Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!hb
From: hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: How to "prove" rec is "better" (was Re: Will not allow sci.aquaria
Summary: So create rec.[pets.]aquari[a,um] and see what happens...
Message-ID: <1455@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 89 20:41:55 GMT
References: <36377@apple.Apple.COM> <22132@gryphon.COM> <36404@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis)
Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Lines: 25

Chuq, really, I think you are making this unnecessarily difficult...

In article <36404@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>That sci.aquaria was voted in ...
>doesn't say anything about whether rec.aquaria would have been better or
>worse. We won't know that until we ask the net, and Richard has successfully
>handled the situation so that can't be done.

Of course if can be done.  Consider that alt is the ultimate anarchy.
So if the purpose of Richard's vote was to "move" alt.aquaria, which 
as I understand it, he created, then presumably he will now remove it
in favor of the sci group.

Now you or anyone else can recreate alt.aquaria as you want it and
thn conduct a vote to "move" that group to rec.aquaria or
rec.pets.aquarium or whatever, just as Richard did.  If both groups
exist, then which is "better" will ultimately be determined by the sort
of articles that people post in the two groups.  

People can then "vote" by where and what they post.  Why do you think
"that can't be done"?

hb
-- 
Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)