HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Keywords: music
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:13:30 GMT
Reply-To: barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Organization: BLAZEMONGER INCORPORATED

In article <1992Sep1.221432.11665@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> wes@ice.stx.com writes:
>  As for .keyboards vs. .synth, these should be established as separate 
>groups. One for keyboard techniques and the other for all types of 
>synthesizers.

	Is there a sizable group of people who discuss keyboard techniques
on the Net?  If so, where are they discussing it now?  I don't see it in
r.m.synth at all.  If not, then I'd say "don't bother."

                                                        Dan

 //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA  01003  --  barrett@cs.umass.edu |
 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.scouting,rec.backcountry
From: jreece@sousa.intel.com (John Reece)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.scouting.activities, rec.scouting.policy
Organization: Intel - Information Technologies
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:50:43 GMT


I note that rec.scouting.activities is proposed as an *unmoderated*
group.  From the example of rec.hunting and rec.guns if you don't make
it moderated you might as well not bother splitting rec.scouting 
up.  Otherwise the activists will simply be all over Scouting's ass in
two sub-groups instead of one top-level one.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Reece			"Oop. Ack. Pfffthpt"	
Not an Intel spokesman 			- Bill the Cat
From: saint@cats.ucsc.edu (Dan Bodenheimer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.mystery.detective
Date: 11 Sep 1992 06:39:47 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
Summary: Discussion on rec.arts.mystery
Keywords: mystery, newgroup, discussion


Good response on rec.arts.mystery as the name, anyone willing to deal
with the voting? Any other concerns? I thank all those who have 
posted messages, glad to see some support. I like rec.murder, but it
is too limiting in my opinion. I am a big fan of The Saint and he 
hardly ever murders anyone! I hope that we can get a good cross-section
of mystery/murder/suspense/detective/spy fans. Let's do it!
-Dan (saint@cats.ucsc.edu)

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wfp@world.std.com (William F Phillips)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.mystery.detective
Keywords: mystery, new, group, detective
Organization: Codewright Design, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:52:49 GMT


Great idea!

-- 
   ___                ___    _                        |    Bill Phillips,
  (/__) .  /) /)     (/__) /_   .  /) /) .  _   _     |  Friend Of A Friend
  /__) (__(__(___    /    /  )_(__(__(__(_ /_)_/_)_   |
 (                  (                     (           |  wfp@world.std.com
From: jonathan@mantis.co.uk (Jonathan Egre')
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:04:00 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

latta@scam.berkeley.edu (Craig R. Latta) writes:

> 	In general, I think newsgroups are better grouped by subject
> matter, not by categorizing the participants. One of the greatest
> things about USENET is that it allows very different people to
> associate via their *interests*. So the "rec.musician" groupname
> element turns me off, and it also conflicts with the
> "rec.music.makers" (by duplicating "music-").

Are you trying to say that the word "musician" would imply a newsgroup 
strictly for professional musicians?  I don't see it as any more elitist
than "music.makers". 

I'm certainly not a professional musician, but I would not even have
*suspected* that postings concerning my hobby of playing the guitar would
be unwelcome in "rec.musicians.guitar".  Amateur musicians and beginners
are still "musicians" in my view.

--
Jonathan Egre' = jonathan@mantis.co.uk = jonathan_e@cix.compulink.co.uk
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.friends
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:23:15 GMT
Reply-To: bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: delab

In article <BuAIu1.4rF@uunet.uu.net> andyrose@netcom.com (San Francisco Fractal Factory) writes:

> Request discussion regarding soc.Friends or soc.religion.Friends
> as an avenue for communication of some literature regarding the life
> of members of Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).  This
> would mainly include publication of American Friends Service Committee
> media spec. Quaker Service Bulletin, AFSC Resources, regional office notes,
> Annual Report, electronic and standard contacts, local meeting 
> minutes, Right Sharing of World Resources, Criminal Justice and Prison 
> Reform, and guides to travelling friends.

May I suggest that you change the name? I am not sure that everybody
outside America have the same interpretation of "[fF]riends" as you
do. When I read the subject line I thought you were suggesting a forum
for seeking friends. Like pen pals (sp?).

Maybe soc.religion.quakers would be better.

You want this to be a local US (and maybe Ca?) happening, as I read
the RFD. Would it not be more logical to place this in a us hierarchy?
(us.soc.religion.{[fF]riends}|{quakers}) In that case your original 
name proposal might be justified.

> Unmoderated or moderated.  Suggest unmoderated.

It might be wise to have such a group moderated, but I will not insist
on it.

> Initially group would be used to support resource sharing on local levels.

> Follow up to news.groups or my address.  I think this needs at least
> 100 votes.

If you read the guidelines, you will find that you need at least 100
more "yes" than "no", and at least 2/3 of the "yes"/"no" votes must be
"yes".

Good luck.

Bj{\o}rn
--
______________________________________________________________________
               s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________
From: johnl@yang.earlham.edu (John Fiskio-Lasseter)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Unofficial 2nd RFD: rec.music.classical.guitar
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:12:26 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

Well discussion regarding the creation of rec.music.classical.guitar has 
been quite dead for awhile.  However, I *KNOW* there is interest in it 
because there are morMYe than 150 people on the mailing list that Bill 
Brown collected.

Just a note about that list:  Bill and I tried to find a home for it at my 
site.  Result:  nada -- the sysadmin and other powers that be shot it down.
So for now the list is hosed, lacking a good place to call home (unless 
someone else wants to volunteer a home for it/- contact me if you're inter-
ested).

The upshot of all this:  BE SURE TO VOTE WHEN THE CFV COMES UP.  Right 
now, people, it's all we've got. 

BTW, I believe David Casper posted the original RFD and proposed charter 
of rec.music.classical.guitar.  David, if you are reading this, would you 
post that again with a 2nd offical RFD?

--John 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|John Howard Eli Fiskio-Lasseter  |     "Is obair-la\ to\iseachadh"   |
|e-mail: johnl@yang.earlham.edu   |    ("Beginning is a day's work")  |
|        JOHNL@EARLHAM.BITNET     |                --Gaidhlig Proverb |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.rpg.board
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:22:40 GMT

In article <BuMrHv.5qL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>
>> Request for new group: rec.games.rpg.board
>
>(2) When I hear "board", I think of chess.  The title should
>    probably reflect the term "wargame."  Perhaps, this should
>    be simple rec.games.war or rec.games.tabletop?

The battletech I've seen has not been on boards, but rather on tables.
I see the possibilities for a group involving crosses between wargames
and RPGs, but I'm not sure what to name it.  There are plenty of wargames
and tabletop games out there that have no connection to role-playing, so
these would not be suitable names (although they possibly should be
groups).  Nor would I like to split all the wargames from rec.games.board
without doing something about the non-war simulation games.

The distinction we seem to be aiming for are game systems involving both
role-playing rules and wargaming rules where neither system is dominant
(thus leaving out Dawn Patrol, where the wargaming is dominant, and AD&D
with its Battlesystem, where the role-playing is dominant).  We could go
with something like rec.games.frp.wargaming, I suppose, but it seems
non-intuitive.  Suggestions?

DHT


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.best-of.usenet moderated, misc.best-of.usenet.d
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:33:21 GMT

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>I seriously believe that the moderator should only reject the articles that are
>cross-posted, followups, and originals.  The former two could presumably be
>programmed automagically by a unix guru, and the latter might even be possible
>if a standard submission of headers and original headers that was not too
>cumbersome for posters.

That's probably not a sufficient qualification.  There are several
people or groups who seem to exist on the net for the sole purpose of
pushing something - Palmer, the perpetual motion machine dude, lots of
the Greek/Turk/Whatever the hell they're pushing now types.  All it
takes is a confederate (or another account) to resubmit to m.b-o.u.
After all, with a name like that you might get quite a few people
reading it.  Wide open for abuse.
-- 
Bradley's Bromide: If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a
committee... that will do them in.
From: smithj@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Jim Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:39:44 GMT
Organization: no risk to you!

I think that two hierarchies for music is appropriate.  
rec.musician.* for those CREATING music,
and rec.music.* for other musical topics.

In addition, cast my vote for keeping a rec.*.synth group seperate
from rec.*.keyboards, for reasons already given.  A synth may HAVE a 
keyboard, but not necessarily.  In addition, the few keyboard issues
that come up, such as organs and pianos, often have some relevance to
synthesis topics, ie, my postings on Hammond B3 drawbar settings were more
for the benefit of those doing imitative synthesis of B3's, than for 
B3 owners.

