"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