Xref: utzoo rec.aquaria:426 alt.aquaria:6058 news.groups:17699
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!umn-d-ub!cs.umn.edu!hougen
From: hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen)
Newsgroups: rec.aquaria,alt.aquaria,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.aquaria.birdfeed (was: Guppies)
Keywords: bird-brains
Message-ID: <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>
Date: 13 Feb 90 04:47:48 GMT
References: <##701$@rpi.edu> <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept.
Lines: 48

In article <1190Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu>,
link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes:
>In article <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont >Consultant Account) writes:
>>...  the  fastest  growing  redundant
                                [1]^
>>newsgroup lowarchy on the net,  *.aquaria[.*].

>I'm sick of cross postings, Let's spare the taxpayers (remember them?)
>the cost, and me the time, of these unnecessary duplications in 3
     [2]^                                         [3]^
>newsgroups. Consider the traffic in *.aquaria.*. compared to ...
                                                    [4]^
In reverse order:

4.  Just because other newsgroups have too damn much traffic to keep up with
is no reason that all newsgroups should suffer from this obvious shortcoming.

3.  The duplications in the three newsgroups are made necessary by a number
of numbscull site.admins who refuse to carry one or more of the groups.  Most
authors would be happy to stick their article in the one group in which it
best fits, saving cross-posting for those rare occasions where the subject
matter fits equally well in two or more groups.  But, thanks to the afore-
mentioned idiots, following that quite reasonable procedure results in the
article's not getting everywhere that it should.  Thus, many articles get
cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end
will recieve them.

2.  What cost?

1.  The groups are not intended to be redundant.  Although they may currently
be redundant to some extent (see moronic site.admins point under 3) there is
room for difference, if only the users would get a chance to post the way
they would like to without having to worry about distribution.  Sci.aquaria,
for example would be perfect for the recent postings about the effect of
various medicines on filter bacteria.  (These effects were determined through
scientific testing, BTW.)  On the other hand, the recent discussion about
Tiger-Barbs being little shits falls properly in rec.aquaria.  Alt.aquaria
will be redundant when the sci and rec groups get proper distribution, and
should be eliminated at that time.

Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where
it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution,
and on the turkeys who listened to them.

Dean Hougen
--
"The news groups are not concerned,
 With what there is to be learned."  - the Clash