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
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
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