Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnews!wbt
From: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: naming conventions (was: 100 NO votes)
Message-ID: <10193@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Oct 89 13:04:27 GMT
References: <28357@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28

In article <28357@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>The question should not be do we want alt.acquaria, rec.pets.fish or
>sci.water-chemistry.  That's a silly question.  The question is, "Assuming
>that a good name can be chosen, do we want a group for aquariums?"
>
>At least that's what the question should be.  It does seem that much of
>the silly argument here is about the boring question of names.

I think this is most incorrect, here.  The question of "do we want an 
aquarium group" has already been settled, by the existance of alt.aquaria.
Now, the drive is to increase the readership base of that group by changing
its name to something more "respectable" to increase distribution; and it
is alleged (and makes sense) that the sci. name is particularly desirable
as it would include European aquaculturists (or whatever you call a
fishmonger).  If that is what's going on here, I can't say as I'd blame
'em; sci.aquaria would be a *better* group than rec.aquaria.

So the name is, and should be, the issue in this particular case.

I have no doubt that a CFV for rec.aquaria would would pass by a
comfortable margin.  I think what's going on here is to see whether a CFV
for sci.aquaria would make it.  

- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker						wbt@cbnews.att.com
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
		flexibility of assembly language.