gmr044@leah.Albany.Edu (Gregg Recer) (08/03/90)
Dan Sandee posted as follows (sorry I wiped out the header info by mistake): >In article <1873@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com >(Mike Mahler) writes: >> I propose a breakdown of rec.pets into (possibly): >> >> rec.pets.dogs >> rec.pets.cats >> rec.pets.birds >> rec.pets.misc >> Jointly, I propose the renaming of rec.birds to rec.birdwatching. >The issue of pet owners vs birdwatchers on rec.birds appears to be a >never-ending one. We've been through this before, people. >While I would like to see it resolved by splitting the group, it is >unlikely that an attempt to do this will succeed. Apart from the >procedural hassles necessitated by the Usenet Guidelines for Group Creation,? >we will need (a) a 2-to-1 majority vote (that may not be a problem) and >(b) 100 more yes than no votes. And where are we going to find 100 voters? >I would on urge readers of rec.birds to exercise a little more tolerance >(maybe a LOT more tolerance would be an even better idea), and try and be >happy with the current situation. At the moment, the noise factor in this >newsgroup is not so much the drivel about wing clipping, but the flame wars >of indoor vs outdoor. I agree with Dan completely here. I really don't have a problem sharing this low-volume arena with cage-bird people. Using the 'n' key when I don't feel like reading about wing clipping is not a big deal. In fact, I'm not convinced the controversy over using INDOOR and OUTDOOR is all that warranted. It's usually quite clear to me that a subject line reading 'Birding Australia' or 'Bird Migration' is an outdoor-oriented post and one reading 'Wing Clipping' is indoor oriented. Just use a little common sense and be specific. >In article <369@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) writes: >>I have only had access to `rec.birds' for a short while, but it seems to me >>that the interaction between the folks who keep birds and those who only >>appreciate them in their natural state is rather interesting, if a times a >>little feisty and exuberant, and the volume is not yet all that great. >Oh, I agree. SOME of the interaction between indoor and outdoor is quite >interesting. But too often they go and sling mud at each other. >On the balance, I'd prefer to have the group split. >> >>What I would suggest, however, is that if the ornithological side is to >>split off we should go all the way and rename the group `sci.ornithology'. >> >>This is one of the few sciences where large accumulations of anecdotal >>evidence are important, and patient and dedicated amateurs can still make a >>useful contributrion and be taken seriously. It is much more than just a >>recreation. >>-- >> Bill Venables, Dept. Statistics, | Email: wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au >> Univ. of Adelaide, South Australia. | Phone: +61 8 228 5412 >Sorry - all of the birders in this group, as far as I know, would see their >activities as a recreation. Although I, for one, take it pretty seriously : >you will find my name in virtually every issue of American Birds, which is >my private contribution to ornithology. Professional ornithologists are >very welcome, of course. >On the other hand, we have quite a lot of postings from beginners with >quesions like I-have-this-weird-bird-in-my-yard-what-could-it-be. They're >very welcome, as well, and they wouldn't find their way to sci.ornithology. >Daan Sandee sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu >Supercomputer Computations Research Institute >Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045 Again, I don't see any need for a split here (splitting rec.pets, which I occasionally read, is another matter -- volume is huge there by comparison and I'm not interested in dogs and cats for the most part). As far as the idea of 'sci.ornithology' goes, I agree that's it's just not warranted. Since I do ecological research on passerine bird behavior I guess I feel like I have some idea of what science is vs. what recreation is. I don't mean to disparage activities like CBC's and breeding-bird atlases which provide data on the abundances of bird species. This can be useful info but generally speaking those kinds of things, by themselves, are not 'science' in the sense of new contributions to ornithological knowledge publishable in peer-reviewed journals. Personally I think the whole 'sci.*' grouping is a little bit of a put-on in this respect -- 'sci.environment' for example should really be called 'talk.polotics.environment' IMHO -- but maybe I'm just being a pedant about all of this :). Gregg ******************************************************************************* "In future you should delete the words crunchy frog and replace them with the legend crunchy raw unboned real dead frog!!" -- Inspector Bradshaw, The Hygiene Division *******************************************************************************
sandra@pyrtech (Sandra Macika) (08/04/90)
> >I agree with Dan completely here. I really don't have a problem >sharing this low-volume arena with cage-bird people. Using the 'n' >key when I don't feel like reading about wing clipping is not a big >deal. In fact, I'm not convinced the controversy over using INDOOR >and OUTDOOR is all that warranted. It's usually quite clear to me >that a subject line reading 'Birding Australia' or 'Bird Migration' is >an outdoor-oriented post and one reading 'Wing Clipping' is indoor >oriented. Just use a little common sense and be specific. > >Gregg > I don't mind sharing this newsgroup at all. I agree with your point, Gregg, except for one thing. It is important to put the word INDOOR or OUTDOOR in the beginning of the Subject line, because of the way the KILL file works. This way anyone can just automatically delete all the INDOOR or all the OUTDOOR articles if they want to. >>> >>>What I would suggest, however, is that if the ornithological side is to >>>split off we should go all the way and rename the group `sci.ornithology'. >>> >>> Bill Venables I don't agree. Some people might not know what ornithology means. Sandra p.s. See what I mean about how this comes up periodically? Sometimes there ARE more articles about the war than Birds!! p.s.s If anyone has any questions about using the KILL file to automatically delete articles of a given Subject, let me know!