Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!dvinci!maton From: maton@dvinci.usask.ca (Terry Maton) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: *CALL FOR DISCUSSION - New group "rec.arts.uk.misc"* Message-ID: <1989Dec5.142855.7945@dvinci.usask.ca> Date: 5 Dec 89 14:28:55 GMT References: <1989Nov28.233823.13658@aqdata.uucp> Organization: University of Saskatchewan Lines: 45 From article <1989Nov28.233823.13658@aqdata.uucp>, by sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan): > From article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU>, by MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU: >> >> As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups >> it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' >> heading. > > Is this a good enough reason to make, what looks to me to be, a soc group > a rec group? This inquiring mind wants to know. > -- > Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan > aQdata, Inc. aqdata!sullivan@jarthur.claremont.edu > San Dimas, CA I feel that the difference between 'rec' & 'soc' is in this case very slight due to the nature of the questions and discussions and how they originate. ie. most discussions start out from things seen on British TV shows. I would point out that there does not seem to be much point in starting up a new group if a large number of the people who would be interested and who would participate are unable to do so because it is in a section that is not available to them. Maybe the new group should be an immediate sub-group of rec.arts.tv.uk such as 'rec.arts.tv.uk.culture'? Our link to the outside world has been down for nearly a week and so I have not seen any discussions prior to this :( I do hope we can get something agreed upon to take to a vote! Terry Maton University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada uucp address: maton@dvinci.USask.ca bitnet address: MATON@SASK.BITNET ******* One Planet - One People - PLEASE ******* Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com