HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date:  9 Apr 92 02:10:40 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

wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:
 >If, as a couple of people have pointed out, native Japanese speakers
 >conventionally translate "manga" as "comics", then I can't even see it
 >being a problem if you're coming from that direction.

It's the same sort of translation that results in manga about
"Chi" or martial arts being translated as "fighting comics".

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't take too much notice of it.  (Maybe
we can hear from a native speaker on this one.)


--
Iain Sinclair   axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au                             ne cede.
From: tkim@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Tonghyun Kim)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The rec.arts.{comics.}manga wars continue
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:45:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr15.184356.14162@wdl.loral.com> dcb@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (David C Blume) writes:
>
>Between rec.arts.comics.asian and rec.arts.comics.manga I prefer *.manga.
>Manga, to me, implies a particular style of story-telling.  *.asian just means
>from that geographic area.  And the group (alt.manga) currently seems
>infatuated with Japanese manga, as opposed to comics from Asia.  At least,
>that's what I'm interested in.  IMHO, the new group is for the discussion
>of instances of a particular style of story telling, not comics for Asia.
>

You have a point there. However, virtually all Asian comics share
the style that is VERY similar to that of *Japanese* comics.        


Tonghyun "Vajra" Kim
tkim@sdcc3.ucsd.edu
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: [flame] On those who run newgroup votes
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:05:26 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Distribution: na
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central


 Ran> == Ran Atkinson <atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> 

 Ran> The ongoing and increasing use of BIZARRE vote format restrictions as
 Ran> part of the voting process has gotten out of control.
[...]
[ votes should be required to accept anything that looks like a vote ]
 Ran>   Having separate addresses for YES and NO is reasonable but to
 Ran> have that PLUS bizarre formatting rules that vary from vote to
 Ran> vote is unreasonable.

If you'd like, I can go to the backup tapes and pull all 800+ votes from
the sf-lovers reorg revote, including all fourteen ballot items.

You have one day from when you get them to count them all by hand.

(Bonus points for dealing "properly" with a vote of "I vote the same
way as last time." ;-)

Believe me, there *are* good reasons to have vote-counting software.
I'll admit that the sf-lovers vote was a rather extreme example, but
banning vote-counting software is *not* the answer.

I'm more than willing to contribute time and effort to a suite of perl
tools for handling votes; perl is portable enough that if you can't find
somewhere to run it, maybe you shouldn't be running a big vote either...
--
Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> |    ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
System Manager & Postmaster     |  "There's always something going out of
Electronic Frontier Foundation  |      business in Central Square."
+1 617 864 0665  NIC: [CKD1]    |   -Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA ( Is a new CFV really needed ?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:07:29 GMT

In article <8HLEM2J@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.140123.18711@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> >In article <26JE8OF@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >> Sorry, you don't get a veto.
> 
> >Why not ?
> 
> Nobody gets a veto. I don't. You don't. Spaf doesn't. Dave doesn't. Henry
> doesn't. Even Ken and Dennis don't.
> 

Who are Henry, Ken and Dennis ?

Don't you think a proposer of the group which exists should have some
criterion to evaluate whether a revote should be conducted ?

Why is it so unreasonable to require a 2/3 majority for such a case, where
the group is functioning quite reasonably ?

Think about it, we are talking about possible removal of such a group.
The group may or may not pass again. 

> 
> It's better than a 50% successful vote that's still being debated long
> after it supposedly passed. Is that what you have to show as proof of 
> YOUR integrity?
> 

My proof of integrity is that I am conducting the straw poll to determine
whether enough people feel the allegations are serious enough to
warrant a revote.

Is something wrong in conducting such a straw poll ?

> Ah. that's your problem. You need more hugs.

That is it, I need more hugs, not the bullets :-)

Now did you get the clue ?

> S (+1 713 568 1032 Trailblazer)24 20 S 12 T (Peter da Silva)24 45 S showpage

Alok
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:21:29 GMT
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Some comments on this rec.arts.{whatever}.manga
Reply-To: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

conty@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Conty) writes:
 >Observation 2: Given Fact 6 and Fact 2, the logical naming for an Asian
 >	comics newsgroup would be rec.arts.comics.japan.

Except that there already exists soc.culture.japan, sci.lang.japan,
rec.arts.comics and rec.arts.anime, all of which discuss manga topics --
certainly enough for manga to warrant its own high-level newsgroup.

"logic" involves incorporation of all the "facts", doesn't it?


 >Observation 3: I think we can leave it rec.arts.comics.manga.

Observation: this article ignores everything else that has already
             been discussed.  Corollary:  it's not really relevant
             here, at this point in time.


--
Iain Sinclair   axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au                             ne cede.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Current Status of Votes on Newsgroups
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 11:58:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.172222.659@uunet.uu.net> tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) writes:
>comp.os.os2.advocacy             5 Mar           1 Apr          22 Apr
>                  Yes votes to:  aye.os2@netcom.com
>                   No votes to:  nay.os2@netcom.com

>comp.os.os2.networking           5 Mar           1 Apr          22 Apr
>                  Yes votes to:  yes.os2@netcom.com
>                   No votes to:  no.os2@netcom.com

You mean this is for real? I thought that with such a ridiculously complex
set of addresses and the 1 April posting date it *had* to be a prank.

I need to pay more attention to news.groups. I also missed the vote for
soc.libraries.talk which sure LOOKS like an attempt to put a high-noise
group in soc.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1.
-- `-_-'                                         1032 PEP/2400/n/8/1.
--  'U`    "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
Xref: sparky news.groups:9881 news.admin:3502
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: BENDING THE GUIDELINES IS BAD NEWS
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:48:54 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central


 JLM> == JLM  <JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> 

 JLM>  I for one will make one final attempt at keeping whatever shreds
 JLM> of sanity and rationality we have left on the net and will ask
 JLM> David Lawrence to withdraw his alledged support for "one vote for
 JLM> four different groups".

I disagree.  In any case which modifies the guidelines (or reaches into
areas that the guidelines don't cover) there are two ways to lean: in
favor of creating the groups where there is doubt, or in favor of *not*
creating the groups where there is doubt.

The case you cite (don't create any unless all four pass) is in the
latter category.  I don't see any reason, either in the letter or spirit
of the guidelines, that says that if a vote passes the group *must* be
created; only that it *may* be created.

3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections that might
   invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create votes are received
   than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the total number of valid votes
   received are in favor of creation, a newgroup control message may be sent 
                                                                *^^^*
   out.  If the 100 vote margin or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should 
   not be created.

This, I would say, is *explicit* approval for the right of a vote-taker
or group proposer to ask that a group *not* be created, even upon a
successful vote.

This *is* sane.  This *is* rational.
--
Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> |    ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
System Manager & Postmaster     |  "There's always something going out of
Electronic Frontier Foundation  |      business in Central Square."
+1 617 864 0665  NIC: [CKD1]    |   -Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>
From: sw@mdavcr.mda.ca (Scott Wood)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD for new IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:25:29 GMT
Organization: MacDonald Dettwiler, 13800 Commerce Parkway, Richmond, BC, Canada  V6V 2J3

T.D.G.Sandford@bradford.ac.uk (TDG SANDFORD) writes:
: In article <2311@carto.mdavcr.mda.ca> sw@mdavcr.mda.ca (Scott Wood) writes:
: (re proposed content of new group)
: >
: >3 Image Scanning, Display and Printing
: >  3.1  Scanning and Sampling
: >  3.2  Quantization and Halftoning
: >  3.3  Colour Reproduction
: >  3.4  Image Representation and Rendering
: >  3.5  Graphics and Fonts
: >  3.6  Architectures and Software for Display and Printing Systems
: >  3.7  Image Quality
: >  3.8  Visualization
: >  3.9  Other
: >
: The first two categories sound like a good basis to build on for a charter
: for a ?.?.image-proc group. The third category belongs in the existing
: comp.graphics groups (imho).

Actually, I agree. Although I don't necessarily think that these subjects are
"graphics" subjects, the comp.graphics groups seem to already cover
them. More importantly, I don't want an image processing group
deluged with postings about image formats, converting between formats
and other such stuff. Those type of postings have made comp.graphics
almost useless for me. In fact, I lean more towards putting an image
processing group under sci.* just because it's less likely to attract
the type of people that make those kind of postings.

scott
-- 
Scott Wood  | "`We're humanoids and we live on planetoids'.. like could
sw@mda.ca   |  they make it sound *more* dopey?!" - Mister Boffo
From: dave@compnect.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA (A violation of net guidelines)
Summary: Alok, you are becoming a net.annoyance.
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:08:10 GMT
Organization: Compnect, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Apr6.203727.26072@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> No matter what happens to the results of the earlier RFD (October 19, 1991),
> it is a clear violation to post an RFD for the same group with the same
> charter in less than six months. Six months period from last RFD ends on
> April 19, 1992. Any RFD for SCIA should have been posted only after
> this date.

> The fact that this violation has been done with the consent of David
> Lawrence (Who too posted this new RFD on news.announce.newgroups)
> and group-advice members is even more disturbing. 

Only to you Alok. Only to you. 

> How can we be expected to follow guidelines in letter and spirit when the
> net.gods are violating it ?

You didn't follow the guidlines in the original vote. Now you are
grousing because others are trying to recover something from your
screw-up? Great Ceasars Ghost you fool! Shut-up already and stop acting
the spoiled child. 

> Disgusted,

Look in a mirror and say that 3 times. Then try to refrain from being an
antagonist until AFTER the vote is completed. 

--
 Dave Ratcliffe (SysAdmin)           The Data Factory BBS  Harrisburg  Pa. 
 dave@compnect.uucp                      (717)657-4997  (717)657-4992
 compnect!dave@uunet.UU.NET                       Login: tdf
 eds1!compnect!dave@psuvax1.uucp           3/12/24/9600 Telebit PEP
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.music.enya
Subject: Re: RFD:  rec.music.enya
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:46:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.music.enya
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

Followup set to alt.music.enya.

In article <508@cbmtoruucp> caleb@cbmtoruucp (Caleb J. Howard) writes:
>Yes, I think that a newsgroup to discuss Enya-esque music is a damn fine idea.
>I could perhaps get a definitive answer to the question; How does Enya herself
>pronounce "Enya"?  I have heard a lot of variations, the most predominant 
>seems to be ehn-ya, but I have also heard on-ya?  What's the deal?

In Clannad's Past and Present video, Marie O'Braonain (Enya's sister)
pronounces Enya 'eenya'.  Most people around here call her ehn-ya
though.

Dylan.
-- 
'If there is a hung parliament, and John Major and Neil Kinnock have
both been hung, then I am willing to take over.  Vote Insanity - you
know it makes sense' - Screaming Lord Sutch
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: todd@uvmark.uucp (Todd Cooper)
Subject: Re: RFD for new IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 15:59:18 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <23307@life.ai.mit.edu> jprovo@Gnu.ai.mit.edu (Genetic Jones) writes:
>pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:
>>dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes:
>>>I have to disagree, Andy.  My first suggestion would be sci.image-process
>>>or sci.image-proc, or even sci.image.processing.  (sci.image-processing
>>>would exceed the limit on some systems, but would otherwise be my first
>>>choice.)  I would reluctantly support comp.image-proc, if pressed.
>sci.image.processing implies that there is a sci.image.* heirachy.
>I would go with sci.image-proc or comp.image-proc, and see where the leaning
>went.  I would personally like to see the comp. group, but that's just because
>I am doing hackwork for a cellbio group...
>
>just PLEASE avoid using `ip', ESP. in the comp heirarchy!  People may gather
>the impression that it is for InternetworkingProtocol!

I think comp.image-proc would be best.

>>>>	I would be in support of an UNMODERATED newsgroup.
>>>Likewise.  Unmoderated, please.
>>Yes.
>Yuppers.

Definitely!

When do we vote?
-- 
+++++ Just leaving a boring signature. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Todd Cooper         (uvmark%todd@merk.com uunet!merk.com!uvmark!todd)
Snail Mail: Vmark Software, 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA 01701 USA
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kswatek@ess.harris.com (Ken Swatek)
Subject: Re: RFD:  comp.sys.cadence
Reply-To: kswatek@ess.harris.com
Organization: Harris (Government Aerospace Systems)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:36:44 GMT

In article 26775@uunet.uu.net, pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca (Peter Stokes) writes:
>Call For Discussion:  Creation of comp.sys.cadence 
>
>   - an effective forum for discussion of problems, 
>     solutions, pains and gains related to Cadence tools 
>     is desirable.
>   - some interest has been expressed on comp.lsi.cad
>   - Cadence just merged with Valid, placing them as a very 
>     significant player in the CAD s/w marketplace.
>   - there rates to be lots of discussion about migrating
>     to Opus/Amadeus in the future
>   - mentor users have their own newsgroup :-)
>
>Your comments are solicited:
>
>   1.  should we create it?
>   2.  is the name correct (position in the Usenet hierarchy)?
>   3.  should cadence employees be encouraged or discouraged 
>       to participate?  (I say encouraged)
>   4.  should it be moderated?  (I say not!   Especically not
>       by me!)
>

---
YES create it!  
The name is OK with me.
Yes encourage Cadence/Valid employees to participate.  
NO moderator.


______________________________________________________________________________

Ken Swatek                             INTERNET: kswatek@su19az.ess.harris.com
Harris Corporation                     UUCP:     uunet!su19az!kswatek
Government Aerospace Systems Division  CCMail:   harris.kswatek
Mail Stop: 102-4827                    FAX:      407-729-3211
P.O. Box 94000                         Pager:    407-690-8548 (Digital)
Melbourne, Florida 32902               Voice:    407-727-6081
______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: The rec.arts.{comics.}manga wars continue
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:38:03 GMT


Geez, obviously the correct name is

rec.arts.comics.aquaria.mormon.activism.progressive.indian.american.sf-lovers.manga

I'm sure anyone can agree to that.
-- 
"Is" is the verb for when you don't want a verb.
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:22:23 GMT
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Another problem with rec.arts.comics.{manga/japan}
Reply-To: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
 >(rec.arts.comics.manga WOULD BE a mainstream manga group.)

I agree.

To manga readers, rec.arts.comics.manga implies something very specific;
a group for discussion of comics which are manga-derived, ie. English
or French versions.  Clearly, such a newsgroup would cover this aspect
of manga -- not all aspects of manga, which would be the role of
rec.arts.manga, as proposed.

Traffic about comic-ised manga exists, and would (IMHO) eventually
warrant its own group.  I would vote YES for rec.arts.comics.manga to be
established -to discuss comic-ised manga-, as part of a reorganisation of
rec.arts.comics, alongside an existing rec.arts.manga. 

(More accurate names would be rec.arts.manga.adaptations or
rec.arts.manga.translated, perhaps.)

Note that this has little to do with the naming of rec.arts.manga,
(the proposed newsgroup for discussing the recreational art of manga,)
except as an aside.


--
Iain Sinclair   axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au                             ne cede.
From: imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.arts.frp.misc
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:26:27 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.


  It seems, from the RFD on soc.personals.*, that the 'powers that be' will
allow the passing of a vote to be ignored if other groups on the same ballot
fail. 
  I suggest that a rename of r.g.f to r.g.f.misc be added to the ballot and
be conditional on the passing of at least 2 other groups.


		~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord	~~~~/()\~~~~	Thu Apr  9 11:26:25 WET DST 1992
		~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:13:30 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

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

>hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
> >    Ok, fine. Let's not look at it from the view of the USA, which has
> >the majority of UseNet site and readers to date, but instead look at it
> >from the Canadian view or the UK view, which have the second and third
> >largest number of UseNet sites.

>You got any data on the UK having the third largest number of sites?
>I do nationality-based news statistics, and (to take one example)
>Australia has four times more Usenet posters per capita than in the
>UK.

    Alright, so Australia has more UseNet sites than the UK, but they
still call them comic books down under.

>As for what bearing this has on rec.arts.comics.manga, you tell me.

    I was trying to point out that it is not just the US posters who use
the term comic book to refer to sequential art.

> >    Again, you are speaking for others. How do you know what their best
> >interests are? Have the elected you to be their spokesperson?

>It was discussed in detail some time ago.  Nobody who posts to alt.manga
>is objecting to rec.arts.manga;  it seems to be you, Lazlo, and a couple of
>(understandably) confused news.groups lurkers.

    If you are implying that I am confused, you are more than mistaken.
I know exactly what I am talking about and what this debate is about.
You and the rest of the r.a.manga supporters are attempting to use the
same line of reasoning that the r.a.startrek regulars used to keep the
Star Trek groups out of the r.a.sf.* hierarchy. Unfortunately they had
unbelievable strength in numbers and so the Straw Poll failed, and the
Speculative Fiction groups are still fragmented into 2 sun-hierarchies
when one was all that was needed. It would be nice not to make the same
mistake twice. Let's wait for the straw poll results...


--
-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,rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.lp
From: claudius@zeus.calpoly.edu (King_Claudius)
Subject: Re: rec.games.mud reorg, opinion
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:53:33 GMT

downsj@nyssa.CS.ORST.EDU (jason downs) says:
>reorginzation attempts have been made with rec.games.mud in the past. they
>haven't succeeded yet. is now the time to try and reorg it? no. rec.games.mud
>simply cannot be successfully reorganized, as a consensus regarding how to
>reorganize it is impossible to reach.

Um, I'm not entirely sure what you mean "haven't succeeded".  If you mean that
we've tried reorganizing them before, it has worked somewhat [r.g.m.lp]...true
there is still a HELL of a lot of x-traffic...so that part has failed.

One thing I've kinda noticed is everyone goes "we've talked about this before,
and it didn't work." yet I have NEVER seen a CFV.   [except for r.g.m.lp, which
passed]

Let's not kill this discussion before its time.
-- 
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
---King Claudius---                                   claudius@zeus.calpoly.edu
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA ( Is a new CFV really needed ?)
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:01:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <26JE8OF@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> 
> Sorry, you don't get a veto.

Why not ? And who are you to decide that ?
Oh I see, you are one of those self-appointed net.gods ;-)
Someone who threatened to cut the Houston feed but couldn't do it.
Someone who takes great pride and shows as proof of his 
integrity a successful vote he carried despite personal opposition of the
group. Someone who attempted to intimidate when one did not agree with him.

What makes you think you qualify to be a net.god, Mr. da Silva ?

>6 T (Have you hugged your wolf today?)468 20 S 9 T (Taronga Park BBS)24 35 S 10

Sorry, I don't like hugging wolfs.

A.
Newsgroups: news.groups