Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!alembic!csu
From: csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Sci.ad.nauseum.aquaria redux
Message-ID: <1989Nov2.045357.1204@alembic.acs.com>
Date: 2 Nov 89 04:53:57 GMT
References: <35951@apple.Apple.COM> <4848@ncar.ucar.edu> <21596@gryphon.COM> <2995@splut.conmicro.com>
Reply-To: csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack)
Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA
Lines: 55
UUCP-Path: uunet!alembic!csu

In article <2995@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>The people who oppose the name sci.aquaria do so out of a real concern:
>that a new user won't be able to understand how to find a group.

Ah, yes, those stupid new users. They're such ignorant dolts. Not a
one of them will think of asking someone who's been on the net a bit
longer than they if there's a group for aquarists. They won't think
of posting a question to news.newusers.questions, or news.groups,
or rec.pets. They won't even think to save a copy of spaf's monthly
newsgroups posting. And why is this? Because they're STUPID.

>Before you say, "Well, it's scientific", tell me why a detailed
>mathematical explanation of why an aircraft which stalls in an
>uncoordinated turn flops over and starts spinning should not go in
>rec.aviation, 

Depending on how detailed it is, it probably ought to go in 
SCI.aeronautics, don't you think? Aviation, like aquarium-keeping,
has both its scientific and its recreational aspects. How many pilots
really want or need a detailed mathematical description of the fluid
dynamics of a stall?

>	       or why an in-depth analysis of collisions on a radio
>network as a function of how many stations can hear each other should
>not go in rec.ham-radio.packet. Be specific.

Be braindead.

How interesting that you should choose an example that would probably
make a rather good topic for a Ph. D. thesis. Probability theory,
antenna theory, queuing theory, and god knows what else would be
involved. Of course, none of these things are related to Science.
They're all hobbies.

>The problem comes when, as in the current situation, the vote really
>mixes two issues with differing desirabilities:
>1) Should there be a group to discuss aquaria in the mainstream Usenet?
>I don't know of anyone who has disagreed with this idea. I certainly
>don't.
>2) Should that group be named "sci.aquaria"?
>This is the controversial issue. Lots of well-reasoned argument - yes,
>and some flamage - has gone into this one. In the end, Richard decided
>to bull ahead with his idea, and the rest of the net be damned.

You're absolutely right, Jay. Richard should have done the decent thing,
and proposed the creation of TWO newsgroups, one for the purely recreational
aquarists and the other for the scientifically-inclined aquarist. Not
only would this completely end this dispute over whether it should be
in sci or rec, it would double a new user's chances of finding a group
where someone would point him in the right direction.

Shame on you, Richard!

-- 
Dave Mack