Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!snorkelwacker!usc!cs.utexas.edu!milano!bigtex!pmafire!geoff
From: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The disservice of pushing for sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <863@pmafire.UUCP>
Date: 16 Nov 89 15:54:36 GMT
References: <2897@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <9660002@hpcuhb.HP.COM>
Reply-To: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
Organization: WINCO Computer Engineering, INEL, Idaho
Lines: 19

In article <9660002@hpcuhb.HP.COM> rdouglas@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Douglas) writes:
Peter said:
>>"They didn't vote for "sci.aquaria", they voted for ".aquaria""
>
>Are you sure?  Not to start an argument, but who was the one who conducted
>the name survey while the discussion phase of sci.aquaria was under way?
>Maybe he'll  post his results again, but of the people who responded the
>greatest percentage was for sci.aquaria.

There was one problem with the name vote that was taken.  It was *not* a
vote of rec. vs. sci.  There was one sci. choice, sci.aquaria.  There
were several rec. choices, rec.aquaria, rec.pets.aquaria, rec.aquarium,
etc.  A better indicator of where people wanted the group would have
been a simple rec. vs. sci. vote, but, alas, that didn't happen.

-- 
Geoff Allen                  \  Driggs, Idaho -- cultural hub of the west!
{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff  \
ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff   \  (Tom Harper in rec.skiing)