Xref: utzoo alt.aquaria:4179 news.groups:13158
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnewsd!popeye
From: popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin)
Newsgroups: alt.aquaria,news.groups
Subject: Re: ****   Call for Discussion  --  Creation of Sci.Aquaria   ****
Summary: Wait a minute, did I say that?
Message-ID: <2337@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Date: 12 Oct 89 19:31:47 GMT
References: <2213@cbnewsd.ATT.COM > <3182@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu > <156@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 150

In article <156@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes:
> I really can't understand why the sci.aquaria proponents are being so
> pig-headed.

In a previous article I wrote:

Many groups have spit up thriving spin-offs due to enough intrest in a narrower
field of discussion. I like and agree with all the arguments for sci.aquaria,
but I feel that if a rec.aquarium (or misc.) were started first it would be
that much easier to get support for such a group. Lets face it there is a need
for an aquarium group that caters to both the coral reef and fish breeder types
as well as to the guppy goldfish types. This talk about distroying the high
level atomosphere of the current group, and using the "sci" heading as an
intimidation factor is a selfish attitude. The purests can always burp up their
own group later. As far as the technical aspects of fish keeping, there is
enough examples of this level of discussion in misc. and rec. to null that
argument; 

[...]

I personally will vote against "pets". I would vote for "misc", "rec" either
"aquaria" or "aquarium". I would have to think about "sci", even though I
thought it was a good idea at first. 


And in another article I wrote:

rec.(misc, sci)aquarium is not confusing. I don't know anyone who has a pet
aquarium, do you?

> First they say they want to move alt.aquaria under a mainstream
> domain.

Like sci OR REC OR MISC.

> Huh?  That sounds suspiciously like photographers calling for
> sci.cameras because they're not into photographs, they're into the
> science of the 3D->2D photoconversion process.

No, my only problem is with "pets" and to a lesser extent "sci". I wouldn't
argue against rec.photo but would argue against misc.consumers.camera as a
group to cater to photographic hobbiests. And I MIGHT suggest misc.photo as
a means of getting better international distribution! (rehash argument in
this context: how many professional photographers have net access? So they
are just consumers not creaters, right?)
  
> I say that's a bunch of crap.  I've paid my fishkeeping dues.  I've
> spent many a dollar and many an hour on the hobby.  I'm sure some of
> the sci.aquaria proponents are more dedicated than I ever was, but I
> do feel qualified to have insider's opinion.

Did you consider them "pets" though? Or did you consider it more of a window
into an aquatic landscape? Neons (common aquaria inhabitants) have almost no
traditional pet qualities on there own, but lend a lot to the "landscape". My
two dogs are the household "pets", my tanks are my hobby not my pets. Your
flaming a posting that only argues against the "pets" subheading, not against
rec or for sci.
  
> What we need is a newsgroup dedicated to the hobby of tropical fish,
> not aquarium science.  This newsgroup should have the most obvious,
> logical name we can find.  Think of the newsgroup name as a kind of
> textual icon.  The mental images conjured by the name should point the
> majority toward the newsgroup's topic.  Alt.aquaria, sci.aquaria, and
> even rec.aquaria mislead a good number of not-so-naive newreaders into
> thinking the group is devoted to astrology.  Some just don't instantly
> make the association between aquaria and aquariums.

geesh! I've been saying rec or misc.aquarium all along!
  
> In article <2287@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) writes:
> >Even IF you view the animals in an aquarium as pets (which I don't) it seems to
> >me that when more attention in the hobby is focused on creating the environment
> >than on the inhabitants of that environment, it's hard for me to understand why
> >you would name the group after the lesser aspect.
> 
> When I kept fish, my interest was in keeping fish.  If could have done
> that without an aquarium, I would have.  I enjoyed watching the fish,
> observing their different behaviors.  I didn't study them, though.  I
> didn't dissect then when they died.  I didn't spend hours at the
> library researching water chemistry literature.  I followed the advice
> of the how-to book I had and the person who sold me the fish.  I never
> had any desire to be a professional aquarium keeper, biologist, or
> breeder.  It was a *hobby* dammit.

If its a hobby than it doesn't belong under "pets" dammit! I don't consider my
dogs my hobby, I have two mutts, I don't show them in my spare time or try to
refine them or develop my mutt keeping skills, or treat them for illnesses 
(thats what vets are for) they're much more of a responsibility than a hobby.
I am responsable for their care and feeding, and they show love and affection
in return, traditional pet. Most pets get the connection between their owner
and their well being if let loose they will probably return. Throw a fish in
the lake and it will swim off and never look back, no loyalty what-so-ever!

> >And since most woodworking tools come from places that cater to the
> >home building trade (harware stores, contractor tool distributors,
> >home improvement) should rec.woodworking really be
> >misc.consumers.house.woodworking? 
> 
> No, because most people don't consider woodworking to be a part of
> home improvement or maintenance.  Woodworking is a hobby, craft, or
> trade depending upon how seriously one pursues it and whether one is
> an amateur or a professional.

Most people don't consider aquariums to be pets or think of their inhabitants
as pets in the traditional sense. aquarium keeping is a hobby, craft, or
trade depending upon how seriously one pursues it and whether one is
an amateur or a professional.

(argument rehash in this context: how many professional cabinet makers have
net access. These are hobbiests hence consumers... etc, etc, etc...)

> >The primary focus of the hobby is the tank and its environment, the fish are
> >a major element, but this is like changing misc.consumers.house to a soc.
> >group.
> 
> This is obviously where we differ.  To you the fish are a major
> element.  To others, such as myself, they're all that counts.  All the
> rest is peripheral: tanks, plants, filtration, etc.

A PC is useless with out an input device, output device, and some form of
communication capacity. In fact with out these peripheral it doesn't even belong
in a comp. group, it belongs in an electronics group. With out the peripheral
of the aquarium its just a bunch of dead fish and belongs in either rec.food
or alt.fishing (Subject: bait).
  
> I will vote NO on sci.aquaria if it comes to a vote.  I'll vote for
> rec.aquariums, rec.pets.fish, rec.pets.aquatic, rec.pets.aquarium...
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm not sure what I'd do with rec.aquaria.  Right now I'm leaning
> toward a NO because it's not as obvious as it could be.

Then why, with all the talk on this subject, do you single out my article as an
example. I have said that the group should be called REC.AQUARIUM or MISC.
AQUARIUM (misc giving better distribution). I have said that aquarium is more
legible than aquaria and identifies with the subject better. Do you disagree
with either of my prefered choices?

> -- 
> Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)





Ken A. Irwin
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Indian Hill 6G410
Naperville, Illinois
(312) 979-4578
...!ihlpa!kai