Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!nuchat!moray!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Complimentary but not overlapping
Message-ID: <7VY+N.@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 23 Dec 89 13:28:44 GMT
References: <10706@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 27

In article <10706@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
>Please note:  I am -not- asking a specific question about .aquaria 
>per se.  I would simply like to know, now that Peter has added this 
>exciting new dimension to the newgroup creation guidelines, whether 
>this process can be used to create similar groups.  And I assume 
>everyone else is also free to ignore the discussion period just as 
>Peter did?

*sigh*. No clue at all, Trish. You have no clue at all.

rec.aquaria did *not* sneak in without a discussion period.  Indeed, it
was perhaps the most over-discussed group in net.history.  Many, many
gigabytes of discussion were posted over more than the six weeks it took
to create sci.aquaria.  It was obvious to even the most dull-witted
student - nay, even the most rabid Richard Sexton Sycophant(tm) - that
rec.aquaria would be an acceptable group name to nearly everybody, while
sci.aquaria was patently unacceptable to an unprecedented number of
people.  Given this fact, was a discussion period really needed?

You're just bitching because you and the rest of the bizarrites that
Richard sucked in didn't get your way completely. Tough.

-- 
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 +----------------------------------------
     Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...