HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:10:32 GMT
Organization: Xanth Watch

gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov10.213747.25430@daimi.aau.dk> rorschak@daimi.aau.dk  
>(Jesper Lauridsen) writes:

>> Starwars discussion has in the years been posted often to rec.arts.sf*
>> (note how this includes rec.arts.sf-lovers :-)), therefore a new
>> starwars group would have influence on the discussion there.
>>
>This is what Jeff said. It's an informational post to people that might be  
>interested. The future of the rec.arts.sf.misc group was not being  
>modified although readers of it might be interested. Was rec.arts.sf.misc  
>being renamed or removed?

It would have influenced future traffic. If the rec.music.makers proposal
had contained just the creation of rec.music.makers.synth with no rename
wouldn't that have influenced rec.music.synth? Wouldn't the readers of
rec.music.synth have had a right to say something about a group that would
most certainly take some of their traffic?

-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   |
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 12 Nov 1992 08:43:41 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov12.055954.4545@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>I'm not posturing...I'm defending YOUR group from someone who would break it.
>BAN-DINI. 

Huh?

>>I'll discuss your proposal to change the Guidelines as soon as you and Dave
>>accept that the vote was properly conducted and accept the results.
>In other words, you win or you are going to take your toys and go home.
>What was that you said about kindergarten? 

I've lost on several issues before, and have stuck around. I'm asking you to
do the same. Real life demands that we sometimes accept results we don't like.
Long Usenet precedent says that properly conducted votes are honored even if
they generate Guidelines changes. That applies to this one, too.
-- 
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.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Xref: sparky news.groups:20634 rec.music.synth:17957 news.admin.policy:184
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:58:20 GMT
Organization: Xanth Watch

gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:

>Should the subject line of articles posted to r.m.s. been more clear about  
>what groups were affected?

>Possibly "rec.music.* renamed to rec.music.makers.*" or even so bold as  
>"rec.music.synth renamed to rec.music.makers.synth"?

If you had read the proposal, which has been reposted, you would have
known that the CFV covered more ground than just rec.music.synth.
"rec.music.synth renamed to rec.music.makers.synth" would have been
misleading and "rec.music.* renamed to rec.music.makers.*" is simply
incorrect.
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:20:58 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>My suggestion: now that the issue has come out in the open, why the
>>hell don't we have another vote ?  I would guess this is probably
>>against 'UseNet Guidelines', but, hey, we're all human beings -
>>flexibility is our middle name.
>Because to allow a properly run vote to be overturned because a few folks who
>couldn't be bothered to participate in an open process don't like the result
>would severely damage the only accepted means by which decisions are made on
>Usenet. 

Bull!

Plain and simple. I'm sorry...but I've seen you and others club people over
the head with this politic-ism over and over again. *REAL* human beings
are flexible enough to understand the difference between the spirit
of the law and the letter. 

>This would be the first time that agonized screaming would have
>reversed a vote that had NO procedural irregularities.

There *was indeed* a procedural irregularity. THERE WAS NO CLEAR SUBJECT
LINE. It was entirely unfair to hide a renaming inside of an unrelated
reorg. You even agreed that it was, a few postings back, didn't you? 

>The last part is immaterial, as I've repeatedly explained. You'd be
>disenfranchising the folks who voted YES the first time, and who participated
>in the process.

A "REVOTE" will not disenfranchise...it will allow everybody involved to vote
again and new people (obviously) to join in the vote. Why are you so afraid
of a revote? We are not saying that it will or will not pass...we just want
to hear more of the net.consensus that you will apparently allow. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   A man appointed to be judge has been killed without a knife.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:32:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.175147.22259@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>In article <BxBLtM.H60@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>Moderated discussion groups are a bad idea.  Moderation slows down the
>flow of conversation, and really is only of value when the topic needs
>to be enforced.  I haven't noticed much problems with off-topic posts
>in the r.g.f hierarchy so far.
>
>I will therefore vote against this proposal if it is not amended to
>remove the duplication with r.g.f.archives and to remove the moderation.
>
The problem I see happening is that players will start responding to campaign
moves in the echo, even though it is forbidden to do so.  Messages such as "Bob swings his tennis racket at the gigantic flaming moose" will compromise the
echo.  I've also received intense mail from people saying that the last
thing they want to see in .campaign is "Bob swings his tennis racket at the
gigantic flaming moose" type messages.

What is the opinion of everyone else on this issue? The moderation issue is
certainly an important one.  Can we "trust" readers to follow guidelines?
We could always have a standerd note to be sent to all players which would
require them to explicitly state they understand the rules of .campaign
before they get involved with a campaign.


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: Why alt.folklore.computers should stay in alt (was: leave alt.folklore.computers alone, rmgroup comp.society.folklore)
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:21:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.174519.18637@u.washington.edu> starfish@stein.u.washington.edu (Sarah Skovronsky) writes:

>Moving an alt group
>lets more people read/post...which is obviously a change of character,
>unless all these new people are clones of those who were there before.
>Call me xenophobic if you will, but I don't think "mainstreaming" for
>mainstreaming's sake is such a great idea.  As has been stated above, 
>a move would disturb any "sense of unity"...and...if it ain't broke...

It used to be traditional to "promote" alt groups and "go mainstream".
That's what I'm thinking about, call me old-fashioned if you like :-)

As for the "sense of unity", I don't feel that way at all. At least
not for alt.folklore.computers. The subject matter and the posters are
kind of... special. 

Since you don't seem to read alt.folklore.computers, I wonder what you
are complaining about. I regret I posted something that looked like a
"grand reorganization". It wasn't intended that way. It was done to
make the point that the alt.folklore.* "hierarchy" may not be that
coherent, after all. 

-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: r.g.f.campaign + scenarios
Date: 9 Nov 1992 15:42:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () says:

>millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:

>>See how bad the name is? We don't even have the group and people already
>>think it's something other than the person who proposed it intended. By
>>the way, Graham, if you want a group for campaign descriptions, try
>>rec.games.frp.archives.
>>
>What are you talking about? The proposal for .campaign specificly states
>that discussions of campaigns and campaigning is permitted.  Read the
>proposal before you flame.

Cbnorman:

Millerl is saying that groups for the dissemination
 of campaign concept material ALREADY EXIST.  A new
 group is NOT needed for this purpose.  

In fact, how do intend to have campaign discussion
 on a moderated group where the posting criteria is
 "high quality stories"?

The description of your proposal seems to indicate
 that it will be used for ONGOING ROLEPLAY, which
 IMHO is a BAD idea.  Actual gaming should be done
 by email.  

Don't claim that your group is needed for purposes
 other than online gaming, because the current 
 groups have got the rest covered.
-- 
Francis A. Uy			Program Director, WUMD
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: erik@maui.til.com (Erik Horstkotte)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.ai.fuzzy
Organization: Togai InfraLogic, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.170918.16287@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, ib09@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:
|> In article <1d3spsEINNbpm@uni-erlangen.de>, arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Michael Arras) writes:

|> Applications of fuzzy theory are much wider than AI, or even the comp
|> field; what about fuzzy logic in control systems, for example?

Agreed.

|> Putting it in the sci or sci.engr hierarchy would make more sense, IMHO.

Perhaps sci.fuzzy would be a good choice, with the intention of
splitting it into

   sci.fuzzy.misc
   sci.fuzzy.control
   sci.fuzzy.info

etc. in the future, if traffic justifies it.  The problem would be
that I think newcomers will tend to start looking in comp.ai for
information relating to fuzzy logic, if they don't already know the
name of the newsgroup.  One of the major purposes of a newsgroup
name is that it be easy for newcomers to find, so they don't have
to ask around in other groups.
-- 
Erik Horstkotte, Togai InfraLogic, Inc.
The World's Source for Fuzzy Logic Solutions (The company, not me!)
erik@til.com, gordius!til!erik - (714) 975-8522
info@til.com for info, fuzzy-server@til.com for fuzzy mail-server
Xref: sparky news.groups:21429 alt.config:6855
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes will not quit
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:45:39 GMT
Organization: Exile Government of Bramming

jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Furr) writes:

>In article <BxKABu.6ow@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>In article <BxIL8z.K0s@unix.amherst.edu> ljnelson@unix.amherst.edu (Laird Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>Which is why maybe if we ignore him and his claim to a position he'll go
>>>away.  Followups haven't yet--but should be--directed to
>>>alt.dave.hayes.champion.of.the.little.man
>>>alt.dave.hayes.legend.in.his.own.mind
>>
>>Actually, I'm intrigued by the prospect of alt.fan.dave-hayes.

>Tim, how about we just find Dave Hayes and use the immense resources of
>the net to make his life a living hell?

>Or maybe we could just go beat him up?

How about just calling in John Palmers virtual lawyers?
-- 
No News is Bad News
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:52:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.102456.11886@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>News.groups is hardly an elite clique. Joining it for a few weeks is

>I don't know about that one. I see 119 messages about this topic alone.
>I've only been gone since Friday Night. Most net people (especially those
>using RN) see this and unsubscribe instantly. 

Most net people don't vote. Most net people don't whine about the
results of a vote that they didn't bother to take part in. If net.people
want to participate in the discussion of a proposal, they need to go
where that discussion is. It is deliberatly held not in the group
because most net people don't care.

This is ignoring the fact that the CFVs were posted where everyone in
the r.m.s group could see them.

>>what is being said in the "news" hierarchy. If they choose not to
>>participate in the discussions related to newsgroup creation, then they
>>have absolutely no right to complain that they weren't participants in
>>the discussion related to newsgroup creation.
>
>This is an elitist, condescending, and unwelcoming attitude to take to

Baloney. It is the way life works. Those who choose not to participate
have nobody to complain to but themselves.

>There's about a million readers out there who think RFD
>is the name of an old TV show with Andy Griffith. What about them?

Well, they are wrong. The name of the show was "Mayberry, R.F.D".

Now, what television show was called "CFV"?

>>The "cadre" of people is hardly elite and has no membership requirements
>>other than the willingness to spend the time. 
>
>Really? Tell that to Alok, or KPD. I'm sure there are others...I've watched
>you guys for years! If the person making the noise were someone "more
>respected" than me, you can bet that it wouldn't go through. 

No, if there were more merit to the complaint it wouldn't go through.

>>If they make the wrong decision, then they are the only ones who are
>>responsible for the results.
>
>Hardly. They can't be ignorant and not run the risk of having their group 
>named out for under them. 

Their ignorance is self-chosen. The only person responsible for that
ignorance is themselves.

>Even further, those on BBSes haven't even a say so.
>How fair is that?

Why should people who aren't USENET have a say on how USENET works?
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 11 Nov 1992 21:35:29 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov10.215646.20259@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Sure. Any way we can accomplish what the expressed wishes of the net are - in
>>this case, renaming the group - is OK with me.
>The expressed wishes of the net is not to rename the group.

No. The expressed wishes of your mailbox and a few flamers is to not rename
the group. The expresed wishes of the net is to proceed with the rename.

>>>It's not just me anymore. 
>>...but it started out as just you...
>So? Someone had to stand up to you folks.

Who folks? Thie persecution complex of yours is really starting to get in the
way. Like it or not, you do not speak for all of the people, and (at least at
the beginning of this) you didn't have any sworn enemies that I know of...
-- 
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.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: r.g.f.campaign + scenarios
Date: 10 Nov 1992 07:57:01 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>Francis A. Uy writes:
>>The description of your proposal seems to indicate
>> that it will be used for ONGOING ROLEPLAY, which
>> IMHO is a BAD idea.  Actual gaming should be done
>> by email.  
>>
>You have something against ongoing roleplay?  I doubt
>that will make you very popular in the r.g.f newsgroups....

If I have found our Mr. Cbnorman to be singly qualified, it
is in addressing and replying to questions | statements |
objections *other* than what is actually being presented.

In other words, red herrings.  Straw men.  Basic rhetoric
instructors should save all such files for examples.

In a matter wholly not related to slander, I believe what
Mr. Uy was intending to mean (and what I believe most of
the remainder of the readership of this group have no
disabilities understanding) is that to have ongoing role-
play on the newsgroups would be an unneccessary waste of
overhead.

Here is a *substantial* difference between your Fidonet
and this current behemoth.  For me to send a given block
of data on Fido-equivalent of a newsgroup is in no way as
expensive as for me to send one on an actually Internet
group.  The machinery overhead, the quality and upkeep of
the lines, the site license, et al.

I though of replying to this in email (why not?  It goes
to /dev/null any way I get it to him.) but decided that
the rest of whatever proponents you have should be aware
of this simple fact.  InterNet is expensive.  Postings of
interest to only one or two or a handful of people are 
better regulated to email.  

Player moves, the ongoing roleplaying that you so strongly
advocate, are of interest to the player, the referee, and
the remainder of the part.  Most readers wouldn't care a
snit over that.  Most readers would prefer the log of the
campaign to be in a neat and tidy summary (as is currently
posted to r.g.f.archives) so they don't have to stitch a
zillion pieces together.

Oh?  You say that they won't need to do so?  That the zillion
pieces will be already compiled?  Then that is my point
exactly.  These zillion pieces are of interest to only a
handful of people, and should never have been posted in
the first place.

Summary: (Thank you for staying with me this long)
1) Internet is EXPENSIVE.
2) Internet is EXPENSIVE.
3) Internet is EXPENSIVE.
4) Internet is EXPENSIVE.
5) Internet is EXPENSIVE.
6) Your group is a waste of money and resources.

and, I'm off.  Oh, can someone wake cbnorman up?  He seems
to have fallen asleep again....


-- 
This is National Non-Dairy Creamer Week.
Xref: sparky news.groups:20368 rec.music.synth:17798
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Keywords: where was the CFV posted
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:24:46 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: GSP Whitewater Slalom Racing Team

In article <1992Nov05.231642.39045@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>If in fact the CFVs were posted only in news.groups and
>not on rec.music.synth then I would agree that the
>vote was flawed.  The CFVs should be posted to
>all groups which will be affected by a vote.
>
>But if the 3 CFVs were all posted to rec.music.synth,
>then I'd have to agree that it's our own fault 
>for not voting, and/or it's our own bad luck
>that the vote didn't go the way we liked.  We should
>accept the result.  
>
>Please:  does anyone have an archive which can
>conclusively show that the 3 CFVs were posted on rms?  

I've got two of them here: the first and and the third.  I can't find
the second, but that's probably because I've gotten tired of spinning
backup tapes to pull these and the CFD's off, and I'd like to go home.
(BTW, earlier this evening I posted the relevant headers from the
three CFD articles.)

Both of these went to rec.music.synth (among many other groups);
I can't think of any reason why the second wouldn't have as well,
but I won't make the assertion that it did until I (or somebody else
with better archives :-) ) comes up with it.

---Rsk

==========
CFV #1:
==========
	From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
	Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth,alt.guitar,alt.guitar.bass,alt.guitar.tab
	Subject: CFV: rec.music.makers.* groups
	Keywords: music, makers, guitar, bass, drums, synth, tablature
	Message-ID: <BvAK0q.CA6@uunet.uu.net>
	Date: 28 Sep 92 13:55:38 GMT
	Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
	Followup-To: poster
	Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net

==========
CFV #3:
==========
	From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
	Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth,alt.guitar,alt.guitar.bass,alt.guitar.tab
	Subject: 3rd CFV and VOTE ACK: rec.music.makers.* groups
	Keywords: music, makers, guitar, bass, drums, synth, tablature
	Message-ID: <Bw2GxE.3DG@uunet.uu.net>
	Date: 13 Oct 92 15:41:38 GMT
	Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
	Followup-To: poster
	Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:47:38 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: gvh@metrosoft.com's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:18:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.001817.6522@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:

   Surely at this point you're arguing for the sake of argument. I'm trying  
   to suggest positive steps so that this doesn't happen in the future, not  
   debate semantics.

Then get out of this thread and into one that's explicitly for the
purpose of revising the Guidelines, which I think is an excellent
idea.  Remaining in this thread is beating a dead horse (on both
sides), since it doesn't look like anybody has changed their opinion
on the validity of the vote.

   Jeez.

Ditto.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:25:45 GMT
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft

In article <1992Nov10.215325.26386@daimi.aau.dk> rorschak@daimi.aau.dk  
(Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
> 
> >>And you are saying that this is adequate grounds to completely scrap a
> >>perfectly valid vote?
> 
> >Yes. The voter turnout was skewed. 
> 
> You don't know that. All you is that 11% or something like that of the 
> votes came from posters from the last 3 weeks or so (you haven't  
mentioned
> how many of the posters that voted though). You know absolutly nothing
> about how many readers voted, nor do you know what those that didn't
> read the proposal would have thought of it.

But we all *do* know that the voter base would have been different.  
Magically the percentages COULD be the same but it seems unlikely.

Please note: I am NOT demanding a re-vote. The main reason I respond to  
posts like this is that I think the way this turned out was crummy and  
that in the future we can do better. I feel that the efforts of people  
such as this poster to imply that the vote would have turned out the same  
would block the efforts to improve the system.

The vote would most likeley NOT have turned out the same and the system  
CAN be improved so that more people are reprsesented. I feel quite  
strongly about that.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups