HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jim Kirkpatrick <jimkirk@corral.uwyo.edu>
Subject: CFV: rec.crafts.metalworking
Followup-To: poster
Organization: uwyo.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:23:25 GMT

This is a Call For Votes (CFV) on creation of the unmoderated newsgroup
rec.crafts.metalworking.  The charter is reproduced below.

To vote FOR the creation of this new newsgroup, send mail to
metalyes@corral.uwyo.edu.  To vote AGAINST the creation of this group,
send mail to metalno@corral.uwyo.edu.  Please send votes *only* to one
of these two addresses, otherwise it will not count.  Do not post your
vote, or send it to my personal mailbox.  The content of the e-mail
ballot is not important, just the address it is sent to.

The voting period will last until 23:59:59 MST, 14-DEC-1992.  Votes
*received* after that date cannot be counted.

Charter
-------

Proposed Charter -- REC.CRAFTS.METALWORKING

The USENET newsgroup, rec.crafts.metalworking, is a newsgroup which discusses
various aspects of working with metal, such as (but not limited to):

  machining, as on a lathe, milling machine, grinder, etc.;
  numerical control of such machines;
  welding, whether by gas, arc, mig, tig, thermite, or other methods;
  Metal joining, whether welding, brazing, soldering, riveting,
    screwing, folding, etc.  (this section was added during the discussion)
  casting various metals by various methods;
  hardening/tempering various metals;
  blacksmithing/forging;
  spinning and hammer work;
  sheet metal work;
  jewelry-making;
  purchasing and/or reconditioning metalworking tools and machinery;
  interesting projects;
  books on metal technologies and history;

Example areas of interest:

  knife/sword making;
  automotive repair;
  steam engine (model/scale, though full-sized discussions are welcome!);
  art work, such as bronze castings and sculptures;
  gunsmithing;
  toolmaking, such as for woodworking, further metalworking, etc.;

While the bulk of the discussion will probably be directed towards
small-scale "home" shops, industrial/production discussions are also
quite welcome.
-- 
Jim Kirkpatrick
jimkirk@corral.uwyo.edu
Xref: sparky news.announce.newgroups:1365 news.groups:22774 rec.games.design:2245
From: magnus@ii.uib.no
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.games.design
Subject: RFD: rec.games.netrpg
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:00:55 -0500
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.uu.net

Proposed newsgroup name: rec.games.netrpg
Status: unmoderated

Charter: rec.games.netrpg is for discussion of design, implementation
and use of the net.rpg game.

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

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

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

The RFD period will begin when posted and end on December 14, 1992. If
appropriate, a CFV will be posted shortly thereafter. I will manage
the vote-taking. All discussion will go on in news.groups.

-Magnus
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.engr,sci.energy,sci.engr.control,sci.environment,comp.ai,comp.ai.shells,comp.ai.neural-nets
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Subject: RFD: comp.lang.basic
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: BASIC - no longer a toy language
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:23:02 GMT

Proposed newsgroup name: comp.lang.basic
Status: unmoderated

Charter: comp.lang.basic is for discussion of all implementations of the
BASIC programming language on all platforms, including MS-DOS, MS-Windows,
Mac, Amiga, and Unix.

Rationale: BASIC is no longer a toy language.  Newer versions of BASIC -
QuickBasic and Visual Basic from Microsoft, True Basic, and others -
have added sufficient power and structure to the language to rival Pascal
as a development language.  BASIC still remains easy to program in, and
is a productive language for application development.  A significant number
of current applications available as commercial, shareware, and freeware
programs have been written in BASIC.

The RFD period will begin when posted and end on December 11, 1992.  If
appropriate, a CFV will be posted shortly thereafter.  I will be managing
the vote-taking.  All discussion will go on in news.groups.
-- 
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug

cat core | uuencode bunny.dropping | mail jp@tygra.michigan.com
Xref: sparky news.announce.newgroups:1347 news.groups:22454 rec.sport.misc:1113 rec.sport.olympics:4676
From: pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden)
Subject: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy
Keywords: fantasy RFD arts
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:23:13 GMT

Proposed Newsgroup's Name
=========================
 rec.arts.fantasy

Type
====
 Unmoderated

Charter
=======
 A newsgroups for academics and other interested people to discuss aspects
 of Fantasy literature in.

Purpose of this group
=====================
 Fill the wide gap in netwise discussion of Fantasy. By this, I mean fantasy
 as literate, not the kind of "I love this author rave rave rave" stuff you
 find in alt.fan.<whatever>.

Newsgroup Creation
==================
The discussion over this group will last from Monday 16 November to Monday 
14 December. The discussion should take place in news.groups. This article
is being cross posted to rec.arts.sf.misc, rec.games.frp.misc, alt.mythology
and rec.arts.misc only to catch the attention of the target audience.

I would like all interested people to take part in the discussion. Any 
comments directly about anything I did (like this RFD) can be emailed to
me at pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za. Otherwise, please use follow-ups, so
that we can all see and respond to you posts.

At the end of the discussion period, I will post a CFV. I will tell you how
to vote then.

Thanks,
Peter
-- 
*******************************************************************************
Peter van Heusden              "The extreme always makes an impression"
CS2, UCT, Cape Town, RSA             J.D. - Lethal Attraction 
pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za              
Xref: sparky news.announce.newgroups:1368 news.groups:22779
From: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups
Subject: ADMINISTRIVIA: New Groups in Alternate and Regional Hierarchies
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:17:43 -0500
Organization: UUNET Communications
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.uu.net

The posting "New Groups in Alternate and Regional Hierarchies" is
being discontinued as it was a lot of work for something of marginal
value.  It was hopelessly lacking in accurate data for all that it was
envisioned to cover, and there was additional trouble in trying to
decide whether it should mean "these were just created for the first
time in netnews" or "new groups which uunet is carrying" or something
else.

Effectively, I am just cutting back to the status posting which Eliot
Lear started as news.announce.newgroups moderator --- tracking
proposals which passed the criteria of the Guidelines for USENET
Group Creation.

I'm sorry it couldn't have been more useful.

David Lawrence                          moderator, news.announce.newgroups
Xref: sparky news.announce.newgroups:1354 news.groups:22531 comp.os.linux:17266 comp.os.mach:1561 comp.os.minix:4808 comp.unix.bsd:9110
From: news@s1s1.sx.mont.nec.com (Ellison Chan)
Subject: testing
Originator: ynecelc@s1s1
Organization: HNSX Supercomputers
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:33:45 GMT


This is a test
-- 
Ellison Chan, Comp. Sys. Analyst               2350 Place TransCanadienne
HNSX Supercomputers Inc., NEC Corp.        Dorval, Quebec, Canada H9P 2X5
E-mail: ellison@SX.Mont.NEC.COM          (514)684-7705, FAX (514)684-8619
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:11:37 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov18120858@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
> However, if the court determines that they were not harmed, you are
> only going to get a cease and desist order slapped on you, not a
> costly judgement.

Plus the other side's costs, of course.

ian
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Originator: clewis@bcarh1d7
Organization: Eep
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:57:20 GMT

In article <BxtEJ3.50I@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|>But the bottom of the line federal line in the US is:

|>Depictions of children under the age of 18 engaged in sex or posed to
|>sexually tittilate are illegal.

|I don't have a copy of the law, but it is refered to in the Supreme
|Court's _Keith Jacobson v. United States_ decision, 90-1124:

|      "[The law] requires only knowing receipt of visual depictions
|      produced by using minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
|      See 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2); United States v. Moncini, 882 F.2d
|      401, 404-406 (CA9 1989)." [Info on on-line access to recent
|      Court decisions enclosed.]

|This is consistent the only legitimate purpose of child pornography
|laws: to stop people from sexually abusing childern in order to make
|pornography.

|>The government does not have to prove whether it is pornographic or not.
|[...]

|Huh? [Info on on-line access to the  U.S. Contitution enclosed.]

Why the "huh?"?  The definition you quote isn't based around pornography.
Therefore, the government doesn't have to prove that it's pornographic,
obscene, lacks artistic merit, or falls outside "community standards" or
anything else like that.

All it has to prove is that it is sexually explicit visual depictions produced
with minors.  That's going to be pretty easy to determine except in a
few marginal cases.
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?)
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:01:40 GMT
Keywords: Pedophelia Child Pornography Porn Immoral Illegal

>>I think net.users (and certainly net.administrators) have to make
>>decisions on this matter: is it likely that their particular piece
>>of .net will disappear if they continue (or begin) to carry this
>>froup? Is it worth it to them/their users to run that risk? Here

I guess it says something about the net that this analysis deals only
with the question of "what are the risks of getting caught?"

