HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Interest in the r.a.s. reorg?
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:44:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan22.114500.19668
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

OK, after spending the better part of an hour rebutting the various
inaccuracies (that was said humorously, some of the objections are 
quite valid) about the proposals to change the r.a.s. hierarchy,
I am beginning to feel as though I am working on a political
campaign on behalf of a ds9/tng based split, as opposed to discussing
Star Trek.  Now, political campaigns are great -- once every two
years.  The last one ended in November.  So, I am starting to wonder
if anyone is really *interested* in this debate anymore; that is,
are the proponents of no split, of a .reviews based split, and of 
a tng/ds9 based split talking *at* each other or *with* each other
in an attempt to be persuasive?  I am aware of certain other people's 
opinions, and they are aware of mine.  So, what I am getting at is,
==========ARE THERE PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL UNDECIDED ABOUT THIS ISSUE
OUT THERE WOULD WOULD LIKE ME TO CONTINUE HASHING OUT ARGUMENTS
ON BEHALF OF THE DS9/TNG BASED SPLIT?
If there are, I would be happy to do so, but if there are not,
I am just preaching to the converted or trying to persuade the
originators of the reviews idea to drop their proposal, which they
won't do.  Also, are people *abroad* interested in more arguments?
Lastly, I think we all agree on the need for more evidence before 
making a hasty decision, and in any case no split, even if initiated
today, would occur before such time.

Comments, all?  Are you interested in this discussion, or am 
I wasting my time?

Chris
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.os2.{announce,ver1x,beta}
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:01:13 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan24.004007.8768@news.duc.auburn.edu> hankedr@mail.auburn.edu (Darrel Hankerson) writes:
>I oppose the creation of the .ver1x group.
>We lose the help of experts when there are too many groups and too many
>postings which are off-charter or FA FAQs.  For this reason, I oppose the
>creation of the .ver1x group. The 1.x questions are few--let's leave these
>in the main groups. 

That's fine if you're a 2.0 person looking to skip 1.x postings; it's not so
fine if you're a 1.x person looking for a few nuggets among the torrent of 2.x
postings. As for losing the help of experts, having 1.x in its own group would
do more to keep the 1.x experts around than anything else, as they could read
.ver1x and ignore version 2 if they wanted to.
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: ras.reviews
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:23:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


After reconsidering the situation, I withdraw my opposition
 to ras.reviews.  If people want an extra group that badly,
 it's not my problem.  

I still think that making an ST-reviews mailing list or
 adding reviews to the charter of ras.info would be a better
 idea, though.
From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 27 Jan 1993 11:01:45 +1100
Organization: Werple, Public Access *NIX, Oz
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval

In article <C1ExG0.3tA@apollo.hp.com> jlevine@apollo.HP.COM (Jennifer E. Levine) writes:
>I just read the RFD for this group.
>
>Does it "allow" discussion of miniatures used
>in a fantasy setting?
As the RFD stands at the moment, any and all periods are welcome for
discusssion, including fantasy and science fiction. 

There is, however, some opposition to including the F&SF discussion with the
"historical" discussion. A 2nd RFD will be issued on 28th Asking for
discussion of this issue, seeking people's opinions and ideas on if it's
needed and how it could be done.

Thanks,

Bob.
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: New RFD: Bible Study Newsgroup
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:31:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T

I think the confusion is because the original suggestion for
soc.religion.bible-study had has one of the "rules" of the group that
the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity were not open to debate.  This was
probably the reason for suggesting the change to
soc.religion.christian.bible-study.  However, when the name change was
put in, that other requirement was also modified, so that now the
"christian" part is probably not necessary.  (Sorry, I don't have the
initial posting to quote directly, but someone can probably check their
archives.)

Proof that one should change only one variable at a time. :-)

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Xref: sparky news.groups:26511 soc.culture.usa:10249 alt.censorship:10146 alt.individualism:6295 alt.society.civil-liberty:7542 misc.headlines:7582
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.os2.{announce,ver1x,beta}
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:12:16 GMT

In article <C19p8w.I03@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> papresco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>	This is a Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of three OS/2
>>	newsgroups:
>>	(1)  comp.os.os2.ver1x      (unmoderated)
>>	(2)  comp.os.os2.beta       (unmoderated)
>>	(3)  comp.os.os2.announce   (moderated)
>How about comp.os.os2.hardware, where we could take these PAS, SCSI,
>ATI, Trident, CD-ROM, Tape Backup conversations....

Due to an improperly conducted voting procedure, comp.os.os2.setup and
comp.os.os2.programmer.porting did not pass some months ago.  When the
requisite six months has elapsed, these two newsgroups will be
re-RFD'ed.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
From: craig@yonder.equinox.gen.nz (Craig Shore)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Do an RFD: comp.sys.atari.st.advocacy
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:17:50 GMT
Reply-To: craig@yonder.equinox.gen.nz
Organization: Equinox Networks (Public access), Node: Yonder
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992

In <1993Jan22.145733@cs.bham.ac.uk>, David Oakley writes:

>Group Name
>==========
>comp.sys.atari.st.advocacy

>New users and people who need information about the Atari ST can
>continue to use the original group and would hopefully get more
>attention if there is less advocacy mail present.

I'm all for it, it's very off-putting for new members of the internet
 to come into the group and see their pride and joy just being 
 continueously blasted when all they wanted was a little new info & help.
 Let's get the advocacy out of there!

 Craig.

-- 
* Craig Shore.  Phone (Voice) +64 3 3852501  * 
*  Email:craig@yonder.equinox.gen.nz  or  shore_c@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz  *
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:46:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.101558.15204@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rapickering@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:

>Apple has currently made no mention of straying from the use of the term
>Powerbook to identify its line of portable computers.

They may not have made any mention of it, but they did it anyway.  Vis
a vis the Macintosh Portable, the Newton, etc.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: New RFD: Bible Study Newsgroup
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:06:14 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:

>While I was in favor before, I now strongly oppose the new Biblestudy
>charter.  The change of the name to include the word "christian" is
>exclusionary and unnecessary, especially since the charter does not
>claim to restrict discussion to Christian viewpoints.  I see no harm
>in omitting the word "christian" from the name, because any ambiguity
>in the word "bible" is cleared up by the definition in the charter.
>
Karleen..

  This issue was discussed among the people working on the RFD.  There are
going to be complaints no matter what the name of the group is.  One person
will object that it is Christian-centered, another will agree with you.
The RFD points out that the "Bible" is a collection of books, Old Testament
and New, and in general, that applies to various forms of Christianity.

  No points of view will be excluded, but a group without 'christian' in
the title will likely meet strong objection because of the likely content.
In addition, there were issues raised about name-space, etc.

  If you agree with everything in the RFD, please don't vote against the
group because of the name.  The RFD accurately reflects the intent of the
founders and the initial moderator (me) to allow freedom of topic and
ideology.

  I urge you to vote for the group.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: New RFD: Bible Study Newsgroup
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:40:59 GMT

In article <1jn1i5INN1np@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>
>AS far as the other objections based on the location under
>soc.religion.christian; people are reading to much into the name.

Would you then object to soc.religion.bible-study?  (If you did, you
might be accused of "reading too much into the name" . . .)

>                                                                  The name of
>the newsgroup is designed for two things:
>
>1) Enable a user to have some rough idea of what the subject matter is.

The subject matter of a group is defined by three things:  the group name,
the charter, and what people actually discuss . . .

Now, why wouldn't "soc.religion.bible_study" adequately reflect the
subject matter of the proposed group, and help keep discussions "on
track"?  Would the name turn away people, or attract undesirables?  (Some
people have already stated that putting "christian" in the name would
turn them away - mind you, some people might consider these people
"undesirables" . . .)

>2) Allow the news administration to work. This tends to apply to sites which 
>have a restricted feed. The idea is that if the proposed group is a subset of
>an existing group, put it in that groups hierarchy so people who were getting
>the old group will get the new group as well. 

But "soc.religion.bible-study" is just as much a subset of an existing group
as "soc.religion.christian.bible-study"!

>I originally was not enthusiastic about the group feeling that it could be 
>handled within the scope of the existing moderated group; The proponents have
>done a good job of handling the discussion and overcoming valid objections to
>the name and charter. I will vote for the group. (In fact, this entire RFD
>should be used as an example of how to conduct a new group proposal)

On this, I agree.

But, having seen the debates over the soc.religion{.muslim}.ahmaddiya
group proposal, I think that keeping soc.religion flat makes sense,
since any attempt at further subdivision leads to, um, religious
debates . . .

I won't vote against soc.religion.christian.bible-study, as currently
defined, but I don't think anything would be lost by using the shorter
name.

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: fduross@moose.uvm.edu (Forbin)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergrads
Originator: fduross@moose.uvm.edu
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:52:50 GMT

From article <C17G29.92v@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, by adk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Andrew Kennedy):
> We tried to correct that and repost it.  Has the new version not come through?
> We thought our first posting didn'y make it, and had been cancelled.
> 
> Anyway, the proposed group _IS_ comp.cs.undergrad
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew D Kennedy  -  First Year Student  -  BSc AI & CS Edinburgh University
> adk@dcs.ed.ac.uk adk@festival.ed.ac.uk akennedy@nyx.cs.du.edu  lupus on mono
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Here stack-pointer, here boy!, here boy!..."                         Usenet
-- 
Frank B. DuRoss Jr.		'Emmancipate yourself from mental slavery,
fduross@moose.uvm.edu		 none but ourselves can free our minds.'
University Of Vermont                -Bob Marley

From: ohdav@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (David OH)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:13:24 GMT
Subject: Leave rec.windsurfing alone!
Organization: HP Singapore Notes-Server
Newsgroups: news.groups


rec.outdoors.windsurfing?? Gimme a break, leave it alone...rec.windsurfing
is fine as it is! If it ain't broken,don't fix it!      

Sukhdev Singh
sukhdev@hpss2.sgp.hp.com

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jlr5m@hilbert.math.Virginia.EDU (James Rovnyak)
Subject: genealogy
Keywords: genealogy, GEDCOM
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:21:08 GMT


Query:

Is there genealogy software for the NeXT?   Any that uses GEDCOM?

Failing this, can somebody recommend DOS software for genealogy that uses  
GEDCOM?

J. Rovnyak, rovnyak@Virginia.EDU
            jlr5m@hilbert.math.Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.karnataka
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: News Groups Censors REC.ARTS.POEMS.URDU
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:14:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.103610.199@fuug.fi> an6966@anon.penet.fi writes:
>I wish to state that I am VERY ANGRY at the annoucenemtn that News Groups
>censored rec.arts.poems.urdu despite its passing fair and square in a
>valid vote.  

You want to complain, do it from a real email site instead of hiding 
behind an anon facility.

Then, show some proof that the vote was indeed "fair and square", and 
is being "censored" improperly.

People who make unsubstantiated allegations from anonymous sites make
me VERY ANGRY. They also lead me to put their subject of discussion in
my kill file, a practice I suspect many others follow as well.


-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
Windows NT documentation: "Command to change password    CTL-ALT-DEL"
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.board
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:18:15 GMT

Note : I have cross posted this back to rec.games.board, as (aside from mailing
lists), this is where most miniatures gamers hang out.

Note II : You might want to also post your RFD to a frp group, as those guys
would also be interested.

Now, my comments :

While the motives listed in the RFD about "why a miniatures group" are all
valid reasons for talking about minis on the net, I feel that rec.games.board
already fills the need.  Most people on the net who are into miniatures already
read this group, and so would have instant access to anything posted there.

For more specific discussions, several well publicized mailing lists exist (cf:
FAQ, news.answers).  Mailing lists also have fewer distribution problems than
do newsgroups - more people can't read a newsgroup than people who are not
allowed to suscribe to lists (this was shown in a recent ASL list debate).

While I would also like to see more miniature stuff on usenet, I think that
the way to get it is not a new group (which if present volume is a good
barometer, wouldn't have much traffic), but to post more about it on r.g.b.  A
discussion in the wider forum of r.g.b. would reach more people and stimulate
more interest than the same discussion on a dedicated newsgroup with a smaller
readership.

	Alec
From: genzuk@mizar.usc.edu (Michael Genzuk)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: PB Newsgroup
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:18:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

I have read numerous articles on the pros and cons of a Mac PB Newsgroup.
This debate has gone on for a long time.  I have consistently read the
Laptop Newsgroup and seen the overwhelming number of articles dealing with
PC notebooks.  And I have no problem with that.  But we deserve our own
home as well.  When I have posted questions about my PB 180 in that group,
or in the mac.hardware group as well it seems to get overshadowed by other
issues.  I think it is time to deal exclusively with the Powerbook audience.
Especially with the expansion of the Powerbook family.

One vote for a new newsgroup

Michael at USC
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware reorganization to comp.sys.x86.*
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:10:31 GMT

In article <1jkq94INNqf0@rodan.UU.NET> SRK106@psuvm.psu.edu (Senthil Ramas Kumar) writes:
>
>                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>
>Due to the high traffic in the group comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware, I feel that
>it is neccessary to split the group.  Further, the topics covered in the
>discsussion can easily be classified into different categories.
>
>eg: Discussion relating to video,
>
>Discussion relating to hard-drives, floppy drives
>
>I am sure there are many other classifications that we can make based on the
>nature of the discussion.
>
>There is a lot of useful information that is there in the group, and I
>personally feel that it will be to our mutual benefit, if we can further
>classify the group, so that people looking for information can quickly get
>to it, instead of having to wade through the myraid of postings.
>
>So, I think, it would be worthwhile to discuss, _how_ we are going to go
>about splitting the group.
>
>Some people have already suggested this:
>
>comp.sys.x86.video
>
>comp.sys.x86.drive
>
>comp.sys.x86.hardware (motherboard etc)
>
>Thus, we do away with the "ibm.pc" part.  I would like to see a more
>definitive discussion along these lines, so we can go about doing what is
>necessary.
>
>Kumar

I think that we should keep the "IBM" part, whether it makes any sense or
not the systems are known as ibm, generically, and I don't see anything
wrong with that.  I think I would do something like:

ibm.video
ibm.drives
ibm.peripherals
ibm.mainboard
ibm.clones
ibm.setup

What's the big deal if someone sees "ibm.video" and thinks we're talking
about AS/400 terminals or something?  They join the group, read a few
messages, realize it's not what they wanted, and they hit "u".   Worrying
about being specific enough not to "confuse" somebody doesn't justify
 forcing everyone to type in an unecessarily long group name every time 
they want to read it (IMHO).
From: pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.outdoors and rec.skydiving
Summary: not in favor of moving rec.skydiving to rec.outdoors.skydiving
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:02:38 GMT
Distribution: na

I saw a post in rec.skydiving that asked about rec.outdoors
and postulated that rec.skydiving might be moved to be a
sub-group thereof.

I am not in favor of such a change.

While skydiving is generally an outdoor activity, the
discussions in the group do not generally revolve around
the "outdoorness" of the sport.  We do not generally
discuss ecological issues or the like.  We discuss
skydiving.

In support of my position, I point out that rec.aviation
was not mentioned as a possible subgroup of rec.outdoors.
Although aviation is also generally an outdoor activity, it
is not generally concerned with issues about the outdoors.
I think the two groups are quite similar in this respect.
If rec.aviation.* is not a candidate for inclusion under
rec.outdoors, neither should rec.skydiving be.

Actually, I have thought at times that rec.skydiving and
rec.aviation should somehow be related more closely than
they currently are.  In light of the recent reorganization
of rec.aviation into a hierarchy, rec.skydiving might well
find a new home as rec.aviation.skydiving.  There, we could
be involved with discussions among those who use the air
for recreational/business purposes.  Pilots and skydivers
both would be encouraged to look into the group.  There
could be a general increase in the level of communication
between groups of activities that use the air.

So, I propose that rec.skydiving not be moved under rec.outdoors,
but instead, either be left as is, or possibly be moved under
rec.aviation.

Thank you,
Paul Fries
pvf@alantec.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:13:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.183020.22062@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:

>From a boardgamer's perspective, lead is lead. The Warhammer freaks and
>the Napoleonic grognards have much in common: they paint and push
>lead according to very similar general rules. If you split by 
>historical vs. fantasy, why separate the miniaturists from the 
>boardgamers? After all, the battle of Eylau is still the battle of
>Eylau, whether played under Empire rules with lead or L'Bataille with
>cardboard.

I agree absolutely.  That's why I suggested, several posts back,
that a rec.games.war would better suit my particular interests than
having to monitor both rec.games.board and the proposed new
miniatures group and to filter out the frp stuff from both.  However,
that suggestion seems to have met with little support.

-Gary Charbonneau
 charbonn@indiana.edu
Xref: sparky news.groups:26353 news.admin.policy:1153 alt.activism:21401 alt.activism.d:4557
From: cjb3701@cs.rit.edu (Christopher J Bigenwald)
Subject: rec.windsurfing
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:15:32 GMT

Maybe if it were to be rec.sports.windsurfing, that might be ok....

Xref: sparky news.groups:26501 alt.cd-rom:6100