Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rice!brazos.rice.edu!bbc From: bbc@legia.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Lets do something constructive re: *.aquaria groups Summary: So far, only Dean has been constructive. Message-ID: Date: 20 Feb 90 17:01:14 GMT References: <##701$@rpi.edu> <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> <1990Feb20.003710.26194@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> Sender: root@rice.edu Reply-To: Benjamin Chase Distribution: usa Organization: Center for Research on Parallel Computations Lines: 61 In-reply-to: hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu's message of 20 Feb 90 00:37:10 GMT In his first article, creating this thread, Dean Hougen is level-headed, even-handed, and asks for positive input, and help in untangling the *.aquaria mess: >Not only is it driving the fishheads batty, but it is a real >black-eye for the network. Will anyone help me clear this up? Chuck Von Rospach replies with a proposal that assumes that one aquarium group will suffice (at least one prior vote to the contrary notwithstanding), and then admits: "But then, I'm not going to fix the aquaria problem. Maybe someone else will." In his next article, Dean Hougen is still level-headed, and quite gracious, admitting the possibility that the popular desire for multiple aquarium groups is still undecided. > The problem I have with [Chuq's] solution is that it *assumes* that > what the net wants and/or what is best for the net is a single aquaria > group. While I think it is clear that at least one aquaria group is > desired (or would at least be tollerated) in the rec. hierarchy, it is > still an open question about additional possible groups. Brad Templeton, a man with a network of his own to play in, chimes in next, with his wonderfully helpful and friendly response: > Sorry, no. Please do not discuss the fish groups in news.groups. > That topic has had its day here. It doesn't get another chance. And once again, Dean is still _amazingly_ nice, astounding all onlookers. Note in particular his use of the word "rather". Less restrained individuals would have chosen something much stronger. > That is a rather negative attitude you've got there Brad. A great > many goals take more than one try to reach. That doesn't mean that > they are not worth reaching. [..] I think you speak only for yourself. Gene W. Smith, surprising absolutely nobody as he remains completely in character, offers us this wonderful advice: > If it were only possible, rmgrouping sci.aquaria and alt.aquaria *now* > and then shutting up about it would fix the problem. (Thankyou, Gene, for your deep insight. Of course, there is the minor detail that you've left the thousands of fish-o-philes with only rec.aquaria, Most Mangled of the Holy *.aquaria Trinity.) So, what I am waiting for now is to see if Dean can keep it up. Does he have the stamina, patience, fortitude, and cool F key to wow us with a third sensible, well-stated and flame-free post? Go, Dean! (Yes, Dean, I do want to help. Is there anything I can do besides not posting another article like this? :-) ((After my previous annoyed posts regarding the cross-posting between the *.aquaria groups, I hacked Gnus enough so that now I can kill crossposts. Anyone desiring a copy of my changes can have one. In fact, with minor work, you could use it to kill anything cross-posted from *.aquaria to anywhere else. Chuq, Brad, and Gene should consider trying this exciting software, if they use Gnus.)) -- Ben Chase , Rice University, Houston, Texas