HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Talking to vote-takers during the vote
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:09:04 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

Let's say I have a question I'd like to ask the guy who proposed a new
group and he's now taking votes on it.  The guidelines say he can't
campaign for his group during the voting period, but can he respond to
me if I start a discussion about it with him via email?  I don't want
to put him in any jeopardy of invalidating the vote by tempting him to
speak to me about it during the voting period if that's not allowed.

-sz
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:12:57 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <sandrock.720764575@aries> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:
>sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>
>>In article <505@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>
>>   It seems to me that the sheer volume of messages discussing the different
>>   treatments instead of whether or not the group deserves to exist prove
>>   the need for the group.
>
>>The messages are discussing the pros and cons of the different
>>treatments from the scientific viewpoint and would fit very nicely in
>>sci.med. The sheer volume of scientific discussion of alternative
>>treatments prove that there is no need for a new group.
>
>Au contraire! The number of people who wish to discuss alternative health
>methods in a NON-SCIENTIFIC fashion would clearly seem to dictate the need
>for an ALTERNATIVE group. I think that this discussion only serves to make
>the need the more apparent, the longer it persists!

Neither I, nor Peter (who seem to have been the two strongest proponents
for this group) have advocated non-scientific discussion.  We have both
stated in fact that the BEST THING we could do to provide people information
about alternative health practices IS to provide scientific discussion
about them and indicate which have been absolutely discredited, which
have conflicting studies that show variously positive and negative
results (and are therefore undecided), which have not been studied due
to predjudice or political reasons, and which ones might actually have
some sort of backing despite the general attitude of the scientific
community.

We are all for scientific discussion of these subjects.
We are against ignoring them or sweeping them under the rug.
We are ALSO against "snake-oil salesmen" with no backing for their claims.

(btw: testimonials are NOT proof.  they ARE an information source, but
nothing more.  I would be the first one to argue with anyone (and have 
with peter on the subject of homeopathy) who attepts to use anecdotal
evidence as the sole backing for a claim of effectiveness.)








		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Extensive studies have shown that 93% of all statistics are meaningless.
From: kkc@ece.arizona.edu (Kee Koon Chua)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.singaporean
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:44:49 GMT
Reply-To: kkc@ece.arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona


In article by <C96@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, Alexander EICHENER writes:

>If you just want a group for yourself and your fellows, create a local one
>(shouldn't be too difficult in a country of your size). If there are
>reasons beyond simple nationalism, you would better explain them.
>   I don't see the need for a separate net-clogger. Hongkong, Singapore
>and Macau might well be kept in one group.

Mr Eichener,
  Can you also explain why Hongkong, Singapore and Macau should be kept
in one group? What do they have in common?
From: huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:39:52 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

One clarification:

In article <BxIsJr.6Iv.2@cs.cmu.edu> jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
|adc@tardis.cl.msu.edu (Alan D. Cabrera) writes
|  [ proposal to split rec.games.netrek deleted]
|
|Ok, here's a start at the discussion:
|
| * Alan's article was posted on November 10th, 1992, 3 days after the
|   beginning of his proposed discussion period.  Hardly a good start.

Probably not Alan's fault.  Postings to news.announce.newgroups don't
always go out instantaniously.  After all, that group is moderated,
and David Lawrence doesn't always have the time to grant instant
turn-around of submissions.

Disclaimer: I've never even *played* netrek, much less read rec.games.netrek,
so I don't care about the specific proposal.  Just trying to keep 
the facts straight.

-- 
Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan                          huggins@eecs.umich.edu
"You cannot pray to a personal computer no matter how user-friendly it is."
                                                          -- W. Bingham Hunter
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:57:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.103122.12058@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>To a newbie, CFV can mean "Creamed French Vittles".  Or, "Criminal Forgery
>Violators". 

Poor newbies.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: A question, a comment
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 00:33:40 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Nov10.185944.28723@muddcs.claremont.edu>, irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
|> Question: Who, specifically, does the renaming of rec.music.synth harm, and
|> how? I'm looking for specifics about this particular renaming, not general
|> comments about "disempowerment". Will sites drop the group because of the
|> name change? Will users be confused by the name change and drop the group?
|> Various people have suggested various dire outcomes, and been refuted in
|> various ways; I'd like to see someone (Dave Hayes?) post a reasonably
|> concise summary of WHY this renaming was a bad thing.
|> 
Right now rec.music.makers.synth is not available at
the site from which I post.  So some articles
are in the old group rec.music.synth, and some
are in the new one, which I can only read by
logging on to another site where I happen to
have an account and reading but not posting privileges.
It's not devastating, but it's an inconvenience.
I assume the inconvenience is temporary.  Presumably
when the sysadmins or whoever maintain the network
get around to it, they will define rec.music.makers.synth
at my site, merge the articles from the old
group into the new group, and then everything will
be fine again.

Of course wading through dozens of not always
polite postings discussing the aftermath of
the renaming is also a problem.  

My personal feeling is that
(a) the old name wasn't bad enough to motivate a change
(b) but now that a valid vote decided to change it anyway,
    it's certainly neither fair nor practical to annul
    the vote
(c) I'd like to see the guidelines changed for *future* votes.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM.AHMADIYYA-MODERATED.
Summary: Is it voting time yet? PUHLEEEZE?
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:50:37 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Nov8.163102.5041@bernina.ethz.ch>, nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik) writes:
> 
> 	MAINSTREAM MUSLIMS DESCERATE AHMADI MUSLIM MISSION HOUSE
> 		AND BURN MANY QURANS IN BANGLADESH
> 
> 
> I am posting this article becausing I believe that it has a bearing 
> on the need to have our own newsgroup named soc.religion.ahmadiyya. It 
> seems to me that many people are still not convinced that there is actually
> a need to set up a new group under this name, maderated by Ahmadi Muslims.
> I hop that the following piece will convince everyone that there is 
> definately a need.

[ The rest of a totally unrelated letter excised ]

Read my lips....  This, along with the majority of the recent discussion
has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.  The proposal is to create a
newsgroup.  The name of the newsgroup is in dispute.  The necessity of
the newsgroup is in dispute.  Dragging religious and philosophocal
arguments into this merely muddies the waters and as has been shown in
recent messages leads into an unending pattern of looooong posts
debating the religious differences with no resolution.  Neither side is
willing to give an inch, everyone want it THEIR way, and so it goes. 

We have seen 100+ line messages quoted just so a "Well said Mr.  (insert
name here)" can be added to the end.  We have seen enough CAPITAL
LETTERS TO LAST A LIFETIME.  We have seen accusations of censorship
through improper moderation.  We have heard the same things said over
and over and over again ad infinitum (or nausium if you prefer). 
Nothing further is being accomplished save the continued noise level we
have been subjected to.  Further discussion is, in my admittedly humble
position, useless and will simple be a rehash of previously stated (and
re-stated, and re-re-stated) positions. It's time to call for the vote
people, and let the net make the decision neither of the parties
involved wants made in the others favor. 

If it ISN'T time to call for the vote yet it oughtta be.  This is the
LONGEST discussion period I've seen since the SCIA vote. Or, at least it
seems that way. 

Now I'm sure someone from one side or the other will get all indignant
and tell me I have no right to try and tell people what to do. My
mailbox awaits your diatribes and I have a deep and very empty bit
bucket. 


    Dave


-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.dent
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:40:10 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Nov10.210550.6543@netcom.com> kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
>In <BxIHpr.H4@uunet.uu.net> ellswort@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Alec Ellsworth)
>writes:
>
>>	I propose that we begin discussion about a new
>>mainstream newsgroup named sci.dent.
>
>Great idea, but I like ".dentistry" or ".dental" much better than ".dent".
>And is there a reason it's not in the sci.med.* hierarchy?

Personally, I think the new group should be called either sci.med.teeth
or sci.med.dental.  Putting it in a hierarchy with sci.med is a good
thing, IMHO.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:01:18 GMT
Organization: Xanth Watch

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Sure. Any way we can accomplish what the expressed wishes of the net are - in
>>this case, renaming the group - is OK with me.

>The expressed wishes of the net is not to rename the group.

Have you asked it? [the net, that is]
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: grether@cvt8.verfahrenstechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Bernd Grether (sorescu))
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: grether@cvt8.verfahrenstechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Bernd Grether (sorescu))
Organization: Dep.Chem.Eng.(ICVT), Uni Stuttgart, FRG
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:44:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.002058.25457@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
|> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> >This would be the first time that agonized screaming would have
|> >reversed a vote that had NO procedural irregularities.
|> 
|> There *was indeed* a procedural irregularity. THERE WAS NO CLEAR SUBJECT
|> LINE. It was entirely unfair to hide a renaming inside of an unrelated
|> reorg. You even agreed that it was, a few postings back, didn't you? 

A few postings back you were claiming that the RFD/CFV's weren't posted
to r.m.s. This has been proven wrong.
Now there was "no clear subject line". What's next? Typos in the
proposed charter?

[worthless rest deleted]

-- 
Bernd "booster bendi" Grether | Ain't singing for Pepsi
                              | ain't singing for Coke
*** bi uns cha me au          | I don't sing for nobody
    alemannisch schwaetze *** | makes me look like a joke (Neil Young)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:25:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.160627.26923@daimi.aau.dk> rorschak@daimi.aau.dk  
(Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> 
> 
> Come back when you have found a subject line that clearly indicates,
> for ALL involved groups, that they are involved.
> 

RFD: Changes to rec.music.* (renames existing groups)

or use the subject line that WAS used and put a little post in each of the  
affected groups. For example in rec.music.synth:

RFD: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.synth

	This proposal would make a number of changes to
	rec.music including the renaming of your nesgroup.
	For the full proposal, please read:

		RFD: rec.music.makers.*

That doesn't seem too difficult, and would have made it clear. Is that too  
much time to spend when existing groups are renamed?

Please don't flame me for punctuation errors or that I *could* have worded  
it better. You get the idea.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:38:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.000935.2031@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
|The subject lines said "CFV: rec.music.makers.* groups". There was no 
|indication of any correlation with the rec.music.synth groups. At the very
|least, a revote should be held with this one subject separate from the rest
|of the votes, with a clear and precise subject line so that ALL people
|in rec.music.synth are made aware of this. 

Do the people who issue the RFD/CFV for rec.music.makers have a
problem with this?  This might be the easiest solution to the problem ...

Disclaimer:  I've never read *anything* in rec.music.*.*.*.


-- 
Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan                          huggins@eecs.umich.edu
"You cannot pray to a personal computer no matter how user-friendly it is."
                                                          -- W. Bingham Hunter
From: gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya Moderated
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:08:10 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Nov1.222015.6148@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:

>I concurr in general with the contents of this article by Josh Smith.
>As I have repeatedly said that: I don't blame the moderators of
>soc.religion.islam. For that is there job, to prevent irrelavant
>articles from being posted on s.r.islam. Yes, it is not possible for
>me show proof of what I said; but the moderators don't have any proof
>either! They don't themselves save years old posting? How do they expect
>from me? 

We have nothing to prove.
We have made no accusations.
You have.
You do.

Basalat Ali Raja.


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mek@guinan.psu.edu (Mark E. Kotanchek)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Organization: Penn State Center for Academic Computing
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 19:40:25 GMT

In article <BxnGHn.F8u@uunet.uu.net> maurer@nova.stanford.edu (Michael  
Maurer) writes:
> This is a formal Request for Discussion on the creation of a new  
newsgroup
> called "comp.soft-sys.matlab" (not moderated).
> 

Given the semi-useless MathWorks-moderated users group, a MatLab-specific  
newsgroup would be tremendous. Since the only competing product (to my  
knowledge) is MATRIXx/Xmath it may be viable to expand the scope of the  
group to include MATRIXx as well as MATLAB.

It is frustrating to have to reinvent the wheel from scratch when dealing  
with MATLAB rather than build on the experiences of others--so put me down  
for a strong YES vote on the concept.

Mark.
--
Mark Kotanchek
Guidance & Control Dept - 363 ASB
Applied Research Lab/Penn State
P.O. Box 30
State College, PA 16804

Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:54:03 GMT

In article <CKD.92Nov7174508@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>It's arguable (not that I expect you to accept the argument, of course)
>that a "good" (properly hierarchical) name helps the net as a whole, and
>the group in particular, while a "bad" (bizarrely hierarchy-less) name
>harms the net as a whole (making the hierarchy less consistent) and
>*potentially* also the group in question (making it harder to find).

Of course, it's arguable.  The point is that once you accept the argument that
good newsgroup names are better than bad newsgroup names, you can no longer
ignore objections to a newsgroup name merely on the grounds that newsgroup
names can never really hurt anyone.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: RFD: SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM.AHMADIYYA Moderated
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  6 Nov 1992 12:01 EDT  

Let me say up front that I don't know much about Islam, and I therefore ask
that my remarks not be taken as anti-Muslim bias.  But I have done a few new
group campaigns, and know a little about that.

In article <1ddspfINN8cv@life.ai.mit.edu>, gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu 
     (Mercenary Programmer) writes...

>Ahmadiasm may not be complete without Islam.  Islam itself seems to
>be quite complete without Ahmadiasm.  The two concepts are quite
>separate and distinct.

Then, in article <1ddu3rINN8oh@life.ai.mit.edu>, gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu
     (Mercenary Programmer) also writes...

>I have stated in the past, and I state it again: I have no objections
>to the creation of an Ahmadi newsgroup.  I specifically have
>objections to the creation of an Ahmadi newsgroup under the Islam
>heading.  My reasoning is this: If the Ahmadis are Muslim, then they
>do not need a new newsgroup.  If they are not Muslim then their
>newsgroup should not be under the heading of Islam.  

Your two statements, in the above mentioned articles, are contradictory.
If "the two concepts are quite separate and distinct," then the new one
needs a new newsgroup, I agree.  If, however, Ahmadism (?) is incomplete
without Islam, then Islam is the parent concept.  If Islam is complete 
without Ahmadism, then the original newsgroup can split off the new one and
still survive.  In other words, if the Ahmadis are Muslim, and they are
incomplete without Islam, then you need a subgroup.  If the Ahmadis are not
Muslim, then they are complete without Islam, and the two concepts above
are no longer distinct.

And leave soc.religion.christian out of it.  I oppose its current form
of moderation as is.  Although I want to support this proposed group, I
will oppose it if I see anything even roughly like the soc.religion.christian
moderation scheme in it.

RG
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: ketil@sandel.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<1992Nov7.195717.10414@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
	<1dhadqINNf0n@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:21:24

>>>>> On 7 Nov 1992 15:54:18 -0500, randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) said:

	Joshua> There has been significant objection to the proposed group, enough
	Joshua> that I don't think it should even come to vote.  However, even if it
	Joshua> were to be created, it should be just for the hell of it.

If I understood correctly, this group was for running campaigns in
(was it?)  I strongly feel that we are better off using an interactive
system like IRC (I hear it should be easy to implement a dice-rolling
robot, say "/msg roll 4d6" for real-time rolling for all to see, the
gm could have text (descriptions and stuff?) ready to paste in, etc)
Want non-interactive, use e-mail!

If people want to follow stories, I think it'd be better if they were
posted to *.archives, in a more readable, edited form (BTW, anybody
actually *read* all these stories?  Recommend any of them?)

If I have missed something, please correct me,


--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: 12 Nov 92 06:53:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: jato.1992Nov12.065310.5521
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>Dave Hayes did not think there was a problem with the subject line UNTIL
>the vote went against what he wanted. 

What in heaven's name is wrong with that? May I have your permission
to be human? 

>If Dave Hayes, self-announced Lone Ranger for rec.music.synth, 
>had thought there was a problem prior to the results being posted, 
>he would have kissed Dulcinea and headed for the windmill before 
>the vote was over. He didn't. Ergo, there wasn't a problem.

Oh I get it...Proof by lack of timing. 

So, if there's a bottle of botulism and I fail to catch it before it
lands in the reservior...there wasn't a problem in the first place?

Riiiight. Great logic there. 

>is ok, after it passed it isn't. The only thing that changed was that
>the vote passed -- an you don't want to accept that.

And I won't. 

>>I didn't expect that. As I said, it did not appear intentional on his part.
>>I figured it out when the vote for r.m.s passed. 
>Any excuse in a storm? "Lessee, I don't like the result, so what can I
>find wrong with the process?"

Are you implying that the result is right by proof of going through a 
"legal" process? 

So are you saying that (e.g.) Rodney King deserved his beating?

>>Do not take life too seriously; you will never get out if it alive.
>s/life/USENET/

s/USENET/news.groups/
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

                    It will pass, whatever it is.