Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:220520061545563484%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

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?



OK, I stand corrected, but would still put it in rec.sports and not
rec.outdoors. I don't think the group would get much business in either
location, frankly.

What information would you expect that you currently don't get on rofb,
or don't think you would get if you asked for it?


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply