RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments

On 23 May 2006 16:14:23 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Keep in mind that I fish and enjoy tournaments, but not bass tournaments.
I don't consider any of my tournament experiences to be among the most
conservation oriented of my pasttimes, and I think that there should be a
larger conservation component for memebers of the rec.outdoors hierarchy.
I have zero problems with rec.sports.anything in this case.

There is no rec.sports.* hierarchy, but rather a rec.sport.* hierarchy.
(The original netnews software required that the entire group name fit in
14 characters. net.sport.base was chosen because it would permit a
creation of net.sport.bask).

rec.sport.fishing might well be read as "sport fishing" as distinguished
from commercial fishing, and wouldn't necessarily provide a meaning
different from that of rec.outdoors.fishing.

I think you are imparting too much meaning to the root name rec.outdoors.*.
It was simply to provide a place for similar types of recreational
activities. There would be more groups with less of a "conservation
aspect" such as rec.outdoors.skydiving, but that already existed under a
different name before rec.outdoors.* was formed by the creation of its
initial group, rec.outdoors.fishing.

rec.outdoors.* simply separates a meaning of fishing from other
fish-related activities such as:

Fish as pets: rec.aquaria or rec.pets.fish.
Fish as food: rec.food.fish
Fish as a subject of scientific study: sci.bio.fisheries
Fish production technology: sci.aquaculture
Commercial food industry: misc.industry.fishing
Fish as political issue: talk.environment.tuna-nets
--
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?).

"Wolfgang" writes:

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.

Marty is using "significant" in a somewhat technical sense. See, for
example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_significant_bit

In the number 243, the 2 digit is more significant than the 4 digit
because it represent hundreds, not tens. Likewise, in a Usenet group
name, the leftward components are more significant than the rightward
components. E.g., rec.outdoors.fishing is "more significant" (covers a
larger topic area) than rec.outdoors.fishing.bass, which covers a
larger area than rec.outdoors.fishing.bass.striped, etc.

-Dave

"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