Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!inco!mack
From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.aquaria vs. sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <5679@inco.UUCP>
Date: 11 Oct 89 13:58:06 GMT
References: <6402@ficc.uu.net> <798@pmafire.UUCP> <20568@gryphon.COM> <530@banyan.UUCP> <20766@gryphon.COM> <2084@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <136@scorn.sco.COM>
Reply-To: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems Co. McLean VA
Lines: 28

In article <136@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes:
>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.

The problem here is that we have both technical and nontechnical postings
in a single group, alt.aquaria. The attempt to replace that with a
single group in the sci.* hierarchy has produced a truly delightful
little flamefest between the Propagationists, who want sci.aquaria, 
and Purificationists, who want rec.aquaria.

Allow me to pour a little oil on these troubled fires with this
suggestion: since the technically minded in alt.aquaria are primarily
interested (apparently) in marine ecosystems, perhaps what is needed
is sci.environment.{aquaria,marine,aquatic}, and possibly a rec group
for the non-technical aspects, like "what color tank sand should I get
to go with tetras?"

I suggest that separate votes be held for sci.environment.{aquaria,
aquatic,marine} and rec.{aquaria,pets.fish,whatever}. We might also
want to consider a vote on a marine biology group, to include imprisoned
water-dwellers, as well as the free ones. sci.bio.marine, anyone?

Yours for a more chaotic net,
-- 
Dave Mack				McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems
uunet!inco!mack, inco%mack@uunet.uu.net			(703)883-3911
All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of MDESC. Ever.