HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.kibology,alt.politics.kibo
Subject: Re: Bogus USENET Groups
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:45:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston

In article <1gnporINNr99@news.UU.NET> tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) writes:
>rec.ham-radio                   superseded by rec.radio.amateur.misc
>rec.ham-radio.packet            superseded by rec.radio.amateur.packet
>rec.ham-radio.swap              superseded by rec.radio.swap
>rec.kibo.hunting                no proposal

I hereby propose rec.kibo.hunting.  Also rec.american.gladiators.kibo.

							-- K.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 18 Dec 1992 12:23:24 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec17.230110.24323@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>If it's not important, why bother?
>I told you. Figure it out. (I don't think I could explain it to you without
>you taking it the wrong way...and if you get it yourself you'll GET it)

I guess I'll have to stay confused, then; most folks don't bother with
unimportant things.

>>I've long since learned not to try to guess at people's motives for apparently
>>irrational actions.
>Good. You're learning. 

...?? You mean you don't object to being labeled irrational??
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:38:46 GMT
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC

In article <1992Dec15.120428.25214@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
> On the other hand, I don't like Peter's idea either.  It means that any
> small pressure group with a vested interest (50's not many in a Usenet
> context) could block creation of any group they didn't like, for
> whatever reason, and regardless of its usefulness or popularity.

They can already do that. However you choose the figures, a small group
can block it... after all, there are probably on the high side of a million
readers on the net, and certain groups have demonstrated that you can get
enough votes for ANYTHING if you try hard enough.

Or AGAINST anything.
-- 
%Peter da Silva/77487-5012 USA/+1 713 274 5180/Have you hugged your wolf today?
/L{lineto}def/C{curveto}def/F{0 562 moveto 180 576 324 648 396 736 C 432 736 L
482 670 518 634 612 612 C}def/G{setgray}def .75 G F 612 792 L 0 792 L fill 1 G
324 720 24 0 360 arc fill 0 G 3 setlinewidth F stroke showpage % "Peerless"
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Don't mess with the folklore people
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:08:13 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu

In article <dct.724543316@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu> dct@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (David C. Tuttle) writes:
>starfish@stein.u.washington.edu (Sarah Skovronsky) writes:
>>...Do you have any particular opposition to telnetting to a
>>site which does carry alt groups?  As has been posted in this group,
>>there are various sites which allow just about anyone to call up and
>>read news.

>And I will admit that I *do* have some opposition to having to telnet
>to another site just to read particular news groups.  It's not worth
>the hassle to me to have yet another computer account that would be
>redundant in every other sense.  

Here is yet another option for getting a group that isn't carried
locally.

1. find a site that has world-read access to news via nntp. There are
several, but I am not going to offer someone else's system to the world
for them. Ask in news.admin.misc.

2. retrieve the program called pgnews. Archie says:

    01 Host wuarchive.wustl.edu
    Location: /usenet/comp.sources.misc/volume31/pgnews
       Directory drwxrwxr-x 00000512 1992 Jul 15 02:08:00 GMT pgnews

3. set up the .pgnews file to get whatever groups you want.

4. make a crontab entry to run pgnews every day.

In exchange, you will receive a personal copy of whatever group you
want.

To post, use one of the many mail->news gateways. There is one in the UK
that ross-c can tell you about.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:34:09 GMT

In article <1gjc0uINN2qa@news.UU.NET>, brians@atlastele (Brian Sheets) writes:
>I would like to propose a newsgroup for the patriot movement in the U.S.
>This would include discussions on rights violations by legislation, gold 
>and silver as payment for debts, freedom organizations and many other basic 
>US Constitutional topics.

with that description, it should be talk.politics.usa.patriot

in any case, I don't think the name is good.

for constitution and civil liberties, see also groups
alt.society.civil-liberty, alt.politics.usa.constitution.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:58:36 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>[about Dave's redirecting the flames back into rec.music.synth]
>>I only did that ONCE. 
>Nope...at least three times that I can remember, just from other folks'
>comments in this thread about how you kept doing it and asking you to stop.

Well, I know what I did. There were times that YOUR followup to line was
set to something interesting (i.e.  r.m.s. or other) and I don't know
if I caught all of those or not. 

Perhaps what you were seeing is everyone else's followups, or at least those
who don't pay attention to what group is being followed up to.

