HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 3040_3744@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:28:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.173046.14657@ra.msstate.edu>, dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) writes:
> In article <1e1e7uINNomc@life.ai.mit.edu> majafri@sandman.caltech.edu (Mansoor A. Jafri) writes:
>>	iii)	To Discuss differences between Ahmadiyya Islam and
>>		other religions of the world and discuss why almost
>>		religions like christianity, jewism, hinduism and
>>		Islam have so much interest in this religous group.
> 
> I will not get into the discussion of who may or may not be a "true
> Muslim" but I do object to the creation of any group who's charter
> refers to Hinduism, Jewdaism, Christianity and Islam as "almost
> religions" and who's author will not even pay three of the four the
> common courtesy of capitalizing their names.

I think it was a typo in the text otherwise Ahmadies always pay full respect to
all relegions including Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism followers of
other relegions.  Ahmadies are rather broad minded people who respect even
those people who are against the very existance of this sect. So please ignore
that typo in it.
 

> -- 
> 
> Donald R. Newcomb                * The one who dies with the most toys
> dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * has accomplished nothing beyond
> newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * enslaving himself to his possessions.
From: leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:45:08 GMT
Organization: Deep Thirteen, Gizmonics Institute

Tom Holub writes:
>[me:]
>)Why are you guys so against the split?  How would it hurt you?
>)How would it really affect you at all?  Rob?  Tom?  Is there some cost
>)to the netrek community for having three newsgroups that I am missing?
>
>I am against it because it doesn't address the problem.  The problem
>is that there are lots of stupid flame wars that go on in
>rec.games.netrek.

I disagree; this is only part of the problem.

The problem is 40+ messages per day; not all of them are flames.  Not
even all of the fluff is flame, although most of it is.  There are
many fluff threads on the group that are not flames...  things like
"how do I use plasma", "X's scoutbombing tips", etc.  And there is a
lot of interesting and useful info buried in the fluff, that SOME
people (neither me, nor you; obviously we have no lives) DO NOT GET
because they don't have the time to wade through all of it.

>If you split the group into 3, there will now be stupid flame wars
>going on in 3 different groups.  

Surely not on the moderated r.g.n.announce?  Any moderator that posts
flame wars deserves to die.

>This is why Alan wants rgn.programmer moderated, but I don't agree
>with that, either.

Seems like you want it both ways.  I personally have faith that
r.g.n.programmer will have much less flamage on it, because as soon as
flaming starts, people like me will redirect it all to r.g.n.  And I think
the programming end of netrek is sufficiently distinct and interesting
to merit its own separate discussion.  Most people don't know and
don't care.

Still, I could easily do without r.g.n.programmer; I know all of the
people *I* could ever use help from... seems to me it would be a forum
of most use to new client hackers and server gods.

I could take it or leave it.

>Basically, splits are confusing and would needlessly clutter up the
>discussions (and in addition to the standard stupid flame wars, we'd
>get 'you're in the wrong group' stupid flame wars; see rec.bicycles,
>rec.arts.startrek, or just about any other group that has undergone
>a split).

This is a valid point, and it is the reason I think Alan's idea for a
r.g.n.INL will never fly.  Maybe even r.g.n.programmer... but
r.g.n.announce seems untouched by this criticism.  How is it
confusing?  How could it create needless flamage?  How could it create
"you're in the wrong group"?  It can't, unless the moderator lets in
such posts.

I think that r.g.n.announce would be a very useful group to start.
The netrek community is very productive of interesting announcements.

-Leonard
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: news.groups: theory and practice
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:38:56 GMT

In article <yxhq_w@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)  
writes:
> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> 
> Better pointers to discussions and votes (with followups
> set here) are valuable, but it's a Very Bad Thing (IMO) to actually hold
> the discussions in the groups that are being affected.   
> 

I agree. I was lobbying for better pointers. Sorry if there was some  
confusion there.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky news.groups:22478 news.admin.misc:374 misc.kids:28821 soc.roots:7716
From: randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc,alt.adoption,misc.kids,soc.roots
Subject: Re: RFD/CFD: soc.adoption
Date: 19 Nov 1992 16:15:45 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu
Keywords: adoption

In article <1992Nov19.200207.24135@mdd.comm.mot.com> gix@mdd.comm.mot.com (Brian Gix) writes:
>This is a formal request for comments to create a group by the name:
>soc.adoption

[deletion]

>Note that this is an attempt to replace alt.adoption which is currently
>being carried at many sites, since there are probably just as many sites which
>carry no alt.* groups. The alt group is now about 10 days old, and has
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>seen a good amount of traffic, & I believe has a wide potential audience.

Did I read that right?  *Ten* days old and you alread want to form a "soc"
group?  I really think you ought to wait a *lot* longer than 10 days before
making this kind of decision.

Also, the name is bad.  We are going to create a whole new heirarchy, "soc.
adoption"?  Bad bad bad.  Couldn't this fit under something else?

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Furr)
Subject: Re: Usenet Documentation Revision Project : Update (Phase Zero completed)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 07:31:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.200624.5463@muddcs.claremont.edu> irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
>Here's an update on the Usenet Documentation Revision Project.
>
>Phase Zero (gather existing documentation) appears to be completed. I now
>have the following documents:
>
>  A Guide to Social Newsgroups and Mailing Lists
>  A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community
>  Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet
>  Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette
>  Hints on writing style for Usenet
>  How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
>  How to Get Information about Networks
>  How to become a USENET site
>  Introduction to news.announce
>  Introduction to the news.answers newsgroup
>  Rules for posting to Usenet
>  USENET Software: History and Sources
>  What is Usenet?
>
>The next step is to read and outline the existing documentation, which is my
>next task and which I'm calling Phase One. I'll post an update when I finish
>looking things over.
>
>The Interested People List presently includes:
>
>  Jim Huggins
>  Peter da Silva
>  Joshua Randall
>  Chip Salzenberg
>  Karleenus Schwartz
>  Gordon Van Huizen

Oh, shoot, throw me in.  I'd hate to miss out on something like this.


Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.design
From: magnus@ii.uib.no
Subject: RFD rec.games.netrpg
Followup-To: news.groups
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 02:16:28 GMT


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

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

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

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

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

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

-Magnus


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: franzoni@sixter.var.dec.com (Mauro Franzoni)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.home.automation
Reply-To: franzoni@sixter.var.dec.com (Mauro Franzoni)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:24:13 GMT

In article <BxnGHr.F9p@uunet.uu.net>, CNTS12@email.mot.com (Mike Stevens)
writes:
> I am inquiry regarding setting up a home automation user group.  I 
|> periodically see information in consumers.house; however, that group takes 
|> all issues as it relates to homes.
I'd be very interested in the subject ... hope to see that soon.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:34:26 GMT

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>>No, it isn't. But to justify ostracization from a vote because of that
>>frustration isn't exactly fair. 
>No one is being ostracized.  The worst you can assert is "uninformed",
>which is at least as much of an inditement (sp?) of them as it is of
>the supposed "elitists".

Uninformed => not allowed a vote => ostracized.

>>if you ask: "What standard does the first time user use to determine need?"
>>you can't possibly get anything remotely looking like those Guidelines. 
>A group called "...newusers"?  In most setups news.announce.newusers
>is one of the first ones to come up when you start the newsreader

Oh, yeah! That's that group where, if you are a new user, you announce 
yourself to the world. 

>>            History is what some people have thought to be significant.
>So is news.announce.newusers      :)

But that doesn't imply significance...just thought about it.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

A motto of the human race:
       Tell me what to do; but it must be what I want you to tell me.
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
From: chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran)
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:59:22 GMT

In article <1e9mj8INNm7f@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov17.024141.9196@cis.ohio-state.edu>, chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes:
>
>> But God has spoken to us through the Qur'an, and he has told us what
>> constitutes a Muslim.  Ahmadias have read the Qur'an, and believe they
>> are Muslims.  If you disagree with God, it is your problem, but don't
>> expect Ahmadia Muslims to agree with you that your interpretation of
>> the Qur'an is the only correct one. 
>
>Then please explain the contradictions I have pointed out.  I gather
>you are a knowledgeable authority on this issue?  So please be so kind
>as to explain the obvious contradictions.

I don't have to be a knowledgeable authority.  All it is necessary for me
to note is that there are millions of educated Ahamadias who have read
the Quran and call themselves Muslims, and another group declaring that
they are not is just the latter group's opinion, not God's.  


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Would you ALL like a demonstration? (was Re: Dave Hayes may be right)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:17:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.130350.12577@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
>
>>>Hmm... you seem to be making one of Dave's points for him: that 84,000
>>>random "news.groupies" can opt to vote on any aspect of the renaming,
>>>reorganization, or REMOVAL of a news group which they have never read or
>>>participated in.
>>
>>Why on earth should they do such a thing?
>
>Why on earth should anyone include a ":" in a newsgroup name? But
>it has happened. 

If it happened in the kind of volume with which you're suggesting that
news.groups readers arbitrarily vote on proposals like the
rec.music.synth rename, then you'd have a point.

There is one fool out there incompetent enough to do such a thing, and
there is one malicious enough to do it repeatedly.  That doesn't
indicate that there are thousands and thousands of them out there.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.usenet.culture
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Is news.groups cliquish? No way!
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:35:08 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
>But Gee Mr Chip! I can understand people when they do that.  Are you
>impying elitism again?

That's enough.  Ciao.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
From: dmp@cs.bham.ac.uk (Donald Peterson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Advertising of Courses
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:44:23 GMT
Organization: Cognitive Science, Birmingham, UK


We run a 1-year conversion programme in Computer Science here leading
to a Masters qualification, and I've been asked to look into
advertising it electronically. So I have to reach mainly people from
the UK and overseas whose training is not in computer science, but who
want to make a career change or expansion (or the teachers of such
people).

I would be interested in views on appropriate (and inappropriate)
newsgroups, email lists or other bulletin boards. 

Obviously, my aim would be to reach people who want information on
courses, not to send to inappropriate places.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Usenet Culture (Was: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:42:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.010525.713@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> Forgive me if am mistaken, but isn't part of the intent of the guidelines  
> to allow people other than admins to have a voice in the process?

The primary purpose of the guidelines is to reduce the noise level in
news.groups. The secondary purpose is to prevent ill-considered changes
to the Usenet name space. Extending any sort of franchise to third parties
comes a distant third, at best.
-- 
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?
From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: YABA
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:11:34 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


>>>And *again* I assert that it wasn't the fault of the unwillingly ignorant 
>>>that they didn't vote.
>>>
>>>dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)

 >>Dave, I often miss events or sales I'd be interested in, because I
 >>didn't bother reading the paper the day they were announced, or skipped
 >>over that section.  Would I be justified in complaining that I wasn't
 >>given fair notice, that I should get a second chance?
 >>
 >>nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)

>"What do you mean that the city is auctioning my property? I wasn't notified.
>WHAT? I don't get a chance to complain?"

yet another bad analogy, eh, dave?  in the situation you describe,
one person has legal ownership of the property in question, so a personal
notification is both reasonable and practical --- and, in fact, mandatory.
in group renaming, such notification is both impractical and impossible --- 
and, in fact, not really necessary.  by your argument, i could conclude
that whoever initiated the CFV is guilty for not calling everyone up
on the phone (can't trust e-mail, you know) and informing them of the
imminent destruction of the net.

you can "assert" all you want that those who did not vote are not "at fault",
but i really don't see anyone claiming that "it's their fault" (although
it's hard to tell; wading through this blizzard of articles is tedious
and i may have missed something along that line).  it's _unfortunate_
that they did not vote, but i'm not blaming them.

>No issue is so serious that it can't be funny.

hate crimes, homelessness, carjackings, political unrest, rain forest.
torture by government agencies.  at least i have a sense of perspective.

ok
dpm
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL ON NEWSGROUP RENAMING
Date: 16 Nov 1992 18:09:00 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Nov16.171947.20849@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> emcguire@intellection.com writes:
>emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>
>>Please reply by mail to the mailbox <ed@intellection.com>.
>
>>1.  Do you read rec.music.synth?
>>	(yes/no)
>
>>2.  On the issue of rec.music.synth renaming, do you
>>	(a) strongly favor rec.music.synth, please proceed with revote
>>	(b) strongly favor rec.music.makers.synth, please leave as is
>>	(c) strongly favor dropping the dispute, please leave me alone
>>	(d) not care as long as a synth group exists
>>-- 
>>Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780

>I hope Ed McGuire doesn't mind my repost here -- I've set the Reply-To:
>header to point to his mailbox.  With any luck that'll work.  (He only
>posted this pup to news.admin and the old/gone rec.music.synth.)

   Good thing this wasn't posted to news.groups... just *think* of
all the evil people who would respond!
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Followups-To: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<EMCGUIRE.92Nov12021751@fuller.intellection.com>
	<1992Nov16.210924.11673@bagend.uucp>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:24:25 GMT

Followups directed away from r.m.synth out of respect for reader
wishes.

I wrote:
   my reading of the guidelines supports Dave's position that a six
   month delay is not stipulated.

In article <1992Nov16.210924.11673@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes:

   This is a REVOTE, not a proposed new group.  It is a clear and
   deliberate challenge to and a violation of the guidelines.

That has no bearing on the question of whether he must wait six months
to take any action.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
From: zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan)
Subject: Islam/sects (wasRe:CFV:soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya)
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:19:06 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.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