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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
"Alaskan420" wrote in
news:AaEcg.4432$ei2.3394@trndny02: Scott, It appears to me that your arguement against such a newsgroup has become a political one. My understanding it that this process is supposed to revolve around anticipated useage and viability. You may have a point, (I do not agree), but this arguement does not belong here. Of course it belongs here. It's an RFD, you opened discussion, and I'm discussing it. I don't I've given my reason why I think the proposed group belongs in rec.sports and not rec.outdoors. There's a decision-making process, and if the powers that be don't believe my arguments are relevant, they will ignore them. I'd propose opening it up to the rest of the rec.outdoors hierarchy. Keep in mind that I fish and enjoy tournaments, but not bass tournaments. I don't consider any of my tournament experiences to be among the most conservation oriented of my pasttimes, and I think that there should be a larger conservation component for memebers of the rec.outdoors hierarchy. I have zero problems with rec.sports.anything in this case. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
Scott Seidman writes:
I think that there should be a larger conservation component for memebers of the rec.outdoors hierarchy. Why? Of all the rec.outdoors.* charters in ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec, only one of them, the one for rec.outdoors.mational-parks, has the word "conservation" in it. On what do you base your belief that rec.outdoors.* should be confined to conservation-oriented newsgroups? -- Help stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
"WARREN WOLK" wrote in
news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02: I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If you don't subscribe you don't see it, right? I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is what an RFD is for. FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case. Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent idea. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
Scott,
It seems your entire purpose here is to be a stick in the mud. You've posted incorrect information several times. Is there a purpose to your negativity and disinformation? You even have non-proponents calling you on this. Richard Hamel Proponent rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments "Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "WARREN WOLK" wrote in news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02: I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If you don't subscribe you don't see it, right? I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is what an RFD is for. FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case. Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent idea. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
On 23 May 2006 16:33:02 GMT, Scott Seidman came
hurtling out the barroom doors, even while saying: "WARREN WOLK" wrote in news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02: I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If you don't subscribe you don't see it, right? I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is what an RFD is for. FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case. Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent idea. You have to wonder if there's a reason why there isn't even a "rec.sports.fishing" root to hang a .tournaments group in the first place. My theory: Those in the know know fishing isn't a sport. rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments makes the most sense... /daytripper (hell, let's *really* pull the pin on this grenade ;-) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
"Alaskan420" wrote in
news:aBHcg.1370$GN4.459@trndny07: Scott, It seems your entire purpose here is to be a stick in the mud. You've posted incorrect information several times. Is there a purpose to your negativity and disinformation? You even have non-proponents calling you on this. Richard Hamel Proponent rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments All I've expressed is opinion. If you've got any real wrong facts you'd like me to correct, just let me know what they are, and I'll be happy to correct them. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
daytripper wrote:
You have to wonder if there's a reason why there isn't even a "rec.sports.fishing" root to hang a .tournaments group in the first place. On UseNet if there's already a group that makes sense it is used. There is already a rec.outdoors.fishing yet both rec.outdoors and rec.sports have appeal. Since one's already there, use it as the root. rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments makes the most sense... Agreed. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.outdoors.bassfishing.tournaments
daytripper wrote:
Scott Seidman came hurtling out the barroom doors, even while saying: "WARREN WOLK" wrote in news:xBGcg.4945$ei2.1908@trndny02: I'm a bit confused Scott - why is the categorization of a tournament-based newsgroup here or there even a concern to you? If you don't subscribe you don't see it, right? I don't think its overly concerning me. It's an RFD, and I think the proposed group would fit better in rec.sports than rec.outdoors. This is what an RFD is for. FWIW, I'd vote yes when it comes to it in a call for votes if it were in rec.sports, and I'd vote no if it were in rec.outdoors. I think others might take the same position, and some my be OK with it in either case. Also, the revised charter still specifies bass tourneys. I thought the revision was to open it to all tourneys, which I think is an excellent idea. You have to wonder if there's a reason why there isn't even a "rec.sports.fishing" root to hang a .tournaments group in the first place. My theory: Those in the know know fishing isn't a sport. rec.outdoors.fishing.tournaments makes the most sense... /daytripper (hell, let's *really* pull the pin on this grenade ;-) Yeah, crossposting between roff and rofb is always good for a few laughs no matter what the topic. ;-) 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. 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. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|