Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: .aquaria
Keywords: the decline of the Brahms gang - the final days
Message-ID: <21567@gryphon.COM>
Date: 27 Oct 89 19:34:45 GMT
References: <21442@gryphon.COM> <1989Oct26.044435.23101@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 55

In article <1989Oct26.044435.23101@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <21442@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes:
>>In article <1989Oct24.050816.9206@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>>  In the only poll I saw posted, sci.aquaria lost.
>
>>``You LIE!!'' - Tim Maroney
>
>
>>Nelsons survey was posted to news.groups and alt.aquaria.
>
>>Since you missed it the first time, Gene:
>>>rec.aquarium                   5
>>>rec.aquaria                   11
>>>sci.aquaria                   16
>>>rec.fish                       1
>>>rec.aquariums                  1
>
>  You've been hanging around with fish too long, Richard. I've
>heard crows can count to five, maybe you should take up
>birdwatching instead. Look at the above. Count the numbers: those
>who wanted sci.something: 16 out of 34, or 47%. Those who wanted
>rec.something: 18 out of 34, or 53%. I guess fisheadology isn't
>very big on mathematical models, though we all know how
>scientific it is.  Really, we do.

Hmm. Interesting analysis, Gene. Of course, I don't have quite
the training of math that you do (obligatory jibe: ```but at
least I was in a *Faculty* of Mathematics, not just some run
down old shed out back of Berkeley with a bunch of slide rules
and legal pads donated by goodwill'' (astute readers of the net
will note that this is the old ploy of insulting the institution
where the poster posts from and is required when a discussion 
has gone on for as long as this one)) but it seems to me that
without getting something as *complicated* as percentages
involved, simply eyeballing the numbers would indicate that
the name sci.aquaria had the most votes. Even ardent mathematicians
such as yourself must admit this means *something*.

Now, if the question raised by the poll had been ``which hierarchy do you 
think the group belongs in'' then ``sci'' lost, but I cannot
see any interpretation which indicates sci.aquaria lost.

Indeed, if this were to mean anything, and if you were to
continue this practice of drawing conclusions of part of a name
when, clearly, the vote called for a consensus on the whole
name, then attention would have to be paid to the fact that
27 out of 34 votes were for an ``.aquaria'' group, *not* an
``aquarium'' group. Think of this as a homework assignment,
Gene: what percantage would that be ? Extra points for explaining
the relevence to the other vote that is going on.

-- 
``Mathematics is a fiction created by man to rationalize the universe. It
          is not a science''  - Thomas Silverton, 1799.
richard@gryphon.COM  decwrl!gryphon!richard   gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV