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