Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sco!davidbe
From: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.aquaria vs. sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <136@scorn.sco.COM>
Date: 10 Oct 89 18:00:54 GMT
References: <6402@ficc.uu.net> <798@pmafire.UUCP> <20568@gryphon.COM> <530@banyan.UUCP> <20766@gryphon.COM> <2084@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Reply-To: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Organization: The Scribbling Czar's Office
Lines: 22


news.groups's own gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) said:
-
-If the argument is that sci.astro should be rec.astro, that arguments
-may have some points, but a second inappropiate name should not be
-added just because one is there.

Why not?  It's never stopped the net in the past...  

Seriously, though...I'm of the feeling that as long as sci.skeptic remains,
that's more than enough reason to ignore any namespace pollution arguments.

Sci.aquaria *does* have merit.  Rec.aquaria has merit also.  Personally,
I don't care much.  But I'd like to see this petty bickering ended so we 
could get to some more important bickering.

-- 
     David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
   Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe 
  Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.  

			Well you can just die then.