HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD rec.games.miniatures
Date: 24 Jan 1993 23:35:28 +1100
Organization: Werple, Public Access *NIX, Oz
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

In article <3+l31n#@rpi.edu> cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes:
>I like it IF it includes non-fictional genres, such as the Warhammer 40k
>stuff.  It seemed from the RFD that, while not specifically stated, the
>examples all seemed to be of historical nature.
>
>...Paul

Personally I have no objection to any period rules wahatever. A lot of
people want to stamp out the warhammer crowd etcetc but I think that this
sort of insular elitist attitude is on it's way out.. I hope.

There is a lot we can learn from each other, I hope the warhammer crowd can
help a lot of jaded WRG burnouts (I've spent 3 weeks in the Phil barker clini
c) to have fun and enjoy their gaming again.

everybody's welcome If I have anything to do with it.

Bob.

(
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.indian
From: an6966@anon.penet.fi
Subject: What *HAPPENED* to rec.arts.poems.urdu?
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: news.groups,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.indian
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:35:12 GMT

What happened with this news group?  It passed its vote fair and square
and has been unfairly denied newgrouping since the net Cabal has
"investigated" it without producing a report for over three months. 
Again, I ask, WHAT HAPPENED?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:35:15 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1k4vrmINNni1@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:

>In short, crossposting or not would be left up to the individual reviewers.
>If a submission comes in crossposted to .current or .misc, Michael would
>crosspost it.  Mailed-in submissions with a "please crosspost this" note
>would likewise be crossposted.  By default, submissions would only appear in
>r.a.s.reviews.

I like this. It lets the poster decide where the post will go but leaves
the moderator in place to ensure that the poster is sending it to an
appropriate place.

>That's the idea.  Comments are invited.  My personal view is that we should
>turn this around; the default should be to crosspost, but the submitter
>should be able to request that a review only be posted to .reviews.
>Otherwise, novice reviewers won't know that the option is available. 

I think that can be covered with RTFM. If someone is going to take the
time to write a Review and submit it to a moderated newsgroup the least
they could do is have some clue what the ground rules are. Most moderated
groups (ie: rec.humor.funny) have a FAQ/Procedures posting of some sort
rec.arts.startrek.reviews would need one too.

>So the relevant section of the charter would read:

>All reviews will be crossposted to rec.arts.startrek.current or to
>rec.arts.startrek.misc, as appropriate, so that readers of those groups
>will still enjoy the same reviews they always have.  If further splits
>of the rec.arts.startrek heirarchy occur, reviews will be crossposted to
>the appropriate new group (e.g. rec.arts.startrek.tng, if such a group
>were to be created.)  Reviewers may request that their reviews not be
>crossposted, but followups will be directed to the appropriate discussion
>group in any case.

Yuck. I know most reviews will go to .current and .misc but I can think of
several that would belong in .fandom and .tech (ie: a review of Brent
Spiner's album). A more general statement would cover ALL the current
groups and any future groups as well.

How about: "All reviews will be crossposted to the appropriate
rec.arts.startrek.* group (ie: rec.arts.startrek.current) so that readers
of those groups will still enjoy the same reviews they always have.
Reviewers may request that their reviews not be crossposted, but followups
will be directed to the appropriate discussion group in any case." 

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

                "Things tend to go better if you don't screw up."
                              - hades@dartmouth.edu
Xref: sparky news.groups:26019 comp.sys.mac.misc:22109
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Brian Hughes)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: PowerBook Newsgroup
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:18:33 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

carlton@scws8.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes:

> hades@dartmouth.edu (Brian Hughes) writes:
>> Until the original poster has an approved RFD for the group, there
>> should be no talk about in news.groups.

>Why not?  People often send out feelers in news.groups before
>submitting an official RFD.

    Well, since an official RFD appeard in news.announce.newgroups this
morning this is no longer a major point but, the generally accepted
practice nowadays is to send out feelers to all of the interested groups
but news.groups, and then formulate a coherent proposal that can be
agreed upon by the people in the groups most effected by the creation of
the new one. 
    If such an agreement cannot be reached, then there is no reason to
take it to news.groups and waste even more time on a proposal that
doesn't have the full support of the people who would be the major
contributors.
    This is done as a way of smoothing out the official process once it
comes to news.groups. It makes life a lot simpler for everone involved.
And while I probably shouldn't have used the word "should" in my
statement above, if taken as the advice it was meant to be, I believe
that it is sound.
--
-Brian V. Hughes 
"December 1 - What begins as a friendly transitional get-together between
 the Bushes and the Clintons ends in tragedy when Millie ralphs up what
 is later identified as Socks the cat." Dave Barry 1992 Year in Review
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: scotth@cs.umr.edu (Scott Hayes)
Subject: Re: RFD soc.religion.mormon -- PROPOSED CHARTER
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:48:17 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

>Newsgroup:   soc.religion.mormon
>
>Status:      Moderated by Rawlin Blake at blake@nevada.edu
>
>Description: Discussions regarding Mormons and Mormonism (Moderated)
>
>Charter:     This news group is for the discussion of all things
>             pertinent to Mormons and Mormonism. The following
>             topics are unwelcome and run the risk of being
>             rejected by the moderator:
>
>             1. Flames and Flame wars.
>             2. Posts that reveal or discuss the specific details
>                of the Mormon Temple ceremony. Mormons hold the
>                temple and what goes on inside sacred. Discussing
>                its details shows either little understanding of,
>                or no respect for Mormon beliefs. If you are not
>                sure of the propriety of a post, submit it to the
>                moderator with a note asking for guidance.
>                Discussions about the temple in general are
>                welcome.
>             3. Topics not related to Mormonism.
>
>...where to send votes, etc deleted
>
>-- 
>======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========

Let the Mormons form their own group.  Let them not discuss temp stuff
if they don't want to.  At least they'll have a forum separate from
soc.religion.christian and I don't remember seeing any discussions on
things releated to Mormonism there, although there may have been.

Why not put Mormonism on par with Islam, Ba'hai, etc.?


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:36:45 GMT

In article <1jn32jINN2fu@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
> 
> The rec.outdoors was specifically
> formed to handle those subject areas which didn't quit fit into that mold.
> Orienteering is probably close to the dividing line considering some of the
> rec.sports groups which have come through but I think it does belong in the
> rec.outdoors hierarchy. Perhaps if we can get some more here, we can move
> some of the second level groups such as rec.climbing to this hierarchy.)

This discussion is currently getting started in rec.backcountry, and
may eventually turn to a formal RFD.  Count me as one of the people who

1) saw no point in rec.outdoors.fishing as opposed to rec.fishing,
2) will resist any attempt to move rec.backcountry, rec.climbing, 
rec.bicycles.*, etc. under rec.outdoors.*,
3) thinks the whole concept of a rec.outdoors.* hierarchy is bogus and
pointless,
4) agrees with the concept of rec.sport.* for competitive/pro sports
(although this has been bent somewhat), and
5) and would vote for rec.orienteering.  No "outdoor" or "sport" needed.

After all, what's next?  Rec.indoor.puzzles? Rec.outdoor.bicycles.misc
for riding to work, and rec.indoor.bicycles.misc for riding stationary
bikes and wind trainers?  What is the problem with rec.backcountry,
rec.climbing, rec.orienteering, and even rec.fishing that people feel
the need to qualify them under a separate "outdoors" hierarchy?  Heaven
knows that climbing and fishing and kayaking and backpacking and
bicycling and skiing and orienteering are all pretty damn different
from one another!

-- 
/\    "I'm only a human girl person.  I ain't always perfect."--Rambling Rose
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
From: paulbe@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Bedworth)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: re: RFD - comp.cs.undergrad
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:34:20 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

----------- start of forwarded message ---------------------------------

Received: from brunel.ac.uk by castle.ed.ac.uk id aa28051; 21 Jan 93 16:36 WET
Received: from cook.brunel.ac.uk by sirius.brunel.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) 
          id <20296-0@sirius.brunel.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:35:21 +0000
From: Mark J Robbins <cs91mjr@uk.ac.brunel>
Message-Id: <26581.9301211635@cook.brunel.ac.uk>
Subject: Undergraduate B Board.
To: paulbe@uk.ac.ed.castle
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:35:18 BST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2-hd PL 10]
Status: RO

Hi,

I'm a student at Brunel University. 
I think this is a good idea - Can I help at all ?
Regards M. Robbins

------------- end of forwarded message -------------------------------------
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD soc.religion.mormon -- PROPOSED CHARTER
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:55:02 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu
Originator: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu


In article <1993Jan22.011119.1793@spectra.com>, johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson) writes:
> 
> 
> In article <1jn215INN21l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
> >
> >Wrong, the last attempt was to make it unmoderated. This is why I voted
> >against it last time and I will vote against it again if it is unmoderated.
> >It is my belief that all of the soc.religion groups should be moderated and
> >I will vote against those that are not.
> >
> 
> Reminder that the last CFV was for a moderated group:

[Old CFV deleted]

Sigh...I could have sworn that it was for an unmoderated group. Thanks for
the 'proof' of my increasing age.






-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wang_dj@poincare.cs.jhu.edu (David J. Wang)
Subject: Re: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:17:14 GMT

In article <C1D6xz.Fto@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>group would be improper, in the other case the scope of the newsgroup
>would be too narrow.

I don't agree that it would be too narrow.   I often times go through and
hit /duo/a -- just so that I don't have to see all the stuff on all the stuff  \that I don't want to see -- and I always get plenty of articles.
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
David J. Wang                                    CAUTION!
wang_dj@server.cs.jhu.edu                SPACE UNDER CONSTRUCTION!
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:07:27 GMT
Organization: Ditka Policy Institute

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>There is some discussion in rec.backcountry about creating a camping
>subgroup.  If such a group is created, it should be placed in the
>rec.outdoors. hierarchy which currently contains just
>rec.outdoors.fishing.

That sounds like a reasonably good idea to me, as does your thought
that rec.hunting probably belongs in rec.outdoors as well.

>Other possibilities include
>rec.boats 
>rec.boats.paddle 
>rec.climbing 
>rec.scuba 
>rec.skiing 
>rec.skydiving 
>rec.windsurfing 

I don't really have an opinion -- at this time -- on whether these
moves are a good idea or not.  I'll have to read on and see what
others have to say.  Howevr, I do think that *if* we move all these
groups, that we should try to regularize the naming conventions, e.g.:

	rec.outdoors.climbing
	rec.outdoors.skiing
	etc.

	or

	rec.outdoors.climb
	rec.outdoors.ski
	
Given that .fishing already exists, and that .hunting is proposed,
perhaps the "-ing" form would be preferable.

>Second, should rec.backcountry be renamed and modified to include
>subgroups?

Not at this time: if it's going to be moved, let it be moved, and
then let's evaluate whether or not it needs to be modified/split.
For example, if rec.outdoors.camping is created, it is likely to
siphon off some traffic from rec.backcountry...which may then
turn out to be fine as it is.  To put it another way: I'd like
to see the what the after-effects of a move are before delving
into a possible split.

---Rsk
Xref: sparky news.groups:26163 rec.arts.startrek.current:25172
From: crow@coos.dartmouth.edu (Preston F. Crow)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: r.a.s.c Split - survey
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:15:31 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <1993Jan23.051245.8211@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu> msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (M. Lee Smallwood) writes:

>What we want to do is make .current smaller, right?

>.reviews (especially if it is moderated) will not do that (even
>though it is a neat idea)

>.current.dsn and .current.tng will split the traffic up, but it
>will cause TONS of crossposts (which makes it a BAD idea)

>so... what we need is a new proposal. I'll take a shot at it:

>CREATE -- rec.arts.startrek.characters

>.characters is for questions about characters (which comprises
>at least 40% of .current traffic). Things like 'Troi and that
>purple suit' and 'Picard a borg?' go there. There would be
>little crossposting between it and other groups (perhaps the
>occasional 'Picard on DSN' post). I believe that novices could
>realize that character questions go into the characters group.

>Why do it this way instead of .reviews (UN-moderated)? I think
>that .characters is the way to go because it splits traffic
>more evenly than .reviews. Also, .current's charter by
>definition ALMOST makes this a .reviews group. In this plan
>.current would be for PLOT questions, THEME questions, PLOT
>summaries, and anything that fits the .current group that IS
>NOT PRIMARILY RELATED TO CHARACTERS. Comments? Questions?

Now that's the best split idea that I've heard in a long time.  Now we
can have a newsgroup where we can discuss O'Brien's rank, Troi's
anatomy, and other such stuff.  And I don't have to subscribe!  :-)
Seriously, I would probably have supported this idea even if not for
DS9.

Now what you need to do is write up a charter and post a RFD to
news.groups (and cross-post it to all the appropriate groups).

Keep in mind, though, that newsgroup splitting discussions really
belong on news.groups.  There's already a lot of talk over there, and
it's nice to keep all the discussions in the same place.

--PC


--
(9966269*48+1) | (2^9966269)-1
Over 3 million digits factored on a 386-20!
"Performance through programming"
From: dgoodin@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Dianna Goodin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Rename rec.scuba to rec.outdoors.scuba
Summary: DON't move rec.scuba!!!!!!
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:54:59 GMT



> In addition, obvious outdoors.* groups should be moved to that
> hierarchy.  Specially, rec.hunting should be moved.  Other
> possibilities include
> 
> rec.boats 
> rec.boats.paddle 
> rec.climbing 
> rec.scuba 
> rec.skiing 
> rec.skydiving 
> rec.windsurfing 

PLEASE don't touch rec.scuba. It is currently easy to find and has more
than enough traffic to warrant its own group.

Not to mention the fact that outdoors.* seems slightly redundant. I haven't
been scuba diving in my bathtub lately.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 18:30:20 GMT

In article <C1ILwx.6Gp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>
>I fear that the same thing could happen in an electronic environment.
>People who are interested in historical miniatures might eavesdrop
>on a wide-open .miniatures group only long enough to see that most
>of the posts are frp or sci/fi related, and then never tune in
>again, much less participate.  Call such people "elitists" if you
>will -- they're the ones I want to talk to.
>
>In other words, I don't think that one can conclude that lack of
>traffic about historical miniatures in a group which also includes
>frp necessarily means that there's a lack of interest in the former.
>It may simply mean that the historical miniaturists have decided
>that the group is not for them.

If this is truly a problem, then it's the fault of the historical
miniaturists. Rec.games.board doesn't have this problem, IMHO. My
club experience shows that while what Gary says is sometimes true,
it's more often a problem with people who lack the initiative to
start a game or a discussion. The club I play with often seems overrun
by Titan games, but if you take the time to look or ask, you can find
a strong boardgaming group. But the individual has to make some effort.

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.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: proposed rec.arts.startrek split
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:33:52 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <TQ0WBYZ6@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:

>Also, if we "force", or strongly suggest, that people use the
>abbreviations: TNG, DSN/DS9, TOS and so forth in the subject line of
>their postings, it will go a long way to making kill files easier.

I don't think kill files are even the reason for doing this. I know a
number of people who browse through the larger newsgroups with newsreaders
like nn. For them subject line tags aren't a kill file resource but an aid
in reading subject lines quickly. Of course, clear, concise subject lines
are always a plus.

>I personally don't think a split is necessary though since i think a
>little effort on behalf of posters can make things easier.

It could. Responsible use of the "Newsgroups" and "Followup-To" lines
would also be a big help. On some days 60% of the traffic in .current
belongs somewhere else. Sometimes more.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

Ren and Stimpy for President!
"Back off man, I'm voting for Ren and Stimpy in '96"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: Michael S. Shappe <mss1@cornell.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split & the crossover issue
Date: 23 Jan 1993 18:48:56 GMT
Organization: Cornell University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cu-dialup-0210.cit.cornell.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
X-XXMessage-ID: <A786FEE1A402EC34@cu-dialup-0210.cit.cornell.edu>
X-XXDate: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:55:45 GMT

In article <1jq8jgINNmj1@gap.caltech.edu> Timothy W. Lynch,
tlynch@cco.caltech.edu writes:
>"Experienced posters" also have posted the charters, FAQs, and
netiquette 
>posts on a repeated basis.  Note how much good it's done.

Ahem. A very good point the Enchanter makes up there. You may recall I
spent several months publishing weekly and monthly introductions that
were meant to tell people where their posts belong. Fat lot of good it
did, and it was very little missed when it went away.

Further splits are not the answer; certainly, THIS split is not the
answer. They, too, will be ignored or misunderstood by the stubbron and
the naive. Better reading tools with better selection methods are what is
needed.

Uncle Mikey