Xref: utzoo alt.flame:11644 news.groups:13729
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!usc!hacgate!gryphon!oleg
From: oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,news.groups
Subject: Re: My last word on sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <21589@gryphon.COM>
Date: 28 Oct 89 20:36:33 GMT
References: <7308@fear+loathing.UUCP> <2341@vulpes.COM> <1989Oct27.122817.5028@telly.on.ca>
Reply-To: oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Organization: HASA
Lines: 35

In article <1989Oct27.122817.5028@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>It's an amusement. A recreation.

So is peering through a telescope at a local observatory after paying your
admission fee.

>There are people who make money off EVERY hobby. 

And people will make a hobby of EVERY science (save, perhaps, high energy
physics).

>someone who has made a career (or at least
>a comfortable living) from model trains.

That's BUSINESS.  Not science.  Not recreation.  If you wish to call for
votes on biz.aquaria, do so in an appropriate group.

>Frankly, I admire people who are able to make a living at their
>favourite pastimes. Even computer programming. They're not common
>but they do exist.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the field, then.  Most people who I had to
work with so far would have been doing programming as a hobby if they did
not get paid to do it for a living.  Recreational computing is a hobby.  That
hardly makes computer science not a science.

I get a feeling that the majority of people voting NO on sci.aquaria are
those who weren't able to keep their goldfish alive when they were 10 and are
still so warped by the guilt and resentment that all mention of aquaria as a
serious subject causes them to react in a most peculiar way.
-- 
			"No regrets, no apologies"   Ronald Reagan

Oleg Kiselev            ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM
(213)337-5230           UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg