HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.boycotts.announce moderated, misc.boycotts.misc
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:02:04 GMT

>I think misc.boycotts.announce would be different than existing
>announce newsgroups because everything it announces is going to be
>controversial. Most follow ups to most to a regular announce article
>are uninteresting to most readers. In contrast, almost all follow ups
>to a boycott call would be of interest to at least half of the
>readers.

Would naming the announce group to

misc.boycotts.proposals

(or misc.boycotts.calls, or some other name which would indicate that
the boycotts are not approved by all)

help?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rduggar@access.digex.com (robin of riverdale)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:01:42 GMT

I would love to see Blakes 7 get its own group!

Though this show has been off the [British] air for years, public television
stations around the country are picking it up right and left.  The show was
created by the same man who created DR. WHO.

Blake 7 fans are die hard and true like other British SF TV fans.  Red Dwarf
got its own topic, let's do the same for Blakes 7.


-- 
Lady Robin of Riverdale


"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:05:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: SLACVM.92242.190548JLM
 <1992Aug27.190622.18639@resonex.com>
 <1992Aug28.201119.17271@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center


In article <1992Aug28.201119.17271@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com
(alok.vijayvargia) says:
>
>In article <1992Aug27.190622.18639@resonex.com>, michael@resonex.com (Michael
>Bryan) writes:
>>
>> Net.Somebody.AI:
>>    You were vote taker at the time, and posted some messages asking for
>>    votes, the contents of which went against the spirit of the Usenet
>
>What's so damn wrong in reminding people to cast their votes and hope
>them to vote favorably ?


 Holy smoke !! I go away on vacation and the minute I come back
I find that the SCIA/Alok controversy is still going on !!! Unbelievable !!

 OK, one more time I'll try to get through to you and tell you what was
wrong:

 If the proponent and the vote-taker are one and the same, then *any*
vote canvassing (however subtle) by the vote-taker during the course
of the vote is *unfair* since the vote-taker knows whether one more
YES vote is needed for the proposal to pass.

 If the proponent and the vote-taker are two different persons, then
the proponent may campaign for votes *provided* that he has not been
informed by the vote-taker as to how the vote is going. Unfortunately,
the vote-taker may violate this, but unless one of them squeals on himself
it is pretty difficult to prove. That's why I am of the opinion that
vote-takers should be volunteers who have no interest in the outcome
of the vote and don't even vote (as David Wright did in the second SCIA
vote).

>In case of soc.culture.tamil we have people like K. Srinivasan (One of the
>organizers of the group along with the vote taker), Prem Kumar , Aruna
>Venkatachalam, Mr. Bazyar etc. doing the campaigning during the vote.
>Some of the campaigners asked people on email nets to vote YES or
>abstain. There is evidence that this line of campaiging was shared
>by the vote taker as well. NOw just because I can not get access to
>his phone calls and emails to fellow organizers, does not mean that
>he did not do it. His writings on the net indicate that he too was
>involved in this. If this whole process is not against the net spirit, I have
>to question this damned spirit of the net.


 If you have irrefutable evidence that the *VOTE-TAKER* was involved in
campaigning for votes or disclosed the preliminary results to the other
proponents, then present it *HERE* and I will join you. Otherwise, anything
you say is nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation and if you are
not careful these people might take you to court !!  :-) :-) Sorry, but
I couldn't resist. Seriously though, if you have evidence *SHOW IT* to us
and I, for one, will back you up.

-- Jose L. Martinez --
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Splitting news.groups?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Sep3.183650.3808@prpa.philips.com>
	<185vpsINN6r9@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:12:01 GMT

My favorite way of splitting news.groups:

Make ten groups, 'news.groups.discuss-a' through 'news.groups.discuss-j'
(with room for future expansion: within 14 chars we can go all the way
up to news.groups.discuss-zzzzzz which had better be enough).

When an RFD is posted to news.announce.newgroups, the moderator picks a
subgroup that is unused (or maybe a group that's already in the CFV
stage, which is likely to have lower traffic) and sets followups to it.

This way, people interested only in the latest rec.manga.harley proposal
are insulated from the rec.arts.startrek.tcp-ip.eniac reorganization,
the sci.skeptical.aquarians, and the megabozo.fan.xanthian flame war.
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: proposed group 'comp.sys.stratus'
Keywords: Stratus, FTX, VOS, mailing list, news
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:49:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <l5jjakINN4pe@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, shuford@cs.utk.edu (Richard Shuford) writes:
> ... As the coordinator of the Info-Stratus mailing list, I wish to support
> the effort to create this one group to carry discussion concerning the
> fault-tolerant transaction-processing computers made by Stratus
> Computer, Inc. (and also sold by IBM as the System/88 and by Olivetti
> as the CPS-32).

It has been noted that this proposal hasn't aroused much discussion and
therefore might be looked upon unfavorably by the powers that be.

This may be presumptuous, but I think I speak for the silent majority of
subscribers to the Info-Stratus mailing list in saying "What's to discuss?
It's obviously a good idea.  Let's do it!"

- Tim
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Alok, soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:06:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Aug27.203229.21915@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:

[Arguments which are the same as the arguments he wrote the last few times
this topic has been discussed in news.groups.]

Here, let me help you by writing the next few articles in this thread,
using my handy Net.Somebody.AI and Alok.AI programs:

Net.Somebody.AI:
   Alok, why can't you just realize you engaged in improper behaviour
   during the first vote?

Alok.AI:
   I'm being unfairly accused.  I did nothing wrong.

Net.Somebody.AI:
   You were vote taker at the time, and posted some messages asking for
   votes, the contents of which went against the spirit of the Usenet
   guidelines.  The vote was declared invalid, and a later vote failed.

Alok.AI:
   I did nothing wrong!  I've read the guidelines (have you?), and what
   I did is technically not forbidden, and it's not my fault if nearly
   everyone else on the net has a different interpretation!  This is
   obviously the result of a massive hate campaign directed against me
   by a few select individuals who do not like me.  This same campaign
   is what caused the second vote to fail.

Net.Somebody.AI:
   You are an ignorant fool, incapable of realizing even the most
   simple of truths.

Alok.AI:
   Oh, look who's being ignorant!  I really feel sorry for you if
   you feel you must spend your time directing so much hatred towards
   me.

Net.Somebody.AI:
   Purchase a clue and drop this already!

Alok.AI:
   I did nothing wrong, and I demand justice!

[silence]

Alok.AI:
   [Crosspost to some other semi-appropriate newsgroup to start
   the discussion up again.]

... and so on, ad nauseum.


There.  Now maybe the topic can die a quick death this time
around.

;-)

-- 
Michael Bryan        michael@resonex.com                     |     ,_,
Milk and Cheese in '92!!!                                    |    /oo \
"What the world needs now are some true words of wisdom,     |    <>__|
like 'La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la'."  -- Cracker           |    |  U|
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.legal.family moderated
Date: 29 Aug 1992 00:15:14 GMT

I think this is a good idea but I would not support a moderated group. I see
no reason for moderation. 


-- 
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: nik@csgi38.dcs.leeds.ac.uk (Nik Silver)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Organization: School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:07:37 GMT
X-Posted-From: csgi38.leeds.ac.uk
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep1.215826.1@wharton.upenn.edu>, millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>Since you're talking about board games, why don't you call it
>rec.games.board.abstract? Not only does this fit into the hierarchy
>better, but it also is more intuitive. If you think that people will
>mistakenly put backgammon and parcheesi in your abstract board game
>newsgroup, then make a couple of them and call them rgb.war, rgb.dice,
>rgb.abstract, and rgb.misc.

This is a good question, but I think it has been addressed before. Briefly,
then, at least one game that the group is to discuss (ie., nomic) is not
a boardgame. Several other games, not mentioned in the RFD, could also
be discussed. These are pencil & paper games (eg., sprouts) where drawing lines
is the content of the game, and being able to expand to the paper (by sticking
new bits on the end) is essential.

See also: some recent discussion on rec.games.diplomacy for more of the same.

-- 
Nik Silver                          "Now, give me the gatekey."
                                      "What gatekey?"
                                    "Fezzick, tear off his arms."
                                      "Oh, you mean this gatekey."
                                                   --- from The Princess Bride
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Voting Procedures *and* How Do You Verify Votes? 
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 17:10:47 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier) writes:

> I note that you did not refer me to an appropriate forum wherein I could
> learn about email, even though I specifically requested this
> information. 

I didn't refer you to one because I don't know of one. For starters, you
ought to make sure you've read all the introductory files that are posted
to news.announce.newusers, and a few of the supplimentary files like
Brendan Kehoe's "Zen And The Art Of Internet" probably wouldn't hurt
either.  

> ACAD8025@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca "Problem Reporting, A" 
> ACAD8059@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca Mike Mychalkiw 
> ADVI8721@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca advisor's utility disk 

[tales of travails deleted]

> ...So, just how do you vote-takers verify that these three votes were
> indeed emailed by three separate "people"?  I really want to know,
> folks! PLEASE TELL ME. 

I had similar problems in one of the votes I ran: seven votes mailed from
different accounts at one site, all within a couple of minutes of each
other, all with functionally identical message bodies.  Here's what I did:

1) I emailed the seven accounts asking what was up, and got a couple of
   replies back insisting that they were all officemates who had decided
   to vote at the same time.  (Still looked suspicious to me.)
2) I emailed David Lawrence and explained the situation to him: the votes
   looked fake, but didn't affect the outcome of the vote either way, so
   I'm going to count them as valid, did he have a problem with that?
3) David said he didn't have a problem with that, so I included the votes
   in the final tally with a caveat in the voting summary explaining the
   situation.  Period.  End of story.

If the votes had been in a position to affect the outcome, then I would
have pursued it further by contacting the site's admin(s) to see if they
could help clear up the situation, but under the circumstances, there
wasn't any compelling reason to spend any more time on it.  

> As far as the UUCP delay problems are concerned, I believe that more
> frequent release of vote acknowledgements (perhaps once a week during
> the CFV) might help alleviate this problem.  Are there any reasons why
> this would not help? Or do you consider this task more burdensome than
> the cost of post CFV complaints? 

Hardly.  The lack of vote acks in the r.m.h vote was annoying. (The only
one I saw was posted with the final voting tally; I may have missed an
intermediate one while I was on vacation.) 

> As far as the "One Account, One Vote" misunderstanding is concerned, a
> minor change to the Guidelines would be prudent. 

I agree.  (Good luck.)

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.games.diplomacy
Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:10:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


nick@sunburn.waterloo.edu (Nick Fitzpatrick) says:

>>rec.games.abstract will not be the place to discuss Diplomacy.
>>Hopefully the group charter will make this clear enough.
>>
>I have read the RFD again, and again, and it seems to describe Diplomacy
>to a tee, with the exception of the use of country names, and etc, there
>is little connection to reality.  The game WAS afterall modelled on chess.
>If diplomacy does not fit the description, I don't know what does.

You said it exactly -- Diplomacy is not abstract, it's
 representational.  The board is a map of Europe, it has
 inherent meaning.  An Othello board is just a board.

Even though Diplomacy is beautiful + deterministic + pure,
 it's not an issue here.  I love Dippy, and would have
 loved to see it included with the others, but it's one
 of a kind.  Including it would have made the charter
 (and especially the group name) impossible.

Create a new r.g.dippy.
-- 
Francis A. Uy			now a Bawlmorean, hon.
Program Director, WUMD		ISO part time job to pay the rent.
From: frankc@faatcrl.UUCP (Frank Coffman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:40:06 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:

>Proposal A: Create rec.music.makers.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.
>Charter: "Electric and acoustic guitar techniques and equipment"

>	Rec.music.makers.guitar would be a one-for-one unmoderated
>	replacement of alt.guitar.

	Agree

>Proposal B: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
>Charter: "Electric and acoustic bass guitar techniques and equipment"

>	Rec.music.makers.guitar.bass would be a one-for-one unmoderated
>	replacement of alt.guitar.bass.

	Agree


>Proposal C: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, and remove alt.guitar.tab.
>Charter: "Guitar tablature/chords, associated discussion and requests".
> 
>	This group would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement
>	of alt.guitar.tab.

	Agree	

>Proposal D: Create rec.music.makers.percussion.
>Charter: "Percussion (including drums) techniques and equipment"

>	Rec.music.makers.percussion would be an unmoderated group for the
>	discussion of drums and related percussion instruments.
>	(There is an existing recently-formed mailing list for drummers;
>	there has been discussion there about forming a newsgroup.)

	no opinion

>Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.keyboards
>Charter: "Synthesizer, sampler, and other keyboard techniques and equipment"

	Strongly disagree - Synths need not be controlled by keyboards.

I also think the groups would better be named rec.music.* That way the
hierarchy would be just as clear, and for that matter rec.music.makers
could remain as a forum for non-instrumental discussions of musicians, 
with topics such as agents, taxes, demo productions, cover vs. original
performance, and other music community issues.  (Don't know what the
traffic level would be, but I'd subscribe.)


-- 
*********************************************************************
* Frank Coffman     Computer Resource Management, Inc. (CRM)        *
*                   NAS Sim. Support Facility, FAA Technical Center *
*                   Atlantic City Airport, NJ 08405                 *
* UUCP:  ...!rutgers!faatcrl!frankc  Internet:frankc@faatcrl.UUCP   *
*********************************************************************
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joe Six-pack)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 31 Aug 1992 17:55:14 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Aug31.101448.58522@cc.usu.edu> sll28@cc.usu.edu (Lorna Payne) writes:
>...distribution of alt. groups is
>limited, particularly if they are bogus groups (e.g., alt.tv.mst3k).

   Huh?  What's a "bogus" alt group?
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pjb4288@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Pete - Toonatic - Boulay)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.babylon5
Originator: pjb4288@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:28:05 GMT

Hello....

Time to throw my 2 pennies in...

I am definitely in favor of a newsgroup for Babylon 5. The show is NOT
Star Trek and should NOT be discussed in the rec.arts.startrek.* hierarchy.
That much is obvious.

I think it should start out as an alt.tv.babylon5 and then if it really
becomes that popular-offer a rec.arts.babylon5 group.

I do want a group devoted to Babylon 5 though. The show looks VERY promising
from what I've seen & read about it.

-- 
Peter J. Boulay --17 Split Rock Road-Pittsford, NY 14534-The ToonAddict!
Email should be sent only to PJB4288@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Disclaimer: You don't like what I'm writing? Oh well.
"Well shut my mouth wide open!"- Tiny Toons HISMV
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:42:34 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute

Lazlo sed:
>As an aside to this RFD, I'd like to suggest that it might be time to move
>rec.music.makers.* up to rec.musicians.*, with appropriate name changes for
>any existing or proposed subgroups.

and Rich grepped:
>My inclination is not to do this, because it creates two subhierarchies
>for music: rec.music.*, and rec.musicians.*.  I think that we're better
>off with one hierarchy, even if that means that some of the names wind
>up a bit longer than we'd like.

Actually, I think Lazlo's idea is the best I've seen yet.  There is a fairly
natural dichotomy between those who mainly appreciate music and those who
mainly perform music.  I think reflecting that in a dual hierarchy is
an excellant idea, and avoids the obvious problem with the rec.music.makers
hierarchy that the name `rec.music.makers.guitar' seems to imply someone who
makes *guitars*, not music.  Also, the whole `makers' hierarchy gets very
clumsy very quickly.  This also provides a better name for rec.music.makers
itself, a name I've always thought ungraceful: rename it to rec.musicians.misc
(we'd have all those specific groups, so it should become a `misc').

--Jeff
From: nick@sunburn.waterloo.edu (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Keywords: perfect-information deterministic strategic no-dice
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:25:09 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Aug28.122843.8755@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>In article <BtnvEJ.83G@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, nick@sunburn.waterloo.edu (Nick Fitzpatrick) writes:
>>So my problem with rec.games.abstract, is that Diplomacy would then be split between
>>4 newsgroups, rather than just 3.
>
>What if we promise to flame all diplomacy postings in r.g.abstract until they
>go to one of the other three newsgroups?  :-)
>
Hey, you put a smiley on, but that might no be such a bad idea!!!

>>Therefore I will ask all the diplomacy players
>>(and we have almost 800 registered in the Washington Adjudicator alone) to
>>vote against rec.games.abstract.  
>>Though perhaps something can be done to allow
>>for the creation of rec.games.abstract.  
>>I will withdraw my objections if the addition
>>of the newsgroup rec.games.diplomacy, is added to the ballot.
>
>Aha, blackmail.  Though you probably would call it diplomacy.
>Well, you don't exactly make friends this way.
>
Sorry, I guess I was rather heavy handed, perhaps too many of my
mail messages lately have been Diplomacy communiques! :-)  I am sorry
if I offended anyone.  The point I wished to make was that as the
RFD stands now, it is not acceptable, and it would further fragment
the Diplomacy community, and that I would like to see some changes
made to the RFD to make sure that Diplomacy does not move to this group.
Perhaps an explicit statement in the Charter saying that this news group
is NOT for Diplomacy would suffice.

>Why don't you start a r.g.diplomacy newsgroup for yourself if you have so many
>followers?  Perhaps there are too many people who don't like your attitude and
>vote against it?  You just increased the number by at least one.
>
If the bit. groups got the distribution they deserved, we would already have
one!  Yes, it is on my to do list, perhaps I ought to try it.  Again I 
apolgize for the heavy handiness.  I do not want to stop rec.games.abstract,
just protect my onw interests.

Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.lists,news.admin
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Date: 3 Sep 1992 23:16:43 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Sep03.160533.21865@dcc.uchile.cl> erodrigu@dcc.uchile.cl (Eduardo Rodriguez) writes:
>But you must also consider, as someone said, the space in disk wasted
>due to large .newsrc, many times duplicated, with many groups that
>actually can be deleted. I think the deletion procedure is OK.

Disk space is quantized by disk blocks.  Unsubscribed newsgroups take up
little space in .newsrc files (I occasionally go through my .newsrc getting
rid of all the article numbers for unsubscribed groups: "1,$s/!.*$/!/" in
ed/ex/vi.  Getting rid of the lines for nonexistent groups is only likely
to recover one or two disk blocks per user.  If a site has 1,000 netnews
readers and they recover an average of one 1K block each, that's only a
megabyte.

If users are concerned about the .newsrc disk space for unused groups, they
can simply delete those lines.  Rn, at least, won't offer to subscribe to a
group until it sees a posting there.  So, if the group is truly unused, it
will never be noticed.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar