Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: aquaria: if you see this Brad, your killfile is broke
Message-ID: <101356@looking.on.ca>
Date: 23 Feb 90 18:43:45 GMT
References: <9002222341.AA23818@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 30
Class: discussion

My kill file isn't broken Richard.  (Even if it were, it would accept the
article with my name before it rejected it for talking about fish.)

The thing that disturbs me about the endless fish debate is not that it's
a big annoying debate -- there is no shortage of those on USENET!

One of the most interesting things on the net for me is the net itself.
Like many of you out there, I'm reading this group to participate in the
growth of that net.  In news.* we discuss that.

But of late that discussion has become overwhelmed with pointless blech
about issues that don't matter at all.   How to name an aqauarium group
is an issue, but something is wrong if it's anything but a tiny, minor
issue.   And yet people keep treating it as one of the top issues of
USENET.   This bothers more than just me, I know it.

Alt.aquaria was a marginal group to begin with.  Its entry into other
hiearchies should have been a simple task.  Not only was it one of the
messiest and most complex things to happen on the net in a long time,
people keep bringing it back.

On any other net this would have been a 30 second decision, and people
would have lived with it.  I'm not saying we should necessarily go to
that sort of administrative technique, but obviously they have one up
on us in cases like this.  A 30 second decision about a group that is
minor in the grand scheme should not involve months of debate, many
hundreds of messages and yet more debate when it should be over.

-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473