HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:09:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxGqJ5.3tE
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography

In article <1992Nov9.093222.11245@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>By your holy Guidelines, I can (and probably will) bring up a vote NOW 
>if I so choose. 

It was wrong when you said it earlier and still wrong now. Or are you
claiming special priviledge to bypass the RFD stage?

>And think you that there's been no serious damage already? Do you guys
>even CARE about how many people you alienate with your damn inflexibility?

"You guys" consists of everyone on the net. Including you. Everyone on
the net had a chance to voice their opinion. The results of that voice
said "Yes, rename this group."

>>Welcome to the real world. If someone fails to express an opinion, there is
>>no way to determine what they really want. 
>
>Well what about the expressed opinions in my mailbox? 

Just, pray tell, how is anyone but YOU supposed to know what the
opinions expressed "in your mailbox" are? How is anyone supposed to
take them into consideration if nobody but YOU knows what they are?
And, better yet, where were all these opinions when the time was proper
for them to vote? I know, they didn't bother to find out what CFV
meant.

>I'm gathering them now as we speak. 

Good for you. When those who speak to you deign to speak to the rest of
us, then we will hear them. Unfortunately, comments mailed to you
following the close of a properly held vote are immaterial.

>Just because they didn't express them to you doesn't mean
>that they aren't there. 

Yes, effectively, anyone who doesn't make their comments where they can
be seen is not making a comment. Anyone who does not vote is not making
a comment.

>Look, can't you even see that there is a problem?

Here is the problem I see:

1. An RFD and CFD were posted to the appropriate groups.
2. Readers of ONE of those groups ignored the RFD and CFV.
	2a. They weren't interested in the issue. (Their decision)
	2b. They didn't know what CFV meant and didn't care enough to 
	    find out. (Also their decision)
3. An extremely vocal minority refuses to accept the results of a
properly held vote and is asking that the guidelines that apply to all
newsgroup creations not apply to this one.

>That's unfounded and untrue. I refuse to rmgroup it and that's the way it
>stands. If you don't like it, run a vote. <grin> 

Why bother. If you don't like the results, you will just ignore it.

>If and when they do, I will. Right now, my mailbox has an 80% support ratio.

Good for your mailbox. You should have no problem getting the result you
desire should you ever issue an RFD and bring the issue up for a
revote.

>Far more importantly, and now the issue is going to a more grand scale,
>my issue is with those who are so inflexible as to oppose the very users
>they serve. 

The users have spoken. It is time to issue the newgroup for
rec.music.whatever.won.the.vote.
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc
From: fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner)
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Summary: Proposal of additions to guidelines
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:29:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.081205.5985@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
|>It's disappointing to hear that
|>people who evidently know more consider themselves superior instead of
|>consider themselves as a resource for those who could learn from them.
|
|That last sentence sums it up pretty well. Comments?

Well, it's a shame that whoever introduced him to news didn't explain
about news.announce.newusers, but that's not what this discussion is
about.

I think there have been some reasonable suggestions about how to change
the guidelines, in the case where a vote would affect an existing
group.  The best solution proposed so far, IMHO, is to post a short
article separately to each affected group, pointing the readers at the
RFD / CFV.  The article should explicitly say not to follow up to it,
and the Followup-to:  should be set to something appropriate ("poster"
or "/dev/null", for example.).  For those with threaded newsreaders,
the References: header could be primed with the Message-ID: of the
article that it's telling you about, so that trn users can just hit "["
(I think) to see the article.

This addresses the concerns of those who are worried about discussion
fragmentation, unless the user goes to some effort to foil the effect
of the Followup-to: header.  It also addresses the concerns of those
who want a short, concise notification that makes it clear to a group's
readers that something is going on.

Unfortunately, it creates more work for the original poster.  Ideally,
these messages would be posted by David Lawrence at the same time as
the article they reference, to avoid timing problems and to ensure that
the articles are posted to all affected groups.  However, David
probably doesn't want more work.  It's possible that the process could
be semi-automated, posting a form letter to each of a manually-entered
list of groups, or something...

So, the issues now are:

1) Is this a reasonable solution?  I see no problems with it.

2) Should we add it to the guidelines?  Modulus the problem of who is
responsible for posting the directing articles, I say yes.

  Bill
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:00:44 GMT

don't forget rec.games.netrek.trash.iastate
         and rec.games.netrek.worship.cmu

:)

Suicide Soln.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:25:04 GMT

In article <96742@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
Kulawiec) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.033443.7461@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com  
(Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> >In article <96702@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
> >Kulawiec) writes:
> >> In article <1992Nov8.221114.5147@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com  
> >(Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> >> >In article <96646@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
> >> >Kulawiec) writes:
> >> >> I should also point out that I received no correspondence from  
anyone
> 
> >> >That's because most people affected didn't know it was taking place.  
> >> >(Circular argument).
> >> 
> >> I'm not prepared to conclude that that's the reason that I didn't
> >> receive any correspondence on the matter, because I don't have any
> >> evidence for it.
> >
> >You can't even *try* to see the point here?
> 
> I'm not sure why you think this *is* some sort of point here.

There is and you're ducking it because I used the word "most". Several  
people have come forward and said that they felt the subject line wasn't  
clear and that they hadn't seen the article in the first place. How could  
they have responded in your time frame?

> I made
> the factual observation that no correspondence about the "Subject"
> line of the CFV landed in my mailbox until the whole debate started
> after the vote was concluded.  You made the claim that the reason
> for this is "because most people affected didn't know it was
> taking place".   That's a specious claim, that you cannot possibly
> support without asking each and every person involved, and then
> demonstrating that a majority ("most") fall into that category.
> 

OK - so I can't say most. I can say "several". Can you say "any" to the  
other reasons you suggest?

> As I pointed out in my followup, I do not know why no such letters
> showed up; I recognize a number of possible reasons, including apathy,
> agreement, and mail failure; but I do not conclude that any of them
> are "the" explanation  because I do not have any evidence that would
> allow me to do so.

At least recognize that the reason I have mentioned is plausible. So far  
it is the *only* reason that has been represented by any form of count (by  
virtue of posts to this thread). So far your other 'reasons' are less  
substantiated than the one I presented.

> If you have hard evidence that supports your claim,
> then please produce it.
> 

Support that "apathy, agreement and mail failure" were indeed causes at  
all. I see nothing to back up that claim. Certainly they *could* ve  
reasons. The only reason we have evidence for is the one I presented.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored 
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:47:16 GMT

> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>> J. Random Cop would say "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  By the
>> same token, "ignorance of the guidelines is no excuse".  Deal with it
>> already.

gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> Ah but the public also has the ability to examine and change laws. Not  
> that they don't receive the same amount of stonewalling from the  
> establishment when they try to do so.

The Guidelines can also be changed, and I'm certain that a *constructive*
discussion on that topic would be welcome in this group.

However, just like changes in law are not made retroactive, neither can
a change in Guidelines have any effect on a vote that has already been
decided.

If you truly want to change the Guidelines for the betterment of the net,
then please tell us that you are willing to accept (grudgingly, maybe)
the renaming of rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.synth.  Once we agree
that that issue is in the past, we can start a rational discussion on
revisions to the Guidelines.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:56:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.220312.3952@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:

>In article <BxGoxM.8M@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John  
>Stanley) writes:
>
>> If the first time USENET reader sees the acronym CFV and decides without
>> investigation that it is something that he is not interested in, that is
>> his decision.
> 
>So every time a reader sees any acronym in a message he should read the  
>message? Do you actually do this?

Every time I see a post whose title is *based* on an acronym that I
don't understand, I'm intrigued enough to at least look it over.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: uk.net,news.groups,soc.culture.british
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: RFD: Should UK groups be sent to UUnet?
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 22:05:55 GMT

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca) wrote:
> 
>   Ian, I support the idea.  I am a Briton in Canada WILLLING to see these
> groups go abroad.  As for the USA coming to the picture, DON'T worry!!  They
> would end up dead before they could make  a mistatement.
> 
> Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
>  (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
> God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
> American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America

See, I warned you all what would happen!

--
||I dreamed I met a Yadallean          |(parody in progress, apologies to
||A most confusing man....             | Tim Rice & Andrew Lloyd Webber)
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Requiring good subject lines for RFDs and CFVs
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:51:33 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
>In the case of group RENAMES, post a clear and loud subject
>line. Don't hide the rename in the middle of a unrelated reorg. 

I wouldn't object to a modification of the guidelines to this effect.

HOWEVER, there is long precedent that guidelines changes do NOT
invalidate votes that met previous guidelines' requirements.  So even
if this change is made, r.m.synth _has_ been renamed, period.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "I am truly as big a genius as all other Rush fans." -- Bruce Bufalini
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:58:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.045422.27884@beaver.cs.washington.edu> tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang) writes:
>In article <> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>>[proposal deleted; you guys can go back and read it yourselves]
>
>(a) It's not clear to me that discussion of an AD&D campaign (for
>    example) would be interesting to (say) Champions GM's.

I never claimed that .campaign would be read by every member of the .frp
hierarchy.  The guidelines for writing up campaigns are designed to 
maximize the possible interest in the campaigns.

>
>(b) Moderated newsgroups have decidedly bad post-to-appearance
>    time, and are therefore quite bad as discussion groups.  Any
>    group that has as part of its discussion "discussion about..."
>    should probably be unmoderated.
>
There's a catch-22 here.  If it's moderated, it's harder to discuss
campaigns.  If it's unmoderated, there is no control over keeping pbem
gamers, or player-posts, out of the newsgroup.  In the end, it seemed
better to keep it moderated.

Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:45:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.205344.15647@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>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.

And whose fault is that?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky news.groups:21336 news.admin.policy:328
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: A question, a comment
Date: 12 Nov 1992 08:46:51 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov12.052045.3880@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>It harmed the users of the group by causing people to drop out. 

No...YOU are harming the group by causing people to drop out. If you'd simply
accepted the result, they would be doing just fine.

>Sites will have done so when the gateway to SYNTH-L drops.

The gateway is in the process of being moved to a site where the maintainer
will do his job. You've lost this argument too.

>To answer that I'll ask everyone why this renaming was a good thing?
>The group has been in operation for years...why change it now?

Because it is being placed with other groups having to do with making music.
This makes it easier for new users (remember them...the users?) to find the
group.

>1) Less membership.
>2) Less distribution.

Temporarily, while folks do their job or get replaced by someone who will.

>3) A flamewar.

...which you are entirely responsible for starting.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 5 Nov 1992 23:53:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hijack.berkeley.edu

In article <7731@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>CFVs are only posted to news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, and those groups
>affected by the vote. How could it be made clearer? "CFV! This means *YOU*!"?

That is just plain incorrect.  According to the guidelines:
    "A request for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted
    to news.announce.newgroups, and also to any other groups or mailing lists
    at all related to the proposed topic if desired.  [... Then] a call for
    votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or
    mailing lists that the original request for discussion might have been
    posted to."

It is clear from the guidelines that the CFV can go to any group at all
related to the proposed topic, and not just groups affected by the vote.

Ken Shirriff				shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Bogus CFV: rec.music.reggae
Date: 9 Nov 1992 15:48:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) says:

>doing it one paragraph at a time.  (At this rate, I estimate he'll finally
>figure out how to post a valid CFD and get things officially rolling
                                ^^^
Lazlo!

BTW, r.m.reggae sounds good to me.
-- 
Francis A. Uy			Program Director, WUMD
From: ljnelson@unix.amherst.edu (Laird Nelson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes will not quit
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:10:10 GMT
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com) wrote:
> Just so everyone knows what they're getting into:
> 
> According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
> >R.m.s readers do not want their name changed. 
> 
> As long as Dave incorrectly believes that he speaks for the People, he
> will not be persuaded.

Which is why maybe if we ignore him and his claim to a position he'll go
away.  Followups haven't yet--but should be--directed to
alt.dave.hayes.champion.of.the.little.man
alt.dave.hayes.legend.in.his.own.mind

LAiRD

--
ljnelson@unix.amherst.edu           |
ljnelson@amh.amherst.edu            |          The Quintet-essential.
(413) 542-2932                      |
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:45:13 GMT

In article <BxIrM6.C73@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
>
>thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>can read it.
>
>>What is the opinion of everyone else on this issue? The moderation issue is
>>certainly an important one.  Can we "trust" readers to follow guidelines?
>>We could always have a standerd note to be sent to all players which would
>>require them to explicitly state they understand the rules of .campaign
>>before they get involved with a campaign.
>
>the least of which is its redundancy.  However, on moderation; whoever
>would moderate the newsgroup would necessarily have to be the GM for
>all the campaigns, unless he wants the post-to-appearance time to be
>*really* slow.  

I disagree.  A slight delay on a post which would probably come out every
two weeks or less is not signifigant.

>Player moves posted to .campaign would have to go
>through the moderator, to the GM for that campaign, back to the
>moderator, and then be posted to the newsgroup.  

Player moves are made in e-mail.

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: barr@stein.u.washington.edu (David Barr)
Subject: comp.std.hl7?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:37:29 GMT

I am looking for a newsgroup for the discussion of HL-7 (an application
protocol for electronic data exchange in healthcare environments).  How
can I find out if such a group exists?  If this group does not exist,
how would I go about creating a group?  Would comp.std.hl7 be a good name
for such a group?
Xref: sparky news.groups:21070 rec.games.netrek:9526
From: horde@reed.edu (Mr. Heiji Horde)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:04:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov10.190419.27404
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Twisted Genius Rehabilitation Center, a Division of MHE

In article <BxIHnn.Cw@uunet.uu.net> adc@tardis.cl.msu.edu (Alan D. Cabrera) writes:
>This is the Request For Discussion regarding the proposal to split 
>the newsgroup rec.games.netrek, containing discussion of the game netrek.
>
>rec.games.netrek.announce (moderated)
>Moderated by Alan D. Cabrera (adc@tardis.cl.msu.edu). If anyone 
>else is interested in assisting contact Alan.
>
>rec.games.netrek.programmer (moderated)
>Moderated by Alan D. Cabrera (adc@tardis.cl.msu.edu). If anyone 
>else is interested in assisting contact Alan.

Just a quick question...who died and made you GOD?

You want to regulate who can talk about what in the realm of netrek
  programming? I don't see any logical reason for wanting to moderate
  the discussion of how to hack the netrek server/client/'bot code.
  You going to pass on to this moderated group EVERY time they want
  to ask a 'how to write this/that' question?
  [come on, not even rec.games.xtank.programmer is moderated]

>rec.games.netrek.inl
>Discussions directly related to the Intercollegiate Netrek League, INL.

Technically, it should be more like INTERNATIONAL Netrek League. Don't
  forget our friends overseas (the ENL- European Netrek League?). And not
  all of us go to college (though maybe we do work there).

>NEWSGROUP CREATION
>The discussion period will be from November 7th, 1992 to November 30th, 1992.

Considering that I'm on the INTERNET, and I didn't receive this until
  the 10th, I feel there is something really wrong about having the
  discussion period starting on the 7th. [Even if it did have to go through
  tale for the news.announce crosspost.]

Anyhow, where did this come from? I don't remember seeing and real discussion
  of any sort of reorg in r.g.n recently. I'm mot sure if a reorg is really
  needed right now. In terms of traffic, I show 189 articles in my news spool
  directory and that is with a 4 day expire.

	-KreelScum/KnightRaven
	 "Maybe I can still go back to alt.games.xtrek. :-)"

-- 
===========================================================================
 Mr. Heiji Horde    (Non NeXT mail only please)     e-mail: horde@reed.edu
   All insane acts are done in affiliation with Madd Hacker Enterprises
               "ALL ABOARD, the lunacy train is pulling out."