Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!woods
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: .aquaria
Message-ID: <4732@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 89 23:34:31 GMT
References: <20983@gryphon.COM>
Reply-To: woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 30

In article <20983@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>>The issue is not distribution.  
>
>In this case it is.

   AAAAAUGH! The comp.women debate again. Desire for better distribution
is NOT a valid argument for putting a group in a certain hierarchy! It wasn't
for that group (which has now proven that it indeed belongs in soc) and it
isn't for the aquaria group either. Now that the B.S. about technical
aspects of the hobby and other smokescreens are cleared away we can go
to work on the heart of the matter. This is simply an invalid argument made
by people who think the distribution of their pet group is more important
than the entire hierarchical organization of USENET. Now that we know this
is all there is to it, I urge EVERYONE to vote NO on sci.aquaria.

>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. 
   
   Say WHAT?? How do you figure? The European admins have (collectively)
said that they DON'T WANT RECREATIONAL GROUPS. Excuse me for being old
fashioned, but I believe that this decision should be RESPECTED, not
circumvented. And if the admins in Massachusetts had said they didn't
want UNIX groups (which they haven't, so this entire analogy is flawed)
then I would want to respect THAT decision too. Personally I care more
about respecting the decisions of European site administrators than
I do about the propogation of one pet (pun intended :-) newsgroup.

--Greg