Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!dino!mehl From: mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: hum.* vs rec.arts.* and rec.music.* Message-ID: <637@dino.cs.iastate.edu> Date: 16 Feb 90 08:22:28 GMT References: <1990Feb14.230808.4556@cs.rochester.edu> <92S14F1xds13@ficc.uu.net> Sender: news@dino.cs.iastate.edu Reply-To: mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu Organization: Dept of EE/CprE -- IOWA STATE UNIV Lines: 24 jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >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. ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I think I just heard someone suggest moving the soc.* hierarchy into a hum.soc.* hierarchy. Is this the intended meaning? (Please note, I'm "not" saying this is a bad idea; I just want to get some clarification on what's being proposed when someone mentions hum.* as a new hierarchy.) As I see it, we are talking about creating a hum.soc.* and a hum.arts.* on Usenet. Is this correct? -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?