Xref: utzoo news.groups:22917 rec.pets:15006 rec.birds:2574 alt.aquaria:7364 rec.aquaria:1471
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!uunet!microsoft!wolfd
From: wolfd@microsoft.UUCP (Wolf DUBY)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.pets,rec.birds,alt.aquaria,rec.aquaria
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: REC.PETS, REC.BIRDS division.
Message-ID: <56425@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 9 Aug 90 15:20:09 GMT
References: <1873@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <26487@nigel.udel.EDU> <43573@apple.Apple.COM> <1918@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <43759@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: wolfd@microsoft.UUCP (Wolf DUBY)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 21

Indeed, let's split up rec.pets.  But certainly Cat, Dog, and Bird
categories will not be sufficient to cover the range of interests.
We'll need a separate group for those, plus one for Hamsters, another
for Guinea Pigs, one for each type of Snake; and let's not forget
Horses.  Sure, we have rec.equestrian already, but we should
ceratinly have a separate group for people who keep Horses and
don't ride them.
   For that matter, it seems a good idea to have separate groups for
people who own small, medium, and large Dogs, and further divide
these for people who show Dogs and those who don't.  The ideal
would be to have two newsgroups for each breed--but let's be realistic :-)

For any newsgroup to cover a broad range of topics is unthinkable!
Folks might be informed about some aspect of their interest of which
they were unaware or--worse--they might wear out the N (or whatever)
key on their keyboards from having to bypass shamelessly uninteresting
articles.

Yes, by all means--more newsgroups.

Just imagine all the opportunities for cross-posting!