Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!turnkey!elrond!news
From: news@elrond.la.locus.com (- Netnews)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: ****   Call for Discussion  --  Creation of Sci.Aquaria   ****
Summary: Really, isn't rec.aquaria a better name?
Message-ID: <72@elrond.la.locus.com>
Date: 9 Oct 89 19:54:23 GMT
References: <3182@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> <20503@gryphon.COM> <3180@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> <147@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
Reply-To: news@elrond.la.locus.com.UUCP (Usenet Admin -- George Bray)
Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Los Angeles
Lines: 24

I've only recently gotten back into usenet, after several years away,
and it is obvious that the naming is no better (and perhaps it is worse)
than it was years ago.  Please, don't make a bad situation worse by
naming the aquaria group 'sci.aquaria'.

To me, the sci.* groups are for scientific discussions of current
scientific research or science history.  Aquarium keeping, for most
people, is not a research topic but rather a recreational activity.
The fact that discussions on the current 'alt.aquaria' are technical
doesn't enter into it.  Almost all the newsgroups have discussions
that would be considered technical to 75% of the population.

The sci.* groups should be for scientific purposes and discussions,
while the rec.* groups should be for recreational activities.  I
would agree that rec.aquaria is a good name, I would probably vote
against sci.aquaria.

George Bray
Locus Computing Corporation, 9800 La Cienega Blvd, Inglewood, CA  90301-4440

213-337-5171
lcc.ghb@seas.ucla.edu
{randvax,sdcrdcf,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-se!lcc!ghb
{gryphon,turnkey,attunix,oblio}!lcc!ghb