Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: This fish thing.  What's the big deal?
Message-ID: <17127@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 11 Oct 89 06:34:29 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: TrishTrash Readers, Inc.
Lines: 36

This is only USENET.  This is not real life.

The entire reason, as I understand it, for wanting to put
*.aquaria in sci is to promote a higher quality of posting
than might be had in a rec.aquaria, and to have better
propogation for the newsgroup since generally sci groups
travel better than rec groups.

To address the first reason, I think a sci group -will-
have higher quality postings than a rec group, sci.skeptic
notwithstanding.

As for the second reason, hierarchies are artificial
constructions we are free to use as we see fit.  If
Richard wants to strive for a higher calliber of posting
in sci.aquaria, wonderful.  =We= create the hierarchies
and =we= are free to use them.

Finally, putting *.aquaria in sci is not going to cause
the end of the net as we know it.  No fish are going to
die because the group isn't in rec.  Computers aren't
going to grow hair on the palms because a ``hobby'' is
being sent through their modem ports.  In short, it
doesn't really matter.  Anyone who wants to participate
in the fish biz is going to find sci.aquaria sooner or
later.

There is no reason =not= to put aquaria into sci other
than this religious nonsense regarding the purity of
the namespace and I'm hear to tell you the lady is a
tramp ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                        +-Things you didn't want to know:------
VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832   Data: -8835  | The real meaning of MACH is ...
InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org         |    ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks.
UUCPNet:  {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh   +--------------------------------------