Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!uhccux!virtue!comp.vuw.ac.nz!munnari.oz.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!spam!wvenable
From: wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: CALL FOR IDEAS:  Breakdown of rec.pets into subcategories
Message-ID: <369@spam.ua.oz>
Date: 3 Aug 90 01:31:36 GMT
References: <1873@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Organization: Statistics, Pure and Applied Maths, University of Adelaide
Lines: 30

In article <1873@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com 
(Mike Mahler) writes:
>
> I propose a breakdown of rec.pets into (possibly):
>
> rec.pets.dogs
> rec.pets.cats
> rec.pets.birds
> rec.pets.misc
>
> Jointly, I propose the renaming of rec.birds to rec.birdwatching.
>
I have only had access to `rec.birds' for a short while, but it seems to me
that the interaction between the folks who keep birds and those who only
appreciate them in their natural state is rather interesting, if a times a
little feisty and exuberant, and the volume is not yet all that great.  

I belong to the second group, so what do the pet owners think?

What I would suggest, however, is that if the ornithological side is to
split off we should go all the way and rename the group `sci.ornithology'.

This is one of the few sciences where large accumulations of anecdotal
evidence are important, and patient and dedicated amateurs can still make a
useful contributrion and be taken seriously.  It is much more than just a
recreation.

-- 
  Bill Venables, Dept. Statistics,        | Email:   wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au
  Univ. of Adelaide,  South Australia.    | Phone:           +61 8 228 5412