In article , Scott
Seidman wrote:

So, I guess I would be promoting the view that the proposed group is not
appropriate for the rec hierarchy.

Why not?

For instance, rec.woodworking has a large contingent of regulars who
make their living (some a damn good living) from woodworking.

The same is true in rec.craftswoodturning.

Yet the groups are frequented by as wide a range of folks as is
possible... from "I'm thinking about getting into this" to the high-end
professionals, and the shmucks like me who plod along with occasional
success.

The rec.* hierarchy seems to me to be the best fit, perhaps the only
fit, in the "Big 8" for this proposal. Where else in the Big 8 would
you say it belongs?