Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!vax5!mwh
From: mwh@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Charter (Re: Bird watching & rec.birds)
Keywords: birding, bird-watching
Message-ID: <19260@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 6 Aug 89 22:39:44 GMT
References: <8863@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: news@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Reply-To: max@ee.cornell.edu  (Max Hauser)
Distribution: na
Organization: Cornell University, Ithaca NY
Lines: 22

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