Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!shamash!garnet!caa
From: caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com (Charles A. Anderson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Newsgroup placement
Message-ID: <2198@garnet.ssd.cdc.com>
Date: 17 Nov 89 22:26:03 GMT
Reply-To: caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com (Charles A. Anderson)
Organization: Control Data Corporation, Arden Hills, MN
Lines: 21


I would like to know if there is one person out there (even Richard, if
he's still reading this group even though said he was going to stop)
that can give a good reason why a non scientific group should be placed
in the sci hierarchy.  Puting fish in a tank and feeding them, cleaning
the filters every now and then and keeping the temperature constant is
no more scientific that raising a dog, giving them a bed to sleep in,
food to eat, paper training them, and cleaning up their messes.  I would
also hazard a guess that training dogs, cats, gerbils, mice, hamsters,
monkeys and whatever else is more scientific than curing your fish of ick.
(however you spell it)  I have never seen a study done where they have trained
fish to swim through a maze.

Better distibution is not a valid reason.

P.S.  Neither garnet, nor my machine at home receives or will ever receive
that fishy group.   (notice I avoided using the 'a' word all throughout this
article.)-- 
Charles Anderson |  caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com \ Disclaimer: I said what?
----------------/     caa@midgard.mn.org     \           But CDC didn't.
If someone deserves a cheap shot, by all means, give it to them.