xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (02/10/90)
In article <##701$@rpi.edu> michelob@pawl6.pawl.rpi.edu (Michael R.
Shea) writes:
= I posted before about my guppies having babies. I have heard some
= discussion about selling fish back to stores for credit. I have
= looked in the capital district (of New York). Unfortunately, there
= have been no stores in the area that will buy them from me. Is it
= that fancy tailed guppies are too common? I am getting annoyed,
= because the fish are getting crowded where they are. I have about
= 15-18 fish in a ten gallon tank. When they were just born, it was
= fine, but now they are up to 1/2" or bigger. Does anyone in the
= capital district want some guppies?
= Also, the male that spawned these babies is having some trouble with
= tail rot. The other fish in the tank seem to be okay, but his tail
= keeps splitting. What could I do to help him?
I think we can kill several aviforms with one lithoform here.
Build a large cage around your aquarium, and populate it with one or
several green herons (the compact, downscale, apartment-suitable
version of the blue heron). This will associate some birds with an
aquarium, allowing the recent condemnation of sci.aviary to be
sidetracked into an expansion of the fastest growing redundant
newsgroup lowarchy on the net, *.aquaria[.*]. At the same time, the
green herons, being wading piscavores, will save you the trouble of
finding outlets for your excess swimming stock, and also save you the
trouble of disposing of the less fit, slower swimming (and more easily
speared) members of your captive fancy fish. Everyone will be happy,
your overabundance of inches of fish per square inches of tank surface
will repair itself, and the herons will grow fat and perhaps assume
breeding plumage.
[What you do with the subsequent crop of baby herons is _your_
problem!]
--
Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.
xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan)
xanthian@ads.com - expiring soon; please use Well address for replies.
Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian
kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile.
-> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (02/12/90)
In article <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >I think we can kill several aviforms with one lithoform here. > >This will associate some birds with an >aquarium, allowing the recent condemnation of sci.aviary to be >sidetracked into an expansion of the fastest growing redundant >newsgroup lowarchy on the net, *.aquaria[.*]. OK. Now I *know* there are others who share my opinion. Rec.aquaria suffices. I'm sick of cross postings, Let's spare the taxpayers (remember them?) the cost, and me the time, of these unnecessary duplications in 3 newsgroups. Consider the traffic in *.aquaria.*. compared to rec.music.*, where the latter * is *any* single newsgroup. Richard Link, Ph.D. Space Sciences Laboratory University of California, Berkeley
oleg@electra.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev) (02/13/90)
In article <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >Rec.aquaria suffices. While I agree with Richard... >I'm sick of cross postings, Let's spare the taxpayers (remember them?) >the cost, Cross-posted articles cost exactly the same to transmit and to store (plus extra entries in the directory block) as a single article posted to a single group. Adding groups does not cost extra. Richard Sexton has a theory that creating a group creates traffic in that group (supply side voodoo economics of the USENET), but I have seen no support for that theory. DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself only, unless otherwise indicated. "No regrets, no apologies" -- R.Reagan Oleg Kiselev lcc!oleg@seas.ucla.edu (213)337-5230 ...!{att|ucla-se|turnkey|alphacm}!lcc!oleg
oleg@electra.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev) (02/17/90)
>a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. You are wrong. The groups propagations are not identical and there are large gaps of discontinuity in ALL of the aquaria groups that make cross-posting necessary. >b) Would most authors really be happy to choose just one of the >*.aquaria groups? ... If authors really would be happy >picking one group, why are there currently so many cross-posts between >alt.aquaria and rec.aquaria (this thread being only one of many)? >Don't both of these groups have good propagation? No, they don't. ALT.aquaria doesn't and that's why there was a call for SCI.aquaria. REC.aquaria doesn't and I have no idea why, but at least *this* site does not always get one or the other group's full traffic. Some sites do not carry ALT.aquaria, some don't carry REC.aquaria, some do not carry SCI.aquaria. The safest thing to do is x-post to all of them. It costs the same to transmit as an article posted to one group only and is much more likely to deliver the article to the readers. >c) "[Posting to just one *.aquaria group] results in the article's not >getting everywhere that it should." But to where _should_ an article >get? Everywhere? Why? Because the author needs the extra audience, >and hence attention? Because they want it to? Because I am not happy about replying to a followup of an article I had never seen. People ask questions and expect answers. If I do not see the question, how can I answer it?! And yes, the extra audience. Some of the postings made to .aquaria groups are of interest to all people reading these groups. Why should they be denied the ability to read it just because some self-righteous self-appointed crussaders have screwed up the distributions? >Is the typical message delivered on *.aquaria so burningly important that >every soul must be reached? If so, perhaps a aquarist magazine such >as FAMA, etc., would accept it for publication, and then the author >would even be able to reach those unfortunate people without any >access to USENET. Eat your sarcasm, Ben. There are some people on USENET who can't find FAMA and some who don't even know it exists. "Every soul" does not need to subscribe to these groups and could hit the "n" key. >Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and >alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. Wrong. I have seen a lot of evidence of just the opposite. DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself only, unless otherwise indicated. "No regrets, no apologies" -- R.Reagan Oleg Kiselev lcc!oleg@seas.ucla.edu (213)337-5230 ...!{att|ucla-se|turnkey|alphacm}!lcc!oleg