Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!pett
From: pett@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The disservice of pushing for sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <12401@cgl.ucsf.EDU>
Date: 22 Nov 89 01:09:56 GMT
References: <6951@ficc.uu.net> <11414@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: daemon@cgl.ucsf.edu
Lines: 28

wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>Now, I understand why some sites don't want to carry these groups,
>and that's their business.  But quite simply, any group in the sci
>heirarchy will get a larger audience than the same  group in soc or
>rec or talk; and it will, therefore, be a *better* newsgroup.

	Look, the sci hierarchy is not the rec hierarchy.  Sites that do not
want to receive the rec hierarchy do not want to receive sci groups that
properly should be rec groups.  If pollution of the sci hierarchy with groups
that have little scientific content continues, sites who *must* restrict
newsgroup reception due to limited resources will have to drop the sci
hierarchy.  I do not believe for a second that sci.aquaria will not be largely
hobbyist oriented.

	So people want sci.aquaria to go to Europe.  Why do you think Europe
*doesn't* want to get the rec hierarchy?  Because they don't want to foot a
Trans-Atlantic phone bill for recreation-oriented discussions.  "So let's
end-around that policy by hiding these rec groups in the sci hierarchy."
This attitude is a crock of shit that undermines the entire rationale for
the hierarchy naming scheme reorganization (mod/net -> comp/sci/talk/rec/news),
which was done to ease restriction on unwanted news flow.

	Naming the group sci.aquaria *will* give it a larger distribution, 
until people start dropping the sci [hidden rec] hierarchy.

				Eric Pettersen
				pett@cgl.ucsf.edu
				...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!pett