The fact that these groups are almost nothing but copyright violation after
copyright violation doesn't cause anybody here to think, "out of respect for
the creators of this information, perhaps we shouldn't be forwarding it?"

Just "will our site get in trouble?"

Sigh.

I guess it is fortunate with this attitude that the penalties for getting
caught are real.  Event Horizons BBS, which sold subscriptions and had
lots of GIFs scanned from Playboy was sued by Playboy.  The report was they
settled out of court for half a million dollars.

I can't advise any site to carry any newsgroup that contains and indeed
promotes significant traffic in pirated material.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?)
Keywords: Pedophelia Child Pornography Porn Immoral Illegal
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:52:41 GMT

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

[...]
>I guess it is fortunate with this attitude that the penalties for getting
>caught are real.  Event Horizons BBS, which sold subscriptions and had
>lots of GIFs scanned from Playboy was sued by Playboy.  The report was they
>settled out of court for half a million dollars.
[...]

Here are my understanding of the details of the EH case. Feel free to
correct me if I'm mistaken:

EH allegely sold access to scans of Playboy pictures for a great profit.
EH allegely scanned many of the images itself.
EH was asked by Playboy to stop.
EH refused.
EH was sued.
EH settled.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1448 news.admin:8536 news.admin.policy:393
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:54:36 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

>In article <BxMu36.IM9@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>===== ftp eff.org:pub/academic/law/miller =======
>>The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_
>>test) is:
>>
>>
>>3) when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic,
>>political, or scientific value"
>>
>   Does this include educational value? Maybe a combination of literary
>and scientific? An intro sexuality text doesn't pass any of these specific
>tests, but has some 'value', right?

Note that this was the basis of the successful defense against a child
pornography charge against the gallery director in Cincinatti.  The
Mapplethorpe photographs depicting nude children were art, said the
defense.  And the jury agreed.


>DanZ

>-- 
>This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
>narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
>not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: styri@hal.nta.no (Haakon Styri)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution
Reply-To: styri@nta.no
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 11:49:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.155639.27923@news.columbia.edu>,
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>> [Brad Templeton writes]
>> But the law says that your opinion about whether it is harmful is not
>> relevant. 
>
>   So you obey every law? I hate to say this kind of thing, but you're not
> talking about the real world. People violate laws everyday. I am just 
> suggesting that people react to a.b.p.e the same way they react to every
> other law. Obey it if you want. If you don't want to obey it, then wiegh
> the harmfulness of your actions against the expected benifits. If something
> is not harmful, then do it.

That may be your opinion, Dan. However, it's not a very good argument. The
fact that people violate laws every day doesn't make them right. At present
we've got a lot of freedom on the net. Abuse it, and we may lose some.

The bad thing is that you may not be among the people who loose that freedom.
Users at other sites may pay for you being selfish and not very law abiding.
That invalidates much of your argument. When you're a part of a society or
organization you're required to follow the common rules and laws. If you
want to follow another set of rules - well, there are other societies...

Ignoring copyright law is to undermine the righ to own property.

---
Haakon Styri			*** std. disclaimer applies ***
Norwegian Telecom Research
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?)
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<EMCGUIRE.92Nov11223031@fuller.intellection.com>
	<1992Nov13.232452.8530@clarinet.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:30:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.232452.8530@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

   So while you may not read the group or look at any one posting, I have to
   say that in my judgement, knowingly feeding a group that contains mostly
   copyright violations will make you -- your site -- liable, not just the
   people posting these violations.

   There is precedent for this.  Normally, people who on photocopy shops are
   not liable for what is done with photocopiers because they don't scan each
   thing copied.  But a Kinkos did get sued to the tune of major dollars
   because they regularly let a professor come in and copy books regularly.

If I know that Dr. Schmoe is copying books then I should have reported
him to the authorities.  I deserved to be sued if I did not.

Kinko's is in the same position I'm in (or would be, if I carried
alt.binaries).  They /know/ that people are coming into their shop and
violating copyright, but they are not liable in any specific case
unless they are aware of the fact.

The news network is a huge duplication and distribution machine.  The
person who violates copyright when operating the machine is liable for
damages caused by her/his action.  I ought to be liable for damages
only if I take no action after learning of a specific violation
involving my site.

As I said earlier, I am in the same position as someone who
unknowingly bought an illegal copy of a book.  I am not required to
destroy the book, but I should report the fact to the authorities if I
become aware that the publisher violated copyright.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:03:18 GMT

In article <By0KJE.1xM@fulcrum.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
>In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov18120858@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>> However, if the court determines that they were not harmed, you are
>> only going to get a cease and desist order slapped on you, not a
>> costly judgement.
>
>Plus the other side's costs, of course.
>
   Probably not. When the USFL sued the NFL, they won, but only got $3.00 
(I think) in damages even though the suit involved millions.
   If a court finds that a plaintif isn't harmed, why would they give them
inflated court cost awards? They would want the plaintiff to pay the costs
in order to avoid a flood of frivilous suits. A successful lawsuit better
have more to it that technical wrongdoing.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution 
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:29:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.214125.4303@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>    The argument I make for keeping a.b.p.e is that it doesn't harm any
>>publisher. I can make that argument here, and I would explain it to the
>>publishers if any of them cared for my opinion.
>>    Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler at least, know about usenet, and have
>>had the option to sue for a long time now.
>
>People, be *very* careful about posting opinions like that.  Even though
>it gets repeated hundreds of times, people seem unaware of this fact --
>whether you charge for it or not has no bearing on whether a copyright
>infringement has taken place.  It comes into play only when damages are
>calculated.  Posting stuff like the above indicates a wilful disregard for
>the law and rights of the copyright holders.
>
   Oh, stop whining. The big bad world is so mean to copyright holders,
isn't it?
   My point is that a.b.p.e isn't harmful to pornography publishers. That
is my opinion, and I will defend it. I would argue it to the publishers if
they cared. I suggest that if you aren't harming anyone, then what you
are doing is OK. Do you want to argue with that statement?

>They do care.  They sued Event Horizons, a dirty-GIF BBS, and won big time.

   You willfully misread this event. Unless I am very wrong, EH was claiming
ownership of the images, and threatening other BBS's. It makes perfect sence
to me that Playboy would sue.

>They do think it does them harm and it is not up to us to decide whether
>it causes them harm.  The point of copyright is the author decides that, and
>if the author wants to give it away because he/she doesn't think it causes
>any harm, that is the author's sole perogative.
>
  I deny this (the first sentance). I believe they do not think usenet is
causing them harm, or they would have taken action before. All I am doing is
making the case that carrying a.b.p.e is OK. I don't pretend that it is free
from liability. Nothing is free from liability. But I don't see any reason
to think you have any particular liability.

>
>As soon as people create a group that contains nothing but photos posted with
>the permission of the photographer, and with model releases of the subjects
>on file, then everybody who wants it should carry it.  You're crazy to carry
>any other sort of group, particularly if your pockets are deep.

   How much public domain pornography is there?

   When the time comes that the net solely consists of determining who owns
what and how much you have to pay to get access to it, we might as well give
it up.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:58:02 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <9211150013.37@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>But the bottom of the line federal line in the US is:
>
   Is this a federal law? I was under the impression that it was a state
controlled area.

>Depictions of children under the age of 18 engaged in sex or posed to
>sexually tittilate are illegal.
>
  How do you define "posed to sexually tittilate"?  Most laws on child porn
are very bad. I gues most such laws actually illegalize much more than
than what we would call "pornography". They are usually criticised as being 
overbroad.

>The government does not have to prove whether it is pornographic or not.
>
  Indeed not. I think they did prior to 1982. BTW, it is not "pornographic",
but "obscene", and that's what we were debating.
  The point is that we want to stop child porn not because it is obscene, but
because it inevitably derives from child sexual abuse. If we belive that
children under a certain age cannot consent, then it must be against consent 
that we force them to engage in sexual activity (whether that activity is
actual sex or just sexual poses).
  Ideally, child porn laws would become part of the general child abuse laws,
and finally sever the connection between porn and child-porn.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1458 news.admin:8551 news.admin.policy:407 alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d:9202