-
cosm of a very complex habitat.
Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
belongs in the sci.hierarchy. The questions of ichthyological
taxonomy, water chemistry, the characteristics of artificial light
are subjects that are constantly under discussion. Simulating the
aquarium environment is a science, not an art. The great strides
that have been made in aquarium science over the past 20 years were
entirely the result of scientific investigation and to a great ex-
tent using this knowledge requires a detailed understanding of the
science involved.
Q: Just one group and not one each for freshwater and marine ?
A: Right. So many of the topics cross over that a separate group for
each is unwise. And has been demonstrated, many posters use key-
words and subject lines quite effectively in order to differentiate
between articles about freshwater fish exclusively from those about
marine fish.
Q: What is the current volume of alt.aquaria and how do you expect it
to change if the group is moved to the mainstream USENET?
A: Traffic averages about 10 articles a day. At most volume might
double although I think a 50% increase in volume would be closer to
the mark. No doubt there will be the initial leap in volume charac-
teristic of "new newsgroup syndrome."
Q: Is there any coffee left ?
A: No, I just drank the last cup.
--
Live free or drive
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
--
Live free or drive
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.
I think killing is value-neutral in and of itself. -- Gary Strand, 8 Nov 1989.