On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:22:11 -0700, Mark & Juanita
scribbled:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:22:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article 1096685252.C1t5VLwV5j0MUbXPnNrSnA@teranews, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

This is one of the reasons rec.ww has never split, there has yet been no
clear identification of a split hierarchy that would not result in multiple
posts, dilution of effectiveness, or efficiency of reading

Out of pure curiosity, does anyone know why the turning group ended up
in rec.crafts rather than rec?


IIRC from the discussion leading to r.c.t's creation, rec.ww is kind of
grandfathered into its current position in the hierarchy. At some point,
the name space cabal realized there was a large proliferation of rec.*
groups and started further segregating them by interest, thus the
rec.crafts.* hieararchy. Thus when the turners' group was started, it was
placed in the crafts hierarchy to meet the new approach to classifying
groups. rec.woodworking retained its original position because to change
that would have had severe consequences in numerous places, for example, in
the archives, etc.

Is there a puky duck factor at play?

Don't think so. Anybody else have better memory retention than me on
this?

I recall the same from when I started lurking on the wreck. See this
post by one of the proponents.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...40news1.i1.net

Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html