HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joel K. Furr)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: "Dave Hayes" an AI program; film at 11.
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:09:48 GMT
Organization: Escape from Blacksburg, VA

a.gov> <1g653cINNaef@morrow.stanford.edu>
Organization: Escape from Blacksburg, VA

In article <1g653cINNaef@morrow.stanford.edu> karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck
Karish) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.223158.17206@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
>something calling itself "dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov" writes:
>
>>I put it to you this way: _anything_ I say to you in comment to that
>>document...you will interpret as negative criticism. I'd bet lots
>>of money on that statement.
>>
>>And all it has to do with is your perception of who I am. Go figure.
>
>My perception is that "you" are a warmed-over version of
>ELIZA, with some unfortunate misfeatures that make "your"
>output more annoying than entertaining.
>
>If "Dave Hayes" ever grows beyond the apparent design
>limitations that keep "him" stuck at the level of
>re-hashing respondents' comments and twisting them
>just enough to keep an argument alive, it'll be a
>great step forward for artificial intelligence.

Chuck, I think you're exactly right.  "Dave Hayes" is some form of AI that
takes what we say, sorts through it for the least pertinent comments, and then
selects from an array of logical fallacies and combines everything to make a
reply.

*HOWEVER*, just as Eliza can't feed back to you if you don't say anything to
"her", "Dave Hayes" can't perpetuate the flamewar if *all* of us give "him"
what's called the Silent Treatment.  Don't reply to *anything* "he" says on the
whole synth flamewar thread, and the whole flamewar will die out just like
that.  *poof*.

This is my last comment on the "Dave Hayes" synth flamewar.  From now on, when
"Dave Hayes" replies to posts, I'll just say to myself "look, it's that sloppy
AI again.  Well, time to mash the 'n' key."

Help end the flamewar!  Stop replying to "Dave Hayes" today.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: RESULT: comp.society.folklore unmoderation fails 729:151
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:09:42 GMT

In article <1gltddINNhq7@news.UU.NET> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:

    (b) 5 votes without names issued from non-personal accounts:

    Iowa Student Computer Association <isca@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
    vida@chop.isca.uiowa.edu (VIDA Telnet Account)

    And finally, the puppy-killers :-) -- the No votes.

     79. Caston      Catherine Caston <caston@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
    509. Pins        Michael T Pins <amigapd@icaen.uiowa.edu>
			/DUPLICATE/ Michael T Pins <mtpins@icaen.uiowa.edu>
    582. Shub        cdash@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Charles M. Shub)
			/DUPLICATE/ Charles Shub <cdash@moet.cs.colorado.edu>
    583. Siebert     Doug Siebert <dsiebert@icaen.uiowa.edu>

First, thanks for a well-run vote, Mark.  Nobody was making it easy
for you.

Second, way to go, University of Iowa.  Vote early, vote often.  Mike
Pins, you have the password to isca@umaxc, too, don't you?

Third, I know Vida personally.  Not that it matters, her vote ought to
have been counted.

Regards, Ed
-- 
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>
Xref: sparky news.groups:24360 alt.native:1416
From: gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: STRAW VOTE ON NAME FOR NATIVE AMERICANS NEWSGROUP
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:22:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec15.072248.3441
Reply-To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting

In article <1992Dec14.175606.171@indyvax.iupui.edu>
	harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:

> I prefer "soc.culture.aboriginal" of the names discussed so far.  It's easy
> to spell and it doesn't have unwanted connotations that will confuse either
> aboriginals or non-aboriginals.  How many messages a day does the NATIVE-L
> mailing list run?

There are usually between three and ten or so articles posted each day to
NATIVE-L.

> Why not just start with a CFV for a general group named
> soc.culture.aboriginal and leave the possibility of any split later?

Well, let's see whether we can achieve some kind of rough consensus in
this forum first.  But I think "soc.culture.aboriginal" would be just
fine, as would "soc.culture.native" and "soc.culture.indigenous," as
far as I'm concerned.  Each name has its advantages and disadvantages,
but they're all about equal in my mind.

> One really won't know the best way to split it (or even if a split is
> justified) until the group has been in operation for a while anyway.

Right.

> Also, I think a
> simple CFV creating a single group is more likely to be passed.

Right again, but it would make things much easier for purposes of gating
with NATIVE-L / NATCHAT (both Bitnet-based lists hosted at TAMVM1 at
Texas A & M University) if we had one newsgroup for information exchange
and one for discussion, since many people on the mailing list side of the
fence like to be able to get the informational postings without having to
take part in the philosophical debates that sometimes take place in NAT-
CHAT/alt.native (these latter two are already joined with one another -
if we can get a discussion group approved, the gating could be switched
over from alt.native to the new newsgroup).

> Some posters have mentioned "replacing" the alt.native group as if it will
> "go away" or something once this group is created.  I don't think the CFV
> should mention the alt group AT ALL; alt groups are not/should not affected
> by the Usenet newsgroup voting process.

I agree that we don't have to explicitly mention alt.native, but we should
realize that the effect of creating the new newsgroup will likely be to
cause alt.native to die on the electronic vine - which is fine.  :-)

Gary
-- 
    Gary S. Trujillo                             gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts               {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native-america
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:31:39 GMT

In article <gs_rx#n@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>You are a native of this country, but not a "Native American" in the
>>colloquial sense.  I don't know of anyone who refers to themselves as
>>"Native American" who does not have a fair portion of Cherokee or
>>Navajo (or some such) blood in them.
>
>Bullshit, Tim.  Anyone born in America is a native American.  The only
>difference between the guy getting off the ship today and the American
>Indians is when they came.  

Tim did say "in the colloquial sense."  However, I agree with John.  That's
why I think "soc.culture.indigenous" would be better.
>
>I'm part Cherokee Indian.  That part I refer to as American Indian.
>I am ALL native American because I was born here.  What's so hard 
>about that?  

Same here. I'm part Cherokee too.
>
>I never have figured out why some American Indians seem to be so ashamed
>of their breed that they want to try to change their name to somehing
>politically correct but completely meaningless.  What is wrong with
>soc.culture.american.indian?

We could always create "soc.culture.injun."  It's concise and unambiguous,
and there's no need to create a new hierarchy.  (I'm joking, of course, and
anyway, no PC person can flame me because I'm part Injun myself. :-))

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu)

"If you weren't 50 feet tall, I'd punch you in the bosom!"
	--Larry Potter on _Get a Life!_
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Court Rulings Hierarchy
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:29:48 GMT

TK> == Thomas Koenig <ig25@fg30.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
HN> == nareid@due.unit.no (Helge Nareid) writes:

 HN> I can't see any reason to create a worldwide hierarchy for this purpose.
 HN> My suggestion is us.courts.federal or usa.courts.federal. I don't know
 HN> whether a usa.* or us.* hierarchy has been created yet, but it is about
 HN> time that it were. This is in my opionion a clear example of a type of
 HN> newsgroups which has neglible interest for people outside USA.

 TK> I second that. I'd vote against any such proposal, and I'd probably
 TK> urge everyone to do the same.

(1) who said anything about voting?  This isn't a "Regular USENET" proposal.

(2) if you don't want the new hierarchy, don't get a feed of it.  Do you
get the vmsnet.* groups?  bit.*?  gnu.*?  Do you complain that the
vmsnet groups have "neglible" [sic] interest for people who use a
different operating system?

(3) don't you have courts in your country?  You could always start a
courts.de.* or courts.no.* sub-hierarchy, and only get a feed of that...
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth?
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:17:26 GMT
Organization: GSP

In article <1992Dec12.011712.8224@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>We have provided evidence. The subject line was misleading (CFV: 
>rec.music.makers.* reorganization) and the vote topic was far enough
>down in the body of the CFV (greater than 21 lines) that it was probably 
>missed by those who have 24 line screens (a sizable percentage). 

This is not "evidence".  The first claim, that "The subject line was
misleading" is an opinion basesd on evidence (what the subject line
actually said).  My opinion is is that is was not misleading.  Neither
point of view (for that is what they are) is "evidence".

The second claim "...it was probably missed" is a guess based
on the actual physical position of the vote topic in CFV.  There is
no disputing which line of the CFV it appeared on -- after all,
any of us may retrieve the articles and count the lines -- but there
is simply no way to know what line of anyone's screen it turned up
on, due to the enormous variations in screen size, newsreading
software, and newsreader's individual configurations.

So, in both instances, you have not produced evidence; you have
produced an opinion and a guess.

I am still waiting for evidence -- not opinions, not guesses, but
evidence -- in support of your claims to be produced.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native-america
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:41:54 GMT

In article <gs_rx#n@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>You are a native of this country, but not a "Native American" in the
>>colloquial sense.  I don't know of anyone who refers to themselves as
>>"Native American" who does not have a fair portion of Cherokee or
>>Navajo (or some such) blood in them.
>
>Bullshit, Tim.  Anyone born in America is a native American.

Please read my post before spouting off again, Johnny.

>I never have figured out why some American Indians seem to be so ashamed
>of their breed that they want to try to change their name to somehing
>politically correct but completely meaningless.  What is wrong with
>soc.culture.american.indian?

Perhaps they don't consider their land or their culture to have
anything to do with what is contemporarily called "Indian."

I recommend acquiring a brain before attempting to comment again.  It
comes in mighty handily.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:56:27 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <8109@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.140507.9158@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>>Secondly, this is a real oppressive tactic to use...you are in effect 
>>saying that complaining may serve to do more damage than the negative action
>>which prompted it in the first place...which implies (intention or no) 
>>that you should never complain about anything.
>
>No; it implies that you should be careful about where, how, and how much to
>complain. Swatting a housefly with a Buick may kill the fly, but it's hard on
>the Buick, too. It's possible that complaining may well have worse effects
>than the action that prompted the complaint. Ever hear the phrase "the cure is
>worse than the disease"?

And that you should be smart enough, and considerate enough, to 
recognize when the complaints have been addressed -- and yes, perhaps
even judged to be invalid -- and STOP.

It is not that you should "never complain about anything", it is that
you should listen to the answers and show some self control when you
it turns out that you don't always get your own way.

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"If we do not succeed, we risk failure."			-D. Quayle
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:00:33 EST
From: <MRG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated

please please please please do it
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:55:37 GMT

jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>>I...I...can't! I've just GOT to be just like Jay Maynard! I can't help it,
>>but I worship the ground the man walks on! I gotta be ... JUST like him!
>Okay, okay, okay!  Dave, you're JUST AS STUPID AS JAY MAYNARD.  Now SHUT UP.

I can't. Otherwise I'd be smarter than _he_ is. :-)
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Fool (n.) - 1. A person trying to be honest with the dishonest.
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Court Rulings Hierarchy
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:27:09 GMT
Organization: negligable

I like that idea.  Is it possible to have an "anonymous" uucp, in the
same way as the customary "anoymous" ftp?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
But I am frightened for you, children,		|
that the life that we are living is in vain,	|	-Richard Hartman	
and the sunshine we've been waiting for		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
has turned to rain....				|
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: soc.culture.native.american
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<Bz7ILr.EoG@unix.amherst.edu> <1992Dec13.231516.13250@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:42:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.231516.13250@raven.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:

   This line of debate is ironic in that I recently posted several
   articles to alt.native pointing out that while Alaska's Eskimo
   cultures are in many ways simular to outside Indian cultures, they
   are NOT one and the same.  Now I'm put in a position of pointing
   out that while that is true, they are much closer to outside Indian
   cultures than they are to whatever it is that will be discussed in
   a.c.alaskan!

Here's another interesting fact.  My dictionary says that "American
Indian" excludes Eskimos, with the explanation that they are considered
more of an Asian culture.

(I mean that it's a fact that this is in my dictionary.  I don't know
whether the cultural grouping proposed therein is widely accepted.)
-- 
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>
Xref: sparky news.groups:24679 alt.native:1486
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: soc.culture.<whatever>.*   [ native/indigenous/aboriginal ]
Date: 19 Dec 1992 02:36:40 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Dec16.202012.9338@gnosys.svle.ma.us>
	<1992Dec17.023819.11899@gnosys.svle.ma.us>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us's message of 17 Dec 92 02:38:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.023819.11899@gnosys.svle.ma.us> gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

   Can someone make a brief comment for the benefit of those of us who aren't
   regular readers of news.groups what lies behind the creation of ".misc"
   newsgroups.  Thanks.

Many newsreaders implement newsgroup hierarchies as directory
hierarchies.  For example, rec.arts.sf.written articles are stored in
$NEWSSPOOL/rec/arts/sf/written/ .  If the miscellaneous (not otherwise
classified) sf posts go in .../rec/arts/sf/, then the news system
would likely have to search through a bunch of posts to get to the
written subdirectory, since some operating systems do not sort
directories on disk.  Having a .misc group (and a misc subdirectory)
makes finding all the subgroups quicker, without substantially slowing
the reading of the misc posts.

Brief enough?  Informative enough?  If not, email me or post for
clarification.  Perhaps others could explain more cleanly.

--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:33:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.202255.5783@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam Costello) writes:
>I don't see why there should be no-votes at all.  I think if 200 people
>want a new group, let them have it.  Those who don't want it don't
>have to subscribe.  It's not as if creating new groups increases the
>total volume of USENET.  It just makes it easier for people to locate
>the information they're looking for.

It *does* increase the total volume of Usenet.  And disk space on every site.
It can split discussion unecessarily by duplicating topic areas too much,
or but splitting too-fine hairs over discussion.  Finding a particular group
is usually a linear search of the newsgroup list, so it make little difference.

Also, badly-named groups are often proposed, and those are (rightly, IMHO)
stopped by NO votes.  Often there are groups with substantial factionism
within the group, and this would overwhelm rational discussion.  Sometimes
a moderated group is proposed with an unacceptable (to many) moderator.

So there are a number of valid reasons to vote NO on a newsgroup proposal.

[ I guess it's time I write up a paper on this...this makes the third such
discussion in a year. ]


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Xref: sparky news.groups:24748 soc.motss:53213
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* / Automoderation.
Date: 21 Dec 92 06:36:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Dec20.223503.4350@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) 
writes:
>
>No, the problem with automoderation is that it's a technical
>nightmare. It would require all postings to soc.motss to be channeled
>through one machine: the moderator's. You've just turned the random
>graph of Usenet into a hierarchical tree. If that one machine is down,
>or a piece of the network is gone, then parts of motss aren't propagated.

That's the case with any moderated group, and people seem to be able to
live with it.  

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:46:38 GMT
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC

In article <1992Dec14.172129.26214@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
> Now, with the growth of the net, is this number still applicable?

I don't know. Maybe it should be higher. Maybe it should be lower, since sites
that carry EVERYTHING have more surplus capacity available, and sites that are
selective (and tend to have higher marginal costs) are better off with quickly-
expiring newsgroups instead of mailing lists that hang around forever.
-- 
%Peter da Silva/77487-5012 USA/+1 713 274 5180/Have you hugged your wolf today?
/L{lineto}def/C{curveto}def/F{0 562 moveto 180 576 324 648 396 736 C 432 736 L
482 670 518 634 612 612 C}def/G{setgray}def .75 G F 612 792 L 0 792 L fill 1 G
324 720 24 0 360 arc fill 0 G 3 setlinewidth F stroke showpage % "Peerless"
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 07:51:56 GMT
Organization: Usenet Power Elite: Crush-The-Innocent-Newbies Strike Team

emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:

> Any proposal is flawed which does not include a rationale showing that
> sufficient traffic on the topic exists to justify creating a newsgroup
> instead of a mailing list. 

A rationale like that is certainly a good thing to have, but it seems to
me that any group proposal that doesn't have enough interest in it isn't
going to have enough votes to pass anyway.  Reader interest is what the
vote is designed to measure, after all.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups