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
wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug9.141910.3845@midway.uchicago.edu> bob@delphi.uchicago.edu (Robert S. Lewis, Jr.) writes: [..] > > 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. 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 :-) Being a mathematician I am most familiar with the `sci.math{,.*}' news groups which you might think would scare off amateurs if any groups would. But no, in they come, boots and all, with some of the most elementary questions imaginable. And why not? Most mathematicians are only too happy to have amateurs show an interest in their discipline, and most questions are quickly and courteously answered. There is also much advanced discussion between specialists, of course, but the two co-exist quite happily, and the elementray questions often start an interesting thread. 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. Let me reiterate to my original position: Why not keep the status quo for now? -- Bill Venables, Dept. Statistics, | Email: wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au Univ. of Adelaide, South Australia. | Phone: +61 8 228 5412
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
bob@delphi.uchicago.edu (Robert S. Lewis, Jr.) (08/11/90)
In article <377@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) writes: >In article <1990Aug9.141910.3845@midway.uchicago.edu> >bob@delphi.uchicago.edu (Robert S. Lewis, Jr.) writes: >[..] >> 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. > >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 :-) > Maybe you're right--most birders I know consider themselves amateur ornithologists anyway--also, we don't necessarily want to restrict the newsgroup to wild birds, if things said about captive birds have general ornithological significance, do we? Maybe sci.ornithology isn't such a bad idea afterall. I'd vote for it if it comes to splitting up rec.birds. Also, why must we preserve these rec, sci, talk, etc. prefixes? They don't seem to be very useful. Why can't we just call our newsgroup ornithology? Or birds? Rob Lewis
horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) (08/11/90)
In article <3219@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> bryanh@dadla.WR.TEK.COM (Bryan Hilterbrand) writes: >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. >... Let's be careful about picking a new name. I agree that we should do away with rec.birds. The name is too general and covers 2 completely different interests, those being keeping captive birds as pets and observing nature. Speaking for someone interested in the latter, I find the former not just uninteresting, but offensive. IMHO, the purpose of dividing rec.birds, is not to be compulsive but to separate two opposing interests. 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 omit fish from this list because I believe that they are covered in (alt|rec|sci).aquaria. ) Does anybody else in rec.birds feel like expanding in this direction? John Horvath it Internet: horvath@granite.cr.bull.com un e mail: Bull HN Worldwide Information Systems Inc Re ! MA30-824A, 300 Concord Road, Billerica, MA 01821 land USA Gon na dwa
herlihy@crl.dec.com (Maurice Herlihy) (08/11/90)
I also support the name rec.birding. What *we* do is birding. ``Birdwatchers'' are eccentric people who run around in khaki shorts and pith helmets .... :-)
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
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (08/13/90)
In article <1990Aug10.193512.6545@granite.cr.bull.com>, horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) writes: > In article <3219@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> bryanh@dadla.WR.TEK.COM (Bryan Hilterbrand) writes: >>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. >>... > > Let's be careful about picking a new name. > > I agree that we should do away with rec.birds. The name is too general > and covers 2 completely different interests, those being keeping > captive birds as pets and observing nature. Speaking for someone interested > 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 don't mean endangered species such as the hyacinth macaw but birds that have been bred for generations in captivity such as canaries and parakeets.
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
horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) (08/13/90)
In article <383@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) writes: >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. >... Yes, my point was NOT to offend anyone. Just to point out that this news group is composed of two types of people of polarized thinking. The two types of people are attracted to this group, not to hash out some sort of political middle ground, but because the news group's name is ambiguous. Although this difference is as obvious as night and day to some, the few 'no-change' comments seemed to imply that the reason we were hoping to change the name was for other unclear reasons, like being obsessed with neat categories? That's why I think something like rec.wildlife would help to point out the philosphy of the target group.
grp@unify.uucp (Greg Pasquariello) (08/14/90)
In article <1990Aug10.225615.26434@crl.dec.com> herlihy@crl.dec.com (Maurice Herlihy) writes: > > > I also support the name rec.birding. > > What *we* do is birding. ``Birdwatchers'' are eccentric people who run around > in khaki shorts and pith helmets .... :-) Wait a minute... I thought birdwatchers were the LBHL (Little Blue-haired ladies) that had tea and krumpets while watching their feeders. -- -Greg Pasquariello grp@unify.com
hammy@bagheera.ctt.bellcore.com (John G. Smith) (08/14/90)
John G. Smith email : hammy@ctt.bellcore.com RRC 1H-213 voice : (201) 699-4530 In article <383@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, sandee@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) writes: |> 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. I'm going by my own memory here, which is not necessarily the most reliable storage device around, but I don't recall a single flame war being started by a pet owner complaining about the presence of articles not about pet birds - they are all started by birders' (or whatever we are calling ourselves these days) remarks. Personally I intend to vote against any change from the status quo as far as this group is concerned. I don't keep pet birds, and am undecided as to how I feel about keeping them in general, but I'm not going to object to anyone else doing so, unless harm is caused either to the bird being kept, or to its species. I certainly have no problem filtering the articles in this group, and see no reason to create new groups. The net is cluttered enough. Besides, do you really think any solution would last for long? Before long the sci.ornithologists would be complaining about the presence of amateur bird watchers, and demanding their own group. Or vice versa. |> |> Daan Sandee sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu |> Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |> Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045 John. _____
freds@legs.UUCP (Fred Sieg) (08/14/90)
in article <1990Aug10.193512.6545@granite.cr.bull.com>, horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) says: > > I agree that we should do away with rec.birds. The name is too general > and covers 2 completely different interests, those being keeping > captive birds as pets and observing nature. Speaking for someone interested > in the latter, I find the former not just uninteresting, but offensive. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Until this statement, I was never much interested in splitting the group since I found both discussions interesting. I can sympathize about the confusion created for people who are only interested in one when INDOOR/OUTDOOR was not used. But jeesh, to be OFFENDED????? I am offended by this arrogance, and now am definitely in favor of splitting. > IMHO, the purpose of dividing rec.birds, is not to be compulsive but > to separate two opposing interests. IMHO, the two are not opposing interests, but complementary. If they are split, I can subscribe to both, post to only one (so as not to offend with my bi-birding views), and be happy. Fred -- Fred Sieg | uucp: ...!uunet!legs!freds AST Research Inc. | Fax: (714) 727-9358 Tel: (714) 727-8465 If any opinions were expressed, they are my own and not those of my employer (who would NEVER express an opinion).
geleynse@hppad.HP.COM (Martin Geleynse) (08/15/90)
> but I don't recall a single flame war > being started by a pet owner complaining about the presence of articles > not about pet birds - they are all started by birders' (or whatever we > are calling ourselves these days) remarks. > I also do not recall a single war started by a pet owner, and this does not surprise me in the least. 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). > Personally I intend to vote against any change from the status quo as > far as this group is concerned. I don't keep pet birds, and am > undecided as to how I feel about keeping them in general, but I'm not > going to object to anyone else doing so, unless harm is caused either to > the bird being kept, or to its species. I certainly have no problem > filtering the articles in this group, and see no reason to create new > groups. The net is cluttered enough. I would also vote AGAINST the change. This notes group is not crowded, it is easy to separate the two categories, and it is good for narrow-minded birders to be reminded that there is more than one way (their way) to enjoy birds. I don't keep caged birds, but if I did, I would tell those "offended" birders that the legal possession of pet birds is harmless to man and birds, and therefore, none of their @$#%$ business! Why don't we just grow up and go back to reading about BIRDS. Martin
jackiec@hprmokg.HP.COM (Jackie Christopherson) (08/15/90)
I hate to see what has transpired here. Good, bad or indifferent,
we all belong to this 'notesgroup' for one reason...BIRDS!
We all want to learn to be better owners or watchers.
The group is getting bigger and we should have other groups, but
let's get together and leave the bad feelings somewhere else.
Sorry, I just had to say this.
jc JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (08/17/90)
I would rather see the group stay as a single group. While I have my doubts about otherwise-wild birds as pets, I think there is a connection between the birds-as-wild-critters camp and the birds-as-pets group that cannot be denied. There are also the occasional hybrid discussions...in short, we need each other. My 2, uh, 2, uh -- damn, there's no "cents sign" key on this terminal..... Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900 jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. [Fudd's first law of opposition]
boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Chen) (08/17/90)
Frankly, this group does not have a great amount of traffic, and I don't
think that any split is necessary.
Look at some other groups, such as, rec.arts.startrek or rec.bicycles, or
someothers, they have more than 10 times the amount of messages and I
don't hear them spliting up into, rec.arts.theoldstartrek,
rec.arts.thenextgeneration, rec.bicycles.roadbike, rec.bicycles.mountainbike,
you get the idea.
It isn't that hard to hit 'n' or 'k.'
That's my two cents.
/----------------------------------------------------------\
| Boris Chen || Berkeley, CA || boris@ocf.berkeley.edu |
\----------------------------------------------------------/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
dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) (08/21/90)
In article <1990Aug13.145520.14169@granite.cr.bull.com> horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) writes: > >That's why I think something like rec.wildlife would help to point >out the philosphy of the target group. > This should be done carefully, too. "Wildlife" seems mostly to mean consumptive use, in the form of hunting and fishing. I think you would find that most organizations with "wildlife" in their names are hunters' organizations. For non-consumptive users, "natural history" or just plain "nature" conjures up a much better image. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= And while I'm on the net: I think that if this group does have to be renamed in order to better stick to its original purpose, I would prefer rec.birding or rec.nature.briding And if too many of the bird-keepers don't consider their birds to be "pets", how about "rec.aviculture"? Otherwise, "rec.pets.birds" would seem like a good idea. David Mark dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu
dgraham@kean.ucs.mun.ca (David Graham) (08/21/90)
In article <33213@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) writes: > > I think that if this group does have to be renamed in order to better > stick to its original purpose, I would prefer > > rec.birding I too would prefer this to rec.birdwatching (and would also be in favour of rec.pets.birds or perhaps rec.aviculture as David suggests). > > or > > rec.nature.briding Unh, unh. We'd have to have rec.nature.grooming too, in the interests of fairness. ;-) > > David Mark > dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu -- *************************************************************************** David Graham dgraham@kean.ucs.mun.ca ***************************************************************************
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (08/21/90)
In article <33213@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) writes: > In article <1990Aug13.145520.14169@granite.cr.bull.com> horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) writes: >> >>That's why I think something like rec.wildlife would help to point >>out the philosphy of the target group. >> > > This should be done carefully, too. "Wildlife" seems mostly to mean > consumptive use, in the form of hunting and fishing. I think you would find > that most organizations with "wildlife" in their names are hunters' > organizations. For non-consumptive users, "natural history" or just plain > "nature" conjures up a much better image. > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > And while I'm on the net: > > I think that if this group does have to be renamed in order to better > stick to its original purpose, I would prefer > > rec.birding > > or > > rec.nature.briding > > And if too many of the bird-keepers don't consider their birds to be "pets", > how about "rec.aviculture"? Otherwise, "rec.pets.birds" would seem like > a good idea. Just my minor opinion, rec.pets.birds sounds good to me. At least then I wouldn't have to put up with insulting remarks from rabid birders who think keeping parakeets and canaries is offensive. I personally LIKE birds, I keep a full feeder in my yard and get many hours of enjoyment out of watching the hummers come during the summer and the others come all winter. I am, however, not the least interested in keeping a list of the different birds I have seen but I do keep a bird guide handy for identification purposes. I also donate quite a few hours of service to the local Outdoor Education and Raptor Rehabilitation Center. So, please, you ones out there who have written me flames about *invading* your SACRED rec.birds with, quote, "drivel' about cage birds, LEAVE ME ALONE!!
plemmons@nsf1.mth.msu.edu (Steve Plemmons) (08/22/90)
In article <2120002@hppad.HP.COM> geleynse@hppad.HP.COM (Martin Geleynse) writes: > >Why don't we just grow up and go back to reading about BIRDS. > >Martin That is the most intelligent and best suggestion that I've heard on this subject so far! Hoorah! Steve -- ======================================================================== Steve Plemmons plemmons@mth.msu.edu Math Department plemmons@frith.egr.msu.edu Michigan State University 21144smp@msu.bitnet
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