HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: Usenet Culture (Was: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??)
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:05:25 GMT

In article <2B091782.8A24@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> 
> Imminent death of Usenet predicted.
> 
A cute catch-phrase to completely disregard a point. The net will most  
definately survive in some sense. The quetion is: "Will what could likely  
occur be desirable"?

> There never has been any such
> thing as governance by the `will of the net', because control has
> _never_ rested anywhere but with individual administrators.  Period.
> Any other idea that you may have ("democracy"?) is 100% illusory.
> 
Forgive me if am mistaken, but isn't part of the intent of the guidelines  
to allow people other than admins to have a voice in the process? The  
admins are always free to disregard that voice of course. Your position  
would seem to support diminishing that voice.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Subject: cards?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 10:10:12 GMT

Is there a newsgroup dedicated to card-playing?  I see the gambling 
groups but am surprised to see no rec.games.cards.  Where would I look for
discussions of the many fine non-gambling card games such as golf, rummy,
cruel, etc. etc.?
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:00:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1ei2ecINNg4e
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov18.012118.830@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>Well it seems at a minimum, that the groups that are absolutely affected  
>need to be cross-posted to. 

What is "absolutely affected"?

>The guidelines aren't specific about this. It  
>appears that vote-takers do 'the right thing' here on their own, but there  
>is no mechanism to ensure that they do. 

Yes, there is a mechanism, and his name is Dave Lawrence. Why don't you
learn the way things are before you start telling us the way things
are?

>Correct, but it was an interesting point that surfaced along the way. In  
>general the guidelines seem a little loose for compicated votes. A  
>vote-taker could argue that he/she followed the letter of the guidelines  
>without even having cross-posted the article to the absolutely-affected  
>groups. That didn't happen in this case, but it could.

"Absolutely affected" again. Just what is that supposed to mean? If it
means what I THINK you want it to mean, a vote taker certainly would not
be following the letter of the guidelines by skipping "absolutely
affected" groups, and the moderator of news.announce.newgroups wouldn't
let such a CFV get by.
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RF(Informal)D: Standard RFD/CFV Format
Keywords: RFD CFV formats guidelines votes
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:39:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1ec6spINNn0q
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov16.050533.18672@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>I disagree that the word CFV is enough.  It
>wasn't enough for me, and I'm a relatively
>experienced user who has read the guidelines.
>I had implicitly assumed that the guidelines
>also required Subject lines to be more specific
>than the guidelines actually require of votes.

This quote is a complete proof that nobody will EVER be able to solve
the problem of people not knowing the process, whether they are newbies
or old hands.

(Rob, I am not picking on you in particular, you just happened
along...)

Let's look closer...

>I disagree that the word CFV is enough.  It
>wasn't enough for me, and I'm a relatively
>experienced user who has read the guidelines.

I.e., this is an experienced user who actually read the material.

>I had implicitly assumed that the guidelines
>also required Subject lines to be more specific
>than the guidelines actually require of votes.

I.e, This experienced user who read the guidelines didn't notice that the
guidelines are silent about the Subject line of the CFV, but assumed
that the guidelines required them to be a certain way.

Folks, there will always be people who don't understand what they read
or what they are told. You can write flawless prose to describe the
voting process, and force people to read it, but there will still be
those who don't understand.

If we allow the mere existance of those who don't understand the process
to keep us from having a process, we are fools. If we continually change
the process to make those who can't understand the current one happy, we
will wind up with NOBODY knowing what is going on.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Qvortrup)
Subject: Re: Should there be Pre-RFD discussion? (was Re: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy)
Keywords: fantasy RFD arts
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:39:36 GMT

In article <pvanheus.722175366@frodo> pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden) writes:
>[...]
>Micheal Qvortrup  qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch

You get my surname right, but managed to misspell my first name?
That is certainly the first that has happened!

(Sorry, I couldn't let that one go :-), and it is not meant as a flame)

>[...]
>Furthermore, Elmo points out that the content of the group is going to
>be of the "I love this artist rave rave rave" type. True, especially given
>the contents of rec.arts.sf.written, but the only way to stop this is to
>have a community discouraging such posts, or *gasp* a moderator. Neither
>exist in rec.arts.sf.written, and the result seems to be a very trivial
>newsgroup.

Correct me, if I am wrong, but didn't you say in another post that
you didn't read rec.arts.sf.written? Or at least not very much? On which
ground did you then base the conclusion?

