|
|
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
"Wolfgang" writes:
Thanks, Marty. That's about what I figured. Interesting stuff.....particularly this part: " ... The most significant part of the name is given first. The first component of the name is special and more significant than the rest of the name, since it defines the top-level Usenet hierarchy to which that group belongs" It comes as no surprise that "management" would find this true......though I be go ta hell if I can think of a good reason that they should. To the end user (and what, after all, is a newsgroup for?) precisely the opposite should be true. Marty is using "significant" in a somewhat technical sense. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_significant_bit In the number 243, the 2 digit is more significant than the 4 digit because it represent hundreds, not tens. Likewise, in a Usenet group name, the leftward components are more significant than the rightward components. E.g., rec.outdoors.fishing is "more significant" (covers a larger topic area) than rec.outdoors.fishing.bass, which covers a larger area than rec.outdoors.fishing.bass.striped, etc. -Dave |
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
"Cyli" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:31:22 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote: (snipped) Seems to me that all this fuss is generated by a misguided allegiance to the notion that naming conventions in Usenet should adhere to some sort of hierarchical model inspired by Linnaean taxonomy. An interesting enough game for anyone who wants to play, but ultimately unworkable. Even in the original, where descent from a more primitive ancestor is a certainty, resulting in neat branching chains, it has its drawbacks. In any agglomeration of human artifacts there is no such simple and exclusive set of relationships. Nobody is ever going to publish a satisfactory dichotomous key. Wolfgang I happen to think it's useful, I'd guess there was probably a time when a highly structured naming scheme was deemed not only useful but absolutely necessary. I very much doubt that it remains so today even if it was once true. In any case, what interests me isn't so much a deeply flawed systematics in itself (after all, if the system is superfluous then its weaknesses can hardly matter) as the heat it generates. but whatever your attitude, you have to agree that it's more harmless than C & R in the long run. To a large extent, participation in Usenet IS catch and release. :) Have you ever looked at some of the alt group names? Eeek! Not that I don't approve of alt. I think it's wonderful that it's not as stuffy and hidebound as rec.. But it's the sort of thing where it's nice they have rec. to revolt against or they'd become the arbiters. More of "Eeek!" I've looked at quite a few of the alt. groups. Can't honestly say they made much of an impression on me. Wolfgang |
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
"David Bostwick" wrote in message ... In article , "Wolfgang" wrote: [...] By the way, "SJ"? Does that mean what any literate person would presumably assume it does? Wolfgang Depends on your definition of literate. IIRC, it stands for Society of Jesuits (although it's probably really Latin, eh, Martin?). I don't think you fit my definition. Wolfgang would anyone like to tell the boy what it really means? :) |
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:03:57 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in
: http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=history:big-8 rec.* is one of the eight hierarchies in the big-8. Thanks, Marty. That's about what I figured. Interesting stuff.....particularly this part: " ... The most significant part of the name is given first. The first component of the name is special and more significant than the rest of the name, since it defines the top-level Usenet hierarchy to which that group belongs" It comes as no surprise that "management" would find this true......though I be go ta hell if I can think of a good reason that they should. We're using a system that started growing out of e-mail ... uh ... 25 years ago or thereabouts. The name of a newsgroup IS its "mailing address." Rules for names are therefore constrained by NNTP standards for what makes a good "mailing address." http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...policies:names Once upon a time, people created a new newsgroup just by sending posts to it. This caused the creation of many interesting new froups because the computer had no way of deciding what was intended to be a new newsgroup and what was just an accident on the keyboard. People named groups any way they wanted (they still do in alt.*, with the exception that for the group to be part of alt.*, it has to begin with "alt."). After the honeymoon period of total freedom to create any group anyone wanted with any name that worked, folks began to use checklists to weed out the typos and limit the number of "real" groups to those that had been placed on the list. Once lists were started and some control established over the news-distribution system, all of the pieces were in place for the Great Renaming: http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...great_renaming To the end user (and what, after all, is a newsgroup for?) precisely the opposite should be true. I'm a fly fisher.....makes no difference to me how some drudge wants to label and file the wing, the structure, the street address, the city, the county, the state, the nation and the planet to which I go to play. All I need is the room number. If you're going to have a party, you have to give people directions to the party. The components of the name are the directions to the party. My wild amateur guess is that 99% of folks in the room don't know how the room, wing, structure, street, city, county, state, nation, or planet got built. They just want to party. But when you want to create a new room, that's where the debates begin about what location it should be placed in. I guess we're debating zoning laws. That's where we are now. By the way, "SJ"? Does that mean what any literate person would presumably assume it does? I'm a member of the "Society of Jesus," a.k.a. the Jesuits. Marty |
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
"Wolfgang" writes:
would anyone like to tell the boy what it really means? :) Is it one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SJ -Dave |
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
|
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:27:23 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in
: I'd guess there was probably a time when a highly structured naming scheme was deemed not only useful but absolutely necessary. The grammar required by NNTP is still essential. Nowadays, if someone spells a newsgroup name wrongly, the post goes into the bit bucket. Most people don't even know that there are rules for the formation of names. They just use the ones that exist. I very much doubt that it remains so today even if it was once true. It's a matter of taste at the higher level of meaning (syntax). The proposed newsgroup needs a name so that people can send posts to it. Some of the names that could be used a rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments rec.sport.fishing.tournaments rec.fishing.tournaments fishing.tournaments tournament.fishing The first three names fall under the management of the Big-8. The last two are (so far as I know) non-existent hierarchies. If the group is created under "rec," chances are good that it will be carried on a lot of servers worldwide. If you want to create the "fishing" or "tournament" hierarchy, you may. There are rules for doing so. It would probably take a while for the new hierarchy to be adopted by a lot of news servers, but it has been done before and can be done again. What happens in the "fishing" or "tournament" namespace is none of the big-8's business. For a complete list of groups in the big-8, see: http://moleski.net/newsgroups/checkgroups/list.htm Marty |
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
As far as this RFD is concerned this discussion can be settled quite easily.
I am completely satisfied with rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments. I am also pleased with the idea of the newsgroup being open to all types of tournament fishing rather than just bass. The name change was done at the request of members of the Big8 board and I have been told that they are satisfied with its place in the hierarchy. I do not believe anyone looking for this proposed newsgroup would have one iota of difficulty in finding it regardless of whether tournament is to the far right in the name or in the more "significant" left position as most if not all newsreaders have a search engine element which is keyword based. A simple search would result in ones arrival at the correct location. Unless of course, as Marty pointed out, they are unable to spell "tournament". In which case I'm not certain I care whether they find it or not. ;-) Richard Hamel Proponent rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:27:23 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in : I'd guess there was probably a time when a highly structured naming scheme was deemed not only useful but absolutely necessary. The grammar required by NNTP is still essential. Nowadays, if someone spells a newsgroup name wrongly, the post goes into the bit bucket. Most people don't even know that there are rules for the formation of names. They just use the ones that exist. I very much doubt that it remains so today even if it was once true. It's a matter of taste at the higher level of meaning (syntax). The proposed newsgroup needs a name so that people can send posts to it. Some of the names that could be used a rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments rec.sport.fishing.tournaments rec.fishing.tournaments fishing.tournaments tournament.fishing The first three names fall under the management of the Big-8. The last two are (so far as I know) non-existent hierarchies. If the group is created under "rec," chances are good that it will be carried on a lot of servers worldwide. If you want to create the "fishing" or "tournament" hierarchy, you may. There are rules for doing so. It would probably take a while for the new hierarchy to be adopted by a lot of news servers, but it has been done before and can be done again. What happens in the "fishing" or "tournament" namespace is none of the big-8's business. For a complete list of groups in the big-8, see: http://moleski.net/newsgroups/checkgroups/list.htm Marty |
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 18:14:06 GMT, (David Bostwick) wrote in : By the way, "SJ"? Does that mean what any literate person would presumably assume it does? Depends on your definition of literate. IIRC, it stands for Society of Jesuits (although it's probably really Latin, eh, Martin?). "SJ" is English--"Society of Jesus.". Latin had no letter "J," so it would be "Societas Iesu" (SI). Italian: La Compagnia di Gesł. And so on ... "Jesuit" is derived from the Latin "Iesu ita," which means "like Jesus." A lot of folks think that we're not too Jesus-like. Some went to their Bibles and found the Jebusites, a tribe inimical to the house of Israel, and used that word instead. And that's why you might also hear us called "Jebs" or "Jebbies." [To the proponent and folks interested in fishing: sorry for the thread drift.] Marty I almost got it from the "X". The only people I have ever known with the middle name Xavier were clerics of some sort. cheers oz, Creighton Prep, '57 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter