Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

**** Call for Discussion -- Creation of Sci.Aquaria ****

328 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Sexton

unread,
Oct 2, 1989, 6:28:19 PM10/2/89
to
Over the past two years there has existed in the alt.hierarchy a news-
group called alt.aquaria that is concerned with maintenance of marine
and freshwater aquarium fishes. Many of us feel the time has come to
incorporate alt.aquaria into mainstream USENET. To this end, I would
like to start a discussion into the possibility of creating sci.aquaria.


In an attempt to head off certain questions that are bound to come up,
I have included the following dialogue:

Q: What's wrong with alt ?

A: Well, nothing, really, it just doesn't have the circulation that
mainstream USENET has. After two years of hearing: "We don't get
alt.aquaria, why don't you move it into regular USENET" and reply-
ing with "Get an alt feed," perhaps it is time to concede the point
that not everybody is willing or able to get the alt.groups. Some
of the reasons for this are political while others simply reflect
pockets of poor connectivity.

Q: Can't people just mail their articles to a site that can post them
to the group ?

A: Yes, and people do. Every now and then someone posts an article to
rec.pets reminding netters that this works and for a few weeks we
get a bunch of articles dispatched from, say, ucbvax. These are
dutifully posted and the posters no doubt receives some email in re-
ply but of course they never get to see the discussion that ensues.
After awhile these kinds of postings disappear, no doubt due to lack
of feedback.

Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?

A: Rec.pets.aquaria is not appropriate because the discussion in rec.
pets centers around the pet per se, and the activities one pursues
with pets such as cats or dogs or small rodents. Fish are not real-
ly pets in that sense of the word. What the owner of an aquarium
is trying to do is maintain an environment that represents a micro-
cosm of a very complex habitat.

Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
belongs in the sci.hierarchy. The questions of ichthyological
taxonomy, water chemistry, the characteristics of artificial light
are subjects that are constantly under discussion. Simulating the
aquarium environment is a science, not an art. The great strides
that have been made in aquarium science over the past 20 years were
entirely the result of scientific investigation and to a great ex-
tent using this knowledge requires a detailed understanding of the
science involved.

Q: Just one group and not one each for freshwater and marine ?

A: Right. So many of the topics cross over that a separate group for
each is unwise. And has been demonstrated, many posters use key-
words and subject lines quite effectively in order to differentiate
between articles about freshwater fish exclusively from those about
marine fish.

Q: What is the current volume of alt.aquaria and how do you expect it
to change if the group is moved to the mainstream USENET?

A: Traffic averages about 10 articles a day. At most volume might
double although I think a 50% increase in volume would be closer to
the mark. No doubt there will be the initial leap in volume charac-
teristic of "new newsgroup syndrome."

Q: Is there any coffee left ?

A: No, I just drank the last cup.

--
Live free or drive
ric...@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!ric...@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV

Steve Dorner

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 9:03:00 AM10/3/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM> ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
> <many good, but deleted, things about legitmizing alt.aquaria>...

>Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
>
>A: ...

> Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
> recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
> belongs in the sci.hierarchy. The questions of ichthyological
> taxonomy, water chemistry, the characteristics of artificial light
> are subjects that are constantly under discussion.
> ...<more good, but deleted, things about legitmizing alt.aquaria>

I think rec.aquaria is quite appropriate, at least under the current
scheme of group classifications. The fact that the discussion is
technical does not disqualify it as a rec group; while I do not read
them, I *imagine* that rec.audio, rec.autos.tech, rec.games.programmer,
rec.ham-radio, rec.ham-radio.packet, rec.photo, and rec.scuba are also
quite technical in nature, yet they are all in rec.

And I wonder if keeping fish is indeed usually done for scientific
inquiry, rather than for recreation. Just because something has
content, it does not become non-recreational. Rec.aquaria is the right
place.

--
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-do...@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner
IfUMust: (217) 244-1765

Brian Gordon

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 12:48:19 PM10/3/89
to
I'm for it -- mostly because of the difficulty in getting alt.* in too many
places. The present alt.aquaria is a decidedly useful group, of reasonable
volume, and needs better circulation.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian G. Gordon bri...@Corp.Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) |
| ...!sun!bari!briang (if you route it yourself) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

k30b

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 1:54:21 PM10/3/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
> Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
>
> A: Rec.pets.aquaria is not appropriate because the discussion in rec.
> pets centers around the pet per se,

Why does rec.pets.aquaria discussion have to parallel rec.pets
discussion. Rec.pets.aquaria, or perhaps, rec.pets.fish or
rec.pets.aquatic makes perfect sense since you are, in fact,
talking about a newsgroup for aquatic pet hobbyists.

> and the activities one pursues
> with pets such as cats or dogs or small rodents. Fish are not real-
> ly pets in that sense of the word. What the owner of an aquarium
> is trying to do is maintain an environment that represents a micro-
> cosm of a very complex habitat.

Just because you don't have to walk your cichlids doesn't mean
they're not pets. And dog/cat owners also have to maintain the
proper environments for their pets.

> Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
> recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
> belongs in the sci.hierarchy.

That's just dead wrong. Regardless of the technical nature of
maintaining aquaria it's still a hobby, unless you do it
professionally.
--
Dave Sill (ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil)

Chuq Von Rospach

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 1:06:31 PM10/3/89
to
>> Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
>>
>> A: Rec.pets.aquaria is not appropriate because the discussion in rec.
>> pets centers around the pet per se,

In the last month or so, we've had discussions about naming space glitches
and groups getting inappropriate names for political reasons. This is a
classic case.

Keeping fish is a hobby except to very small groups of people --
professional breeders and researchers. While I'm sure there are fish
researchers out on the net, this group is obviously not for them.

The proper name for this group is rec.pets.{fish,aquaria}. Period. Anything
else is unacceptable, and no rationalization or handwaving is going to
change that fact.

If sci.aquaria goes through, I'm going to immediately petition to rename
rec.mag.otherrealms to comp.otherrealms, since it is obviously a research
project in computer-published typography.

chuq


--

Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
ch...@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking]
Future home of the San Jose Photons!

I was a Kings fan before it was politically correct. NHL to San Jose!

Cindy Tittle

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 1:15:16 PM10/3/89
to
I don't see why it shouldn't be rec.aquaria. I'm sure other groups
like rec.autos get just as technical. Besides, most people I know
with aquariums do it for a hobby, for something that they enjoy
fiddling with. rec.aquarium should be just fine.

--Cindy


--
Against stupidity, the very gods | ARPA: tit...@ics.uci.edu
Themselves contend in vain | BITNET: tit...@uci.bitnet
--Schiller | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle

Benjamin Chase

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 2:29:47 AM10/4/89
to
Greg S. Hennessy <gs...@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> IHMO the best name for this is rec.pets.aquaria.

I'd say the choices are more like:
rec.pets.aquatic
rec.aquaria
sci.aquaria
alt.aquaria

[separations of these names into fresh and saltwater omitted for 10,000
good reasons, which are also omitted]

And of course, not wanting to be divisive, IMHO the best name at this
point is "sci.aquaria". A bit pretentious, but I think it's acceptable.
--
Ben Chase <b...@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
"It's almost enough to make a eukaryote blush."

Richard Sexton

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 1:54:54 PM10/3/89
to
In article <1989Oct3.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dor...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes:
>I think rec.aquaria is quite appropriate, at least under the current
>scheme of group classifications. The fact that the discussion is
>technical does not disqualify it as a rec group; while I do not read
>them, I *imagine* that rec.audio, rec.autos.tech, rec.games.programmer,
>rec.ham-radio, rec.ham-radio.packet, rec.photo, and rec.scuba are also
>quite technical in nature, yet they are all in rec.

Yes, it's certainly non-intuitive. Sci wasn't my first choice, but after
months of mulling it over and a couple of years of reading sci groups
and seeing stuff that for the large part is philsophical opinion,
yet seeing the real progress in alt.aquaria falling into the chemistry,
biology and electronics areas, it is my opinion that the flavour of the
articles in a.a look more like the *good* articles in sci groups, not
rec groups.

>And I wonder if keeping fish is indeed usually done for scientific
>inquiry, rather than for recreation.

Well sure, but that argument can for the large part hold true for all
the sci groups.

Granted it's not pure science like sci.physics (which must be the
the mos ``scientific'' of the sci groups, since I don't understand
any of it ha ha), it's an applied science, like say, sci.military.

Chuq Von Rospach

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 4:25:47 PM10/3/89
to
>Yes, it's certainly non-intuitive.

Definitely. And incorrect.

>Sci wasn't my first choice, but after
>months of mulling it over and a couple of years of reading sci groups
>and seeing stuff that for the large part is philsophical opinion,
>yet seeing the real progress in alt.aquaria falling into the chemistry,
>biology and electronics areas, it is my opinion that the flavour of the
>articles in a.a look more like the *good* articles in sci groups, not
>rec groups.

None of this removes it from the essence of the group -- those are aspects
of keeping fish for a hobby.

By your argument, Richard, I should be calling for the creation of
sci.birds, since most of the work I do with my cockatoo is either dietary
research ("will she eat this?") or structural engineering ("can she destroy
this?") or animal psychology ("can I outwit her this time?").

Baloney. The primary aspect of the group is the enjoyment of keeping fish
(or birds). That doesn't qualify it for a sci group.

Next thing you know someone will be pushing for sci.nude, since, you know,
nudity is nothing more than trying to maximize the bodies internal vitamin D
generation processes, and vitamins are an obvious thing to place in sci.

>Well sure, but that argument can for the large part hold true for all
>the sci groups.

Then the sci groups are misnamed and that should be corrected. You don't add
problems on top of problems and call it a solution. (and I disagree with you
on the misnaming.)

This is one of the most massive rationalizations for a group name I've seen
since comp.society.women came up. Wow. congratulations on your
inventiveness.

I don't buy it for a second.

Paul Traina

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 6:52:06 PM10/3/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
> Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
>
> A: Rec.pets.aquaria is not appropriate because the discussion in rec.
> pets centers around the pet per se...

In that case, I'd like to propose sci.med.sex.bondage which is an appropriate
place to discuss the psychological makeup of people who engage in alternative
sex and also medical safety tips to remember when experimenting in the
kinky-sex arena.
--
Insanity is the exception in individuals. In groups, parties, people,
and times, it is the rule.
-- Nietzche

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 7:36:24 PM10/3/89
to

Okay Richard. What do we have to do to become "regular"? John

Wendy Sarrett

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 8:20:56 PM10/3/89
to
I too agree we should go "sci.aquaria". I know at least one person
who can't get access because his current site doesn't have the alt
hierarchies.


Wendy

System News Administrator

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 10:08:07 PM10/3/89
to
I am for the move if it is put in the rec.xxxx heirarchy.
In my opinion this is probably where it belonged from the
beginning. I understand that there may be a lot of *technical*
content in the group, but I do not believe that this would
merit its placement in the scientific groups.

Charles
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ *READ* ---> The opinions expressed above are to the best of my knowledge, +
+ However all options should be discussed with persons who have professional +
+ training with the subjects covered here. * ALL POSSIBLE DISCLAIMERS APPLY! +
+ ===>FROM: new...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov Pioneer's USENET ADMINISTRATOR +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Carothers

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 12:53:41 PM10/3/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM> ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>Over the past two years there has existed in the alt.hierarchy a news-
>group called alt.aquaria that is concerned with maintenance of marine
>and freshwater aquarium fishes. Many of us feel the time has come to
>incorporate alt.aquaria into mainstream USENET. To this end, I would
>like to start a discussion into the possibility of creating sci.aquaria.
>
>
>In an attempt to head off certain questions that are bound to come up,
>I have included the following dialogue:
>
[---]
Good idea. I would like to get into a more scientific discussion about
various aspects of my hobby.

I personally am very intersted in icthyologial pathology, and ways to ward
off disease, and more ways of raising my fishy friends which doesn't border
on voodoo and/or conflicting advice that I get from different sources.

Even scholarly texts differ in just about everything from breeding to
feeding, and new info is being published just about everyday because of
environmental concerns.

I would suggest that the group be moderated, and the name be changed
to sci.icthyology/sci.icthy or something like that.