There are very few posts of the "I love this artist rave rave rave" type
on r.a.sf.w. They are actively discouraged, politely but firmly, and 
pointed towards the appropriate fan-groups (normally in the alt-hierarchy).
Actually, the politely part of it is not always true. Why do you think
there are so few Piers Anthony discussions on r.a.sf.w? The last person
who posted a "rave rave" P.A. fan post to the group sure must have 
noticed what the collective opinion of the group was on *that* topic!
(The polite interpretation was: "Go away!")

I really feel you have to substantiate your claim that r.a.sf.w is
trivial, I do actually feel slightly insulted at the idea. Why don't you
pop over there, read the group for a couple of days, and then show us
concrete examples of the triviality of the group? Some real life examples
of the need for a moderator would also be good.

Regarding a moderator, did you know that there is a thing, which comes
fairly close to that? The good old precursor of the current *.sf.*
hierarchy, back when it was still r.a.sf-lovers. What I am talking about
is the SF-LOVERS mailing list maintained by Saul Jaffe - I haven't got
the contact address, but I am sure somebody else can provide it.

As somebody else said, the *.sf.* hierarchy isn't broken, so don't fix
it. We might discuss a renaming of the base node, though.

Greetings,
--Mike

-- 
#include <std-disclm.h>--"... and there is a small flaw in my character."---
Real Life: Michael Christian Heide Qvortrup      A Dane         ETH, Zuerich
e-mail   : qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch                  abroad         Switzerland
Institut fuer wissenschaftliches Rechnen  /  Inst. of Scientific Computation
From: B.Kumar@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:00:23 GMT


>> In article <1e9kpbINNm5v@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.ed
u (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>But even casting that aside, let us look at Prophet Muhammed's (pbuh)
>last sermon which he gave on the ninth day of Dhul Hijjah, 10 A.H. in
>the Uranah valley of Mount Arafat:
>
>   O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH
>   WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand my
>   words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QUR'AN
>   and my example, the SUNNAH, and if you follow these you will never go
>   astray.
>

Is n't Mohammed proved wrong here?  "- No new faith will be
born .". Huun... May be Mr Mohammed had no idea about Sikhism, Bahaism 
and Kabir Panthis - all started after Mohammed's above declaration. I am 
quite sure that there would be many other minor faiths, all started after 
his above (pompous) declaration. Seems like Mr GOD was playing a joke 
on Mr Mohammed or someone is misquoting GOD/Mohammed.

bkumar
Xref: sparky news.groups:22626 news.admin.policy:533
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: UDRP Clarification
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:33:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1eji36INNhmv
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov20.160534.20792@muddcs.claremont.edu> irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
>In a prior article, John Stanely (stanley@skyking.oce.orst.edu) writes:

Cute. Do you always edit people's names in the attribution line, or am I
special?

>> But UDRP is SO clear. So clear that it need not be defined.
>> 
>> [entire article without one reference to anything that could be
>> abbreviated UDRP, deleted.]

>Come on, John, give me a break here. In a thread titled "Usenet
>Documentation Revision Project : Phase Zero", there is one follow-up
>entitled "UDRP". 

The article I was replying to had the subject "UDRP Clarification". I
don't know why you think that it was titled something else, but here it
had no such clear Subject. I didn't recognize the acronym, so I looked
in the article. There was absolutely nothing in the article to indicate
what it meant.

>Think for twenty seconds about what this might refer to,
>and if you really can't figure it out, I'll revise my opinion of the
>pattern-matching ability of net denizens.

What pattern matching? There was absolutely NOTHING in the article that
made any mention of Usenet Documentation Revision Project, Phase Zero or
any other Phase. It isn't in any of the net.documentation I am familiar
with. 

>Besides, since neophytes can't, by definition, find news.groups, this
>discussion is already limited to elitists, who don't need acronyms defined.
>(grin)

Right. Pull the other one and it plays "Dixie".

>Seriously, though, if all you're doing is making a cute irony point, that's
>great, and I apologize for reacting too seriously to your skin-crackingly
>dry humor. 

I am pointint out the hypocrisy of arguing that CFV is too cryptic and
then expecting UDRP to be crystal clear.

>If you really honestly couldn't figure out what URDP stood for,

I figured it out, but I had to look back through old news for something
with a clear subject. 

Now answer the point: if CFV (including the definition in the article
where it is used) is too cryptic, why is an undefined UDRP acceptable?
From: johnh@macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au (John Haddy)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.solid-state.electronics
Organization: Macquarie University, Sydney
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:22:44 GMT

In article <BxnGI5.FD5@uunet.uu.net>, sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
|> In observation of the guidelines for usenet group creation a request for
|> discussion on creation of sci.solid-state.electronics is being
|> cross posted to sci.electronics, sci.physics, and news.announce.newsgroups.
|> The name of this group is still open for discussion. Each field of this 
|> new proposed newsgroup name should be less than 15 characters long, a field 
|> is the combinations of words between two ".". Also, there should be no bogus 
|> character such as "&" in the field.
|> 
...

|> Please, post your support for creation of this newsgroup and any comments
|> you might have about this newsgroup to sci.electronics and/or sci.physics.
|> 
|>                      With highest regards,
|>                           Babak   Sehari.

I certainly support the group, but feel that a more appropriate name would be
sci.electronics.solid-state. This arrangement will make the group's existence as
a separate entity from sci.electronics immediately apparent to anybody scanning
an alphabetical list of groups.

JohnH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      |  _  |_   _   |_|  _   _|  _|              Electronics Department
    |_| (_) | | | |  | | (_| (_| (_| \/           School of MPCE
    ---------------------------------/-           Macquarie University
                                                  Sydney, AUSTRALIA 2109

    Email: johnh@mpce.mq.edu.au, Ph: +61 2 805 8959, Fax: +61 2 805 8983

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
From: mirza@vxcrna.cern.ch (MIRZA,I./EP)
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.213220.23454@sarah.albany.edu>, ys3359@thor.albany.edu (Yazmasterj) writes...
>In article <1e3q41INNgse@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) went on about...
>....
>the interpretation of the Quran.  The "court" which has the right to decide
>is God.  He is not an elected official who we can lobby in favor of our
>views.  Why don't we just leave it up to Him?
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
>Khudahafiz
> 
>Yasmin

	How the mullah and their "Hawarees" will earn "Roti"
	if they leave everything to god?

Mirza Ilyas
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:10:45 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.


 In article <1992Nov12.053350.4155@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
 >stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
 >>Funny how, were your assumption to be true, that of all those people
 >>who POST to rec.music.synth that Dave Hayes counted, NOBODY started
 >>such a "large noise" about it in that group. 
 > 
 >Straw Man. 

This seems to be your favorite phrase. Use it too much and it loses
meaning. Like your specious arguments. 

 >The noise is starting now. Deal with the present.

Why? You're making noise by grousing about the past. You appear to be
holding yourself in a seperate class where this is permissable for you
but not others. Tsk tsk....


-- 
 ...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: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Summary: I have voted NO.
Keywords: religion
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:30:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: ra.1992Nov16.173046.14657
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi

In article <1e1e7uINNomc@life.ai.mit.edu> majafri@sandman.caltech.edu (Mansoor A. Jafri) writes:
>	iii)	To Discuss differences between Ahmadiyya Islam and
>		other religions of the world and discuss why almost
>		religions like christianity, jewism, hinduism and
>		Islam have so much interest in this religous group.

I will not get into the discussion of who may or may not be a "true
Muslim" but I do object to the creation of any group who's charter
refers to Hinduism, Jewdaism, Christianity and Islam as "almost
religions" and who's author will not even pay three of the four the
common courtesy of capitalizing their names.
-- 

Donald R. Newcomb                * The one who dies with the most toys
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * has accomplished nothing beyond
newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * enslaving himself to his possessions.
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
From: dogar@rtsg.mot.com (Haroon H. Dogar)
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:09:39 GMT

chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes:

>Look, Shakil, you don't seem to be following the argument.  What I
>*do* know is that you interpret Quran to imply A, while another group
>of equally knowledgeable people interpret it as not implying A.  I
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>know beans about the Quran, but all it is necessary for me to notice is
>that you have no previleged role as an interpreter, that you are free to
>believe A, but you cannot demand that everyone else roll over and
>accept your interpretation, and deny the right of Ahamadias to their
>interpretation.  None of this requires that I know a lot about the
>Quran.  If you substitute Quran with Zend Avesta in the above argument
>structure, what I say will still remain valid.  


It is not just Shakil or some of today's scholars. It is all of the
Muslims [including Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his early days], Muslim
scholars, and Arabic speakers from way back when up until Brittish
India of the 19th century. [No offense to the Lahori sect of the
Ahmadis who maintain that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never claimed to be
a prophet.] Everyone had always understood this word to mean
one thing and then a man from Punjab comes along to say that it
means something else.

-hd
We REALLY need a FAQ to deal with these debates that keep coming
up again and again and again.





Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:54:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.203120.19555@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>
>I disagree that voters will assume they've already voted, since
>each ballot will have a different Subject line.
>
>I disagree that this multiplies the work to be done, because
>there are exactly the same number of yea's and nay's --- they're
>just distributed onto different ballots, instead of different
>columns of a single ballot.

And I disagree with you.  It's a lot easier for me, as a voter, to
respond to a CFV with 8 votes than to 8 separate CFVs.  Unless I happen
to have the time, I might well skip voting entirely.  (And, let's face
it, with all there is to read on Usenet, and the limited time I can
afford to spend on it, I tend to always be in a rush when I read.)

Of course, if I fail to vote, then don't like the result, I can always
do like Dave and wail that the process was too complex .  .  .

(Yes, the proposal for separate ballots does make it easier for people
who only care about one part of a vote, but makes it harder for people
who care for the whole proposal.)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Should there be Pre-RFD discussion?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:38:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


>dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>>Isn't there something in the newsgroup creation procedure about
>>issuing a formal RFD *after* there's been enough discussion to
>>show that it's worth pursuing?  

I've never figured out how there are people who
 know enough about the procedure to get a formal
 RFD started, and yet also have no clue when it
 comes to the ettiquette.  Isn't it all written
 down in the same place?  If not, it should be.
-- 
Francis A. Uy			Program Director, WUMD
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy
Date: 17 Nov 1992 21:46:45 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Nov17.183040.21587@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>One of the predictable results of rec.arts.fantasy would be flame-wars
>protesting that something isn't fantasy and it should be removed from
>this group...
>McCaffrey's Pern series. The early books have all the hallmarks of fantasy,
>but the later books are a mix...

   No, no, NO!  The early few books were *definitely* science fiction,
while the middle ones were straight fantasy, and the later ones....

(For the really slow ---> :-)
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kholec@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kim Holec)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.fantasy
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 07:55:34 GMT


As a reader of several groups and mailing lists, my time is
limited.  Therefore, switching from a group of limited interest
(rec.arts.sf.written) to a group of great interest (rec.arts.
fantasy) would be helpful.  Not to mention the fact that I, 
like most readers of fantasy that I know, prefer fantasy to
sf.  While it may be true that sf stands for speculative
fiction  to some  people, to many others it still indicates
*science* fiction.  At any rate, a name change for the 
proposed group may be in order; I suggest Rec.arts.fantasy.
written.  
It does sound more  academic! 
kim f. holec


Xref: sparky news.groups:22424 soc.culture.indian:37560 soc.culture.pakistan:16916 soc.culture.bangladesh:6098
From: jodar@aludra.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Will the _real_ SRIA-CFV please stand up...?
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: 18 Nov 1992 21:29:10 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
Summary: Comon, folks,...  Get with it.
Keywords: The SRIA Fisaco....


Assalamu Alaikum....


Auzu Billahi...

I don't know about the rest of you people, but every time I go to
post a message, I get the following:

-----------
This news program posts articles to thousands of machines
throughout the entire civilized world.  It will cost hundreds, if
not thousands, of dollars to send everywhere.  Please be sure you
know what you are doing.
-----------


Believe it or not, I actually read it, too.  I suggest that those
individuals who insist that their incessant arguing really is
worth the 'hundreds, if not thousands of dollars' it takes to 
plaster it all over the net (under the subject heading of a CFV, 
no less!) take their argument to alt.flame.

For those of you who have been forced to wade through such stuff 
in search of useful information, I suggest you add
'soc.religion.islam.ahmadi' to your killfiles.



I also offer my sincere condolence to those subjected to this 
'discussion,' although they will probably find little comfort in 
that.  You will be happy to note, however, that those responsible 
for this fiasco will have to answer to Allah (SWT) on the Day of 
Judgement for the money they've wasted, the accusations and 
names they've flung around, and the people they've turned away 
from the beauty of Islam by their bickering.

May Allah (SWT) save those with good hearts and Guide them to the
Truth.  Amin.

-AQ

[I beg Allah's forgiveness for my weakness and insufficiency in ]
['His' service, and I ask for his protection from Shaitan and   ]
[from my own Desires.  None can protect me except Allah.  If I  ]
[have made any errors, I beg Allah to bring them to my attention]
[so that they may be corrected.  If I have made none, then it is]
[only through the Grace of Allah and all praise is due only to  ]
['Him.'                                                         ]

Newsgroups: news.groups