Xref: utzoo alt.aquaria:4227 rec.pets:8761 news.groups:13328
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!vail!rcd
From: rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: alt.aquaria,rec.pets,news.groups
Subject: Re: Call of votes - sci.aquaria (sort of moderated)
Summary: OK, then will you accept them from a non-kibitzer?
Message-ID: <16223@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 89 04:07:32 GMT
References: <35689@apple.Apple.COM> <3248@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp, Boulder, CO
Lines: 24

BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes about Chuq's posting
against sci.aquaria:

> I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for
> this group quite self serving. If he was a regular participant in the
> discussions in this group I would accept his comments as an opinion
> worth considering.  As it stands his comments are those of a kibitzer.

I suspect that Chuq's article was simply a followup to Richard's article,
hence used the same set of "Newsgroups:" in the header, to reach the same
audience.  Obviously John wasn't objecting to the news.groups posting--
Chuq is nothing if not a "regular participant" there.  If he's targeting
the inclusion of rec.pets, I'll echo Chuq's position.  Since I'm a regular
participant in rec.pets, will you accept my opinion as "worth considering?"

As often as I've written about "scientific" viewpoints (i.e., biology,
behavior studies, etc.) on cats in rec.pets, and occasionally even written
about business aspects of raising cats, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that
discussions of cats go anywhere but in a rec group.  I see more self-
serving aspects to Richard's approach--which now seems to be admitted as
selecting "sci" over "rec" to force the distribution wider.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...No DOS.  UNIX.