HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: BENDING THE GUIDELINES IS BAD NEWS
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:01:17 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <CKD.92Apr9164725@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections that might
>   invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create votes are received
>   than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the total number of valid votes
>   received are in favor of creation, a newgroup control message may be sent 
>                                                                *^^^*
>   out.  If the 100 vote margin or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should 
>   not be created.

>This, I would say, is *explicit* approval for the right of a vote-taker
>or group proposer to ask that a group *not* be created, even upon a
>successful vote.

As long as we're arguing semantics, do the guidelines delegate this right
specifically to the vote-taker?  And do they specify WHO precisely is
authorized to send out newgroup control messages?  Or can anyone do either
of these things?

In short, I think that the section you quote is at best *implicit* approval,
and entirely dependent on who happens to be interpreting the guidelines in
each specific instance.

>This *is* sane.  This *is* rational.

I'm afraid that I line up on the other side here.  I think that there are
already signs that this bending of the guidelines (and I *do* think that
it is a bending of the guidelines) will be abused, that this is a
dangerous precedent to set.  The net is a huge amorphous entity and I don't
think it can act swiftly or intelligently enough to prevent such a
precedent from insidiously wreaking havoc.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the guidelines NEED to be
adhered to as strictly as is possible.  There's enough chaos on news.groups
as it is.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:31:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Apr12.193111.4254
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <44512@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> thwang@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Tommy Hwang) writes:

>     Unfortunately I have to disagree, manga is not a type of
>comics nor is comics a type of manga.  I personally view them equally.

Hmmm... I think you need to help re-write the charter to reflect that
opinion.

>P.S.  Lets just get the vote over with.

A week of discussion is hardly enough to go to a vote. 

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

  "Right now, I am trying to overthrow the Government of the United States."
		-Patrick "Hatrack" Buchanan
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: awozniak@zeus.calpoly.edu (The WOZ)
Subject: Rec.games.mud reorganization (Was Re: Um, okay, I did it.)
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:30:16 GMT

Trying to make all the news.groups people happy by renaming the
thread.  Please followup to _this_ article...

-- 
: main me @ trigger @ desc setdesc me @ swap notify ;
( a viral description muf program.  make everyone look     )
( just like you!  ///  awozniak@morpheus.calpoly.edu       )
(    Lord Knight Errant Grammer Checker of the B.E.M.      )
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: soc.personals.ads. etc....
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:10:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.221917.26689@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>So if you're doing that, why split the groups?  If you can be assured
>>that every message posted to soc.personals.ads will have the proper
>>subject line format, there is no extra utility gained in splitting
>>into msm, etc.  People who don't want to see some particular subset of
>>those posts can easily add the appropriate patterns to their KILL
>>files.
>
>Not ALL usenet sites have kill file capability. This is why I am splitting
>the groups. (Otherwise why risk flames from the gay community?)

Just about all Usenet sites and newsreaders, I imagine, have some
capacity for viewing messages based on subject lines.  The reader who
is so terribly afraid he might accidentally read a message written by
a homosexual can pick and choose the posts written by (depending on
the reader's gender) FSMs or MSFs without even having a KILL file.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
From: boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD:  rec.games.mud.{tiny,diku,announce}
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:29:40 -0500
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Apr13.181229.15796@uunet.uu.net>, Bob Snyder
<rsnyder@fergie.dnet.ge.com> writes:
> Proposed:
> rec.games.mud.tiny
> rec.games.mud.diku
> rec.games.mud.announce (moderated)
> 
> rec.games.mud.lp already exists, and rec.games.mud will stay on as a
> place to discuss concerns that are not directly related to any
> individual gaming system.  rec.games.mud.announce would be for game
> administrators to announce when their mud goes up or down, or other
> mud related announcements.  The proposed moderator is Scott Goehring,
> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu.

   My suggestions on this proposal is to not include any newsgroup that is
specifically oriented towards a particular MU* game, such as Lp or Tiny or
Diku, but rather, to group them according to what genre they are.

   Someone has already made this suggestion (I believe), but I think the
proposal should be for:
   rec.games.mud.social
   rec.games.mud.adventure
   rec.games.mud.announce (moderated)

  And then change the following to keep with the Usenet Hiearchy (though I can
certainly live without having to change it, just thought I'd suggest it):

   rec.games.mud --> rec.games.mud.misc

  My $0.02 opinion on the matter. :)

                                        John "Nightwind" Boelter

--
*******************************************************************************
* John Boelter        a.k.a. Nightwind            boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu *
* Organizational Manager and contact person for everything and then some.     *
*******************************************************************************
* I don't know, I don't care, I don't want * They're fleeing the wrong way!!  *
* to know, and I don't want to care.       *        -confused adventurer-     *
*        -Martian Manhunter-               ************************************
*        -Justice League International-    * Why is the DM smiling like that? *
*******************************************************************************
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Repost - A Query for soc.culture.indian.american (SCIA)
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:31:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr8.145247.11571@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:

>Repost of original query posted on March 17, 1992:
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Q.1 Are you a Native American (American INdian) ?

No.

>Q.2 Where did you read the CFV for SCIA ?

Here, I think.

>Q.3  Did you vote (YES or NO) under the impression that the proposed group
>(SCIA) was meant for Native Americans (American Indians) ?

Yes, this is exactly what happened.

>Also please indicate how you voted.

"Yes."



	Note that I am posting from a friend's account.


		Jon
		jon@postgres.berkeley.edu
From: ajit@ut-emx.uucp (Ajit Dingankar)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD:  misc.jobs.offered.entrylevel
Summary: entry level
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:35:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

Yes, I think that such a newsgroup should exist, and it's the right
position in the Usenet hierarchy.  Also, I think it should be
unmoderated.

Hopefully, there will be enough traffic on the group!  Perhaps people
who post on misc.jobs.offered could give an input on this?!?

Thanks,
Ajit

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.191551.3562@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>The fact that discussion of 'manga' isn't currently in rec.arts.comics is
>because it ended up in an alt group, not because rec.arts.comics pushed it
>out as something inappropriate to the group.

WRONG.

Discussion of manga is in rec.arts.anime, and was in rec.arts.anime before
the creation of alt.manga.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.bio
From: cl@lgc.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: sci.anthropology (LONG) (long response, too)
Organization: Landmark Graphics Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:29:18 GMT

In article <yz0tb8l@rpi.edu> mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.120841.2357@ducvax.auburn.edu> David Roller writes
>about some unpopular usenet behavior, ending with:
>
>>In a _science_ culture, such attacks and pollution would be considered
>>deviant; ...
>
>You expect us to believe that those things are directly related to
>science (or the absence thereof) rather than individual maturity?
>
>Science is over-rated.  (IMHO, of course -- though I spent a substantial
>piece of my life to get a phd in applied math just to be able to make that
>statement as an insider.)
			.
			.
			.
What point are we discussing, now?  I sure thought I
understand Mr. Roller's comments, but I didn't react
to them as you did.

I like examples.  I offer this one:  sci.bio has a
current thread on the evolutionary significance of
endogenous hormones which are alleged to tranquilize
one as death approaches--the claim is said to have
been advanced by Dr. Lewis Thomas in his *A Long
Line of Cells*.  This has spawned a number of more-
or-less interesting tangents.  In one article, a
knowledgeable and well-educated gentleman asserts
that "Dr. Lewis Thomas must be absolutely clueless
about evolution ..."

What Mr. Roller and I are trying to communicate is
that we aim for posters to sci.anthropology to pro-
pose
	This is the kind of misunderstanding about	(a)
	evolution that makes my blood boil ...
or
	People who believe this are absolutely		(b)
	clueless about evolution ...
or
	Having conversed with Dr. Thomas myself,	(c)
	I can report that he does indeed make the
	error of ...
or even
	This certainly is a pernicious mistake, and	(d)
	Dr. Thomas knows better, as he explains in
	his ...
but not
	I want to gratuitously impugn the scholar-	(e)
	ship of a public figure, even though we're
	nominally discussing the ideas, not the
	man.

Is there some succinct way to make clear the dif-
ference between (a)-(d) and (e)?  Neither "science"
nor "maturity" seems effective with some readers.

Incidental remarks:  the overratedness of science
would certainly be a fit topic for sci.anthropology
discussions, either in terms of the relativism of
"ethnoscience", or as an investigation of the method-
ological grounding of ethnography.  And "I [too]
spent a substantial piece of my life to get a phd in
applied math just to be able to make [such] state-
ment[s] as an insider."
--

Cameron Laird				+1 713-579-4613
cl@lgc.com (cl%lgc.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713-996-8546 
claird@Neosoft.com
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.novell reorganization
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:59:11 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <1992Apr15.131131.13733@rhrk.uni-kl.de> weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) writes:

>I don't think this reorganisation is a good idea. Traffic in comp.sys.novell
>is in the mid-range (compared to other groups). So there is no 
>"wading through lots of messages" which would justify even the most stupid
>reorg (which the current RFD of course not is) just to lower the traffic.

I have to agree. comp.sys.novell is not a very busy group. I am able to
weed out what I'm not interested in very quickly because more subject
lines are descriptive enough.
If people are really having a problem with volume I think this group is
disciplined enough to start using keywords in the Subject line.

>I would see some evidence for the .programmer subgroup. A great number of
>comp.sys.novell posters and readers is only involved in network administration,
>user support etc. They might not have much interest in details of the 
>Novell API.

Separation of really technical programming discussion seems reasonable.
Perhaps comp.sys.novell.administration and comp.sys.novell.programming
makes more sense?

>But there is no need in the 2x/3x division. Most people who run networks
>have to support both 2x and 3x systems. There are also a lot of problems
>related to the coexistence of both versions in one LAN. So I cannot imagine
>many people reading only one of the 2/3 subgroups. In that case a 
>group division is unnecessary.

Well, I only with a 3.0x system but I can weed out the 2.0x discussion
easily.

>I could perhaps support the division of a .applications group to cover
>those "How to make WordPerfect print" threads, although I don't see
>much evidence for that, too.

I don't think a separation along those lines would make sense at all.

>To summarize, comp.sys.novell is at best an average-traffic group.
>there is no special need for reorganization. A version-dependant subdivision
>would be worse than the actual situation.

I agree (again)

>I would vote for a .programmer subgroub. 

I might, if the charter was sensible.

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

	"Don't have a stegasaurus, man"
		-Dino Bart, "The Simpsons"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.enya
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 22:25:14 GMT

In <frnk.702743558@cs1.bradley.edu> frnk@cs1.bradley.edu (Paul Ondercin) writes:
>   Good idea! But I won't be able to do it.

What is wrong with changing the group name only?

Would a call for rec.music.artists.enya actually require a restructuring
vote?

>   For those of you who love or hate me... I'm going to start on the CFV. As
>no real changes were suggested to my last postI'm just going to rewrite the
>charter. It'll be a rewording of my last post with only cosmetic changes.

What you don't seem to be seeing is that it has nothing to do with YOU
personally.  It has to do with the whole concept of creating groups for
artists being completely off-base.  The Phish group didn't pass because
it was a good idea, it passed because it had the majority of support.

I think it's pretty clear from the discussion that an enya group does NOT
have nearly as much support.  Not only that, it's just plain a bad idea.
And of course, we DO have alt.music.enya, and yes, it's even here at
our site.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                She was the kind of woman who lived for others.
                You could tell the others by their hunted look.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: huff@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (Edward J. Huff)
Subject: Re: RFD for new IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Organization: NYU Chemistry Dept
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:51:02 GMT

I will vote for whatever name appears in the CDV.  However, I agree with the
arguments for sci.image-proc rather than comp.graphics.image-proc.

I use a point and click newsreader so I don't see any need for using
terse group names.  I think that keeping "processing" in the name might
help new users to guess the group's charter.  (When did you ever see a
copy of the charter easily available in a newsgroup?)

Maybe there ought to be sci.image.detectors, sci.image.processing?
Is there a group now where I can post questions about SIT cameras,
CCD's, intensifiers, etc.?  If not, then maybe we should be considering
a sci.image hierarchy.  (At the moment, we just don't discuss the
subject on USENET.  We use journals, books, trade rags, but no USENET.
If we had sci.image with a charter including detectors, then we could
talk about detectors there).

How about creating sci.image initially, then after the traffic builds
up to justify it, create sci.image.processing, sci.image.detectors,
etc.?  Or maybe sci.image.software.  If we just create sci.image, we
don't have to decide the subgroup names immediately.
From: rrdjro@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Jonathan O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp reorg - DnD
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:57:52 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.

bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:

>In article <3392@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>>In article <1992Apr1.072757.6533@access.digex.com>, rlb@access.digex.com (Richard L. Butler) writes:
>>>[Also Larry Smith]
>>>>How is this different from the genre splits that have been proposed a thousand
>>>>times before?
>>>Well, if you've READ Loren's proposal...
>>I did.  He proposed a special group for DnD.  That is a game-based split,

>No,  it is specifically chosen as a group that will contain an easily
>identified,  major subject of rec.games.frp that many readers aren't
>interested in.  Your first posting said that if we're going to have .dnd,
>we also need .<every other game system> ,  which does not follow -- no
>other game systems have consistently had the same level of posting.

If people are worried about .DnD setting a dangerous precedent, why 
not use the following rule of thumb.
	CFDs for other system based splits should be proposed when the
	traffic for that system _exceeds_ that of *D&D.


In other words, educate people to think of the *D&D traffic as a
_minimum level_ for considering a split.

This won't stop everyone, but you can never hope to stop everyone
from posting 'split' articles.  You can only hope to slow down
the intelligent ones.  :-)

	Jonathan@RMIT.edu.au
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD:  rec.games.mud.{tiny,diku,announce}
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:24:17 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University


First, a summary of the two main factions for rgm reorganization:

Bob Snyder                          |          John Boelter
------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
rec.games.mud.tiny                  | rec.games.mud.social
rec.games.mud.diku                  | rec.games.mud.adventure
rec.games.mud.announce (moderated)  | rec.games.mud.announce (moderated)
                                    | rec.games.mud --> rec.games.mud.misc

(If anyone can recall the other proposals, including the rgm.servers and 
so on, by all means repost this summary with the third proposal and/or
the added groups.)

Now my opinions:

About the only thing everyone seems to agree on is to have rgm.announce 
(moderated) run by Scott Goehring.  Why don't we make this a seperate
issue, and have a RFD on it, etc.?  

I agree wholeheartedly with Bob Snyder on this.  I think that it makes
sense to allow the diku people to have their own group.  The tiny people
seem to think they own rgm, (after all, they created it, or so I've seen
it argued).  I think they should have their own area to talk about
@toading people and to post mating flight announcements, etc. 
HOWEVER, if the tiny* people really want to call it "social" that is their
perogative.  I think it makes dikus and LP's sound anti-social (and TinyMud
players seem to think so) but I can live with it. 

The idea of rgm.adventure is OK, so long as the rgm.lp group remains as is.
I mean, we really don't want to talk over the diku or aber people when we've
already got a group of our own.  And NO we don't want diku traffic shifted 
to rgm.lp, as has been suggested!

Finally, the change from rgm to rgm.misc sounds like more trouble than it
is worth, but I might vote for it, if it comes to that.

Roger Dubbs
rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu
From: dennismy@ids.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RFD: Visual Basic newsgroup
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:05:05 EST
Organization: IDS DataForum, (401)884-9002 Data

I would like to start a new newsgroup for Microsoft Visual BAsic.
I posted a message about info on VB and got an overwhelming response!
I thought since this is the new language and is growing at an alarming rate
that it would be good to have our own newsgroup "comp.sources.vbasic"?
   How do I go about starting this newsgroup... I'd be more than happy to
moderate it...
   I also have allot of tips and Q&A type stuff to post...
Dennis Megarry 
dennismy@192.67.241.11
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: No New Enya News Group!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:29:15 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Apr8.211041.5634@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
|In article <1992Apr7.232621.7778@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Kamchatka Charlie (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu) writes:
|>In article <1992Apr7.015308.5737@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00mddwyer@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
|>And here's a vote AGAINST rec.music.enya.  

Save your votes.  They don't count until the official Call For Votes and
they must be mailed.

|Really?  What about a uucp site that gets rec.music.* but none of alt?  How
|are they supposed to do this?  This describes a fairly significant number of
|sites.
 
I think you`d have a hard time justifying getting all of rec.music.* if the
hierarchy gets thousands of specific artist groups.

|If you don't want to receive the group, fine.  Even though I love
|Enya, I'll probably abstain from the voting, simply because I wouldn't
|have time to read it even if it existed.

Yet you find time to read and participate in news.groups, a much higher
volume group.

|  However, if enough people are interested in the group, let it be created.

Let people vote on it first.

-- 
+=============================================================================+
| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          
| johnf@auspex.com         "He's as good as the next guy"                     |
+=============================================================================+
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.cd,rec.music.misc
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: RFD: removal of rec.music.cd
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 07:06:06 GMT
Organization: Living in a satellite fantasy, waiting for the night to end.

bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:

> When rec.music.cd started a vast majority of the people did not even
> know what a CD was. 

You have a slightly warped sense of time, Bill.  The group passed in
1987, by which time I had a hundred or so discs and LPs were already on
shaky footing. 

> Now that CD's have taken the world by storm the category really is 
> 1) not needed, 2) too broad, or 3) needs to be subdivided into a more
> hierarchical order as many groups have done that have this much traffic. 

The only really interesting suggestion I've seen about what to do with
r.m.cd is to rename it to rec.collecting.cd.  For what I use r.m.cd for,
that would *almost* fit.  rec.music.cd-collectors would just about nail it. 

Talk about it.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

"you always wanted a lover, I only wanted a job"