Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnews!wbt
From: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The disservice of pushing for sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <11566@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Nov 89 15:02:49 GMT
References: <6976@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28

In article <6976@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <11414@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes:
>> You'r wrong, Peter.  I, for one, didn't vote at all based on .aquaria;
>> my vote was based on sci.  I won't even read the new group.
>
>One vote. When another 400 folks come up and say the same thing that'll
>mean something.

I'm sure Richard can arrange that, if you really want to subject yourself
to it.

>So your argument comes down to, to me, an assertion that one should
>support sci.aquaria so people who keep fish should be able to steal
>bandwidth. You should hope I'd overlook an argument like that.

Not exactly. Rather, that people have an interest in putting their groups
in heirarchies where they don't belong.  For the readers of alt.aquaria,
a move to sci.aquaria would be better than one to rec.aquaria.  It was in
their best interest to approve of this move.

Peter's insistance that the proposal of sci.aquaria was some twisted,
evil machination of Richard Sexton, without the support of the readers,
is pure fantasy.  I'm attempting to point out the the readers had plentiful
reason to support sci, rather than rec.

- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker	AT&T Network Systems - Columbus		wbt@cbnews.att.com
	    Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero