mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) (08/08/90)
This article is the beginning of a discussion of: 1) What groups should be spawned from rec.pets; 2) What rec.birds should be renamed to since there will most likely be a rec.pets.birds. Michael -- "And I'm hovering like a fly, waiting for the windshield on a freeway." -Genesis (Peter Gabriel)
winders@aux.support.apple.com (Scott Winders) (08/09/90)
In article <1918@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) writes: > This article is the beginning of a discussion of: > > 1) What groups should be spawned from rec.pets; > > 2) What rec.birds should be renamed to since there > will most likely be a rec.pets.birds. I think that rec.pets should at least have a subgroup called rec.pets.dogs. It may also make sense to have rec.pets.cats and rec.pets.misc. Scott Winders internet: winders@aux.support.apple.com AppleLink: winders.s@applelink.apple.com
bob@delphi.uchicago.edu (Robert S. Lewis, Jr.) (08/09/90)
In article <1918@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) writes: > > This article is the beginning of a discussion of: > > 1) What groups should be spawned from rec.pets; > > 2) What rec.birds should be renamed to since there > will most likely be a rec.pets.birds. > Why not rec.birds.wild? I don't think the sci.ornithology heading suggested earlier would be a good one, since I don't think we want to discourage amateur birders. Rob Lewis
wolfd@microsoft.UUCP (Wolf DUBY) (08/09/90)
Indeed, let's split up rec.pets. But certainly Cat, Dog, and Bird categories will not be sufficient to cover the range of interests. We'll need a separate group for those, plus one for Hamsters, another for Guinea Pigs, one for each type of Snake; and let's not forget Horses. Sure, we have rec.equestrian already, but we should ceratinly have a separate group for people who keep Horses and don't ride them. For that matter, it seems a good idea to have separate groups for people who own small, medium, and large Dogs, and further divide these for people who show Dogs and those who don't. The ideal would be to have two newsgroups for each breed--but let's be realistic :-) For any newsgroup to cover a broad range of topics is unthinkable! Folks might be informed about some aspect of their interest of which they were unaware or--worse--they might wear out the N (or whatever) key on their keyboards from having to bypass shamelessly uninteresting articles. Yes, by all means--more newsgroups. Just imagine all the opportunities for cross-posting!
grp@unify.uucp (Greg Pasquariello) (08/10/90)
> > In article <1918@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike > Mahler) writes: > > > > This article is the beginning of a discussion of: > > > > 1) What groups should be spawned from rec.pets; > > > > 2) What rec.birds should be renamed to since there > > will most likely be a rec.pets.birds. > > How about rec.birding? -- -Greg Pasquariello grp@unify.com
mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) (08/10/90)
You've got alot of nerve backing up your comments with real data! 8-} I've decided to go through with this as two seperate votes: 1) for the creation of: rec.pets.dogs rec.pets.cats, and leaving rec.pets for as a .misc 2) for the renaming of rec.birds as rec.birdwatching and the joint creation of rec.pets.birds (in other words, if rec.birds isn't renamed, there will be no rec.pets.birds). Michael
plemmons@nsf1.mth.msu.edu (Steve Plemmons) (08/10/90)
In article <56425@microsoft.UUCP> wolfd@microsoft.UUCP (Wolf DUBY) writes: >Indeed, let's split up rec.pets. But certainly Cat, Dog, and Bird >categories will not be sufficient to cover the range of interests. >We'll need a separate group for those, plus one for Hamsters, another >for Guinea Pigs, one for each type of Snake; and let's not forget >Horses. Sure, we have rec.equestrian already, but we should >ceratinly have a separate group for people who keep Horses and >don't ride them. > For that matter, it seems a good idea to have separate groups for >people who own small, medium, and large Dogs, and further divide >these for people who show Dogs and those who don't. The ideal >would be to have two newsgroups for each breed--but let's be realistic :-) > >For any newsgroup to cover a broad range of topics is unthinkable! >Folks might be informed about some aspect of their interest of which >they were unaware or--worse--they might wear out the N (or whatever) >key on their keyboards from having to bypass shamelessly uninteresting >articles. > >Yes, by all means--more newsgroups. > >Just imagine all the opportunities for cross-posting! Yes! Yes! Yes! I think he's got it! I know my 'n' and 'k' keys are wearing out very fast due to the unbearable amount of traffic on this net. I think I'm getting arthritis in my index and middle finger of my right hand! -- ======================================================================== Steve Plemmons plemmons@mth.msu.edu Math Department plemmons@frith.egr.msu.edu Michigan State University 21144smp@msu.bitnet
bryanh@dadla.WR.TEK.COM (Bryan Hilterbrand) (08/11/90)
In article <1965@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) writes: > > 2) for the renaming of rec.birds as rec.birdwatching > and the joint creation of rec.pets.birds (in other > words, if rec.birds isn't renamed, there will be no > rec.pets.birds). > > Michael If people can't get along together so a new newsgroup must be created, why don't we just leave rec.birds and make a new newsgroup called rec.birdwatching. One of the last million-or-so times :-( that this subject has come up, it was pointed out that people breeding birds aren't keeping "pet" birds. Because they aren't keeping pets, people would still occasionally post "captive" bird subjects to rec.birds. The non-birdwatching people seem to be fairly tolerant of the different types of postings, so they could stay in rec.birds. Now, to be fair to the birdwatching people, rec.birds was originally created specifically for people interested in birdwatching, so I can sympathize with them about the invasion of THEIR newsgroup. Unfortu- nately, the newsgroup suffers from a poor choice for a name, so the birdwatching people will NEVER be free from this discussion until a group called rec.birdwatching is created. The two choices I see are: 1) The birdwatching people become tolerant of the invasion of non-birdwatching postings in their newsgroup. 2) A new newsgroup is created that is specifically and undeniably aimed at birdwatching -- rec.birdwatching. I apologize for wasting everyone's time with this posting, since I know that nothing is likely to change when this "discussion" is finished. Does anyone remember old Cheech and Chong records?: "Class. CLAAASSS. SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUP!" <pause> "Thank you." Bryan Hilterbrand INTERNET: bryanh@dwalin.WR.TEK.COM CSNET: @RELAY.CS.NET:bryanh@dwalin.WR.TEK.COM UUCP: {uunet,decvax,gatech,hplabs}!tektronix!wrgate!dwalin!bryanh
misan@ra.abo.fi (Annika Forsten DC) (08/11/90)
In article <GRP.90Aug9151425@magpie.unify.uucp> grp@unify.uucp (Greg Pasquariello) writes: > > This article is the beginning of a discussion of: > > > > 1) What groups should be spawned from rec.pets; > > > > 2) What rec.birds should be renamed to since there > > will most likely be a rec.pets.birds. > > > How about rec.birding? Yes, much better than birdwatching. Apart from being shorter, it conveys the meaning that we are pursuing an intrest, not just watching the winged creatures. Birding is a hobby, birdwatching is just a general term for looking at a bird. Let's not change the groupname to include all wildlife. Why not create a wildlife group anyway, but not by dropping rec.birds. Annika Forsten, Finland
jklee@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Kin Wah Lee) (08/13/90)
In article <GRP.90Aug9151425@magpie.unify.uucp> grp@unify.com writes: > >How about rec.birding? This would certainly get my vote. I would even settle for rec.birdwatching even though this would be my second choice. Although I have nothing against the INDOOR postings in rec.birds (heck, my sister has a budgie!), my main interest lies in birding. In another article, wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) writes: > > The `sci.ornithology' suggestion was mine. `rec.birds.wild' is just fine by > me, however I am rather surprised that you think `sci.ornithology' would > scare off amateur birders. It wouldn't frighten me, for instance :-) > ... [stuff deleted] ... > I am much more inclined to the opinion that if you call it `rec.<anything>' > you will scare off the professionals, who won't want to bother with it. I can see Bill's point here and there is always going to be some overlap here, but I would hazard to guess (sorry, I have no hard facts!), that the majority of subscribers to something like rec.birding are amateurs anyway. I know that if I were a professional ornithologist, I would not hesitate to subscribe to "rec.birding", since amateurs can often be a great source of information; this is analagous to the numerous amateurs in astronomy, stargazing, etc., who have made some very significant contributions to that science. In another article, horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) writes: > > If this new group is created for birdwatching, lets not limit it to > specifically birds? How about changing the name to include all the smaller > groups that will never get a subgroup. I was thinking along the lines > of rec.nature, rec.natural_history, rec.audubon, rec.wildlife or sci.wildlife. > > In such a newsgroup, the discussions would be about observing any creature(s) > in their natural environment. Based on their popularity, I would think > that this would predominately consist of birds, but this new group would > extend to include invertibrates, reptiles, amphibians, and some mammals. > There is currently no group that I know of that covers these other creatures. > And there definitely isn't enough support to start rec.nature.insects etc. I'm afraid that things would get too general here. One of the main reasons to split rec.birds was to narrow the subject field, and this would open the field again, albeit in a different direction. It seems to me that if there were persons keenly interested in snakes, turtles, salamanders, etc., they could start a new group called rec.herpetiles or something like that. Who knows? The volume of traffic may become so heavy that INDOOR postings from people who want to know what to feed their pet python may begin to conflict with those who want to know about the geographical distribution of the Massasauga Rattlesnake :-). And a few years down the road, they may be having the same discussion we're having today! In any case, I would certainly go for rec.birding. Just my thoughts! jim -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Lee (jklee@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dept. of Geol. & Geophys. Sci. * THERE ARE STRANGE THINGS DONE * Princeton University * IN THE MIDNIGHT SUN ..... * Princeton, NJ 08544 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --------------------------------------------------------------------------
sandee@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) (08/13/90)
In article <1010.26c5a329@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: >In article <1990Aug10.193512.6545@granite.cr.bull.com>, horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) writes: >> >> in the latter, I find the former not just uninteresting, but offensive. > >I dont mean to start a flame, but what is so offensive about pet birds? I If you don't want to start a flame, then don't make remarks like that. Or, don't respond to the other guy's remarks. This demonstrates EXACTLY why this group should be split. I can tolerate the drivel about budgies being off their feed, but I don't want all the flame wars between groups of opposing interest. Daan Sandee sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Computations Research Institute Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045
john@nmt.edu (John Shipman) (08/18/90)
Boris Chen (boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU) writes: +-- | Frankly, this group does not have a great amount of | traffic, and I don't think that any split is necessary.... | It isn't that hard to hit 'n' or 'k.' +-- I think that one's perception of the volume in a group depends on the baud rate at which one reads it. With a 38,400 baud hardwired connection, it doesn't take very long to put an article on the screen. But I often read rec.birds at 1200 baud, and at that rate it takes a while just to get to the point where you *can* type `n' or `k'. I feel that another strong argument in favor of the split is that it would eliminate the large volume of articles from people arguing---like this one, and the one to which it is a followup. -- John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, NM/john@jupiter.nmt.edu ``Let's go outside and commiserate with nature.'' --Dave Farber
john@nmt.edu (John Shipman) (08/18/90)
Martin Geleynse (geleynse@hppad.HP.COM) writes: +-- | I have been a birder for almost 20 years, and generally | find birders to be the least TOLERANT, most SELF-RIGHTEOUS | people I know (as a group - there are always individual | exceptions).... | | Why don't we just grow up and go back to reading about BIRDS. +-- I feel that these two sentences are working at cross purposes. First you insult a large group of people, which is bound to cause friction. Then you suggest that we not discuss such friction. Here is the original charter of this group (from the latest listing of active newsgroups in news.announce.newusers): +-- | rec.birds Hobbyists interested in bird watching. +-- So long as cagebird fanciers continue to violate this charter, there will be friction. The purpose of the CALL FOR DISCUSSION is to frame the wording of a CALL FOR VOTES, not actually to vote. Posted opinions about whether or not to split the group are premature; this period should be spent discussing the alternatives. In my opinion, the discussion is pretty well framed by now; let's let the voters decide. -- John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, NM/john@jupiter.nmt.edu ``Let's go outside and commiserate with nature.'' --Dave Farber
boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Chen) (08/18/90)
In article <1990Aug17.173217.27746@nmt.edu> john@nmt.edu (John Shipman) writes: >I think that one's perception of the volume in a group >depends on the baud rate at which one reads it. With a >38,400 baud hardwired connection, it doesn't take very long >to put an article on the screen. But I often read rec.birds >at 1200 baud, and at that rate it takes a while just to get >to the point where you *can* type `n' or `k'. I read this at 2400 BAUD, and even at 1200 baud it isn't that much time to 'n' through a couple of articles. 2 minutes? >I feel that another strong argument in favor of the split is >that it would eliminate the large volume of articles from >people arguing---like this one, and the one to which it is a >followup. Well, if it is the bird watchers that want to have a split, and if they are the ones that initiated it; then I see complaints about people arguing over whether or not to split is unwarranted -- and a little hypocritical. In any news group, there are subjects within a subject that you are not going to be interested in. We can have 20 bird discussions, and you would probably still hit 'n' or 'k.' There's no real reason to split. Actually, I take it back. Let's have a rec.birds.whyweshouldorshouldnotsplit group. Since this subject seems to match both the indoor and outdoor discussions combined in number, I think that it is a more suitable news group candidate. And then I wouldn't have to keep hitting 'n' and 'k' to skip this topic all the time. (which I didn't do yesterday and which is why I am now in it) /----------------------------------------------------------\ | Boris Chen || Berkeley, CA || boris@ocf.berkeley.edu | \----------------------------------------------------------/
geek@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Chris Schmandt) (08/18/90)
In article <1990Aug17.222601.27673@agate.berkeley.edu> boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Chen) writes: > >I read this at 2400 BAUD, and even at 1200 baud it isn't that much >time to 'n' through a couple of articles. 2 minutes? It's not time, its the signal-to-noise ratio. Personally, I am interested in a news group about bird watching. I've tracked this group for 6 months or so(?), and during this time there is a recurring theme of "INDOOR" vs. "OUTDOOR" and who's responsibility it is to make sure their messages are killable by others, etc. etc. That is not why I read this group. Neither do I read it to hear about pet birds. There are certainly a number of people who share this opinion. There must have been enough votes to create the original rec.birds, so there must be enough of us to make a birdwatching group. But isn't all this repeating the original vote? The way to proceed seems to create rec.birds.pets. If a call for votes happens, all the birdwatchers should vote "yes" which should (if the above premise is true) result in enough votes for its creation. Then we don't have to deal with this any more. It's not a "right" or "wrong" issue. Just a question of tastes. Certainly one could read both groups. For me, the SNR is low enough that if the split does not happen, I'll probably unsubscribe. Or read every couple of weeks, when its easier to kill whole threads. chris
geek@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Chris Schmandt) (08/18/90)
In article <3177@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> I ranted about > >The way to proceed seems to create rec.birds.pets. ^^^^^^^^^^ sorry, rec.pets.birds, right? chris again
sandra@pyrtech (Sandra Macika) (08/18/90)
I am really glad that I can put this Subject in my KILL file. Has anyone noticed that this Subject heading has about 10 times more articles than any other Subject? Now there is one more (mine). Did I mention that this happens about once every 1-3 years? (oh ya, I did) Sandra
plemmons@nsf1.mth.msu.edu (Steve Plemmons) (08/22/90)
In article <1990Aug17.173217.27746@nmt.edu> john@nmt.edu (John Shipman) writes: >Boris Chen (boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU) writes: >+-- >| Frankly, this group does not have a great amount of >| traffic, and I don't think that any split is necessary.... >| It isn't that hard to hit 'n' or 'k.' >+-- > >I think that one's perception of the volume in a group >depends on the baud rate at which one reads it. With a >38,400 baud hardwired connection, it doesn't take very long >to put an article on the screen. But I often read rec.birds >at 1200 baud, and at that rate it takes a while just to get >to the point where you *can* type `n' or `k'. > >I feel that another strong argument in favor of the split is >that it would eliminate the large volume of articles from >people arguing---like this one, and the one to which it is a >followup. >-- >John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, NM/john@jupiter.nmt.edu >``Let's go outside and commiserate with nature.'' --Dave Farber This is the most rediculous reasoning I have heard yet! Do you really think that splitting a group should be decided by what kind of hardware people have, and how much people argue? Spend 90 dollars and get a 2400 baud modem and quit crying! Steve -- ======================================================================== Steve Plemmons plemmons@mth.msu.edu Math Department plemmons@frith.egr.msu.edu Michigan State University 21144smp@msu.bitnet