Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!purdue!bee
From: bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: ****   Call for Bogosity Ratings  --  Creation of Sci.Aquaria   ****
Message-ID: <8239@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 12 Oct 89 01:27:18 GMT
References: <2213@cbnewsd.ATT.COM > <3182@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu > <152@ark1.nswc.navy.mil > <2287@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> <156@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <2674@cpoint.UUCP>
Reply-To: bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 40

Said alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells): 
(in article <2674@cpoint.UUCP>)
|I think that a lot of news.groups people are missing the entire point here.
|This is NOT a proposal to create a new group.  This IS a proposal to take an
|EXISTING group, alt.aquaria, and move it into the mainstream heirarchy.
|
|Arguments about what kind of postings you philosophically think the newsgroup
|ought to carry, and what kind of people it ought to be aimed at are NOT
|APPROPRIATE unless you are currently part of alt.aquaria or are interested
|in subscribing.  Comments like 'alt.aquaria ought to go to rec.pets because
|there are lots of people who would like a group there, even if it drives all
|of you away' (OK, so I'm heavily paraphrasing, but I think that's the basic
|idea) is like saying 'sci.physics ought to be in talk.physics because there
|are a lot of people taking introductory physics in college who would love to 
|contribute'.  And comments like 'if serious people want the group to be 
|serious, it doesn't matter where it it, they will steer it that way' are
|total BS, there wouldn't be so many moderated groups if that were the case.
|
|<soapbox on>
|
|The APPROPRIATE discussion to have here is where should alt.aquaria be put
|so it will get more mainstream distribution while keeping its present character.
|If you DON'T know what alt.aquaria is currently like, what it's character is,
|and what sort of people make it up - either subscribe for a while or kindly
|leave the discussion to people who care more about the group than flaming.
|
|<soapbox off>

I think it's time to start rating the level of bogosity in these
*.aquaria postings.  Logic like the above ("the people who post to the
group should be the ones who decide where the group goes") is what
gave us sci.skeptic and other such misnamed groups.  I rate this
posting as having about 1 milligilly of bogosity.

                                          B.E.E.
-- 
  Z. Beeblebrox   |  "Some girl with psychic powers asked me,
  (alias B.E.E.)  |   'T-Bone, what's your sign?';
bee@cs.purdue.edu |   I blinked and answered, 'Neon'.
  ..!purdue!bee   |   I thought I'd blown her mind!"  -- _Existential Blues_