Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: naming conventions (was: 100 NO votes)
Message-ID: <33729@looking.on.ca>
Date: 15 Oct 89 02:57:49 GMT
References: <28357@looking.on.ca> <10193@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 27
Class: rebuttal

In article <10193@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes:
>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 ....
>
>So the name is, and should be, the issue in this particular case.

I think this is more incorrect, here.  Otherwise I might ask how you
would answer the question "do we want a weemba group?"  Ah, I see, because
there is alt.weemba (or pick your favourite alt group that has come or gone)
it means that we want such a group, and the issue is simply the name!

The name is the issue in this case, but it's a bogus issue.  It just plain
isn't important, and I am disturbed to see people attributing so much
importance to this non-issue.  There's been more traffic on the right
name for aquariums than on many far more important issues.

And to top it off, alt.aquaria, which makes it to 73% of the arbitron sites
(gosh, sci.aquaria, with all the controversy, will probably make it to around
60%) still doesn't manage to get a single reader on half the machines it
goes to.  That's right, out of 719 sites surveyed, 525 had alt.aquaria and
there were only 260 readers.   And people say this has to go out to the
whole net, and not only that, it should be put in the best distribution
possible?
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473