Xref: utzoo news.groups:13429 alt.aquaria:4301 rec.pets:8831 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!nosc!crash!ncr-sd!ncrcae!hubcap!rchampe From: rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux) Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.aquaria,rec.pets Subject: Re: Re: Formal propsal: "rec.aquarium", not to be confused with "sci.aquaria". Summary: oh, come on now ... Message-ID: <6829@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 20 Oct 89 01:55:29 GMT References: <8215@cbmvax.UUCP> <21087@gryphon.COM> Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC Lines: 74 In article <21087@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: > > 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! Exactly what evidence do you have to back up your claim that Bryce has no interest in this newsgroup? Why do you consider this blatant sabatoge. If anything, he is taking a stand that should help this newsgroup. Someone has already mentioned that the sci.aquaria vote is already in violation of net rules because the discussion has gone on for too long. I believe this same person has claimed that the sci.aquaria vote is no longer valid. (Not really knowing the rules, I realize that this might not be true, but if it's not true, please quote me the rules proving that its not.) > There is a real chance that the aquarium scientists will join that group > (the names of Cabrillo Museum and Monterey Bay Aquariums have been > mentioned). Those people are NOT hobbyists and what they do is not > recreation. No matter which hierarchy this newsgroup is in, it will still be oriented towards the hobbyist. Face it, there are more hobbyists out there than professionals. You might consider yourself very knowledgable about aquarium management, but I'm sure, compared to them, you are still just a hobbyist. What I saying is that the technical content of this newsgroup will be low enough, and the number of professionals out there will be low enough that they won't contribute much (no matter what hierarchy this group is in). They're more likely to talk on their own via mail. > Then again, this "proposal" is made by someone who works for a > toy computer manufacturer, so I guess he is just acting out his guilt over > slipping "commodore" and "amiga" groups into COMP hierarchy, rather than > rec.games.* where they belong. Now what kind of statement is this? It's rather childish and it certainly lowers people's view of you. The amiga is no more a toy than any other personal computer and it's actually more advanced than all of them. Sure, it has some features that allow it to do games very well, but you will find as many games, if not more, on the IBM-PC and the MAC. Perhaps the IBM-PC is not considered a game machine because it so poorly supports features required by games. By the way, these features are very valuable for business like things such as desktop video. Also, I played Tetris on a Sun 4 the other day. It was a very good version of the game and it played very well. Gee, I guess I'll have to call up Sun and tell them that their computer is just a game computer now. > > >The name "aquarium" is used for absolute clarity. > > No, it's chosen out of ignorance! Aquaria is a PLURAL of aquarium. Your right, I looked it up in the dictionary and aquaria is a plural form of aquarium. But, you should notice that it's listed after aquariums, meaning that is the less used form of the word. By your definition, I bet 90% of the english speaking population is ignorant (I'll even go as far as 90% of the english speaking college graduates are ignorant.) Have you really ever used the word aquaria (speaking that is), or every heard it used? Which would you say, "I have 10 aquariums" or "I have 10 aquaria"? Just because it is a, and I stress "a", plural form of aquarium, doesn't mean that most people are familiar with it. I suppose that we could really go off the deep end and determine the latin word for aquariums, aquarium, fish, etc, use it for the name of the newsgroup, and say that anyone that doesn't recognize it is ignorant. Yes, I realize this is an exaggeration, but it points out the flaw in his argument. > Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM Chill out Oleg. It doesn't really do any good to rant and rave. Rich Champeaux (rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu)