HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.music.makers.synth dispute solved
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:05:15 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Nov19.093537.14856@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>>I still believe it represents a consensus among the knowledgeable.
>
>But not a consensus of the participants. It's not a question of 
>knowledge, the participants should get a chance to participate in
>the organization of what they are participating in. 

   It's already been proven that

     1) Two Requests for Discussion (without acronyms in the subject
        line) were posted to the forum which, by definition, is read
        by participants;

     2) Three Calls for Votes (without acronyms in the subject line)
        were posted to the forum which, by definition, is read by
        participants;

     3) At least one other article, complete with precise and
        acronym-free subject line, was posted in the same forum
        which is read by participants, explaining where, when, and
        what was happening;

     4) The vote was run within the bounds (loose though they may
        be) of the Guidelines;

     5) The name change passed its vote;

     6) The original objection to the renaming was based solely
        on the close Yes/No vote ratio;

     7) There is no way to differentiate the number of votes from
        "participants" versus from "elitist" news.groups readers;

How about some valid reasons for opposing the name change?
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: RENAME: Those against name change PLEASE READ!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:44:17 GMT

In article <H.ea.j1T91VCTRg2@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>In <1992Nov16.040047.16213@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>>Facts can be massaged to hide lots of bullshit. 
>
>	That's Chip's point, and you're doing a darn good job of it.

OUCH! TOO HOT! OUCH! THEZE FLAMEZ BURN ME!@!@ OUCH!@! TOO HOT!@!@



Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
From: chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran)
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:14:01 GMT

In article <1e9pb6INNm9v@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov17.025922.10953@cis.ohio-state.edu>, chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes:
>> In article <1e9mj8INNm7f@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>> >Then please explain the contradictions I have pointed out.  I gather
>> >you are a knowledgeable authority on this issue?  So please be so kind
>> >as to explain the obvious contradictions.
>
>> I don't have to be a knowledgeable authority.  All it is necessary for me
>> to note is that there are millions of educated Ahamadias who have read
>> the Quran and call themselves Muslims, and another group declaring that
>> they are not is just the latter group's opinion, not God's.  
>
>Why is it that I have not yet seen a single rebuttal of the
>contradictions I have pointed out?  You are basing your comments on
>something you cannot even prove, and by your own confession, do not
>even have the knowledge of????  Impressive...  I suggest you stick to
>posting about things you *do* know about -- it looks better that way,
>and might even appear credible!
>

Look, Shakil, you don't seem to be following the argument.  What I
*do* know is that you interpret Quran to imply A, while another group
of equally knowledgeable people interpret it as not implying A.  I
know beans about the Quran, but all it is necessary for me to notice is
that you have no previleged role as an interpreter, that you are free to
believe A, but you cannot demand that everyone else roll over and
accept your interpretation, and deny the right of Ahamadias to their
interpretation.  None of this requires that I know a lot about the
Quran.  If you substitute Quran with Zend Avesta in the above argument
structure, what I say will still remain valid.
From: werner@soe.berkeley.edu (John Werner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Trouble regarding the s.r.i.a CFV
Followup-To: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Date: 16 Nov 1992 19:15:21 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley School of Education
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.32.157.31

In article <1992Nov16.071956.19326@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) wrote:
> This is a distinct mess. Could David Lawrence please confirm that Rana's
> properly submitted CFV is in fact the only valid CFV, or confirm that some
> other CFV is the official CFV is some other CFV is?

You said not to follow up, but I'd like to point out it's even *more* of a
mess than you said.  Someone (Jafri?) posted the number of votes he's
gotten so far.  So now people are going to be complaining about the
(bogus?) votetaker revealing the results during the vote.

--
John Werner                         werner@soe.berkeley.edu
UC Berkeley School of Education     510-642-9651
Xref: sparky news.groups:22161 news.admin.policy:429
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: The Whole S.R.I.A CFV Mess....
Keywords: SRIA-CFV, Fiasco
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:08:46 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1ea5h4INN894@girtab.usc.edu> jodar@girtab.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar) writes:
>My understanding (which seems to have no factual basis) was that
>the person who submitted the RFD was the same one who submitted
>the CFV.  I figured a neutral person was required to oversee the
>whole thing.  If this is not the case, then I ask, 'Why not?'  

There has, historically, been no such requirement because there is a pretty
fair amount of checking possible on the vote taker's actions. It's difficult
for a vote taker to cheat when the list of those who voted each way must be
posted at the end of the vote period. In addition, requiring a neutral vote
taker would be unenforceable, as in practice there is not way to ensure that
the vote taker is in fact neutral.

Historically, the person who submitted the RFD has been the person to submit
the CFV, unless it was agreed during the discussion that someone else would do
so. If we're going to cast any such rule in the Guidelines, that's the one I'd
like to see.

-- 
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.
           "Cat: Four legs and an attitude." -- Jim Reese
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: RF(Informal)D: Standard RFD/CFV Format
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:39:36 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL
Keywords: RFD CFV formats guidelines votes

According to strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
>Now after reading the post-mortem of the rms vote, the net-consensus
>seems to be that despite the above, the current process expects
>that a CFV appearing in your newsgroup should be read regardless
>of what the title says, as long as it says "CFV".

I don't think that's the consensus.

I think the consensus is that new users should read n.a.newusers; and
those interested in newsgroup naming should read n.a.newgroups.
Having done these things, people _will_ recognize "CFV".
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: To keep the r.m.s rename is _not_ elitist (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:48:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1ern3tINNf7s
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov23.150007.1198@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>This assumes that I'm not doing anything to change the
>situation. There are indeed several efforts underweigh
>initiated by different people. 

Really? At my last count, one person has submitted something for net
perusal. You ain't him.

>Not all activities
>include or require immediate postings of themselves. 

If you want to make other readers of news aware of what you are doing,
they certainly do require postings. 

You can write all the pretty prose you like, until it comes out on the
net, it ain't. Gee, is that one of those things that should be obvious
but needs to be written down? Yeah, maybe so.

>It
>would also seem to be a good idea to generate help and
>support for one's cause. That's what I'm attempting to
>do.

You must be doing it in mail, then.
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Intentional ignorance of newsgroup creation? (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:40:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1ehtosINNfvk
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov16.040903.16383@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>>Oh come on, Rich! This cannot be substantiated...I could very well make 
>>>up a whole bunch of email addresses and you could very well deny legitimate

You have already made one up. Why stop now? Don't Jimmy and Rosalyn
support you?

>Further, I do not believe that there was a pre vote discussion, or a vote.
>How are you going to prove that to me? The entire thing could be a
>forgery. 

I believe the technical term for this is "projection". 

>Attempts to call for
>facts and substantiation are just (to me) attempts to stonewall.

"Facts? Facts? We don't want no steenking facts."

Either back up your ridiculous claims or expect others to stop
listening to you. There hasn't been a wolf anywhere close during any of
your cries on this topic, so don't be too surprised when people stop
believing you when you cry "wolf" again.
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: The joy of threaded newsreaders (was Re: URDP Clarification)
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:26:51 GMT

>> : Josh Smith (irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu)
>  : John Stanley (stanley@skyking.oce.orst.edu)

> Cute. Do you always edit people's names in the attribution line, or am I
> special?

I always retype them, since I haven't been able to coerce my newsreader into
automatically putting them into a format I like. I don't get them wrong too
often, so I guess that makes you special. (grin)

>> Come on, John, give me a break here. In a thread titled "Usenet
>> Documentation Revision Project : Phase Zero", there is one follow-up
>> entitled "UDRP". 

> The article I was replying to had the subject "UDRP Clarification". I
> don't know why you think that it was titled something else, but here it
> had no such clear Subject.

We're talking about two different articles. I first posted a message titled
as I describe above, with the full name spelled out. I then posted a
followup to that article using only the acronym. Another example of the same
sort of thing: consider if someone had posted an article titled "Request for
Discussion: misc.misc.misc", and someone else had posted a followup titled
"Is the m.m.m RFD bogus?" If the second article is posted as a followup to
the first, with an appropritate References: line, the poster of the second
might well assume that readers would follow the progression, and connect the
acronyms in the second to the phrases in the first. This was what I meant by
pattern-matching.

However, it appears that your newsreader didn't make it clear that the
article with the acronym was a followup to the article where the acronym was
defined. When followups are displayed immediately after the articles they
refer to, it becomes much easier to follow the references. Sorry that your
newsreader doesn't preserve the concept of a followup.

