HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:21:07 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair) writes:

>hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
> >    Purview? All I was talking about in that paragraph was the
> >appropriate place for the group. And what does the format of the comic
> >have to do with anything? The simple fact remains that the majority of
> >the net thinks that a comic book is a comic book, and while we may know
> >different, we are not the only people to consider in this mattter.

>Actually, we are.  Why should we consider the opinions of the uninformed?
>Why should people who don't know anything about manga tell us what it
>is and isn't, and where it should fit in the (already totally illogical)
>namespace?

    Personally I'm with you in that they shouldn't be able to tell us
what and where to put the group especially if they don't even know what
manga is. But the fact remains that they all get to vote in the CFV.

--
-Hades  (Brian V. Hughes)   | Common Taxpayer Q&A: Q. If I use the 1040 how
 hades@Coos.Dartmouth.Edu   | do I indicate my preference for the Elvis stamp?
 Mac Database Developer     | A. You write THIN ELVIS or FAT ELVIS in the box
 Dartmouth Medical School   | "Spouse's Social Security #." -Dave Barry
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.amiga.audio,comp.sys.amiga.graphics
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: call for a few new (amiga) newsgroups
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:17:55 GMT

First I have a technical question: what's with all these new non-IFF
music formats? I could understand using MFF instead of IFF, but I can't
see why people have created this new "module" format that has no relation
to any standards.

Second, I'd like to suggest "comp.sys.amiga.toaster" instead of the full
".video-toaster". It's still unambiguous, and shorter names have a number
of advantages: in particular it wouldn't exceed the 8+3 filename limit
of certain operating systems.

Finally, I'd like to see a "serious" speculation group... one that isn't a
flame magnet... and a split between applications and systems programming.

	comp.sys.amiga.{futures,rumors,...}
	comp.sys.amiga.programmer.system
	comp.sys.amiga.programmer.apps
-- 
/F{findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /S{moveto show}def /T{/Times-Roman F}def
6 T (Have you hugged your wolf today?)468 20 S 9 T (Taronga Park BBS)24 35 S 10
/Courier F(`-_-')488 40 S ( 'U` )488 30 S 6 T (+1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1)24 27
S (+1 713 568 1032 Trailblazer)24 20 S 12 T (Peter da Silva)24 45 S showpage
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.games.mud.announce moderation (was: Re: rec.games.mud.social)
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:00:58 GMT
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (karleen sue davis) writes:

>By the way, I agree that rec.games.mud.announce should be moderated,
>because we've already got someone competent and willing to moderate
>it.  And as others have already pointed out, he'll be able keep the
>postings genuine (i.e., from gods/admin, not players).

Actually, I would allow postings from players, with certain
conditions:

1) the submission is the first on the topic
2) there is some degree of evidence to support the claim
   (i.e. a post that mud XXX is down would be verified against my
    database to see if it really *is* down).

Such "non-authoritative" posts would be marked as thus (we're all
familiar with moderator's comments).

Additional submissions on the same topic would be rejected and
returned, unless from somebody known to be responsible for the mud.

Non-authoritative submissions might be forwarded to the admin in
question for comments; I haven't decided whether this is a good idea
yet.

Comments welcome.
--
As to Jesus of Nazareth.... I think the system of Morals and his religion, as
he left them to us, the best the world has saw or is likely to see; but I
apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of
the dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity.  -- Ben Franklin
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:03:52 GMT
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Reply-To: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
 >Incidentally manga isn't a type of
 >animation, in fact anime is really just animated manga. But the manga in
 >its original form is still a type of graphical novel, the hierarchy for
 >which is rec.arts.comics.

Isn't Star Trek and Dr. Who in its original form "still a type of TV
show"?  Why aren't they under rec.arts.tv.?   (Yes, I know, and it
applies here too.) That's another precedent we'd have to break.

"And that's a whole other flamewar."


--
Iain Sinclair   axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au                             ne cede.
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The rec.arts.{comics.}manga wars continue
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:36:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Apr13.223647.16643
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair) writes:

>smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
> >rec.arts.comics.x-men
> >rec.arts.comics.archie
> >rec.arts.comics.b&w
> >rec.arts.comics.adult
> >
> >and so on.  That's WHY we have the hierachy, and the obvious next step for
> >fans of manga is to create rec.arts.comics.manga.

>These examples demonstrate why rec.arts.comics.manga is utterly
>unsuitable.  For a start, it establishes level equivalences of manga with
>X-MEN and Archie, which is not at all sensible.

    What?! Are you saying that r.a.c.strips and r.a.c.marketplace are
equivalent? If not then you need to re-think the logic of your previous
statement.

>And then there's rec.arts.comics.b&w, which theoretically would
>receive 99% crossposting from rec.arts.comics.manga,  and
>rec.arts.comics.adult, which would also overflow with manga traffic.

    You are making assumptions that the groups that Larry mentioned
actually have a chance of being created. Actually I don't think that any
of the groups that Larry mentions above have any chance at all of
justifying their own group. But manga does deserve its own group, the
justification is the sustained traffic level in alt.manga.

>Not to mention that manga aren't comics.   (Seeing it's been mentioned
>about twenty times already.  Ah, I knew the RFD shoulda been clearer.)

    Ok, fine. I have really had about enough of these assertions that
manga are not comic books. What I want to see from people is their
definition of manga and their definition of comic books. Then we can
really decide if they are different. And remember, no using one to
define the other.

--
-Hades  (Brian V. Hughes)   | Common Taxpayer Q&A: Q. If I use the 1040 how
 hades@Coos.Dartmouth.Edu   | do I indicate my preference for the Elvis stamp?
 Mac Database Developer     | A. You write THIN ELVIS or FAT ELVIS in the box
 Dartmouth Medical School   | "Spouse's Social Security #." -Dave Barry
From: jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:36:25 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: jingoro

In article <1992Apr9.170419.23322@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <ku6bbjINN5vp@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim) writes:
>
>>I still don't believe one is a subset of another, why should I support you?
>
>'scuse me? You are the one advocating a group. Hades doesn't need your
>support, you need his. 

If I remember this correctly, I was responding to Lazlo.  Secondly, Lazlo
was (I believe) indicating why we couldn't support his point of view.
I thought I was addressing that aspect.  I apologize if I mislead people
into thinking otherwise.

>If rec.arts.manga goes out on a CFV and there are
>still enough people who are convinced that rec.arts.comics.manga is better
>the vote will fail.
>What you believe is not the point, what you make others believe is. You
>get ONE vote, they get ONE vote. If they vote no you have a problem.

So, if we look at the people who are not really convinced either way, we
need to reason with them, one way or the other.  They might possibly
swing things one way or the other, so the people who want "no" will
have to convince them to vote that way while the "yes" people will try to
have them vote "yes".  Sounds simple enough, but it requires both sides
to do some convincing (in my opinion).  Given that situation, and given
that I probably was looking at the issue from that point of view when I
wrote the statement, is it that such an inane a comment?

I don't really feel that I had (or even have) that much of a preference
either way in terms of names, but if people are basing their judgements
on facts which I feel may be viewed differently, I think I have a
reason to show that differing view.  What people do with that is up to
them, but I feel that they will make a more intelligent choice if they
have all the facts.  That's just the way I feel.


--
Jun Kim                                         jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.Com
Sun Microsystems
Mountain View, CA                               "Oboete imasu ka..."
From: wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald)
Subject: Re: r.a.manga vs r.a.c.manga - A Plea for Sanity
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:41:45 GMT

In article <92106.024022MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark Sachs
<MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Well, this debate has gotten HIGHLY acrimonious. I'd just like to ask
>all the participants one thing:
>
>If your side loses, and the CFV goes ahead with the other name -- PLEASE,
>PLEASE don't vote against it just because of the name.

I understand your desire for a manga group, but, as I said before, I
will vote against a group if it is proposed with an inappropriate
name.  A "no" vote is one of the two tools we have to prevent an
inappropriately named group from begin created; when discussion after
an RFD doesn't sway the CFV creators, it is the *only* tool.

I encourage people to vote for "rec.arts.comics.manga" if it is
proposed.  I certainly intend to.

However, I also encourage people to vote against any of

  "rec.arts.manga"
  "sci.aquaria.manga"
  "misc.activism.general.manga"
  "comp.manga.bash.bash.bash"
  "rec.food.manga"

all of which are inappropriate names for the proposed group.  Which of
these names is most or least inappropriate is irrelevant when an
appropriate name exists.

-David
--
============================================================================
David Wald                                           wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu
   "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God"
             -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0
============================================================================
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: r.a.manga vs r.a.c.manga - A Plea for Sanity
Date: 15 Apr 1992 14:06:34 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <92106.024022MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>It is about as proven as these things can be that rec.arts.{comics.}manga
>will get plenty of traffic -- alt.manga is humming along fine even with
>its limited distribution. This CFV will get a much-requested newsgroup out
>to many more people who might want to read it. That's what netnews is
>for, after all. The specific name is ultimately immaterial.

This is exactly what the news.groups regulars have been trying to tell the
manga fans: the name is NOT immaterial. If it were, I wouldn't be trying to
convince folks that the name should be different from what was proposed.

I really believe that a manga group is needed. I also believe that having a
logical namespace is important, for that's what will allow folks to find
groups in the ever-increasing namespace of the net. I feel strongly enough
about that to feel a NO vote is warranted even for groups that otherwise are a
Good Thing. I'm not alone.

If the name is immaterial, then why are the manga fans trying to push their
pet name through even in the face of opposition from those who understand how
the net works? Why not propose the group as rec.arts.comics.manga and be done
with it? Your chances of getting your group are much higher that way.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
   "While we liked developing Windows applications, we never inhaled." --
              Philippe Kahn, in Infoworld, 13 Apr 1992
Xref: sparky news.groups:9808 alt.manga:1234
From: thwang@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Tommy Hwang)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.manga
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:42:52 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr8.172632.2715@tc.fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (The Napoleon of Crime) writes:

>Suggestion: try posting in rec.arts.comics with the keyword "MANGA: " at the

     However late, okay, but I will cross post AS IS.  No "MANGA" warning
in headers.

     To alt.manga readers, I would recommend the same, I am just 
curious on what would happen.  Just cross post to both groups/or three
groups (r.a.anime, r.a.c, alt.manga), if you prefer, and see.  
Come-on, it is only temporary and it would be fun.

                                                        -TKH '92
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Date: 11 Apr 1992 19:31:30 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Apr11.185031.13856@athena.mit.edu> pckyip@athena.mit.edu (Patrick C Yip) writes:
>In article <6352@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>I suspect that you'll get a lot of NO votes if you stick with rec.arts.manga
>>as the name. Is it that important to you to salve your (mistaken) feeelings
>I hope that won't be somebody creating multiple accounts and post 100 votes
>from them. Tell me how to check such situation. And I esepecially want to
>know how hard it is to detect such situation if he/she is a sysadmin, which
>means he/she subjects to no scrutinization by any other.

Oh, good grief.
I neither said nor implied anything of the sort would happen.

I suspect that 100 votes from a site - surrepititiously or otherwise - would
come under very close scrutiny. It's happened before.

Now, wanna put your paranoia back in its box and join in the reasoned
discussion going on?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
         "Grow up children. Purchase lives." -- Geoff Collyer
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rlb@access.digex.com (Richard L. Butler)
Subject: Re: I thought "manga" was a tropical fruit
Organization: The Fourth Drawer on the Left, Second Column
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:59:13 GMT

axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
>forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (scott.forbes) writes:
> >I don't know what a "manga" is.
>
>What's a "gaffa".

Something to do with music, if you're referring to rec.music.gaffa.  At least
they didn't ask to call it rec.gaffa.

-- 
 Richard L. Butler             rlb@access.digex.com             301-220-2020
 Digital Express Group, 6006 Greenbelt Road #228, Greenbelt, Maryland  20770
   **** Express Access: Online Communications in Washington/Baltimore ****
   * login as "new" for info, 301-220-0462 (Wash) or 410-766-1855 (Balt) *
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: albertw@netcom.com (Albert Wong)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 19:59:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr8.172632.2715@tc.fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (The Napoleon of Crime) writes:
>I would recommend against it at this time; I have seen almost no spill-over
>of manga discussions into rec.arts.comics, which is where this would be
>discussed in the usual Usenet heirarchy -- and this makes me suspicious of

The manga discussions are doing quite nicely in alt.manga.  But a lot
of sites don't get the alt groups, so we're trying for someplace in
the rec.arts hierarchy.

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------+
| Albert Wong                                     |
| albertw@netcom.com                              |
+-------------------------------------------------+
| "Welcome to the Jusenkyo Spa and Resort Hotel!" |
+-------------------------------------------------+
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.manga...etc.....
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:15:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.basjlj+
Organization: Living in a satellite fantasy, waiting for the night to end.

pearl@romulus.rutgers.edu (Starbuck) writes:

>> Anime is a type of animation, so it belongs under rec.arts.animation. 
>> Manga are a type of comics, so they belong under rec.arts.comics. 
>
> Anime is the Japanese word for Animation, not a "type" of animation. 

That's all well and good, but the language of the mainline Usenet is, for
the most part, English.  In current popular English usage, "anime" means
Japanese animation, not animation in general.  Rec.arts.anime has always
been specifically for the discussion of Japanese animation, even before
rec.arts.animation was created -- if you really believe that the readers
of r.a.anime think that "anime" refers to all animation, try starting
discussions of THE SIMPSONS and ROCK-A-DOODLE there.  I suspect they would
be a lot more poorly recieved than a discussion of AKIRA on
rec.arts.animation.  

> rec.arts.animation was created for the readers who wished to read about
> non-japanese animation without slogging through rec.arts.anime.
> Shouldn't Manga readers get the same courtesy?   

Nobody's asking manga readers to "slog through" rec.arts.comics.  Rec.arts.
comics.manga would be a completely separate newgroup from rec.arts.comics,
no slogging required.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

"maybe I didn't love you"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: why do we have no votes?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 15 Apr 1992 09:31 EST  

In article <1992Apr13.221344.707@sci34hub.sci.com>, gary@sci34hub.sci.com 
     (Gary Heston) writes...

>In article <Apr.13.02.34.18.1992.23615@dumas.rutgers.edu> 
>     hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

>>I notice that soc.religion.mormon has failed.  I'm worried that this
>>failure is an abuse of the voting process.  

>A vote was held; in accordance with the guidelines, it failed; that's it.
>Wait a few months, write a better charter, drum up more support, and try
>again. You obviously didn't have enough support this time.
        ^^^
Ahem.  Mr. Hedrick didn't have *any* support.  It wasn't his vote.

>If you're too impatient, form alt.religion.mormon (and don't cry about
>the propagation--part of the reason the seven major hierarchies get good
>distribution is that they operate under the guidelines).

Why assume he doesn't know all this?  And why assume he's impatient?

RG
From: jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.manga...etc.....
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:46:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: jingoro

In article <basjlj+@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>pearl@romulus.rutgers.edu (Starbuck) writes:
>
>> Anime is the Japanese word for Animation, not a "type" of animation. 
>
[stuff deleted]
>if you really believe that the readers
>of r.a.anime think that "anime" refers to all animation, try starting
>discussions of THE SIMPSONS and ROCK-A-DOODLE there.  I suspect they would
>be a lot more poorly recieved than a discussion of AKIRA on
>rec.arts.animation.  
>

But either group will probably refer you to the other. This probably means
that both groups don't feel they overlap enough.  Therefore the
working definition of animation tends not to include anime, therefore
making it more of a western animation forum.  I think a similar
situation exists with manga vs comics.

You see, now we are starting to see that the language of Internet is not
necessarily the standard Oxford version, per se, but rather what works 
within our little computerized realm down here.  And here, I think the 
effective use of comics corners itself on mostly western material.
Hence the discussion.
  

--
Jun Kim                                         jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.Com
Sun Microsystems
Mountain View, CA                               "Oboete imasu ka..."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dcb@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (David C Blume)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:45:37 GMT

limkiong@vms2.iscs.nus.sg (Twas brillig, and the slithy toves...) writes:
>lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes...
>
>>I have yet to hear one convincing argument why manga
>>should get their own subhierarchy rise above the resounding chorus of
>>"Becaaaauuuuuuse!" that continues to come from the manga fans.   
>
>Perhaps it is because u don't listen? 

Lazlo, you're sounding frustrated.  No manga fan is offering "Becaause!"
as their argument.  Limkiong restates the argument:

>                                                ... However, I believe
>that the majority of manga fans (and thus subscribers of the newsgroup)
>would prefer the rec.arts.manga newsgroup, because of the existing
>hierarchy of the newsgroup. I do not deny that there is an ego element
>behind the move, but nothing says that the two are mutually exclusive.

I agree whole-heartedly here.  It is far easier to follow the trend of the
currently existing hierarchy:

rec.arts.animation
rec.arts.anime
rec.arts.comics
rec.arts.manga

And there is an ego element involved.  Wouldn't comics subscribers oppose
rec.arts.manga.comics?  I think they would, and I would *agree* with them.
There *is* an implication when making a subgroup as opposed to a neighbor
group.  Comics and manga are two variations of a similar medium.  Neither
belongs under the other.

--David [sorry for restating an argument.  Lazlo didn't read it the 1st time]
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Blume            | When you're holding a hammer, everything |
| dcb@wdl1.wdl.loral.com | looks like a nail. --Anonymous.          |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (D J Nettleton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD for new IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:31:43 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

In article <1992Apr9.222405.5277@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> newberry@astro.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry) writes:
>
>                         REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>
>		       on creating a newsgroup for
>
>                            IMAGE PROCESSING
>			    
>

   Yep I would be very interested in such a newsgroup.  At the
moment I have had to subscribe to many newsgroups since the area
of image processing is not covered in any particular group.  I
hope that there will be sufficient interest to rectify this..

   Dave Nettleton,


   D.J.Nettleton@uk.ac.durhm