Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!chuq From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Per the vote... Message-ID: <37584@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 3 Jan 90 16:43:19 GMT References: <10750@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <21353@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Organization: Fictional Reality: We bring good things to life Lines: 19 jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >PPS - Has anyone tabulated how many sites carry Richard's > con.aquaria vs. how many carry Peter's rec.aquaria? The stats from Brian show: Alt.aquaria 77% distribution, sci.aquaria 53% and rec.aquaria 19%. The latter isn't to be given too much weight, since it takes a month or two for the stats to settle out for a new newsgroup (for instance, in Novemember, sci.aquaria was somewhere around 35%). I doubt sci.aquaria's distribution will go up much more, and I have no idea where rec.aquaria will end up. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] An argument requires two voices. Without the opposition, it's just a whine. To argue, you have to listen to and rebut the opposition. Most USENET arguments aren't. They're simply two monologues happening at once.