Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!bee
From: bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: is it recreational or technical ?
Message-ID: <8376@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 21 Oct 89 09:12:17 GMT
References: <21042@gryphon.COM> <2952@splut.conmicro.com> <21076@gryphon.COM> <2957@splut.conmicro.com> <21126@gryphon.COM>
Reply-To: bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 26

Said richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton): 
(in article <21126@gryphon.COM>)
|In article <2957@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
|>
|>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.
|
|Every day, I hear: ``if it's a hobby, it goes in rec''.
|
|Half of the comp groups cover hobbies - go ahead, TELL ME
|people play hack for a living (yeah, *I know* they get paid for it
|already).

You wanna propose splitting comp.* into rec.comp.* and sci.comp.* ???
Go right ahead.  Is it really worth the trouble?  I don't think so.
If you're concerned about both hobbies and sciences being in comp, ask
Spaf to change his top-level descriptions so that it clearly states
that rec is for non-computer-related hobbies and that sci is for
non-computer-related sciences.
                                          B.E.E.
-- 
  Z. Beeblebrox   |  "Some girl with psychic powers asked me,
  (alias B.E.E.)  |   'T-Bone, what's your sign?';
bee@cs.purdue.edu |   I blinked and answered, 'Neon'.
  ..!purdue!bee   |   I thought I'd blown her mind!"  -- _Existential Blues_