Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!uunet!jarthur!laura
From: laura@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Laura Kirk)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *real* change won't happen
Summary: alt vs. rec vs. sci
Keywords: *.aquaria alt rec sci
Message-ID: <2563@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 22 Oct 89 06:05:34 GMT
References: <1989Oct19.003117.809@everexn.uucp> <35808@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: laura@jarthur.claremont.edu (Laura Kirk)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA
Lines: 24

In article <35808@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>Some folks think sci.aquaria would actually have a higher quality of
>material than rec.aquaria. That's a laughable argument, actually -- just
>look at the existing groups in both domains and tell me that being in sci
>makes a group inherently better. It doesn't.

Going along with this:

We keep hearing how high quality alt.aquaria is.
We keep hearing how putting it in rec would mean lower quality postings than 
   if it was in sci.

My question:  if being in alt didn't hurt it, why would rec?  Surely alt.*
has a much larger reputation for garbage than rec, and if it came out of
alt with such high caliber postings, it should be able to stay in rec 
with equally high caliber postings.

			laura

-- 
laura kirk                  %___________________________________%
uunet!jarthur!laura          %   Reality is a optical illusion   %
laura@jarthur.claremont.edu   %    that happens all of the time   %
laura@ymir.bitnet              %___________________________________%