![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|