aviator@athena.mit.edu (Joakim Karlsson) (11/01/89)
In article <21701@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > >I'd like to see rec.birdwatching created. I'd like to see rec.pets >splayed open and rec.dogs, rec.cats and rec.birds created. > >Additionally, I'd like to see rec.pets.misc for the snakes/ferrets/ >lizards and other odds and ends. I agree entirely. It seems to be perfectly logical to break rec.pets into rec.dogs, rec.cats, rec.birds, and rec.pets.misc. This would give full flexibility to the user to narrow down the topic of interest and avoid wading through postings of little interest. The few postings that are of a more general interest could be appropriately crossposted. I hope someone takes up this issue and volunteers to organize a discussion followed by a vote. Joakim Karlsson | iceman@bellerophon.mit.edu Flying Fanatic in Training | {backbone}!bloom-beacon!bellerophon.mit.edu!iceman "Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings"
mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (11/02/89)
aviator@athena.mit.edu (Joakim Karlsson) writes: >In article <21701@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>I'd like to see rec.birdwatching created. I'd like to see rec.pets >>splayed open and rec.dogs, rec.cats and rec.birds created. >>Additionally, I'd like to see rec.pets.misc for the snakes/ferrets/ >>lizards and other odds and ends. >I agree entirely. It seems to be perfectly logical to break rec.pets into >rec.dogs, rec.cats, rec.birds, and rec.pets.misc. This would give full ^^^^^^^^^ According to my newsgroup list (posted in news.groups), this group already exists. >flexibility to the user to narrow down the topic of interest and avoid wading >through postings of little interest. If you must split rec.pets up, split it up to fit the appropriate hierarchy: rec.pets ----> rec.pets (equalvalent to r.p.misc on Usenet) rec.pets.dogs rec.pets.cats rec.birds ----> rec.pets.birds rec.pets.birds.watching (??) Well, the last group name has problems. Perhaps, rec.pets.* would be better named rec.animals.*. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?