Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uoft02.utoledo.edu!desire!sbishop
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: REC.PETS, REC.BIRDS division.
Message-ID: <1010.26c5a329@desire.wright.edu>
Date: 12 Aug 90 23:42:49 GMT
References: <1282@cnps.PHILIPS.nl> <1965@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <3219@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> <1990Aug10.193512.6545@granite.cr.bull.com>
Lines: 17

In article <1990Aug10.193512.6545@granite.cr.bull.com>, horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) writes:
> In article <3219@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> bryanh@dadla.WR.TEK.COM (Bryan Hilterbrand) writes:
>>If people can't get along together so a new newsgroup must be created,
>>why don't we just leave rec.birds and make a new newsgroup called
>>rec.birdwatching.
>>...
> 
> Let's be careful about picking a new name.
> 
> I agree that we should do away with rec.birds. The name is too general
> and covers 2 completely different interests, those being keeping
> captive birds as pets and observing nature. Speaking for someone interested
> in the latter, I find the former not just uninteresting, but offensive.

I dont mean to start a flame, but what is so offensive about pet birds?  I
don't mean endangered species such as the hyacinth macaw but birds that have
been bred for generations in captivity such as canaries and parakeets.