Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu!rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu!BRIDGE
From: BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Sci.aquaria...Rec.aquaria Discussion
Message-ID: <4291@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 90 16:28:34 GMT
Sender: news@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State University
Lines: 45


Logging on to news.groups is always a thrill! Few of my active groups
have 875 unread notes. I will comment on the new name discussion although
I have not read all the "discussion" on the topic of late. Seems to be
mostly frustrated monitors trying to be "funny"? There are several points
concerning the present names which are evident to real users of these
groups.

1. sci.aquaria (through cross postig on sites that bar it) has attracted
the sort of discussion it was hoped by those who wanted a group with
a sci. prefix. The discussions have certainly been science though not
necessarily biology. The ecology and other scientific understanding one
gains by studying a small aquarium community is very important to our
society and to the individuals who are interested in this subject.

2. rec.aquaria has also served its purpose. It seems to have drawn a
very goodly number of beginners and people with questions to ask of more
experienced hobbiests. It is doubtful that many of them are interested
in the more specialized discussions that occur in sci.aquaria.

3. It is apparent to this user that both groups have there place and
represent a more important division than say freshwater -- saltwater.
I would like to see them both (sci. and rec.) continue provided
sci. is "unlocked" from those sites still banning it. The reason for
that banning seems to be gone. However many feelings were hurt over
its creation seem irrelevant at this point in time.

3. I would in general like to see these forums not put in the bio.
category as the scientific forum is crossdisciplinary and the rec.
forum is where it belongs. I don't think on the scientific side that
all people interested in water pollution and its effects on aquatic
communities, fish habitat, waste processing equipment and techniques,
etc. are all necessarily biological scientists.  The general sci.
prefix has been used in other such crossdisciplinary areas as well.

4. Lastly, the name should be as short as possible without causing
confusion. I have always wondered what was the logic of calling the NASA
group sci.space.shuttle when sci.shuttle would have sufficed.
The present names sci.aquaria and rec.aquaria meet that requirement
for a clear unconfusing name.

I don't intend to enter into this forums' ranting and raving about
minutia, but if anyone wants to discus these ideas with me, feel
free to send email.
                                John