HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:53:56 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1jg80oINNd1g@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>In <1993Jan18.114316.19501@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>>Wrong.  Splitting it into .reviews will *EXACERBATE* the problem of
>>too much traffic in .current.
>
>While at the same time causing it to cease being a problem at all for some
>subset of the readers (those who unsubscribe to .current) and making it much
>less of a problem for others (those who continue to skim .current but read
>the reviews).
>
>And it does not interfere with any of the proposals to carve up .current.
>
>>Secondly, the *point* of doing reviews
>>is to *discuss* Star Trek.  It makes no sense to me to make a critique
>>in front of a bunch of people if there are not to be any comments made
>>afterwards.
>
>There will be comments.  They'll simply be marked differently so that people
>who don't want to see them don't have to.  People who do, still can with no
>more effort than it takes now.
>
>It's not like the charter says, "Nobody can follow up to a .reviews article."
>It says, "Nobody can post a followup to .reviews."  Discussions are still
>possible, and, as far as I'm concerned, encouraged.

If you agree that reviews and comments are intimately linked, then
why have a special group for reviews to begin with?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: papresco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.os2.{announce,ver1x,beta}
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:12:31 GMT

>	This is a Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of three OS/2
>	newsgroups:
>	(1)  comp.os.os2.ver1x      (unmoderated)
>	(2)  comp.os.os2.beta       (unmoderated)
>	(3)  comp.os.os2.announce   (moderated)

How about comp.os.os2.hardware, where we could take these PAS, SCSI,
ATI, Trident, CD-ROM, Tape Backup conversations....
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:37:12 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1993Jan25.102323.25848@mr.med.ge.com>, hinz@bonfire (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com)) writes:
> 
> Great sentiments, but it seems that Richard is saying that if it isn't on
> monday nights & sponsored by a beer maker, it's not a sport.  After all, 
> how can you get 70,000 people together to watch it?
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> I say go for a newgroup.  I'd like to be able to read about it, without
> subscribing to a mailing list.
> 

Actually, you might ask me what I am saying if you don't understand it. The
point I was trying to make is as follows:

1) Many people believe that there are two many second level groups in the
rec hierarchy. 

2) When rec.fishing was proposed, this was one of the objections made, that
we didn't need another second level hierarchy. We went around and around to
determine what a 'good' second level name would be. Rec.sport was discussed
and the consensus was that the rec.sport was PRIMARILY for 'spectator' 
sports in that most of the discussion was about other people who participated
in the sport rather than active participients. Since most of the potential
readers of the group probably fished rather than watched someone else fish, 
several people wanted to differentiate it from the sports hierarchy.--> thus
rec.outdoors. 

3) For the same reason, I felt that the orienteering grouo probably fit better
in this group since most of the readers probably participated rather than
watched.

4) It is normally better to try to fit into an exsiting hierarchy if it makes
sense. This is for the benefit of sites which take a limited news feed. If
they are already taking exsiting groups in the hierarchy, many will pick
up news groups in that hierarchy without any intervention. If you create a
new second level group, these admins will have to add it to their sys files
and this may limit the new group's distribution.


-- 
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,alt.native
From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: soc.culture.native
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:13:34 GMT

In <1jkqa4INNqg8@rodan.UU.NET> Michael Wilson
	<idoy@crux2.cit.cornell.edu> writes:

>                      2nd REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION

> ...For the
> purposes of defining this newsgroup, "native" is roughly
> synonymous with "aboriginal" or "indigenous" -- all terms which
> underscore a population's original or first relationship to
> a particular region, regardless of its "race."

I still don't find this sentence to be clear.  I think the problem I have
with it is that it puts the emphasis on the people having first lived in
a given place rather than their having been the first people to live in
the place.  Perhaps the distinction is a subtle one, but I think it is
very important nonetheless.  I think the terms "native," "indigenous,"
and "aboriginal" do not so much designate that a given group of people
originally inhabited some certain place, but that they were the original
inhabitants of the place.  Does everyone see the difference?  Also, I
find the word "relationship" to be rather strange in this context.  I
think it may be said that a defining characteristic of being "indigenous"
is that the people have a sense of being related to the land they occupy,
but I don't get the feeling from this sentence that that's what is being
talked about here.

I've offered a couple of alternatives, one being:

      ...all terms that designate populations which were the original
      inhabitants of a particular region, have maintained a continuous
      habitation of that region, and whose culture and traditions are
      integrally linked with that place.

and the other being:

      ...all being terms which underscore a population's having been
      the first to inhabit a particular region.


In the first instance, I didn't intend that the word "region" be taken to
imply a small territory, but a piece of land as large as a continent, but
I'd be open to language which made that sense more clear.

Do others see what I'm driving at here?  Perhaps someone else has another
suggestion.

I have no problem with any of the following:

> This newsgroup
> is, therefore, intended to be inclusive, not exclusive, offering
> an important site for exchange among native peoples and between
> native and non-native peoples.  Besides providing a forum for
> the discussion of such issues as sovereignty, religion, education
> and philosophy, this newsgroup will also provide a means for
> posting news stories and bulletins which alert people to urgent
> situations which require urgent responses, such as human rights
> cases and imminent encroachment upon native populations.

except that I feel the second "urgent" should be changed to a word like
"immediate," to make it read "...urgent situations which require immediate
responses..."

> Thank you kindly,

Thank *you*, Mike, for all the effort you've put into this project!

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
From: tnsturm@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Torsten Sturm)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:32:29 GMT
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
NNTP-Posting-Host: faui00a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de

That would be great due to the concentration of
discussion to only one central forum.

In consequence, perhaps MS would speed up their 
development of Internet support.

Torsten
---
Torsten Sturm :	    Computer Science Department 
                    University of Erlangen-Nuremburg,  Germany

Internet :          tnsturm@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
		  ( tnsturm@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de )
                  ( tnsturm@immd8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de )
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:16:02 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1993Jan27.114602.19858@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

>Also, if confusion alone explains why .current is so big, the how
>do you account for the fact that the volume of traffic in .current
>has grown so much in the weeks since DS9 premiered?

The initial rush of DS9 traffic in .current is already starting to taper
off. DS9 has been on the air less than a month! It would be a very bad
idea to panic and start creating groups left and right just because of a
temporary surge in traffic.
The long term growth in .current's daily size began long before DS9 was on
the air.

>3) We also have to define what the size of an ideal newsgroup is.
>IMHO, if things like "rec.arts.breadmachines" warrants a separate
>newsgroup, then ds9 does.  It would clearly carry at least 50 posts
>a day, and probably a lot more.

That's interesting... lets see...

[exit]
/geoffb:nngrep -a breadmachine
/geoffb:
[resume]

Well, there is no rec.arts.breadmachine. Nor is there an RFD for such a
group. So your point is... pointless.

50 posts a day? Perhaps... Would you care to speculate on how many would
be crossposted to other rec.arts.startrek.* groups?

>>    The groups that we have now (with the probable addition of .reviews)
>>really is all that is needed for Star Trek.

>This is the fundamental contention that it seems supporters of .reviews
>can't shake, and it is what disturbs me. 

Oh bullshit. Perhaps one person thinks that but don't start generalizing
like that. I'm willing to support any proposed rec.arts.startrek.* group
that a) is in line with the intent of the rec.arts.startrek reorganization
and b) seems needed. No more, no less.

A split of .current or the addition of rec.arts.startrek.ds9 does not meet
those criteria in my book. The rec.arts.startrek.reviews proposal does.

Creating a DS9 group after 4 episodes and 1 month DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

Now I know common sense is irrelevant on the net but I like to use it once
and awhile.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

       "Economic deprivation makes freedom less relevant to a people."
				- Paul E. Tsongas
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: Chris O'Donovan <odonovan@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca>
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
X-Xxdate: Thu, 21 Jan 93 22:25:45 GMT
Organization: McMaster University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:24:40 GMT

In article <1jkr41INNr24@rodan.UU.NET> Chris Chung,
labccc@emory.edu writes:
>I'd like to propose a new newsgroup.  This newsgroup
would be
>called comp.sys.mac.powerbook.

I agree on creating the new group, but I think it should
be called comp.sys.mac.laptop
so as to include other portable machines.

Chris O'Donovan

odonovan@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:33:58 GMT

In article <1jqvs9INNj8d@werple.apana.org.au> bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.165456.24088@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>
>>While I have no problem with such a group, I do think that the name needs
>>a little better focus.  Discussions about miniatures rules will drift onto
>>the RPG cohorts (Warhammer & DND's battle rules, fr'instance), while the
>>'traditional' wargames will drift onto historical issues, and the discussions
>>of painting/making miniatures and/or terrain will drift their own way.
>>Perhaps this group can be proposed with an eye towards a hierarchy?  Or
>>maybe a slightly tighter focus?
>
>I thought about including this in a proposal, but I decided not to
>beacuse I think the hobby suffers from this sort of self imposed isolation
>and "elitism". I can't speak for the USA, but in Australia and England, the a
>verage age of traditional gamers (ancients, naps acw etc) has gone up a lot
>in the last 10 years. Wargaming will atrophy, shirvel up and die, if you
>will, if we view the "warhammer crowd" as threat instead of a challenge.

Oh, I wasn't calling the Warhammer crowd a threat - just that the discussion
topics they (and other FRP gamers) will want to talk about under r.g.m will
be quite different from what the historical wargamers will want to discuss,
and each side will view the other's topics as noise.  And those of us who
are interested in miniatures as an art form will find all those rules'
discussion to be undesirable....

I just think that it is too broad a scope for a good newsgroup - trying to
group together FRP tabletop games with historical games with miniatures
as hobby/art just seems too contrived.

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.board
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:56:14 GMT

In article <C19vp3.K3K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:
>In article <C198uG.y0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
>ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: 
>>
>>While the motives listed in the RFD about "why a miniatures group" are all
>>valid reasons for talking about minis on the net, I feel that rec.games.board
>>already fills the need. Most people on the net who are into miniatures already
>>read this group, and so would have instant access to anything posted there.
>
>Actually, this is the very reason I support this proposal:  I read
>rec.games.board to hear about board games that are NOT war games.  My
>kill file has a heyday killing all the keywords I can think of that
>indicate wargames.  In my opinion, the rec.games.board newsgroup is
>being overrun by one specific type of board game, and this indicates
>to me the need for a new group to house them.  However, since I'm not
>a wargamer myself, I can't comment on the name.

I support the idea of rec.games.miniatures as well. Combined with 
rec.games.frp.* and rec.games.board, Usenet divisions will reflect
the ones the hobby uses. Go to any convention, and you'll find three
areas (usually): boardgames, miniatures and roelplaying. 

I would not support a rec.games.war. That represents a distinction not
normally made by the hobby. You'll frequently find the same people
playing Civ or a rail game as play hardcore wargames. (I'm assuming
that's what Karleen looks for.) They even have some of the same
designers. 
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Misc.jobs.offered subject lines, was Re: Solution ...
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:44:46 GMT

In article <C1DMDG.I99@world.std.com>, 
  mgw@world.std.com (maryanne g wolf) writes:
 
> I'm proposing a subject-line format as a straw-man.
> I hope this'll inspire someone else to propose a better one,
> assuming we want to automate the moderation.
> Can anyone who knows enough about perl tell if my proposal
> would be easy to verify with a script?  
	[her samples:]
> SOFTWARE,HARDWARE ! System Admin ! XYZZY Inc. ! Northern California
> SOFTWARE ! GUI developer ! Fizbit Co. ! Concord Mass.
> SOFTWARE, ENTRY ! Assoc Windows Support ! Silly PC Software ! L.A., CA
> NON-COMPUTER ! Music Professor ! Oxford ! Oxford, England
> HARDWARE ! Graphic Display Designer ! Big Bits Inc. ! Montreal, Canada

The general format would be easily verifiable.  Of course, someone
could still submit a well-formed but nonsensical subject line such as

SOFTWARE ! Super opportunity ! Eat my shorts! Wherever

and it would be passed.

> We presumably still want job-title, company-name, and location.  

Company name is not as important as location.  I would favor switching
these so that if the subject line is truncated by a newsreader, the
location would still be in it.  

> We may or may not want ENTRY or other keywords.  What about having
> SOFTWARE and HARDWARE and NON-COMPUTER as additional keywords?

Good.  Also CONTRACT, RECRUITER, WRITER;  possibly SCIENCE, ACADEMIC,
other common-but-noncomputer areas?
 
> Would having a separator between the fields in the subject be good?
> The choice of separator should probably be at least partly visible
> (non-space), something other than ':' so as to distinguish it from
> "Subject:".  Are there any chars that might confuse email or
> news-posting software which we should not use as separators?
> We want something which is also easy to filter in kill-files.

Probably anything would be good.  I'd support using '/' over '!'
for readability.

[Note;  I'll be out of town Wednesday-Friday, so don't expect to
see replies from me then.]

-- 
/\    "I'm only a human girl person.  I ain't always perfect."--Rambling Rose
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
From: koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: startrek.reviews mailing list
Date: 21 Jan 1993 09:27:36 -0800
Organization: Hyperion, Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: spud.hyperion.com

In <1jjqqkINN4ci@umbc8.umbc.edu> ac999266@umbc.edu (ac999266) writes:
>wmorgan@stsci.edu (Windsor A. Morgan) writes:
>>koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>>> I can follow up to the review directly, and, if I have a threaded newsreader
>The proposed ras.reviews doesn't allow followups.

Sure it does.  It just points them to r.a.s.current or r.a.s.misc.  Posting
my followup to one of those groups is still a single keystroke (any newsreader
that honors the Followup-To: header line will handle the change of groups
automatically).  Posting a followup to a mail message is much more of a pain.

And there's nothing that says we can't have both the mailing list and .reviews.
It's even a good idea, so people who don't get news at all, or who don't get
any of the r.a.s. heirarchy, can see the reviews, while people who get news
can have all the convenience it offers.

-Steve
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:51:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.182646.1@cc.helsinki.fi> essandor@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>This is a group whose aims and objectives are appropriate for our world of
>today. A group which would cross all social, cultural economic and political
>boundaries, a group of concern. This group must be welcomed into being.



I might also add that it also crosses temporal boundaries.  My direct
patrilineal ancestor was a forced migrant from Ireland in the last century.


Exile, "rousting out the natives", "resettlement", "movement to reservations",
"ethnic cleansing" (a particularly nasty euphemism, that--who would be opposed
to any sort of "cleansing", after all?), etc.  All seem to have existed
throughout history.
From: genzuk@mizar.usc.edu (Michael Genzuk)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:40:08 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

I think both of you are on the right track.  I would be happy to support
a comp.sys.mac.notebook group.  The name is less important than the final 
product.  Geoff's point of "newbies" finding the group more readily with
the generic "notebook" name seems logical, but I must admit anyone who is
looking for information on a Mac notebook will probably be familiar with
their "Powerbook" synonym.  

Geoff, what is the next step of Internet protocol to get this thing 
happening?

Michael from USC
--
I have little patience with scientists who take a board of wood, look for 
its thinnest part, and drill a great number of holes where drilling is easy.
-Einstein


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated and proposed rec.arts.startrek split
Summary: I've fallen behind, and I can't keep up
Organization: Usenet Sports Programming Network
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:07:16 GMT

+-- psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S R Chisholm) writes:
| First of all, I'd like to apologize on behalf of all of us to Scott Forbes.

Your nomination for Attorney General is hereby withdrawn.


[many interestings things deleted]
 
| As for the the TNG/DS9 split?  I don't think discussions of Kir[a] are
| what's clogging up the current group.  There's just too much (volume
| and variety) in there.  I'm a moderately skilled rn user*, but I can't
| find the wheat in the chaff.  Split or don't, as you see fit; but I
| don't see any benefits.

The common consensus appears to be that a TNG/DS9 split creates more
problems than it solves, at least at this point.  If, six months from
today, we look at r.a.s.current and see a clear separation of traffic
and/or readers, we may want to re-examine this idea.

I think the article-by-article analysis posted here recently shows that
the volume of *on-topic* traffic in r.a.s.current is not The Problem.
The Problem is the amount of r.a.s.current traffic that should be in
r.a.s.misc, but isn't.

 
| One last comment:  Might the contents of ras.current be improved if we
| changed its name back to the original proposal of ras.spoilers?

Considering that "renaming" a group on USENET means rmgroup'ing the
old name and newgroup'ing the new name, I would say that trying to
rename r.a.s.current would only add to the confusion.  I still don't
really *like* the name "current", but I'd rather stick with it than
go through the ordeal of a newsgroup name change.

Maybe we should create a rec.arts.startrek.chaff or r.a.s.dull-topics
and direct certain threads there (split discussions, perhaps?).  ;-)


                                                           =====
"The only thing worse than incoming enemy fire           =---=====
is incoming friendly fire."                             =-----=====
                   -- Murphy's Laws of Combat #5        ==---======
--                                                       =========
Scott Forbes       forbes@ihlpf.att.com                    =====
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:58:03 GMT

In article <1jvvqbINNeqn@rodan.UU.NET> georged@sequent.com (George Dolbier) writes:

>comp.os.windows-nt is too long,

No, it's not.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /