HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.marching
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:11:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.182924.28462@oclc.org> hch@oclc.org (Curtis Hunter) writes:
>In article <BvAK0n.C9B@uunet.uu.net> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>>Request for Discussion
>>Newsgroup: rec.arts.marching
>>Purpose: Discussion of Drum & Bugle Corps, Bands, and Color Guards
> 

>I don't know if we've had enough discussion about the naming convention yet
>to be issuing a CFD?

Part of the purpose of the RFD is to determine the appropriate name for the
group. This is exactly the time when the issue should be discussed.

>No one really addressed the question I raised about Why to place the group
>under rec.arts.*.  I used the example of rec.music before, let me try again.
>If you look at the rec.* groups, many of them could be considered arts.  But
>they do not contain arts in their group name.  Example rec.music.*.  Just
>wondering why the .arts should be included?

Are you asking specifically why rec.marching shouldn't be chosen instead?
I'll answer that question; if that's not your question, please ask again.

Typically, the first hierarchy of names under rec describe major
sub-categories of groups: sports, arts, music, games. WRT your example of
music, there are approximately 20 groups under music.

Non-major categories, if feasable, should be placed in an appropriate major
category. For the purpose of our group, music, arts, or possibly sport would
be candidates. The reasons for choosing arts were discussed in the RFD.

Let me ask you this: why aren't you asking for a group just called "marching?"
In other words, why is it clear to you why this group should not be under
rec.arts, but it's fine that it be under rec?

--phil

Xref: sparky news.groups:18569 rec.music.bluenote:7545
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote
Subject: Re: Arrogance in r.m.bluenote (was Re: r.m.bluenote --> ...)
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:41:02 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center

In article <SINGH.92Oct1040519@julius.cs.uiuc.edu> singh@julius.cs.uiuc.edu (Rajendra Singh) writes:
>>On 27 Sep 92 23:48:57 GMT, rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) said:
>> Secondly, you would have had no problem finding the newsgroup if you
>> had read the postings in news.announce.newusers, which ALL new Usenet
>> users should read, and all users should be familiar with.
>This is an example of the arrogance I find here and in this "discussion"
>in particular that bugs me.  People generally pop up there newsreader, read
>news, and maybe if they get an inkling to look they try out new newsgroups.

That is precisely the problem.  People who attempt to use an information
source as complex as Usenet and software as complex as a newsreader without
first taking rudimentary steps to educate themselves on how both work
fully deserve the confusion that they bring upon themselves.  It hardly
seems like arrogance to request that people read the manual (which is
news.announce.newusers in the case of Usenet, and the appropriate manual
page and/or tutorials in the case of the newsreading software) before
attempting to participate.  Both sets of documents have had a massive
amount of effort put into them over many years by a lot of people; surely,
anyone with a basic interest in using these facilities can make the
minimal effort required to read them.

If you do not agree, then I would like you to explain why attempting
(forcefully, admittedly; less strongly-phrased methods simply
do not seem work) to get people to learn how to use the things
that they are trying to use constitutes "arrogance".

>> First of all, your "understanding" is wrong; the Bluenote record label,
>> which releases recordings by jazz and blues artists, *is* the source of
>> the name.
>
>I believe you're mistaken.  [...] The jazz label was not the inspiration.

Nope.  And I oughta know: I was there when we (the people on the
jazz and blues mailing lists, plus some other interested folks)
kicked around the various names that were proposed.  Although I
don't remember everyone who was involved, and I don't remember
every name that was proposed, I do know who proposed this one, and
why they did it...which is exactly as I stated it above.

---Rsk
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD sci.hpv/rec.bicycles.hpv
Date: 1 Oct 1992 21:37:29 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <16873E18D.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>...if it were under sci.hpv there wouldn't be a tendency for uninterested
>but curious browsers from the rec.bicycles.xxx groups to crash the
>discussion and derail it with side issues.

   That's USENET.  Maybe you should be content with a mailing list.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RESULT: sci.virtual-worlds.apps passes 133:8
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:51:00 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: nigel.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

this is bullshit.  the vote passed, we are going to carry the group,
there's no sense in calling the question *again* and *again* on some minor
technicality.

besides, the all-hallowed guidelines say you have to wait 6 mo before a
revote.

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: Re: RESULT: sci.virtual-worlds.apps passes 133:8
Organization: WORLDESIGN, Seattle
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 07:18:00 GMT


To save further bandwidth, we are revoting on sci.virtual-worlds.apps

Instructions will follow.

Bob Jacobson
Moderator
sci.virtual-worlds
From: werner@soe.berkeley.edu (John Werner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD comp.sys.mac.macapp3
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:32:57 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: UC Berkeley School of Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.32.157.31

In article <1992Sep28.200707.16834@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
lentz@reber.astro.nwu.edu (Robert A. Lentz) wrote:
> Personally if there is going to be a MacApp specific group, I would like to
> also see a TCL specific group. My interest in this also comes from the
> current mailing list. I would also think with the price differential that
> there would probably be more people with potential interest in a TCL group.

Hi Robert.  A few other people have said this via email too.  My basic
reply is "I'm not stopping you."  I haven't used TCL in years, and I'm not
interested enough in it to take the time to run a vote on a TCL newsgroup. 
But if someone else wants to, that's fine with me.  I'll probably even vote
for it.

--
John Werner                         werner@soe.berkeley.edu
UC Berkeley School of Education     510-642-9651
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: glad@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Clayton Glad)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.jazz
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:28:43 GMT

heidelj@alleg.edu (Jason Heideloff) writes:

>I wish that people would be a little more open minded about this.  It is  
>just a newsgroup.  Had I known that it was going to cause this much  
>outrage, I would have shut my mouth.  However, since USENET is indeed a  
>public tool, suggestions can and should be made by anyone who feels that a  
>change is necessary.  And for those that think that I am a newcomer, I  
>would like to have you think again.  Though I do not contribute as many  
>articles as some of the rest, that doesn't mean that I am not an active  
>reader.  I enjoy reading articles on jazz, but I dislike the fact that I  
>have to sift through Blues articles as well.  It is a simple request.  No  
>one is going to die IF a change happens.

I think that what prompted such a strong reaction was not so much your
suggestion as your reason for it: that the jazz content of rec.music.bluenote
is being overwhelmed by the blues content, something that's demonstrably
false.  This has made it a little difficult to take your proposal as
seriously as it might merit.

Right now I hear two reasons for splitting the group: that the blues
posts somehow get in the way of jazz discussions, and (Richard's) that
the pairing of jazz and blues in the same group is conceptually messy
and arbitrary.  I think the first is just silly.  I'm not sure that
the second is sufficient reason.

But what is missing from this discussion is some input from the blues
people.  I haven't yet seen one post (in this round anyway) saying, 
"yeah, there's interest in a blues-only group."

-- Clay
			"Words butter no parsnips."
				-- C.G. Jung
Xref: sparky news.groups:18452 comp.sys.mac.programmer:16215
From: werner@soe.berkeley.edu (John Werner)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: STRAW POLL: MacApp group name
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 28 Sep 1992 18:55:35 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley School of Education
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.32.157.31

This is a quick poll to see what would be the most popular name for a
newswgroup devoted to the MacApp version 3.  For those who haven't followed
this discussion, MacApp is an object-oriented application framework used
for writing Apple Macintosh applications.  There is an existing MacApp-3
mailing list which would be gatewayed with this new newsgroup.

STRAW-POLL BALLOT:
In the "your vote" column, put an "F" if it's your favorite name for the
group, a "Y" if it's not your favorite, but you'd still vote for the group,
and an "N" if you would vote against a group with this name.  You can mail
this to me at "werner@soe.berkeley.edu".

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

Group Name                          | Your vote  ("F", "Y", or "N")
comp.sys.mac.macapp3                |
comp.sys.mac.programmer.macapp3     |
comp.sys.mac.oop.macapp3            |
comp.sys.mac.frameworks.macapp3     |
comp.sys.mac.programmer.oop.macapp3 |

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

Here are quick (and possibly biased) summaries of the opinions I've heard
on each name:

csm.macapp3:            Wrong place in hierarchy. No more top-level groups.
csm.prog.macapp3:       Fits well. MacApp is for programming, after all.
csm.oop.macapp3:        New hierarchy so TCL, Bedrock,... can be added
later.
csm.frameworks.macapp3  Ditto.
csm.prog.oop.macapp3    Logical enough, but too long.

If you're going to vote when the CFV comes out, please vote now on the
group name.  That will give some indication of how much support the group
has.  I'll post the results in a week or so.  I still plan to put out a CFV
sometime around October 9th.


--
John Werner                         werner@soe.berkeley.edu
UC Berkeley School of Education     510-642-9651
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: rec.games.mecha (was: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.board) 
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:55:55 GMT

In article <1ac6lpINNihh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) writes:
>lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex) says:
>
>> rec.games.mecha
>
>[to paraphrase John's lengthy arguments]
                ^^^^
                My fully legal first name is Lunatic.  If it bothers
 you to call me that, or one of its variants (Luny/Looney/Luni/etc.)
 then you may use my former first name, now middle name, Bruce.  Or,
 you may simply call me Mr. E'Sex.
 

>You are now totally straying from the original intent of
> the RFD.  This is a completely different proposal.

    |
    |_et's take a look at the original RFD....


lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
<
<This is a proposal for a news group which would discuss those
<games containing elements of both role playing games and 
<board games.  The primary games under consideration are 
<Battletech/Mechwarrior and Warhammer/Warhammer 40K although
<is not limited to those two.  
<
<The discussion would include, but is not limited to, discussion
<of the various aspects of the game, computerized versions of 
<the games, novelizations, computer programs to assist players
<of the games, design aspects of the games, troubleshooting
<problems, and any other aspect of these games not mentioned.

    ___
     |he suggestion of rec.games.mecha simply appears to be a more
 specific group following exactly the same proposed reasons.  It
 doesn't appear to me to have "totally strayed" from the original
 intent of the RFD, or to be a "completely different proposal."  Is
 not part of the purpose of the discussion to determine if a
 suggested group is too general, too specific, or too ambiguous?
 Considering the tacit primary intent and motovation of the original
 RFD, which is to get the BattleTech posts out of r.g.board and
 r.g.frp.misc and into a single unified group, as well as perform
 the same purpose for similar games such as WarHammer, I'd say that
 rec.games.mecha fulfills 80% or more of it.
 
    ][ will conceede that rec.games.mecha is not an EXACT match for the
 RFD on rec.games.[frp].board.  So if the original poster of the RFD
 decides not to bring a CFV for rec.games.mecha, or the moderator for
 news.announce.newgroups rejects the change from rec.games.[frp].board
 to rec.games.mecha if the original poster chooses that, I will wait
 for the outcome of this RFD and possible following CFV, and submit my
 own RFD for rec.games.mecha if I feel it is necessary.  Only a minimum
 amount of discussion should be necessary then, depending on the result
 of the possible CFV for rec.games.[frp].board.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Subject: Re: RESULT: sci.virtual-worlds.apps passes 133:8
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Sep29.054217.6972@u.washington.edu>
	<1a9kqvINNd1h@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU>
	<1992Sep30.195824.4456@desire.wright.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:47:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.195824.4456@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

	   It's a dictatorship.  Sugar coat it all you want, but since when does
   the defintion of democracy include "voidable by one person"?

It's a benevolent dictatorship.  And it works, mostly.  (Dave's not
quite all-wise.)  Other schemes have bigger flaws when applied to
the net.  And if Dave weren't doing a reasonable job overall, he'd
lose his influence.

--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
From: jojw@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz)
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:43:26 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

I've been a r.m.bluenote lurker for four years, and I have to politely
disagree about splitting up this newsgroup, and I also politely disagree
with Richard Shapiro about the ties of blues and jazz.  I've heard a
number of big-band recordings upon which a blues progression is clearly
based, for example.  My personal definition of jazz is any form of music  
that is "out", no matter if it has rock, blues, or fusion influences
influences; offering the combination of spontaniety, talent, adventure and      
inspiration that provokes your individual sense of listening.  Richard 
does make a good point about a blues/rock & roll connection,
but the blues also influences a number of musical genres including
jazz, fusion, R&B, bluegrass, and folk.  Sometimes, I just like to enjoy
*music*, and avoid this categorization business in general.  Because
I'm unconvinced about the proposal, my vote is "no".

Besides, as one poster noted:  the name of rec.music.bluenote is way        
cool!:-)

 *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
 | John J. Wood                              jojw@uhura.cc.rochester.edu  |
 *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
 |			PLEASE GET WELL, JERRY!!!   			  |
 *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
 | "The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky..."        		  |
 *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
From: mdebuitlear@vms.eurokom.ie
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:29:16 CET
Organization: EuroKom Conferencing Service

In article <7489@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <16764@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>This clearly is a subject of interest to readers.  It could
>>include accupuncture, herbalism, homeopathy, megadose vitamin
>           quackery     quackery    quackery      quackery
>>therapies, chiropractic, holistic medicine, visualization,
>                quackery     quackery            quackery
>>and many other alternative methods that have yet to receive
>                      quackeries
>>acceptance by the mainstream scientific community.
> 
> ,,,because they're all quackery that has been proven not to work.
> 
Who exactly has proven that NONE of the above therapies work ?  I feel sorry 
for arrogant people like you with closed minds. Remember, there are close to 
1,000,000 people in China, for instance, who would disagree with you. 

I suppose the knowledge gained over thousands of years by the chinese and 
here in the west (Acupuncture and Herbalism) is quackery ?  While quacks 
certainly exist in these areas, I believe some doctors would also fit into 
the 'quack' category.  

> As long as you don't put it in the sci.* category, I don't really care. It
> isn't science, though.

Sweeping generalisations and closed minds certainly have no place in science 
either.

MDeB.
M.De.Buitlear@EuroKom.ie
Xref: sparky news.groups:18772 sci.med:18541
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.med
Subject: Re: Starting an alternative medicine newsgroup
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:25:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Oct6.042532.14365
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Oct6.035705.9914@netcom.com> kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
>But there really is a need for a separate newsgroup
>where health care consumers who are interested in alternative therapies
>can talk about those therapies without creating or receiving a lot of
>antagonism.

That won't happen until you pry my cold fingers from the keyboard... <snarl>

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jeff@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Williamson)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.comics.tv
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:31:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.150412.1907@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@Dartmouth.Edu writes:
>    Rac.misc could handle the discussion quite well, if that is where
>people wanted to talk about it, but every indication says that
>discussion has moved to r.a.animation, and in fact people are trying to
>create alt.tv.batman for discussion of the show.

The primary objection, however, was the lack of propagation of the
alt group. This is one of the reasons I suggested a rec group.

>>r.a.c.tv would exist for discussion of past, present, and future television
>>shows with some foundation in comic books. Examples include the
>>aforementioned Batman animated series, the Fish Police series, the now-
>>cancelled Flash television show, the Human Target tv show, and others.
>>Information on upcoming comics tv projects could also be posted to the
>>group.
>
>    Well, frankly the only shows that are likely to get any discussion
>are the Batman animated and the X-Men animated, and there are no
>indications that either of them will be around for more than this
>season. The other shows you have mentioned are either not being
>discussed or not worth discussing, but in any event do not currently
>generate traffic.

Frankly, I think you're wrong. Someone else posted a list of comics-
related TV series (past *and* present) which could generate enough
other discussion. As for the possibility that the two shows you mention
will *not* be around after next season--why, then, create an alt group
whose purpose may dry up after a mere year? Why not create a group which
is not anchored in such limited scope, which can handle discussion of
comics-related TV for years to come?

The reason certain shows are "not being discussed" is that traffic on the
TV shows gets swallowed up among regular comics traffic. Creation of
r.a.c.tv (or some other bastard spawn of intense discussion) would, in
fact, foster discussion of other shows.

I won't bother addressing your opinion that the other shows are "not worth
discussing". 

>    I think that alt.tv.batman will handle the dicussion for this quite
>nicely, and the creation of a rec.arts.comics.tv is something that isn't
>really necessary.

My objections (and others') to the alt group is noted above. While my site
would be likely to carry such a beast, *many* others' sites would not.

-- 
Jeff Williamson       ** "I'm...too hostile for the crew,
ACNS/Northwestern U.  **  Too hostile for the crew,
Evanston, Illinois    **  So hostile...this just won't do."
blackmagik@nwu.edu    **          --Right Said Worf
From: b_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Brian Duke)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.chem.organomet
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:44:11 +0900

In article <2AC88007.6586@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> According to fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy):
>>sci.chem.orgo
>>sci.chem.inorg
>>sci.chem.phys
>>sci.chem.misc
> 
> There's no need for such gratuitous abbreviation.  Rather:
> 
>   sci.chem.organic
>   sci.chem.inorganic
>   sci.chem.physics
>   sci.chem.misc
>
Please "sci.chem.physical", not "sci.chem.physics"!

I agree with several earlier posts that perhaps sci.chem.organomet
is too specific, although I will vote for it if that is all I am asked. 
Whatever we do, we must try to extend the number of chemists across 
the world interacting over the net. I fully agree with another earlier 
post of this point. Lets go for the full four groups above, as this 
might maximise attention from chemists even though traffic might be 
low at first.
-- 
                  Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke)
School of Chemistry and Earth Sciences, Northern Territory University
        GPO Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811, Australia.
Phone 089-466702   FAX 089-410460    E-mail B_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.kibology
From: sridhar@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Sridhar Venkataraman)
Subject: Re: Proposal of new group: soc.culture.kibonia
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:09:57 GMT

Leader Kibo writes:

)[]
)	Kibonia is a small sovereign country which is, unfortunately,
)landlocked.  In fact, it borders only Massachusetts.  However, there is
)no reason its hard-working population should not have a truly wonderful
)newsgroup dedicated the the culture, the history, the tourism, and the
)illustrious citizen of Kibonia.
)
)	It would also be the only soc.culture.* newsgroup to be read by
)EVERYONE in its native country, and would serve as an excellent example
)of how Usenet will soon control the world.

Addendum:
Since not everyone receives alt.religion.kibology we need
soc.culture.kibonia.

:-)

Sridhar.
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote