Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!genbank!ames!sgi!cj@inferno.wpd.sgi.com
From: cj@inferno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed Guidelines Change
Message-ID: <45073@sgi.sgi.com>
Date: 21 Nov 89 19:35:31 GMT
References: <36393@apple.Apple.COM> <3503@kitty.UUCP> <45039@sgi.sgi.com> <36675@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: cj@inferno.wpd.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 60

In article <36675@apple.Apple.COM>, 
	chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
	[hey Chuq dude, you're deleting attribution lines]

I wrote:

| >	This greatly irritates those of us who read alt.aquaria 
| >	and wish to read sci.aquaria, i.e., those quiet people
| >	who voted in their quiet and inoffensive news.group
| >	and are now penalized for frivolous reasons.
| It greatly irriates some of us that Richard could take what would have been
| a quiet and inoffensive group and turn it into a major controversy. 

	As far as I can tell [& I read as much of the
	discussion as I could stomach], he didn't turn it into
	a controversy.  It BECAME one, with that awful bloating
	roiling eruption we see so often in news.groups.

  [...some deletions, as they are off the point I want to make]
 
| The name 'comp.women' was chosen for political purposes;
| a political fight should not then be surprising.

	I won't disagree.  Perhaps a better past example would
	be sci.military?  I could argue that there's just as 
	much "sci" there as in the aquaria group.  Perhaps less.  
	Richard made his argument about the name issue, and 
	the group content itself makes an even better one.

	The idea here is not to reopen the discussion, but to
	note that some people disagree with your opinions.

	But this is off my point, as well.

  [...] 
| And those folks who feel that the guidelines were violated in
| spirit are voting with their beliefs in doing what is good for the net
| rather than blindly rubberstamping what they think is a failure of the
| system. 

	Here we reach my point:  I feel that since the vote
	passed, the cooperative thing to do is carry the group.
	Work with the system, and change it later if you
	REALLY think that sci.aquaria is so EVIL and WRONG
	that you need another great renaming.

	It is petty and juvenile to attempt to sink the group
	out of frustration over the lost vote.

	Believe it or not, some people with opinions different
	from yours care about the Greater Good of the Net, just
	as much as you do.  I pay attention to what happens
	here, and I find the attitudes of some sysadmins to
	be more damaging to the net-entity than sporadic
	name-space squabbling.

	More opinions available on request.
---
ucbvax!brahms!silverio       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
cj@modernlvr.wpd.sgi.com