Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!evan From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: is it recreational or technical ? Message-ID: <1989Oct19.190808.8770@telly.on.ca> Date: 19 Oct 89 19:08:08 GMT References: <21042@gryphon.COM> <2952@splut.conmicro.com> <21076@gryphon.COM> Organization: Telly Online, Brampton, Ontario Lines: 42 Anyone who hasn't written off this whole discussion as totally absurd must be a glutton for punishment. In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Taxonomically speaking, rec.aquaria.tech is less desirable than >sci.aquaria. >Think about it - rec (it's recreational) aquaria (its about aquatic life) >tech (it's technical in nature). >As opposed to sci (it's highly techncal) aquaria (it's about aquatic life). Technical discussions about aquaria are a subset of the total volume of aquaria-related postings. This is more logically done (and easier to find for novices) with rec.aquaria.tech being a subset of rec.aquaria. >When I think rec I think TV and football. I believe that technical >groups in rec as as misplaced as .philosophy is in sci. This kind of closed-mindedness about what contitutes a 'recreation' (or what contitutes philosophy, for that matter) sorta says it all, doesn't it? >But even putting the distribution aspect aside >and limiting our discourse solely to the North American continent, >my belief in sci.aquaria is unshaken. How courageous. So what? >Also, it has recently been brought to my attention that when (not if) >the Monteray and Cabrillo aquariums come online it seems more natural >that they would contribute to a sci group than a rec.pets.whales thing. So if it's rec.* and not sci.* they won't read or post? This is getting stupider each day. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan Canada could have enjoyed: English government,French culture,American know-how; Instead we ended up with: English know-how,French government,American culture.