Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The disservice of pushing for sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <1989Nov21.143548.26756@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 21 Nov 89 14:35:48 GMT
References: <3043@splut.conmicro.com> <11565@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 27

In article <11565@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes:
(re increased distribution means better group:)
>It does, at least in a group that operates in an adult fashion. [...]
>Obviously, that's not the only consideration.  Too large of audiences have
>been detrimental to groups such as rec.humor and comp.sys.amiga, at
>least for my taste.  So my generalization was too broad; I should say that
>*some* groups will be better in sci rather than rec, because of increased
>readership.  I would, though, consider sci.aquaria to be such a group.  

OK, that version of the assertion I'll buy.

Sci.aquaria, however, is not an example of the above: Richard Sexton has
now admitted, in an article in alt.config, that sci.aquaria has *worse*
distribution than alt.aquaria. This, I feel, is a direct consequence of
the placement of the group in sci.*. (Side note: Richard called it
"subversion". To me, this is only subversion if you also admit that
placing it in sci in the first place is subversion: subversion begets
subversion.)

The only groups that would be better in sci rather than rec are -
surprise! - those dealing with the established sciences.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? - Brandon Allbery