HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crow@coos.dartmouth.edu (Preston F. Crow)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Please create rec.arts.startrek.ds9 !!!
Keywords: ds9
Date: 24 Jan 93 04:28:07 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <c9l3pzk@rpi.edu> palmj@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Jyri L. Palm) writes:

>Please let us create rec.arts.startrek.ds9.  Of the 758 articles
>accumulated since I last read r.a.s.current, AT LEAST 368 of them
>were DS9 related (not counting the group split discussions).

>That's just about ----> 49% !!

>We don't need a full hiarchy of current.tng current.ds9 and so on.
>Let ds9 be one group just like the original rec.arts.startrek.  If
>it gets cluttered later then and ONLY THEN should it be split into
>the sub-groups like r.a.s.*.

>It really shouldn't go on like it is now, and at the same time we
>don't need bureaucratically create 1001 ds9 groups.

>Please please please!

There are quite a number of proposals out there, and they are being
discussed in news.groups.  Please follow the discussions there.

With that said, here's how I see things:

1.  DS9 is a part of Star Trek, and whatever happens, will always
belong somewhere in the rec.arts.startrek.* hierarchy.

2.  DS9 is current and, right now, belongs in r.a.s.current.

3.  There are a lot of posts about characters in general that don't
belong in r.a.s.c.  Right now talk about them belongs in r.a.s.misc or
(in the case of Data or possibly Odo) in r.a.s.tech.

4.  The idea of a separate r.a.s.reviews won't cut down on the posts
to .current, though it might help people find things more easily.

5.  The idea of a separate r.a.s.characters will move a lot of traffic
off of .current and .misc to another well-defined group.

6.  Separating TNG and DS9 into separate groups would be really
difficult, considering the amount of interaction between the two.
Furthermore, that type of split would have to take into account TOS,
TNG, and DS9 books, as well as upcomming movies.  I have yet to see a
reasonable proposal that will take care of that.

7.  There is no rec.arts.startrek.splits group.  News.groups is the
proper place to discuss newsgroup splits, and there is alread a lot of
talk over there.  Please don't post in r.a.s.c concerning splits.

--PC


--
From a "fortune" program:                                                              Eleanor Rigby                                                                           Sits at the keyboard
               And waits for a line on the screen                                      Lives in a dream                                                                Waits for a signal
               Finding some code                                                               That will make the machine do some more.                                What is it for?
       All the lonely users, where do they all come from?                              All the lonely users, why does it take so long?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: shibuya@bl.cad.slb.com (Hiroto Shibuya)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Reply-To: shibuya@bl.cad.slb.com
Organization: Applicon; Billerica, MA (USA)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:26:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.071531.28626@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes:

> Thanks for the consideration, but I'd rather that we stay where we are.
> rec.outdoors implies to me a sport where the primary motivation is a love
> of the outdoors, rather than a sport which is incidentally practiced
> outdoors.

I second Dan.  I think "outdoors" sounds way too healthy for
skydiving.  I hope we have a hierarchy for sports, but "rec.sports..."
seems to be reserved for people who watch spectator sports.  And
besides, if rec.skydiving belongs to anywhere, I think
rec.aviation.skydiving would be more appropriate.  (They might kick us
out but...:-)
--
					Hiroto Shibuya
			
					Applicon Inc.
					Billerica, MA
					U.S.A.


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: RFD soc.religion.mormon -- to moderate or not
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:23:59 GMT

In article <1jl6cqINN58j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu951@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian R. Beeler) writes:
>Haven't you done enough damage in other groups?  Why don't leave us alone?

It's hard to answer this, since to answer this I'd have to speak about details
of the Mormon temple ceremony and you don't want me to do that.  It's a
catch-22.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arakins@IASTATE.EDU (Brother Andrek of the Violet Orchid Brotherhood)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Reply-To: arakins@IASTATE.EDU (Brother Andrek of the Violet Orchid Brotherhood)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:57:02 GMT

  I support such a newsgroup. As an avid player of Warhammer 40,000,
Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Space Marine, and Harpoon, I would relish
the opportunity to discuss tactics, painting tips, and especially
terrain ideas (I building my very first games table...and I need some
ideas on how to make terrrain :) )

-- Andy Akins
   aka Brother Andrek
   Iowa State University
   arakins@iastate.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 07:15:31 GMT

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET>
  Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writes:
>In addition, obvious outdoors.* groups should be moved to that
>hierarchy.  Specially, rec.hunting should be moved.  Other
>possibilities include
>[...]
>rec.skydiving

Thanks for the consideration, but I'd rather that we stay where we are.
rec.outdoors implies to me a sport where the primary motivation is a love
of the outdoors, rather than a sport which is incidentally practiced
outdoors.  The latter seems to me a rather pointless distinction.  No
offense intended, but I think that we have more in common with
rec.foods.beer than rec.outdoors.hunting.

Blue skies, all!

-- 
| Daniel Briggs  (dbriggs@nrao.edu)                      |  USPA B-14993
| New Mexico Tech / National Radio Astronomy Observatory |      DoD #387
| P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM 87801   (505) 835-7391        | 
Support the League for Programming Freedom   (info from lpf@uunet.uu.net)
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:34:36 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.


 In article <1jfk2dINN55b@lynx.unm.edu>, kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:
 >In article <1993Jan18.114316.19501@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
 >>
 >>In article <C1108s.Itw@cs.mcgill.ca> guest@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA (Muhep Guest account) writes:
 >>Also, IMHO
 >>there will not be many crossovers since ds9 and tng are in different channels
 >>in many markets.
 >
 >That's odd.  I've already seen two incidents which could be considered
 >'crossovers'.  It there've only been two episodes show here.
 > 
 >>Warning: in the following comments, logic will be invoked :)
 >>
 >>>Q and Lwaxana Troi will be on episodes of ds9.
 >>
 >>So, when they're on ds9, talk about them on r.a.s.c.ds9
 >
 >And when the inevitable coparison/recollection of their previous
 >activities on TNG happens, where does that go?

Why, in yet aNOTHER new group, rec.arts.startrek.current.lwaxana, where
else?

 >>>They'll be Cardassians on tng (say when CoC is rerun).
 >>
 >>So, when they're on tng, talk about them on r.a.s.c.tng
 >>
 >Again, where do the 'compare and contrast' articles go?

Need you ask? In rec.arts.startrek.current.cardassians, naturally. 

 >>If it's tng, post it in tng; if it's ds9, put it in ds9
 >
 >I fear that the line you are drawing is much too blurry to be
 >worthwhile.

..... as the above exaggerations point out. 

Bad idea at this point. At the very LEAST, much to early to think about
a split. 

Just my Kopeks worth. 


-- 
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: paulbe@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Bedworth)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD - comp.cs.undergrad
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:23:06 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Edinburgh University

---- start of forwarded text -----------------

Received: from uknet.ac.uk by castle.ed.ac.uk id aa27489; 25 Jan 93 13:07 WET
Received: from techno.fuug.fi by ben.uknet.ac.uk via EUnet with SMTP (PP) 
          id <sg.22699-0@ben.uknet.ac.uk>; Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:07:03 +0000
Received: from relcom.kiae.su by techno.fuug.fi with UUCP 
          id AA19760 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:32:36 +0200
Received: by relcom.kiae.su; Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:47:58 +0300
Received: by plb.icsti.su; Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:17:59 +0300 (MSK)
To: paulbe@uk.ac.ed.castle, pdb@uk.ac.ed.dcs
Message-Id: <ABanyOhK01@plb.icsti.su>
Organization: International Centre for Scientific and Technical Information
From: "Peter L.Brusilovsky" <plb@su.icsti.plb>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:17:56 +0300 (MSK)
Return-Receipt-To: plb@plb.icsti.su
Subject: Re: [News] RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Status: REO

I would like to vote for the group. I really feel our students in 
Moscow university need such a group.
Please, let me know where to send my vote when required.

Cheers,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Peter Brusilovsky      ||   International Centre for Scientific
Telex: 411925 MCNTI        ||   and Technical Information (ICSTI),
FAX: +7 095 943 0089       ||   Kuusinen str. 21b, Moscow 125252, Russia
E-mail: plb@plb.icsti.su   or   plb%plb.icsti.su@relay.eu.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---- end of forwarded text -----
From: jc@crosfield.co.uk (jerry cullingford)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: simple keyword enforcing( Re: This latest r.a.s.* split)
Summary: a simple way to get people to use keywords
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:19:13 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <1993Jan19.211839.27755@cbfsb.cb.att.com> forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes) writes:
>There are a number of groups (rec.arts.tv.soaps is also a good example)
>that have resolved their volume/bandwidth problems by using keywords to
>designate particular subtopics.  This *may* be a viable option for the
>r.a.s.current newsgroup, and is certainly something to encourage.

Well, if you want keywords, how's this for an idea: make the group in
question moderated, and persuade someone to write some scripts to do
the moderation: Accept all articles with a valid keyword in the subject,
and reject others with a message telling them which keywords to use.

Of course, the downside to this is that all umpty-billion :-) articles
would funnel through a single site..

But it would be a fairly painless way of getting everyone to use keywords..
I'd guess most people wouldn't need reminding more than once.

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+     |
| Jerry Cullingford  #include <std.disclaimer> +44 442 230000 x3868|   ,-|--
| jc@crosfield.co.uk (jc@cel.uucp) or jc@selune.demon.co.uk        |   \_|__
+-----(Work)---------------------------------(home)----------------+ \___/
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PowerBook Newsgroup
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:05:56 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1993Jan20.191809.23696@pbhyg.PacBell.COM>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: mpnelso@pbhyg.PacBell.COM's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 19:18:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.191809.23696@pbhyg.PacBell.COM> mpnelso@pbhyg.PacBell.COM (Mike P. Nelson) writes:
   In article <C15u3G.Fuo@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
   >That's nice. But no one is currently discussing a PowerBook newsgroup.
   Funny, I must have mis-read the subject line.

Somebody posted an RFD to comp.sys.mac.* with followups to news.groups
apparently.  That's why we suddenly see a bunch of "Yes, a PB group
would be nice" posts.  An official RFD has been posted, after the
proposer was directed to the Guidelines.

"No one is currently discussing" seems to me to refer to the facts
that an official RFD had not been posted and the weird followup to
a group (n.g) that had not gotten the (unofficial) RFD.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: torbjorn.sund@tft.tele.no (Torbjorn Sund)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: sci.med.telemedicine
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:33:40 GMT

The subject of telemedcine is sufficiently encompassing
as to gather enough interest and people for a conference.
I can think of discussions on several levels, organization,
technical, financial, ethical, etc. At the same time, the
field is (still) narrow enough to be manageable without
breaking it further down. And, yes, telemedicine is a good
name for it. We will see if we agree on the contents later.

-----
Torbjorn Sund              	Norwegian Telecom Research
Telephone +47 83 10267     	P.O. Box 1156
Telefax   +47 83 10262     	N-9001 TROMSO
<torbjorn.sund@tft.tele.no>	NORWAY
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:55:03 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups,rec.games.board,rec.games.frp
Organization: negligable

In article <C19L6G.MGK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) 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.

I disagree.   rec.games.board cover table-top gaming of all sorts,
but rec.games.miniatures could cover some miniature-specific things
that really aren't game-specific such as painting techniques.

Also, when you say "board games" I tend to think "Monopoly, Parcheesi, ..."
rec.games.miniatures may attract more people than rec.games.board has.

>However, if I might muddy the waters a bit, let me say that I would also
>support a rec.games.war group that would include discussion of both
>board and miniature wargames.  Others may find fantasy and sci fi games
>interesting; to me, they're all noise and no signal.  To say that one
>can "simulate" something that isn't real is something of an abuse of the
>language.  But perhaps I am being a curmudgeon this morning....

I think you are being a curmudgeon this morning. <g>

Many of the techniques of miniature gaming are common regardless of
what the game itself is.  Also I think that wargames is too limited
in scope.  Miniatures are used in a lot of frp games.  And what would
you call Battletech?  It *is* a wargame after all, but it has nothing
to do w/ any historical events.

btw: the artificial reality crowd are going to be really surprised
to hear that they can't simulate something that doesn't exist.  I
though that was the whole point of simulations.  Where else can you
play billiards on a frictionless surface?

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Disco isn't dead...			...it's just in witness protection!
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:21:46 GMT
Organization: Coastal Imaging Lab, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu

In article <C1IoIs.6q7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>How about: "All reviews will be crossposted to the appropriate
>rec.arts.startrek.* group (ie: rec.arts.startrek.current) so that readers
>of those groups will still enjoy the same reviews they always have.

If you really feel this way, then you must also have felt that 
rec.arts.startrek should have bee kept as a group and all postings to
any of the recently created subgroups be crossposted to it, so that
"readers of that group will still enjoy the same articles they always
have."

And before that, "net" should have been kept as a group and all postings
to every other group crossposted to it.
From: Michael S. Shappe <mss1@cornell.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated and proposed rec.arts.startrek split
Date: 23 Jan 1993 19:04:49 GMT
Organization: Cornell University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cu-dialup-0210.cit.cornell.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
X-XXMessage-ID: <A78702981904EC34@cu-dialup-0210.cit.cornell.edu>
X-XXDate: Sat, 23 Jan 93 19:11:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.033716.15552@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> Paul S R Chisholm,
psrc@pegasus.att.com writes:
>(1)  To create a moderated medium for reviews of *any* STAR TREK-
>related work: ...  This has been proposed
>both as a newsgroup and as a mailing list.

...and the mailing list now exists as Trek-Review-L@cornell.edu. See the
announcement in rec.arts.startrek.(current|misc|(info)?).

>>(2)  To split ras.current into ras.current.tng and ras.current.ds9 (and
>possibly ras.current.misc?) 

Just Say No!

>I would not subscribe to a moderated STAR TREK reviews mailing list.  I
>live and die by e-mail (e-mail systems are what I do for a living); I
>need to separate my "recreational computing" from my job.  If the list
>and the group were linked, we'd have the best of both worlds.

I'm sorry to hear that you will not be subscribing to the list, although
I understand your reasons...however, you'll be happy to know that, should
a .reviews come into existance, the list and the group will almost
undoubtedly be linked in some fashion.

Mikey the Trek-Review-L Moderator Guy
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: news.groups
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:04:55 -0500 
From: Sam Swett <ssbc+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook

	I fully support the idea and creation of this newsgroup. Let's get it
going! I think it follows naturally from the groups which already exist,
and would alleviate the filtering of relevant PowerBook-related messages
and discussions on other groups.

Thanks,
-sam


-----------
Sam Swett
Carnegie Mellon University
E-mail: ssbc+@andrew.cmu.edu

 "If you understood everything I said, you'd be me!"  
                                                                    -
Miles Davis
From: mkc@Graphics.Cornell.edu (Mitch Collinsworth)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:52:18 -0500
Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics
NNTP-Posting-Host: rex.graphics.cornell.edu

In <1k213oINNihe@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:

>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.

I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't buy it.  I didn't
read the fishing discussion so I don't know what all the arguments were
but I think where your argument falls apart is when you say that
discussion in rec.sport is "about other people who participated in the
sport rather than active participients."  That's obviously a matter
that's going to differ depending on what sport you're talking about.  In
other words it's not a criteria that can be applied at the rec.sport
level, only at the rec.sport.basketball or rec.sport.triathlon level (to
name two current rec.sports that fall on opposite sides of this issue).

Orienteering is a competitive sport.  It has two World Cup circuits, two
World Championships, the largest mass-participation competitive event in
the world.  It has been accepted by IOC as an olympic sport, though it
has not yet been included in an olympics.  Many people participate in
orienteering at a non-competitive level, but the same is true of other
competitive sports.

It appears that rec.outdoors is a net.hot-potato that orienteering
should just avoid getting mixed up with.  rec.sport fits just fine.  I
say we go with that.  Next question, Paul called a RFD on
rec.outdoors.orienteering, but in the new groups status message
yesterday, Lawrence put it as rec.sport.orienteering.  Is that a problem
if we decide to go with that name?

-Mitch Collinsworth
 mitch@graphics.cornell.edu
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: s.r.christian.bible-study
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:53:28 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:

>But it is also about the Jewish Bible, and my Bible.  Moving up 
>one level in the hierarchy introduces no ambiguity, especially 
>because the charter explains exactly what is meant by "Bible."  
>Few would misunderstand the name soc.religion.bible-study, but as 
>you can see by my own reaction, one might misunderstand the intent 
>of soc.religion.CHRISTIAN.bible-study.
>
>Again, what is the intended audience?  Those who use the Bible in
>their quest for enlightenment.  The Bible is shared by several
>religions, and therefore I see no reason for claiming the Bible as
>your own.

No one is claiming the Bible as their own.  There will be no restriction in
posters' ideologies.  Placing it in an existing heirarchy helps get it
picked up by sys admins. 

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558