HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Group splits, killfiles...
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:45:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.062905.5012@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>
>>>I simply cannot afford the time to read through ... news.announce.newgroups
>>>on a continual basis.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.  There isn't that much traffic in
>>n.a.newgroups.
>
>Well, YOU don't buy that...but why should your standard be the official
>"approved" standard for everybody?

Dave, give it up!  Rec.music.synth has literally at least three times
the traffic of news.announce.newgroups, and that's on a bad day!  It
is literally not possible to have time to go through rec.music.synth
and not news.announce.newgroups.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: hch@oclc.org (Curtis Hunter)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:47:50 GMT

In article <BxBrnp.FC7@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.185730.22775@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>News.groups is hardly an elite clique. Joining it for a few weeks is
>hardly going to kill anyone. And anyone who can't be bothered to join
>news.groups for the short time required to talk about a group certainly
>hasn't demonstrated much interest in it. 
>

   First let me say that I don't read the affected groups, but being currently
involved in a CFV for rec.arts.marching.* I have something to say about the
above statement.  There are very few people I know of on alt.drumcorps or
alt.colorguard that regularly subscribe to news.groups.  When it was decided
to issue an RFD for the new rec groups several people posted short messages
stating that discussion was being held in news.groups about creating
rec.arts.marching.* to let people know where to voice their opinions.  When 
someone posted a discussion about the new groups they were refered to 
news.groups.  I feel that a vast majority of people that are/were concerned 
with the new groups posted on news.groups.  Also when the CFV was issued a 
similar message was posted telling anyone that wished to vote for the groups
(either for or against) should look on news.groups and news.announce.groups (I 
think that's the correct name?) for the CFV.  I think it has worked well and 
cannot believe that NOONE on r.m.s was aware of the RFD and CFV and the affect 
it would have on r.m.s.  I would hope hope that someone would have let the 
group in on the "secret".  If noone did I question their interest in the group.


_______________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
|  Curtis Hunter                      curtis@sporty.col.oh.us                 |
|  Online Computer Library Center     hch@oclc.org                            |
|  Dublin, OH                         CIS  76040,2605                         |
|  (614) 764-6325                                                             |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine - need definition
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:17:47 GMT
Followup-To: sci.med
Organization: negligable

In article <Bx3y2o.4r6@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>   Nope.  Medical references will be an important asset to
>   misc.health.alternative.
>
>Well, perhaps I am mistaken.  It seemed to me those most likely to
>provide such references are the ones least likely to subscribe.  I'd
>be interested in hearing from any medical people who are looking
>forward to participating in misc.health.alternative.


considering that the only newsgroup this is being posted to is news.groups
I'd be interested in hearing from medical people that have been following
this discussion at all.

Should we crosspost this stuff to sci.med to get some of their opinions?

(note: I may be partially to blame, this site does NOT get a full
feed, and I can't seem to crosspost to any group that this site does
not get -- so when a group is added to the header I have to remove
it to reply.  

I'll try putting such groups on the followups-to line...)



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And the men who hold high places	|
must be the ones who start		|	-Richard Hartman	
to mold a new reality			|	hartman@uLogic.COM
closer to the heart!			|

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Xanth Watch
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:56:18 GMT

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>This sounds just like any argument used to justify inconsideration and 
>disrespect to an ignorant or powerless minority. Sort of like "No ethnic
>minorities in the streets after 10pm". Shall I continue on this line
>of reasoning?

Are you trying to tell us that you have a line of reasoning? From where
I sit it looks like you have seen a result that you didn't like and
now you are trying to undo the vote. You started out with vote fraud
and now you are down to dissatisfaction with a subject line. How much
thinnier can a postion get?
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mmurali@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Magical_Flute)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.singaporean 
Organization: Dwaraka  
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:17:26 GMT

TAN GIM WEE (eng20009@nusunix1.nus.sg) wrote:
: IMHO, NUS is not doing anything about this proposed new newsgroup
: because the computer centre here has recently created about 10 local
: newsgroups catering to the needs of the people in NUS.
: Anyway, given the large number of Singapore bashers in netland, this new
: group will probably be just another avenue for them to enjoy themselves.a
: Maybe this is just like opening Pandora's Box.
: 
: --
: ---------------------------------------------------------
: Tan Gim Wee
: EE Dept, NUS
: internet: eng20009@nusunix1.nus.sg
: bitnet: eng20009@nusvm.bitnet
: "It was a dark and stormy night......"	-  Snoopy


That is very interesting to hear.
How about telling us about these newsgroups?

I remeber there was one such newsgroup when Bitnet was started
a couple of years ago here- called NUS list or something like
that and it was a dead dead dead group. 

The formation of a newsgroup also provides a channel for
Singaporeans to use Singlish and local slang- something
which foreigners cannot understand or something for
foreigners to appreciate!

MD


-- 
=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o= 
 Murali Damodaran, Sch. of MPE    <> Internet: mmurali@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg     
 Nanyang Technological University <> Bitnet  : mdamodaran@ntuvax           
 Nanyang Avenue, SINGAPORE 2263   <> Phone : 65-799-5599  Fax: 65-791-1859 
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.med
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:53:44 GMT

ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>Dave had plenty of time to post a message, perhaps with a subject like:

This argument is again a straw man. AS I explained before, I was so
sure that vote wouldn't pass that I ignored details. It should never
be too late to fix something that is objectively destructive.

It may be too late now. Thanks, folks, for ruining a perfectly good newsgroup.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

     He who has made a door and a lock, has also made a key.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth L. Blumberg)
Subject: Re: Discussion request: Keeping soc.religion.* flat
Organization: Generic American College Kids (G.A.C.K.)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:24:36 GMT
Reply-To: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth L. Blumberg)
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

While I agree that the result of the proposed guidelines change (i.e.,
eliminating argument about whether religious groups are or are not subgroups
of other religious groups during the RFD process) is highly desirable, I think
that the side effects of this change mitigate strongly against its adoption.

I have two main reasons for this belief:

1.) It's just not right to have a hierarchy-specific guideline like that.  Not
everyone who reads net.news gives a darn about soc.religion.*.  In fact, I
don't read anything from that subtree, nor do I intend to start.  The
guidelines fill the role of "holy writ" here, and putting a rule regarding a
specific subhierarchy into them strikes me as a severe misfeature.

2.) It's un-orthogonal.  Everywhere else in the hierarchy, we try to maintain
"namespace purity," aiming for a cleanly-branched tree nested to a depth of at
most 4 or 5; to turn against this overwhelmingly useful philosophy in the case
of soc.religion invites a general abandonment of net.elegance.  You wouldn't
want everything to start looking like the alt.* "hierarchy," would you? :-)

On the other hand, I see nothing particularly wrong with making it an
officially unofficial rule, and flaming the heck out of anyone who dares break
it.  Isn't that what news.groups is for?

	Seth "the Lesser"

Seth L. Blumberg          \ Warning: This posting has been determined to cause
slb22@columbia.edu (play)   \ cancer in laboratory animals.  Please make sure
sethb@ctr.columbia.edu (work) \ that no white mice are allowed to read it.  
    > No one I know shares my opinions, least of all Columbia University. <
Xref: sparky news.groups:20421 rec.music.synth:17829
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 6 Nov 1992 16:33:06 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <MJP.92Nov6105336@prudence.hplb.hpl.hp.com> mjp@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Mike Prudence) 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. This would be the first time that agonized screaming would have
reversed a vote that had NO procedural irregularities.

>My betting would be that the number of votes would be much larger, and
>the vote would be more clearly one sided on the NO side.  And also,
>the vote would contain a larger proportion of the people who actually
>read and rely on this group, whether they post or not.

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.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: thomas@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz (Thomas Beagle)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.society.folklore unmoderation
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 00:01:23 GMT

In article <1762@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>In article <1992Nov04.051306.16736@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz>, thomas@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:
>> I don't understand you. You refer to the "alt sewer" and then wish to
>> appropriate one of the groups from it.
>
>Sometimes even good things fall into the sewer. It's only fitting to try
>and rescue them. The same thing was just recently done with
>alt.bbs.waffle (now comp.bbs.waffle).

It doesn't need rescuing, it's not dying. It's not even sick!

Alt.* is not a sewer. It's a part of news that works to slightly
different guidelines than the rest of the place.

>> I would suggest that you should speak to whoever runs your feed and
>> collect some of the alt groups. A lot of them are worth reading. 
>
>You're not paying attention. A lot of places don't GET the alt.*
>hierarchy for one reason or another. Often it's just not available and
>many SysAdmins are not interested in taking the large portion of crap
>that comes with the good groups. Not to mention the endless juvenile
>'newgroup wars'. 

That's what I mean. Talk to whoever runs your feed. Tell them that you
think it would be worthwhile to get some of the alt groups (you don't
have to get them all). 

Ask them how this would be done. Perhaps you'll have to dial up
another site that does get them if you can't drag them over the
internet.

Again, propagation problems are not the fault of the rest of the net!

>> The alt.folklore.* hierarchy is alive and well. 
>
>A debatable diagnosis. Alive, certainly. Well? Hmmmmmmm....

Yes, alive and well. The volume and signal to noise ratio is better
than in many other parts of the news net.

>> For any reasonable site in the world, alt.* is as much part of the
>> mainstream as anywhere else.
>
>Mainstream? Alt? Pardon me whilst I fall out of my chair laughing. 
>Things must be slow in New Zealand if you think alt is mainstream. 

Well, it seems strange that if somewhere as far away as NZ can get the
alt.* groups that it wants, that a site in mainland USA can't.

-- 
Thomas Beagle    | thomas@datamark.co.nz       | Have you hugged your
Technical Writer | thomas@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz | beagle today?
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Re. soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya-moderated.
From: amjad@otago.ac.nz
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:59:46 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

In article <1992Nov4.144801.1390@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, njamil@nyx.cs.du.edu (Nasir Jamil) writes:
> 	  AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO ALL THOSE WHO THINK AHMADIS 
> 	ARE NOT MUSLIMS BECAUSE THEY DO BELIEVE THE PROPHET 
> 	          CAN COME AFTER MUHAMMAD (PBOH)
> 
> 
> 	Please refer to the following verses in the Holy Quran:
> 
> 	"And who so obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall
> 	among those whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely,
> 	the PROPHETS, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous.
> 	And excellent companions are these.
> 
> 	This grace is from Allah, and sufficient is Allah, the All
> 	Knowing."
> 
> 				C:4, V: 69,70.
> 
> 	Take this to moderaters of soc.religion.islam (who think 
>         that they are the AUTHORITY on islam saying who should and 
> 	who should not identify with ISLAM), any scholar of Arabic, 
> 	Quran, Hadith or any Mullah you believe is literate enough
> 	and courage enough to talk about this and ask what they 
> 	believe the meaning of these verses are. I challenge that 
> 	no one will be able to interpret these any other way but 
> 	that there can be prophets from among those who believe and 
> 	obey Allah and His Messenger the Prophet Muhammad (pboh). 
> 	That the prophethood is the blessing of Allah and is a Grace 
> 	which He bestows upon whoever He wants. Allah does not need 
> 	the majority opinion or or opinion of soc.religion.islam
> 	moderators of His doings.
> 
> 	This is the kind of Prophethood bestowed upon Hazrat Mirza
> 	Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian by Almighty Allah. And no body dares
> 	taking it away from him without invoking wrath of Allah.
> 
> 	If you cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the above
> 	(and you will not be able to do that), then please STOP 
> 	CALLING ahmadis and others NON-MUSLIMS because they do not
> 	believe your interpretation of KHATAM-al-NABAYYEEN. I can
> 	provide more references to the Quran in this regard, but I 
> 	think that this only one verse is sufficient to astound you.
> 
> 	And sure we need soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya to discuss
> 	this and other issues. Sooner the better.
> 
> Nasir Jamil.


Very well point raise by Nasir Jamil that "Allah does not need the majority
opinion or the SRI moderator of HIS doings"

Thank you very much Nasir Jamil for such a great point.
Amjad Tariq, New Zealand.
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.asean
From: mhkho@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Ho Hiang Kwee)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.singaporean
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:05:42 GMT

One big difference between the current proposal for s.c.singapore and
previous ones is that Singapore is now fully on Internet, with an
increasing number of local users both in the academic institutions, and
in the "real world" (thru' Technet), having access to Usenet.

Its' true that the participation of Singaporeans on s.c.a has been
relatively low, but perhaps it is an indication of the relevance of
the topics and quality of discussion on s.c.a rather than the disinterest of
Singaporeans.

Don't get me wrong - the type of discussions taking place in s.ca. has
its place and usefulness, but I guess we are a people and culture rather more 
comfortable with restrain, tolerance and "order" - even on issues
we disagree on. (BTW, I also personally don't think it has much to do
with Singaporeans being wary of "Big Brother" - I think we have progressed
beyond that stage, esp. in the last few years). 

I share some of the concerns expressed (esp. by Tai concerning
fragmentation etc.), but I have been checking out on s.c.thai and
s.c.filipino (and even a.c.indonesia), and  I must say that they seem to 
be doing very well on their own. The discussions on s.c.a at the moment
cannot be considered very "asean" in their content - maybe it is good
to have national s.c. groups, and reserve s.c.a for issues of interest
to the majority of Asean countries - and if Asean is too loose a grouping
to bind people to talk about common issues of concern and interest, then
let s.c.a. die a natural death - it has served its purpose well I think.

ps. if anyone has the original note by Harish Pillay when he got
s.c.a. going a few years ago, please post it! I think it is good
to look at where we stand now with respect to that initial "idealistic"
hope for s.c.a.

-- 
Hiang-Kwee Ho                  ||    Internet: mhkho@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg 
School of Mech. & Prod. Eng.   ||    Bitnet:   mhkho@ntuvax
Nanyang Technological Univ.,   ||    Phone: +65 799-5499 
Nanyang Ave., Singapore 2263.  ||    Fax:   +65 791-1859
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:00:51 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
>Here's what an actual poster from the rec.music.makers has to say.
>>I've read Chip Salzenberg's arguments and I have to say I disagree.

The other followups have already said all I want to say, except:

>>It's disappointing to hear that people who evidently know more consider
>>themselves superior...

Whoever this person is, he or she has NO BUSINESS pretending to know
how I may or may not consider myself.  NO BUSINESS AT ALL.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: This has nothing to do with .campaign.
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:35:11 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>Perhaps you should propose that usenet readers who also read fido should
>not be elligible to vote for any new newsgroups, Josh.  That would solve
>all your problems.

I believe this is an example of 'reductum ad absurdum' arguement, where
the speaker takes a point and 'evolves' it along directions, while
conceivable, is in no way the direction that the original objector had
intended, and would not have pushed in that direction.

Correct, Loren?

IMPO, there is only one FidoNet junkie that I would like to muzzle, but
that is evidently against the rules of usenet also, so I can't.  Shucks.

-- 
Ogden's Law:
	The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch
	up.
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: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:07:15 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>Those who would be affected by a change should have the ability to affect the
>course of events. This includes not only those in a group but also those who
>maintain news systems.

I'll grant you this one. 

>Just as I have no sympathy for those who didn't vote Tuesday and then complain
>about Clinton's election, so I have no sympathy for those who didn't vote on
>this issue and are complaining now.

Do I detect some non-relavent sour grapes here? <grin>

>>How about posting CFV's for renames ONLY to the group that is being
>>renamed? That works. It also forces people who want to vote to read
>>the group and get a sense of it. 
>Sorry, but this would completely remove the input from the admins who would
>have to make the necessary changes, as it would otherwise force them to read
>every group they get on their system.

Then crosspost it to news.groups. Each rename should involve a clear
subject line (e.g. RENAME rec.music.synth -> rec.music.makers.synth),
and should be posted separately from other renames. 

>>I don't think they knew to do so. Some of those people have (and desire to
>>have) little clue as to USENET and it's politics. They shouldn't have to
>>have a clue when it comes to affecting their group.
>If that's the case, then what do they care what the group is called -
>especially those on the other side of a Usenet-to-something-else gateway?

Because their group might be fragmented. That's why. That's why *I* care.

>>Please be precise. "...the expressed wished of a fractionally small subset 
>>of the net as a whole". Or are you going to now claim that 271 people speak
>>for an estimated 6 million? 
>No more, and no less, than those who claim that the 43% of American voters who
>went for Clinton two days ago speak for the entire country.

Voting for an American president is hardly relavent to voting for a newsgroup,
nor is it a justifier for this situation. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

People who dream impossible dreams and strive to achieve them raise man's
stature a fraction of an inch in the process, whether they win or lose.