Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!rit!cci632!ccicpg!legs!freds
From: freds@legs.UUCP (Fred Sieg)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: REC.PETS, REC.BIRDS division.
Message-ID: <2976@legs.UUCP>
Date: 13 Aug 90 22:33:27 GMT
References: <1990Aug10.193512.6545@granite.cr.bull.com>
Organization: AST Research, ASIC (VLSI) Development, Irvine, CA
Lines: 30

in article <1990Aug10.193512.6545@granite.cr.bull.com>, horvath@granite.cr.bull.com (John Horvath) says:
> 
> 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.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Until this statement, I was never much interested in splitting the group
since I found both discussions interesting. I can sympathize about the
confusion created for people who are only interested in one
when INDOOR/OUTDOOR was not used.
But jeesh, to be OFFENDED?????
I am offended by this arrogance, and now am definitely in favor of
splitting.

> IMHO, the purpose of dividing rec.birds, is not to be compulsive but
> to separate two opposing interests.

IMHO, the two are not opposing interests, but complementary.
If they are split, I can subscribe to both, post to only one (so as not
to offend with my bi-birding views), and be happy.
 
Fred

-- 
Fred Sieg 		|  uucp: ...!uunet!legs!freds
AST Research Inc.	|  Fax: (714) 727-9358 Tel: (714) 727-8465
If any opinions were expressed, they are my own and not those of my
employer (who would NEVER express an opinion).