>>>No; it implies that you should be careful about where, how, and how much to
>>>complain.
>>On Usenet? Hardly.
>On Usenet? Especially. After all, heaven knows things get magnified in
>importance on here... :-)

Only in the minds of those who deem this important.

>>I'm not hurting anyone. Sorry. Unless people can be hurt by my words, in
>>which case they are giving me a LOT of power.
>Your actions in ignoring this vote, and flaming about it in rec.music.synth,
>are directly responsible for the bad things you're claiming are happening to
>the synth community. You ARE hurting people, at least to the extent that
>you're claiming people are being hurt by all this.

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

   A man was claiming to be a Prophet. He was taken before the Church.
   "Prophets reveal miracles," said the Minister. "What is yours?"
   The man replied: "I have the ability to read thoughts.  Right now
               you are all thinking that I am lying."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:54:51 GMT

swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>You, and you alone, are responsible for the split.

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

         No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Xref: sparky news.groups:24400 soc.motss:52471
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* (was Re: new newsgroup proposal:talk.politics.motss)
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:08:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec15.190827.24034
Organization: insert anything here

coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren) writes:
>How to actually address the "cross-posting evil" is another
>perennially vexing question, which I will address in a subsequent
>post.

	One idea I had a long time ago was to make soc.motss.*
moderated insofar as ANY, *ANY* cross-posted articles got
bounced, and other stuff went thru unchecked.  The moderations,
as such would be done auto-magically. (Soc.bi and the other *.motss
groups would probably be an exception to this...)

	Were I to suggest this now, I'd also suggest a
group KILL file the contents of which would be voted upon
in some soc.motss.d subgroup created for this sort of drary
admministrivia.  Some time-limit on the contents would probably
be there, say 6 months.

	Let's face it 90% of the non-FAQ, non-"charter" stuff
comes from outside crossposting.  Eliminating that would I believe
eliminate MOST of the problem.

	And I know some people will have problems of this predicting
net.death because it could be abused.  Since the net is ablused
as it is, there is no way to enforce FAQs or charters, this seems
to me to be the only way to keep things on track.  Myself, I trust
most ofthe regulars on soc,motss to do a fair job of managing things
for their own group.  IF it were a success (we could give it a trial period
of 6 months or a year), it would be a way for other groups to better
control the signal-to-noise ratio.

	By way of how to do soc.motss.*, I still like the idea
from a few months ago:

	soc.motss.misc	- "classic" soc.motss
	soc.motss.info (moderated) - news/reprints/etc.
	soc.motss.d - who gets to moderate, content arbitration, etc.

	One might argue for soc.motss.current as well.

BBC
From: news@wolves.Durham.NC.US (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:57:08 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: e9aa38f94fb593d4cbf5c1678256fd3e

In <1992Dec14.215351.12595@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>No; it implies that you should be careful about where, how, and how much to
>>complain.
>
>*poing*
>
>On Usenet? Hardly.
>
>>Swatting a housefly with a Buick may kill the fly, but it's hard on
>>the Buick, too. 
>
>We aren't talking about physical damage here. We are talking about complaints.
>If people can't ignore someone they call a bozo, then that's their problem.

Very strange to hear this from you.  Why, just around the corner in that
other conversation, you claim that ignoring someone (by placing them
into a kill file) is ELITISM!

Over here, you are claiming that it's perfectly alright to ignore
someone.

Which way is it Dave?
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us  news%wolves@cs.duke.edu  ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<1992Dec17.230110.24323@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <8183@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:10:39 GMT

In article <8183@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

   In article <1992Dec17.230110.24323@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
   >>I've long since learned not to try to guess at people's motives for apparently
   >>irrational actions.
   >Good. You're learning. 

   ...?? You mean you don't object to being labeled irrational??

You didn't label him as irrational.  You perceived his actions as
apparently irrational.  The next step is to realize that your
perception may be wrong.  Or not.  :)
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.motss
From: zennaro@iesd.auc.dk (Christina Zennaro)
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* (was Re: new newsgroup proposal:talk.politics.motss)
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
	<1992Dec14.85156.27689@ms.uky.edu>
	<1992Dec15.012442.27914@macc.wisc.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:48:59

anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote:

lots of stuff deleted


>We've had parts of this discussion before, but taking that
>into account, I propose a four-group division:
>
>soc.motss.coping
>
>   The coming-out stories, dealing with parents, dealing
>   with other individuals who have important roles in our
>   lives, including us ourselves.
>
>soc.motss.politics
>
>   Discussions of interest to our political lives.  Phobes
>   not welcome *at all*.  No debates over "is it OK to be
>   queer?"
>
>soc.motss.politics.documents
>
>   The famous Brian Blumberg offerings, letters received and
>   sent, manifestos, texts of laws pro and con, newspaper
>   and other media accounts, etc.
>
>soc.motss.misc
>
>   The traditional fare, from opera stars to recipe books to
>   movie and pop-music icons to rodents in the rectum.

More stuff deleted.

I think it is a good idea to split up the newsgroup, but I have one
major concern: I am (was) not familiar with American motss slang and
it took more than a year before I discovered what motss means. (And I
have been publicly out and proud for 7 years) I never thought there
would be other newsgroups than alt.politics.homosexual.  I think it
might be a problem for others to find these newsgroups. And it really
bugs me that it is hard to find your homo-family here too. I have no
other suggestion to solve this problem than to urge people to post
about this newsgroup on a.p.h every now and then.

Christina


--
 ________     
 \      /   Christina Zennaro               |zennaro@iesd.auc.dk
  \    /    Dept of Math and Comp Science   |E1-206
   \  /     University of Aalborg           |Frederik Bajersvej 7
    \/      Denmark                         |DK-9220 Aalborg S0

"Call me straight and I'll sue."


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: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:17:12 GMT

rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>As far as I'm concerned, the "argument", such as it is, has already
>been resolved: the appropriate newgrp messages were issued over a
>month ago by Dave Lawrence.  Now, I don't presume to speak for him,
>but I think the issuance of the newgrp messages indicates that the
>vote has been sanctioned.  Some sites have already removed the old
>group; others have aliased it (and some haev done both).  

And others refuse to remove rec.music.synth. Like mine. 

>I have saved all messages in this thread.   The volume *was* actually
>decreasing...however, I fear this will start it all over again.

You're right. 

>It has already been resolved.  Every "argument" that has been advanced
>has been shown to be lacking--simply by producing the available evidence:
>the RFD's, the CFV's, the discussion, and so on.  Those who have claimed
>that "something is wrong" have, so far, not produced the slightest shred
>of verifiable evidence.  I consider their claims baseless.

We have provided evidence. The subject line was misleading (CFV: 
rec.music.makers.* reorganization) and the vote topic was far enough
down in the body of the CFV (greater than 21 lines) that it was probably 
missed by those who have 24 line screens (a sizable percentage). 

>And, perhaps just as importantly, what about the other four groups
>which were voted on by the same people on the same ballot?  Why pick
>out just .synth for this treatment, while allowing the results of the
>other four ballot items to stand?

Those were inherently different as they were 'new group creation' rather
than 'old group renaming'. 

>Look, folks, forgive me if I'm getting a bit tired of this...but I've
>had it up to *here*.  I've had my character attacked, my motives
>questioned, and have been more-or-less dragged through the mud...and I 
>am not in the mood to tolerate any more of it.

I sympathize, though my tolerance point is much higher. (I've had *my*
character attacked, *my* motives questioned, and am STILL being dragged
through the mud) It's still hard for me to take any of this seriously 
enough for it to matter very much, but I still stand by my position.

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

A person was frighteningly ugly. Once he was asked how could he go on
living with such a terrible face. "Why should I be unhappy?", answered
the man. "I never see my own face; let others worry."
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:49:08 GMT
Organization: GSP

In article <id.97RV.ETA@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.174347.17435@midway.uchicago.edu> greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>> Therefore I PROPOSE that the protocol for a call for votes be changed
>> so that in the future, yes votes must exceed twice no votes by 200 votes
>> before a newsgroup is created. In other words,
>
>There is no correlation between Yes and No. Just because a group is popular
>doesn't mean it should pass against massive opposition. I propose that the
>guidelines be changed:

I think that before any meaningful discussion on what changes (if any)
are in order can begin, that we should carefully examine what has
happened in the past.  John Werner has thoughtfully gathered these
together (and has volunteered to provide copies to those who are
interested).  I've got a copy, which I'm now analyzing; I suggest that
other may wish to the same.  Once we have a good idea where he have
been, perhaps we will have some idea where we would like to go.  But
without a careful analysis of the statistics involved in previous
votes, suggestions for numerical changes in the criteria are premature.

>In addition, I would like to suggest that multi-way votes be allowed. The
>simplest form would be:

I don't like this idea.  The current procedure is to attempt to
reach a consensus on new group names via discussion in news.groups
and/or private mail; if a consensus can be reached, then a vote
should be held.  If the participants cannot bring themselves to
a rough area of common agreement, then a vote should not be held.

---Rsk
From: amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam Costello)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:22:55 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

In article <id.97RV.ETA@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>
>I can not disagree more strongly. If we're going to change the voting
>guidelines, let us change them so they better match the needs of the net.
>
>There is no correlation between Yes and No. Just because a group is popular
>doesn't mean it should pass against massive opposition. I propose that the
>guidelines be changed:
>
>	Y >= 100 (or 200 or whatever you want)
>	N <= 50 (or 100 or whatever you want)
>
>That is, if more than 50 (100, ...) people oppose a group, there is probably
>something sufficiently wrong with the group that it should not pass no matter
>how many ballots are handed in.

I cannot disagree more strongly :)

I don't see why there should be no-votes at all.  I think if 200 people
want a new group, let them have it.  Those who don't want it don't
have to subscribe.  It's not as if creating new groups increases the
total volume of USENET.  It just makes it easier for people to locate
the information they're looking for.

AMC
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:24:45 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec17.014541.1828@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>Why, if you only redirected followups back into r.m.s once, did Rich Kulawiec
>>ask you on no less than three occasions to stop doing it?
>I don't know. Why don't you ask him? 

Rich?
(Or whoever it was, if not Rich? - I may have gotten the name wrong)

>>Right. If this is not important, then why are you raising such a stink?
>Because it _isn't_ important. (Figure that one out.)

Dave, you've managed to completely confuse me. If this is not important,
you're raising a stink because it's not important. If it's not important, why
bother?

>You can't possibly think that my ego is getting a boost by taking on all you
>flamebait mentality types at once...and losing?

...advanced masochism?
I've long since learned not to try to guess at people's motives for apparently
irrational actions.

>I'm sorry, but I don't support gang rape. You may witness such an event,
>and because the gang is so big, you may decide to look the other way. My
>ethics are different. 

...he says, zipping his pants. *poing*
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Xref: sparky news.groups:24644 alt.religion.kibology:5473 alt.politics.kibo:296
From: an072@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard White)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.kibology,alt.politics.kibo
Subject: Re: Bogus USENET Groups
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:10:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an072@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard White)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) says:

>In article <1gnporINNr99@news.UU.NET> tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) writes:
>>rec.ham-radio                   superseded by rec.radio.amateur.misc
>>rec.ham-radio.packet            superseded by rec.radio.amateur.packet
>>rec.ham-radio.swap              superseded by rec.radio.swap
>>rec.kibo.hunting                no proposal
>
>I hereby propose rec.kibo.hunting.  Also rec.american.gladiators.kibo.
>
>							-- K.

 Let's not forget  rec.pets.spot.
Xref: sparky news.groups:24548 alt.native:1458
From: berk@techsys.mcws.fidonet.org (Berk Walker)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native.america
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 20:06:46 PST
Organization: Private for Now

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

> Concerning "native", "indigenous", and "aboriginal".
> 
> My Concise Oxford has the following definitions. My comments enclosed
> in square brackets.
> 
> "native" (noun)
>   1. One born, or whose parents are domiciled, in a place; local
>      inhabitant; (Australia) white born in Australia. [so much for
>      creating a soc.culture.native.australian group -kw]
>   2. Member of non-European or uncivilized people.
> 

THAT'S why I was 25 before I associated "natives" with anyone besides 
those pictured in National Geo.

There probably aren't enough "Native Americans" to sustain a group, but 
there are a lot of non-native suporters.  Be Politically sensitive, as 
the net, per se, doesn't need flamage, money's tight.  Worth $0.02?
Nya.

Berk Walker                           berk@techsys.mcws.fidonet.org