RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

"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

On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:27:23 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in
:

I'd guess there was probably a time when a highly structured naming scheme
was deemed not only useful but absolutely necessary.

The grammar required by NNTP is still essential.

Nowadays, if someone spells a newsgroup name wrongly, the post
goes into the bit bucket.

Most people don't even know that there are rules for the
formation of names.

They just use the ones that exist.

I very much doubt that
it remains so today even if it was once true.

It's a matter of taste at the higher level of meaning (syntax).

The proposed newsgroup needs a name so that people can
send posts to it.

Some of the names that could be used a

rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments
rec.sport.fishing.tournaments
rec.fishing.tournaments
fishing.tournaments
tournament.fishing

The first three names fall under the management of the
Big-8. The last two are (so far as I know) non-existent
hierarchies.

If the group is created under "rec," chances are good
that it will be carried on a lot of servers worldwide.

If you want to create the "fishing" or "tournament" hierarchy, you may.
There are rules for doing so. It would probably take a while for
the new hierarchy to be adopted by a lot of news servers, but
it has been done before and can be done again. What happens
in the "fishing" or "tournament" namespace is none of the
big-8's business.

For a complete list of groups in the big-8, see:
http://moleski.net/newsgroups/checkgroups/list.htm

Marty

As far as this RFD is concerned this discussion can be settled quite easily.

I am completely satisfied with rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments.

I am also pleased with the idea of the newsgroup being open to all types of
tournament fishing rather than just bass.

The name change was done at the request of members of the Big8 board and I
have been told that they are satisfied with its place in the hierarchy.

I do not believe anyone looking for this proposed newsgroup would have one
iota of difficulty in finding it regardless of whether tournament is to the
far right in the name or in the more "significant" left position as most if
not all newsreaders have a search engine element which is keyword based. A
simple search would result in
ones arrival at the correct location.

Unless of course, as Marty pointed out, they are unable to spell
"tournament". In which case I'm not certain I care whether they find it or
not. ;-)

Richard Hamel
Proponent
rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments


"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:27:23 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote in
:

I'd guess there was probably a time when a highly structured naming
scheme
was deemed not only useful but absolutely necessary.

The grammar required by NNTP is still essential.

Nowadays, if someone spells a newsgroup name wrongly, the post
goes into the bit bucket.

Most people don't even know that there are rules for the
formation of names.

They just use the ones that exist.

I very much doubt that
it remains so today even if it was once true.

It's a matter of taste at the higher level of meaning (syntax).

The proposed newsgroup needs a name so that people can
send posts to it.

Some of the names that could be used a

rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments
rec.sport.fishing.tournaments
rec.fishing.tournaments
fishing.tournaments
tournament.fishing

The first three names fall under the management of the
Big-8. The last two are (so far as I know) non-existent
hierarchies.

If the group is created under "rec," chances are good
that it will be carried on a lot of servers worldwide.

If you want to create the "fishing" or "tournament" hierarchy, you may.
There are rules for doing so. It would probably take a while for
the new hierarchy to be adopted by a lot of news servers, but
it has been done before and can be done again. What happens
in the "fishing" or "tournament" namespace is none of the
big-8's business.

For a complete list of groups in the big-8, see:
http://moleski.net/newsgroups/checkgroups/list.htm

Marty