Regards,

                 - Jim Smith  smithj@hpsad.sad.hp.com
            Yupatupata da yupadupa chickida, Icktang icktang, 
            Ickitack tangdow, Rickitickatar ticka chingtar da.
From: fkk@Germany.Sun.COM (Frank Kaefer - Sun Germany IR SysAdm Postmaster - Munich)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: news.software.inn
Keywords: INN
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:21:14 GMT

kent@imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield) writes:

|	news.software.inn
|This is a Request For Discussion concerning creating the newsgroup 

I strongly do support the creation of this newsgroup.

Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kaefer, SUN Microsystems GmbH Germany, IS SysAdm Postmaster
IS Solaris Transition Co-Ordinator Central Europe
frank.kaefer@Sun.COM frank.kaefer@Germany.Sun.COM fkk@sta.sub.org
From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:44:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.42556
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute

Two recent comments:

Michael R. Kesti writes:
>The thing I just don't understand is what we are trying to fix with all
>these variations and proposals.  I honestly don't see that there is much,
>if anything, to be fixed in the musicians' groups, but perhaps if those
>who do could state the problem(s) to be solved, the solutions might become
>more obvious.  From my point of view, however, it looks like most of the
>proponents of this restructuring want to change things for the sake of
>changing them.  Please enlighten me.

Craig R. Latta writes:
> 	Of course. I was complaining about renaming, for example,
> rec.music.classical to rec.musicians.classical. Some people are
> listeners and not musicians.

Somehow some people have gotten the idea that a restructuring of rec.music is
being proposed.  The only restructuring that I suggested was the possible
renaming of rec.music.makers to rec.musicians.misc (given that a rec.musicians
hierarchy was going to be created).  The proposals being discussed are for
the *additional* instrument/musician related groups.  No-one is suggesting,
for example, that rec.music.classical be renamed to rec.musicians.classical -
rec.musicians.classical was a proposed *new* group that specifically addressed
classical musicians (not classical music listeners).

Michael wonders what needs to be fixed in the musicians' groups.  My first
response is - what musicians groups?  All we have is rec.music.makers (and
rec.music.synth I suppose).  (No - alt.guitar, etc don't count.)  That's why
we're proposing more groups - there's good evidence that there's plenty of
interest in groups specifically for guiters, percussion, etc.  There's also
the suggestion that maybe genre specific groups for *musicians* might be
useful.  What's being debated is what's the best way to structure these
proposed groups.

Are we clear on this now?

--Jeff
From: mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM (Michael R. Kesti)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:39:46 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley  CA

In article <1992Sep7.091725.2487@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr>
                       boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker) writes:
>|> Variations on a theme:

>   That's my favourite variation :

> Here is my proposal:


The thing I just don't understand is what we are trying to fix with all
these variations and proposals.  I honestly don't see that there is much,
if anything, to be fixed in the musicians' groups, but perhaps if those
who do could state the problem(s) to be solved, the solutions might become
more obvious.  From my point of view, however, it looks like most of the
proponents of this restructuring want to change things for the sake of
changing them.  Please enlighten me.

-- 
============================================================================
Michael Kesti  Grass Valley Group, Inc. | "And like, one and one don't make
    mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM              |  two, one and one make one."
    !tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd!mrk        |         - The Who, Bargain
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:13:25 GMT

peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}[100+ line C program removed]
}That's a lot of work to do:
}sed -e '/!/s/[,-].*[,-]/-/' 
Except sed mangled the really long lines (*sigh*).
Besides, it takes less time to write 100 lines of C than to
decipher the sed man page :-/

}Of course, I don't put unsubscribed groups in my newsrc at all. There's
}only a couple lines in there now that unsubbed because I haven't cleaned
}stuff up in a while. So you can do even better:

Like I said, this can be a bad thing with some newsreaders, your
mileage may vary.

John
-- 
John Hascall                                       ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.mystery.detective
Keywords: mystery, new, group, detective
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 21:20:18 GMT

In article <18ito3INNf3f@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> saint@cats.ucsc.edu (Dan Bodenheimer) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep8.180945.20692@cco.caltech.edu> roder@cco.caltech.edu (Brenda J. Roder) writes:
>>This sounds like a good idea, but the name should just be rec.arts.mystery
>>or rec.arts.detective.  Otherwise, it looks like it is a specialty group
>>for detectives in mystery stories which is what I first thought when I saw
>>the subject line.
>>
>
>I have recieved many suggestions for a change in the name of the group. I
>think that the most encompassing one would be rec.arts.mystery
>
>There have been others: rec.arts.books.mystery
>			rec.arts.mystery.books
>			rec.arts.mystery.tv
>			rec.arts.mystery.movies
>			rec.arts.mystery.lovers
>
>Any more suggestions? I prefer rec.arts.mystery, I didn't really want this
>group to be just about detectives, rather, more general--a good overall
>balanced group.


	I agree with the name change suggestion.  I think rec.arts.mystery
is the best idea.  As I noted when this was first brought up on alt.config,
the "detective" at the end seems to be suggesting a specific type of story
within the very wide genre of mysteries.  I think adding a "books" or "tv"
or "movies" at the end would also create the impression of an overly narrow
newsgroup.  The "lovers" sounds a little hokey, IMHO, and it doesn't really
help to describe what the group is going to be about--  and there's no reason,
once again IMHO, to make a group's name longer unless you need to.

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.scouting.activities, rec.scouting.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:16:48 GMT

stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:

[...]
>For the record, I oppose any split to rec.scouting.  If there's a problem
>with the current group, it's because a few groups with their own
>political agenda are trying to use rec.scouting as a soapbox for
>their views.
[...]

If people are voicing their so-called political views in a newgroup is
"the problem", then splitting the newsgroup sounds like a practical
solution.

Stan Krieger's attempt to solve "the problem" by telling people such
as me to shut up have not worked (and will not work).

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.tamil ...
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:49:14 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Sep14.203519.23870@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:

>In other words, it is okay for the vote taker to appeal to people
>to vote YES only or abstain, and then issue a CFV and start collecting votes.
>
>Did I get it right ?

Correct, provided:

(a) the appeal occurs before the start of the voting period (this means it
    must not be in the CFV itself), and is not repeated during the voting
    period;

(b) the CFV itself gives equally clear instructions about how to vote yes
    and how to vote no (and how to abstain where appropriate), and actually
    casting the vote is equally easy either way.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: sridhar@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Sridhar Venkataraman)
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:23:22 GMT

john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
writes on news.groups:

)The trn newsreader updates the .newsrc lines for all groups listed in
)the Newsgroups: header line (including ones you are not subscribed to).
)This tends to produce very big .newsrc file (and we have ~5000 netnews
)readers!).  I hacked together a program (below) which mungs lines of the 
)form:
)	newsgroupname! [#1] [,-#]... [#2]
)to:
)	newsgroupname! [#1 [- #2]]
)so:
)	foo.bar.baz! 36-38,87,90,99,101,103,104-107,109
)becomes:
)	foo.bar.baz! 36-109

Why would you want to keep foo.bar.baz in your .newsrc at all? Won't a
vi-style ":g/!/d" do a better job? 

%wc .newsrc
     195     370    8144 .newsrc

)-- 
)John Hascall                                       ``Live with it pink-boy!''
)Project Vincent                                                              
)Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
)Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]

Sridhar.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:41:28 GMT

In article <92251.185340JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>
> For example:
>  A group of people feel that hypothetical.group.for.sake.of.example
> has no reason to continue to exist. These people then call for a vote
> to remove it from the list of active newsgroups. The group has 25 loyal
> readers/posters that post an average of 2 posts per week every week.

So we should keep groups around for the convenience of 25 people?  I
disagree - a group this size is much more suitable for a mailing list.
Remember, these groups aren't free - for those 25 people to enjoy their
little group, a lot of people will need to supply disk space.  (And
I have to run my server with a 4 day expiry, which I consider grossly
inadequate.)

Where would you draw the line?  100 people?  25? 10? 1?  Personally,
I would go with the first number.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.tamil ...
Date: 11 Sep 1992 18:11:15 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep11.152305.13248@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>Now, don't you think the vote taker comments before the vote were improper.
>Or to be more specific, wasn't it inappropriate for him to select himself
>as the vote taker after making such comments ?

No. It was completely appropriate and legitimate, and in fact nearly all
proposals adopted for new groups had their votes taken by the proponent.

>Furthermore wasn't it inappropriate for his co-organizers to do 'canvassing'
>of votes during the vote using similar lines ?

Only if you can show that the co-organizers had access to ongoing vote totals.

>Are such improper behaviours on part of the vote taker and co-organizers
>not sufficient to ask for a revote ?

No, they are not improper, and therefore not sufficient.

>Especially the selection of the vote taker was wrong, IMHO.
>Are there any guidelines on vote taker selection which were violated ?

No. There are no guidelines on vote taker selection to violate.
-- 
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.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z