HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dagibbs@quantum.on.ca (David Gibbs)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 20:44:19 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems
Distribution: na
Keywords: perfect-information deterministic strategic no-dice

In article <1992Sep01.053212.9009@microsoft.com> bethmo@microsoft.com (Beth Moursund) writes:
>>The games we're interested in are (again, almost always) games of perfect
>>information, so why not rec.games.perfect-information?  Well first off,
>
>I'm surprised that no one has pointed out yet that 1830 and Civilization
>are both diceless games of perfect information.  :-)

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Civilization is NOT a game of perfect
information.  It involves the use of _shuffled_ piles of cards and
hands of cards (contents unknown), and even worse, trading cards
of unkown types.  This is not perfect information!

-David Gibbs
(dagibbs@quantum.on.ca)
From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.diplomacy
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:54:00 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <6059@transfer.stratus.com> hship@sw.stratus.com (Howard Ship) writes:
>What is the distribution of bit.listserv.dipl-l?  Despite its ugly name,
>this is already a news group dedicated to diplomacy.  rec.games.diplomacy
>would seem to be redundant.
>
Pretty small by all indications of the amount of Diplomacy discussion
that is initiated on the list from Usenet.  I'm afraid that the
arbitron data does not list the bit newsgroups (that must be small!)

Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: steve@bucolix.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Subject: Re: How Do You Verify Votes? (was Re: r.m.harley vote acknowledgment)
Reply-To: steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:28:13 GMT

In article <!wcn6ng@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier) writes:
>>>>> Now wait just a minute.  Haven't _any_ of you ever experienced the
>>>>> variable reliability of e-mail? 
>>>> I briefly considered the possibility you put forth, and dismissed it. 
>>> Ah, a newbie.  You should shut up until you have enough experience to
>>> know what you're talking about. 
>> I suppose six years experience sending email from NCSU to the world
>> still makes me a newbie. 
>There's this program called UUCP, and these archaic things called "dialup
>connections".  In six years on the net, you should have heard of them. 
>Not everyone on the net is at an Internet-connected university site.

I've received numerous emails from people using UUCP in mixed-mode email
addresses to reach an internet facility, and then have the internet facility
redirect the email to the addressed/targeted site.  However, I've been told
that this is frowned upon by system developers.  As I'm sure you've guessed,
I'm not an email guru, and I don't know about the legal technicalities 
involved with mixed-mode email addressing.  But It Does Work.

I'd like to learn a little more about email, but I think the topic of email
goes beyond the scope of the subject and news.groups.  Could you please either
discuss the subject of email with me through email transmittal, or please
direct me to an appropriate newsgroup?

Steve Garnier - DoD #00000005 - '79 XS1100SF w/ 157K+ miles and *climbing*
KotF (Flame),  KotAM (Anecdotal Motorcycle),  The Daemon's Byte
       Contrary to popular belief, I am not the Devil's advocate...
                  ...but I am his speech writer.
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.sex.stories
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: The call for a new moderator of rec.arts.erotica
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:43:26 GMT

I'll ignore the rest of Christophe's prattle, but there's one point
he made that requires at least some clarification.

In article <BtIHy9.2HA@taligent.com>
	cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:

>I am sorry that it took making rec.arts.erotica redunant by the
>creation of alt.sex.stories in order to accomplish this.  Had
>rec.arts.erotica been run properly, it would not have been required.

Bullshit. Even when r.a.e works properly, a.s.s would still be necessary.
There are reposts, requests for reposts, postings of stories that are
unacceptable to the moderator, commentary, etc.

The two work well in paralle, even when both are working properly.
Maybe especially so. Changing moderators of r.a.e will not lessen the
demand for an unmoderated group.
-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
    Was "Trouble" (from the Broadway Show, Music Man) the first rap song?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (Mike Miskulin)
Subject: Re: misc.forsale.computers reorg
Organization: High Energy Concepts
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:46:50 GMT
Keywords: rfd

In article <_gcn28d.cornhead@netcom.com> cornhead@netcom.com (Jeff Miller) writes:

>I further suggest that the fact that this issue comes up and is either 
>shot down or passively dies about every 4 months makes it a dead issue, 
>and MOST IMPORTANTLY those of us who have seen it come and go so many 
>times are so jaded and tired of spelling out our objections that the 
>context for a meaningfull or representative debate is lost. 

I have seen very few objections during this RFD to some form of 
reorganization, and the point raised most often is the potential of
cross posts.  Further, nobody has actually brought this to a vote,
or even RFD and that is quite likely why it has died in the past.
 
>I am not too familiar with request-for-votes protocol but I think 
>whoever is responsible for taking the votes should post the total 
>number of votes received to m.f.c on a daily basis so that this 
>"silent majority" I hypothesize has ample warning to respond if, this 
>time, the possibility of splitting the group becomes a very real threat.

Vote totals are posted at the end of the voting period.  Ample notice
is given, and typically 2 or 3 requests are posted to vote.  If in 
fact there is a silent majority, they should vote.  


>To sum, my feeling is "Don't muck withe the only newsgroup I read on a daily 
>basis!" and I think many people feel the same way. If this is not handled 
>carefully and we all wake up one day to find our favorite newsgroup decimated 
Usenet news groups are formulated on a consensus basis and grow/die/change
as those involved in the group(s) believe suits them best.  But in any
large group there will always be those who steadfastly believe there view
is most correct; however the aim is to please as many as possible. So
while you have every right to object and vote no to the proposal, I'm don't
think that others should do so because you read the group daily and 
prefer its current presentation. 


>I think you will have some very upset people on your hands. 

I certainly hope not, but should a reorganization pass the vote
there may be some who are at least temporarily unhappy.  But it
*is* a vote, and will only happen if the majority want it to happen.



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mike Miskulin		mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us	70053,551@compuserve.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pierre@prpa.philips.com (Pierre Uszynski)
Subject: Re: Splitting news.groups?
Organization: Philips Research Palo Alto
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:36:50 GMT

In <1992Sep2.173511.8446@sniap.mchp.sni.de> Mathias.Koerber@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mathias Koerber) writes:

[...] 

>news.groups.brainstorm:		General talk and blabber
>news.groups.d:			everything from RFD onwards
>news.newgroups.announce:	just as it is..results etc

>RFDs /etc can still be posted to all three groups, but with
>followup set to n.g.d

how about a group to discuss news procedures: like the current Call For Removal discussion that is really a discussion on changing procedures, or discussion about vote taking practices, or signal-noise ratio:

news.groups.procedure	discussion of group life cycle procedure (meta group)
news.groups.discussion	from RFD onwards (formal Discussion Period)
news.groups.misc	misc
news.groups.results	post vote: contested votes, flames, etc
news.newgroups.announce	as is now (follow up to the above groups)


I feel that the .d name is not appropriate here. We mean formal
Discussion Period, not random discussion.

Pierre.
-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
       Pierre Uszynski, Philips Research Palo Alto, CA, USA
            USA-415-354-0328, pierre@PRPA.Philips.COM
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: karttu@mits.mdata.fi (Antti Karttunen)
Subject: Re: rec.games.abstract
Organization: MITS, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:59:24 GMT

In article <185bscINNr57@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) writes:
>
>Calling all names, please.

What about rec.games.board.proprietary and .nonproprietary (or .pd)?
Now, don't take this seriously, but I just realized that these names
divide the interests quite well.
Fortunately, the inventors of Go and Chatur-anga didn't make their
games proprietary. ;-)

(Really: I favor keeping rec.games.board as it it, and creating
rec.games.[board.]abstract for the games currently discussed.)

>-- 
>Francis A. Uy			now a Bawlmorean, hon.
>Program Director, WUMD		ISO part time job to pay the rent.


-- 
Antti Karttunen       --  $B%"%s%C%F%#!!%+%k%C%H%%%M%s(J  (et{ty|t|n)
karttu@mits.mdata.fi  --  Apatheist, although not particularly proud of it.
Xref: sparky news.groups:17363 misc.legal:16755
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: news.groups,misc.legal
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.legal.family moderated
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:11:46 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug31.181222.3304@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <02AQ02rr20Zq01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> 
>>I'd support the proffered newsgroup if for no other reson than to help clean 
>>up misc.legal.
>>
>>On the other hand perhaps it does not go far enough.  Should misc.legal and 
>>misc.legal.computing be reorganized into a misc.legal.______ family?
> 
> I tend to think that the problem with misc.legal is not so much noise
> per se as it is cross-posting. 
> 
> I realize that overlapping of subject matter is unavoidable, but this
> is not an extension of talk.politics. Or, rather, it shouldn't be.
> 
> 
> --Mike

I put talk.* crossposts in my killfile.  Due to the limitations of my
newsreader it only kills them if it's the first entry in the
"Newsgroups: " header.  Some still get through.  === Al
From: scoile@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Steve Coile)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.babylon5
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:13:37 GMT
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.

Jennifer E. Levine writes:
>Although the show is not out yet it has gotten alot of attention and
>discussion. There are lots of posts about it in the ST heirarchy. 

I've heard a lot of people make this claim.  Can ANYONE document it?  I can
recall passing over a few articles here and there, most of which seem to be
"What is Babylon 5", or some such.  Certainly there aren't an undue number
of them (else I would have added it to my KILL file), so I can't imagine there
are enough to warrent another newsgroup.

Consider this a request for someone to document the so-called need for the
group, basing the documentation on USENET traffic related to the subject
(I don't know how to do it, so I can't; I don't want to learn how to do it;
it won't matter to me either way, I'll vote NO on any proposal for rec.arts.
babylon5; I'm just curious).

 Steve "Stevers!" Coile                    scoile@gmuvax[{.BITNET|[2].gmu.edu}]
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil 
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:00:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.220216.26754@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>In article <92242.190548JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>  Holy smoke !! I go away on vacation and the minute I come back
>> I find that the SCIA/Alok controversy is still going on !!! Unbelievable !!
>
>And it will go on ...

Pity.  Too bad some people just can't let the subject die, and feel they
must bring it up again and again and again and...

Purchase enough of a clue to absorb the following: you are beating a
dead horse, and there are no new arguments to be brought up.  Just
drop the subject once and for all!

-- 
Michael Bryan        michael@resonex.com                     |     ,_,
Milk and Cheese in '92!!!                                    |    /oo \
"What the world needs now are some true words of wisdom,     |    <>__|
like 'La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la'."  -- Cracker           |    |  U|
From: boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:49:25 GMT
Organization: Centre d'Etudes de la Navigation Aerienne
Originator: boubaker@bendy


In article <42244@ogicse.ogi.edu>, jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
|> a short while back, Lazlo sed:
|> >As an aside to this RFD, I'd like to suggest that it might be time to move
|> >rec.music.makers.* up to rec.musicians.*, with appropriate name changes for
|> >any existing or proposed subgroups.
|> 
|> To make this idea a little more concrete, and get some feedback, here's what
|> I'd propose that a `rec.musicians' hierarchy look like:
|> 
|>     rec.musicians.misc
       OK but will it be a group for misc discussions about
       music making or a group for discussions on instruments
       not in others groups (for example i play sax where do i
       have to post an article about sax, here or in another group
       (to define: rec.musicians.misc-instruments?) ??).
|>     rec.musicians.guitar
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.guitar.bass -or- rec.musicians.bass-guitar
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.guitar.tablature
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.percussion
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.keyboards
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.synth
       I'm not really sure that 'synth' is the good name for
       that group (what about samplers, expanders, ... are their
       synth or something more global , for almost people synth
       are principaly keyboards).
|>     rec.musicians.marketplace
       OK very good , sales annouces will not pollute others
       groups anymore.
|> 
|> [ some stuff about previous groups deleted ]
|> 
|> Some interesting further possibilities might be the creation of genre
|> specific groups, such as:
|> 
|>     rec.musicians.rock
|>     rec.musicians.jazz
|>     rec.musicians.classical
|>     etc...
|> 
|> although I have no idea if they'd be useful.  It seems that current discussion
|> in rec.music.makers is largely rock/popular music oriented, although I have
|> a feeling that this is simply because jazz and classical (etc) musician
|> discussions are carried on in the bluenote and classical groups, respectively.

   I like the idea it could be places where people could ask questions like
   "I would like to know the chords of [my favourite song of the moment]" or
   "I terminate all unfinished classicals symphonies and i release them to
    the public domain , who want the sheet music or midi files of them?" ...

|> 
|> --Jeff

 Heddy -- boubaker@dgac.fr
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:18:02 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Aug31.210215.25458@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>In article <y5dnf=l@lynx.unm.edu>, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>> >> You were vote taker at the time, and posted some messages asking for
>> >> votes, the contents of which went against the spirit of the Usenet 

>> > What's so damn wrong in reminding people to cast their votes and hope 
>> > them to vote favorably ? 

>> It's AGAINST THE RULES when YOU'RE the VOTE TAKER

>USENET has NO rules, just guidelines. This is NOT against the guidelines
>as has been pointed out in earlier discussion.

And you know why they're called the guidelines? Because they're just
suggestions. They're an attempt to help you through the maze of tradition
and common usage that embody the real rules, such as they are.

You were told. You didn't believe. You lost.

Quit playing stupid semantic games and try to learn something.

>There is no mention in the guidelines explicitely forbidding it.

THAT'S why they're called "guidelines", you utter pratt.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.babylon5
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:33:10 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <98lncwd@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose "of Biscayzee") writes:

>Put it this way...if the vote for rec.arts.sf.babylon5 passes (or, god forbid,
>rec.arts.babylon5), that very day, the following proposals will be sent for
>approval:

>	rec.arts.mst3k
>	rec.arts.law&order
>	rec.arts.forever-knight
>	rec.arts.covington_cross

>All of these shows have garnered as much traffic, either in total number of
>posts or in number of posts/day as babylon 5, with one exception:  THEY EXIST!

Even more to the point: discussion on these shows exists and is well
served by the existing group rec.arts.tv. Since Babylon5 and Blakes7 can
also use groups like rec.arts.sf.tv and rec.arts.tv.uk they have a
perfectly good home for discussion already.

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

                         "Microsoft Word to Your Mother."
                              - Computer Rap Geeks
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Alok and soc.culture.indian.american
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:43:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug22.213719.11757@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner) writes:
> In <1992Aug21.224659.20810@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> 
> >In either vote the organizer factor was only third in importance.
> 
> But of primary importance in the discussions which overturned the first
> vote.

True but unfairly so.

> -Geoff

Alok
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT])
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:22:47 GMT

millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:

>I agree that such a procedure needs to be in place but there has to be
>some kind of use test for the newsgroup. Namely this should only be done
>to newsgroups that have <X posts per month over Y months. I'd go for
>something like X=20 and Y=6 myself.

Something like that would indeed be essentially necessary. Imagine
some jerk issuing a Call for Removal on his most disliked group.
A good point for endless flamewars: "lets rmgroup comp.sys.foobar,
that system is not worth discussing".

Regards

Christoph Weber-Fahr

-- 
  Christoph Weber-Fahr                  |  E-Mail:  weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de 
  Universitaet Kaiserslautern,  KIT     |  S-Mail:  Postfach 3049
  Tel. 0631/205-3391                    |           D-6750 Kaiserslautern
--------------------------  My personal opinion only    ---------------------
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.babylon5
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

pjb4288@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Pete - Toonatic - Boulay) writes:

>I am definitely in favor of a newsgroup for Babylon 5. The show is NOT
>Star Trek and should NOT be discussed in the rec.arts.startrek.* hierarchy.
>That much is obvious.

    Good point. I really have no idea why the posts started appearing in
the r.a.s.* hierarchy when they should have all gone to r.a.sf.tv in the
first place.

>I think it should start out as an alt.tv.babylon5 and then if it really
>becomes that popular-offer a rec.arts.babylon5 group.

    I would just like to point out that, regardless of how popular this
might become, there is no reason it should ever have a rec.arts.* group,
IMHO. As an example I give you LA Law which has been an extremely
popular show for the last 6 years, and it doesn't have a rec.arts.*
group of its own.

>I do want a group devoted to Babylon 5 though. The show looks VERY promising
>from what I've seen & read about it.

    Personally, I have no problem with there being an alt.tv.* group for
this hsow, but I still think that we need to see what kind of traffic
its going to get in rec.arts.sf.tv before hand.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
	    "Egads! These look like a women's fingerprints"
						   -- Durlock Holmes
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: steve@bucolix.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Subject: Voting Rules,Procedures (was Re: RESULT: r.m.harley passes 362:47)
Reply-To: steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:41:08 GMT

In article <1450@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>I'm still trying to figure out what all the sour grapes is about. The
>margin of victory for this group is so great that the number of disputed
>votes I've seen mentioned wouldn't even come CLOSE to overturning the
>vote if they were discounted. 

NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE.  I have stated multiple
times that I DO NOT CONTEST THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE, and that
rec.motorcycles.harley should be formed as quickly as possible.

My desire is to find some way to reduce mutliple-voting.  This might be 
achieved by educating voters by having them read the _Guidelines for
Newsgroup Creation_, but first the guidelines need to be updated to 
reflect "One Person, One Vote" or some similar verbage.  Now, before y'all
go jumpin' on my case, several years ago when I first started using "rn" on
USENET, our site *didn't* have the usual reading material for newbies.
We weren't exposed to the usual "where to find" type of information...it
was all word of mouth, and this may be the case for other sites as well.

It might also help to *require* the vote-taker to submit vote acknowledgements
frequently throughout the voting period, say perhaps once a week.  It might 
also help to have the CFV announcement specifically state "One Person, 
One Vote", or that "One Account, One Vote" is unacceptable, or words to that
effect.  But PUT THE VOTING PHILOSOPHY IN WRITING WHERE IT CAN BE EASLIY READ.

>BTW, I attempted to vote FOR the group twice, using uunet, rutgers AND
>psuvax1 as smartpath for smail and all 3 times the message came
>bouncing back as undeliverable, unknown.  Anyone else have that problem?

Why didn't you announce your email difficulties to the net during the CFV?
Maybe your vote could have been delivered via relaying through my site.
Note that I did not say "retransmitted from my or another's account".
My site has no problem with email interconnections to the RMH CFV
vote-taker's machine, and I and others would have been more than happy 
to assist you.

Steve Garnier - DoD #00000005 - '79 XS1100SF w/ 157K+ miles and *climbing*
KotF (Flame),  KotAM (Anecdotal Motorcycle),  The Daemon's Byte
       Contrary to popular belief, I am not the Devil's advocate...
                  ...but I am his speech writer.
Newsgroups: news.groups