HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.med
Subject: Re: Starting an alternative medicine newsgroup
Followup-To: news.groups,sci.med
Date: 8 Oct 1992 10:24:27 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Not much difference ...

-*----
In article <1992Oct6.154552.8946@netcom.com> kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
> Allow me to qualify my statement; what I really meant was "a separate
> newsgroup where health care consumers who are interested in alternative
> therapies can talk about those therapies without creating or receiving a
> lot of antagonism >about posting in an inappropriate newsgroup< such as
> sci.med."
>
> In an alternative health newsgroup, though, I'd welcome informed and
> intelligent on-topic criticism.

So informed comments such as "this gibberish displays no
substantive thought and totally ignores known biological and
medical facts such as ..." would be desired, as long as it isn't
followed by "... and so it has no place in a science newsgroup"??
Would omitting the second phrase make any substantive change?

The antagonism in sci.med felt by the proponents of alternative
therapies comes from the call for them to speak sense and to
argue from the facts.  The point of a second newsgroup is to
increase the distance between them and their critics. 

Russell
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:49:05 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Oct9.183657.200@indyvax.iupui.edu>, harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
> 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.
>> 
> 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

Unfortunately moving things like X to a .gui hierarchy is _also_ going
to cause problems for those new (and clueless) people looking for
information on X.

I don't think any amount of reorganization is going to remove the
problem of irrelevant cross-posting;  in fact it will make it even
more of a problem, as people start trying to include any group that
they think might be even marginally related to the subject, & the
newcomers and incidental users find things even more confusing because
things keep being changed on them.  In fact this is causing problems
even now with the old comp.windows.ms.* vs the new comp.os.ms-windows.*
hierarchies -- a lot of ms-windows users seem not to have got the word
that there's even _been_ a reorganization.

I'd say leave well enough alone, things are in enough of a state of
chaos as it is without enhancing it.  The problem could probably be
reduced by having more frequent postings about what the various
comp.os.ms-windows.* and comp.windows.* newsgroups _are_, in the
relevant groups (that is, news.answers is usually NOT a good place
because it's like computer documentation -- everyone knows that Real
Programmers/Engineers never read the documentation :-).  Put it in
the comp.windows.* groups themselves -- that's the only place that
the clueless are likely to find it.

Bruce C. Wright
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:17:15 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC


In article <BvpwHF.Gy0@uunet.uu.net> pauls@umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
% This RFD proposes a SINGLE UNMODERATED newsgroup, named
% comp.os.386bsd to service the entire 386bsd community.

In article <1992Oct7.041359.554@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu writes:
>I still vote for leaving it alone.  There are only about 3 people complaining
>about it, and any news group with only 3 people demanding everyone move to
>another group and leave them alone is doing pretty good.
>
>The distinction between "386BSD" and "BSD" is going to become fuzzier and
>fuzzier as CSRG (the originators of BSD) goes out of business in 1993, as
>is currently planned, according to postings in comp.unix.bsd and articles
>in the trade press.

Terry is absolutely correct.  Moreover, large chunks of the commercial
offerings (e.g. BSDI) and the other version (BSDJ) are absolutely
identical pieces of code and the two ports are functionally equivalent
in most all respects.  Now this is contrary to the Jolitz-religion,
but I describe things as they are not as some folks wish they were and
I have no axe to grind on this matter.

This proposal was made before and dropped as inappropriate and the requisite
6 months waiting period HAS NOT elapsed.

Wait 6 months and then reconsider whether it is really necessary...
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: use a KILLFILE
Date: 7 Oct 1992 22:35:05 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: nigel.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com) wrote:
: 
: Please learn to distinguish between "encouragement" and "coercion."
: Usenet has lots of the former and almost none of the latter.
: Newsgroup charters encourage correct article placement.  However,
: nothing coerces such placement.  Therefore, KILL files are a highly
: recommended tool of survival on Usenet.

Monthly postings are a form of "coercion".  Presenting an essay over and
over again without much more then tiny variations, berating and badgering
anyone who dares criticize it, and camping out in news.groups to harass
people who disagree with you is "coercion".

"Encouragement" would involve articles that are helpful, generous,
understanding, or generally useful.

KILL files are a weak tool for combatting coercion.  They can occasionally
hide you from some portion of a discussion in a group that has gone
astray.  Much more useful are "Auto-Select" features (as found in the
'tin', 'nn', 'GNUS', and perhaps some other newsreaders) that let you note
good authors and pick them out of the rest of the discussion.  When you
run into a group that's only worth reading a few times a week that has a
lot of traffic in it it's quite handy to wipe out 90% of it and just focus
on the few predictable posters.

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562


	
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fishing
From: rpark@stam.QE.Bell.CA (Richard Park)
Subject: Re: rec.fishing
Reply-To: rpark@stam.bell.ca
Organization: CER, Bell Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:51:43 GMT

In article <BvLGs0.4Cn@agora.rain.com>, robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
|> In article <BvI2nB.xu@animal.er.bell.ca> rpark@stam.bell.ca writes:
|> >In article <BvDwE6.AKK@agora.rain.com>, robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|>   What happened to rec.fishing?
|> >|> 
|> >It got RECked.
|> >-- 
|> >Richard Park	
|> 
|> 
|>   What does that mean?
|> 
I was jusk kidding!!!! I think you mean rec.outdoors.fishing. This newsgroup
has a good amount of postings and most of the people are posting over there.

-- 
Richard Park
From: dmp3592@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dean M. Phillips)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Summary: Lets fix install instead.
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:26:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <BvpwHF.Gy0@uunet.uu.net> pauls@umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
<PROPOSAL:
<
<Here's a proposal for an UNMODERATED group in comp.os.* dedicated
<to the 386bsd operating system developed by Bill and Lynne Jolitz.
<
<The current situation with 386bsd meshed into comp.unix.bsd is
<overloaded and confusing.  There is a great deal of traffic dedicated
<to 386bsd, mixed in with unrelated discussion of other BSD systems,

1) It is my observation, after chasing bugs in many source files that
386BSD is fundamentally a port of "the original BSD" to the i386/486
platform.  It is really BSD, and not a separate independent operating
system.

2) Most of the questions in comp.unix.bsd which are truly related to
386BSD are installation problems.

IMHO, it makes far more sence to expend effort in fixing the install
program, correcting the man pages so that they reflect the minor
differnces between VAX BSD and 386BSD, and writing a better tutorial on
how to set things up for the masses who are trying to install 386BSD on
their home systems, never having been a sysadmin before.

As the above projects are done, the volume of "newbie" questions should
diminish.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
Dean M. Phillips                                        (206) 393-9333
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group            dmp3592@galileo.boeing.com
From: nrp@csug3.cs.reading.ac.uk ("Mischievous bee will-o'-the-wisps" Neilski)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: QUESTION! Is there a group discussing terrorists ?
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:43:45 GMT
Reply-To: nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: University of Reading

woody@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Woodrow) writes:

>YES, just that.  Is there a newsgroup or list discussing terrorists and     
>terrorism ?  NO I'm not looking for hints and tips.   :-)

alt.flame?

-- neilski

-- 
nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk  \--------------------------------------------------
----------------------------\ "This is a Ming vase."  "Why is it called
Ming?"  The Bursar tapped the vase.  It went *ming*.   -- Moving Pictures
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: Gocek.Henr801C@Xerox.COM (Gary Gocek)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.marching: International stuff
Reply-To: Gocek.Henr801C@Xerox.COM
Organization: Xerox Corp., Rochester, NY
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:21:59 GMT


I don't see any reason why the misc group could not include English girls' kazoo
bands, etc.  If you have something to say about such things, everyone will be the
wiser.

Gary
Gocek.Henr801C@Xerox.COM


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: bbs-jwelch@jwt.UUCP (Johnathon Welch)
Subject: Re: Create a killfile? AAAAAAAARGH!
Reply-To: bbs-jwelch@jwt.UUCP
Organization: The Matrix
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:04:46 GMT

> Ohio State University mail-to-news gateways.  I cannot create a killfile any
> more than I can create a lavish .sig file that gets automatically posted.  I
> can't crosspost, for that matter.
> 
> So please, those of you who have a kneejerk reaction to an otherwise worthy
> newsgroup or alt. group to say "You slobs, USE A KILLFILE," try remembering
> that not everyone CAN.
> 

Thanks Joel, yes people, some of us CANT use a killfile..  Some of us 
DONT go to college and have access to a UNIX 
system!


_____________________________________________________________
| Johnathon Welch - Sanford, FL, USA  -  bbs-jwelch@jwt.uucp|
| LASER BBS - (407)647-0031, FL's Oldest running C= BBS!!   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: use a KILLFILE
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:53:32 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman):
>The status quo should always have precedence (perhaps even when it
>is the status quo that is technically in violation of the established
>charter, if no attempt has been made to enforce it).

Richard, get a clue about life: The only constant is change.

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.  (Then
you'd _really_ need a KILL file, wouldn't you?)

Just because a newsgroup has seemingly had a given nature for a time,
a change isn't necessarily bad.  And even if it is bad, what can you
do?  Usenet life goes on, with or without any individual.

Usenet is a force of nature.  Roll with it.
-- 
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: chris@state.COM.AU (Chris Keane)
Subject: Re: CFD for *.apathy newsgroups
Organization: Group Treasury, State Bank of NSW
Date:  2 Oct 92 03:58:46 GMT

malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:

>I think that these would more profitably be conducted as mailing
>lists; their administration would of necessity be trivial, requiring
>only a miniscule amount of time. After all, if someone goes to the
>trouble to send a message to the administrator of an apathy mailing
>list, they're showing _entirely_ too much interest to be _truly_
>apathetic about the subject of the list, and should immediately be
>_dropped_ from the mailing list.

Why would the administrator be bothered?


regards...                                                 
Chris Keane.                    State Bank NSW             ph. +61 2 259 4459
Unix Systems Administrator     (Group Treasury)      chris@rufus.state.COM.AU
Famous Gravitational Joke: It must have been density that brought us together
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.binaries.ms-windows moderated
Date: 11 Oct 92 11:46:41 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <70761@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gtd543a@prism.gatech.EDU (death) writes:
> I like the idea of a comp.binaries.ms-windows - as long as a good
> moderator is found.  If one such as the current c.b.i.p. is selected,
> then the newsgroup traffic will be so small that there will be no need
> to even create the newsgroup...

Is this because of the moderator, or because there are relatively few
submissions in the first place?  Or are there a lot of submissions
that have to be rejected for some reason (like failing to work
properly)?  If either of these is the case, I'm not sure that anyone
else you could get as moderator would be any better, modulo the
fact that different people would probably draw somewhat different
lines about when software was broken beyond useability.

There's also a question about whether the moderator should take a
proactive role or a reactive role -- in other words, should we
expect a binaries moderator to find many/most of the submissions
himself, on bbs's or elsewhere, or should the readership itself
be the primary source of submissions, with the moderator doing 
mostly the selection/packaging and maybe a bit of quality control?

I tend to agree that if there isn't going to be more traffic than
the Windows programs that now come through the comp.binaries.ibm.pc
group, that there isn't much point in a separate group.  There are
a number of possible reasons why the traffic through that group is
rather low;  I'm quite sure that the reason isn't that there aren't
enough apps:  there's a ton of Windows shareware and freeware out
there.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that the low volume is
the moderator's fault if the newsgroup policy/charter excludes most
of it (I don't know the full charter of that newsgroup offhand, but
one thing that could significantly reduce the number of available
submissions is if each submission had to be made by its original
author).

The first question is whether anyone knows why the Windows volume
on that group is so low;  once we know that then it makes sense to
talk about whether the problem can be fixed without a new group, or
if a new group is required, how its policy and/or moderator could be
selected to avoid the problem.

Bruce C. Wright
From: jfurr@vtssi.vt.EDU (Joel Furr)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: re: use a KILLFILE
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:04:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: vtserf.9210071805.AA22602
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science

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

>jfurr@vtssi.vt.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>
>> Killfiles are NOT mandatory for USENET participation...
>
>Nevertheless, I think it's a damn sight ruder to expect an entire
>newsgroup's worth of people to change their newsreading habits to suit one
>person's fancy than it is to expect that one person to find better
>newsreading software or a better site to read news on.

Sure, if that were the case, that WOULD be rude.  But the "USE A KILLFILE" cry
of the net.dictators usually arises in situations where a group of people are
trying to take over another newsgroup for their postings by flooding it with
off-topic postings.  Which is what this is all about, this time around.
From: quigley@boston.sinet.slb.com (Joe Quigley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.fencing
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:28:40 GMT
Reply-To: quigley@boston.sinet.slb.com (Joe Quigley)
Organization: Schlumberger Technologies CAD/CAM Division


Re: mailing list of fencers in the U.S. I would call the
U.S.F.A in Colorado at (719)578-4511.  Other sources would
include the mail order companies in the U.S., however, it
would be up to them to share their lists.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: sridhar@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Sridhar Venkataraman)
Subject: Re: CFV: rec.sport.fencing
Reply-To: sridhar@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Sridhar Venkataraman)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:42:25 GMT

mece25r@Rosie.UH.EDU
writes on news.announce.newgroups:

)The start of the vote date is OCTOBER 16th, 1992. The vote taking process
)will end NOVEMBER 16th, 1992. This is exactly the period of one month which
)is reccomended by USENET. Any votes received after the midnight of Nov 13th
)CDT, will be invalid.                                              ^^^^^^^^

Seems to be a typo.

)Suman Palit
)The Taker of Votes.

Sridhar.
--
Sridhar Venkataraman			sridhar@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
From: ccs@aber.ac.uk (Christopher "Jd" Samuel)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:40:15 GMT
Organization: University of Wales - Aberystwyth - Prifysgol Cymru

In article <BvpwHF.Gy0@uunet.uu.net>
   pauls@umich.edu (Paul Southworth) doodled:

> PROPOSAL:
> 
> Here's a proposal for an UNMODERATED group in comp.os.* dedicated
> to the 386bsd operating system developed by Bill and Lynne Jolitz.
> 
> The current situation with 386bsd meshed into comp.unix.bsd is
> overloaded and confusing.  There is a great deal of traffic dedicated
> to 386bsd, mixed in with unrelated discussion of other BSD systems,
> including other commercial BSD systems aimed at the i386 platform, which
> is especially confusing to new users who are unable to distinguish
> easily between BSD/386 and 386bsd.  This needs to end.
[stuff deleted]

Why not place it under comp.unix.bsd, or just under comp.unix ?
ie
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd
comp.unix.bsd

The first one follows the general convention that as it is a bsd-related
topic, it should go under it in the hierarchy, the second one is if you
can't face being put under bsd, in case it gets seen as a subset of BSD
(in the sense of less features).

Comments anyone ?

Chris
-- 
 Christopher Samuel, c/o Computer Unit, UCW Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, WALES
  RFC: ccs@aber.ac.uk   UUCP: *!mcsun!uknet!aber!ccs   JNT: ccs@uk.ac.aber
          Deddf Iaith Newydd i Gymru | New Language Act for Wales
Newsgroups: news.groups,chile.grupos
From: sergio@Ingres.COM (Sergio L Aponte)
Subject: Re: Cual es la razon?
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:19:31 GMT

	1) As long as the newsgroups remain in chile, chile.news*
	would be the right place, but as they get carried out into the
	USENET, news.groups seems to be the proper place...

	2) It appears Chile has had a great success with their newsgroups,
	as Germany and Sweeden. Now as they go out into the USENET at large,
	I question if there is a need for a "country".* group for each
	country vs a "language".group, which would probably be a much smaller
	set...

	Using the prev analogy, I would rather see a esp.futbol and an
	eng.futbol than separate groups for every country to talk about futbol.
	Specialy since we don't all agree what futbol is...

	Now

	a) I apologize for any netiquette bylaws I might have broken.

	b) I think I represent "Joe User". I find everyday a list of
	"alt.more.junk suscribe(y/n)?"
	for every thing that comes up in the world...

	c) When chile.groups came up recently, and the discussion veered
	toward chile.alt.* and chile.* etc, I got worried that another
	set of newsgroups were on their way, and, that after this, many
	countries would follow suit.

	d) It seemed to me news.groups was the right place to exchange ideas
	about what is wanted/needed.

	I am glad to see Latin-America come alive in the USENET...
--
===============================================================   _|||_
Sergio L. Aponte, SMTS @ Ingres, an ASK Company                   <*,*>
Internet : sergio@coqui.ingres.com                                [`-']  Keko
UUCP     : {sun,mtxinu,pyramid,pacbell}!ingres!coqui!sergio       _"_"_  Jones
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: not everybody uses UNIX to read news
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:49:13 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <p!gp-v_@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
writes:

>jfurr@vtssi.vt.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>
>> Killfiles are NOT mandatory for USENET participation...
>
>Nevertheless, I think it's a damn sight ruder to expect an entire
>newsgroup's worth of people to change their newsreading habits to suit one
>person's fancy than it is to expect that one person to find better
>newsreading software or a better site to read news on.

However, it's not just to "suit one person's fancy". There are many people
who don't have killfiles. I don't have any idea what proportion of the
newsreading population they are, and it may well be that they are a
sufficiently small minority that we can't expect people to take them into
account. It may also be that they're not. In any case, if we're talking
about courtesy, it's polite to take minorities into account...

For the record, I don't have killfiles, but have sufficiently fast other
means of weeding out articles I don't want not to really miss them: I can
certainly take advantage e.g. of subject fields designed for killfiles. So I
may be a bit biased on this subject, but IMHO not in a significant way.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...