"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