mwh@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (08/07/89)
In article <8863@cs.Buffalo.EDU> dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: | I realize that it is against net etiquette to complain about inappropriate | postings. So, on the assumption that some people start reading and posting | to groups without reading their original charters, I'll just point out that | rec.birds was established for discussion of bird-watching and related | issues. It seems to me that rec.pets is the place to discuss captive birds. John Shipman has commented thoughtfully on this perennial issue also but please allow me to point out what I would have thought was obvious, yet apparently is not: It's a far deeper violation of net etiquette to name a group misleadingly. I have asked several times over the last few years why those who strongly oppose pet-bird postings do not choose to promote a renaming (for example, from rec.birds to rec.birdwatchingWATCHINGdammit) or else relax and stop cluttering with complaints the very newsgroup whose clutter they are complaining about (!). I have never, never seen a direct and thoughtful response to this suggestion (though I have gotten several responses along the witty and compelling lines of "uhh -- shut up!"). M. Hauser, bird-enthusiast-in-general max@ee.cornell.edu
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (08/07/89)
In article <19260@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> max@ee.cornell.edu (Max Hauser) writes: [some lines deleted] > >It's a far deeper violation of net etiquette to name a group misleadingly. > >I have asked several times over the last few years why those who strongly >oppose pet-bird postings do not choose to promote a renaming (for example, >from rec.birds to rec.birdwatchingWATCHINGdammit) or else relax and stop >cluttering with complaints the very newsgroup whose clutter they are >complaining about (!). I have never, never seen a direct and thoughtful >response to this suggestion (though I have gotten several responses >along the witty and compelling lines of "uhh -- shut up!"). > >M. Hauser, bird-enthusiast-in-general max@ee.cornell.edu The problem of renaming the group would be three-fold: 1) does the group have enough wild bird enthusiast subscribers to generate 100 votes which I presume would be needed to change the name? 2) could the outdoor bird types agree on a new name? 3) would some bird-keepers vote against the change in order to keep a group to which they can post parrot problems? Now if (1) is true, then we are lucky to have the group in the first place. If the outdoor types keep up the flow of postings at the level they have generated since I raised the issue, then a minority of captive bird postings will not bother me or most of the others too much. Of course, (2) is our problem, too. I would favor rec.birding, but birding to some means listing-for-listing's-sake, and a lot of watchers, conservationists, and amateur ornithologists would not like it. rec.birdwatching is altogether the wrong image as far as I am concerned. What is the procedure for SPLITTING a group into, say, rec.birds.wild and rec.birds.captive? Would that be like establishing new ones, and would each "view" need 100 votes? To repeat my first statement, as long as there is a decent flow of outdoor bird topics, a few care and feeding postings are all right with me. David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
tbg@apollo.HP.COM (Tom Gross) (08/13/89)
Personally I only read this newsgroup because I think
my brother does, and it's fun to see if he'll post
anything. If you think that's strange, then explain
to me why anybody would think birdwatching is normal.
I don't know anything about birds. For
my purposes this should be called rec.grosses
Anyway, my wife has a cockatiel. What should we feed him?
I watched him just this morning!
/tomarf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) (08/14/89)
con/e6 Article 1261 (1 more) in rec.birds: From: tbg@apollo.HP.COM (Tom Gross) Subject: re: Charter Gross outs: >If you think that's strange, then explain to me why anybody would think birdwatching is normal. >I don't know anything about birds. For my purposes this should be called rec.grosses Arf says: CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR SUCCESSFUL BRAIN BY-PASS! Gross outs again: >Anyway, my wife has a cockatiel. What should we feed him? ARF says: Try feeding it your brain tissue. You obviously have no use for it. Jack Schmidling The Amateur Radio Forum (arf)