--
Kevin Carothers {philabs,csun,psivax}!ttidca!kevin

Greg S. Hennessy

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 10:42:54 PM10/3/89
to
In article <1989Oct4.0...@paris.ics.uci.edu> Wendy Sarrett
<sar...@harlie.ics.uci.edu> writes:
#I too agree we should go "sci.aquaria". I know at least one person
#who can't get access because his current site doesn't have the alt
#hierarchies.

While I can sympathize with those whose sites do not receive the alt
distribution, IHMO the best name for this is rec.pets.aquaria.

-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

NM...@cunyvm.cuny.edu

unread,
Oct 3, 1989, 5:31:33 PM10/3/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) says:
>
>Over the past two years there has existed in the alt.hierarchy a news-
>group called alt.aquaria that is concerned with maintenance of marine
>and freshwater aquarium fishes. Many of us feel the time has come to
>incorporate alt.aquaria into mainstream USENET. To this end, I would
>like to start a discussion into the possibility of creating sci.aquaria.
>
>
>In an attempt to head off certain questions that are bound to come up,
>I have included the following dialogue:
>
>Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
>
>A: Rec.pets.aquaria is not appropriate because the discussion in rec.
> pets centers around the pet per se, and the activities one pursues
> with pets such as cats or dogs or small rodents. Fish are not real-
> ly pets in that sense of the word.

To be more specific the charter that I have for rec.pets reads:
"Pets, Pet care, and household animals in General". This in my
opinion includes aquarium fish. Richard, some people do consider
aquarium fish (salt or freshwater) to be pets.

> What the owner of an aquarium is trying to do is maintain an

> environment that represents a micro-cosm of a very complex
> habitat.

True, but then I couldn't go out and buy a few Gouramis, put them in a
pot of cold, warm, or hot tap water and expect them to survive.
Naturally, fish need special care, but then believe it or not, I'm sure
Birds, Dogs, Cats, Reptiles and Rodents also need special care. What
makes taking care of these a whole lot easier is that they breath the
same air we do; they exist in the same environment as we do.

The fact that we try to maintain an environment that represents a
micro-cosm of a very complex habitat, does not mean that it must be
considered a science. You of course have the right to do so, but
I personally consider the keeping of an aquarium more of a hobby than
a science. Although, without the knowlegde that was obtained over the
years through scientific research, we wouldn't be able to successfully
maintain aquariums. We'd be doing that scientific testing now. And in
fact people are still testing.

> Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
> recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
> belongs in the sci.hierarchy.

But Richard the charter that I have for the rec hierarchy reads:
"Rec newsgroups are oriented towards hobbies and recreational
activities". And as I have just stated, I consider keeping an
aquarium to be a hobby. So rec.aquarium isn't completely inappropriate.
And if this is your entire reason for believing that it belongs in
the sci hierarchy, it is a bad one.

> The questions of ichthyological taxonomy, water chemistry, the
> characteristics of artificial light are subjects that are
> constantly under discussion. Simulating the aquarium environment
> is a science, not an art. The great strides that have been made in
> aquarium science over the past 20 years were entirely the result

> of scientific investigation and to a great ex-tent using this


> knowledge requires a detailed understanding of the science involved.

And since the charter that I have for the sci newsgroups reads:
"Intended as technical in nature and relating to the established
sciences", sci.aquarium can be considered appropriate.

The big question is this:

How many of us consider keeping an aquarium to be more of a science,
and how many of us consider it to more of a hobby?


Once we decide on whether we want rec.aquarium or sci.aquarium,
can we call for a legal "Call for Votes". As it stands this call for
discussion is illegal because it wasn't posted to news.announce.groups
as the group creation guidelines indicate. Rich, I'd like to see a
mainstream group for aquarium created as well, but lets do it the proper
way, okay?

Nelson
"There's that id again" - Richard Sexton
Broat

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 7:05:23 AM10/4/89
to
Yes, it's about time. Too many people at sites not carrying ALT hierarchy
are unable to participate in the discussions and contribute/benefit.

SCI sounds like a correct hierarchy. (comp.fish would have been great too)
--
"No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan

Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc....@seas.ucla.edu, ol...@gryphon.COM
(213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 11:42:50 AM10/4/89
to

Richard, hum-de-dah-dah-dah-de-boop-de-boop

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 11:49:25 AM10/4/89
to

I support the suggestion that alt.aquaria be renamed sci.aquaria.
I have been receiving 4 messages per week from people interested in the
subject but unable to post on alt.xxxxx boards. It appears that we
have a group with continuing serious interest in aquaria science and
art and it is time to establish a permanent group.
John

Scott Paisley

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 8:52:29 AM10/4/89
to
In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

> The proper name for this group is rec.pets.{fish,aquaria}. Period. Anything
> else is unacceptable, and no rationalization or handwaving is going to
> change that fact.

At first, I disagreed with the above statement, as I really didn't
consider my fish as pets. Thus disagreeing with the *.pet.* part of
the newsgroup name. I enjoy keeping fish, and consider it a hobby. I
do it for recreation. So, I decided to ask Mr. Webster what a pet is.
He says:

pet n. [Orig. unknown.] 1. An animal kept for pleasure or companionship.

Well, I guess my fish are pets, since I basically keep them for
pleasure. I vote for rec.pets.aquaria. I'm not in the hobby for the
scientific aspects of it.
--
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The
ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force."

Scott Paisley pai...@cme.nbs.gov ..!uunet!cme-durer!paisley

Richard Sexton

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 4:09:37 AM10/4/89
to
In article <31...@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRI...@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
>
> Okay Richard. What do we have to do to become "regular"? John

Prunes ?

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 12:00:21 PM10/4/89
to

After reading all the discussion about the name -- my thoughts
are to at least keep it simple. No three word names please. My
choices are: first: sci.aquaria
second : rec.aquaria
My finger that types "." is very inaccurate. One "." is enough! John

Frank I. Reiter

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 11:39:38 AM10/4/89
to
In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>The proper name for this group is rec.pets.{fish,aquaria}. Period. Anything
>else is unacceptable, and no rationalization or handwaving is going to
>change that fact.

I must agree. If a vote is held for sci.aquaria I will vote NO. If a vote is
held for rec.pets.aquaria I will vote YES.

Frank.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Frank I. Reiter UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!frank
Reiter Software Inc. fr...@rsoft.bc.ca, a...@mindlink.UUCP
Langley, British Columbia BBS: Mind Link @ (604)533-2312, login as Guest

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 12:43:45 PM10/4/89
to

One additional thought about the name. I am against putting this
group in the category rec.pets.(whatever). Pets assumes animals and
a big part of the hobby-science of aquaria is plant related. I don't
think MOST people think of their plants as pets, although there are
exceptions. There are many people whose primary interest is
aquaculture and I would like to hear from them in this group. John

k30b

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 3:19:23 PM10/4/89
to
In article <31...@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>,

BRI...@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
> One additional thought about the name. I am against putting this
> group in the category rec.pets.(whatever). Pets assumes animals and
> a big part of the hobby-science of aquaria is plant related.

And what percentage of alt.aquaria participants *only* have plants?

> I don't
> think MOST people think of their plants as pets, although there are
> exceptions. There are many people whose primary interest is
> aquaculture and I would like to hear from them in this group.

The idea is to pick the name that makes the most sense, both to
current alt.aquarians and to people who come along 5 years from
now looking for a group discussing tropical fish/aquaria. Frankly,
I know many people that could skim a newsgroup list containing
rec.aquaria and not realize that it relates to fishkeeping. Shoot,
I skimmed the alt list, even though we don't get it, and I never
realized it. (The "alt" threw me, I guess I thought it was for
Aquarians :-)

My suggestions are, again, rec.pets.aquatic and rec.pets.fish. I'm
sure the small percentage of aquaculturists would think to look in
the appropriate fish-related group.
--
Dave Sill (ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil)

Wm E Davidsen Jr

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 2:26:39 PM10/4/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, ol...@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:

| SCI sounds like a correct hierarchy. (comp.fish would have been great too)

Would this be for using computers to breed fish or for the discussion
going on in alt.fishing.computer about using integrated fish finders and
electronic reels.

Maybe comp.fish.breeding and comp.fish.catching? You breeders wouldn't
want to put up with Bob Alpher's ASCII schematics of the MIDI interface
on his reel, would you?
--
bill davidsen (davi...@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon

Carl S. Gutekunst

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 12:54:18 PM10/4/89
to
We have, as usual, a case where both people are right.

Breeding fish and maintaining a large number of aquariums is a science, with
rules and repeatable experiments that much be carried out. Certainly there is
as much or more discussion of a purely scientific nature than in almost any of
the sci groups, and generally the posters know something about the subject on
which they are posting.

On the other hand, the reason why most of up keep fish is recreation. It's a
relatively inexpensive hobby, and the fish provide a wonderfully relaxing
diversion from work. (I keep my tanks at work!)

If we thus play by the net's rules, then rec.pets.aquaria really is where it
belongs. And if we're not going to play by the net's rules, then that's what
alt is for!

In addition, claiming that aquaria is worthy of "sci" status is a slap in the
face to other "rec" groups that also approach their hobbies with a great deal
of scientific research and precision. Last I knew, ionospheric effects on the
propogation of electromagnetic waves is not exactly light fare. But the Ham
radio folks study it all the time.

I'd also expect a change in the type of postings we see in the aquaria group
when it goes mainstream: less on ichthiology, more of "I have a 10 gallon tank
I used to keep a goldfish in. I know want to try school of pirhanas. Or can
the net recommend some other meat eating fish...."

(But Chuq, is it necessary to be so pompous and rude about it? Just because
"right" is on your side?)

<csg>

Brian Gordon

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 2:58:15 PM10/4/89
to
So far, there seems to be nobody arguing that the group contents are not ok --
just on the name. I, for one, would hate to see us lose "mainstream access"
over where it should go in the hierarchy -- and I have the strong impression
that many voters would vote NO on creation just because of that name.

How about discussion among the names
rec.{fish|aquaria|...}
rec.pets.{fish|aquaria|...}
to see if a "winnable" position can be agreed upon?

P.S. If all else fails, alt.aquaria traffic could be migrated to rec.pets, to
share the space with the cats/dogs/etc. That would give us the
"mainstream access", but lose the ability to find all articles of
potential interest quickly (which those few with access to alt.aquaria
now have).

Karl MacRae

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 1:45:05 PM10/4/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM> ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>Over the past two years there has existed in the alt.hierarchy a news-
>group called alt.aquaria that is concerned with maintenance of marine
>and freshwater aquarium fishes. Many of us feel the time has come to
>incorporate alt.aquaria into mainstream USENET. To this end, I would
>like to start a discussion into the possibility of creating sci.aquaria.

Yes, this group should be moved out of alt-land. It's a fast
growing hobby, and there are just too many sites that don't have alt
access (I only got *full* alt access this week, and until then, I got
almost nothing on the groups I could get).

But sci? No way. Sure there's science involved, but the
*reason* we keep fish, at least for everyone I've ever see post,
is for entertainment. It's a hobby; it belongs in the rec hierarchy.


My first vote would be rec.aquaria, but I'd rather keep
our groups from being to far subdivided; second choice would
be rec.pets.aquaria


-Karl

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Karl MacRae UUCP: sun!batman ARPA:bat...@sun.COM
Sun Microsystems, Milpitas, Ca. (The armpit of Silicon Valley)
1550 Buckeye, Milpitas, CA 95035 Mailstop M21-25 (408)922-4996
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Come and see the Violence inherent in the System!
Help, Help, I'm being Repressed!"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Jason Rosenberg

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 2:48:47 PM10/4/89
to
I think we should be a rec group. Very few of us, except the professional
breeders and marine biologists out there, keep aquariums for any reason
other than a recreational activity. We do it because it's fun and neat.

rec. not sci.


Jason Rosenberg 3531 Boelter Hall
University of California
ja...@cs.ucla.edu Los Angeles, CA 90024
{ames,rutgers,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!jason (213) 202-7126

Alien Wells

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 3:38:19 PM10/4/89
to

For what it's worth, my vote is:
NO - to sci.aquaria
YES - to rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria

Richard's argument against rec.pets.aquaria I almost buy, but his argument
against rec.aquaria (we are SERIOUS about this, it's not a recreation) is
specious.

Sci.aquaria would apply to professional and semi-professional marine and
fresh-water biologists performing scientific research. I am not pompous
enough to pretend this describes me. Nor do I think that it describes this
group. As a whole, this is a group of HOBBYISTS that are giving each other
tips about the selection, care, and maintenance of fish. This IS a
recreation to most of us.

Personally, I think that rec.pets.aquaria is the appropriate place to be
listed. The more I think about it, the more I think the argument "we are
much more serious about this, and fish aren't really pets" really boils down
to a snobbish desire to disassociate oneself from 'common' dog and cat
owners. I think it is fair to point out that tropical bird, lizard and snake
owners face the same problems of poorly educated retail shops, questions
about the behaviour and care of different species, and issues concerning
collection from the wild, treatment of specimens in distribution,
overcollection, and the destruction of native habitats. I'm sure they also
have a lot of discussion about breeding their pets and raising of the young.

In short, I see no reason why we shouldn't be in the rec. heirarchy, and
a lot of reasons why we shouldn't be in the sci. heirarchy. I'd be willing
to compromise on rec.aquaria if it makes Richard happy, though I don't think
it 'fits' as well as rec.pets.aquaria.

I am totally unfamiliar with Usenet protocols for the creation/renaming of
newsgroups. How do I formally counter-propose that we be incorporated as
rec.pets.aquaria?
--
--------| Sometimes I feel like a ball
Alien | in the great pinball game of life.
--------| - Steve Steir
decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien

Cindy Tittle

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 4:23:29 PM10/4/89
to

The discussion here on the name of the aquaria group seems to merit
a vote over the name before proceding to the voting of the group itself.
I know that I will vote against sci.aquaria, and for either rec.aquaria/
rec.pets.aquaria (or aquatic/aquarium substituted for aquaria).

Anybody volunteer to take a vote (no, I'm not volunteering)?

--Cindy

--
Solo asi' he de irme? | Nada de mi fama aqui' en la tierra?
Como las flores que perecieron? | Al menos flores, al menos cantos!
Nada quedara' en mi nombre? | -- cantos de Heuxotzingo
________________...@ics.uci.edu____________________________

Peter A. Rosenthal

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 5:56:31 PM10/4/89
to

Personally, I favor the name rec.aquaria. I am at least as
interested in aquatic horticulture, biofiltration, and water chemistry
as I am in fish per se, and, IMHO, the flavor of the alt.aquaria group
is sufficiently different from the that of rec.pets that it would be
inappropriate to put the proposed newsgroup in rec.pets.aquaria.

peter

Edward Vielmetti

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 6:14:41 PM10/4/89
to
rec.aquaria is reasonable, considering that there is a rec.gardens
(and not a rec.pets.plants).

save rec.pets.* to split off a group for lithuanian sheepdogs.

--Ed

William Johnson

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 4:47:33 PM10/4/89
to

I too would rather see aquarium discussions in a rec. group than a sci. one.
If specific technical questions arise that seem out of place for a recreational
group, they can always be -- dare I say it? -- cross-posted to sci.bio or
sci.misc. (After all, isn't that generally what sci.misc is for? I mean
discussion of scientific topics that don't fit neatly into another heading and
don't last long.) Besides, we're already seeing a proliferation of marginal
sci.* groups; it's time to buck that trend.

Yes to rec.aquaria, no to sci.aquaria. I'll vote this way if a vote is ever
called.

--
Bill Johnson ! "If you sit down at a poker game
Los Alamos National Laboratory ! and can't find a sucker, get up.
(m...@beta.lanl.gov) ! You're the sucker." (J. D. Knight)

Kevin Carothers

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 1:18:00 PM10/4/89
to
In article <1...@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> ds...@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (k30b) writes:
>In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
[---]

>> Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
>> recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
>> belongs in the sci.hierarchy.
>
>That's just dead wrong. Regardless of the technical nature of
>maintaining aquaria it's still a hobby, unless you do it
>professionally.
>--

I disagree. Agreed, it's basically a hobby. Then again, it is also
a science. I SINCERELY believe the discussion in the proposed group
will basically center on the biological and more technical aspects
of the hobby. And frankly I daresay that most of the "sci" groups
have posters who aren't "professionals" in those particular
"disciplines". I have posted in sci.med, sci.aero, sci.astro, etc...

Many problems faced by aqaurists are extremely techical in nature,
requiring background in either marine and freshwater biology. Some of us
know and draw on such individuals and can impart such knowledge in a
"different" and more universally accepted forum than what exists
(unfortunately, yet apparently) in the "alt" tier of groups.

I personally problably won't use this proposed newsgroup except for
possibly serious or insightful purposes. There are MANY things that
can be discussed in the "sci" groups which don't arise in "rec" or
"alt" - examples? Toxicology, Immunology, postmortem techiques for
diagnosis (usually dissection is the only way to REALLY find what
happened in your tank).

I can (as myself and others are currently forced to) get my less critical
information in the "alt" groups.

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 8:57:43 PM10/4/89
to

Richard, you've been a bad boy. Yanking our fins?

In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

>The proper name for this group is rec.pets.{fish,aquaria}. Period. Anything
>else is unacceptable, and no rationalization or handwaving is going to
>change that fact.

>If sci.aquaria goes through, I'm going to immediately petition to rename
>rec.mag.otherrealms to comp.otherrealms, since it is obviously a research
>project in computer-published typography.

Chuq's proposal to change rec.mag.otherrealms to
comp.otherrealms if this passes is good enough as it goes, but I
have a better one--why not rename all groups comp.groupname.
Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

Ya know, when the Great Renaming happened I was predicting this
might be the result.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but
only for a limited period of time. Why should we think that collectively,
as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" -- Ronald Reagan

Marc Quattromani

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 3:34:01 PM10/4/89
to
I'm all for moving the aquaria news group out or alt. A name like
rec.pets.aquaria seems to make the most sense to me. There may be more
of an element of science in aquarium keeping but it doesn't seem
to justify moving it out of rec.pets. Its a recreation; people posting
to it want information on their hobby or are relating info about their
hobby. As far as putting it under rec.pets, while you usually can't
pet aquatic life, it is as much as a pet-hobby as many others. One
can't handle some other pets either, like scorpions or finches (often).

My 2 cents worth...


Marc Quattromani
Convex Computer Corporation
Richardson, Texas
{uiucdcs,sun,uunet,harvard,killer,usenix}!convex!quattro
- or -
convex!qua...@a.cs.uiuc.EDU

David Robinson

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 8:27:49 PM10/4/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM> ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>Over the past two years there has existed in the alt.hierarchy a news-
>group called alt.aquaria that is concerned with maintenance of marine
>and freshwater aquarium fishes. Many of us feel the time has come to
>incorporate alt.aquaria into mainstream USENET. To this end, I would
>like to start a discussion into the possibility of creating sci.aquaria.

Aye... Aye!

Although a few of us think of this group in a scientific nature, I think the
vast majority of the people skimming through news-group headings will more
likely recognise it as the aquarium hobby if it were listed under rec.aquaria
or rec.pets.aquaria. In any case, I'm all for the migration from the alt
news stream.

-Dave Robinson
a.k.a. Digital Dave da...@tekfdi.fdi.tek.com

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 9:38:23 PM10/4/89
to
In article <31...@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>, BRIDGE@rcgl1 (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:

>It appears that we have a group with continuing serious interest
>in aquaria science and art and it is time to establish a
>permanent group.

More than that--it's time we established PhD granting
departments in Aquarium Science at all our major universities.
I'll work on Berkeley, you do the same for Ohio State.

Once we've done that, we can get Norman Gall to create the
first Skepticism Science department, and he can move over there
and start a PhD granting program in Skepticsm Science. And we'll
need refereed journals, huge NSF grants, and God knows what else.
It's a brave new world, and I'm glad I lived to see the day.


--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

Proud member of ECIS -- "An effete corps of impudent snobs" -- I division

Richard Sexton

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 6:33:39 PM10/4/89
to
In article <66...@ttidca.TTI.COM> ke...@ttidcb.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>
> I would suggest that the group be moderated, and the name be changed
> to sci.icthyology/sci.icthy or something like that.

I've thought about both these points. I'd like to leave it unmoderated
and only switch it to moderated if it is really indicated. Indicated means
high volume of innapprpriate postings.

.icthy is too vauge and specific. It's the study if fish, and doesnt encompass
environment, plants, etc...

Gary Heston

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 9:07:25 PM10/4/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
> ...... I would
> like to start a discussion into the possibility of creating sci.aquaria.

> Live free or drive
> ric...@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!ric...@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV

It would seem to me that instead of starting a sci.aquaria group, this might
be more appropriately named sci.bio.aquaria. I took a quick look at the
sci groups, and there seemed to be a fair number of major headings already.

In any case, I have room for it, although I don't have anyone reading
the sci groups at the moment.

--
Gary Heston { uunet!gary@sci34hub } System Mismanager
SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers)
Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 1:10:50 AM10/5/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes:

> Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
> recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
> belongs in the sci.hierarchy.

I've been reading alt.aquaria, and Richard's characterization
of it is so misleading as to be a damn lie. It is a bunch of
fish-heads talking about keeping fish. It is a hobby group,
period. Calling anything else is a LIE. If this group is created,
expect me to post to it, maybe getting a good flame war going
with Richard or Oleg. Don't do it. I haven't let Norman Gall
alone yet.

Eat fish and die!


--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet
And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.

Guy McConnell

unread,
Oct 4, 1989, 1:51:01 PM10/4/89
to

I heartily agree that the group sci.aquaria be created. The keeping of
aquariums, both freshwater and marine, is indeed a science. One poster
quipped that it was rather luck than science and I would agree that a large
measure of luck is needed. However, the more knowledge an individual amasses,
the "luckier" he/she gets. The added input from a larger readership would
tend to help all of us. We are concerned daily with chemical and gaseous
content of water, interaction between numerous different living things (fish,
inverts, bacteria, etc), nutritional needs of each inhabitant, and more and if
that doesn't fall under the heading of "science" there is little that does.
My vote is FOR the creation of sci.aquaria.

Guy D. McConnell | "I'd like to be under the sea
Intergraph Corp. | in an octopus' garden..."
One Madison Industrial Park |
Huntsville, AL. 35807 |
(205)772-6289 |

Richard Sexton

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 2:50:22 AM10/5/89
to
In article <1989Oct5.0...@agate.berkeley.edu> gsm...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <31...@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>, BRIDGE@rcgl1 (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
>
>>It appears that we have a group with continuing serious interest
>>in aquaria science and art and it is time to establish a
>>permanent group.
>
> More than that--it's time we established PhD granting
>departments in Aquarium Science at all our major universities.

'tsbeen done.

Not a whole department, but many peple have obtained Masters and PhD's
as a result of aquarium studies.

--

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 6:47:16 AM10/5/89
to
In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>Keeping fish is a hobby except to very small groups of people --
>professional breeders and researchers.

You obviously have not read ALT.AQUARIA. A predominant number of articles
are posted by the people who take their aquariums very seriously and are
deeply involved in fish breeding, study and collection.

The specious logic you are using can be applied to any SCI group et al. How
many people reading SCI.NANOTECH are professional nano-assembler desgners?
And how many people in SCI.SPACE are astronauts and space scientists?

(And exactly what is so scientific about SCI.MILITARY?)

>The proper name for this group is rec.pets.{fish,aquaria}. Period. Anything
>else is unacceptable, and no rationalization or handwaving is going to
>change that fact.

This is a very fishy reasoning. There is no PET aspect in aquaria. Aquarium
plants are not PETS. Anemonies and algae and sponges are not pets. Daphnia
and rotifers are not PETS. Period. And no misguided net.police pretension
or vigorous assertion is going to change that fact.

>If sci.aquaria goes through, I'm going to immediately petition to rename
>rec.mag.otherrealms to comp.otherrealms, since it is obviously a research
>project in computer-published typography.

And I will immediately petition to rename rec.mag.otherrealms into
rec.arts.sf-lovers.otherrealms -- because that's where it really belongs.
--
"No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan

Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc....@seas.ucla.edu, ol...@gryphon.COM
(213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 7:03:49 AM10/5/89
to
In article <86...@pyramid.pyramid.com> c...@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>It's a relatively inexpensive hobby

HAHAHAHAHA! Maybe when you have 1-2 aquariums. A number of us have a dosen
tanks and some have a lot more. I bet my 250 F. Gardneri Lafia fry manage
to eat more food in a day than an average "hobbyist's" guppies eat in a
month.

>I'd also expect a change in the type of postings we see in the aquaria group
>when it goes mainstream: less on ichthiology, more of "I have a 10 gallon tank
>I used to keep a goldfish in. I know want to try school of pirhanas. Or can
>the net recommend some other meat eating fish...."

And I, for one, would much rather not see those articles at all. I accept
the fact that this type of article will show up in ALT.AQUARIA now and then,
but I would much rather not deal with this at all. The very reason
ALT.AQUARIA has been this successful is the high level of discussin.
Ichtiology, ichtiopathology, aquatic ecology, behavioural research,
chemistry, taxonomy etc. are exactly why we are all reading that group.

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 9:49:06 AM10/5/89
to

Gene Ward Smith,
Sorry for offending you by referring to aquarium science and art.
Science and math are my hobbies as well as my profession. The science
part of my hobbies is what keeps me interested. John

Steve Dorner

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 11:17:40 AM10/5/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM> ol...@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>And I, for one, would much rather not see those articles at all. I accept
>the fact that this type of article will show up in ALT.AQUARIA now and then,
>but I would much rather not deal with this at all.

Why not propose BOTH groups, sci.aquaria AND rec.pets.aquaria, and see
how the voting goes?

It seems to me that rec.pets.aquaria would be a popular group,
and ought to exist.

And if there are enough people who are 1) offended by goldfish,
2) perform cichlid heart transplants on a regular basis, and
3) have more water in tanks than most small cities, WHY NOT let them
have sci.aquaria?

It seems to me that there is enough difference in the potential
readership of the two groups that it would not be illogical to have
them both (provided, again, that they both get voted in).
--
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-do...@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner
IfUMust: (217) 244-1765

co...@wish-bone.berkeley.edu

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 12:13:46 PM10/5/89
to

OKAY, I'll bite: what the hell is sci.aquaria supposed to be about? It
sounds (superficially) like it's about the Age of Aquarius--sort of
new-agish for the "sci" handle :-)

--Cruz--

David Messer

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 3:29:52 AM10/5/89
to
In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>
>If sci.aquaria goes through, I'm going to immediately petition to rename
>rec.mag.otherrealms to comp.otherrealms, since it is obviously a research
>project in computer-published typography.

May I suggest sci.typography.otherrealms? :-)
--
Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer da...@Lynx.MN.Org -or-
| Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave

David Messer

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 3:39:07 AM10/5/89
to
What we should do is create a new hierarchy under sci. For instance
we could have sci.rec.all, sci.misc.all, sci.soc.all, sci.talk.all, and
sci.comp.all. The we could have sci.rec.aquaria and sci.talk.sceptic.
Of course we would reserve sci.sci.all for the 'real' sciences.

Waddaya think?

(In case you were wondering -- :-) )

John David Cavanaugh

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 10:54:59 AM10/5/89
to
I strongly favor the creation of a "mainstream" group for the discussion of
aquariums (aquaria?). I think that rec.aquaria is the best name, but I'll
vote YES for it no matter what it's called.

--
John Cavanaugh John.Ca...@StPaul.NCR.COM
NCR Comten, Inc. (612) 638-2822
2700 Snelling Ave. N
St. Paul, MN 55113 Standard disclaimer.

Stephen Goldschmidt

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 12:32:45 PM10/5/89
to
In article <60...@b11.ingr.com> mcco...@b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell) writes:
> I heartily agree that the group sci.aquaria be created.

Gee, maybe I should have tried for comp.org.sca. After all, it would
increase our readership even more. It seems appropriate; since our
corporate mailing list is kept on a computer, we must be a computer
organization :-) !

STephen Goldschmidt (aka: Juls Siwaldsen)
netmail: al...@portia.Stanford.EDU
geographic: Palo Alto, California USA

Carl S. Gutekunst

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 12:41:18 PM10/5/89
to
>>It's a relatively inexpensive hobby
>
>HAHAHAHAHA! Maybe when you have 1-2 aquariums. A number of us have a dosen
>tanks and some have a lot more.

Please observe that I said "relatively." I have five aquariums. I also have
five electronic music synthesizers, which are my other main hoppy. The cost
ratio is about 50 to 1. Likewise car repair, home repair, photography, ham
radio, and many other technical hobbies. Hey, even my sister's latch-hook rugs
cost as much as a small community aquarium.

>>I'd also expect a change in the type of postings we see in the aquaria group

>>when it goes mainstream....


>
>And I, for one, would much rather not see those articles at all.

Yeah, well, neither will I. But it *will* happen. And that's why I've always
been opposed to moving this newsgroup out of alt.

<csg>

Alien Wells

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 9:55:09 AM10/5/89
to
>BRI...@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
>> One additional thought about the name. I am against putting this
>> group in the category rec.pets.(whatever). Pets assumes animals and
>> a big part of the hobby-science of aquaria is plant related.

This argument doesn't hold water (don't risk your plecos in it ... ;-).
Fish are not the only pets which are kept in a simulation of a native
environment, including plants. I used to keep insects in terrarium-like
environments. I'm sure some people keep lizards and snakes in terraria
(I would if I kept them).

>And what percentage of alt.aquaria participants *only* have plants?

Agreed ... the focus of most aquariums is to house animals. Plants are
usually either kept to provide food for some of the animals, to provide a
better environment for the animals, or to provide a complete eco-system that
emulates a natural environment. I don't see any of these reasons invalidating
the rec.pets heirarchy. And I don't see any of these being unique to aquaria
(though we are perhaps the best example of it).

>> There are many people whose primary interest is
>> aquaculture and I would like to hear from them in this group.

I'm sure there are people contributing to rec.pets.dogs (or whatever it
is called) that aren't 'just' dog-keepers/breeders. I would encourage
aquaculturists to read rec.pets.aquaria, and I suspect that a lot of them
would. But, anyone who is turned off by the name would also be turned off by
the hobbyist nature of the discussions, regardless of what it was called.

>My suggestions are, again, rec.pets.aquatic and rec.pets.fish. I'm
>sure the small percentage of aquaculturists would think to look in
>the appropriate fish-related group.

I prefer rec.pets.aquaria for the following reasons:
- rec.pets.aquatic: I think this is TOO general. It would include
things like water snakes, bullfrogs, snapping turtles,
alligators, and the like. While I don't mind occasional
threads about these, this group is focused on aquatic
creatures that get housed in home aquariums.
- rec.pets.fish: This explicitly excludes plants in inverbs by
its name. It think it is too restrictive, though I prefer
it to rec.pets.aquatic.

Alien Wells

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 10:20:03 AM10/5/89
to
In article <86...@pyramid.pyramid.com> c...@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>We have, as usual, a case where both people are right.

Er, I beg to differ ...

>Breeding fish and maintaining a large number of aquariums is a science, with
>rules and repeatable experiments that much be carried out. Certainly there is
>as much or more discussion of a purely scientific nature than in almost any of
>the sci groups, and generally the posters know something about the subject on
>which they are posting.

It is hardly a science, any more than feeding a dog or breeding parakeets is a
science. Sure, there is discussion on a scientific nature in alt.aquaria, but
I challenge you to find a rec. group where this isn't true.

If we change to sci.aquaria, I will probably feel compelled to unsubscribe.
(And yes, I know this might influence some people to vote for sci.aquaria,
it is probably the best reason I have seen so far for it ... ;-) I do not
consider myself qualified to post anything but humble questions to any sci.
group. I'm not a scientist, I don't do scientific research, and I'm not at
the cutting edge of the state of the art. I DO feel qualified to post
suggestions and commentary to a group of HOBBYISTS.

>If we thus play by the net's rules, then rec.pets.aquaria really is where it
>belongs. And if we're not going to play by the net's rules, then that's what
>alt is for!

Agreed. Well said.

>In addition, claiming that aquaria is worthy of "sci" status is a slap in the
>face to other "rec" groups that also approach their hobbies with a great deal
>of scientific research and precision. Last I knew, ionospheric effects on the
>propogation of electromagnetic waves is not exactly light fare. But the Ham
>radio folks study it all the time.

It's also a slap in the face to sci. groups. The type of traffic we have in
alt.aquaria would be like someone posting to sci.physics saying he just got
his first physics book and would like to talk about basic F=ma concepts.

Dave Alexander

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 1:14:54 PM10/5/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM> ol...@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
> In article <86...@pyramid.pyramid.com>
c...@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>> I'd also expect a change in the type of postings we see in the
>> aquaria group when it goes mainstream: less on ichthiology, more of
>> "I have a 10 gallon tank I used to keep a goldfish in. I know want to
>> try school of pirhanas. Or can the net recommend some other meat
>> eating fish...."

> And I, for one, would much rather not see those articles at all.
> I accept the fact that this type of article will show up in
> ALT.AQUARIA now and then, but I would much rather not deal with this
> at all.

So do we need two groups to separate these discussions? How about


rec.fish

and

rec.fish.tech?


-- Dave Alexander

--
"I'm afraid it's grim news, Sandy - the Vice-Consul
intends to ban the wearing of wimples after 7:15 PM."
-- Glen Baxter

Stephen King

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 7:43:17 AM10/5/89
to
In article <10...@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> e...@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>rec.aquaria is reasonable, considering that there is a rec.gardens
>(and not a rec.pets.plants).

Agreed. While it may not be the case in North America, in Europe all-plant
aquariums are quite commonplace. I am as interested in the plants as the
fish and keep a 10 gal. plant tank (well, it has an algae eater in it).
Since there are, at present, few postings that relate specifically to
plants, rec.aquaria may encourage more. Despite the objections already
raised, the keeping of aquaria IS a science, as well as a recreation.

>save rec.pets.* to split off a group for lithuanian sheepdogs.

Or fruit bats.

--
Se non e` vero, e` ben trovato
...{utzoo|mnetor}!dciem!dretor!king ki...@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca

Doug Merritt

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 12:49:23 PM10/5/89
to
: [...] it's time we established PhD granting

:departments in Aquarium Science at all our major universities.
:[...] first Skepticism Science department, and he can move over there

:and start a PhD granting program in Skepticsm Science. And we'll
:need refereed journals, huge NSF grants, and God knows what else.
:It's a brave new world, and I'm glad I lived to see the day.
:--
:Proud member of ECIS -- "An effete corps of impudent snobs" -- I division

I'm glad, too. But you shouldn't let yourself be outdone...what
about an Effete Impudent Snobbery Science program???

:-)
Doug
--
Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug
Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 2:17:17 PM10/5/89
to

I suppose that I should keep my thoughts to myself, but some
of the postings of late have begun to gripe me. I don't mind discussion
of disagreements or differing opinions about things, but "flames" to
serve no purpose but release pent up hostility are a bore. Calling
people liars and other names is also out of place. I would invite
people with such inclinations to try another group or form one of
their own. It is interesting to note that the people who have been
most hostile to others in this group have contributed absolutely
nothing of interest to anyone else reading these postings so we will
lose absolutely nothing by their absence.
Another question which has arisen due to the "name" discussion
is the controversay over calling the aquaria hobby sci. or rec. I
personally don't see that much difference, but I will grant that
others certainly have a right to their opinion. I do not, however,
consider people who keep fish as pretty live pictures as hobbyists.
If your hobby is keeping live things and you have no interest in
the behavior, health, and relative "happiness" of your living
creatures you are a collector not a hobbyist. I watched a business
person from Cincinnati buy $20,000 worth of salt water equipment
at a local mail order discount aquarium place. He wanted decorations
for his office with no maintainence efforts on his part. When I
suggested that he go to New York and buy an oil painting from a
noted gallery, the proprietor of the store nearly threw me out in
the street -- so apparently collectors of fish have a following.
I am not a collector of fish and not very interested in just
collecting. I am interested in everything about them and the
collection as such is incidental. People of similar interests
should be directed to this group and the collectors shunted off
somewhere else. Whether aquaria is a science or a recreation is
not as relevant as whether it includes "collecting" or not.
Certainly science is involved in raising and caring for fish and
aquatic plants. One does not have to be a research scientist to
be interested in science. We all depend heavily on the biological
science to have enjoyment in our hobby, however. I met some
people last weekend who consider themselves aquarists. They
put fish in their 55 gallon tank and then never tend to them. When
they go belly up they throw them in the toilet and buy a new batch.
"I don't like to look at the same fish all the time anyway." is
their comment. Are you interested in that sort of recreational
aquarist? I'm sure not.
'nuf said. Feel free to disagree with these comments.

Cheers, John

Geoff Allen

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 10:42:14 AM10/5/89
to
In article <66...@ttidca.TTI.COM> ke...@ttidcb.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
> I personally problably won't use this proposed newsgroup except for
> possibly serious or insightful purposes. There are MANY things that
> can be discussed in the "sci" groups which don't arise in "rec" or
> "alt" - examples? Toxicology, Immunology, postmortem techiques for
> diagnosis (usually dissection is the only way to REALLY find what
> happened in your tank).

And you couldn't discuss such things in rec.aquaria? That makes
absolutely no sense.

The group doesn't need to start with `sci.' to be able to discuss
anything of a scientific/technical nature.

--
Geoff Allen
...{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff
...ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff

John Berryhill

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 3:08:56 PM10/5/89
to

When you have all made up your mind whether the world will come to a
screeching halt if the group is put into sci.* or rec.*, please let
me know. I have some sick goldfish (and yes Richard, they are still
alive at least).

Personally, I would prefer talk.ghoti
--

John Berryhill
143 King William, Newark DE 19711

William B. Thacker

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 8:53:42 AM10/6/89
to
In article <8...@nigel.udel.EDU> ber...@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes:
>
>When you have all made up your mind whether the world will come to a
>screeching halt if the group is put into sci.* or rec.*, please let
>me know. I have some sick goldfish (and yes Richard, they are still
>alive at least).

See ? See ????

Here we have another failure of the newsgroup creation guidelines !!

This man has a MEDICAL EMERGENCY on his hands; his poor pets are dying
a slow, agonizing death, while we sit here on high and debate the
wisdom of the newgroup that could SAVE their very LIVES ! Are we gods
that we care so little for such tragedies ? Are we not humane ?

Nay, I say thee, nay ! Do not go gentle into that good heirarchy !
Let us neither suffer the slings and arrows of Sexton flames, nor
brave the perilous line between Chuq and Oleg ! Deny thy heirarchy,
and refuse thy name ! For would not alt.aquaria by any other name
smell so damp ?

Remember, no man is an island (*); but some newsgroups are all wet.
Save the goldfish !

(*) excepting, possibly, Man-hattan.

This posting brought to you by the Development Fund for Frustrated
Emoters, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. For a transcripts,
send check or money order for $2 to:

- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker w...@cbnews.att.com
"C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of
assembly language.

Benjamin Chase

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 3:39:34 PM10/5/89
to
[Throwing divisiveness to the wind...]

Loosers:

rec.pets.aquaria - Think for a moment about what this says. That you keep
aquaria as pets? This name makes as much sense as choosing
rec.pets.kennels over rec.pets.dogs or rec.pets.canine!
Rec.pets.aquatic is a better choice than this.

I dismiss Alien Wells' fears that postings about amphibians will
be more prevalent if the group is named rec.pets.aquatic rather
than rec.pets.aquaria. I think both names will attract an equal
number of turtle-owners.

*.fish, *.icthy* - Most of my aquatic animals are not fish. Shrimp,
feather dusters, worms, anemones, limpets, snails, seaweed, alqae,
sponges, amphipods, etc. I have less fish than I have different
_types_ of invertebrates. At times even though I have an aquarium,
I have no fish at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite right (IMHO):

rec.pets.aquatic - (I bet you thought I was going to tout this one...)
Everything that is alive in my aquarium is aquatic.
Some could be considered pets. Some could not be considered pets.
When dog owners flush their terminally ill poodles down toilets,
then I will let them tell me that all my aquarium dwellers
are pets. :-)

sci.aquaria - Sorry to let you down, Richard, but I side with the hobby
faction here. I think most of us do it as a hobby, and much of the
traffic on alt.aquaria is directed towards hobbyists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winners:

rec.aquaria - I keep an aquarium for recreation.

sci.bio.aquatic - I like this. It encompasses parts of the alt.aquaria
discussion that I like the most. Aquatic taxonomy, water quality,
lighting, aquaculture, book and magazine references and reviews,
pathalogy, ecosystems, etc...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, I like rec.aquaria and sci.bio.aquatic enough to vote yes for both.
But is there enough support and traffic to justify both? Can they be cleanly
separated, or will people crosspost excessively? I don't think so. If I
have to pick one, I pick rec.aquaria.
--
Ben Chase <b...@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
I gave my Pleuroploca gigantea to the Houston Zoo.

ethan miller

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 4:53:39 PM10/5/89
to
In article <31...@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRI...@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
% Another question which has arisen due to the "name" discussion
%is the controversay over calling the aquaria hobby sci. or rec. I
%personally don't see that much difference, but I will grant that
%others certainly have a right to their opinion. I do not, however,
%consider people who keep fish as pretty live pictures as hobbyists.
%If your hobby is keeping live things and you have no interest in
%the behavior, health, and relative "happiness" of your living
%creatures you are a collector not a hobbyist.

So what about people like me? I keep fish because I like to look at
them. The only other reason I can think of is for the challenge of
maintaining a closed environment. Now, I try to keep my fish happy.
However, I'm a poor grad student, so if it's a choice between
$50 worth of medicine or a new $5 fish, guess which one I'm going
for? That doesn't mean I don't care about how happy my fish are;
just that there are limits as to how far I'll go. I'm sure the
same is true for you; if one of your fish had cancer, would you
have an operation to get it healed, or would you put the fish out
of its misery? They shoot horses, which are much more intelligent
and self-aware than fish, so killing a sick fish is just as humane
as curing it (and can be cheaper, too).

By the way, if it's a hobby, it goes in rec.

%They
%put fish in their 55 gallon tank and then never tend to them. When
%they go belly up they throw them in the toilet and buy a new batch.
%"I don't like to look at the same fish all the time anyway." is
%their comment. Are you interested in that sort of recreational
%aquarist? I'm sure not.

Guess again. I don't like to lose fish. I take good care of them,
cleaning the water and the filter regularly and feeding them. I
don't spend lots of money on pH test kits and nitrate test kits and
all sorts of other stuff. I recently lost 4 fish for unknown reasons,
so I had my water tested. No problems. The fish looked healthy
until they died (no signs of sickness). All the other fish in
the tank look fine. Why should I spend lots of money on fish which
aren't that expensive? Am I unworthy of reading sci.aquaria
because I let those fish die? Many people who read this
group (more than you think, because lurkers are likely to
be the ones who aren't fanatical) probably have the same philosophy.
It's a hobby. For you, it's a big-deal hobby, but it's still
a hobby. It's like gardening. There are those who plant some
seeds, fertilize them, and hope. There are also people who read
huge volumes on the subject and use every scientific method available.
It's still a hobby (and it's still in rec.gardens). The group
should either be rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria. Sci is the wrong
hierarchy for it.

ethan
=================================
ethan miller--cs grad student e...@ginger.berkeley.edu
#include <std/disclaimer.h> {...}!ucbvax!ginger!elm
"I like the Austrian way better." -- Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.

Terry Steyaert

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 5:21:19 PM10/5/89
to

I have to totally agree with John on this subject. There
have been alot of fussings going on with the name. Personally,
when this whole thing started, I sent richard@whatever mail
saying I agree with the move. I do. It won't hurt to have more
people getting into the group.

The one thing that I really liked about John's reply was that keeping
fish is part of a science. I definately do alot more with my fish
than my neighbors do with their dog. Am I a scientist? Nah. I'm
just a poor college student. Do I have them as a recreation? Yes,
and no. I collect the fish to try and keep them alive. Not to
make "pretty bookends." There is alot of science in that. We
had discussions very recently about what chemicals to use, with
what they contain, and so on. That isn't anything I expect my
neighbors to discuss over their dog. (In case you haven't guessed,
my neighbors don't treat their dog really well.)

No matter what name is selected, alt.aquaria will be very similar.
I won't feel embarrased about asking about problems with gouramis,
or other hobby fish because it is under the sci heading. No matter
where alt.aquaria moves to, the group will be very similar.

Terry Steyaert (stey...@unix.secs.oakland.edu)

P.S. My personal choice is rec.aquaria, but sci.aquaria fits.
Dislike rec.pets.aquaria.

Gary Sutcliffe

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 9:14:41 AM10/6/89
to

I also read sci.electronics although most of the posting are hobby
related (although I keep an eye on it for professional reasons too).
I read sci.astronomy. Like most of the readers of that group I
am an amateur that likes to take my telescope out on clear nights
when the mosquitos are not too bad.

I have two pets, a dog and a cat. I also have about 25 aquariums. I
never let my fish crawl up on my lap when I am reading a book.

Fish and plants are not pets by my definition.

I have no problem with sci.aquaria, although when it finally
gets down to a call for votes, I will vote yes for the first
group that gets us out of alt.

--
Gary Sutcliffe W9XT GENROCO, Inc. Slinger, Wis. (414) 644-8700
{ames, rutgers, harvard} uwvax!uwm!grc!gary **** Note path change ****

David O'Brien

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 1:03:35 PM10/5/89
to

Here's my support for SCI.AQUARIA, it is the most correct name in my
opinion and Richards arguments against REC and ALT groups have
convinced me the change is needed. I personally welcome the more
contributions this group would get as a change to sci.aquaria. The
more discussions the better.

-DAVE

ken.a.irwin

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 6:50:33 PM10/5/89
to
In article <26...@cpoint.UUCP>, al...@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes:
> In article <1...@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> ds...@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (k30b) writes:
> >In article <31...@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
> >BRI...@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
> >> One additional thought about the name. I am against putting this
> >> group in the category rec.pets.(whatever). Pets assumes animals and
> >> a big part of the hobby-science of aquaria is plant related.
>
> This argument doesn't hold water (don't risk your plecos in it ... ;-).
> Fish are not the only pets which are kept in a simulation of a native
> environment, including plants. I used to keep insects in terrarium-like
> environments. I'm sure some people keep lizards and snakes in terraria
> (I would if I kept them).

Yes, your right they are not the only animals that are kept this way, however
I wouldn't consider other animals kept this way (and never removed from that
habitat) pets either. Zoos do not house pets, public aquariums do not house
pets, a bird house or bird feeder in the yard does not serve or house pets.
I have two dogs I consider pets, and 3 tanks I consider an aquatic habitat,
I dont consider the animal life in them pets.

> >And what percentage of alt.aquaria participants *only* have plants?
>
> Agreed ... the focus of most aquariums is to house animals. Plants are
> usually either kept to provide food for some of the animals, to provide a
> better environment for the animals, or to provide a complete eco-system that
> emulates a natural environment. I don't see any of these reasons invalidating
> the rec.pets heirarchy. And I don't see any of these being unique to aquaria
> (though we are perhaps the best example of it).

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

pet (pet) n. 1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship. 2. An object of
affections. 3. A person esp. loved or indulged; favorite: teachers's pet. -adj.
1. Kept as a pet: a pet cat. 2. Particularly cherished or indulged; favorite:
a pet daughter; a pet aversion. -v. pet-ted, pet-ting, pets. -tr. To stroke or
caress gently; pat. -intr. Informal. To make love by fondling and caressing.
[Orig. unknown] -pet-ter n.

Nothing in this definition seems to apply to my aquarium, does it apply to
yours? Aquariums don't house pets they house a simulated aquatic environment,
fish happen to be part of that environment.

> >> There are many people whose primary interest is
> >> aquaculture and I would like to hear from them in this group.
>
> I'm sure there are people contributing to rec.pets.dogs (or whatever it
> is called) that aren't 'just' dog-keepers/breeders. I would encourage
> aquaculturists to read rec.pets.aquaria, and I suspect that a lot of them
> would. But, anyone who is turned off by the name would also be turned off by
> the hobbyist nature of the discussions, regardless of what it was called.

There is only rec.pets (ie no sub-groups). An aquaria group is unrelated and
should not be the first to be a sub-group. Sub-groups should be a reorganization
of the parent group, not an unrelated subject. If dogs generate an overwelming
amount of traffic in rec.pets then a rec.pets.dogs is a logical extention of
grouping. Aquarium related topics generate very little traffic and are not an
outgrowth of rec.pets. By this logic rec.motorcycles would be
rec.autos.motorcycles (ie. motorcycles are self motavating).



> >My suggestions are, again, rec.pets.aquatic and rec.pets.fish. I'm
> >sure the small percentage of aquaculturists would think to look in
> >the appropriate fish-related group.
>
> I prefer rec.pets.aquaria for the following reasons:
> - rec.pets.aquatic: I think this is TOO general. It would include
> things like water snakes, bullfrogs, snapping turtles,
> alligators, and the like. While I don't mind occasional
> threads about these, this group is focused on aquatic
> creatures that get housed in home aquariums.
> - rec.pets.fish: This explicitly excludes plants in inverbs by
> its name. It think it is too restrictive, though I prefer
> it to rec.pets.aquatic.

my votes would be yes to:

sci.aquaria (Discussions about the science of captive aquatic habitats)
misc. or rec.aquaria (Discussions about the hobby of captive aquatic habitats)
misc. or rec.aquarium (Discussions about aquariums and its related topics)

(misc. seems to have very good international distribution, I don't know if that
is true for rec., talk. has poor distribution. The question is how to get
feedback from the UK and the Netherlands etc. where the hobby is quite strong.
for those that feel "aquaria" sounds like an astrology reference, maybe
"aquarium" is more descriptive?)

My vote would be no to:

rec.pets.aquatic (Discussions about aquatic pets)
(sounds like domesticated otters, beavers, and seals)
rec.pets.fish (Discussions about pet fish named Eric)
(kinda leaves out filtration, tanks, plants and inverts)
rec.pets.aquaria (Disussions about pet aquarias)
(sorry but aquaria is not a pet, its the plural of aquarium ie. the
tank, its mechanics, and its contents. how is that a pet?)
rec.fish.tank (Discussions about armed and armored fish 8-)

> --------| - Steve Steir
> decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien

Ken A. Irwin
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Indian Hill 6G410
Naperville, Illinois
(312) 979-4578
...!ihlpa!kai

Bryce Nesbitt

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 11:32:11 PM10/5/89
to

I will vote:

NO to - sci.aquaria
YES to - rec.aquaria rec.pets.aquaria
rec.aquarium rec.pets.aquarium
...etc...

I slightly prefer the less ambiguous "aquarium"; until today I thought
alt.aquaria was for "new-age fruitcakes".

--
|\_/| . ACK!, NAK!, EOT!, SOH!
{O o} . Bryce Nesbitt, Commodore-Amiga, Inc.
(") BIX: bnesbitt
U USENET: cbmvax!br...@uunet.uu.NET -or- rutgers!cbmvax!bryce
Lawyers: America's untapped export market.

Alien Wells

unread,
Oct 5, 1989, 1:34:31 PM10/5/89
to
In article <60...@b11.ingr.com> mcco...@b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell) writes:
> I heartily agree that the group sci.aquaria be created. The keeping of
>aquariums, both freshwater and marine, is indeed a science. One poster
>quipped that it was rather luck than science and I would agree that a large
>measure of luck is needed. However, the more knowledge an individual amasses,
>the "luckier" he/she gets. The added input from a larger readership would
>tend to help all of us. We are concerned daily with chemical and gaseous
>content of water, interaction between numerous different living things (fish,
>inverts, bacteria, etc), nutritional needs of each inhabitant, and more and if
>that doesn't fall under the heading of "science" there is little that does.
>My vote is FOR the creation of sci.aquaria.

I didn't notice any :-), so I'll take this seriously.

Do you honestly think that ANY recreation can't say the same thing? How about
all of the science and engineering involved in scuba diving, not to mention
the knowledge of the environment and habitats? How about all those guys in
rec.autos.tech, a large percentage of which race professionally or
semi-professionally? Ham radio? Hang gliding? Or even take games. There
has been more research put into a single game, chess, than has been put into
the aquarist hobby.

So, science and math are everywhere. I don't deny it. But that DOESN'T mean
that EVERYTHING should be posted in the sci. heirarchy.


--
--------| Sometimes I feel like a ball
Alien | in the great pinball game of life.

Brad Templeton

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 2:13:09 AM10/6/89
to
Hmm. There may be more articles in news.groups about aquaria than we
will see in the new group in its first month.

Let's see how arbitron sites felt about the group last month.

304 5800 260 73% 193 317.1 6% 0.07 1.1% alt.aquaria

304th place. Not so hot. 73% propagation is a bit above average for
an alt group. That means 525 of usenet's larger sites reported 260 readers
for alt.aquaria. That's not so hot -- at least half the sites that get it,
even in alt, where you usually have to go out of your way to get a group,
don't have anybody reading it.

Is all this fuss worth it to increase the propagation from 73% to about
85%? Or less? Sci.skeptic, the controversial group, has 59%. Being in
"sci" may get you *less* distribution (because of the opposition) than
keeping with the established distribution in alt.

On the other hand, a well known rec group I am familiar with has higher
propagation than most sci groups. Hmmm.

Sorry for interjecting facts into this discussion. You can go back to the
flaming now.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 2:05:50 AM10/6/89
to
>In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes:
>
>> Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
>> recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
>> belongs in the sci.hierarchy.
>
> I've been reading alt.aquaria, and Richard's characterization
>of it is so misleading as to be a damn lie. It is a bunch of
>fish-heads talking about keeping fish. It is a hobby group,
>period. Calling anything else is a LIE. If this group is created,
>expect me to post to it, maybe getting a good flame war going
>with Richard or Oleg. Don't do it. I haven't let Norman Gall
>alone yet.

All this flaming about fish, I think it belongs in a talk.*
newsgroup so I won't have to carrying it.

That or a soc.* newsgroups because everyone sits around and
talks about fish discrimination.

Perhaps a comp.* newsgroup is in order because computers are
being used to transmit the news articles, and besides everyone
loves fish and this newsgroup deserves wider distribution.

Clearly -anything- but a sci.* newsgroup.

> Eat fish and die!

That's not what Richard told me.
--
John F. Haugh II +-Things you didn't want to know:------
VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832 Data: -8835 | The real meaning of MACH is ...
InterNet: j...@rpp386.cactus.org | ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks.
UUCPNet: {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------

Zaphod Beeblebrox

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 7:15:28 AM10/6/89
to
Said ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton):
(in article <20...@gryphon.COM>)
|Not a whole department, but many peple have obtained Masters and PhD's
|as a result of aquarium studies.

BFD. How many of these people actually POST to alt.aquaria? Hmmm?
How many people posting are actually employed in one way or another in
aquatic activities? Not many? Ahhhh. Then what we're talking about
here is people talking about their HOBBY. It doesn't make any bloody
difference how much money you're spending on it or how technical your
discussion about it is; if you're not employed doing it, if you're not
making your living doing it, then it's a HOBBY. And HOBBIES by
definition go into the rec.* domain. Trying to claim that it's a
science is STOOPID. Yeah, there are groups in the sci.* domain that
don't belong there. We KNOW that. Adding another one won't help at
all.

Personally, I'm expecting to see a request to rename talk.bizarre to
sci.bizarre or comp.bizarre. (Renaming it to sci.med.psych.abnormal
might be appropriate, though.)

B.E.E.
--
Z. Beeblebrox | "You got the power..." "Ha-ha-ha-haaa!"
(alias B.E.E.) | "You got the might..." "No way!"
b...@cs.purdue.edu | "To save the battle..." "Give me your money!"
..!purdue!bee | "Beat the Black Knight!" -- Black Knight 2000

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 6:32:41 AM10/6/89
to
In article <31...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> e...@chilli.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) writes:
>However, I'm a poor grad student, so if it's a choice between
>$50 worth of medicine or a new $5 fish, guess which one I'm going

Wrong choices. If you read alt.aquaria, you should know that there is plenty
of ways to deal with fish diseases without resorting to "$50 worth of
medicine". The science and art of fish-keeping includes the research into
what environmental factors may boost the fishes' own immune systems.
--
"No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan

Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc....@seas.ucla.edu, ol...@gryphon.COM
(213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg

Dave Sill

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 9:09:47 AM10/6/89
to
In article <22...@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>, pop...@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin) writes:
> Aquariums don't house pets they house a simulated aquatic environment,
> fish happen to be part of that environment.

And where do the unwashed masses buy their self-constained artificial
aquatic environments? Probably 90% use *pet* shops exclusively, but
certainly a majority. Look up "Aquariums" in your yellow pages, then
look up "Pets". In my phone book there's one entry under Aquariums,
and it's a *pet shop*.

> ... An aquaria group is unrelated [to rec.pets] and


> should not be the first to be a sub-group. Sub-groups should be a
> reorganization of the parent group, not an unrelated subject.

Sez who? There's a clear relationship between pets and aquaria, and
the group would fit well under rec.pets.

> Aquarium related topics generate very little traffic and are not an
> outgrowth of rec.pets. By this logic rec.motorcycles would be
> rec.autos.motorcycles (ie. motorcycles are self motavating).

The relationship between cars and motorcycles is not nearly as strong
as that between pets and aquaria. How many pet shops do you know of
that *don't* sell aquaria, fish, and other related paraphernalia? How
many car dealerships sell MC's too?

> rec.pets.fish (Discussions about pet fish named Eric)
> (kinda leaves out filtration, tanks, plants and inverts)

No it doesn't, it just says the *primary focus* of the group is
fishkeeping as a hobby. Nobody's going to try to exclude any topic
relevant to the subject, as the above examples obviously are.

Dave Sill (ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil)

Scott Paisley

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 9:58:12 AM10/6/89
to
In article <50...@omepd.UUCP> da...@mipon3.intel.com (David O'Brien) writes:

> convinced me the change is needed. I personally welcome the more
> contributions this group would get as a change to sci.aquaria. The
> more discussions the better.

I think we can all agree that alt.aquaria would be much better as a
mainstream group. If you don't agree then vote no when the call for
votes is taken. Personally I'll vote yes whatever the name is. Just
because the title of a book is dumb, doesn't mean that it's a dumb
book.

We have seen the definition of a pet, so what about the definition
of science? (Taken from Webster's II)

science: 1.a. The observation, identification, description,
experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural
phenomena. 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study. 3. An
activity that appears to require study and method. 4. Knowledge, esp.
that gained through experience.

Qualifications of the above definitions:
1) Ok, I don't really perform experiments on my fish, but I do
experiment with different types of filtration, water quality, species
of fish, etc. 2&3) I observe changes, study, and try to explain what
is happening in my tanks. I have three aquariums, owned for about
three months now. I'm very new to the science (or hobby if you like).
4) As I gain experience, I acquire new knowledge on how to better keep
my aquariums.

I think that most of the sci.* groups fit into the science definition.
Of course we can make alot of groups fit into that definition.
Football could be considered a science if you really want to stretch
the definition. So can puzzles. etc, etc, etc.

In my previous posting, I said that rec.pets.aquaria made the most
sense. I think it still makes since even though I see why sci.aquaria
makes sense as well. I don't really care what the name is at this
point. I think that the quality of the group would be just as good in
either place. I would like to see the group get the best distribution
possible. If sci gets a better distribution, then I'll vote that way,
since the name does fit in both places. (some of you will certainly
disagree with that :-)

To settle this naming thing, I purpose the following vote be taken.

first a call for votes on the name of the group. (this is
necessary since some of you would vote no on the group creation,
if the name wasn't to your liking) This may need to be done in
several stages, since most of the rec voters would be split up
between rec.aquaria, rec.pets.aquaria, etc. The first vote should
be sci versus rec.

then a formal vote for/against the group using the chosen
name from the first vote.
--
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The
ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force."

Scott Paisley pai...@cme.nbs.gov ..!uunet!cme-durer!paisley

Bryan Dunlap

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 10:31:20 AM10/6/89
to
I pretty much agree with John. Excess flamage just increases wear on
my 'k' and 'n' keys.

I am all for moving from the alt hierarchy. I prefer sci.aquaria, but
don't feel about the issue deeply enough to mind if it ends up under
rec. I'll read it anyway.
-=-
==BD System Programmer, OSU College of Eng. HP Labs
b...@cis.ohio-state.edu dun...@mike.cis.ohio-state.edu
People of Earth:You are stupid! Stupid,stupid,stupid!-Plan 9 From Outer Space

Richard Champeaux

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 12:15:54 PM10/6/89
to
I vote yes for creating a permanent group. It seems to me that rec.xxxx would
be the place to put it, since although occasionally the discussion gets kindof
technical and scientificy, most of the discussions are of a hobbiest nature
instead of a marine biologist nature.

For instance, the majority of the posts in this group are of the type:
"My gourami has a cut on it's side. How do I keep it from dying?"
not of the type:
"Discussion of the intestinal bacteria of a Brachygobius xanthozona."

See what I mean?

In article <81...@cbmvax.UUCP>, br...@cbmvax.UUCP (Bryce Nesbitt) writes:
>
> I slightly prefer the less ambiguous "aquarium"; until today I thought
> alt.aquaria was for "new-age fruitcakes".
>

I agree. When I first went looking for a newsgroup such as this, I just
searched my .newsrc file for "fish" and "aquarium". I was disappointed and
supprised when I couldn't find one. I found it by accident when I had to
wipe out my .newsrc record and switch to rn. I saw it as I was going through
and unsubsribing to everything.

While xxx.aquaria might appeal to the people who want to put the newsgroup
into sci., most people wouldn't think of looking of looking for "aquaria",
while everyone would probably try "aquarium".

Rich Champeaux (rch...@hubcap.clemson.edu)

Wm E Davidsen Jr

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 1:38:47 PM10/6/89
to
In article <1...@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, ds...@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes:

| > ... An aquaria group is unrelated [to rec.pets] and
| > should not be the first to be a sub-group. Sub-groups should be a
| > reorganization of the parent group, not an unrelated subject.
|
| Sez who? There's a clear relationship between pets and aquaria, and
| the group would fit well under rec.pets.

Actually I think that unless you are going to break up rec.pets that
rec.aquaria is a better name. This is a good point.
--
bill davidsen (davi...@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon

Alien Wells

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 10:35:54 AM10/6/89
to
I've spent some time thinking about <heararchy>.aquaria, and I think that I
have decided that some of my previous postings were hasty and ill-considered
(-; gulp ... hold on a second while I stop hyperventilating ... ah, that's
better ... I think I'm almost recovered from that admission now ... ;-)

Let me give a little backgound. I've been keeping salt water tanks since
about 10 years ago. I've been subscribed to alt.aquaria for about 6 months.
My first question when I got on the net was why such a quality, reasonable
volume newsgroup was in alt.

The best replies I got (outside of flaming) were:
- apathy, it just hadn't been done, after all - we all got alt.
- a conscious decision to keep drek and flaming out of the group
The last point I can fully appreciate. Alt.aquaria has been the best group
I have ever subscribed to.

After my previous postings, I went and poked at some miscellaneous groups.
I combined this with what I know from the sci. and rec. groups I have
subscribed to. I came to a few conclusions.

First, rec. groups seem to bring the worst out of people. They are dominated
with long flame-war threads. They are frequently subjected to cross-posting
wars. I remember when someone from rec.bicycles cross posted a 'manifesto'
to rec.autos about how cars ought to be restricted. The flames kept going
for months. After everyone finally got burned out and it died down, someone
from talk.politics started it all over again.

Second, sci. groups are often not as formidable as I had imagined. They vary
from quite serious (like sci.physics) to virtually total fluff dominated by
college students (like sci.physics.fusion). All in all, I was much less
impressed than I thought I would be. There was a lot of people showing
very little understanding of the subject matter (and being corrected), and
there were even things like someone asking for advice on his kid's pinewood
derby car.

So, where does that leave me? I still philosophically feel like the rec.pets
heararchy might make a little more sense in a perfect world, but the real
question is "What will the name choice do to the quality and tone of
alt.aquaria".

I have convinced myself that if we go into the rec. heararchy, we will
get the most new members. Unfortunately, the majority of these will likely
be the 'guppy and goldfish' crowd. Let me try to say this without sounding
elitist, especially since the ring of elitism is what bothered me the most
about some of the arguments for sci.aquaria.

I am a fairly serious aquarist. I've been doing salt water tanks since the
days when it was hard to find stores that carried them. In the past, I've
gone through the killie phase that Richard is currently in (and I even knew
Tony Tercciera (or however you spell it), I was working with him on a project
to research a computer algorithm to taxonomically classify killifish before
my thesis got in the way), and I've spent time breeding fresh water fish. I
currently only have a single tank (partially a result of my recent divorce),
but I have had up to about 15 tanks running at once. I find alt.aquaria to
be a great group because I can discuss things with a group of peers. I will
grant you that there is a wide varietly of experience, from a lot less to a
lot more, but almost everyone on the group is a pretty serious 'fish freak'
that understands my philosophy and approach.

Not that I mind novices, far from it. I try to reply to almost all of the
novice salt-water questions I see. But even the novices in alt.aquaria
seem to be 'serious'.

If we get into the rec heirarchy, the same thing will probably happen to us
that happens to most 'mass market' rec groups. Richard will intimidate
people for a while, but eventually we will be overcome with so much drivel
and so many bozos that the serious people will lose interest and drop out.
Do not use comparisons with things like ham radio, because they are inherently
limited to people that are serious about it. However, there is a very large
pool (sorry, bad pun) of people who put a betta or goldfish in a bowl, name
it Oscar, and treat him like a small, immobile dog that you don't have to
clean up as much after.

So, how can I summarize? I have finally, after much soul-searching,
convinced myself that the sci. heirarchy is NOT inappropriate for the
quality and seriousness exhibited by alt.aquaria. I have also convinced
myself that the sci. heirarchy is much more likely to attract the type of
people that would continue the spirit of alt.aquaria.

I respectfully change my vote to sci.aquaria. I think I have convinced
myself that I would prefere leaving the group as alt.aquaria than subject
it to rec.

Finally, I would like to point out that I have been a little dismayed by
the vehemence which some of the non-alt.aquaria people in news.groups have
been showing. Perhaps we should have thrashed out issues about the name
in alt.aquaria before we started posting in news.groups, but I don't think
that calls for some of the personal attacks I have seen. This is exactly
the sort of thing that I think we are in for if we go into the rec.
heirarchy ...

Wm E Davidsen Jr

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 1:16:24 PM10/6/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM>, ol...@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
| In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
| >Keeping fish is a hobby except to very small groups of people --
| >professional breeders and researchers.
|
| You obviously have not read ALT.AQUARIA. A predominant number of articles
| are posted by the people who take their aquariums very seriously and are
| deeply involved in fish breeding, study and collection.

It doesn't matter how deeply you are involved in it (until the
postings go to alt.sex.bestiality), if you don't do it for a living it a
hobby. That's what Chuq said. You are disagreeing with what you think he
*meant* rather than what he *said*.

| >The proper name for this group is rec.pets.{fish,aquaria}. Period. Anything
| >else is unacceptable, and no rationalization or handwaving is going to
| >change that fact.
|
| This is a very fishy reasoning. There is no PET aspect in aquaria. Aquarium
| plants are not PETS. Anemonies and algae and sponges are not pets. Daphnia
| and rotifers are not PETS. Period. And no misguided net.police pretension
| or vigorous assertion is going to change that fact.

But... if rocks can be pets, and houseplants can be pets, why not
algae? Certainly sponges! You can give them names, sing to them, and if
they're bad you can wash the dishes with them instead of rubbing their
noses in it.
|
| >If sci.aquaria goes through, I'm going to immediately petition to rename
| >rec.mag.otherrealms to comp.otherrealms, since it is obviously a research
| >project in computer-published typography.
|
| And I will immediately petition to rename rec.mag.otherrealms into
| rec.arts.sf-lovers.otherrealms -- because that's where it really belongs.

Any renaming of otherrealms is not likely to be favored. It's not
grossly misnamed, and there's no good reason to change. You could make
some case for moving the FIDO news and the Electronic Journal of the
{space something} to rec.mag because these are electronic copies of
hardcopy magazines. I may be wrong about the space one, but FIDO is
paginated for printing and could be placed in that category.

Why bother? I think you would have to prove that an existing group was
badly misnamed before anyone would vote to change it. Lets stick to the
issue, which is sticky enough. Aquaria is a scientiffic recreation, and
either name is going to offend some people. So rename it on your system
and let's talk about whether we need the group at all. This "what's in a
name" is covering up the real issue.

pmb

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 12:21:20 PM10/6/89
to
Why don't we examine the discussions in this group lately to see if they
are scientific or recreational, and use that to determine a name? Here's
what a grep of my spool directory finds:

(F) Angel Breeding - Part II scientific maybe
(M) October FAMA Caulerpa article scientific maybe
Collecting trip to Peru scientific maybe
Magazine article of note scientific maybe
Plants and Things scientific maybe
Small African Cichlids recreational
PH,Ammonia, Filters, etc. recreational
(F) Small African Cichlids recreational
Coral Beauties recreational
(M) Lettuce (was: Zuchinni as fish food) recreational
(M) Looking for help starting a new tank recreational
(M) Starting out; suggestions? recreational
Aqua Wanted (also posted in misc.wanted) recreational
Aquarium Power Heads recreational
Aquarium Power Heads Recalled recreational
M:Moving recreational
Power Heads--Possible Fatal Shock Hazard recreational
What would you do with 125 gal tank recreational
(misc discussions about alt/rec/sci) administrative
I seek a posting service for alt.aquaria administrative
Testing neither

I was being sort of generous on the scientifc category ... I couldn't
actually recall most of the messages for the ones I marked as scientific.

It seems clear to me that "rec.aquaria" would be more correct. If
it came to that, "rec.pets.aquaria" is tolerable, although I can't remember
the last time I petted one of my inhabitants.

--
Intel has plenty of it's own opinions. It doesn't care what I do with mine.
p...@hosehead.hf.intel.com or patti@bucket (take your pick)

...or just yell "Hey, Patti!" Everybody else does.

Tim King

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 5:44:44 PM10/6/89
to

If I remember correctly (it's been *so* many postings ago), the main reason
for changing names was to widen the subscribership. However, before we
really considered whether this was an appropriate goal, or what the
consequences might be, we began debating how to achieve it (ie, tactics
before strategy). Now that some initial discussion has occurred, I think
the current alt.aquaria subscribers should ask themselves if more readers
are a good thing. Moving to a more accessible net location will mean
*more* subscribers, not necessarily more *quality* postings. I agree with
al...@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) in <26...@cpoint.UUCP>:

> I have convinced myself that if we go into the rec. hierarchy, we will


> get the most new members. Unfortunately, the majority of these will
> likely be the 'guppy and goldfish' crowd. Let me try to say this without
> sounding elitist, especially since the ring of elitism is what bothered
> me the most about some of the arguments for sci.aquaria.
>

> <stuff deleted>
>
> ... we will be overcome with so much drivel and so many bozos that the


> serious people will lose interest and drop out.

Like Alien, I don't mean to sound elitist either, and while opening up to a
wider audience is a noble sentiment, I think that alt.aquaria is
consistently a quality newsgroup, and I always hate to screw up a good
thing. A person can get mighty bored wading through tons of dreck looking
for 1 posting in 100 that says anything of substance.

Once the decision has been made to find a wider audience, *then* worry
about how best to achieve that goal (ie, moving the newsgroup to sci.* or
rec.* or wherever).

Sorry if I sounded like anybody's mother.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim King |
Honeywell Systems & Research Center | Are we having fun yet?
Mpls, MN 55418 |

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 7:07:32 PM10/6/89
to
In article <26...@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint (Alien Wells) writes:

>I have convinced myself that if we go into the rec. heararchy, we will
>get the most new members. Unfortunately, the majority of these will likely
>be the 'guppy and goldfish' crowd.

>So, how can I summarize? I have finally, after much soul-searching,


>convinced myself that the sci. heirarchy is NOT inappropriate for the
>quality and seriousness exhibited by alt.aquaria.

This is perhaps an argument to create rec.aquaria.expert. Once
again, if a vote is taken on sci.aquaria, a lot of people are
going to vote against it. It is quite likely not to pass. If it
does pass, some sites might not carry it.

>Finally, I would like to point out that I have been a little dismayed by
>the vehemence which some of the non-alt.aquaria people in news.groups have
>been showing.

Richard walked into the middle of an ongoing controversy.
People have been getting more and more fed up. If you don't like
flames that is another reason not to hold a vote on sci.aquaria.

>This is exactly the sort of thing that I think we are in for if
>we go into the rec. heirarchy ...

I'm going to feel almost duty-bound to flame at times on
sci.aquaria, so watch it.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To name the unnamable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start arguments,
shape the world and stop it from going asleep". -- 'The Satanic Verses'

Ray Dunn

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 1:32:33 PM10/6/89
to
In article <20...@gryphon.COM> ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
> Rec.aquaria is inappropriate because keeping fish is not really a
> recreational activity -- and this is the reason that I believe it
> belongs in the sci.hierarchy. The questions of ichthyological
> taxonomy, water chemistry, the characteristics of artificial light
> are subjects that are constantly under discussion. Simulating the
> aquarium environment is a science, not an art.

*Every* technical hobbie contains significant amounts of science or
engineering at virtually the same level as the corresponding "professions".

Currently in the rec hierarchy, the following groups come immediately to
mind as having a high proportion of deep technical or scientific content:

rec.audio, rec.video, rec.autos.tech, rec.aviation, rec.photo,
rec.ham-radio, rec.ham-radio-packet, rec.scuba, rec.models.rc,
rec.gardening.

I'm really quite annoyed that what could have been a simple creation of a
new rec group has been turned into a flame war by the attempt to use a
completely inappropriate name.

It is so off the wall that it would not be unreasonable to believe that
controversy has been created deliberately, for its own sake. What is
certain, is that no attempt has been made to minimize the effects of it.

Aquaria interested parties, if you must, vote for rec.aquaria, but please,
everyone else lets put an end to this nonsense:

*********** VOTE NO TO SCI.AQUARIA **************

--
Ray Dunn. | UUCP: r...@philmt.philips.ca
Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail)
St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090

Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 10:25:37 AM10/6/89
to
I prefer rec.aquaria to sci.aquaria, but I will vote for it
even if it winds up being comp.fish.

Jim Winer -- The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
and do not represent nor in any way imply
of any other sane person and especially not
employer.
But those who fear insist on consensual reality between consensual adults.

Ray Trent

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 4:58:54 PM10/6/89
to
In the referenced article, bkl...@cmdfs2.UUCP (Brian Klaas~) writes:
>The main thing is that I think we need to fight out the name issue
>here, in this group. Then, and only then, should we start posting to

The main reason I would support naming the proposed group rec.aquaria
instead of sci.aquaria is content of the group. The focus of this group
has been towards process, not theory. Asking for hints and tips (outside of
the cold fusion world) is not the sort of discussion that occurs in the
sci hierarchy. The whole purpose of these hierarchies is to divide
discussions into catagories that people can distinguish. As such,
and as a practical matter (I think more people will vote against
sci.aquaria because of the name than against rec.aquaria) I would favor
naming the group rec.aquaria.
--
"When you're down, it's a long way up
When you're up, it's a long way down
It's all the same thing
And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..

Maarten Litmaath

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 9:32:03 PM10/6/89
to
b...@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) writes:
\...; if you're not employed doing it, if you're not

\making your living doing it, then it's a HOBBY. And HOBBIES by
\definition go into the rec.* domain. [...]

I've got it! A new top-level group rec.fish! With subgroups like:

rec.fish.aquaria
rec.fish.sticks
rec.fish.n.chips
rec.fish.erman
rec.fish.ermans.friend
rec.fish.y
--
"Sometimes it seems Marvin wrote MINIX while Andy was playing Donald Duck's
Playground on Suzanne's computer." (Benno van den Brink) | mcvax!botter!maart

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 10:44:44 PM10/6/89
to

One point that some people seem to ignor in this discussion is
the context of the sci. prefix on the net. sci.space.shuttle, for
example, is mostly press releases from NASA, quotes from McGraw Hills
"Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine" and discussion of launchs,
operational details and cargos of the space shuttle. It belongs in the
catagory on the net because of the serious interests of the participants
in the forum, though for most it is in their "recreational" interests
that they participate.
An even more important reason to use the sci. prefix is European
participation. The fish hobbyists in Europe are not as sensitive about
being considered "elitists" for calling their hobby "science". Lets do
everything we can to attract their participation. I am really very
interested in hearing what they have to say about raising fish and
plants. And the few European aquarists I have met, nice people too,
would certainly not look for a forum on aquarium topics under "pets".
Cheers, John

JOHN BRIDGE

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 11:54:04 PM10/6/89
to

P.S. to last comment. SCI. and AQUARIA transliterate correctly in
three of the four Scandanavian languages, German, and all the romance
languages. REC. and PETS do not and even might be confusing. Participants
in this forum will be using English, but the association of REC and PETS
with aquariums may seem obscure to some not familiar with American
idiosynchrosies. No big deal, but its another point to consider. John

Jones

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 7:47:33 PM10/6/89
to
In article <66...@ttidca.TTI.COM>, ke...@ttidca.TTI.COM
(Kevin Carothers) writes:
> There are MANY things that can be discussed in the "sci" groups
> which don't arise in "rec" or "alt" - examples? Toxicology,
> Immunology, postmortem techiques for diagnosis [...]


The key phrase here is, of course, "don't arise". When
rec*aquaria is formed, the topics will be those which subscribers
discuss, be they detaled discussions of the diagnosis and
treatment of gill-rot or arguments about which tropical fish are
prettiest. The 'rec' name would not mean that the discussions
could not be technical - it's all up to the posters.

(Yes, I did say "when rec*aquaria is created," not "if."
Just like the Cubbies second play-off game, I think we can call this
one in the first inning. I believe that after the sci.skeptic
discussions 'name space awareness' has been raised enough that, if
a vote is called, sci.aquaria would be the first group to fail a
vote to due name choice alone.)

The only disagreement here is the name. There has not been
a single posting suggesting that no new aquaria group should be
formed. Richard, what do you think about trying out the Single
Transferable Vote? This *is* just the type of situation it is
intended to resolve.

...att!ll1a!cej Llewellyn Jones [Just me, not AT&T] c...@ll1a.att.com
>> This article may NOT be forwarded by the 'In Moderation Network' <<

The U.S. Administration's problem with the Panama
coup was not the CIA, but the CYA.

Scott Titus

unread,
Oct 6, 1989, 4:16:54 PM10/6/89
to

Sorry Richard, but my vote would be for rec. over sci. I feel that most
people who keep fish and would like to read about them on net, would look
in rec. before they looked in sci. to see if there is a group. The order of
my vote would be:
rec.aquaria
sci.aquaria
rec.pet.aquaria

While I do feel that there is discussion of the scientific aspect of
keeping underwater organisms alive, more people read for the hobby and advice
that is given out.


Scott Titus
hplabs!hpscdc!titus

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Oct 7, 1989, 9:10:10 AM10/7/89
to
In article <8...@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davi...@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>if you don't do it for a living it a hobby. That's what Chuq said.

Let me get this straight. How many people participating in sci.space are
real space scientists? How many people in sci.ANYTHING "do it for a living"?
Yes, there are mathematicians and physicists and astronomers on the NET, but
very few of them are interested in the inane amateurish ramblings of the
usual denizens of those groups (except GWS, of course. He spends most of
his time hoping someone will post something stupid about PI to sci.math, so
he can flame them to shit).

Or, perhaps, because there are so many amateur hobbyist astronomers, astronomy
is not a science?

Yet, SCI groups for astronomy and math and physics exist.

So, just because there is practically no way to earn a living breeding fish
(unless you live in Florida and have a fish farm) or studying them AND have
time or facilities to use the NET, aquarium science is not a science?

By the way, I would not be that concerned with what Chuq said. He says a lot
of things and not all of them make sense or are all that astute.

> But... if rocks can be pets, and houseplants can be pets, why not
>algae? Certainly sponges! You can give them names, sing to them, and if
>they're bad you can wash the dishes with them instead of rubbing their
>noses in it.

[I must admit, I have never met anyone who has thought of plants as "pets".]

OK. Why not then create sci.geology, sci.bio, sci.botany and sci.agro?

By the way, the more I think about it, the more idiotic "rec.pets.fish"
sounds.

Rick Kill

unread,
Oct 8, 1989, 10:22:49 AM10/8/89
to
From article <20...@gryphon.COM>, by ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton):
[sez: much interesting stuff about creation of sci.aquaria]

It has been tried before with no success. I think it is a good idea,
but that fact alone could get Richard to change his mind and end the
discussion.

Let's do it!

Rick
--
Rick Kill | "Oh I can't get a-long little doggie. |
-----------------------+ No, I can't get a doggie at all!" - Yeosemite Sam |
rek...@andy.bgsu.edu |_____________________________________________________|
rek...@opiebgsu.bitnet | Rick Kill -- |
rek...@barney.bgsu.edu | Now owned exclusively by Salem. |

Alexander Haley

unread,
Oct 9, 1989, 1:22:51 AM10/9/89
to

I agree with Scott Paisley, we should have two or three votes. The
first couple for the name of the new group and then the third for the
formation.
IMHO the group should not be called rec.pets.* I personally cannot
imagine how anyone can interpret *.aquaria to be a new age or zodiac
discussion. I don't know much about new age things, so I can't truly say
one way or another about it, but if it were zodiac, then why isn't there
*.taurus, *.capricorn, or *.libra?? If someone were truly interested in
this group then they would understand *.aquaria.
My vote is first for sci.aquaria and then for rec.aquaria. No for
rec.pets.*!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
aha...@hmcvax.claremont.edu | Anyone know of a way to go to school
aha...@jarthur.claremont.edu | without having to do a lot of work or
or Alex Haley, Fido 1:205/106 | pay a lot of money? :-)
during breaks ONLY --^^^^^ | It would make it a bit more enjoyable!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Oct 9, 1989, 2:10:26 AM10/9/89
to
In article <17...@rpp386.cactus.org> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Clearly -anything- but a sci.* newsgroup.

Fish keeping is not a trivial hobby, like dog keeping. To own a dog
you buy cans of stuff that smells like shit and scoop it out with a
big spoon into a big bowl and then call FIDO. This is how one owns a
dog.

You practically need a BS in organic chemistry just to own any fish
more complex than guppies or neon tetras. rec.* may be a wonderful
place to read about drowning a few snails, but for anyone keeping
sea cucumbers, pears, apples, oranges [ and the rest of the marine
fruit bowl ;-) ], I think sci is the place to.

Too much nitrogen in the water. Quick. Are you going to ask a bunch
of Dr. Who fans over in rec, or would you rather go grab yourself an
organic chemist?

Tell me how many other rec groups have the potential to kill an
entire tank full of expensive marine ickys with one stupid posting.
THAT is the reason the group should be sci.aquaria. You aren't
going to kill FIDO with the wrong brand of flea collar, but you damn
well can kill off an entire fruit bowl full of slimey things if you
grab the wrong bottle of food color.

Is the green stuff for ick or is it the blue stuff?

>> Eat fish and die!

I had fish just this weekend. I'm still quite alive.

Mats Ohrman

unread,
Oct 9, 1989, 6:51:48 AM10/9/89
to
BRI...@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
> P.S. to last comment. SCI. and AQUARIA transliterate correctly in
^Vetenskap ^Akvarium
(swedish)
Wissenschaft
(german)

>three of the four Scandanavian languages, German, and all the romance
>languages. REC. and PETS do not and even might be confusing. Participants

Rekreation^ ^Husdjur
(swedish)

>in this forum will be using English, but the association of REC and PETS
>with aquariums may seem obscure to some not familiar with American
>idiosynchrosies. No big deal, but its another point to consider. John

In swedish, the name for "pets" is "husdjur", which means "houseanimal",
i.e an animal you keep in your house. In swedish idiom, pets is quite
compatible with aquarium fish.

What this has to do with anything, I fail to understand.

/* Flame ON */

The level of b*llsh*t and totally erroneous arguments seems constantly
high in these discussions.

Why don't we move news.groups to alt? It seems to be where it belongs,
if you look at the quality.

/* Flame OFF */
--
_ : ma...@sssab.se
/ Mats Ohrman, : {mcvax,munnari,uunet}!sunic!sssab!matoh
Scandinavian System Support AB, : Phone: Nat. 013-11 16 60
Box 535, S-581 06 Linkoping, Sweden : Int. +46 13 11 16 60

Anton Rang

unread,
Oct 9, 1989, 10:02:41 AM10/9/89
to
In article <17...@rpp386.cactus.org> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Tell me how many other rec groups have the potential to kill an
>entire tank full of expensive marine ickys with one stupid posting.
>THAT is the reason the group should be sci.aquaria.

The name isn't going to make any difference once somebody finds the
group. This might be an argument for moderation, but I don't see that
it's a good argument for the name....

+----------------------------------+------------------+
| Anton Rang (grad student) | ra...@cs.wisc.edu |
| University of Wisconsin--Madison | |
+----------------------------------+------------------+

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages