Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: is it recreational or technical ?
Message-ID: <21152@gryphon.COM>
Date: 21 Oct 89 07:48:28 GMT
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 36

In article <6597@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>> When I think rec I think TV and football.
>
>Yes, we know there's a major attitude problem in the United States, with
>non-participatory activities chewing up a huge amount of people's free
>time. It seems your reaction to this is to classify what you do in your
>free time as something other than "recreation". That's a perfectly valid
>reaction, but you really shoudl try to limit to your personal life, and
>not try to impose it on others.
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, I look forward to sci.bio.marine 

Wait a minute. If people talk about a marine environment it's a sci
group, but if they actually have one, it's rec ?

At any rate I take it sci.bio.marine is about, uh, marine biology.

Right now on USENET, thats a subset of alt.aquaria postings. If you
can demonstrate enought traffic in sci.aquaria, Peter. maybe
you can go and make sci.bio.marine.

You're taking the taxa too far in the theoretical sense without
any regards to prgamaticism.

>and rec.oceanaria.

Well thats fine for the marine stuff, but what about freshwater ?

-- 
                  Surgical tools for mutant women
richard@gryphon.COM  decwrl!gryphon!richard   gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV