**** Call for Discussion -- Creation of Sci.Aquaria ****
Richard Sexton
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
> <many good, but deleted, things about legitmizing alt.aquaria>...
>Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
>
> 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.
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
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
> 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
>>
>> 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
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
> 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
>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
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
> Q: Why sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria or rec.pets.aquaria ?
>
> A: Rec.pets.aquaria is not appropriate because the discussion in rec.
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
Okay Richard. What do we have to do to become "regular"? John
Wendy Sarrett
who can't get access because his current site doesn't have the alt
hierarchies.
Wendy
System News Administrator
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
>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
<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
>
>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:
>
>
>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
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
Richard, hum-de-dah-dah-dah-de-boop-de-boop
JOHN BRIDGE
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
> 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
>
> Okay Richard. What do we have to do to become "regular"? John
Prunes ?
JOHN BRIDGE
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
>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
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
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
| 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
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
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
>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
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
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
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
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
(and not a rec.pets.plants).
save rec.pets.* to split off a group for lithuanian sheepdogs.
--Ed
William Johnson
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
>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.
>
>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
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
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
>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
>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
>
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
>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
>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
>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
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
>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
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--