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