> Now answer the point: if CFV (including the definition in the article
> where it is used) is too cryptic, why is an undefined UDRP acceptable?

URDP was defined in a previous article; the article in which it was not
defined was a followup to that article. That, to me, was sufficient
definition, in the same way that I don't expect all followups to an RFD to
explain what RFD means again. I assume that if someone has been following
the discussion, and acronyms used in that discussion are defined once, they
will remember them in subsequent articles. Perhaps I should have somewhere
made it explicit that I might abbreviate Usenet Documentation Revision
Project as URDP, but I had hoped that those who had read the first message
would connect it to the second.
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why
several of us died of tuberculosis." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
From: duncanj@linus.umd.edu (James Duncan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD rec.games.netrpg
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:21:29 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Nov19.180805.18123@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>Proposed newsgroup name: rec.games.netrpg
>Status: unmoderated
>
>Charter: rec.games.netrpg is for discussion of design, implementation
>and use of the net.rpg game.

Since this is striclty a roleplaying game it should be in the frp
domain. The name should be rec.games.frp.netrpg but personally I favor
rec.games.frp.design where all roleplaying game designs NOT just the
net.rpg (which hopefully one day will be completed) could be
discussed. 


>Rationale: The net.rpg game is a role-playing game being created by a
>number of people on rec.games.design. However, some people have
>complained that we are filling the newsgroup with messages which are
>not of interest to all readers.

At least one person indicated that they felt that no one net.rpg would
work, but that perhaps one or two could be done. I favor
rec.games.rpg.design since discussions could include - net.rpg, design
of new rpg games, design of rpg adventures, ect.  Rules such as
GrimRules could be presented by single authors for feedback from
gamers and others wishing to contribute.

>The net.rpg posts constitute a pretty large volume, I would estimate
>more than 40 messages a day. As we get out of the design phase, we
>would have to move off the group anyway, so might as well do it now. I
>propose this as the maintainer of the faq and one of the designers of
>the game.

This is not bad volume, but as the design moves towards completion
discussion will decrease as more details become finalized and the
flaws are worked out of the system.


>The game is not for a computer, it's a paper, pen and dice game. See
>the faq for more information.

I'd allow for compputerized character generators and such since this
is a major advantage of a public domain game vs. a commercial one.
Many PD programs that deal with commercial games can not be
distributed due to problems with copyright violation. Those that due
often require individuals to provide the data from the game system and
since scanners are not widely available to most gamers yet, this can
be a big problem.
>The RFD period will begin when posted and end on December 14, 1992. If
>appropriate, a CFV will be posted shortly thereafter. I will manage
>the vote-taking. All discussion will go on in news.groups.

Hopefully, the CFV will take place only after a reasonable period of
time for discussion has past. I'd say the disussion period should be
extended and the CFV be done in early 1993.

- Jim

>-Magnus


Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.pakistan
From: ahussain@prism.poly.edu (Arshad Hussain)
Subject: I support the SRIA group but .......
Followup-To: Looking for Some Answers
Summary: Whoever wanted to create this group, DID they play fair?
Organization: Polytechnic University, New York
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:33:51 GMT

In article sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai) writes:
>while I do support, in principle, ....  soc.religion.islam.ahamadiyya ....
>I have some questions.
>When was the official CFD ( call for discussion) issued?
>What were the reasons given for the group being moderated?
>Who are the moderators?

I am a member of Ahmadiyya community but I want to know myself answers of the 
above questions along with this one: WHO CHOSE these MODERATORS?

Arshad [ Plays Fair Game] Hussain
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Newsgroups Affected by Votes (Was: Standard RFD/CFV Format)
Keywords: RFD CFV formats guidelines votes
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:42:14 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1ebnqbINN22h@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.185740.17066@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >I probably wasn't clear.  I meant *directly* affected.
|> >For example, if rec.music.synth is renamed to rec.music.makers.synth,
|> >then rec.music.synth is directly affected, and (if my
|> >proposal is adopted) its name must appear in the subject line.
|> 
|> Ah, but cannot we *also* argue over which groups are "directly"
|> affected?  Take the recent misc.forsale.computers split.  I would
|> argue that this "directly" affect misc.forale (non-computer), because,
|> after the split, if you want to sell computer stuff, you need to know
|> the "proper" group.  But if no messages are ever posted to misc.forsale,
|> and you don't read news.announce.newgroups (which many people don't),
|> then how will you know?

I'm confused.  If there is already misc.forsale (non-computer),
and misc.forsale.computer, and misc.forsale.computers splits
into misc.forsale.computers.mainframes and misc.forsale.computers.workstations,
I don't understand how this affects misc.forsale.  You couldn't
advertise computers before the split, and you can't advertise
computers after the split.


|> But saying a group "isn't going to be there anymore" is meaningless.
|> It's still there!  Take misc.forsale.computers again--it was split
|> into (vaguely) platform based groups.  There is also m.f.c.other which
|> is supposed to fulfill the old role of m.f.c, but everyone keeps
|> posting to m.f.c anyway.  The same thing happened (is happening?) with
|> rec.games.frp, which doesn't really "exist" anymore after the split.
|> 

I'm still confused.  I was proposing a purely syntactic
criterion for determining what was affected.  If
group A disappears and is replaced by A.a and A.b,
then A is affected.  If group A is removed and its
former traffic merged with group B, then groups A and B
are affected.

In the case of splitting misc.forsale.computers,
if it really was split, then anyone posting to mfc
will quickly discover their error because they
will never see the posting show up, because their
group is gone.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Elmo)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:04:16 -0600
Organization: The Pentateuch
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

	First, put the words Request for Discussion at the top of your RFD,
or have you missed the "ambiguity" flamewars raging in news.groups?

pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden) writes:
> rec.arts.fantasy

> Charter
>  A newsgroups for academics and other interested people to discuss aspects
>  of Fantasy literature in.
> 
> Purpose of this group
>  Fill the wide gap in netwise discussion of Fantasy. By this, I mean fantasy
>  as literate, not the kind of "I love this author rave rave rave" stuff you
>  find in alt.fan.<whatever>.

	Not going to happen.  As soon as this group gets created, it will
be filled with "I love this author rave rave rave".  Honest, the number of
people who want to discuss fantasy as literature is much less than the
number of people who want to discuss Piers Anthony.
-- 
"I've never said anything about his family but the warmest, kindest things."   
--Ross Perot, on Bush's family                                                 
  
elmo (morrow@physics.rice.edu,morrow@fnal.fnal.gov)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: franzoni@sixter.var.dec.com (Mauro Franzoni)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.home.automation
Reply-To: franzoni@sixter.var.dec.com (Mauro Franzoni)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:38:00 GMT

In article <BxnGHr.F9p@uunet.uu.net>, CNTS12@email.mot.com (Mike Stevens)
writes:
> I am inquiry regarding setting up a home automation user group.  I 
|> periodically see information in consumers.house; however, that group takes 
|> all issues as it relates to homes.
I'd be very interested in the subject ... hope to see that soon
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: To keep the r.m.s rename is _not_ elitist (was Re: *BAD*...)
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:00:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.051841.5389@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca  
(Rheal Nadeau) writes:

> Of course, suggesting a change is one thing - anyone can
> suggest anything.  The hard part is actually DOING
> something - Dave and Gordon can talk all they want about
> "should"s and "must"s, but if they don't actually do the
> work, then they are expecting to get a free ride (to their
> most exacting specifications). 
> 

This assumes that I'm not doing anything to change the
situation. There are indeed several efforts underweigh
initiated by different people. Not all activities
include or require immediate postings of themselves. It
would also seem to be a good idea to generate help and
support for one's cause. That's what I'm attempting to
do. Whether you think I am succeeding or not is your own
opinion. 

> Sorry, the only people entitled to anything are the
> people who work at making this system work.  (And to all
> those, I say:  Thank you!) 

You misunderstand my motivations if you think I am doing
otherwise.
 
> I just need to think of how hard it would be to rename n.a.nu
> to news.read-me, and how little impact it would really
> have (since so many people would still ignore it), to
> decide that the current system is good enough for me! 

It's fortunate, IMO, that not all people give up so easily.

 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 16 Nov 1992 17:24:05 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Nov10.212500.16425@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Nov12.115101.14142@wes.on.ca>
	<1992Nov14.012352.1362@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:23:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.012352.1362@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

   how boneheaded you news admins are. They know that you folks would rather
   die than give in...

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.  0.5 * :-)
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001