Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!eutrc3!wsinrn
From: wsinrn@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (r.nauta)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: is it recreational or technical ?
Message-ID: <984@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl>
Date: 20 Oct 89 13:45:48 GMT
References: <21042@gryphon.COM> <2952@splut.conmicro.com> <21076@gryphon.COM> <2957@splut.conmicro.com>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 23

In article <2957@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>In article <21076@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>>When I think rec I think TV and football. I believe that technical
>>groups in rec as as misplaced as .philosophy is in sci.
>
>When I think rec I think hobbies. Everyone, yourself included, agrees
>that aquaria is a hobby subject. What's the problem? Next, you'll be
>proposing sci.ham-radio.
>

Hmmm, Richard is almost totally wrong. Half the rec. groups are called rec.arts,
the rest are about computer games. One of them, rec.games.programmer, is a very
scientific group. But please don't put it in sci. Why ? Because I believe rec.
to be a more interesting and valuable domain than sci. I never had any inten-
tions to go and read about how to calculate PI in 1000 decimals, or get bored
to death with physics discussions. Why, the only interesting sci group is
sci.skeptic, and that should be in talk. ...

What do you think of comp.games.* ????

Greetings

Rob