Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!dave
From: dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Various topics
Summary: what's the problem?
Message-ID: <59391@ccicpg.UUCP>
Date: 24 Feb 90 02:08:55 GMT
References: <_DW17VCxds8@ficc.uu.net> <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> <::X1644xds8@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: ccicpg
Lines: 35

In article <::X1644xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes:
> 
> Well, no need to get pithed off.  But the fact is that many people
> consider sci.aquaria illegitimate, not only because it defrauds
> some siteadmins, but because of questions about the vote.

Yeup that's it:  a conspiracy to defraud hundreds if not
thousands of siteadmins out of inodes.

The two aquaria groups are up and running, even though rec.aquaria
was created outside the usenet guidelines, and seem to be doing
just fine thank you.

Perhaps someone can explain just what the problem is, I mean
besides "Richard Sexton did it so we don't like it."

That is the basic argument, no?  I mean I don't see anyone
screaming that rec.aquaria is illegitimate because it was
created without discussion or vote?

Richard wanted .aquaria in sci and Peter wanted it in rec.
You don't think .aquaria belongs in the sci hierarchy,
therefore Richard's vote is 'tainted' and Peter's
POLL is legitimate?

Marvelous.

You folks haven't been discussing the merits of rec vs. sci.

You've simply been campaining against the SCI group.

And the only reason is because Richard Sexton championed
the group.

	Dave