jackson@utzoo.UUCP (Don Jackson) (12/04/87)
larrabee@decwrl.dec.com (alias Tracy Larrabee) writes: >you are threatening net sabatage, I think you should look into how such >acts are viewed by the community of net-news administrators. >If you want to start a new group, send a message to *.news.group and say >that you are collecting votes on the popularity of that new group. Name it >anything you like: rec.utzoo-jerks, rec.wildlife.withfeathers, ... >But if you just want to whine, I suggest you face up the the reality of >usenet: You cannot stop parrot enthusiasts from posting to this >(appropriately-named) group. I fail to see why you feel that this newsgroup is appropriately named for parrots ... at least more appropriate than for its original intent, namely "bird watching". Your suggestion that bird-watchers start their own newsgroup is rather ludicrous. You feel that "parrot-people" have some special status carved in stone that they may post their tremendous insight into the world of birds but that people who wish to see the news restricted to its original purpose should create their *own new* group. I imagine it would be only a matter of time before the constipated budgies, *non-pet* parrots, and the turkeys began posting their lifetime problems. Since this group was created for people interested in bird-watching (wild rather than domestic form), I would like to conduct an informal poll. How many people would like to see this group remain for the bird-watchers and how many would like to talk about the fascinating world of staring at caged, constipated budgies? I realize that the results will be biased since only the most vocal people will respond but I will post a summary. Please e-mail your vote to me to avoid clogging this newsgroup with more postings of a non-birdwatching nature. I have one other question that has been troubling me. What the devil is a *domestic (non-pet) parrot*? -- Name: Don Jackson Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!jackson
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/05/87)
>I fail to see why you feel that this newsgroup is appropriately named >for parrots ... at least more appropriate than for its original intent, >namely "bird watching". Original intent tends to have very little power on the net. What really matters is what the current readers want to use the group for. I find all of this rather amusing, actually -- the group is pretty low volume, and I think there's more than enough room in it for everyone. >You feel that >"parrot-people" have some special status carved in stone that they may >post their tremendous insight into the world of birds but that >people who wish to see the news restricted to its original purpose >should create their *own new* group. Your comments, of course, imply the same about the bird watchers. But then, God is on their side (by definition, since you are on their side). >Since this group was created for people interested in bird-watching As I said, original intent really means nothing. And as a completely silly aside, I have to watch my cockatoo constantly. If I don't, she eats the panelling. Does that mean I qualify on either side? >I would like to conduct an informal >poll. How many people would like to see this group remain for the >bird-watchers and how many would like to talk about the fascinating world >of staring at caged, constipated budgies? >I realize that the results will >be biased Um, biased in more ways than one... >I have one other question that has been troubling me. What the devil is >a *domestic (non-pet) parrot*? A domestic non-pet parrot is anything that used to be a pet and is no longer (or is the progeny of same). They're all over the place, if you just knew where to look...... (As another silly aside, there is this flock of crows near my mothers house that occasionally raids her fig tree. Its leader happens to be an umbrella cockatoo. THAT's an amusing site, to say the least. --- Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/05/87)
Oh, one other thing. This 'discussion' only proves one thing about USENET. If folks don't have something to flame about, they'll go off and invent something. sigh. --- Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