HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:40:58 GMT

news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>A further complication is that quite a few folks are not exposed to
>enough different groups (due to selective reading or limitations in
>their newsfeeds) to provide any clues to the more general culture of the
>net (as opposed to the specific "sub-cultures" of the various newsgroup
>polities.)

Wait just a minute...you're making a very important point here. I submit
to you that each newsgroup has it's own "culture"...and that net.culture
is really not as existent as it might seem. It's lind of like Los Angeles,
there's lots of little neighborhoods and areas of different culture, but
there's not one overall cultural miilieu that you can characterize
the typical "Los Angelean" with.

I suspect part of the problem I'm seeing is that the news.groups 
culture tends to come off quite cliquish and arrogant to the new user
or unaware net.reader. 

>What is needed is some way to encourage the admins of the net to provide
>a set of introductory documents to new users (all new users) and to have
>some restriction on posting until the user shows some understanding of
>the net.culture (or at least some basic nettiquette. :-)

Again, my original question stands, albeit rephrased. Who is going to set 
the standard for posting? 

Also: How will that be enforced? Why won't users just gravitate towards
those access points that do not require such restrictions? 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

        Envy devours good deeds, as a fire devours fuel.
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Intentional ignorance of newsgroup creation?
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:25:43 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov21.211622.4119@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes:
>>"Facts? Facts? We don't want no steenking facts."
>
>Humor in news.groups?  My, my, what is the world coming too?
>Thanks, John.  That's certainly one of my favorite movie lines.

Personally, I prefer:

"Badgers? Badgers? We don't need no steenking badgers."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Would you ALL like a demonstration? (was Re: Dave Hayes may be right)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:52:31 GMT

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>Actually, Dave.  It would.  Your 2nd and 3rd sentances contradict each
>other.  "It would create a lot of traffic." -- read cost many sites a
>lot of money -- read harm.

If that's the case then why are there 7 new newsgroups a week?

>Secondarily, crying wolf like that might get a *lot* of mail and
>complaints sent to your sysadmin from ticked off readers of those
>top 100 newsgroups.  You may not consider this to be harmful, but many
>people don't particularly getting their mailboxes bombed.

I *am* my sys admin (or I wouldn't be stupid enough to take my campaign
to news.groups). Good luck. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

To test that which has been tested is ignorance.
      To try to test something without the means of testing is even worse
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:59:19 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov15.122425.11303@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Acknowledge that the rename is legitimate, and I'll help make any fixes that
>>may be necessary to the Guidelines. I will not do so before that is
>>acknowledged.
>You forgot the "Nyahh!" again. 

None was necessary. This is my position, carefully arrived at, and based on
the only mechanism we have to determine the will of the net and precedents
that have been set under that mechanism.

BTW, I have removed rec.music.makers.synth from the Newsgroups: line, and ask
others who post to this thread to do the same; the comments I've seen from
readers of that group about the lack of flaming there lead me to believe that
they do not wish to read this discussion there.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.solid-state.electronics
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:30:33 GMT

In article <27492@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, webb@oasys.dt.navy.mil (John S. Webb) writes:
|> < What about this:
|> <sci.electronics..quantum_physics.solid_states
|> 
|> <what do you guys think?
|> <                         Babak   Sehari
|> 
|> This name -and even the first suggested name "sci.solid-state.electronics"
|> have a lot of characters.  The menu in my newsreader only displays 23
|> characters per name.
|> 
|> sci.semicon  or sci.electronics.semi   might be good.
|> 
|> John Webb    CD,NSWC
|> David Taylor Model Basin
|> Code 1523
|> Bethesda,Md 20084
|> (301)227-1870                  -no sig yet-

Recently, we tried to create the group rec.metalworking.  The net.gods
became irate, and would not be happy with a new group at the second
level in hierarchy.  The group should be up for a vote any time now
as rec.crafts.metalworking.  Anyway, my point here is that you may
want to seriously consider sci.electronics.whatever rather than
sci.whatever.  Of course, the sci hierarchy isn't nearly as crowded as
the rec hierarchy, so it will be easier to justify a new group at the
second level.  Just thought I'd warn y'all about what happened recently
in the hopes that we wouldn't have to repeat history.  I have no problem
with a new second level group as long as it can be justified.

 - les

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Intergraph Corporation		Huntsville, AL
Electronics Division		(205) 730-8537

To the cat, the experimenter is problematic.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley)
Subject: Is Dave Hayes wasting your tax dollars?
Keywords: waste in government
Organization: Stick this :-) anywhere you feel the need.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:00:28 GMT

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>You cannot tell me how to run my news site.

I have been meaning to ask this for some time, thanks for reminding me.
Which site is that Dave?  Do you have a system at you home that you own,
or do you mean the JPL site?

I could care less what you do at home, however, we do have a right to
tell you how to run JPL because as taxpayers, we helped pay for it.
As a taxpayer, in these hard times with NASA budgets being what they
are, it also concerns me that you seem to have so much free time at work.
-- 
Do not suffer the company of fools  ||  Jan Isley ...!gatech!bagend!jan
  Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha    ||  jan@bagend.uucp (404)434-1335
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.lang.basic, visual-basic
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:24:51 GMT

doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes:
>Visual Basic is significantly more (IMHO, anyway) than "just a basic
>compiler/interpreter", in that it includes an interface builder and
>interactive environment, and many event-handling features not common
>to "the rest of the BASICs".
>
>Further, Visual Basic is rarely discussed in alt.lang.basic, it sits
>in with the Windows newsgroups.  I expect that this would probably
>continue, or that the "traditional BASIC" and the VB folk will both
>clamor for separate newsgroups.  This is my rationale for proposing
>two separate groups.
>
>My original intent was to only propose the VB group, but I figure if
>I have to run one vote, I might as well run both.  The two different
>groups each have to stand or fall on their own merit, but I'd hate
>to see a VB group fail because "it should just be lumped with the
>other BASICs".

Both of these proposals, comp.lang.basic and a separate visual-basic
group, have been suggested in the alt.lang.basic newsgroup in the
past.  The general feeling seems to have been that we should wait a
little longer before creating the comp group.  Personally, I feel that
alt.lang.basic has been getting sufficient traffic for several months
now, and a comp group is fine.

As for a separate visual-basic group, I don't (yet) see the point.
We've seen more postings about VB-DOS than about VB itself on the
newsgroup.  It makes no sense to create a newsgroup where there's no
traffic, and I doubt the users will be clamoring for separate groups
unless there's a substantial amount of traffic that is obviously split
into different topics.

Now, it's possible there's a huge torrent of visual-basic postings in
one of the windows groups, and those people want their newsgroup to
split.  I don't know, I don't read the windows groups.  But if that's
not the case, then splitting off visual-basic is counterproductive -
I'd rather see their posts in the comp.lang.basic group than not see
them at all.

Let me further add that I am maintaining a FAQ posting for
alt.lang.basic, and will move it to comp.lang.basic if that group gets
created.  If visual-basic postings go to that group, they will be
included in my FAQ posting.  Does visual-basic have its own FAQ?  Is
it a large and active enough group to want and maintain its own FAQ?

At this stage, I'm considering voting yes for comp.lang.basic, and no
for the visual-basic group.  The moment I find out there's visual
basic traffic somewhere that is in search of its own home, I'll drop
my objections to that proposal, and abstain from that vote.

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
  --  WBRS (BRiS)  --  WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu  WBRS@brandeis.bitnet
 FidoNet: Ofer Inbar on 1:101/310  --  Ofer.Inbar@f310.n101.z1.fidonet.org
 The Boston Computer Society IBM PC User Group TBBS, (617) 332-5584
Xref: sparky news.groups:22077 soc.culture.indian:37223 soc.culture.pakistan:16767 soc.culture.bangladesh:5973
From: khalid@bu-bio.bu.edu (Rasheed A. Khalid)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:13:17 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Biology Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In an article, Gopar Agrawal wrote that he had read in the Herald that
in Islam, there are 10+ sects.

There are even more.  There are 73, one of which is the Ahmadiyya Movement
in Islam.  It claims to be the one on the right side whereas the others
feel that it is wrong and they are on the right side.  In the past, nearly
every sect has claimed to be the right one and that some other sect was
out of Islam.  Now in Pakistan, based on what the government decided,
most, if not all, sects believe that Ahmadis are wrong and the rest are
true Muslims.

It is interesting that there is a saying of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad
(On whom is invoked the peace and blessing of God whenever his name is
mentioned) that there WILL BE differences and sects.  He said that his
followers will be divided into sects, 72 of them  when a "Jama'at"
(community) will appear and that will be the right one.  He said about
the rest of them "Kullu hum fil Naar" (they will all be in the Fire).
Only people of one sect will be saved from the torment of hell.  At the
time when he said this, his companions who were listening to him were
intrigued and asked him: Man hum Yaa Rasoolullah? (who would be those,
O Prophet of God?) referring to the ones who would be saved.  He replied
Man huwa alaihi wa ashaabee -- who act upon my ways and my companions'
ways.

Various sects at different times have claimed to be that one sect. Ahmadis
have also forcefully claimed to be that sect.  It is interesting to note
that if his words could be taken as authority, only one sect could be on
the right path, rather than 72 combined together.  Today, the consensus
in Pakistan is that all 72 sects except Ahmadis are one and the same
while Ahmadis are totally different from them, and non-Muslims.  Who should
one listen to, under these circumstances.  72 cannot be the same under
one group if they have both the right sect and the wrong ones together.
72 wrong on one side and A right one on the other makes more sense,
and that is the shape things are assuming now.  Ahmadis are being
increasingly thought of as "outsiders", different from the 72 while
the 72 can mutually coexist.

When I get the exact words of the saying, I shall post it for the interest
of readers, as it is of vital interest to those whose creed is Islam.

Time will tell which sect is the right one.

Regards,
Rasheed.

Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
From: bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar)
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:59:15 GMT

In article <1e9pb6INNm9v@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

>Why is it that I have not yet seen a single rebuttal of the
>contradictions I have pointed out?  

Shriman Shakil Ji,

First, there is no contradiction that needs to be explained. Yours
and Ahmadis are two different interpretations of the same syntactic
entity (Quran). If they differ, you can't say one is wrong and the other
is correct. Yes, even the interpretation accepted by a majority can not
be forced down the throats of those in a minority. That is called
religious tolerance.

Secondly, as for your not having seen the rebuttals, there is plenty more
that you have refused to see in your typical style of obfuscatory
reasoning.

I am sure you have seen the following question before. Please give a 
one word answer to this question, if you can and would condescend to?

Are you, Mr. Shakil Ahmad, vested with the authority of deciding who 
is a Muslim and who is not?
                                                  [Yes/No]


If Yes, then you are violating a well accepted belief of islam and if
not, then please stop talking about Ahmadis not being Muslims.

You have no right to stop Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims.
It is not a religious Islamic state here.


>You are basing your comments on
>something you cannot even prove, 

And nor are you capable of "proving" somebody else being
Muslim or non-Muslim.

>-- Shakil


---raj


PS: Some of these fanatics think that they are still in Pakistan or in 
some other religious islamic state and can continue with the religious 
persecution that is carried out back home in their countries. Yes sir,
objecting to Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims is religious
persecution. I wish "Religious Tolerance 101" with a grade of B or above 
is made a pre-requisite for graduation in every university for people from 
these countries.

---raj
From: tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 23 Nov 1992 03:56:34 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <By54tC.93.2@cs.cmu.edu> hill@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu writes:
)> >Alan D. Cabrera writes
)> >> Where do I say that my idea is mainstream? 
)
)You never said your idea was mainstream (as I said in the first include).   
)But in calling for discussion here, you thought that it was (as I said in  
)the second quote).

This is incorrect.  All discussion related to new newsgroup creation
should take place in news.groups.  Alan was posting a--let's spell it
out--Request For Discussion, requesting people who were interested in the
topic to discuss his proposal for a rec.games.netrek split.  As per
the Usenet guidelines, the actual discussion is to take place in
news.groups, and if that discussion shows that the idea is out of
the mainstream, it is expected not to go to a vote.  If a non-mainstream
proposal goes to a vote, it will almost certainly be defeated soundly,
and will take with it any hope of a new split for at least 6 months.

I'm sorry you don't like the Usenet guidelines, Rob, but they are the
way they are for a reason.  If you have something to say about the
content of Alan's proposal, you should speak up, but lay off the
comments about his procedures; they are proper.
 -Tom
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:43:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

TERRY D. BARKLEY <32BSFJC@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>:
>This argument that science fiction and fantasy are the same is a short 
>lived one in literary terms...
>[Moderately lengthy discussion omitted.]

Terry, I enjoyed your discussion, and have kept a copy for future
reference.  You may be missing a point, however, in the context of
this discussion.  The lumping of science fiction and fantasy in
rec.arts.sf.* is not motivated by a belief that they are the same
(or, to be more precise, that science ficiton is a subgenre of fantasy.)
It is motivated by a commonality of interest:  The two genres have
considerable overlaps in readership, in authors, in conventions, in
marketing.  As a result, it works to discuss them in the same forum.

The key question here is not whether sf is fantasy, but whether the
convenience of creating a separate newsgroup for fantasy would outweigh
the inconvenience.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

Roses red and violets blew
  and all the sweetest flowres that in the forrest grew -- Edmund Spenser
Newsgroups: news.groups,misc.jobs.misc
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: RFD- misc.jobs.non-computer
Keywords: New jobs newsgroup?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:54:36 GMT

eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:

>If you want to do this, you should instead consider a restructing
>to get rid of misc.jobs.offered.  misc.jobs.non-computer is too vague.
>misc.jobs.offered.non-computer and misc.jobs.offered.computer
>would as a minimum be better.  This has problem, still.  What happened

You will get LESS resistance if you take it a step at a time.
If it has m.j.o.non-comp(uter) in it, it will get my NO VOTE.


>to the geographic split proposal?  Witness also what happened

It (hopefully) died a deserved death.  Just put the geography on the
subject line.


>with misc.jobs.offered.entry.  You can expect the same thing which
>happened there to happen in non-computer for a while.

A **LONG** while.  Perhaps it would have been wiser, although certainly
more upsetting, to have gone the route of m.j.o.experienced.


>misc.jobs.non-computer could be interpreted as anything: resumes, offerings,
>discussion.  You must clarify it ion the name.

This is indeed very important.  Different people interpret things very
differently.  Given a vague definition, you are going to get a LOT of
different interpretations.
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From: adc@tardis.cl.msu.edu (Alan D. Cabrera)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:13:03 GMT
Reply-To: adc@tardis.cl.msu.edu
Organization: Michigan State University

In article 24816@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow) writes:
>adc@tardis.msu.edu (Alan D. Cabrera) writes:
>
>[...]
>>> Before you completely write off his proposals, keep in mind that he's trying
>>> to make our lives easier by taking the initiative and doing something.  I
>>> think he could've presented it in a less fascist-sounding manner, but I
>>> don't see anything wrong with talking it over.
>
>>Ummm, fascist-sounding?  I believe that it is of the same formal tone
>>as other RFDs.  As a matter of fact I used an RFD for the splitting of
>>linux as a template.
>
>At least in comp.os.linux, there was a real honest-to-goodness discussion
>(argument) about whether a split is needed, as opposed to your one-sided, one-
>supporter proposal. Hell, the traffic in comp.os.linux must be 10 times that
>in rec.games.netrek anyway. They need to be thinking about a split. 
>rec.games.netrek does not have the traffic to warrant a split.

You've obviously neglected to read my previous posts or chose not to
reference them to your advantage.  I was told to post an RFD and no one
objected until I actually posted the damn thing.  With that in mind,
how does the above response relate to the tone of my RFD?

Seperating the wheat from the chaff, it's a good argument against a
split.


---
Alan Cabrera				internet:  adc@tardis.cl.msu.edu
Computer Laboratory			phone:     (517) 353-3027
Michigan State University		fax:       (517) 353-9847
514 Computer Center			bitnet:    CABRERA@MSU
East Lansing, MI 48824
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:13:45 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <851@rc1.vub.ac.be>, by apardon@rc1.vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon):
> In article <BxF80G.JqC@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
> |> I am constantly shocked that people keep asking
> |> me if that is the group's purpose....
 
> Well this seems to indicate that at least the name you are proposing
> puts people on the wrong foot as to what to expect from this newsgroup

Indeed, it appears that the .archives newsgroup is aptly named to
prevent that kind of misunderstanding.  Thus, the main purpose of the
new group is gone.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:05:49 GMT
Organization: Deep Thirteen, Gizmonics Institute

Jonathan Hardwick writes:
>Idiots are idiots.  Even *with* r.g.n.announce, we'd still have had a
>bunch of people on r.g.n saying "what's RSA?".  r.g.n.announce would
>be a good way for people with very little time to keep up-to-date on
>new servers, new clients, etc, but it wouldn't do much to cut down on
>the number of people who ask dumb questions on r.g.n.

This is true to a degree.  Some people will post questions as soon as
the questions occur to them.  Such is life.  If I could vote against
idiots, I would.

Still, I think that if r.g.n.announce posts stayed around longer than
r.g.n posts and most people were subscribed to both, at least you
would avoid this sort of post from people who merely have very short
expire times on their local news.  With an "unimportant" group like
r.g.n, I bet the average time news stays around on most systems is
pretty short.  

Again: many of these posts are NOT generated by idiots; merely people
that are not as well blessed with spare disk space as the rest of us.

So would you vote for the idea of a r.g.n.announce or not?  Howzabout
r.g.n.programmer (unmoderated)?

-Leonard