Subject: Re: How about starting a new knife group?

From: [email-masked] (Mr. X)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 19:57:21 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] writes:
>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Steve
>Lindsay) writes:
>>
>>Is there enough interest out there to make a knife group?
>>
>I'm interested.  How about rec.knives or rec.blades?  

	I'm all for it.  I believe rec.knives would be the best name
	of all the chouces I've seen so far.  Rec.blades... uh uh.
	All the others were too long or insuffucuently mnemonic.  Rec.knives
	works real well for me.

-- 
	-Andy V.	[email-masked]		(Mr. X)

	"I have a high art; I hurt with cruelty those who damage me."

						-Archilochus, 650 BC

---

From: [email-masked] (James Kirkpatrick)
Date: 13 Sep 94 08:42:11 MDT

Talking about a new knife group, for example:

|>	I'm all for it.  I believe rec.knives would be the best name
|>	of all the chouces I've seen so far.  Rec.blades... uh uh.
|>	All the others were too long or insuffucuently mnemonic.  Rec.knives
|>	works real well for me.

Just a comment on naming a group.  When we started rec.crafts.metalworking,
we tried very hard to instead create rec.metalworking.  After all, there
is rec.woodworking, and the predecessor to this newsgroup was
trial.rec.metalworking.  But the "powers that be" insisted on inserting
"crafts" because "hierarchy is good".  It boiled down to the metalworkers
wanting rec.metalworking, and the non-metalworker net.gods wanting
rec.crafts.metalworking.  Don't believe for an instant that usenet is
the anarchy it is claimed to be.  There are some strong control freaks
who exert unilateral power over newsgroup naming.  (OK, I'm still a
little steamed nearly 2 years later!).

Anyway, if somebody does decide to create a new group, be prepared to
be told the name will be rec.crafts.knives or something else.

Jim