RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

You should see the reactions in "fishing.bass"

You, Dave, and another gentleman, (danl) seem to be inadvertantly fueling
the idea that this proposal would combine ROFB with the new group. No such
proposal exisits or was put forth.

Your right, I don't understand the process. I am not a full time geek. I am
a tournament fisherman who saw an apparent need and has some little skill
with a computer. This is my first, (and more than likely, last), attempt to
establish a newsgroup.

This is the first day that the RFD was posted for discussion. I was not
notified that it would be posted today. As a matter of fact I was unaware
that it had moved along in the process until I began to recieve emails this
morning. The current discussion of processes by the Big8 board has also made
following an exact timeline difficult.

Give it a few days and I believe you will see evidence of the need for such
a group.

I also firmly disagree with your contention that tournament fishing is not a
recreational activity.


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:220520062131271767%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article 6ivcg.1185$au4.475@trndny08, Alaskan420
wrote:

Wow, you guys are really going overboard with the reactions here.


If you think that, then you don't understand the process you need to go
through to create a new group here.

In article HMvcg.904$PX3.132@trndny09, Alaskan420
wrote:

You, Dave, and another gentleman, (danl) seem to be inadvertantly fueling
the idea that this proposal would combine ROFB with the new group. No such
proposal exisits or was put forth.

That's certainly not my intent, and I don't see how any of my posts
could give that impression.

Your right, I don't understand the process. I am not a full time geek. I am
a tournament fisherman who saw an apparent need and has some little skill
with a computer. This is my first, (and more than likely, last), attempt to
establish a newsgroup.

You want to create a new group. You need to demonstrate to the people
that hold the keys to group creation (I'm not one of them) to release a
control message to create that group.

What I'm saying is that if you can show by show of voices, informal
poll, or some other mechanism, that there would be a reasonable traffic
of discussion on the new group then you will have a much better chance
of getting "them that hold the keys" to create the group for you.

It's a confusing and vague process right now, because the process is in
flux and many of the news.groups regulars (myself included) think the
newly proposed/betatested/implemented(?) process is seriously flawed.

That said, the advice I've offered to assist you in creating your group
has deliberately been as helpful as I can make it, because I do think
you have a good proposal.

There's a group of 11, no... 9, no... 8 people that you need to
convince to vote in favor of your group. I'm not one of them, but I've
been hanging around news.groups long enough to stick my nose in.

I also firmly disagree with your contention that tournament fishing is
not a recreational activity.

Go back and re-read my post of
220520061545563484%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone. ca

I contended no such thing. In fact, just the opposite.

I apologize.

You had quoted "Scott" within your post. He made the statement.

Richard Hamel


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:220520062222189935%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article HMvcg.904$PX3.132@trndny09, Alaskan420
wrote:

You, Dave, and another gentleman, (danl) seem to be inadvertantly
fueling
the idea that this proposal would combine ROFB with the new group. No
such
proposal exisits or was put forth.

That's certainly not my intent, and I don't see how any of my posts
could give that impression.

Your right, I don't understand the process. I am not a full time geek. I
am
a tournament fisherman who saw an apparent need and has some little
skill
with a computer. This is my first, (and more than likely, last), attempt
to
establish a newsgroup.

You want to create a new group. You need to demonstrate to the people
that hold the keys to group creation (I'm not one of them) to release a
control message to create that group.

What I'm saying is that if you can show by show of voices, informal
poll, or some other mechanism, that there would be a reasonable traffic
of discussion on the new group then you will have a much better chance
of getting "them that hold the keys" to create the group for you.

It's a confusing and vague process right now, because the process is in
flux and many of the news.groups regulars (myself included) think the
newly proposed/betatested/implemented(?) process is seriously flawed.

That said, the advice I've offered to assist you in creating your group
has deliberately been as helpful as I can make it, because I do think
you have a good proposal.

There's a group of 11, no... 9, no... 8 people that you need to
convince to vote in favor of your group. I'm not one of them, but I've
been hanging around news.groups long enough to stick my nose in.

I also firmly disagree with your contention that tournament fishing is
not a recreational activity.

Go back and re-read my post of
220520061545563484%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone. ca

I contended no such thing. In fact, just the opposite.

"Alaskan420" wrote in
news:HMvcg.904$PX3.132@trndny09:


I also firmly disagree with your contention that tournament fishing is
not a recreational activity.



Actually, it's my contention-- and I still hold it, slightly modified.
I'll even add to it. I don't think it's a very valuable use of a valuable
resource. There are tournaments that target very sensitive and pressured
species, like Marlin. I think that your proposed group will fit very
nicely in rec.sports, but I think there's a conservation argument as to why
it doesn't belong in rec.outdoors.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman writes:
Actually, it's my contention-- and I still hold it, slightly modified.
I'll even add to it. I don't think it's a very valuable use of a valuable
resource. There are tournaments that target very sensitive and pressured
species, like Marlin. I think that your proposed group will fit very
nicely in rec.sports, but I think there's a conservation argument as to why
it doesn't belong in rec.outdoors.

Frankly, Scott, you appear to have a rather large
anti-tournaments chip on your shoulder. Your claims that
tournaments are not "recreational", that they don't deserve to
be classified as "outdoors" activities like non-tournament
fishing, and even that they're bad for the environment surely
would be rejected by most people who participate in
tournaments, and I suspect they would be rejected by most
other fishermen as well. Your postings are pushing me toward
supporting this proposal rather than against it, because it
seems to me that tournament fishermen are entitled to a place
to discuss their activity where people like you can't come
along and tell them how inferior it is.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

In article , Jonathan Kamens
wrote:

Frankly, Scott, you appear to have a rather large
anti-tournaments chip on your shoulder. Your claims that
tournaments are not "recreational", that they don't deserve to
be classified as "outdoors" activities like non-tournament
fishing, and even that they're bad for the environment surely
would be rejected by most people who participate in
tournaments, and I suspect they would be rejected by most
other fishermen as well. Your postings are pushing me toward
supporting this proposal rather than against it, because it
seems to me that tournament fishermen are entitled to a place
to discuss their activity where people like you can't come
along and tell them how inferior it is.

The proposal is not for a moderated group. Do you believe that it is?
If not, your last sentence above is irrational.

Scott,

It appears to me that your arguement against such a newsgroup has become a
political one. My understanding it that this process is supposed to revolve
around anticipated useage and viability. You may have a point, (I do not
agree), but this arguement does not belong here.


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Alaskan420" wrote in
news:HMvcg.904$PX3.132@trndny09:
I don't think it's a very valuable use of a valuable
resource. There are tournaments that target very sensitive and pressured
species, like Marlin. I think that your proposed group will fit very
nicely in rec.sports, but I think there's a conservation argument as to
why
it doesn't belong in rec.outdoors.

On Mon, 22 May 2006 22:22:18 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote in
220520062222189935%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone. ca:

You want to create a new group. You need to demonstrate to the people
that hold the keys to group creation (I'm not one of them) to release a
control message to create that group.

The people who hold the keys are Russ Allbery and Todd McComb.

The Big-8 Management Board may or may not receive their
endorsement. We're still on probation.

What I'm saying is that if you can show by show of voices, informal
poll, or some other mechanism, that there would be a reasonable traffic
of discussion on the new group then you will have a much better chance
of getting "them that hold the keys" to create the group for you.

Agreed.

I think it is good for proponents to line up as many supporters as
they can who are willing to say "I will use the new group."

I believe THIS IS GOOD FOR THE GROUP. The more folks you
have who know that a Usenet group is under consideration and
who express a desire to use it, the better the chances that the
group may thrive after it is created.

... I do think
you have a good proposal.

I think the second proposal is better than the first.

rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments seems to me like a good
location in the hierarchy. I read through all of the rec groups
last night and found lots of professional sports, commercial
enterprises, fan stuff, and the like. I don't buy the idea that
"outdoor" necessarily means "amateur" or "non-competitive."

Since 99.999% of fishing takes place outdoors, it may
perhaps have been unnecessary to put it in the "outdoor"
category. How much indoor fishing is there?

But since that's where the fishing groups landed, I think
it makes sense to have another fishing-related group
be found near them, rather than starting a rec.fishing
or rec.sport.fishing branch.

If "sport" is essential to highlight the competitive element,
one might think of rec.outdoor.fishing.sport.tournaments.
I don't like that myself. I think "tournament" includes the
notion that the activity has a sports-like nature.

Marty

Alaskan420 wrote:

You should see the reactions in "fishing.bass"

Positive or not, the more the merrier. It may sound dumb to
value negative reactions, but they are as good an indicator
of interest as anything else in a world of subjective judgements
about newsgroups.

You, Dave, and another gentleman, (danl) seem to be inadvertantly fueling
the idea that this proposal would combine ROFB with the new group. No such
proposal exisits or was put forth.

Relax, it's par for the course. Folks make up all sorts of
wierd threads when discussing a potential newsgroup. Not a
problem. Take a few deep breaths and set the trolling line a
little deeper.

Your right, I don't understand the process. I am not a full time geek. I am
a tournament fisherman who saw an apparent need and has some little skill
with a computer. This is my first, (and more than likely, last), attempt to
establish a newsgroup.

All the more reason to relax. You're doing fine. Stick
with it.

This is the first day that the RFD was posted for discussion. I was not
notified that it would be posted today. As a matter of fact I was unaware
that it had moved along in the process until I began to recieve emails this
morning. The current discussion of processes by the Big8 board has also made
following an exact timeline difficult.

That's reengineering for you. I recently volunteered to
go through the process however it happened but I had
the advantage of knowing that's what I signed up for.
It's worth a few bumps in the road and surprises to get
your newsgroup, right? Remember that on UseNet posts
have already been archived for decades, will pretty
surely remain accessible for centuries, and might survive
millenia. You're building a hertiage here.

Give it a few days and I believe you will see evidence of the need for such
a group.

I also firmly disagree with your contention that tournament fishing is not a
recreational activity.

The range for rec.* is vary wide. Consider that
rec.arts.sf.tv.bablyon5.moderated (a group about the best TV
show in history, says a very biased fan) includes folks who've
recently seen episodes on DVD through folks who were fans
since previews came out for the pilot, though the the author.
The author might have had a lot of fun writing and producing
a 5 year TV show and a spinoff, but he doesn't fit what most
think of for the word recreation.

Fishing is a sport and sports go under rec. Or fishing is an
outdoor activity and they go under rec.

(Jonathan Kamens) wrote in news:e4v07l$plj$1
@jik2.kamens.brookline.ma.us:


Frankly, Scott, you appear to have a rather large
anti-tournaments chip on your shoulder. Your claims that
tournaments are not "recreational", th

Aarrgh. I fish in tournaments. I help with children's fishing derbies,
and I go out on a variety of Great Lakes derbies. I'm not saying its not
fun. I'm not saying its not recreational. I'm just saying I think it
belongs in rec.sports, and not rec.outdoors, because its got less of a
conservation component than what I expect of a group in the outdoors
hierarchy.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply