HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidg@interop.com (David Gimpelevich)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD:  misc.jobs.offered.entrylevel
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:01:22 GMT
Organization: Interop Company, Mountian View, CA

In article <1992Apr2.155534.14962@uunet.uu.net>, rc05@gte.com (Ramesh Chandak) writes:
> Call For Discussion:  Creation of misc.jobs.offered.entrylevel

Vote "yes" from here.  Unmoderated, please.  I've had an entry-level position
open for 3 mo now, and getting a lot of overqualified MSEE grads.
-- 

                                        David Gimpelevich
                                       	Interop Company
                                        davidg@interop.com
Organization: Middle East Technical University - Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 09:54:01 TUR
From: <C43526@TRMETU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: SCUBA??

May someone tell me what happened to rec.scuba group?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:19:49 GMT

In article <y0rjagd@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
writes:
>axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
>
>> We have a situation where the traffic is finding itself everywhere
>> except rec.arts.comics, and a loud minority is still insisting that it
>> be shoehorned into rec.arts.comics.
>
>This is an out-and-out lie.  Not ONE SINGLE PERSON has tried to tell you
>to simply move your discussion to rec.arts.comics

Well, not quite true.  One single person did suggest this.  I think he
was mistaken.

-David
--
============================================================================
David Wald                                           wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu
   "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God"
             -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0
============================================================================
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA (A violation of net guidelines)
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:14:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr17.122414.22873@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner) writes:
> In <1992Apr10.002953.24326@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> 
> >Second, the RFD was certainly valid and six months have not expired
> >since the last RFD. That is where the violation of the guidelines has
> >occured.
> 
> You just don't get it, do you? Maybe two wrongs don't make a right in an
> ideal world but I personally have NO objection to any attempt to salvage
> SCIA from your actions. 

Don't fool yourself, Mr. Bonner.
You do believe that a 'perceived wrong' can be corrected by a 'real wrong' :)

> If that menas we have to bed the quidelines, fine.

Great ! Dump the constitution of the net to do a 'perceived salvation'
of a group from 'perceived wrong' of somebody.

Mr. Bonner, you sound like one of those self-righteous religious crusader.

IN THE PROCESS OF THIS SALVATION, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY DUMP THE GROUP FOR EVER.
> 
> What is the point is this: you are the last person to sign on as a
> Defender of the Net Guidelines. 

Who are you to decide that ? Any one can defend the guidelines anytime
in any order.

> You should stop posting all-together and
> just shut up. And take your worthless Straw Poll with you.
> 

Nasty, Nasty, Mr. Bonner :-)

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

Disgusted,

A.
Xref: sparky eunet.news.group:9 news.groups:10434
From: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Newsgroups: eunet.news.group,news.groups
Subject: Re: RfD eunet.aviation
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:26:37 GMT
Distribution: eunet
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany


Wilco.


   ___                ___
  (      /__         (
   \    /     /  /    \   __.       _   _
 ___)__(_____(__(_  ___)_(_/(__\/__(_)_/___\/___________________CFI
					   /
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:38:55 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Apr8.172632.2715@tc.fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (The Napoleon of Crime) writes:
>I would recommend against it at this time; I have seen almost no spill-over
>of manga discussions into rec.arts.comics, which is where this would be
>discussed in the usual Usenet heirarchy -- and this makes me suspicious of
>the popularity of such a newsgroup.  I think you need to run a test on 
>a fully-propogated rec. group first to see what amount of traffic you're
>actually going to get.
>
>Suggestion: try posting in rec.arts.comics with the keyword "MANGA: " at the
>beginning of the subject line for a month or two, and we'll see how the
>traffic stacks up to everything else there.

The reason you've seen no spillover into rec.arts.comics is because, as
stated by the rec.arts.manga proponents, manga are generally not considered
a subset of "comics".  If you read rec.arts.anime, you'll find plenty of
spillover there, and there was even more spillover before alt.manga was
created.
--
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
From: cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters)
Subject: rec.games.frp.dnd
Organization: Not in this lifetime.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:58:37 GMT

I have come up with one problem with the rec.games.frp.DND subgroup, which,
while farfetched in it's concept . . . 

Moving DND, ADND, and ADND2 to a separate newsgroup can make it easier for
the - shall we say less tolerant (being polite) factions which have 
specifically targeted DND as an evil influence (no! NOT AGAIN!  AHHGGGggg..)
will have an easy target on some of the more conservative sites - you know,
the one's who've decided that the more "Adult" sections of the net are not
"proper" for an academic institution, etc.

Pressure from some of these groups could be applied directly institutions
in question, possibly ending in some sites dumping r.g.f.dnd, while
carrying the rest of the r.g.f.  You know, the old - "I'm not against gaming
in general - it's Dungeons and Dragons which we're against."

Now while a lot of you might be thinking - "So what?  I hate DND anyhow." 
Think, if DND is banned at a site, how far off are the rest of the rolegames?

Unfortunately, I like the idea of the r.g.f.dnd, and can't suggest a different
naming which will be as meaningful.



-- 
Coyt D. Watters  | Normal >>>  cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
MUMPS Programmer | Urgent      watters_c%norse.decnet@gate.hosp.ohio-state.edu 
and all          |-------------------------------------------------------------
around Nice Guy. | Cap'n!  The orbit's decay'n again.  15 minutes to atmosphere
From: smb@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Steve M. Burinsky)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.cadence
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:22:01 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

>The current newsgroups on the topic do not have much traffic.  Why
>create another newsgroup?
>
>Tom
>-- 
>Tom Limoncelli -- limonce@pilot.njin.net

We don't have a current newsgroup on the topic!  Cadence sells tools for
more than just IC design!
-- 

Steve M. Burinsky
smb@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Reply-To: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Organization: The John Fluke Mfg. Co.  /a.k.a. The Gizmonics Institute/
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:07:03 GMT

In <1992Apr8.172632.2715@tc.fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (The Napoleon of Crime) writes:

>I would recommend against it at this time; I have seen almost no spill-over
>of manga discussions into rec.arts.comics, which is where this would be
>discussed in the usual Usenet heirarchy -- and this makes me suspicious of
>the popularity of such a newsgroup.  I think you need to run a test on 
>a fully-propogated rec. group first to see what amount of traffic you're
>actually going to get.

I'm withdrawing my reservations about rec.arts.manga based on volume; a few
people dropped me notes showing the volume was substantial, which was my
only real qualm.  As to whether to name it r.a.manga or r.a.comics.manga...
I leave it to the vote.  Democracy in action, and all that.

My apologies.

                           "Do we have any more animals that Grandma can
                            torture?"
---
                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET:     moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP:  {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO:        You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
                 **>> Keep circulating the tapes <<**
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: No New Enya News Group!!
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:10:41 GMT

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.  There's an alt group for that
>already; if you can't get it at your site, FTP it.

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.

Besides, *many* groups in the main heirarchy started out as an alt group,
and got moved over once enough interest existed.  That's hardly an excuse
for not wanting the group under rec.music.

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.  However, if enough people
are interested in the group, let it be created.
-- 
Michael Bryan	        michael@resonex.com
This offer law where prohibited by void.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rsnyder@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Bob Snyder)
Subject: Re: RFD:  rec.games.mud.{tiny,diku,announce}
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs, Moorestown, NJ
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:03:30 GMT

>>>>> In article <1992Apr14.162940.3829@iscsvax.uni.edu>,
>>>>> boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

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

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

I disagree.  I think we would end up with the same cross-talk we have
today, where people speak over each other to reach their audiance....
Generally people are trying to reach people who play a specific
code...  If it has a wider interest than that, then it would be
appropriate to put it in the general newsgroup (this would be things
like "Who's the youngest player" or "How do you deal with problem
players" or the like....)  As an LP admin, I totally disagree with
being lumped under rgm.adventure with Dikus and Aber and the like,
since they really don't have *that* much in common, other than being
competetive and allowing killing.....

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

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

The only reason I thought about leaving it rec.games.mud is because
many sites already have that, and may not be willing to newgroup a new
mud group.  On the other hand, it may be useful to stop the clueless
who post lp (or under a reorganization, any non-general topic) to
rec.games.mud, since misc would indicate that other groups do exist...
:)
--
Bob Snyder          rsnyder@fergie.dnet.ge.com, or rsnyder@atl.dnet.ge.com
Computing Services  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if it bounces, try ^^^^^^^^
GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs  (609) 866-6672 FX: (609) 866-6397
From: dcb@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (David C Blume)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:00:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: wdl.1992Apr6.220012.11874
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
>                      ... The simple fact remains that the majority of
>the net thinks that a comic book is a comic book, and while we may know
>different, we are not the only people to consider in this mattter. The
>group, IMHO, should be called rec.arts.comics.manga.

Bad argument, IMHO.  That's akin to saying: Although we know [truth] the 
public thinks [not truth]  Since the public is involved, we'll propose
[not truth] so it will be passed.  In the end, this promotes the belief in
[not truth].

Perhaps rec.arts.comics.manga is the appropriate name.  But not by that
argument.  That's like saying, "Since most people believe that hyenas are
closer to the canine family than to the feline one, we'll put it in
*dog.hyena."  That's simply uncool.  It's better suited in *cat.hyena.

Before following up to this post.  Note that I am only refering to the
*argument.*  Not to this debate.  I just don't think that argument
belongs anywhere. [and I know *cat.hyena would be wrong, too] :-)

BTW:  My vote is for rec.arts.manga because manga *should* be on the same
level as its US cousin, and I don't think rec.arts.comics.us will pass.
And it fits nicely there as things are now:

rec.arts.animation
rec.arts.anime
rec.arts.comics
rec.arts.manga

Note, too, that r.a.m has viable subgroups. [ex. r.a.m.synopsis]  This is more
cumbersome under comics. [rec.arts.comics.anime.synopsis]

--David
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Blume            | When you're holding a hammer, everything |
| dcb@wdl1.wdl.loral.com | looks like a nail. --Anonymous.          |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RGM split was Re: Um, okay, I did it.
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:16:28 GMT
	<1992Apr12.014422@cunix4.prime.com>
	<1992Apr13.200458.20618@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

csteele@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Christopher E Steele) writes:

>>2) The Group Split:
>>R{G}M.Announce: Unmoderated. I've decided that moderating it isn't 

>But someone has VOLUNTEERED to moderate it.

Yes.  I have.  I would rather see this group not created than see it
created without moderation.  Of course, I would *much* prefer that it
be created moderated. :)

I will remain silent on the other group issues; all I care about is
getting .announce.  You can create rec.games.mud.bruce.bruce.bruce for
all I care.

--
Most system flaws can be attributed to unwarrantedly anthropomorphizing the
user.
	-- T.C.Bennett@syse.salford.ac.uk
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:09:49 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <arqjdhm.albertw@netcom.com> albertw@netcom.com (Albert Wong) writes:

>I would think that rec.arts.manga would be easier to find than
>rec.arts.comics.manga, because r.a.m is only three levels deep in the
>hierarchy.

Easier to find? You must have some really lame newsreading software. Why
don't we just go back to net.* while we are at it?

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU  -  Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
	Contributing Dartmouth Alumnus
	"The only 9 you've ever seen was in arithmetic."
		-3rd Bass
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: brunner@kazoo.ssd.loral.com (Brian Brunner)
Subject: Re: isn't it time to create soc.culture.net?
Reply-To: brunner@kazoo.ssd.loral.com (Brian Brunner)
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:16:55 GMT

In article <92107.200337GONTERNN@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, Gerhard Gonter
<GONTERNN@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:

"!! "the subject says it all ...
"!! " Re: isn't it time to create soc.culture.net ?
"!! "

We have alt.fan.*... will that do?

--
HELP!! Somebody slapped a "stop payment" on my sanity check!!
brunner@kazoo.ssd.loral.com; Space Systems/Loral; Palo Alto, Calif.
Black Holes... the /dev/null of the Universe; the opinion of 65534.
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:38:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

wai@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Benjamin Wai) writes:

>	To general 'American' readers of UseNet, a comic book is maybe 
>	a comic book.

>	Views are quite different if look from a even fartherer point, 
>	e.g.  to the global aspect.

    Ok, fine. Let's not look at it from the view of the USA, which has
the majority of UseNet site and readers to date, but instead look at it
from the Canadian view or the UK view, which have the second and third
largest number of UseNet sites. I think you will find that comic books a
still comic books for many people, and manga is looked at as really just
a Japanese comic book.
    I'm not saying this is the best way or viewing things, but when you
look at the possible number of people that could be voting on this group
during the CFV, and there are many people that vote but don't partake of
the discussion, not putting this group within the comics hierarchy that
already exists could hinder the chances of this group passing.

>	To orientals readers and those who are familiar with Manga, 
>	(1) they would refer manga as manga, seperated from comics, for the 
>	    reason that each of them has their different distinctions although 
>	    they are both combination of pictures and words.

    Can you argue now, for what all oriental readers of UseNet want in
regards to the creation of this group? That's pretty impressive.

>	(2) it can be argued, why not put 'comics' be a sub-group of 'Manga'???
>	    {for the second point, Yes, I know r.a.c. is created long ago, 
>	     but you understand what I mean, I hope.}

    Yes, it could be argued. Especially since, I believe, manga predates
western comic books a strips. But we should be talking about things in
reference to how they fit within the UseNet hierarchy system that is
already in place.

>	(3) and again, to the best of interests of those who WILL use the
>	    newsgroup, Rec.arts.manga is strongly supported.

    Again, you are speaking for others. How do you know what their best
interests are? Have the elected you to be their spokesperson? If they
haven't, then you really should only be talking about your own views and
your own best interests. Invariably UseNet is a selfish community.

>P/S: 	This is somewhat beginning to look like that long 'SCIA discussion' 
>	a while ago.

    Actually, that isn't quite true. While this is a debate over the
appropriate name for the group, and exactly which sub-hierarchy it
should reside in, the SCIA debate was over the confusion that was caused
by the name. I see no confusion with either of the proposed names for
this group, I just feel that one is more appropriate than the other.

--
-Hades  (Brian V. Hughes)   | "When you get right down do it there is only
 hades@Coos.Dartmouth.Edu   |  one thing that matters here...
 Mac Database Developer     |                       I Have Mob Ties!"
 Dartmouth Medical School   |      -Mario Cuomo (played by Phil Hartman)
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:34:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.yasj+9f
Organization: Living in a satellite fantasy, waiting for the night to end.

mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> ...it's also true that anime is a subset of movies.

Not necessarily.  There are a lot of anime tv series as well, and some of
them are closely related to full-length theatrical or OAV features.  The
"anime"ness of the thing being discussed is more important than whether
it's a movie or a TV show, so they all end up in the same group.

> Finally, I do _not_ understand the vehemence that these bloody newsgroup
> naming/split issues generate. 

Take a wander over into the altnet sometime for a *really good example* of
why some of us are willing to get down and dirty about keeping the names
and classifications of new newsgroups here in the mainstream Usenet as
clear and specific as possible.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rlb@access.digex.com (Richard L. Butler)
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp reorg - need for cyber/srun group
Keywords: re-capitulation
Organization: The Fourth Drawer on the Left, Second Column
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:37:37 GMT

hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
>durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Cyberpixie) writes:
>    Good question. Why don't we see if the current RFD passess before we
>worry about rec.games.cyber. I also think that we should hold off on
>placing a cyber group on the ballot.

Well, while I was napping, Brian and Bryant have discussed all of this out...

First I capitulated, and now I recapitulate (ridiculous language, English)!

Given that during B&B's discussion of balancing the need for a cyber group
under the r.g.frp.* hierarchy against the need to NOT complicate the current
reorg with more confusing issues (which un-moderating and moving Joshua's
group would certainly do), NO ONE has re-iterated the kind of "We MUST create
r.g.frp.cyber NOW" post that got me to change my mind in the first place,
I am now falling back to the Maginot line of my original position, to be in
consonance with B&B's accord on this matter.

Loren has made no comment on the .cyber issue, and so is content to leave the
matter untouched; B&B have agreed that nothing need be done before the reorg
vote takes place, Joshua agrees, and no one else has re-issued the call for
a cyber (or Srun) group...  and those who will oppose the current reorg on the
grounds that it won't disallow future additions or changes to the hierarchy
have obviously decided to pull out of the discussion and vote no when it is
time.

This leaves only my continued concern that the vote on creation of the
r.g.frp.cyber group (assuming that it is still perceived as needed in four
months time) be handled responsibly.  I did not think that Joshua's handling
of the r.g.cyber issue was appropriate (as I have stated before), either in
the choice of name (which should have been r.g.frp.cyber and NOT r.g.cyber)
or in the matter of moderation of the group.  And while we're at it, hell,
carthago delenda est.

-- 
 Richard L. Butler             rlb@access.digex.com             301-220-2020
 Digital Express Group, 6006 Greenbelt Road #228, Greenbelt, Maryland  20770
   **** Express Access: Online Communications in Washington/Baltimore ****
   * login as "new" for info, 301-220-0462 (Wash) or 410-766-1855 (Balt) *