Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!texbell!bigtex!pmafire!geoff
From: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *real* change won't happen
Summary: What's wrong with rec.* ?  I think it's fine
Keywords: *.aquaria alt rec sci
Message-ID: <827@pmafire.UUCP>
Date: 24 Oct 89 14:49:13 GMT
References: <20172@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Reply-To: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
Organization: WINCO Computer Engineering, INEL, Idaho
Lines: 19

In article <20172@unix.cis.pitt.edu> cmf@obie.cis.pitt.edu (Carl M. Fongheiser) writes:
>"Rec" on the other hand, almost by design seems to encourage high-volume
>repetitive discussions, with occasional outbursts of flamage that are
>difficult to suppress.

I beg to differ.  Rec.photo is as high quality a newsgroup as I read. 
Rec.backcountry does seem to repeat discussions at regular intervals,
but `occaisonal outbursts of flamage' are virtually nonexistent. 
Rec.skiing is low volume and I've seen no flames (It's mostly, "Where's
the best place to stay in Aspen|Jackson|Sun Valley|Whistler" type
stuff). 

I don't know what rec.* groups Carl was thinking of when he wrote the
above, but I don't think his opinion is representative of all of rec.*.

-- 
Geoff Allen
...{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff
...ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff