Xref: utzoo news.groups:13271 alt.aquaria:4207 rec.pets:8733
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.aquaria,rec.pets
Subject: .aquaria
Message-ID: <20983@gryphon.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 89 08:42:46 GMT
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 23

In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>In article <33610@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>>In other words, who the fuck cares?   All this fuss about whether a group
>>goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution?  And that 5%
>>mostly marginal sites that will prune any group they don't like anyway?
>
>The issue is not distribution.  

In this case it is.

All things being equal, I still can't tip the scales one way or another
for rec. vs. sci. aquaria. There are convincing arguments for both.

What does make a big diference is sci goes to all of Europe. An aquarium
group not propogating to Europe is like a Unix group not getting to
California, Massachusetts and Bell Labs. 



-- 
            Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime
richard@gryphon.COM  decwrl!gryphon!richard   gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV