Xref: utzoo news.groups:13426 alt.aquaria:4297 rec.pets:8826
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm.bitnet!nmbcu
From: NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.aquaria,rec.pets
Subject: Re: Formal propsal: "rec.aquarium", not to be confused with "sci.aquaria".
Message-ID: <2623NMBCU@CUNYVM>
Date: 19 Oct 89 13:37:18 GMT
References: <8215@cbmvax.UUCP> <21087@gryphon.COM>
Organization: The City University of New York - New York, NY
Lines: 38
DISCLAIMER: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article

In article <21087@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) says:
>
>In article <8215@cbmvax.UUCP> bryce@commodore.COM (Bryce Nesbitt) writes:
>>I hereby formally propose a new newsgroup to be called "rec.aquarium".
>
>This is a complete idiocy and I appeal to ALL OF YOU (those who are in favour
>of sci.aquaria or rec.aquaria or misc.aquaria) to vote NO on this attempt of
>blatant sabotage by someone who does not have any interest in the group or at
>least ignore it!
>
>PLEASE VOTE NO!

I agree with Oleg. We must wait for the call for votes for sci.aquaria to
end before we may start again. Though I am dead set against the hierarchy
for the group being sci., and am even more dead set against the new
mainstream group being moderated, two wrongs do not make a right.

Though I feel Richard is being a little stubborn on this matter, and
should not have called for the vote so soon, let alone use a name that
most readers are unhappy with (this is based on what I have read, not the
poll I have taken), I feel that Mr. Nesbitt is making another wrong. I
myself have already stated that *IF* Richards vote fails (as I think and
hope it will), I will call for a brand new and official call for discussion
for a rec.* group to be created. But WE MUST WAIT!. Please, recall and undo
you call for votes Mr. Nesbitt, as it is (a) illegal, and (b) poorly timed.
I know that you feel strongly for a rec.aqua* group, but so do a lot of
readers. Lets not spoil it for them or ourselves. Please call of your vote,
which I might add most Netnews Administrators will probably ignore anyway,
should it pass. I thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

P.S. - Hey Richard, after Sci.aquaria (moderated) fails and rec.* (unmoder-
       ated) passes, you could call for the discussion and vote for a new
       moderated group called: "sci.aquarium.research". Now isn't that
       the best comprimise that you heard to date. :) You experts get yours
       and we novices who may one day get to your level, get ours. Bet ya
       never thought of that one. :)

                                                           Nelson Broat