RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

[again, note followups]
Scott Seidman writes:

GARNA didn't apply when all there really was was nn!

...and nn is *still* a real newsreader! *grin*

- Tim Skirvin )
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage FISH *
http://news.killfile.org/ News-Web Gateway

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

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

"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

wrote in message
...
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,

Clearly.

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

Well.......gosh.

Wolfgang

On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:59:06 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in
:

... What's a "Big-8"?

A set of 8 newsgroup hierarchies all under one management (currently
news.announce.newgroups mods, potentially the Big-8 Management
Board).

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=history:big-8

rec.* is one of the eight hierarchies in the big-8.

Marty

Cyli wrote:

Have you ever looked at some of the alt group names? Eeek!

You can't compare alt.* in this regard.

alt.* is an unmanaged hierarchy; anyone can send a newgroup control with
any name they feel like. There's no check on that ability.

B/

"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
Cyli wrote:

Have you ever looked at some of the alt group names? Eeek!

You can't compare alt.* in this regard.

Quite the contrary, the context invites comparison......damned near demands
it.

alt.* is an unmanaged hierarchy; anyone can send a newgroup control with
any name they feel like. There's no check on that ability.

Well then, it's kind of silly to call it a hierarchy, don'tcha think?

Wolfgang
who is an old school kind of guy......thinks that a certain degree of
consensus on the meanings of words.....individually and in
aggregate.....can't help but be a boon to effective communication.

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:59:06 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in
:

... What's a "Big-8"?

A set of 8 newsgroup hierarchies all under one management (currently
news.announce.newgroups mods, potentially the Big-8 Management
Board).

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=history:big-8

rec.* is one of the eight hierarchies in the big-8.

Marty

Thanks, Marty. That's about what I figured. Interesting
stuff.....particularly this part:

" ... The most significant part of the name is given first. The first
component of the name is special and more significant than the rest of the
name, since it defines the top-level Usenet hierarchy to which that group
belongs"

It comes as no surprise that "management" would find this true......though I
be go ta hell if I can think of a good reason that they should. To the end
user (and what, after all, is a newsgroup for?) precisely the opposite
should be true. I'm a fly fisher.....makes no difference to me how some
drudge wants to label and file the wing, the structure, the street address,
the city, the county, the state, the nation and the planet to which I go to
play. All I need is the room number.

By the way, "SJ"? Does that mean what any literate person would presumably
assume it does?

Wolfgang

In article , "Wolfgang" wrote:

[...]

By the way, "SJ"? Does that mean what any literate person would presumably
assume it does?

Wolfgang



Depends on your definition of literate. IIRC, it stands for Society of
Jesuits (although it's probably really Latin, eh, Martin?).