RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

"WARREN WOLK" wrote in
news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02:


I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a
tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If
you don't subscribe you don't see it, right?


I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the
proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is
what an RFD is for.

FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in
rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others
might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case.

Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the
revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent
idea.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

On 23 May 2006 16:33:02 GMT, Scott Seidman came
hurtling out the barroom doors, even while saying:

"WARREN WOLK" wrote in
news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02:


I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a
tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If
you don't subscribe you don't see it, right?


I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the
proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is
what an RFD is for.

FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in
rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others
might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case.

Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the
revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent
idea.

You have to wonder if there's a reason why there isn't even a
"rec.sports.fishing" root to hang a .tournaments group in the first place.

My theory: Those in the know know fishing isn't a sport.

rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments makes the most sense...

/daytripper (hell, let's *really* pull the pin on this grenade ;-)

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

daytripper wrote:
Scott Seidman came
hurtling out the barroom doors, even while saying:
"WARREN WOLK" wrote in
news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02:

I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a
tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If
you don't subscribe you don't see it, right?

I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the
proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is
what an RFD is for.

FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in
rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others
might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case.

Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the
revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent
idea.

You have to wonder if there's a reason why there isn't even a
"rec.sports.fishing" root to hang a .tournaments group in the first place.

My theory: Those in the know know fishing isn't a sport.

rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments makes the most sense...

/daytripper (hell, let's *really* pull the pin on this grenade ;-)

Yeah, crossposting between roff and rofb is always good
for a few laughs no matter what the topic. ;-)

Back during _THE GREAT RENAMING_ that created the Big 8
in the first place one of the most contentious arguments
was where to put fishing. Back then I was one of those
who did not want to see fishing split off into outdoors.
Who in the hell ever fishes *indoors* ? But our side lost,
fishing was put in outdoors and that was that. Until now
apparently. I don't see any reason to revisit a 20 year
old argument again. rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments sounds
fine to me although I won't vote for it or against it and
I have absolutely no interest in ever reading it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:32:30 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On 23 May 2006 16:33:02 GMT, Scott Seidman came
hurtling out the barroom doors, even while saying:

"WARREN WOLK" wrote in
news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02:


I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a
tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If
you don't subscribe you don't see it, right?


I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the
proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is
what an RFD is for.

FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in
rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others
might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case.

Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the
revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent
idea.

You have to wonder if there's a reason why there isn't even a
"rec.sports.fishing" root to hang a .tournaments group in the first place.

My theory: Those in the know know fishing isn't a sport.

rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments makes the most sense...

/daytripper (hell, let's *really* pull the pin on this grenade ;-)

OK, let's.

No one but a bunch of inbred hillbillies has any interest in
tournaments. Furthermore, most such types are too technologically
backward to find the power switch on a computer, so wherever it is,
they'll not be able to find it. But if it has to be created, it belongs
over in alt. - as alt.hillbillies.fishin.turny-mints.

Winstey
....boom, old bean...

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

"Better "prep" to reply..."
wrote in message ...
On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:32:30 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On 23 May 2006 16:33:02 GMT, Scott Seidman
came
hurtling out the barroom doors, even while saying:

"WARREN WOLK" wrote in
news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02:


I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a
tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If
you don't subscribe you don't see it, right?


I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the
proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is
what an RFD is for.

FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in
rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others
might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case.

Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the
revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent
idea.

You have to wonder if there's a reason why there isn't even a
"rec.sports.fishing" root to hang a .tournaments group in the first place.

My theory: Those in the know know fishing isn't a sport.

rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments makes the most sense...

/daytripper (hell, let's *really* pull the pin on this grenade ;-)

OK, let's.

No one but a bunch of inbred hillbillies has any interest in
tournaments. Furthermore, most such types are too technologically
backward to find the power switch on a computer, so wherever it is,
they'll not be able to find it. But if it has to be created, it belongs
over in alt. - as alt.hillbillies.fishin.turny-mints.

Winstey
...boom, old bean...

I find it impossible to believe that anyone ever stumbles accidentally into
any newsgroup with no hope of escape. Thus it is difficult to imagine why
anyone who doesn't plan to spend time in a particular newsgroup could
possibly care what it is called. I mean, it's not as if these names are
emblazoned on newspaper headlines around the world and someone might be
tainted by association.

On the other hand, it is equally difficult to understand why someone who
DOES plan to spend time in a particular newsgroup gets worked up about it.
As long as the name suggests the subject matter to anyone looking for it,
what difference can it possibly make? For that matter, search engines being
what they are today, any active newsgroup shouldn't be difficult to find
even if its name isn't especially illuminating.

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

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

"Wolfgang" writes:

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.

Nevertheless, that's how the system works. Each newsgroup gets a
name, and it goes into an existing hierarchical namespace; choose your
name as best you can, and expect some discussion of it as you set the
group up. This process pre-dates me by a long-shot, and I don't expect
that it will die for as long as Usenet survives.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage FISH *

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:31:22 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:


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.

Dude, I'm not even sure what your trying to say, but what you got here
is a bunch of geekheads agrueing over how to say something in Clingnon
or whatever them dudes on Star Trek was called.

Skeeter

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

Tim Skirvin wrote:
"Wolfgang" writes:
Seems to me that all this fuss ...

Nevertheless, that's how the system works. Each newsgroup gets a
name, and it goes into an existing hierarchical namespace; choose your
name as best you can, and expect some discussion of it as you set the
group up. This process pre-dates me by a long-shot, and I don't expect
that it will die for as long as Usenet survives.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board

Oh good lord, I *am* getting old.

I remember Tim Skirvin as the obnoxious kid whose signature
put down was GARNA. Now look at him, he actually has a job !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
. com:

Tim Skirvin wrote:
"Wolfgang" writes:
Seems to me that all this fuss ...

Nevertheless, that's how the system works. Each newsgroup
gets a
name, and it goes into an existing hierarchical namespace; choose
your name as best you can, and expect some discussion of it as you
set the group up. This process pre-dates me by a long-shot, and I
don't expect that it will die for as long as Usenet survives.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board

Oh good lord, I *am* getting old.

I remember Tim Skirvin as the obnoxious kid whose signature
put down was GARNA. Now look at him, he actually has a job !!




Me too. I can track my first netnews post to Nov 1985. GARNA didn't apply
when all there really was was nn!

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

[note followups]
Ken Fortenberry writes:

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board

Oh good lord, I *am* getting old.

I remember Tim Skirvin as the obnoxious kid whose signature
put down was GARNA. Now look at him, he actually has a job !!

That was mine? I might have used it once or twice, but it didn't
really suit me. I was more into "There Is No Need For You To Refer Me To
Your Lame Homepage", and the Tim Pierce staple "No.".

...man, I'm old too...

- Tim Skirvin )
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage FISH *
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/posts.html Skirv's Posts

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

[again, note followups]
Scott Seidman writes:

GARNA didn't apply when all there really was was nn!

...and nn is *still* a real newsreader! *grin*

- Tim Skirvin )
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage FISH *
http://news.killfile.org/ News-Web Gateway

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

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, but whatever your attitude, you have to
agree that it's more harmless than C & R in the long run.

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!"
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

Don't ask me what time it is lest I'm of
a mood to tell you how to make a clock.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:45:32 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Back during _THE GREAT RENAMING_ that created the Big 8
in the first place one of the most contentious arguments
was where to put fishing. Back then I was one of those
who did not want to see fishing split off into outdoors.

rec.outdoors.fishing was created after the Great Renaming.

The main purpose of the Great Renaming was to separate the fluff from the
computer and science groups, so that distribution of groups could be better
controlled.

The fluff groups were categorized as:

rec.* Recreational.
soc.* Socializing (eg. soc.singles)
talk.* Pointless gibberish about politics and religion.
misc.* Everything else.

Groups for serious topics, such as the law (misc.legal) and parenting
(misc.kids) were stuck in misc.* because they were fluff from the
perspective of someone interested in discussing Unix, they weren't
recreational or socializing, and they were too few in number to identify an
organizational theme.

Before the Great Renaming, there were some sub-hierarchies in net.* that
were moved into rec.* such as net.music.*, net.sport.*, and net.games.*.

There was also a net.rec.* sub-hierarchy, but it had no real theme (it
included groups for the card game bridge, coin collecting, photography, and
skiing, scuba, and skydiving. There were also many net.* groups that were
moved into rec.*. Rather than trying to introduce a new second level
organization most groups were simply moved from net.* to rec.*, or
net.rec.* to rec.*. In many cases, single groups such as rec.audio or
rec.auto have spawned whole new hierarchies.

An exception was the rec.arts.* hierarchy which collected a number of
groups, but that was partly to separate them from the other groups in
rec.*.

rec.outdoors.fishing was first proposed as rec.fishing. This would have
fit the pattern of existing groups, but there was a desire to produce more
organizational structure in rec.* rec.sport.fishing was rejected, so the
only alternative was to create a new sub-hierarchy and place
rec.outdoor.fishing as the initial and only group. "outdoor" was not
intended to distinguish it from indoor fishing, but as providing a place
for groups that provide a way to enjoy the Great Outdoors.

At one time (when the only rec.outdoors.* group was rec.outdoors.fishing),
there was a proposal to rename rec.boats, rec.climbing, rec.scuba,
rec.skiing, rec.skydiving, and rec.windsurfing into rec.outdoors.* but this
apparently never went anywhere. The presence of rec.outdoors.* created by
rec.outdoors.fishing may have helped trigger creation of other groups.

Most groups are not formed from splitting of a busy main group, but are
created by someone who sees another group, and decides they want the same,
only different.

Who in the hell ever fishes *indoors* ? But our side lost,
fishing was put in outdoors and that was that. Until now
apparently. I don't see any reason to revisit a 20 year
old argument again. rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments sounds
fine to me although I won't vote for it or against it and
I have absolutely no interest in ever reading it.

There are no votes any more.
--
Jim Riley

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

"Tim Skirvin" wrote in message
u...
"Wolfgang" writes:

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.

Nevertheless, that's how the system works. Each newsgroup gets a
name, and it goes into an existing hierarchical namespace;

Well, see, there's the problem. That is NOT how the system works. The
trouble is that there is no hierarchical structure to the things that people
want to talk about. To be sure, some categories of things are naturally
subsumed in broader, more encompassing categroies......thus fly fishing is a
subset of fishing, which is itself one of many outdoor activities. But this
is by no means the case with every human construct, be it a thing, an
activity, a place, an idea, or whatever. Take barbed wire, for
instance......where does that fit? The most that can be done is the
imposition of a caricature of a hierarchical taxonomic structure....and that
is precisely what has been done. And now people get to display their wit in
attempts to rationalize trying to fit a square peg into a hole that doesn't
exist. One shouldn't need to point out that the shape of the nonexistent
hole is somewhere on the wrong side of line marking irrelevance.

choose your name as best you can,

Sound advice. What a wonderful world it would be if someone had thought of
that before, ainna?

and expect some discussion of it as you set the
group up.

Assuming your keen perception that the painfully obvious needs to be pointed
out to those who are likely to participate in the discussion is correct (and
who could doubt it?) then something passing for discussion would appear to
be inevitable, whether expected or not. And so, here we are.

Discussion CAN be useful but when it is applied to questions along the lines
of how many angels can dance on a pinhead, its utility is pretty much
limited to cheap amusement. Mind you, that's o.k. with me....I like a good
laugh as well as anyone.

I got interested in this discussion because it was crossposted to
rec.outdoors.fishing.fly which is where I usually hang out. I mention this
because it provides a wonderful example of a fortuitous name......it lends
itself quite naturally to an easily prounceable and memorable
acronym.....roff (often written in all caps but, oddly for a proper noun,
only rarely with just the initial letter capitalized). Now THERE'S an
excellent justification for a name!.....and, not so incidentally, also a
fine example of fodder for useful discussion.

This process pre-dates me by a long-shot,

So do clowns. Are you somebody I should know?

and I don't expect
that it will die for as long as Usenet survives.

Well, expectation is easy. Anybody can do that.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board

What's a "Big-8"?

Wolfgang

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:31:22 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:


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.

Dude, I'm not even sure what your trying to say,

Clearly.

but what you got here
is a bunch of geekheads agrueing over how to say something in Clingnon
or whatever them dudes on Star Trek was called.

Skeeter

Well.......gosh.

Wolfgang

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:59:06 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in
:

... What's a "Big-8"?

A set of 8 newsgroup hierarchies all under one management (currently
news.announce.newgroups mods, potentially the Big-8 Management
Board).

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=history:big-8

rec.* is one of the eight hierarchies in the big-8.

Marty

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

Cyli wrote:

Have you ever looked at some of the alt group names? Eeek!

You can't compare alt.* in this regard.

alt.* is an unmanaged hierarchy; anyone can send a newgroup control with
any name they feel like. There's no check on that ability.

B/

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
Cyli wrote:

Have you ever looked at some of the alt group names? Eeek!

You can't compare alt.* in this regard.

Quite the contrary, the context invites comparison......damned near demands
it.

alt.* is an unmanaged hierarchy; anyone can send a newgroup control with
any name they feel like. There's no check on that ability.

Well then, it's kind of silly to call it a hierarchy, don'tcha think?

Wolfgang
who is an old school kind of guy......thinks that a certain degree of
consensus on the meanings of words.....individually and in
aggregate.....can't help but be a boon to effective communication.

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:59:06 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in
:

... What's a "Big-8"?

A set of 8 newsgroup hierarchies all under one management (currently
news.announce.newgroups mods, potentially the Big-8 Management
Board).

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=history:big-8

rec.* is one of the eight hierarchies in the big-8.

Marty

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. 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.

By the way, "SJ"? Does that mean what any literate person would presumably
assume it does?

Wolfgang

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

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?).

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
 

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 Gesù. 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

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

Martin X. Moleski, SJ typed:
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 Gesù. 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.]

I heard he was one helluva fisherman, so that's about as on-topic as it gets
around here.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

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 Gesù. 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

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

On 24 May 2006 21:02:05 -0700, "MajorOz" wrote in
.com:

... "SJ" is English--"Society of Jesus." ...

[To the proponent and folks interested in fishing:
sorry for the thread drift.]

... I almost got it from the "X". The only people I have ever known with
the middle name Xavier were clerics of some sort.

After my Dad died this spring, Mom told me that they chose my name
when they were dating. I was the second child in the family, so the
choice of name wasn't motivated by immediate need. :o)

I have met lots of FX's in the Society. My great-uncle Ignatius wanted
to be a Jesuit, but they turned him down.

oz, Creighton Prep, '57

I did Tertianship down the hill from Creighton U in 1992-93. Nice
town.

[Tiny nod to the rofb folks:]

AH! I fish for bass in my family's pond in Little Valley, NY. There
are some bluegills in the pond, too. Someday I'm gonna get
a bag of crayfish and see if they'll provide more feed for the bass.

The biggest bass we ever caught in the pond was 16". I have
his outline on a piece of 2x6" wood. I'm sorry that I let the kid
who caught him cook him. Haven't hooked one that big
again. :o(

Marty

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

On Wed, 24 May 2006 09:20:43 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote:

Cyli wrote:

Have you ever looked at some of the alt group names? Eeek!

You can't compare alt.* in this regard.

I thought that contrasting was different than comparing...

alt.* is an unmanaged hierarchy; anyone can send a newgroup control with
any name they feel like. There's no check on that ability.


Yes. Exactly.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

Don't ask me what time it is lest I'm of
a mood to tell you how to make a clock.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

Message-ID: from Martin X.
Moleski, SJ contained the following:

AH! I fish for bass in my family's pond in Little Valley, NY. There
are some bluegills in the pond, too. Someday I'm gonna get
a bag of crayfish and see if they'll provide more feed for the bass.

I play bass and drink Bass but don't fish for them.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the (uk.*) commitee's, mine.

RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
 

On Thu, 25 May 2006 08:02:42 +0100, Geoff Berrow wrote in
:

Message-ID: from Martin X.
Moleski, SJ contained the following:

AH! I fish for bass in my family's pond in Little Valley, NY. There
are some bluegills in the pond, too. Someday I'm gonna get
a bag of crayfish and see if they'll provide more feed for the bass.

I play bass and drink Bass but don't fish for them.

I've played both accoustic and electric bass in the far distant past.

I had to use bandaids to get through the accoustic gig, but it
was fun. :o)

Marty