Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!texsun!newstop!sun!amdahl!drivax!davison
From: davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The disservice of pushing for sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <256079A9.3D19@drivax.UUCP>
Date: 14 Nov 89 20:46:32 GMT
References: <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <22209@gryphon.COM>
Reply-To: davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison)
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey CA
Lines: 20

dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) writes:
} On the contrary, because of the name [sci.aquaria] will be more widely
} distributed than it was before, or than it would be under the rec hierarchy.

With this sort of reasoning, we should move all of rec into sci so that we
can slip something by those eeeevil sysadmins who have chosen to NOT carry
the recreation-oriented netnews hierarchy.

Really folks, TOPIC determines whether a newsgroup gets created in sci or
rec, NOT distribution.  If one (or more) rec group(s) are not getting the
distribution that they deserve, then the proper thing to do is to ask the
sites to voluntarily carry the group(s);  or to set up your own feed from
another source (like uunet) and distribute the group(s) yourself.  Not to
slip the group(s) into a more-widely distributed hierarchy.

[Please note that this article is not passing judgment on whether sci.aquaria
is indeed a science group -- that remains to be seen, since I don't get alt.]
-- 
Wayne Davison          \  /| / /| \/ /| /(_)         davison@drivax.UUCP
                      (_)/ |/ /\| / / |/  \          ...!amdahl!drivax!davison