HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd.{announce,bugs,devel,misc}
Keywords: 386bsd
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:11:01 GMT

In article <1erns3INNcs0@news.UU.NET> cgd@xcf.berkeley.edu (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
>This is a RFD (Request for Discussion) of the following groups:
>
>	comp.os.386bsd.announce (moderated)
>	comp.os.386bsd.bugs
>	comp.os.386bsd.devel
>	comp.os.386bsd misc

  This proposal is out of order as a violation of the "6 month rule"
on waiting between proposing essentially the same newsgroup as one
that was shot down.

  Besides which there are a large number of problems with the proposal:

1) wrong name.  Should be	comp.unix.bsd.i386.*
2) ~.devel is gratuitously unconventional.  ~.programmer would be better 
3) The bugs newsgroup already exists:  comp.bugs.4bsd
   and the proposed group has the wrong heirarchy and so if anything
   were created it should be named comp.bugs.4bsd.i386

I could go on enumarating the many problems, but won't for now.

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
From: shubu@cs.wisc.edu (Shubhendu Mukherjee)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Umoderated->Moderated?
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:49:46 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin @ Madison, CS Dept.


I apologize if this is not the right newsgroup to post this article.

I would like to know what is the procedure to convert an unmoderated 
newsgroup to a moderated one?

Please e-mail responses to shubu@cs.wisc.edu.

Thanks.
-Shubu
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shubhendu Sekhar Mukherjee       University of Wisconsin @ Madison, C.Sc.
Net:shubu@cs.{wisc,utexas}.edu   [W]:(608) 262-1012   [H]:(608) 255-6322
-------------------------------------------------------------------------   
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:39:03 GMT

graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>Usenet readers have a tendency to be anal-retentive. They shouldn't
>be encouraged in it.

Would you repeat that *loudly* for the benefit of the namespace purists?

<grin>
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

                      A poor man shames us all.
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian
From: abi@cup.hp.com (Abraham Amirtharaj)
Subject: Anyone going to India in Jan/Feb ?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:51:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Cupertino, CA

Hi Netters,
	I'm posting this for a friend of mine who does not have access
to this newsgroup. Please reply to e-mail address mjayakum@pcocd2.intel.com
or call him at  (916)356 3261. His name is Jayakumar.

Thanks much.
-Abraham Amirtharaj.

--------------------x      Included Message    x----------------------------

Friends,


My mother is going to Madras from San Fransicso via Singapore (leaving
San Francisco on Jan 17th 1993 - 1:45 AM). I would like to know if anyone
else is going to Madras at the same time and can accompany her. This date 
is fixed tentatively and be changed. Also she understands only Tamil. 
I would appreciate if anyone planning their trip around  this time can 
contact me at (916)-356-3261 or send an e-mail to  mjayakum@pcocd2.intel.com.

Thanks a lot
Bye
-Jayakumar.
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:34:29 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <Bxty6p.40F@uunet.uu.net>, pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden) writes:
> Proposed Newsgroup's Name
>  rec.arts.fantasy
> 
> Type
>  Unmoderated
> 
> Charter
>  A newsgroups for academics and other interested people to discuss aspects
>  of Fantasy literature in.

You already have a newsgroup to discuss fantasy literature. It's called
rec.arts.sf.books. As many have said many times before you science
fiction is a genre of fantasy, just as much as swords and sorcery is,
and any dividing line between them is artificial, as shown by clarke's
law. There's no reason to shy away from this group, which is named "sf",
just because of its name, or because it came first.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: hellerS@moravian.edu (sjh)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.adoption
Keywords: adoption
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:25:28 EST

In <1ei1pkINNg77@rodan.UU.NET> gix@mdd.comm.mot.com (Brian Gix) writes:

>This is a formal request for comments to create a group by the name:
>soc.adoption

>Charter:
>   Forum to discuss all matters relating to adoption; Possible topics of
>   discussion:
>   legal questions,
>   birth-parent/child searching
>   Adoptive parent questions/answers
>   Social implications
>   problems with: inter-racial, international, "older than average" adopts
>   "self-help & how-to's"

I would like to see this group started. My vote is YES.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Intentional ignorance of newsgroup creation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:53 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen):
>In article <2B091165.5732@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Then you shouldn't have said "renames _and_ deletions"; if you
>>consider a rename to be "really" an addition and a deletion, then
>>there is no such thing a a "rename" any more.  But that's a quibble.
>
>OK - since it's a quibble - what about the point?

Since votes have never been used for simple deletions, I'd say that
the "How To" document should be named "How To Create or Rename a
Newsgroup", or maybe "How Newsgroups Are Created or Renamed."  So the
question of whether renames are really deletions is material to
choosing this subject line -- which, I might add, is the issue that
_you_ seem to care about so much.

>>>There is an amount of extraneous information in "How to create a new
>>>Usenet newsgroup" for the user wishing to vote.
>> 
>>I am not prepared to believe that it is even possible to achieve,
>>much less desireable to strive for, documents with no "extraneous
>>information".
>
>Once again you pick one point to argue and drop the rest.

You haven't been around Usenet long, have you?  That method of
response is of long standing on Usenet, and for good reason.  Or do
you expect me to quote your whole article, with most of my responses
being "No argument"?  My articles would become unreadably long and
boring if I were to do so.

>I feel that a document along the lines of "A user's guide to Usenet
>voting" that doesn't contain things that are only appropriate to vote
>takers, but DOES provide some context that the guidlelines don't (and
>perhaps shouldn't) would be a worthwhile document.

I'm not so sure.  To persuade me, write it.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Discussion: Rewriting the newsgroup creation rules--drastically
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:16:58 GMT

In article <142006@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> gary_preckshot@lccmail.ocf.llnl.gov (gary preckshot) writes:
>I think his point is that even
>if there is a lot of opposition to the formation of a group, just the fact
>that there are many people wanting to create the group should be sufficient
>to create it.  In other words, if there are 500 yea votes, why should nay
>votes matter at all?  The nay-sayers can simply not read the new group.

But there are more reasons to vote NO than simply a wish to spoil a vote.
Often there is valid disagreement over moderation (yes/no, who will moderate,
etc), or disagreements over charter elements, or serious errors in naming,
like a group named 'comp.pederasty', which has no business in the comp.*
area.  There could be (are?) issues of names that might be illegal in some
areas (soc.religion.the_pope_is_satan in Ireland, hypothetically).  There
is little way to tell if a given NO vote is for such a 'valid' reason or
not, and attmeping to ascertain that would be rife with subjective errors
and/or fraud.

>I think there is a solution to the spoilers problem.  If the yea vote is big
>enough, then spoilers should be ignored.  This is equivalent to Mr. Ahmad's
>readership suggestion.

The current numbers do two things:  show that there is enough interest to
merit a newsgroup over a mailing list ( > 100 votes); and show that there is 
enough positive readership to overcome any objections (Y > (2 x N)). The
first number may well need adjusting, given the size of the net these days,
but the second is based whooly on interest (pro and con) in the group.  It is
trivally easy to get the 100 votes these days, so any group with `real'
interest needs only to have twice as many supporters as detractors.  Any
group without that number can be assumed to be too likely to not get any
signal over the noise.

>If there are enough participants wanting to discuss
>something, then they should have a forum.

Nothing is stopping people from discussing anything.  Lack of a newsgroup 
merely mean they discuss on a mailing list, CompuServe, GEnie, or whatever.

And as Chip Salzenberg mentioned just a few messages ago, Usenet is NOT
a democracy - the sysadmins are the only ones with any direct say, and most
of them are not answerable to the new-readers at their sites.

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.home.automation
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:36:18 GMT
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft

In article <1992Nov18.010752.18481@networx.com> mikel@networx.com (Mike  
Lempriere) writes:
> I'm interested in this topic, but would never have known where to look!
> I had no idea anyone else out there cared about it!
> 
> This is one vote for such a newsgroup!

Ditto.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: moraes@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Subject: Re: misc.health.alternative should be in talk
Organization: D. E. Shaw & Co.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:03:40 GMT

misc.health.alternative is in the Call for Votes phase.  It is not being
discussed, so offering alternative names at this point is pointless.
The CFV says:

Purpose: Alternative, complementary and holistic health care.

so your interpretation "alternatives to health" is somewhat misleading...  It
certainly seems to be in the right place in the newsgroups hierarchy.

	Mark.
Xref: sparky news.groups:22365 news.admin.misc:360
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD rec.games.netrpg
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:01:47 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: GE Power Generation

In article <1992Nov19.135754.12327@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters) wrote:

> Actually, though, you could suggest that everyone use NETRPG: in the subject,
> and suggest KILLFILES (ducking flames) B^), and continue to use 
> rec.games.design group.

Actually, this has been suggested. Multiple times. Nobody on
rec.games.design likes the idea. I guess they want us to leave
so they can go back to being a "six new posts/week" group.

Spike

"I would shelter you, and keep you in light
 but I can only teach you
 night vision" - Suzanne Vega
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Elitism rears it's ugly head
Keywords: fantasy RFD arts
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:00:47 GMT

plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak) writes:
>>>There are people who like Fantasy and not Science fiction. They may
>>>not realize they are welcome in rec.arts.sf.*
>>Then they should learn the net better.
>  DIE ELITIST SCUM!  (Hey, if Hayes can do it, so can I.)

Hey, for once we agree!
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

A man had lost a ring. His friend stopped by that morning and offered to help.
By late-afternoon, his friend remarked "I don't see it anywhere. Are you sure 
you lost your ring here?"
"Oh no," replied the man, "I lost it in the room over there...but the room
is too dark. Here I can see better."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: aftab@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Aftab Ahmad;MU-SPIN/CESDIS)
Subject: Controversy about Ahmadiyya Newsgroup
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:44:35 GMT


	Given all the controversy over the Ahmadiyya news group, my
impression is that the news administration has a good chance to review
the rules for allocating the new news groups.

	While suggesting that I will cite about how matters are decided
in our "other-than-newsgroups" world.

	We obey two kinds of rules in making decisions - first the
kind of rules that only affect us (life hereafter) and the second
the kind of rules that may affect others too (traffic lights). And we all
have to agree that there has been a dispute as to what matters should be 
decided solely by the individual and what by the state through a vote.
The varying forms of governments is a living example of controversy.

	The news adiministration seems to have a rule according to which
a news group cannot be constructed even if there are a lot of people
interested in reading/writing to it because there could be another
group of people who do not want it to be created - for reasons that have
nothing to do with the Internet.

	In Pakistan, and may be also other Muslim countries, Ahmadies are
seen with hatered by many poeple. The contitution of Pakistan requires
them to "annouce" themselves as not-Muslims. The government application
forms require all "Muslims" to "declare" that the Ahmadies' prophet was
indeed imposter. They are also forbidden to indicate through their behavior
that they are Muslims.

	This is the policy of the government of Pakistan towards Ahmadies.
Constitutionally speaking, as soon as they step out of Pakistan, they
become Muslim. What is the policy of the Internet administration, will
indicate how far humans have gone in making "rational" decision - and
NOT that who is right and who is wrong.

	Now here is my suggestion: the administration may make a quota
about how many groups it wants to create each "term".  The groups should
be created based only on the readership and not on the opposition. Software
can be written to monitor which group is surviving and which not. Those
who do not survive should be simply taken out. 

The purpose of this posting is to take my views to the forum and not to
inform anyone about the condition of Ahmadies in Pakistan - for that
purpose the Pakistani Constitution Amendment number 2 and the president 
ordinance 298C will be more helpful.

Sincerely

aftab ahmad			"who else's views these can be"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: RFD rec.games.netrpg
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:04:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.021628.18155@alf.uib.no> magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>
>Proposed newsgroup name: rec.games.netrpg
>Status: unmoderated
>
>Charter: rec.games.netrpg is for discussion of design, implementation
>and use of the net.rpg game.
            ^^^

What about splinter net.rpg games?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Should rec.music.makers.synth stand as a group name?
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:46:23 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1ec554INNmu1@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU
(John Stanley) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.231314.16493@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>It is not
>>a revote. It is a newsgroup creation request worded in a different way.
>
>It is a vote on whether a previous vote should be accepted. It is a
>revote.  

Technically, that isn't a correct conclusion, but this vote's effects will
be practically the same as those of a revote. I.e. in each case, a passed
vote will result in the rename going ahead, and a failed vote will cause
massive confusion, with sysadmins differing about which vote is the correct
one. Both will create an enormous flamefest, especially if the new vote
fails. About the only practical difference I can see is that the exact
timing of the flamefest may differ between the two.

I have no real interest in rec.music(.makers).synth, and therefore didn't
vote originally. I *do* however have an interest in the smooth running of
the newsgroup creation process, and running this vote as it stands is *not*
going to help. I therefore:

(a) Appeal for this vote not to be run.

(b) Serve notice that I will vote for the renaming to go ahead if this vote
    is run, in the interests of minimising the damage caused.

There are much more acceptable ways to proceed if you are unhappy about the
renaming. One that has already been pointed out is simply to start the
process of renaming it back again. I would abstain on such a move.

Another would be first to run a poll on whether the problems people have
found with the vote are sufficient to justify revoting the rename. If that
is in favour of a revote (and I think a simple majority should be enough on
this sort of question), then run a revote. If this were done, I would
probably vote against revoting in the first poll, then abstain if the revote
occurred. This would at least allow me, and I suspect many others, to
express their views on the process involved without also having to vote on a
matter I have no interest in.

Insert "IMHO"s above as appropriate.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:52:54 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <BxDttn.1B1@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.065425.473@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>>If you scan  
>>several hundred messages a day would YOU notice a CFV if it didn't look  
>>like it was for your group?
>
>I would and I do.

I find it so incredibly insulting that you would suggest everyone on
the net wade through this newsgroup just to prevent some re-org freak
(have we all forgotten K*nt Paul Dolan so quickly?) from running amok?

Just the fact that so many messages are posted with this subject line
should be a clue.  The re-org was a bad idea.  Who ever did it should
admit they made a mistake and just be done with it.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 22 Nov 1992 14:26:25 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <14649.9211201625@csparc12.scs.leeds.ac.uk> ross-c@scs.leeds.ac.uk writes:
>Those of us that believe the proposal was "bad" are going to immediately
>disregard your points, because we have just seen a "bad" example that
>didn't get shot down during the RFD stage or voted down.

YOU had the power to shoot it down during the discussion phase. Aside from the
Guidelines-required notification messages, there was at least one actual
discussion message, with a Subject: line that said without acronyms that there
was a discussion going on about renaming rec.music.synth, and the message said
"don't do it!". Why, if the renaming was such a bad idea, wasn't there a flood
of similar messages? If there had been, the r.m.s part of the rename _would_
have been shot down. I had no idea that there was a reaction until Dave Hayes
started his own private crusade.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
           "Cat: Four legs and an attitude." -- Jim Reese
Xref: sparky news.groups:22647 news.admin.policy:540
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Trouble regarding the s.r.i.a CFV
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:10:30 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.


 In article <werner-161192111417@128.32.157.31>, werner@soe.berkeley.edu (John Werner) writes:
 > In article <1992Nov16.071956.19326@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
 > irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) wrote:
 > > This is a distinct mess. Could David Lawrence please confirm that Rana's
 > > properly submitted CFV is in fact the only valid CFV, or confirm that some
 > > other CFV is the official CFV is some other CFV is?
 > 
 > You said not to follow up, but I'd like to point out it's even *more* of a
 > mess than you said.  Someone (Jafri?) posted the number of votes he's
 > gotten so far.  So now people are going to be complaining about the
 > (bogus?) votetaker revealing the results during the vote.
 

We've been through this misconception before. Advertising how many TOTAL
votes have been received is ok. The prohibition is against noting how
many votes FOR EACH SIDE have been received. In any case since he is not
the current official vote-taker, he can say anything he wants. 

Makes no nevermind anyhow. I have a feeling this whole vote is going to
get trashed the way things are going. There is certain to be a major
scrutiny of the resulting votes by both sides and massive challenges by
the losing side. It's gonna get nast{y|ier} around here. 

-- 
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |