HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Why lack of useful subdivision in rec.arts.books?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 09:37:40 GMT
Organization: Mr. Lazlo's Temple Of The Mighty Rude-Boy Skank
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:

> What is the history or rationale behind the lack of useful heirarchy
> development?

The fact that nobody who complains about it ever bothers to *do* anything
about it?

(Call me crazy, call me a nut!)

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: ac999266@umbc.edu (ac999266)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split
Date: 22 Jan 1993 10:53:20 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc8.umbc.edu
Keywords: crossovers, rebuttal

This is just a guess, but...aren't the majority of
 ras.c readers going to pick up BOTH .tng + .ds9?
 (please do not respond with personal anecdotes,
 I'm speculating about large scale demographics.)
 So the point of the split is not to reduce the
 amount that any one person has to read.  The point
 is...what?

Or are there really a lot of people currently 
 reading ras.c who will only read one or the other?
 Or are there a lot of people who have given up
 ras.c as too huge, who will rejoin the discussion
 after the split?  What is the forecast here?

kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:

>cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

>>5) Lastly, some people have said, "well, Lursa and Bator appeared on
>>Past Prologue, so where would we discuss that under a ds9/tng split."
>>But come on, be reasonable. 
>
>Reasonable?  Keep in mind that this is rec.arts.startrek.* we're
>discussing here. ;-)

>I do not share your confidence in the 'common sense' of usenet
>readership.  (I've been hanging out in news.groups too long. ;-)  I

Agreed.  

Bizarro Francis Uy
--
Xref: sparky news.groups:26539 alt.activism.d:4572 news.admin.policy:1162
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.activism.d,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Call For Disgustion - unmoderating misc.activism.progressive
Date: 28 Jan 1993 23:42:41 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

[I speak only for myself in this posting.]

> Does anyone believe that if I sent a post to sci.military
> proposing unmoderating the group that it would not be posted?

=o= Whether sci.military posts hostile metadiscussions about its
own charter is its own moderator's business.  As it happens, the
alt.activism.d newsgroup exists for such metadiscussions about
misc.activism.progressive.

=o= Given that practically everything posted to m.a.p has
followups set to a.a.d, I find it unlikely that anyone who
was genuinely interested in your pathetic wish to destroy
m.a.p would have any trouble finding your messages.
    <_Jym_>
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.pb
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:46:32 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1jnne6INNefn@shelley.u.washington.edu> chuckp@u.washington.edu (Chuck Pliske) writes:

>I think its a fine idea.  There are many, many issues peculiar to pb's, 
>and different from issues peculiar to laptops in general.  I would scan 
>such a group, and welcome it.

Would you care to discuss some examples?

I can think of some things that are particular to Macintosh portables that
might generate enough traffic to require a group separate from
comp.sys.laptop but just PowerBooks? What are you planning to talk about?

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

    If crimefighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fire,
    what do freedomfighters fight?	- George Carlin
From: paulbe@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Bedworth)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergrads
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:32:41 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1jikkbINNfh1@skink.cis.ohio-state.edu> schubach@cis.ohio-state.edu (bernard william schubach) writes:
>Is that comp.cs.undergrads or alt.cs.undergrads?
>I get the idea that it was just an honest mistake,
>but it means the proposal must be rewritten!

The proposal is for comp.cs.undergrad.
The wrong version you refer to was only posted to one news group. 

	Paul;
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated and proposed rec.arts.startrek split
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:22:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.033716.15552@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S R Chisholm) writes:
|One last comment:  Might the contents of ras.current be improved if we
|changed its name back to the original proposal of ras.spoilers?

Nope.  "Spoiler" is far too relative a point to determine a split
between [current|spoiler] and misc.   I can just see the flood of
newbies posting discussion of the episode they saw last night on
misc because "it's no longer spoiler material, 'cuz I saw it last
night and thus everybody else saw it too, right?".  Not to mention
the ensuing traffic that always develops about an episode that
extends far after everyone in the US has had the chance to see the
episode.  (Of course, for people in the UK, everything from
season 4 onward is a spoiler, but that's another story ...)

-- 
Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan                          huggins@eecs.umich.edu
"You cannot pray to a personal computer no matter how user-friendly it is."
                                                          -- W. Bingham Hunter
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: billd@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Bill D'Camp)
Subject: Re: support- comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Organization: Grumman Corporation
	<1993Jan25.204318.14999@colorado.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:14:13 GMT


I am STRONGLY opposed to the creation of such a group because it has
too narrow a focus.  Macintosh mobile/portable computers will
undoubtedly change names from powerbook to something else before long,
witness the Duo's, I know they say powerbook duo on them, but they are
rather universally called duos.  With the introduction of the
performas and the soon-to-be centrixes (mass market versions of Macs
already known by another name). What's to stop Apple from making a
version of the powerbook for the mass market and changing its name.
Would that such a machine be excluded from discussion because it
wasn't called a powerbook?  Also IMO, people will not bother to
differentiate between general Mac postings and "powerbook" postings,
with the result that there will be just as much to sift through as
there is now.
-- 
    _   /|
    \`o_O'
      ( )    Aachk! Phft!
       U     billd@gdstech.grumman.com
From: kwun@css.itd.umich.edu (Michael Kwun)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:40:54 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan - ITD Consulting and Support
NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Thumper (geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu) wrote:

(stuff deleted)

: >   2) Powerbook users represent a large subgroup of Macintosh users, and

: I suppose they do. Most of them also own desktop computers. And what about
: Duo owners? Portable owners? Outbound owners? You can find ALL sorts of
: subgroups but does it really matter?

(stuff deleted)

: Portable Macintosh computing does, the PowerBook is merely a sub set of
: that.

There are 400,000+ PBs out there.  There are about 9000 Outbounds out
there.  The Duos *are* powerbooks--mine sez PowerBook Duo 210.

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|  Internet:  Michael.Kwun@umich.edu  |  I speak only for myself.      |
|  Bitnet:    userW0ZA@UMICHUM        |  Support a local cooperative.  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ahill@boi.hp.com (Andy Hill)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:51:25 GMT
Reply-To: ahill@boi.hp.com
Organization: LaserJets by Bill & Dave
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Richard H. Miller (rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
>
> 2) When rec.fishing was proposed, this was one of the objections made, that
> we didn't need another second level hierarchy. We went around and around to
> determine what a 'good' second level name would be. Rec.sport was discussed
> and the consensus was that the rec.sport was PRIMARILY for 'spectator' 
> sports in that most of the discussion was about other people who participated
> in the sport rather than active participients. Since most of the potential
> readers of the group probably fished rather than watched someone else fish, 
> several people wanted to differentiate it from the sports hierarchy.--> thus
> rec.outdoors. 
> 
As may be the case.  However, the .outdoors. level is EXTREMELY confusing, and
I get the impression that the .outdoors. level is going to be renamed or
reorganized relatively soon in order to clear up the confusion.  I'd just
as soon not have the orienteering group have to go through that pain.

Also, I find it hard to believe that the denizens of rec.sport.disc,
rec.sport.triathlon, or rec.sport.swimming (e.g. among many) are primarily
watchers.  It would seem to me that arbitrarily dividing recreative sports
into primarily-non-participative and primarily-participative is unnecessary
logic-chopping (is the rec.sport level overly full?).  Beyond that, naming the
primarily-participative level .outdoors. is just plain confusing.

> 4) It is normally better to try to fit into an existing hierarchy if it
> makes sense. This is for the benefit of sites which take a limited news feed.
> If they are already taking existing groups in the hierarchy, many will pick
> up news groups in that hierarchy without any intervention. If you create a
> new second level group, these admins will have to add it to their sys files
> and this may limit the new group's distribution.
> 
So just put orienteering in rec.sport.  Existing hierarchy, makes sense to
more people.  Good choice.


--
Andy Hill
ahill@boi.hp.com
From: morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Elmo the Stunt Elk)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split & the crossover issue
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:54:45 -0600
Organization: The Eekcidental Tourist
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
> On a more serious note, there is one major problem: audiences
> have a limited attention span.  Don't forget that Paramount must
> interest casual viewers far more than us Trekkies.  Casual viewers
> will get confused by protracted storylines.

	Yeah.  Star Trek audiences are -bound- to be cretinous morons with
memories that don't extend more than a week.  Everyone -knows- that only
Ph.D.'s with eidetic memories watch _Guiding Light_ or _All My Children_
or _General Hospital_.
-- 
"Once a boy becomes a man, he's a man all his life, but a woman is only
sexy 'til she becomes your wife."--Al Bundy
  
elmo (morrow@physics.rice.edu,morrow@fnal.fnal.gov)
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: News Groups Censors REC.ARTS.POEMS.URDU
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:36:42 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1993Jan26.153435.15302@wam.umd.edu> sheilah@wam.umd.edu (Danny-Boy) writes:

>	The person in question may not be able to post news from 
>	his account. Someone has made this point before. 

This is true. But he/she could also have mentioned that fact.

>	also, I do not see why it is important for him to sign his name.

If someone is going to post accusatory articles like that they could at
least sign a name and show some confidence. It isn't like their net access
could get yanked.

I never give any weight to articles posted from anonymous accounts if they
don't carry a name and an email address at the end. It smacks of
cowardice.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

A strong conviction that something must be done is
the parent of many bad measures.  -- Daniel Webster
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:47:24 GMT

In article <1jqvs9INNj8d@werple.apana.org.au> bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.165456.24088@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>
>>While I have no problem with such a group, I do think that the name needs
>>a little better focus.  Discussions about miniatures rules will drift onto
>>the RPG cohorts (Warhammer & DND's battle rules, fr'instance), while the
>>'traditional' wargames will drift onto historical issues, and the discussions
>>of painting/making miniatures and/or terrain will drift their own way.
>>Perhaps this group can be proposed with an eye towards a hierarchy?  Or
>>maybe a slightly tighter focus?
>
>I thought about including this in a proposal, but I decided not to
>beacuse I think the hobby suffers from this sort of self imposed isolation
>and "elitism". I can't speak for the USA, but in Australia and England, the a
>verage age of traditional gamers (ancients, naps acw etc) has gone up a lot
>in the last 10 years. Wargaming will atrophy, shirvel up and die, if you
>will, if we view the "warhammer crowd" as threat instead of a challenge.

I suspect that the average age of people in MOST hobbies has gone up.  It
has as much to do with shifting demographics as with shifting interests.

>Where do you think new wargamers come from????

>I am trying to change people's attitudes and I know people feel threatened
>by the warhammer crowd, but our hobby is strong enough to thrive without
>resorting to pigeonholing and exclusion.

A number of posters have suggested, directly or indirectly, that playing 
fantsy/sci fi games is some kind of immature phase through which people
pass on their way to the maturity of wargaming.  Well, maybe -- but if
any position is elitist, this is!  I don't feel "threatened" by the 
Warhammer crowd.  I just want the discussions conducted in separate
forums.  I would not feel badly if there were a rec.games.fantasy where
my own historical gaming interests would be out of place.  I acknowledge
that there are many people who play both historical and fantasy/sci fi
games.  I'm sure they would have no problem reading two or more separate
newsgroups.  In terms of content, the only real overlap between historical
and fantasy/sci fi miniatures groups (if we wanted to divide things that
way) would be in terms of painting and modelling techniques.

When you say "our hobby is strong enough...", you are organizing the
world in a way I do not happen to agree with.  Fantasy/sci fi gaming
is not part of MY hobby.  It is a DIFFERENT hobby.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@indiana.edu
From: mcglk@cpac.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.jobs.offered.moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:47:37
Organization: Dubious.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: yang.cpac.washington.edu

weinss@rs6406.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
+----------
| Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:46:50 GMT
|
| [...]  Someone else suggested this during the discussion of the 1st RFD on
| the reorganization of misc.jobs.*.  It wasn't really included in that RFD
| [...], so its 30 days probably start now.  [...] the moderators would screen
| out everything except job offers and standardize the subject lines.
+----------

This would be *wonderful*.  It continually amazes me how some of these people
manage to come up with the most unhelpful subject lines, or only mention one
position in the subject line, but the post contains multiple positions.

An excellent subject-line-format suggestion has been posted on a regular basis
(which most people seem to ignore)---I forget who posts that, but if they could
post it again as part of this discussion, it'd be great.

+----------
| The unmoderated group would continue to exist in addition.  (Articles should
| probably be cross-posted to both groups.)
+----------

Why?  I think m.j.misc should be for talking about jobs---I don't see why
position announcements need to get posted there.  m.j.offered, m.j.contract,
and m.j.offered.entry should all be moderated. . . .

				---Ken McGlothlen
				   mcglk@cpac.washington.edu
				   mcglk@cpac.bitnet
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:25:39 GMT

I support rec.*.orienteering, but I feel the name should be
rec.sport.orienteering.  Orienteering is a sport.
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
From: Yaakov Kayman <YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 25 Jan 1993 12:28:08 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

While not being a specifically backcountry-oriented person, I do greatly
enjoy both hiking and camping. I'm therefore in favor of the creation of
groups r.o.camping and r.o.hiking.

Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman      (212) 903-3666       City University of New York

BITNET:   YZKCU@CUNYVM        "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU     about whom the wolves complain"
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:51:06 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1jfk2dINN55b@lynx.unm.edu> kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.114316.19501@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>>
>>In article <C1108s.Itw@cs.mcgill.ca> guest@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA (Muhep Guest account) writes:
>>>I'm not going to be as active as I was reading the net but it should be
>>>obvious why we can't have a ds9/tng split:
>>>
>>>There'll be a ds9/tng crossover. (See the FAQ)
>>
>>Only one.  This is not an excessive number given there are twenty odd
>>episodes of tng this year and nearly an equal number of ds9.  Also, IMHO
>>there will not be many crossovers since ds9 and tng are in different channels
>>in many markets.
>
>That's odd.  I've already seen two incidents which could be considered
>'crossovers'.  It there've only been two episodes show here.
>
>> 
>>Warning: in the following comments, logic will be invoked :)
>>
>>>Q and Lwaxana Troi will be on episodes of ds9.
>>
>>So, when they're on ds9, talk about them on r.a.s.c.ds9
>
>And when the inevitable coparison/recollection of their previous
>activities on TNG happens, where does that go?

Wherever they were last shown.  That is why it is r.a.s.*current*.tng /ds9.
The reasons is that the current episode is what has stimulated discussion
on the topic.  If the topic comes up a few months down the road, by all 
rights it should go into .misc anyway, making all the drabble about
.current.ds9/tng and .current.reviews moot.

Chris

Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:44:39 GMT

In article <C198uG.y0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>Note : I have cross posted this back to rec.games.board, as (aside from mailing
>lists), this is where most miniatures gamers hang out.
>
>Note II : You might want to also post your RFD to a frp group, as those guys
>would also be interested.
>
>Now, my comments :
>
>While the motives listed in the RFD about "why a miniatures group" are all
>valid reasons for talking about minis on the net, I feel that rec.games.board
>already fills the need.  Most people on the net who are into miniatures already
>read this group, and so would have instant access to anything posted there.
>
>For more specific discussions, several well publicized mailing lists exist (cf:
>FAQ, news.answers).  Mailing lists also have fewer distribution problems than
>do newsgroups - more people can't read a newsgroup than people who are not
>allowed to suscribe to lists (this was shown in a recent ASL list debate).
>
>While I would also like to see more miniature stuff on usenet, I think that
>the way to get it is not a new group (which if present volume is a good
>barometer, wouldn't have much traffic), but to post more about it on r.g.b.  A
>discussion in the wider forum of r.g.b. would reach more people and stimulate
>more interest than the same discussion on a dedicated newsgroup with a smaller
>readership.
>
>	Alec

Alec, I disagree.  A separate and clearly titled newsgroup might encourage
more discussion of miniatures than rec.games.board generates.

However, if I might muddy the waters a bit, let me say that I would also
support a rec.games.war group that would include discussion of both
board and miniature wargames.  Others may find fantasy and sci fi games
interesting; to me, they're all noise and no signal.  To say that one
can "simulate" something that isn't real is something of an abuse of the
language.  But perhaps I am being a curmudgeon this morning....

Back to the main point: Absent a rec.games.war, I support this proposal,
although without a lot of enthusiasm -- the discussion will probably be
dominated by Warhammerites, etc.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@indiana.edu
Nf-ID: #R:star.com:14749:tisdec.tis.tandy.com:89600001:000:500
Nf-From: tisdec.tis.tandy.com!chris    Jan 21 09:24:00 1993


/* Written  8:59 pm  Jan 20, 1993 by not-for-mail@cs.utexas.edu in tisdec.tis.tandy.com:news.groups */
/* ---------- "News groups" ---------- */
Could anyone tell me how to get a list with a short discription of all the
News groups.

Please Email me at dac@star.com

Thank you,
Donald A. Cook
/* End of text from tisdec.tis.tandy.com:news.groups */

Watch for postings in this news group from 'not-for-mail@purdue.UUCP'.
There was a set of postings back on January 10th.

chris@tisgate.tis.tandy.com
From: andrew@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Do an RFD: comp.sys.atari.st.advocacy
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:06:56 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

I agree that all this advocacy currently running on comp.sys.atari.st is
getting annoying.  Im sure that it will die off once people realise what a
good computer the new Atari Falcin is.  (oh no, Advocacy again!!!)


Im not sure about a new group however because it will turn Atari users into
the likes of Amiga users where one gets into the habit of advocating your
machine just because a newsgroup exists to do it.  I feel the atari
requires no extra treatment.  I do feel that a comp.sys.atari.falcon ough
to be introduced sometime in the future along with comp.sys.atari.multimedia
or even c.s.a.music since it is a very popular machine for sequencing.

Just food for thought.  I believe that the advocacy will subside in about 6
weeks.

-Andrew

---------------

 Andrew Hague  --  Researching Computer Aided Learning & On-Line Lectures
 Department of Computer Science.        University of York, YORK. Y01 5DD
 Tel: (+44/0)904 432762			E-MAIL: andrew@minster.york.ac.uk 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: bw@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Bruce White 3807)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Organization: NCR (Torrey Pines Development Center)
Disclaimer: This posting does not necessarily reflect the opinions of NCR.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 20:04:59 GMT

Keep rec.winsurfing as is.