Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!wbt
From: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFD: rec.models (take 2)
Message-ID: <12233@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 12 Dec 89 15:56:41 GMT
References: <476@sci34hub.UUCP>
Reply-To: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 32

In article <476@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes:
>In article <1989Dec9.002745.5075@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>, jeffm@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) writes:
> 
>> I would like to see the creation of rec.models.  [ .... ]
>
>Since this group would be primarily about building models, I think a more
>appropriate name would be rec.models.building (mainly because the only other
>term I could think of offhand was "construction", which is a little long).
>This would clarify the groups' purpose, as well as avoiding extraneous
>material in the middle of discussions about which brand of covering is
>best, or whatever.

I disagree.  First, the name's long and unappealing.  If you're worried
about confusion, then consider that a reader seeing "rec.models.rc"
and "rec.models.rocket" will assume rec.models.building is for model 
buildings, maybe architectural modelling.  Further, r.m.b is redundant,
wouldn't you say ?  The whole idea of modelling is to build something.

I think rec.models.misc is the best choice.  I've always felt each 
branch in the heirarchy should have a misc group.

Consider "rec.models.misc" as the basis, and that rc and rockets have
already spawned SIGs.  Theoretically (though I doubt there's currently
interest), there could eventually be rec.models.plastic,
rec.models.scratchbuilt, rec.models.diorama, etc.




- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker	AT&T Network Systems - Columbus		wbt@cbnews.att.com
	    Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero