Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!rice!brazos.rice.edu!bbc From: bbc@rhea.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Aquaria Message-ID: Date: 4 Mar 90 03:25:01 GMT References: <59874@ccicpg.UUCP> <22573@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <60091@ccicpg.UUCP> <1990Mar3.060413.14281@lth.se> <09=1T3Exds13@ficc.uu.net> Sender: root@rice.edu Reply-To: Benjamin Chase Distribution: na Organization: Center for Research on Parallel Computations Lines: 45 In-reply-to: peter@ficc.uu.net's message of 3 Mar 90 15:58:58 GMT peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) asks: >Have you a better way of solving the problem than by holding a new vote and >proving that sci.aquaria does actually have the support that Richard's bogus >vote implied? I think it would be constructive at this point to define consider what the problem is. Er, what the problems are: (1) too much flamage in news.groups (2) too much cross-postings between *.aquaria (3) poor propagation of sci.aquaria (4) lousy propagation of rec.aquaria (I'm leaving out "world hunger", and probably lots of other things.) I see (1) as a chronic and insolvable problem. Holding a new vote won't help (2), unless you end up with one group, which certainly might reduce the number of crossposts. To people concerned with excessive cross-posting (eg. me), one group is not the desired result. I wish to increase the separate identities of the groups involved. Removing one or more of them will cause all the readers and writers to be lumped into a single group. I'm not seriously concerned about (3). If someone doesn't want sci.aquaria, let them deprive their readers and those readers downstream. I think that group's quality is improving. Perhaps someday eons from now, the offending sysadmins' names will be cursed by aquarists that were deprived over the years. I'm not sure that holding another vote for sci.aquaria would improve its propagation. I haven't heard anyone who's blocking or aliasing it now state _any_ conditions under which they'd stop dorking with it. But I really don't care. I've seen one solution to (4), which is cross-post between rec.aquaria and rec.pets. This is fine with me. It might annoy rec.pets subscribers, perhaps enough for them to turn out en masse to push throuh a vote of confidence to get the fish traffic out of their playground. Then again, they might like it... -- Ben Chase , Rice University, Houston, Texas