HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:34:42 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Peter Cooper):
>For people worried about the legal implications of calling 386BSD 'unix'...

... I recommend the liberal application of clues.

Newsgroup names have no legal significance whatsowhoever.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "I am truly as big a genius as all other Rush fans." -- Bruce Bufalini
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: use a KILLFILE
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:52:16 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman):
>In article <2ADAD4DC.5183@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>An assertion that the status quo always has precedence, if carried to
>>its logical conclusion, would have us all posting messages to one
>>global newsgroup named "net", since that's how Usenet started.
>
>Can you say "reduction ad absurdum" (sp?)?  I knew you could....

Quite.  And, in fact, I did reduce your position to an absurdity.  So
why are you unwilling to abandon it in favor of one more defensible?

>I am saying you should not be able to come in and "take over" an
>existing news group...

Richard, "should" is a null word on Usenet.  Either you have the
power, or you have a consensus, or you have hot air.  Which is it?

>>Usenet is a force of nature.  Roll with it.
>
>So is a river.  It carves slowly.  Dynamite is a force of man.

The point of which is...?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "I am truly as big a genius as all other Rush fans." -- Bruce Bufalini
Xref: sparky news.groups:19149 alt.flame:13566
From: nrp@csug3.cs.reading.ac.uk ("Mischievous bee will-o'-the-wisps" Neilski)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Create a killfile? AAAAAAAARGH!
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:53:01 GMT
Reply-To: nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: University of Reading

lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:

>nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk writes:

>>> With logic like that we would all be driving at 35 mph on the freeways
>>> so the mopeds and antique Model A's could keep up with traffic! 
>>
>> It would be better to bear in mind that there may be mopeds and Model
>> A's around which can't keep up with traffic, so we should drive
>> remembering that, and making allowances for the fact. 

>On the *interstate*?  Sorry.  I'm of the opinion that if you can't keep up
>with the traffic, you should get a faster car or stick to the side roads
>where you don't get in everyone's way.  Don't expect the rest of the world
>to slow down just so you can keep up. 

I didn't say the rest of the world should slow down, I just said they
should look out for those who can't go at the same speed.  Why shouldn't
people with Model A's and mopeds use the same roads as everyone else?  And
who said Usenet was an interstate?  It seems to me that it's just a huge
set of dodgems at a fairground with people going all over the place, but
keeping in the right sort of area - this is where charters come in.  (Or
was that another flamewar?)  Now in some of the cars there might be small
children or fragile old people, or something which means that the driver
has to go more slowly.  People like you would go at top speed and crash
into the side of them rather than actually trying to dodge them, because
you see no reason for them to be going slowly.

Er ... let me see where this is relevant ... right, got it.  There are
reasons why people are unable to use a killfile which are not simply
matters of choice.  Keep it in mind and as more cars enter the fairground,
the ride won't stop moving.

-- neilski
-- 
nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk  \--------------------------------------------------
----------------------------\ Woke up this morning, out of bed I leaped,
Banged my head on the ceiling and I went straight back to sleep...   -- Dylan
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:11:36 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct5.164258.1419@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson) writes:
>Arguments like this look perfect for the soc. category.  How about
>soc.med-alternatives or soc.med-alt?

Frankly, I think this calls for a new hierarchy. It's about time we accomodated
all those logic-challenged (l)users just discovering the net, so I propose we
create a new root: crank.  This will help us organize the namespace far more
effectively.  Obviously, this will give quack medical claims a home, but it
will also provide a much-needed mainstream base for groups like alt.astrology.
It will give us much-needed expansion room in the namespace.  crank.jim&tammy,
crank.socialism, crank.grapefuit45, crank.reincarnation, crank.white-supremacy,
and, of course, crank.democrats and crank.republicans.  I'd suggest we not
bother with crank.perot, alt.perot just seems more suited to his political
longevity.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: use a KILLFILE
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:20:29 GMT

In article <9210071819.AA22956@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> jfurr@vtssi.vt.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>
>If the ultimate answer to off-topic invaders in your newsgroup is "use a
>killfile" then for Christ's sake, what do we have newsgroup charters for?
>
Or even better, why do we have groups at all.  We could just use ONE channel
(or perhaps 10, rec, sci, comp, misc  etc), and put EVERYTHING in our
kill files.  :-)

Nicholas Fitzpatrick
From: twriter1@pencom.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: hyper- or multimedia group exist?
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:05:13 GMT
Reply-To: twriter1@pencom.com
Organization: Pencom Software

Is there a news group for folks interested in multimedia
(design, use, software, etc.)?

Tanya
twriter1@pencom.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: not everybody uses UNIX to read news
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:32:01 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to jfurr@vtssi.vt.EDU (Joel Furr):
>Gene Spafford (spaf@cs.purdue.EDU) writes in news.announce.newusers:

No, _I_ write.  "What Is Usenet?" is my essay; Gene just posts it.

>>11. Usenet is not a UNIX network.
>>
>>    Don't assume that everyone is using "rn" on a UNIX machine.  Among
>>    the systems used to read and post to Usenet are Vaxen running VMS,
>>    IBM mainframes, Amigas, and MS-DOS PCs.

As the author of this little paragraph, allow me to expand on its
meaning.  It is true, as Joel observes, that:

>Killfiles are NOT mandatory for USENET participation.

However, Joel, you missed the point entirely.  "Mandatory" means
"required", and indeed, KILL files are not required.  However, they
are _very_ _strongly_ _recommended_.  And if you don't use KILL files,
any resulting problems are _yours_.  Don't bother us about them, okay?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
    "My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
     group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
     are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur."           -- Matt Welsh
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec or alt.joke - does one exist?
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:17:08 GMT
Organization: negligable

So do you have an un-confusing suggestion?


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Work away today, think about tomorrow.		|
Never comes the day, for my love and me.	|	-Richard Hartman	
I feel her gently sighing			|	hartman@uLogic.COM
as the evening slips away....			|
From: harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:36:57 -0500
Organization: Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

In article <1992Oct9.190158.5575@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil>, rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (Code-03 LCDR Michael E. Dobson) writes:
> In article <631@lax.lax.pe-nelson.com> twbrown@PE-Nelson.COM (Tom W. Brown) writes:
>
>>
>>Question: Should the "comp.os.ms-windows" hierarchy be moved to a
>>          "comp.gui.ms-windows" hierarchy? (1/2 :-)
>>
> Sigh, how soon people forget.  This whole problem with MS-windows users
> posting to the c.w.misc, etc groups is a direct result of the split/reorg
> which moved comp.windows.msdos to comp.os.ms-windows.*  If all the new
> groups had been left in comp.windows.ms.*, we likely wouldn't have this
> problem.

I have been reading these groups since January, and I think the reorg was
in May.  As I recall, MS-Windows users have *always* posted to almost any
group with "windows" in the name, with inappropriate postings appearing most
frequently in comp.windows.misc and next most often in comp.windows.news.

It may be that the frequency of inappropriate postings to comp.windows.misc
may have *increased* after the reorganization, but they were *always* there,
and they'll *never* go away as long as "windows" appears in the name.

IMHO all that is necessary is to replace the word "windows" in the names of
the remaining groups with something that won't push the average MS-Windows
user's "Windows" button.  Peter da Silva's suggestion of comp.gui sounds
excellent.  I don't believe the name comp.windowing will help; it will just
continue to attract inappropriate postings from the extremely clueless.
There is no reason to move the comp.os.ms-windows hierarchy again either
(the reason for the 1/2 :-), no?), and besides - that could threaten the
survival of the immortal "Windows == OS?" thread!! 8-D

So, my suggestions are:

comp.gui.garnet		The Garnet user interface development environment.
comp.gui.interviews	The InterViews object-oriented windowing system.
comp.gui.misc		Various issues about windowing systems.
comp.gui.news		Sun Microsystems' NeWS window system.
comp.gui.open-look	Discussion about the Open Look GUI.
comp.gui.x.announce	X Consortium announcements. (Moderated)
comp.gui.x.apps		Getting and using, not programming, applications for X.
comp.gui.x.intrinsics	Discussion of the X toolkit.
comp.gui.x.misc		Discussion about the X Window System.
comp.gui.x.motif	The Motif GUI for the X Window System.
comp.gui.x.pex		The PHIGS extension of the X Window System.

>
> Mike Dobson
>
> my .sig is on loan to another newsgroup
--
James Harvey    IUPUI OIT Technical Support
harvey@iupui.edu  uucp: iugate!harvey  bitnet: harvey@indyvax
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ianr@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Ian Rogers)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Organization: University of Sussex at Brighton
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:08:22 GMT

rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
> I disagree.  While I don't follow most of the .x.* newsgroups
> (I do read .x.apps) and Peter does concentrate on those, I *do*
> feel it is time to (attempt to) do something about c.w.news
> and c.w.misc.  The DOS / MS Windows types are over-running
> those groups....
>
> Changing 'windows' to 'windowing' could help.....

Or 'wimp', preferably.

Follow this with a change  comp.wimp.ms -> comp.wimp.windows  and
leave everything else alone.

I actually prefer Peter's original suggestion, but I think it's too
much to go for in one swoop.

Ian
--
Ian Rogers - Research Fellow type person :)
School of Cognitive Science, Sussex University, Falmer, Brighton, UK
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.eos
Date: 7 Oct 1992 15:29:17 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <3867@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes:
> In article <BvpwHs.H0v@uunet.uu.net> posinski@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Cindy Posinski) writes:
> >
> >	On behalf of the Earth Observing System (EOS) Project Office, I would 
> >like to propose the creation of a new moderated newsgroup named SCI.EOS.  
> 
>   I'd suggest that the moderated newsgroup be named sci.eos.news or
> sci.eos.bulletins and that the same ballot contain a vote for an
> unmoderated discussion newsgroup named sci.eos.misc (following the
> usual naming conventions).

I have several points to make:


1) Why do you need a group? Most of the other bulletins from other related
projects are posted to sci.space.news. Followups go to sci.space. I have 
seen no evidence that this will not work for what you need; Please explain
why THIS topics needs its own group when none of the other have it.Since you
want it moderated, it makes it even more obvious that you must show why the
material can't be posted to sci.space.news. [It is much easier to look in 
one news group for this type of material then trying to remember individual
specific announcement areas.]

2) If you must have this group, it probably should be named at the third level
rather than the second, something like sci.space.eos.

3) EOS is not obvious to someone who does not know what they arer looking for.
Remember, news groups are designed to advertise the location of a topic area
and hiding it behind some TLA defeats that goal. If you don't want the 
'unwashed masses' to participate, use a mailing list.
  
-- 
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: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: use a KILLFILE
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:30:12 GMT

In article <nrp.718535370@reading> nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk writes:

>But seriously folks, if we start ignoring charters the net will become
>unusable because it will be impossible to predict or govern where articles
>will go.

It is already impossible to do so.

(Imminent death of the net predicted ...)

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:22:36 GMT

> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>> However, "x-windows" is just plain _wrong_.  The entity in question is
>> not a system named "X Windows".  It is a window system named "X".  [...]
>> If you were to make this mistake, the least you could do would be to
>> call the Microsloth group "comp.gui.ms-windows".

Incidentally, when the name for conp.os.ms-windows was being discussed, I
got strong expressions of preference from several Microsoft people that the
new hierarchy should be called simply comp.os.windows, since the product is
called either "Microsoft Windows" or simply "Windows", and never (officially)
"MS-Windows".  Once I explained to them that it was highly unlikely that
a change to comp.os.windows would pass, they went along with ms-windows,
though.  :)

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> the point is that w/ ms-windows stuck way over in comp.os (yes, I
> know that was done just 6 months ago) the number of bothersome
> ms-windows msgs in the x windows group has increased.

...but that doesn't prove that it's cause-and-effect.  There are growing
numbers of Windows users (whatever you may think of the merits of the
product, it's selling well!) -- and the net weas once again full of newbies
when the freshmen arrived at school last month.  Couldn't these have some-
thing to do with the number of inappropriate postings as well?

> 	comp.gui.x
> 	comp.gui.ms-windows

If we just forget about moving comp.os.ms-windows (my suggestion), the
above proposal would work well.  comp.gui.x, comp.gui.news, comp.gui.misc.
And not a ".windows" in sight!  :)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.mecha
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:16:11 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1bfc0qINN4j0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aj834@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Scott A. Maehner) writes:

>I heartily approve of this new group, but I have a
>question/suggestion/nitpick...what about other anime/anime-realted games? 
>I'm in a group that uses Teenagers From Outer Space as the system of choice
>to mix characters from Ben Dunn's _Ninja High School_ _Ranma 1/2_ _Maison
>Ikkoku_ and others...it would be great if anime-related stuff could either
>be included in the charter or if it might be possible to have a
>rec.games.anime, but I suspect many would see it as duplication.  I'll
>support rec.games.mecha in any case though...just my 2 cents adjusted for
>inflation, see you in the manga papers.

I also like the rec.games.mecha idea - it seems to be a clearly defined
topic, and one whose discussion is in a very unclear place between
rec.games.frp.misc and rec.games.board at present.

As regards the possibility of rec.games.anime or rec.games.frp.anime: Not a
bad idea, but isn't this a separate newsgroup proposal? Let's do things one
step at a time - IMHO it generates more light and less heat than grand
reorganisations. I'm also doubtful about whether enough traffic exists in
this area at present - though with the growth of the net, this is not likely
to be a permanent objection!

In article <1992Oct14.191855.25818@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters) writes:

>Unless it's a private email telling you to move the mecha stuff from
>frp, I'm afraid I have not seen posts asking (or telling) people not
>to post mecha stuff to rec.games.frp.misc, unless it it off topic 
>(i.e. not frp).  Admittedly, I may have forgotten a post or 100 B^).
>
>As far as I am concerned, as long as the MECHA people use an appropriate
>TAG in their header, they should be welcome.  Using a tag such as:
>
>MECHA:   RBTECH:    BTECH:
>
>Will let those using decent newsreaders to add them to a killfile (yes, I know
>about the current killfile flamewar), or to view the topics and quickly
>bypass those they don't want to read.  If you have it, TRN makes a good
>newsreader for r.g.f.*.

Yes, mecha stuff should be welcome on rec.games.frp.misc at present. But the
new group is also being proposed to deal with the fact that discussion of
these games is split between rec.games.frp.misc and rec.games.board at
present, and that problem is *not* dealt with by tags.

I've also noticed that rec.games.frp.misc traffic is getting close to
pre-split rec.games.frp levels. Anything that siphons off some of the less
role-playing-specific discussion will help to delay the evil day when
another wholesale re-organisation of the rec.games.frp hierarchy is
required. IMHO this is a Good Thing...

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: <None>
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:29:20 MST
 <1992Oct7.130217.12582@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1992Oct7.214812.11989@uwasa.fi>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Oct7.214812.11989@uwasa.fi>, ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.130217.12582@zip.eecs.umich.edu> huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins) writes:
>>I agree there have been problems in CBIPA (frankly, I've unsubscribed
>>since I can't cut through the chaff).  Question: what will happen to CBIPA?
>>Is it proposed to leave it alone as-is (and thus overlap the proposed
>>group in content area) or remove it?
> 
> This dilemma kept us stalled for quite awhile and delayed the RFD
> before we suddenly realized that we were trying to cover too many
> things at one go.  Thus the current RFD is on creating
>   comp.archives.msdos.announce (moderated)
>   comp.archives.msdos.d
> 
> Now this certainly does not mean that one should not discuss the
> future fo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.archives.  We just left out this part
> from the current RFD in order not to complicate things.  If users
> wish to remove CBIP.archives I think we must have a separate RFD to
> that effect.  But of course we can (and should) discuss whether such
> an RFD is in order.  My feeling on this is to cross that bridge when
> we come to it.  That is _first_ get the new groups created, and then
> return to the fate of CBIP.archives.  But in the long run I feel
> that CBIP.archives should be discontunued.  It has ceased to serve
> any useful function. 
> 
> Would this step-wise way of proceeding sound reasonable?

From following the newsgroup creation process, I think it's much
better to get what you want in one go.  Multiple steps take up a 
LOT of time and bandwidth.

In the RFD, it's a simple step to add a conditional rule such as:

"If cama and camd are created, then comp.sys.ibm.pc.archives will
be automatically rmgrouped."

Samuel, would this be reasonable?

There is usually a long lag time (~2 months) between the creation
of the new groups and the removal of the old, unneeded groups.  So
for a time both comp.archives.msdos and comp.binaries.ibm.pc.archives
would coexist.  The announce posters could crosspost, deliver
warnings about moving to camd, and then after 2 months cbipa would
disappears without a further RFD.

This is how the MS Windows reorganization was handled.  The new
comp.os.ms-windows.* groups were created in May, and over the summer the
old comp.windows.ms.* groups were removed.  It was a pretty smooth
transition, IMHO.

I am in favor of the cam.* proposal, with or without my addition.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
Xref: sparky news.groups:19022 sci.med:18965
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.med
Subject: Re: Starting an alternative medicine newsgroup
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:04:35 GMT
Organization: Not Philips.

In refd article, kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
>Not from my point of view.  Usenet just needs more places for general
>discussions about health and health care, and I think "misc.health.*" is
>the right place -- instead of the group dedicated to scientific
>discussions of medicine.
>
>Extended scientific discussions of alternative therapies would still
>belong in "sci.skeptic" or "sci.med" (or "sci.med.alternative" if volume
>warranted its creation).  There just needs to be a place for non-technical
>discussions, as well, and I think "misc.health.alternative" is
>appropriate.

We seem already to be losing sight of the original point of all of this.
It wasn't to create more places for discussion about health, although that
is clearly a desirable side effect.  It was to get the wars out of sci.med.
We don't _want_ "discussions of alternative therapies to still belong in
sci.med".  They aren't discussions!  Neither side has any tolerance of the
other.

-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
Newsgroups: news.groups