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
briang@bari.Sun.COM (Brian Gordon) (02/13/90)
In article <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: > >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. Pardon my ignorance, but how does a cross-posted article (which is a SINGLE text file with bits set (or whatever) to indicate that is is intended to be visible in multiple groups) cost any more than the same article posted to a single group. For multiple identical postings, I can see the complaint, but cross-postings? Are other news readers THAT different from ``rn'' and its relatives? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Brian G. Gordon briang@Corp.Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) | | ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) (02/13/90)
In article <1190Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu>, link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >In article <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont >Consultant Account) writes: >>... the fastest growing redundant [1]^ >>newsgroup lowarchy on the net, *.aquaria[.*]. >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 [2]^ [3]^ >newsgroups. Consider the traffic in *.aquaria.*. compared to ... [4]^ In reverse order: 4. Just because other newsgroups have too damn much traffic to keep up with is no reason that all newsgroups should suffer from this obvious shortcoming. 3. The duplications in the three newsgroups are made necessary by a number of numbscull site.admins who refuse to carry one or more of the groups. Most authors would be happy to stick their article in the one group in which it best fits, saving cross-posting for those rare occasions where the subject matter fits equally well in two or more groups. But, thanks to the afore- mentioned idiots, following that quite reasonable procedure results in the article's not getting everywhere that it should. Thus, many articles get cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end will recieve them. 2. What cost? 1. The groups are not intended to be redundant. Although they may currently be redundant to some extent (see moronic site.admins point under 3) there is room for difference, if only the users would get a chance to post the way they would like to without having to worry about distribution. Sci.aquaria, for example would be perfect for the recent postings about the effect of various medicines on filter bacteria. (These effects were determined through scientific testing, BTW.) On the other hand, the recent discussion about Tiger-Barbs being little shits falls properly in rec.aquaria. Alt.aquaria will be redundant when the sci and rec groups get proper distribution, and should be eliminated at that time. Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, and on the turkeys who listened to them. Dean Hougen -- "The news groups are not concerned, With what there is to be learned." - the Clash
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/13/90)
In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: > Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where > it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, > and on the turkeys who listened to them. Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net that they refuse to carry it. If you really feel you need a sci.aquaria group, hold a straight vote on the name without any hidden agenda and behind-the-scenes campaigning. If it passes, well and good. If it fails, then issue a "rmgroup sci.aquaria" and try again in a few months. As Richard found out, it helps to pay attention to the intent of the group creation guidelines, rather than playing lawyer with the text. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
bbc@libya.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (02/14/90)
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >3. The duplications in the three newsgroups are made necessary by a number >of numbscull site.admins who refuse to carry one or more of the groups. Most >authors would be happy to stick their article in the one group in which it >best fits, saving cross-posting for those rare occasions where the subject >matter fits equally well in two or more groups. But, thanks to the afore- >mentioned idiots, following that quite reasonable procedure results in the >article's not getting everywhere that it should. Thus, many articles get >cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end >will recieve them. Let's question a few assumptions in this paragraph, lest someone accidentally confuse them with truths. a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. b) Would most authors really be happy to choose just one of the *.aquaria groups? (First it may help to define "most authors". Offhand, I would say that Richard S. and Oleg are "most authors" in *.aquaria by at least one metric. :-) 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? 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? d) "many articles get cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end will recieve [sic] them." 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. >1. The groups are not intended to be redundant... >Alt.aquaria will be redundant when the sci and rec groups get proper >distribution, and should be eliminated at that time. Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. It may be beneficial to cross-post between alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria, since sci.aquaria has poor propagation. When and if sci.aquaria gets propagated better, then alt.aquaria will be redundant. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (02/14/90)
In article <RHQ15BAggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: #In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> # hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: #> Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where #> it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, #> and on the turkeys who listened to them. # #Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent #vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net #that they refuse to carry it. # #-- # _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. Will you please stop your whining. If you have proof then bring it out, otherwise shut up already. People are tired of the back-biting from the children at FICC. Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)
richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) (02/14/90)
In article <1124@mtxinu.UUCP> frk@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: >In article <RHQ15BAggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >#In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> ># hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >#> Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where >#> it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, >#> and on the turkeys who listened to them. ># >#Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent >#vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net >#that they refuse to carry it. ># >#-- ># _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. > >Will you please stop your whining. > >If you have proof then bring it out, otherwise shut up already. > >People are tired of the back-biting from the children at FICC. > >Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com) Frank, Do you really think that Peter wrote that note? One never knows? Last time I read a "PDS" article, it was claimed to be a forgery! No doubt the work of that scurrilous Sexton. Reverse psychology! C'mon folks, lets retire this #$*! from the aquaria groups once and for all. (:-) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Mike Richman smart internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu = = U of Illinois old bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd = = Water Survey old uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman =
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/14/90)
If I may be permitted to quote from a recent message in another thread:
"Group votes should be based on an individual's feelings
for the merits of a group, not political machinations."
-- Mark H. Weber
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'richardb@cognos.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (02/16/90)
In article <1990Feb14.051455.3720@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes:
+Do you really think that Peter wrote that note? One never knows?
+Last time I read a "PDS" article, it was claimed to be a forgery!
+No doubt the work of that scurrilous Sexton. Reverse psychology!
Yep, Sexton has aquired quite the reputation as a forger. Disagree with
him and BANG!; forged articles in your name appear. Funny, but quite
childish.
+
+C'mon folks, lets retire this #$*! from the aquaria groups once and
+for all. (:-)
Yes, lets get back to the guppy discusion. I find it SO interesting!.
--
RIP Gryphon:198?-1990:'The day-care center from hell finally died'
Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb