Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: hum.* vs rec.arts.* and rec.music.* Message-ID: Date: 15 Feb 90 13:18:25 GMT References: <1990Feb14.230808.4556@cs.rochester.edu> <92S14F1xds13@ficc.uu.net> Organization: FICC [but opinions my own!] Lines: 17 In article <92S14F1xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > If the intent is to create a hierarcy that includes at least part of > rec.arts.*, then I submit that the name "arts.*" is no less appropriate > than "humanities.*", not to mention being shorter, and certainly better > than such nauseating abbreviations as "hum.*". > But humanities is more inclusive, and could reasonably contain arts and social sciences. I dinna think arts could reasonably contain social sciences. Jeff PS - As a feminist, I contend that creation of a hss hierarchy would have to be matched by creation of a hrr hierarchy. -- Thank you for not coercing.