[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: More on the newsgroup



> 
> sci.paleo is frowned upon, since the topic will fit under either bio or geo.

Which I would consider as justification _for_ sci.palaeo !  After all, 
we don't want another [sci/rec/misc].aquaria debacle.

However one has to accede to the wishes of those who frown sometimes.

> It does not appear to me that we want to bother with a .dinosaurs newsgroup
> as such;  general paleontology will probably do.

Definately.
  
> Any last serious objections before I resubmit it?  I'd suggest sending them
> directly to me rather than the list; there will be plenty of opportunity to
> discuss this in news.groups when the RFD is finally posted.

Seriously I would suggest calling the group sci.geo.pal[a]eo

This is long enough to make sense to most people and siginificantly
shorter than palaeontology.  This starts to become very important if 
we ever really want to create 

sci.geo.palaeontology.dinosaurs

or (horrors)

sci.geo.palaeontology.dinosaurs.theropods

Remember, rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature exists and is too long to be 
displayed on most newsgreaders (I think it even crashes some).

--- Derek


Derek Tearne.   --   derek@nezsdc.fujitsu.co.nz   --    Fujitsu New Zealand 
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.