Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!udel!princeton!phoenix!vnend
From: vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Some observations on this whole mess.
Message-ID: <11171@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 31 Oct 89 05:52:36 GMT
Reply-To: vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 52

I've been reading a lot of the garbage about this whole thing, and noting 
a few things along the way.  First, there are some really sick puppies out
there, on both sides.  (And heaven knowns I'm probably one of them.)  But
when you get things like the posting to alt.sex saying "This group is in
danger, if you don't want it censored, send mail saying YES in the subject
line to richard@gryphon.com...", and postings to mailing lists that have 
nothing to do with the subject asking people to send (yes) votes on one
hand, and various people (Dianeh, Oleg, etc) saying "Why are you voting
no?  Do you read alt.aquaria?  Why does your opinion count?"  Then things
are getting silly.

Why am I against it?  Because I feel that it is a disservice to what I
think of as the net.  As big a one as c.p.t.e. was.  

I'll believe that the vote for sci.aquaria is valid and legit if you can
show me that you have more than 100 people posting to alt.aquaria, 
let along 100 people who think of it more as a science than a hobby.  
Alt.aquaria doesn't *have* 100 posters (or at least it didn't before 
all this bruhaha started.)  Therefore the people who count, the
ones *using* the group, can't even vote it past the 100 vote minimum.
Should there be a group sci.aquaria?  I don't think so.  Should there
be a group rec.aquaria?  Maybe, I don't care.  The only thing I do know
is that, however many votes Richard gets, 95% of them are just so much 
garbage, both the aye's and the nay's.

Richard has said that he doesn't know that the European sites
are now getting rec.*, even though several posters (from sites with
domains like uk and se and fi) have said that they did.  Sorry Richard,
I tend to believe their report, being there, more than your belief.

Technical discussions?  Come on over to alt.sca.  Over time you'll see
discussions on various tuning methods of medieval instruments, including
discussion of accidental harmonics and the physics of how the ear hears
them; detailed discussions on the types and methods of construction of
chainmail and boiled leather, detailed discussions on the nature of
the middle ages from the point of view an economist...  along with
a lot of general discussion about the middle ages and how poor a job
SCA does in recreating it, all with remarkably little verbal violence
(none of which, of what I've seen, merits the title "flame".)  But,
in spite of the amount of time and money we may have spent learning
to use gold leaf, it is *just* a hobby.  Funny how that works.

I voted no for sci.aquaria.  I don't recall getting a confurmation,
so perhaps I had best send it again.  Certainly I didn't get a note
like Laurie did.  Then again, few people would mistake me for Chuq...


-- 
Later Y'all,  Vnend                       Ignorance is the mother of adventure.   
SCA event list? Mail?  Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet   
        Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu                    
  The other car collided with mine without giving warning of its intentions.