Xref: utzoo news.groups:22952 rec.pets:15074 rec.birds:2591 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!phoenix!jklee From: jklee@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Kin Wah Lee) Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.pets,rec.birds Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: REC.PETS, REC.BIRDS division. Message-ID: <1849@idunno.Princeton.EDU> Date: 12 Aug 90 23:59:14 GMT References: <43759@apple.Apple.COM> <1990Aug9.141910.3845@midway.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Lines: 65 In article grp@unify.com writes: > >How about rec.birding? This would certainly get my vote. I would even settle for rec.birdwatching even though this would be my second choice. Although I have nothing against the INDOOR postings in rec.birds (heck, my sister has a budgie!), my main interest lies in birding. In another article, wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) writes: > > The `sci.ornithology' suggestion was mine. `rec.birds.wild' is just fine by > me, however I am rather surprised that you think `sci.ornithology' would > scare off amateur birders. It wouldn't frighten me, for instance :-) > ... [stuff deleted] ... > I am much more inclined to the opinion that if you call it `rec.' > you will scare off the professionals, who won't want to bother with it. I can see Bill's point here and there is always going to be some overlap here, but I would hazard to guess (sorry, I have no hard facts!), that the majority of subscribers to something like rec.birding are amateurs anyway. I know that if I were a professional ornithologist, I would not hesitate to subscribe to "rec.birding", since amateurs can often be a great source of information; this is analagous to the numerous amateurs in astronomy, stargazing, etc., who have made some very significant contributions to that science. In another article, horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) writes: > > If this new group is created for birdwatching, lets not limit it to > specifically birds? How about changing the name to include all the smaller > groups that will never get a subgroup. I was thinking along the lines > of rec.nature, rec.natural_history, rec.audubon, rec.wildlife or sci.wildlife. > > In such a newsgroup, the discussions would be about observing any creature(s) > in their natural environment. Based on their popularity, I would think > that this would predominately consist of birds, but this new group would > extend to include invertibrates, reptiles, amphibians, and some mammals. > There is currently no group that I know of that covers these other creatures. > And there definitely isn't enough support to start rec.nature.insects etc. I'm afraid that things would get too general here. One of the main reasons to split rec.birds was to narrow the subject field, and this would open the field again, albeit in a different direction. It seems to me that if there were persons keenly interested in snakes, turtles, salamanders, etc., they could start a new group called rec.herpetiles or something like that. Who knows? The volume of traffic may become so heavy that INDOOR postings from people who want to know what to feed their pet python may begin to conflict with those who want to know about the geographical distribution of the Massasauga Rattlesnake :-). And a few years down the road, they may be having the same discussion we're having today! In any case, I would certainly go for rec.birding. Just my thoughts! jim -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Lee (jklee@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dept. of Geol. & Geophys. Sci. * THERE ARE STRANGE THINGS DONE * Princeton University * IN THE MIDNIGHT SUN ..... * Princeton, NJ 08544 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --------------------------------------------------------------------------