Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!apple!bbn.com!mips2!granite!horvath
From: horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: REC.PETS, REC.BIRDS division.
Message-ID: <1990Aug13.145520.14169@granite.cr.bull.com>
Date: 13 Aug 90 14:55:20 GMT
References: <1282@cnps.PHILIPS.nl> <1965@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <3219@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> <1990Aug10.193512.6545@granite.cr.bull.com> <1010.26c5a329@desire.wright.edu> <383@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc.
Lines: 19

In article <383@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) writes:
>This demonstrates EXACTLY why this group should be split. I can tolerate the
>drivel about budgies being off their feed, but I don't want all the flame wars
>between groups of opposing interest. 
>...
Yes, my point was NOT to offend anyone. Just to point out that this
news group is composed of two types of people of polarized thinking.
The two types of people are attracted to this group, not to hash out
some sort of political middle ground, but because the news group's name is
ambiguous.

Although this difference is as obvious as night and day to some, the
few 'no-change' comments seemed to imply that the reason we were hoping to
change the name was for other unclear reasons, like being obsessed
with neat categories?

That's why I think something like rec.wildlife would help to point 
out the philosphy of the target group.