Question for the assembled multitude: is there actually a reason why
this group is "rec.woodworking" and not "rec.crafts.woodworking"? Or
conversely, why is the turning group not "rec.woodworking.turning" or
Or is this just one of those "just because" things?
No actually because rec.ww is a very -old- newsgroup. It predates the
Years ago (I forget the, maybe 10) I ran a straw poll about splitting
this newsgroup. A lot of the, well, macho types didn't want the
newsgroup to end up in the rec.crafts hierarchy (a reorg would have
eliminated this group). They thought of "crafts" as sewing, etc. I kept
pointing out the metal-smith newsgroup (rec.crafts.metalworking) and
The overall opinion of the poll was no. Personally I started out
neutral, but ended up convinced it had to happen. The newsgroup was just
too big (it had lots and lots of posts per day).
Well, what happened then was the turners still wanted their own group,
so they formed one. A bunch of the hand-tool types formed an e-mail
list. Then (lastly) some web-based forums opened. The result was, rather
then a clean and organized set of newsgroups, we ended up with what we
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
For 'historical' reasons, a _newsgroup_ named 'foo.bar', and a newsgroup
_hierarchy_ named 'foo.bar' (i.e. the parent of groups 'foo.bar.baz',
'foo.bar.quux', etc.) was not allowed. This is why 'rec.woodworking.turning'
could not be used.
The other half of the answer is that 'rec.woodworking' was established
_very_early_ in the history of USENET. Before there was any serious attempt
by the Cabal (TINC) to 'regularize' naming into something approaching a
structured hierarchy. Any 'big 8' newsgroup that you see with just a
'two part' name probably has roots dating back to antiquity in like fashion.
USENET is like 'Mopsie" to a degree. it "just grew" over time. :)
And, accordingly, the protocols for newsgroup naming have mutated.
Those 'mutations' affect things from that point in time, forward.
"Renaming" a previously existing newsgroup, "just to comply with the new
standard" is almost _never_ done.
"Renaming" a previously existing newsgroup, as part of a broader reorganization
of that newsgroup -- e.g. 'splitting' it into several 'finer-grained'
groups -- does happen. *BUT* there are _lots_ of hoops to be jumped through
in the course thereof. There have been numerous attempts, over the years,
to do such a reorganization of 'rec.woodworking' -- *none* (as should be
obvious) have managed to drum up the degree of support required to get
changes implemented. Too many people like things "just the way they are". :)
Available evidence indicates (I can't find any 'hard' data) that
both rec.woodworking, and rec.motorcycles date to the Great Renaming,
and had a prior life as a 'NET.*' For both groups, the first post
that Google has is from the first part of 1987.
The first subgroup (.racing) under 'rec.motorcycles' was established in 1992.
At more-or-less the same time, there was a _big_ fuss going on about
'comp.dcom.telecom (moderated)' and the behavior of the moderator thereof.
Various proposals were being floated to create a 'parallel' _unmoderated_
group, and one of the big sticking points was 'what to name it'. The
moderator of comp.dcom.telecom. was adamantly opposed to -anything- that
would involve modifying the name of the existing newsgroup. *even* a change
In some of the early proposals (1990,1991) for "whatever the new group is",
the issue of newsgroup name / 'node' name collision and _technical_problems_
resulting therefrom _was_ being raised. The *very*contentious* new group
proposals for that situation may well have been the impetus for the surveying
of 'what kinds/versions' of server software is still in use', and the 'cabal'
deciding that the problem was 'no longer a problem'.
'rec.motorcycles.racing' _did_ go to a 'vote', and got approved, considerably
before the final vote on 'comp.dcom.telecom.tech'. was ratified. The process
on the latter group was _very_ protracted, with one entire vote period being
thrown out due to 'unacceptable' politicking (encouraging ballot-box stuffing)
by the comp.dcom.telecom moderator. Vague recollection says _another_ vote
was thrown out, as well -- that it took _three_ vote runs to get something
roughly approaching a 'clean' results -- at least to the point that the cabal
could, with a straight face. say they considered it 'representative'.
_To_this_day_, the cabal _prefers_ that 'nodes' in the naming hierarchy
be disjoint from newsgroup names, but there is no longer any 'technical'
reason for requiring it. They _will_ approve such a proposal these days,
although "with reluctance", when no 'reasonable alternative' exists, or
when the alternative involves creating several "new" levels of hierarchy,
just to accommodate a small number of groups.
The "woodturning" newsgroup was proposed and created in 1996.
'rec.woodworking.woodturning' would have met considerable resistance from
the cabal, because there _was_ a 'reasonable' alternative under the
It is also possible that the woodturning group proposal surfaced about the
same time as one of the many attempts to 'reorganize' rec.woodworking.
Competing proposals for the _same_ namespace are not allowed to proceed
simultaneously. And, if one such proposal goes to a vote -- and is voted
down -- no other proposals involving that group will be considered for
a minimum of 6 months.
*IF* there was such a moratorium in effect regarding rec.woodworking, it
could be side-stepped by going to the rec.crafts hierarchy. And getting
the 'specialty' newsgroup up and running many months sooner.
If you are asking about the USENET group so you can participate, it is
as posted above. However, there is a moderated group that is also
quite good, folks are friendly and it is also free.
and look to the left for a menu. You will see TURNING, click on that
and you are on your way. Great archives, great project pages, and lots
on general woodworking also.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.