HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davis@licre.ludwig.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Priests and Oracularity selection
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:46:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: licre.009673C9.95A5F320.1664
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

I've been following this discussion with some interest.  As I've said to 
the other members of the Priesthood on several occasions, the problem is 
not that good Oracularities are being missed, but that bad ones are 
selected too often.  I think in most cases this is because a particular 
Priest may have gone for weeks without seeing a good Oracularity, and comes 
to think that perhaps his or her standards have become too high.  I know 
I've been guilty of this on occasion after four or five weeks of absolutely 
nothing worth publishing.

The Priesthood gets a report twice a week which details how many 
Oracularities have been sent to each Priest, how many were returned for 
publication, and what the average vote has been on past published ones.  I 
did a breakdown of the vote scores and found that there was a significant 
correlation:  those Priests who returned less than ten percent of 
Oracularities received had scores above 3.0.  Conversely (obviously), 
Priests who had a low threshold for publication (returning more than 10 
percent) consistently rated poorly on the votes.  I did this after what I 
thought was a particularly awful string of Digests in which I voted lots of 
"ones."

So what tends to happen is that bad ones get dumped, good ones get 
published, and for those in the border zone, well, maybe occasionally a 
reasonable one will get left out but in most cases the very good ones will 
get selected for the Digest, which is really what it is for.  It would be 
of no value to lower the threshold for publication; who wants to see lots 
and lots of drivel?  I would prefer more infrequent Digests which contained 
higher quality material.

I do believe though that most Priests are sensitive to the votes that they 
get for the Oracularities they select.  Sometimes one will be of interest 
to only a few people; those people will rate it very highly and others will 
rate it low, but it still may be worth publishing.  I know of several 
Priests who have had angst crises because their ratings are low.  What can 
you do?  VOTE!  The more feedback we get about what you like, the more 
likely we are to select what you like.  Of the thousands of people who read 
the Digests, only 40 bothered to vote on #519.  There are 20-odd (very 
odd!) active Priests at the moment; assuming they all voted, what are the 
rest of you doing?  If you never indicate what sort of Oracularities are 
popular then you will only get what we consider funny, and my sense of 
humour may not be the same as yours (I hope not for your sake!)

I think I can sum this up in one word:

Nyer!


Ian Davis                                     davis@licre.ludwig.edu.au
Oracular Priest
From: davidr@cs.tamu.edu (David E Randolph)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: For your inspection and reading pleasure
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:07:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: solar.tamu.edu

In article <GOWEN.93Jan25022055@jade.tufts.edu> gowen@jade.tufts.edu (G. Lee Owen) writes:
>> So, if there is no general vote, then when is the submission's score
>> determined?  Where does the score come from?
>	From we the readers.  The idea is that, after we read the
>journal, we mail in our vote -- as is documented at the top of the,
>say, journal, like such:
>>    523
>>    2 1 3 4 3   5 3 3 4 1     
>>518  45 votes  6cd86 hj441 3afe3 15ge9 59n35 2ik50 23age 27eac 3cgc2 47bbc
>>518  3.1 mean	2.9   2.0   3.1   3.6	2.9   2.6   3.8   3.5	3.0   3.4

Oh, gads!  I'm a nitwit!  I never noticed the little number '518' on the
left hand side before.  I thought that the vote line was for the current
digest.  It wouldn't be a problem, except that I've been criticizing my
work assuming that its score is in the line above.  What irony!  I've 
been modifying my responses besed on an arbitrary number.  Gee, no wonder
the scores on the congrats letters seemed different.  I just thought it
was my brain slipping.  The good news is, maybe my scores aren't as low
as I think!  Time to do some research...

-Dave
From: davidr@cs.tamu.edu (David E Randolph)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: For your inspection and reading pleasure
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:41:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: solar.tamu.edu

  Actually, if I had been the priest deciding whether or not to
post the Oracular submission, I probably would have had second
thoughts as well, and I wrote the submission!  Because 
rec.humor.oracle is a mainstream publication--more or less--there
will be submissions written that are very funny, but which are
probably not suitable for publication because they contain material
which some readers--or some reader's stomachs--might object to.
For example, I have received responses to questions that I am
sure would have delighted the readers of alt.*, but would have
been too pornographic for Kinzler to post.  I am not saying the 
digest should be bland, but I think the readers expect the priests
to exercise restraint where it is appropriate.  The problem is, 
I would guess that no two priests would agree on what it means to
be appropriate.

  I have a suggestion.  If I understand the system correctly, when
an oracularity is submitted, it is sent to exactly one priest[ess],
who decides alone whether it is fit to be passed on to the other
priests for a general vote.  This means that an oracularity is at
the mercy of a single priest's sense of humor, values, and even mood.
I suggest that the submission be given more of a chance to be selected
for the group vote, using one of the two methods below.

1)  All submissions are sent to exactly two priests instead of one, and
    only one priest needs to approve it for the general vote.  The 
    problem with this method is that it doubles the workload of the
    priests, perhaps needlessly, since I have been told that 80% of
    all submissions would be considered tripe by *any* priest.

2)  As a compromise, all submissions are sent to one random priest as
    before, but if the priest is not sure whether the others would
    find it funny, he or she can opt to have the submission sent to
    some other randomly selected priest for approval.  If more than
    N number of priests foist it off to another priest, it is
    discarded by the system.

--Dave

About #522-03:  I think it was a pretty direct copy of the original--
		not that I am not guilty of the same on occation.
		Personally, I don't mind reading plagarized material,
		if it is used in a different context than it was
		originally written in.  To the person who wrote the
		submission: if you are a Demontoid or Dementite, then
		you probably have a great sense of humor, so keep
		plugging away!
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Breast Size
Followup-To: rec.humor.oracle.d
Organization: ILS
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:57:04 GMT

Q:
How large should a woman's breasts be?

A:
Large enough to fill her bra.

You owe the oracle a bust of Abraham Lincoln.

Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

-- 
--
-- "TANSTAAFL"  Rich lynch@ils.nwu.edu
From: spackman@disco-sol.dfki.uni-sb.de (Stephen Spackman)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: For your inspection and reading pleasure
Date: 23 Jan 1993 16:27:59 GMT
Organization: DFKI Saarbruecken GmbH, D-W 6600 Saarbruecken
	<1jpbjkINNh5r@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Reply-To: stephen@acm.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: disco-sol.dfki.uni-sb.de
In-reply-to: davidr@cs.tamu.edu's message of 22 Jan 1993 17:41:08 GMT

In article <1jpbjkINNh5r@tamsun.tamu.edu> davidr@cs.tamu.edu (David E Randolph) writes:
|  Actually, if I had been the priest deciding whether or not to
|post the Oracular submission, I probably would have had second
|thoughts as well, and I wrote the submission!  Because 
|rec.humor.oracle is a mainstream publication--more or less--there
|will be submissions written that are very funny, but which are
|probably not suitable for publication because they contain material
|which some readers--or some reader's stomachs--might object to.
|For example, I have received responses to questions that I am
|sure would have delighted the readers of alt.*, but would have
|been too pornographic for Kinzler to post.  I am not saying the 
|digest should be bland, but I think the readers expect the priests
|to exercise restraint where it is appropriate.  The problem is, 
|I would guess that no two priests would agree on what it means to
|be appropriate.

Nope; that isn't the problem. The problem is how to distribute this
material which in no way violates the spirit of the Oracle, but might
distress the less worldwise of the readership. Surely the answer to
adopt is that of rec.humor.funny: put the X-rated ones aside for a few
days or weeks, and then put out the occasional rot13 digest.

Priesthood: I don't *want* you to decide not to show me this material,
not if it meets Oracular standards for everything but political
correctness. I don't *care* how many decisions it takes to make the cut
- the cut itself is wrong. After all, who's the best judge of my
stomach, me, you or society?

Edit, yes, censor, no.

...just my plea...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
stephen p spackman                                       stephen@acm.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: leitm@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Leith M F)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: For your inspection and reading pleasure
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:34:20 GMT
Reply-To: leitm@essex.ac.uk (Leith M F)
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <1jpbjkINNh5r@tamsun.tamu.edu> davidr@cs.tamu.edu (David E Randolph) writes:
:  I have a suggestion.  If I understand the system correctly, when
:an oracularity is submitted, it is sent to exactly one priest[ess],
:who decides alone whether it is fit to be passed on to the other
:priests for a general vote.  This means that an oracularity is at
:the mercy of a single priest's sense of humor, values, and even mood.

Yes. Priests probably try to be as objective as they can, but there may
well be good material slipping by due to individual tastes.  This is
not a dig; no-one can be a 100% objective assessor of humour.  However,
if only one Priest gets to see any one potential Oracularity, we could
be missing good stuff.  That is why I agree with your suggestion (2). 
  
:2)  As a compromise, all submissions are sent to one random priest as
:    before, but if the priest is not sure whether the others would
:    find it funny, he or she can opt to have the submission sent to
:    some other randomly selected priest for approval.  If more than
:    N number of priests foist it off to another priest, it is
:    discarded by the system.
:
:--Dave
:
Miguel
From: dsew@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Sewell)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: #522-03
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:20:59 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester Computing Center

In <C18tCC.6zD@unix.amherst.edu> pjmorse@unix.amherst.edu (Polar Bear) writes:

>#522-03 would have been a fantastic Oracle.... if only it hadn't been borrowed
>from an old Dr. Demento tape. I don't remember the artist but the song was
>"Fast Food."

Oh damn.  And this was the first submission in a month or so that really
made me laugh.  Was it really a direct borrowing or just similar?

And here I thought my Priesthood average was going up...

David "you can't catch 'em all" Sewell
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
From: huttar@hp750.itg.ti.com (Lars Huttar)
Subject: well I thought this was clever.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:23:09 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: IEF Development, Texas Instruments Inc., Plano Texas
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at Texas Instruments Inc.
              The opinions expressed within are those of the user and not
              necessarily those of Texas Instruments.
                                                     

I guess this didn't make it to the Oracularities, but I thought it was
funny so I'm going to post it.  This was one I answered.

The Usenet Oracle has pondered your question deeply.
Your question was:

> 
> Why do I feel like spitting upon people who ask me questions
> about the Macintosh?
> 

And in response, thus spake the Oracle:

} Take it from me, it's a natural reaction... certain kinds of questions
} elicit certain physical responses.  For example,
} 
} Type of question                Response
} ================                ========
} the Macintosh                   spit on supplicant (as noted)
} woodchucks                      <ZOT!> supplicant
} bells                           salivate
} Lisa                            shall we say, excitement
} DOS/Windows                     push button opening trapdoor under supplicant
} Perot                           flap ears slowly
} tax cuts for middle class       equivocate
} Boutros Boutros-Ghali           giggle
} recursiveness                   drop 16-ton weight on supplicant
} Star Trek & offshoots           attempt to do Vulcan greeting with fingers
} existential                     sigh
} frequently asked                flame
} my, what big ears you have      salivate
} null                            reach for cattle prod
} grovelless                      secretly replace supplicant's skeletal
}                                         structure with Folger's crystals,
}                                         causing supplicant to be oh, so
}                                         alert but unable to move except
}                                         to quiver
} 
} You owe the Oracle a grovel -- or else!!
}
From: phudl@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr S J Liddicott)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: For your inspection and reading pleasure
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:41:48 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: emmental.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <SPACKMAN.93Jan25112937@disco-sol.dfki.uni-sb.de> stephen@acm.org writes:
 >Now you come along and make as if I'm trying to set myself up as grand
 >censor of the universe?

Perhaps you understand me as well as I seem to have understood you.

 >As to what I can stomach: that's the POINT. What *I* can stomach is
 >nobody's business but mine; and what YOU can stomach is nobody's
 >business but yours. If an oracularity is a fine piece of work but makes
 >YOU feel queasy (even though you admit that you enjoyed it), why
 >shouldn't WE read it too? It fits the criteria - it's funny! - so post
 >it! As I say, it can always be rot13ed if you really feel that the world
 >at large can't take a joke.

   And what the priesthood feel like posting with their name attatched to
is THEIR business.  For whatever reasons.  And as far as that goes they can
and do speak for themselves.
   Their behaviour oughtn't to be layed out so strictly in rule form.
Is "it's funny" the only criteria?  I think you'd be silly to try
and define what the criteria is.  My criteria is different from
yours, I'll guess.  They post what THEY feel like, it's their privelidge.
   We see from this newsgroup that many people think the priests missed
something funny.  So what?  Is there some quality which is missing
from the regular digests?  Not that I find.

 >(And remember, Mr. Liddicott: the best responses are written after
 >reading the question...).

?  Did I answer one of your questions badly and leave my signature on it
or something??

-- 
*----------*-------------------------------------------------------------*
| Sam   Jam|"Never underestimate the importance of a cheap laugh"-       |
| Liddicott| phudl@csv.warwick.ac.uk  | I WAS IN IDAHO | Plucky Duck TTA |
*--------------IF NOT 1 AND NOT 2 AND NOT 3 THEN 4-----------------------*
From: davidr@cs.tamu.edu (David E Randolph)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: For your inspection and reading pleasure
Date: 22 Jan 1993 05:05:18 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solar.tamu.edu

I was digging through some old files and ran across this Oracularity,
which I guess never made it to the press.  But I got to thinking that
it still might be good enough to post in rec.humor.oracle.d.  Of course,
if anyone says I wrote any of this, I'll deny it all!

The author of the question left her name, but I am not going to give
it because the e-mail address she left was bogus, so I couldn't get
her permission to print it, which she probably wouldn't give to me
anyway.  So, Cathy Wolfram, if you are out there somewhere, please let
me know if you want me to post your name.  Thank you for your patience
and enjoy the show.

The Usenet Oracle requires an answer to this question!

> Oh, Oracle most glorious, whose palate is beyond reproach, 
> last night I went out for dinner. My date took me to that 
> new restaurant in town specializing in cannibalism. I had 
> hands and knees on thigh but my date had Kentucky fried
> children.
> 
> Is there some significance to his selection?  I mean, we're
> thinking about getting married.  I want to have children!
> 

And in response, thus Spake the Oracle:

}      Just the other day, L and I coincidentally went to the same 
} restaurant that you and your date did, to see if its reputation for 
} eyes cream was up to snuff.  I ordered the Mongolian fried rice with 
} Human sauce and L ordered, to my surprise and dismay, a child's plate 
} of baby back ribs, which she ate ravenously and with distressing delight.
}      After watching her for a few moments, I put down my chopsticks
} and decided to say something.  "L," I began, "You know, some millennium
} I'd like to marry you, you know that--"
}      Lisa took a last draw on her rib, paused, and said, "I know."
}      "Well, I just find it disturbing that you enjoy baby--baby backs
} so much.  It's just that, you know, I'd like to have children, you
} understand?"
}      Lisa wiped her mouth, swallowed, and washed down her bite with a
} sip from her bloody mary.  "Well, gosh, Orrie, if you wanted children,
} you should have ordered them from the waiter."
}      "No, actually, that's not what I meant, exactly--", I replied.
}      Lisa stared at me blankly.  "You want some from my plate?  We
} could trade.  I'd sure like to have a bite off your knee, there."
}      I tried to collect my thoughts.
}      "You know," she said suddenly and pointed the tiny rib in her hand
} at me with a burst of excitement, "you haven't lived until you have had
} home made baby backs made by my mother.  She uses our FAMILY RECIPE."
}      That's when I fainted.
} 
}      So you see, I have no advice for you.  Just make sure your boyfriend
} doesn't want to marry you just to--you know--just to get a piece of you.
} 
} --The Usenet Oracle
} 

Have fun taking your date to see Alive, CW, wherever you are!

-Dave

Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
From: tlb2665@ucs.usl.edu (Burleigh Thomas L)
Subject: Re: Is something wrong here?
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:29:39 GMT

Something is *very* wrong! Your article came up as number 666 on my rn!
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
From: liebea@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Adam Fred Lieberman)
Subject: Oracular Culture
Keywords: grovel Lisa ZOT payment
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:09:30 GMT

     The purpose of this newsgroup is to explain the four things not mentioned
in the help file:

	grovel
	Lisa
	<*ZOT!*>
	payment required other than answer to a question

     Please post the definitive information about these matters.

						-Adam Lieberman
						 liebea@rpi.edu
From: jrp@netman.Widener.EDU (Joshua R. Poulson)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: So who picked these guys anyway?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 21:47:33 GMT
Organization: Widener University Dept. of Computing Services
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Joshua.R.Poulson@cyber.Widener.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: netman.widener.edu
Keywords: priesthood selection

In article <1993Jan28.193022.30858@watson.ibm.com>, larry@labrador.fishkill.ibm.com (Larry Pieniazek) writes:
|> How do priests get chosen? Suitable groveling to Kinzler?
|> Apologies if this is in the FAQ but I don't recall it, perhaps it
|> should be??

Well... I was there three years ago when Kinzler approached burnout
and created the Priesthood.  As it was then, as it is now, you just
ask him to put you on the list and he decides.  If you're really
lucky, you get to do the distribution when he's on vacation as a
couple of us "Occasional Chief Priests" know.

-- 
Joshua R. Poulson, Systems Programmer, Computing Services, Widener University
jrp@cyber.Widener.EDU, jrp@netman.Widener.EDU, poulson@cs.Widener.EDU, et al.
From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: The Oracle Works in mysterious ways
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:53:30 GMT
Reply-To: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <7682@sersun1.essex.ac.uk>, leitm@solb1 (Leith M F) writes:
>[...] But on the other side of the
>coin, I wonder how many worthy potential oracularities slip past ye
>Priests' attentions?  I've had stuff that I contributed to published in the 
>Oracularities one day, then had material which I rate more highly not get
>published at all.

You could always post it to r.h.o.d... isn't it in the charter that one
of the uses for this group is to post "sore loser" Oracularities?

-- 
Dave Schaumann			dave@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
From: comptec92076@camins.camosun.bc.ca
Subject: Best of..
Organization: Camosun College
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 21:49:14 GMT

Has there ever been a "the best of" digest? If so, where to i get it? If it's
one of the back issues, which one(s)?

Thanx....
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
From: silogan@vnet.ibm.com (Scott Logan)
Subject: Re: Is something wrong here?
Originator: logan@tiger.torolab.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:07:59 GMT
Reply-To: silogan@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Canada, Toronto Lab

Well, I started answering questions yesterday for the first time, and I
thought that the first two I got were pretty good.  The third, which I am
pondering now, will take come creativity to make it humorous, though.

Maybe it's just that the cynicism hasn't set in yet....

At any rate, as someone pointed out recently, it's a nice break from doing
real work occasionally!

Scott Logan                                       Home:  logan@torag.guild.org
IBM Canada, Toronto Lab                           Work:   silogan@vnet.ibm.com
From: rcosby@bcm.tmc.edu (Randy C. Cosby)
Newsgroups: rec.humor
Subject: Re: Mystery Science Theater 3000
Summary: Re: Mystery Science Theatre
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:31:54 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1993Jan26.212041.21092@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> In article <1k461sINNl4u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rcosby@bcm.tmc.edu (Randy C. Cosby) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan19.091201.5066@wkuvx1.bitnet>, futrena@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> >> Does anyone else like to watch _Mystery Science Theater 3000_ on
> >> Comedy Central?  Please repond if you do.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >Sure,
> >
> >Try alt.tb.mst3k we talk about it all the time..
> 
> Actually, this group is rather sickly - try alt.tv.mst3k or, at some lucky
> sites, alt.fan.mst3k.
> -- 
> John Switzer             | 1/21/93 - Clinton fails to follow through on promise
>                          | to have economic legislation ready the day after the


Glad you are awake John... it's obvious that I'm not....

or else my fingers are dead......



Coz
Newsgroups: rec.humor