View Single Post
  #9  
Old May 24th, 2006, 01:59 PM posted to news.groups,rec.outdoors.fishing.bass,rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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