RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

"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.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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 ;-)

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

On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:45:32 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

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.

rec.outdoors.fishing was created after the Great Renaming.

The main purpose of the Great Renaming was to separate the fluff from the
computer and science groups, so that distribution of groups could be better
controlled.

The fluff groups were categorized as:

rec.* Recreational.
soc.* Socializing (eg. soc.singles)
talk.* Pointless gibberish about politics and religion.
misc.* Everything else.

Groups for serious topics, such as the law (misc.legal) and parenting
(misc.kids) were stuck in misc.* because they were fluff from the
perspective of someone interested in discussing Unix, they weren't
recreational or socializing, and they were too few in number to identify an
organizational theme.

Before the Great Renaming, there were some sub-hierarchies in net.* that
were moved into rec.* such as net.music.*, net.sport.*, and net.games.*.

There was also a net.rec.* sub-hierarchy, but it had no real theme (it
included groups for the card game bridge, coin collecting, photography, and
skiing, scuba, and skydiving. There were also many net.* groups that were
moved into rec.*. Rather than trying to introduce a new second level
organization most groups were simply moved from net.* to rec.*, or
net.rec.* to rec.*. In many cases, single groups such as rec.audio or
rec.auto have spawned whole new hierarchies.

An exception was the rec.arts.* hierarchy which collected a number of
groups, but that was partly to separate them from the other groups in
rec.*.

rec.outdoors.fishing was first proposed as rec.fishing. This would have
fit the pattern of existing groups, but there was a desire to produce more
organizational structure in rec.* rec.sport.fishing was rejected, so the
only alternative was to create a new sub-hierarchy and place
rec.outdoor.fishing as the initial and only group. "outdoor" was not
intended to distinguish it from indoor fishing, but as providing a place
for groups that provide a way to enjoy the Great Outdoors.

At one time (when the only rec.outdoors.* group was rec.outdoors.fishing),
there was a proposal to rename rec.boats, rec.climbing, rec.scuba,
rec.skiing, rec.skydiving, and rec.windsurfing into rec.outdoors.* but this
apparently never went anywhere. The presence of rec.outdoors.* created by
rec.outdoors.fishing may have helped trigger creation of other groups.

Most groups are not formed from splitting of a busy main group, but are
created by someone who sees another group, and decides they want the same,
only different.

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.

There are no votes any more.
--
Jim Riley

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...

"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

"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; choose your
name as best you can, and expect some discussion of it as you set the
group up. This process pre-dates me by a long-shot, and I don't expect
that it will die for as long as Usenet survives.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage FISH *

Tim Skirvin wrote:
"Wolfgang" writes:
Seems to me that all this fuss ...

Nevertheless, that's how the system works. Each newsgroup gets a
name, and it goes into an existing hierarchical namespace; choose your
name as best you can, and expect some discussion of it as you set the
group up. This process pre-dates me by a long-shot, and I don't expect
that it will die for as long as Usenet survives.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board

Oh good lord, I *am* getting old.

I remember Tim Skirvin as the obnoxious kid whose signature
put down was GARNA. Now look at him, he actually has a job !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

"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

On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:31:22 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:


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.

Dude, I'm not even sure what your trying to say, but what you got here
is a bunch of geekheads agrueing over how to say something in Clingnon
or whatever them dudes on Star Trek was called.

Skeeter