Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!usc!bbn!bbn.com!mesard
From: mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: These stubborn group champions
Message-ID: <47105@bbn.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 89 23:21:57 GMT
References: <8910132350.AA08591@helios.enea.se> <35637@apple.Apple.COM> <33610@looking.on.ca> <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: mesard@BBN.COM (Wayne Mesard)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 30

dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>The issue is not distribution.  It goes much deeper than that.  If the only
>difference between hierarchies were distribution, then the differences
>would indeed be small enough to be irrelevant.

Maybe in your mind, but let's explore the motives of the current discussion. 
In <20988@gryphon.COM> on news.annouce.newgroups, Richard Sexton writes:
} Some articles in alt.aquaria belong in a rec group, some
} articles belong in a sci group.
} 
} Whats the difference ? It turns out that sci goes to Europe
} and rec, for the most part, doesn't. (rec, for example
} doesn't go to Germany and Holland).
} 
} Now, this is probably for a reason, ie. they don't want the
} volume, which is understandable. But to restrict a low volume,
} high quality technical group like .aquaria from these countries
} is less than desirable.
} 
} So how can a compromise be met ?
} 
} I propose then, to move alt.aquaria to sci.aquaria to ensure
} world wide distribution.

Enough sed(1)?  It's for exactly this reason that I voted against the
group: I agree that there's a propagation problem outside of na.  But
for Christ's sake, let's address that issue directly instead of
continually polluting the Beloved Namespace.

Wayne();