HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for "Straw" Votes: Rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:19:23 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Nov17.233202.9162@sarah.albany.edu> gm1116@albnyvms.bitnet
writes:

>It seems to me, in my ignorant little mind, that it would be LESS time
>consuming to just hold an official vote.  Hold it for one week, and
>if at the end of that time it passes create it or if it doesn't than
>don't create it.  All this arguing seems to be ridiculous, you've got
>something like diehard catholics and diehard moslems trying to convert
>each other.  If the other side is sure of themselves, why bother trying
>to convert them??  Your just spinning your wheels!

Sorry, but this idea just won't work. If you don't use the accepted
procedure for creating a newsgroup (which among other things specifies at
least a *three* week voting period, preceded by a discussion period), most
sysadmins simply will *not* create your group on their machines. Maybe a few
will, but it's unlikely that their machines will be directly connected to
each other. So you'll end up with at best a few local bulletin boards, not a
proper newsgroup.

What the discussion period is intended for is to weed out proposals that
don't have a chance of succeeding, so that everybody can be saved the
trouble of a formal vote, and to allow faulty but viable proposals to be
repaired. Where it tends to go wrong is if the original proposer of the
group doesn't listen to the feedback and presses ahead regardless, or if the
subject matter or name of the group is too controversial. In each case, the
discussion period does eventually end and a vote occurs.

By the way, I should say that the above is a generality: in this particular
case, cbnorman *does* seem to be listening to the feedback. He has made some
changes to the proposal as a result; he changed the straw poll when he
learnt that people didn't like the "YES vote only" form. Hopefully, he'll
now get a reasonable idea how a formal vote is likely to go and drop the
proposal if it's hopeless.

He has also posted to say that he didn't intend his "100 responses"
criterion to include the NO votes, so all of you who were put off by the
idea that your NO vote would help to prolong the discussion can respond
freely now...

>And, for those who think this issue is really important,
>I am a newbie!(how dare I open my mouth and speak!  the nerve! ;-) )

You'll learn... :-) Seriously, please go and read the postings on
"news.announce.newusers". The one called "How to Create a New Usenet
Newsgroup" will tell you about the accepted procedure for creating a group,
but *all* of them should be of interest to a newbie.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: hawk@spock.uucp (Graham Hawkins)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.boats.crew
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:26:56 GMT

In article <BxnGHu.FAK@uunet.uu.net> gumby@spock.uucp (Danny Richman) writes:
>     It seems by popular demand that a new newsgroup is needed:
>rec.boats.paddle has recently been flooded with complaints of new articles
>that deal generally with crew.  It appears that rowers do not get along
>too well with kayakers or rafters.
>     It would be in the best interest to start the creation of rec.boats.crew
>and begin the discussion from here on out.I hope that everyone will take part
>in this discussion which will soon lead into the deciding vote.  With 
>everyone's cooperation, we can make this transition as clean and smooth as 
>possible.
>-- 
>                                             gumby@choate.edu

	I think that there are a lot of people who would love to read about
crew because INTERNET ties into so many colleges with crew programs. This
would certainly be a great way to talk with other rowers and get their ideas.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: psouth@ais.org (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd.{announce,bugs,devel,misc}
Keywords: 386bsd
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:22:09 GMT

In article <By6z2E.Jp7@ra.nrl.navy.mil> atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes:
>  This proposal is out of order as a violation of the "6 month rule"
>on waiting between proposing essentially the same newsgroup as one
>that was shot down.

This ridiculous misstatement of the rules was what was shot down last
time.  Nothing went to a vote, and so no 386bsd newgroup proposal has
ever "failed".  This line of reasoning keeps popping up, when in reality
it has no bearing on any newsgroup creation rules in existence.  I strongly
encourage people to investigate before they shoot off on this subject.
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Short comments, plus long rec.music.makers.* pre-vote discussion
Keywords: music, makers, synth, flame war, vote, rfd, cfv
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:21:52 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Nov20.185631.27310@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Another point to note: if nobody even _realized_ that an article was posted
>with the word "rename" in the header until _now_, that means the article was
>fairly inconspicuous....

   The fact that such an article was posted had been brought up
several times previously.  This is just the first time somebody
with a sufficiently large disk actually went and found it.  A
complete by-the-book newsgroup creation/renaming takes a minimum
of 6 weeks to run, so both memory and news articles tend to expire
throughout the process.  That's probably why there's a time limit
for objecting to a vote-- wait long enough, and nobody can disprove
your allegations.  That strategy hasn't worked so far, of course,
though it's curious that attempts are still being made to wriggle
out from under the facts.
   There's also the fact that those who knew a vote was going on
would tend to ignore another unofficial message about it, while
those who are now objecting to the vote would see it in their best
interests to fail to mention such an article.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Would you ALL like a demonstration? (was Re: Dave Hayes may be right)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:15:19 GMT

ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
> Dave> How would you like me to post one article per day to the top 100
> Dave> groups in each newsgroup, inviting everyone over to news.groups
> Dave> with a subject line like "DANGER! YOUR group may go away."?
>Well, Dave, is that a threat?  Is this how you expect to convince us of
>your rationality?

It's not a threat. Such a posting would not do anyone any harm. It would
create a lot of traffic. Merely considering the idea is not tantamount to
execution of it. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

The greatest test of courage on earth is to fear defeat without losing heart.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Usenet Culture (Was: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:54:56 GMT

irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
>> I believe in the demographic shift.  But I choose not to spend my
>> volunteer time making ignorance more comfortable.

>And so this is the question for the net: do we want to make it difficult to
>participate in Usenet, so as to insure that the particpaants will be truly
>worthy/deserving/educated/what-have-you? Or do we want to try to make the
>net more accessible to everyone, at the cost of introducing more bumbling
>neophytes?

The strength AND the weakness of the net is its diversity and popularity.
I'd vote for making it more accessable to everyone.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Test  (n.)   - 1. A hardship you don't expect.
Brave (adj.) - 1. Someone looking for a test.
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:51:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.114811.10581@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
> I do understand this argument, but I do not agree. If I held this 
> viewpoint at my job (and sometimes I forget and I *do*), life would
> be "me vs. the users" and not "me helping the users".

There is a difference between "what I do in a job I'm being paid for", and
"what I do in a job I'm actually paying to hold".

I'm about to dump another few hundred on this hobby of mine, to help improve
network connectivity in Houston. You wanna try and tell me how I should spend
it? That's what you're doing.
-- 
Peter da Silva / 77487-5012 USA / +1 713 274 5180
true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
{dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:28:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.000519.27886@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <2B02B7F3.6142@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Whoever this person is, he or she has NO BUSINESS pretending to know
>>how I may or may not consider myself.  NO BUSINESS AT ALL.
>
>According to this same reasoning, you have NO BUSINESS pretending to be
>concerned over his own thoughts.

I agree with the previous statement.  However, concern over the
postings of somebody else is quite reasonable, especially when that
person posts about me.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Intentional ignorance of newsgroup creation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:52:33 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen):
>If you know where [the below facts] are, please inform me.
>
>1. Definition of RFD.
>2. Definition of CFV.
>3. The presence of an article containing RFD or CFV in its subject line in
>   a newsgroup other than news.groups or news.announce.newsgroups means that
>   the group will be directly affected by the outcome of the subsequent vote.
>4. The guidelines put forth in "How to create a new Usenet newsgroup"  
>   apply to group renames and deletions.
>5. A description of the voting process from the voters' point of view -  
>   not the vote-taker's.

I disagree on only two points:

Item [4] is factually incorrect; no one knows how to delete a
mainstream Usenet group, except that by default some groups have
withered away (such as comp.society.women).

Item [5] has no meaning.  The process is the process, no matter from
which viewpoint you view it.  Reading the instructions to the vote
taker tells voters what they need to know.

With those exceptions, however, Gordon is quite right that it would be
good for these items to be addressed in the new user docs.  (Why not?)

I'll see what I can do.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: tmartin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Martin)
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign: A New Opinion
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 20:10:36 GMT

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:

>.Campaign is only for non-defunct campaign posts, as in campaigns which
>are continuing.  Any fiction based on past campaigns would be put in 
>.archives (where I am currently posting the "Forbidden" and "Accursed"
>chronicals, two of my own net campaigns).


	And these are, at heart, play be email games, right?
From: pmf$1349@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re:  CFV ahmadiyya
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:20:25 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

In article <102654@bu.edu>, khalid@bu-bio.bu.edu (Rasheed A. Khalid) writes:
> Rami Hijazi wrote in an earlier article in support of Shakil's and
> against mine, that the correct word in the Quran is KHATIM (END),
> rather than KHATAM (RING OR SEAL), when trying to prove that
> Muhammad (on whom be peace and blessings of God) was the last
> Prophet of God and that no Prophet would come after him.
> I request you to take another look at the Quran -- the word IS
> KHATAM, the way I wrote it and not KHATIM, they way he suggests.
> I know of only one instance when in a recently published text,
> some non-Ahmadi published the Quran with "Khatim" to prove their
> point against Ahmadis, but since the safeguarding of the text of
> the Holy Quran is a duty taken by God upon himself, the book was
> removed from the shelves, and now the only Qurans available in
> the market are the ones with KHATAM in them.  It is interesting
> that now, even if the non-Ahmadis try to change the Arabic text
> of the Holy Quran, they cannot do so, given God's decree.  The
> present text of the Holy Quran goes in favor of the Ahmadiyya
> viewpoint (or is it that they have been able to interpret it
> with more effort and hardwork, to make their arguments sound
> more convincing?)
> 
> Regards,
> Rasheed,
> Boston,
> Massachusetts,
> U.S.A.
> 
> [The least expensive way to improve your looks is to wear a smile]
I did not have a copy of the Quran with me, rather I recalled it from
memory.  I ask Allah for forgiveness.  It was my mistake and I did not
intend it.  The argument is still the same.  According to Quran Muhammad
PBUH is the seal (last) of prophets and the argument brought by Ahmadis
did not come about till they came up with it and it is rejected because it
is not consistent with other verses in the Quran that suggest that Islam,
not other religions, is the religion of God.

Wassalam.

Rami Hijazi

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:28:33 GMT

In article <BxsJHx.E15@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim  
Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.215611.47609@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com  
(Rob Strom) writes:
> 
> >|> While posting additional notices to each affected group individually
> >|> is an excellent idea, and I think one that should be employed more
> >|> often, how would that part of the process be controlled?
> >
> >It's not clear that you'd have to monitor it.  It's self-monitoring.
> >If the guidelines aren't followed, somebody's going to complain.
> 
> When?  After the vote?  Seems to me we've been on *that* bus before.

Hmmm. Interesting point. Aren't nearly all aspects of conducting a vote by  
the guidelines self-monitored in this respect? I agree that if a way can  
be found to control the cross-posting it should be employed. But having  
the requirement in the guidelines would at least cause most if not all  
vote-makers to do it, and provide an absolute cause for a vote  
invalidation if they didn't.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: CFD: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya (Moderated)
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:26:27 GMT

In a prior article, Nasir Jamil (njamil@nyx.cs.du.edu) writes:

> There had been a lot of discussion on the use of name Islam by
> Ahamdi Muslims.

First, a comment on my perspective: I don't really care one tiny, miniscule
bit whether Ahmadis call themselves Muslims or Christians or Zen Buddhists or
Rotiferians or anything else. I would suspect that most people reading
news.groups (most of whom have probably long since stopped reading anything
with "Ahmadi" in the Subject line) don't either. This is a religious
discussion, and I am not a religious scholar, and I am not informed about
this issue, and I DO NOT CARE.

I have two suggestions:

1) Please, STOP arguing about this in news.groups. It is not appropriate for
discussion here.

2) When the new (and hopefully final) CFV is issued, I would strongly urge
the issuers to propose the name soc.religion.ahmadiyya. Doing so does NOT
amount to an admission that Ahmadis are not Muslims, any more than soc.
religion.quaker was an admission that Quakers aren't Christians. Whether
they are or not is a subject that those who care about can discuss to their
heart's content--ELSEWHERE. Trying to determine whether a sect is or is not
a separate religion is NOT an appropriate issue for discussion in
news.groups, but proposing a group called soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
GUARANTEES that the issue will be discussed here. 

For that reason, I urge the proposers of the group to save the issue for
later--not to drop the issue, not to concede the issue, but to _ignore_ the
issue for purposes of naming their proposed group. Doing so a long time ago
would have reduced the flameage on news.groups immensely, and doing so now
would probably still help. It will almost certainly help the group to pass,
as those who object to the public association of Ahmadiyya and Islam will
have no cause for complaint. If they are so foolish as to think that
shortening the name implies that you have accepted defeat, your cause can
only benefit from their complacency.

Please, separate the bickering over whether Ahmadis are Muslims from the
newsgroup creation process: go with soc.religion.ahmadiyya, and use the new
group to espouse your beliefs. But please, get it off of news.groups.
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why
several of us died of tuberculosis." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy
Keywords: fantasy RFD arts
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:32 GMT

I'd like to add a clarification to my suggestion that this RFD be
invalidated.  It's not a matter of "he didn't touch third base and
we must stick to procedure" so much as that the procedure is there
for a good reason -- and ignoring it has led to a badly flawed RFD.

The proposed charter of the group is impossible:  "Give me a group
devoted to those aspects of fantasy that interest me."

Every year or so someone tries to split the sf group into sf and
fantasy, and every year the attempt fails -- not because some people
are hair-splitters but because nobody's yet proposed a generally
acceptable way to make such a split *work*.

This proposal is more unworkable than most:  "Split some of the fantasy
out of the sf group/s.  Give me Eddison, but don't give me Eddings;
give me Anderson, if you must, but don't give me Anthony."

One of the weaknesses of the current newsgroup creation mechanism is
that it takes very few people to make everyone go through the same
debates year after year after year.  We should at least ask that an
RFD be the result of enough prior discussion that we're at least
debating a well-thought-out proposal.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

   God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine  -- Edmund Spenser

Xref: sparky news.groups:22410 soc.culture.indian:37532 soc.culture.pakistan:16907 soc.culture.bangladesh:6092 soc.religion.islam:1901
From: zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.religion.islam
Subject: Islamic Sects (was Re:CFV:soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:30:32 GMT
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Reply-To: zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu
Originator: gwydion@spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <1e8eppINNkvl@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
   >The answer to what constitutes a Muslim is given in
   >Islam's holy book itself, the Qur'an.  I have quoted from it to show
   >how sects are not allowed, and the minute one divides from the
   >religion (i.e. what the Qur'an teaches), once ceases to be part of
   >Islam.  Since Muslims believe in the Qur'an, that is how they look
   >upon the situation.

	Sorry, don't agree.
	The Quranic statements against sectarianism are only natural,
as Muhammad was still alive at the time.  Thus there was no room for
difference of opinion; any doubts could be resolved by direct
revelation through him.
	However, after the death of Muhammad the situation changes
radically.  If any confusion/difference of opinion arises as to the
true meaning of a Quranic verse, people will obviously have to rely
upon themselves to resolve those differences.  There cannot be any ban
on sectarianism in effect any more, because such a ban requires that
one be able to separate out the "true" religion from the "false" sect.
A Messenger from God would have no trouble doing that; but lacking
divine guidance, no one else could be expected to perform this duty
reliably!  So how do you guarantee that the truth isn't thrown out by
mistake?  You can't.
	Relying on consensus doesn't work here, as the problem is one
of information.  More uninformed people are no more likely to reach
the right answer.
	Thus your use of the Quran to ban sectarianism doesn't work;
true, people who reject the Quran can not be called Muslims.  But the
reason sects have come about is not rejection of the Quran, but
difference in the interpretation of certain Quranic verses.
	To look at it simply; you seem to be saying that the Ahmadias
(and by extension, other sects) are in error as they have deviated
from the true message of the Quran.  But that ignores the possibility
that these deviant opinions may have been arrived at through a
legitimate process of reinterpretation of the Islamic texts, which is
an essential aspect of Islam after the death of the Prophet.  So how
do you know that they aren't right?
	And it is not the case that Ahmadias and other sects totally
disregard the Quran.  They simply have different interpretations of
some key (and to their minds ambiguous) statements in it.

farewell,
Zeeshan
--
Zeeshan Hasan 
zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
OCMR Box 1529, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio 44074. Phone:(216)775-6447
	"I love mankind... it's people I can't stand!" -- Linus van Pelt






Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kforward@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Ken Forward)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:09:22 GMT

gatenby%nmr@venus.ycc.yale.edu (Chris Gatenby) writes:
> I definitely support the idea of a MATLAB news-group.

Ditto. I suspect there are several supporters here in our ocean physics
group, as we use MATLAB extensively for time series analysis.

> btw, those waiting for 4.0 will find that it's worth the wait for the 
> file i/o alone - never mind the (cool) graphics. 

Excellent news!
Xref: sparky news.groups:21957 soc.culture.pakistan:16734 soc.culture.indian:37148