mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) (08/03/90)
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. If I'm doing this wrong, I'm sure someone will let me know. Michael -- "And I'm hovering like a fly, waiting for the windshield on a freeway." -Genesis (Peter Gabriel)
wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) (08/03/90)
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. > 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. I belong to the second group, so what do the pet owners think? 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
s30986u@kaira.hut.fi (Martin Helin) (08/03/90)
In article <369@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) writes: >> I propose a breakdown of rec.pets into (possibly): >> Jointly, I propose the renaming of rec.birds to rec.birdwatching. I strongly support the idea. Those of you who are interested in both rec.pets.birds and rec.birdwatching find little difficulty to subscribe to both groups. >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. Although this is very much true I find it unnecessary. Let's keep it light and avoid unnecessary thresholds for those who don't regard their birdwatching as science. Martin Keep the discussion going on. Martin Helin Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Internet : mhe@otax.tky.hut.fi s30986u@kaira.hut.fi UUCP : uunet!kaira.hut.fi!s30986u
sandee@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) (08/03/90)
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. 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
steveg@hpcvnb.CV.HP.COM (Steven_Grant) (08/03/90)
/ hpcvnb:rec.birds / mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) / 12:43 pm Aug 2, 1990 / > 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. > Excellent idea! I second this. Steve