Xref: utzoo alt.aquaria:4298 news.groups:13427
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm.bitnet!nmbcu
From: NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.aquaria,news.groups
Subject: Re: Call of votes - sci.aquaria (sort of moderated)
Message-ID: <2624NMBCU@CUNYVM>
Date: 19 Oct 89 14:04:06 GMT
References: <21079@gryphon.COM>
Organization: The City University of New York - New York, NY
Lines: 27
DISCLAIMER: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article

In article <21079@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) says:
>
>In article <2620NMBCU@CUNYVM> NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
>>
>[a complaint that inexperienced aquarists will have no place to post]
>
>Call me crazy but I though that with one group, sci.aquaria, propagating
>more or less world wide (not australia, which is ok, tropical fish
>are illegal in australia) the postings of the type ``what kind
>of gravel do you guys think is neat'' could get posted to sci.aquaria,
>with a state wide, or country wide or continent wise distribution,
>while the postings on the order of ``has anybody noticed a decrease
>in rhizome production in Aponogetons in calciferous gravel'' would
>warrent a world distribution to address the smalled number of people
>in the worls qualified to comment on it (in spite of the fact it
>is of intrest of almost all aquarists, regardless of experience level)
>

It has been said before and I will say it again. The aquaria group that gets
created should be in the rec hierarchy (unmoderated). Later after the
sci.aquaria vote fails and the rec.* vote passes then you could go ahead and
call for a discussion and subsequent vote for a new moderated tech aquarium
group. Sci.aquarium.research sounds like a reasonable name that you might
wish to use. I implore everyone to send a NO vote for the vote being held
for sci.aquaria (moderated).

                                                           Nelson Broat