cosell@cosell.bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/06/87)
I'd like to clarify the newsgroup topic confusion a bit. Note that it
is as much as an "intrusion" for the bird-breeders and rec.pets
refugees to barge in as it is the general "nature" folk. To be sure
this group is pretty underused for its original (presumably duly voted-on)
purpose, but that's not the issue.
Considering the bent of many of us, and considering the *actual* stated
purpose of the group, I'd like to propose that we change the name of this
group to:
rec.nature.birds
This will both unmuddy the waters, and will also give us an obvious path
to starting a NEW newsgroup just "rec.nature". I talked to a local
net-guru and apparently this is a fairly easy affair: changing the name
of a newsgroup is basically a private affair among the readers of the
newsgroup. *somehow* (he didn't give any clear rule), the newsgroup
readers come to a consensus to change the name, and then you just send
a suitable message to a REAL net-guru who will effect the newsgroup
name change.
I'll be happy to collect votes if this seems to be a reasonable plan.
/Bernie\
Bernie Cosell Internet: cosell@bbn.com
Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc USENET: bbn.com!cosell
Cambridge, MA 02238 Telco: (617) 873-3503dmark@cs.buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (12/07/87)
In article <19021@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com.UUCP (Bernie Cosell) writes: > ... > >Considering the bent of many of us, and considering the *actual* stated >purpose of the group, I'd like to propose that we change the name of this >group to: > > rec.nature.birds > ... > >I'll be happy to collect votes if this seems to be a reasonable plan. > This seems reasonable to me. And I vote for the change. It removes the ambiguity that the parrot folk correctly point out is inherent in rec.birds; rec.nature.birds is *perfectly* consistent with the original purpose for which the group was established (and the reason I read it).
max@trinity.uucp (Max Hauser) (12/10/87)
In article <7055@sunybcs.UUCP> dmark@joey.UUCP (David Mark) writes: >> [rec.nature.birds] seems reasonable to me. ... If I may humbly inject a civil comment, since this topic is under active discussion, it seems obvious to me that the proposal should correctly be for a NEW group rather than a name change. Birds in nature are only one of the subtopics of birds, and practice has established without doubt that other subtopics too are discussed on rec.birds. Even the existence of controversy establishes that. Since there are more topics on rec.birds than just birds-in-nature, please do not presume to change the name to reflect only one of the subtopics. If you do, it will be necessary for the rest of us to re-create rec.birds to (explicitly, for a change) serve the broader interest (as it has been doing _de facto_ for some years). In any event, many have already lamented that birdwatching alone does not provide anough traffic for a satisfactory group. I suggest as an obvious alternative the creation of a new group about general wildlife. That will have a larger volume than "rec.nature.birds," as many have pointed out (and asked for); will combine diverse wildlife interests not currently served at all; and will leave non-wildlife bird matters in rec.birds where they are now, so as not to annoy wildlife-only enthusiasts.