HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: boehme@unvax.union.edu (Eric M. Boehm)
Subject: Re: How can I get my site to carry more groups
Reply-To: Eric.Boehm@union.edu
Organization: Union College, Schenectady, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:57:05 GMT

lagrangj@unvax.union.edu (Joshua C. LaGrange) writes:
>I'm at Union College, we run nn, we have relativelt few groups available.
>I've already sent a message to the sys-op here, but he ignored it.  What should I do?
>Thanks

>-- 
>Josh LaGrange                  *                    
>lagrangj@unvax.union.edu       *           (cute stuff deleted)                Phone: (518) 370-6908          *
>My views don't always represent the views of Union College.

I must say that messages like this always get me more than a little
annoyed. This is the second message that comes to me by way of a third
party where I have no idea what is being discussed.

Since Josh is content to spread his view across the net, I don't feel
the need to confine this to a polite mail message.

Yes, I did receive an initial message which came by way of a third
party where Josh was complaining about relatively few groups -- I
never received a direct message.

Furthermore, the message was, as is this one, incredibly vague.
Perhaps if Josh said what groups in particular he was interested in, I
could be of more assistance.

Let me explain my perception of reality. I currently have a 300MB
partition devoted to news. The filesystem runs between 55-80% of
capacity. At around 80%, I have (in the past) run out of gnodes. I
have tuned the filesystem for space rather than time, in an effort to
prevent this from reoccurring.

There are 1855 entries in my active file. Of these, 759 are actually
received, the rest go into the bit bucket (to prevent junk from
filling up). In other words, about 41% of the groups in the active
file are received. I don't consider 759 groups "relatively few."

Many of the groups being sent to the bit bucket are network noise
since just about anyone sends out a newgroup message at the slightest
provocation.  The reality is that there is a limited amount of disk
space and I cannot carry every group.

Perhaps what Josh means is that there are relatively few groups that
*he* is interested in.

I am offended by these messages. I do not appreciate hearing
complaints without being told that there is a problem and having a
chance to respond. It is even more offensive when the complaint comes
by way of a third party.

-- 
Eric M. Boehm		My views are just that, mine!
Eric.Boehm@union.edu
BOEHME@UNION.BITNET

-- 
Eric M. Boehm
Eric.Boehm@union.edu
BOEHME@UNION.BITNET
Xref: sparky news.groups:24720 soc.motss:53143
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:53:13 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Dec12.003034.7323@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >Yeah, right. Even though the proposal itself came with almost insultingly
> >simple instructions on just exactly how to vote.
> 
> Insulting to your miiighty intellect perhaps. Most people probably saw the
> first 22 lines and said "Oh, this doesn't affect me". 

Prove it. Poll your precious non-elite and show us the numbers. 

You just made the claim, now back it up. 

I fully expect some smarmy smart-ass tap dancing comment in response.
More meaningless bull cookies from the master chef. <sigh>

-- 
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Xref: sparky news.groups:24492 alt.native:1444
From: weinss@hall104.its.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein)
Subject: Re: How about soc.culture.america.tribal?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:21:09 GMT

Am I correct in interpreting your post as meaning discussion of the
problems that Native American Indians, by whatever name, who have
left their tribes and gone to live in cities with caucasions have 
faced is to be excluded?

Stephen Weinstein
weinss@rpi.edu
If more college students voted (and could afford lobbyists), there
would be more financial aid.
I will be away from the net and e-mail 12/17-1/10.
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth?
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:32:39 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Dec14.223629.1947@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
:In article <8111@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
:>Sorry, but the Guidelines are how things get done in the realm of the Usenet
:>group system. You _can't_ unilaterally demand that they be tossed out any more
:>than you can demand that you be allowed to dictate who takes the oath of
:>office on 20 January 1993. (Well, actually, you can, and are, but you'll be
:>just as widely ignored.)
:
:Actually, the Guidelines contain a clause about extraordinary circumstances.
:If someone claims that the current situation is an extraordinary circumstance
:where typical procedures should not be followed, it is incorrect to speak of
:him as not wanting to do things according to the Guidelines, simply because
:the Guidelines themselves say that you don't always do things according to the
:Guidelines.

A claim is not sufficient.  Extraordinary circumstances have
to be clearly shown.  Dave has failed to do this.  With the
exception of his extraordinary capacity to be obstinant.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And the men who hold high places	|
must be the ones who start		|	-Richard Hartman	
to mold a new reality			|	hartman@uLogic.COM
closer to the heart!			|

Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley)
Subject: Re: soc.culture.native
Organization: This space for rent.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:09:17 GMT

gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:
>No one has yet offered any compelling explanation as to why we need to
>limit the discussion to subjects pertaining to the first inhabitants of
>the Americas, who do not necessarily have as more in common with one another
>than do any of those peoples and one from some other part of the world,
>except as derives from contact with one another or sharing a somewhat
>similar terrain.

That is because there is none.  I strongly favor the creation of a
single newsgroup open to discussion from and about all native peoples.
I think this would be a very dynamic and informative group for all
concerned.  Traffic and discussion may or may not ever warrant the
group to divide by whatever lines may become obvious in the future.

I could toss a coin on either s.c.native or s.c.aboriginal.  Both
are quite acceptable to me.  .native feels more personal to me since
that is what my Grandmother called herself.  .aboriginal seems more
technically correct though.

That is to say, I am undecided between the two, but feel that one
or the other of them is the clear choice.

s.c.indigenous would be acceptable, but I do not like it.

For a variety of reasons, both personal and usenet namespace wise,
I do *not* like the following suggestions:

  soc.culture.native-america
  soc.culture.amerindian
  soc.culture.amerind
  soc.culture.american.indian
  soc.culture.first.americans

Once more for effect:
I support the creation of *one* group for *all* native peoples.
This group should be a new space within soc.culture, preferably
s.c.native OR s.c.aboriginal.
-- 
   Be a light unto yourself    || Jan Isley   jan@bagend.uucp
Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha || gatech.edu!bagend!jan   (404)434-1335
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.cyber renaming and unmoderation
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:05:55 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <731@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>I am not really objecting to rec.games.frp.cyber, but if you already
>have a more generic group, why go backwards?  The generally accepted
>reason for a group split (which this would become) is high traffic
>for one portion (frp) that swamps conversation of other aspects.

rec.games.cyber isn't reall a more generic group.  It is and has
always been meant to be a RPG group.  At the time the vote was run,
Joshua stated that the only reason he wasn't trying to call it
rec.games.frp.cyber was that he wanted to avoid the anti-split
crowd.

I've come to think that, at this point, we should give the r.g.frp
readers a chance to look at the group again, with full knowledge
of what it is and what the intent is.  Clearly there is a somewhat
significant number of people who don't want this group at all.
Therefore, I think the vote should be phrased as follows:

1. Remove rec.games.cyber.
2. Create rec.games.frp.cyber unmoderated.

Sure, we *might* end up with two groups, but I really don't think
so.

What about the Shadowrun group?  Well, that's kind of a separate
issue.  I don't think it relates so strongly that the groups can't
be discussed concurrently.

-- 
Bryant Durrell					   durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 I feed on the flesh of the living, and I vote.
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: STRAW VOTE ON NAME FOR NATIVE AMERICANS NEWSGROUP
Reply-To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:52:04 GMT

In article <Bz49K9.G9K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:

> I personally feel that it is a little premature for a straw poll...

I do too.

> ...Mike has also kept the discussions on track.

He has also been making every effort possible to avoid a flame war,
and deserves to be commended.

> My opinion on the name TODAY is that there might be value in creating
> a group called soc.culture.native or soc.culture.indigenous that would
> encompass all of the indigenous populations of the world.

I like this idea, and could support either "soc.culture.native" or
"soc.culture.indigenous."  I prefer the former name, since it is easier
to type, and some people have a hard time spelling the word "indigenous"
correctly.

> Since it's
> a worldwide hierarchy, I see some merit in making the scope of the
> newsgroup also worldwide.  I don't think that the Native American
> discussions will be swamped in such a group, and it would provide a
> "mainstream" Usenet equivalent to the existing alt.native and the
> existing Native-L (?) mailing list.

I strongly agree.  And, as the facilitator of NATIVE-L and the other
NativeNet mailing lists, I would do everything possible to enable a
smoothly functioning link-up between the mailing list(s) and Usenet
newsgroup(s).

> At any rate, even if the newsgroup becomes too popular to serve the
> interests of the Native American population, it would provide a good
> jumping-off point for the later creation of a specifically Native
> American group.  The traffic in the worldwide group would provide
> solid evidence for the popularity of the more specific group, and it
> would also not meet with the same objections that are being raised now
> against creating soc.culture.native.american...

Well stated!

Gary
-- 
    Gary S. Trujillo                             gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts               {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jarleb@diana.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Reply-To: jarleb@diana.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:54:26 GMT


I think the idea of a moderated group is somewhat appealing, esp.
after this semester with all space potatoes, abian, element synthesis
in plants etc. etc.

But, I see two problems with it:

1. What will go into this, I mean, what is really the most interesting
   discussions here IMHO, are when someone is asking a rather "simple" 
   question, and then get lots of replies. I don't see that as an 
   easy task for a moderator. Usually, moderated groups are for posts
   which seldom is followed up, and if they are, one need a discussion 
   group. If so, shall we create a s.p.research.d ?

2. Will there be enough postings ? This is really no problem, but I'm 
   not sure if people will use a group, where their questions will come 
   up late, maybe a couple of days after posting  ?


I would really like a sci.physics with higher information content, but
I'm not sure if we can achieve this.

				Jarle.

      ---------------------------------------
       Internet: jarleb@medusa.uio.no         
       or        Jarle.Brinchmann@astro.uio.no
      ---------------------------------------
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth?
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:48:40 GMT
Organization: Mike Singletary Appreciation Society

In article <1992Dec14.134302.8688@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>>This is not "evidence".  The first claim, that "The subject line was
>>misleading" is an opinion basesd on evidence (what the subject line
>>actually said).  My opinion is is that is was not misleading.  Neither
>>point of view (for that is what they are) is "evidence".
>
>Well...by that logic the claim that "ignorance caused the low voter
>turnout" is an opinion based on evidence and is not a fact that
>can be brought up either. The claim that "the vote represented 
>the will of usenet" is in the same boad.

I have not made either of the claims cited by you in the paragraph
quoted above.  I have only presented verifiable evidence (check
your own backup tapes, check the UUnet archives, or ask the people
whose names and addresses appear in the headers) and have tried very
carefully to avoid speculating.  You speculations about other claims
(in the above paragraph) do not answer the point I raised (above,
and in the other paragraph which you deleted from your followup):
your opinions are not evidence.  The evidence consists of verifiable
items -- all of which have been posted for public examination.

>>I am still waiting for evidence -- not opinions, not guesses, but
>>evidence -- in support of your claims to be produced.
>
>By your logic, neither of us has any evidence to use.

I will speak for my own logic, thank you.  I believe that I have
plenty of evidence; in fact, I spent a great deal of time putting
it together in provide the best factual basis possible for the discussion.
You are in a position to examine that evidence and, if you choose,
verify it.

---Rsk
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.10 Rev. Nov 25 1992
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
	<1992Dec14.132521.8290@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <8110@lib.tmc.edu>
	<1992Dec14.220327.12862@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:52:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In <1992Dec14.220327.12862@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
	(Dave Hayes) writes:

>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>your best, is it?
>>You're forgetting the messages posted with an explicit Subject: line...

>All ONE of them?

	Seeing as this is the second repitition of thas falsehood, after
Dave finally admitted that there was a posting at all, I'd like to point
out that we've already had a copy of a _reply_ to this ONE posting Dave
now admits existed. I'm sure someone must have kept a copy of it, in
case Dave's selective memory for facts needs further jogging.



-- 

 "If Rush fans were braindead, why are there so   Bruce Bufalini
 many people posting to alt.music.rush?"              PSU
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.soviet
From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.baltic/balticum  
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:57:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.103720.9282@enea.se>, sommar@enea.se 
(Erland Sommarskog) writes:

> There have been some objections against the name soc.culture.baltic.
> Personally I don't find these objections very valid, 


A friendly remark: it's our identity involved...


> however since
> they come from persons with interest in the topic I cannot ignore
> them if I am anxious to see the group pass the vote.
> 
> Basically the objections have been on two lines:
> 
> 1) "Baltic" would include Finns, Ingrians, Votians and other Baltic
>     Finnish peoples even they don't live what we commonly mean with
>     the Baltics.
> 
> 2)  There is no common Baltic culture. Estonia is a mainly protestant
>     country and Lithuania mainly Catholic, so therefore they are
>     different.


  3) There is no common Baltic language, either. 
     Estonians and Finns are Baltic Finns. This important thing
     is neglected in many cases (even in Scandinavia).

  4) There is no common Baltic politics. The Baltic unity was
     created by the common enemy, the occupation.

 
> The counter-argument to 1) is that common English usage of "Baltic" in
> terms of countries are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. 


It might be "common". Actually, it is a common misunderstanding.


> This far I can recall five possibilities mentioned:
> 1) soc.culture.baltic
> 2) soc.culture.baltics
> 3) soc.culture.balticum
> 4) soc.culture.baltic-states
> 5) talk.politics.baltic(s)
> 
> Of these I will not support 3 or 5. 3 because it is plainly not English.



Right: "balticum" is Latin (of which numerous English words are derived).



> And 5 since I am looking for a group with a broader scope than just a
> political. Also, talk.politics.baltic is in the can, since such a proposal
> was included in the great talk.politics.* reorginazation less than six
> months ago.
> 
> I would like those who have an opinion on this matter, mail me your
> preferences and anti-preferences from the list above. 


My preferences:

soc.culture.balticum > soc.culture.baltics >> soc.culture.baltic


Anyway, the name is not the most important matter, but the rethinking
of the concept "Baltic". We could call the newsgroup

soc.culture.thebestideasweeverhad,

but still, it depends on the will and effort of the contributors,
whether the rethinking takes place or not.

with best regards
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Mike Wilson)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native-america
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:17:43 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>I suspect the new group could be more accurately labeled 
>soc.culture.indian.how.the.evil.white.man.screwed.us or 
>soc.culture.indian.bingo or 
>soc.culture.indian.getting.more.money.from.uncle.sam
>for what I anticipate the discussion will be about.
>(Yes, this is highly cynical but it seems appropriate to what I've seen
>in the media in recent years under the "native american" moniker)

Salut John De Armond,

From the tone of your message, there is very little I could possibly
say that will have any effect on your thinking.  But I do want you
to know this: the Native Nations of this country are, regardless of
what you think about us, here to stay.  We will write our own histories,
we will determine our own gaming and taxation laws, and we will enforce
the treaty obligations of your United States, just as you would with
any country, such as your treaties with Canada.  You ain't sitting on 
Muskogee land for nothing, my friend.

>I never have figured out why some American Indians seem to be so ashamed
>of their breed that they want to try to change their name to somehing
>politically correct but completely meaningless.  What is wrong with
>soc.culture.american.indian?

>John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Actually, American Indian, Native American, and all the rest are all
sort of meaningless.  If you ask a native person where he is from
(and if he doesn't point with his lips), he will tell you his rez or
his tribe.  I've never met a native person who was ashamed of his
or her tribe, but then again, I've never been to Georgia.  Maybe
things are different there.  But if you do want to know what is 
politically correct or incorrect, you should check the polls.  The
relief effort to take food to Somalia, for example, is politically
correct according to the polls.  It might be different in Georgia,
however.

To the rest of the persons involved in this discussion, I would ask
that you not flame John De Armond.  It would only detract from
what was otherwise an excellent discussion on the creation of this
newsgroup.

Thanks,

Mike

idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: RFD: Rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth?
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:40:54 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>While my position stands, I do _care_ about the users in both forums.
>>(Those of you who flame that last statement _will_ be ignored)
>(biting my tongue, and muffling the *poing* in the background) You sure have a
>funny way of showing it.

I have a funny way of showing a lot of things. Sorry...that's who I am.

>How about:
>1) completing the renaming
>2) either fixing/reinstating the gateway to the SYNTH-L list, or, failing
>that, establishing a new mailing list, gatewaying it to
>rec.music.makers.synth, and posting several notices (enough to even satisfy
>your standards of clarity and sufficiency) to SYNTH-L about the new list.

I don't know who took over SYNTH-L so this is not possible. What's wrong
with holding a revote and both sides agreeing beyond all recall that the
new vote stands? (And don't cite guidelines)

>If you don't think this will solve the problem, be specific as to why not.

There's other news admins who are keeping the old name, and who aren't 
listening to this group at all. No I don't have any proof...but it's
reasonable to assume given email I've gotten and posts I've seen.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: what does it take to get someone to vote?
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:28:54 GMT

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>Perhaps _a_ subject line was misleading (by your standards).  But 
>we have also had posted the article ref # and subject line from an
>article posted by an interested participant (more interested than
>you apparently, since you did NOT post one) where the subject line
>was perfectly explicit.  You seem to keep ignoring this one.

Did that article point people to the correct article that told people
how to vote?

No...
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

         Men do not stumble over mountains, but over molehills.
Newsgroups: news.groups