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
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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --------------------------------------------------------------------------