HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:44:50 GMT

In <1992Nov7.200800.1568@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen):

   I just want to hear it once. I know you can do it. Just say "The subject  
   line could have been worded in a more obvious way". I know you think it  
   doesn't matter since the people that didn't read the message are obviously  
   "ignorant" and "lazy". But can't you simplay say that it was poorly done?

"The subject line could have been worded in a more obvious way" to
appease the people who are currently saying that they ignored the
article because of its subject line.  This does not imply either that
they are lazy or that it was poorly done.
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine - need definition
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:35:49 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <503@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>Enough already!  What we are doing here is discussing the benifits
>of alternative treatments, NOT the benefits of establishing the
>group!!

Wrong.  They are pointing out that all the "alternative" therapies that
will be discussed _are_ quack medicine, and are arguments _against_
creating the group.


>           This is the sort of discussion that illustrates the need
>for the creation of m.h.a to provide a place for the REST of this
>discussion to take place, no?

It illustrates nothing of the sort.  It illustrates that there is no science
and no detectable merit in _anything_ likely to be discussed on such a group,
and that people who actually take the advice that will be found in such a 
group will be doing themselves and their families a grave diservice.  Quacks
should _stay_ in sci.med where competant medical professionals may toast them
to a light crispy brown.

>The point of the group is NOT whether you support alternative medicine,

Yes, it is.

>but whether it would provide good information to people who are looking

No it would not.  And that is why the question is whether to create or not.

>Has it been 30 days yet?

Why?  You invest in Grapefruit 46, maybe?  You are sounding very much like
one of these breathless late-night announcers, Rick.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
From: bjornmu@idt.unit.no (Bj|rn P. Munch)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.collecting.cards
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:07:46 GMT
Reply-To: bjornmu@idt.unit.no (Bj|rn P. Munch)
Organization: Div. of CS & Telematics, Norwegian Institute of Technology

In article <3NOV199215145577@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, cazuzek@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Zuzek, John E.) writes:

|> Being both a card collector and a stamp collector, I believe without all of 
|> the CARDS posts, the amount of traffic on coins, stamps, and other 
|> collectibles would increase markedly on the rec.collecting group.

I hope you're right, and that's one reason I will support the cards
sub-group.

|> believe, however, that truly splitting the group is better than just 
|> extending to a .cards - i.e., I suggest splitting the group into two 
|> totally new groups:
|> 
|> 	rec.collecting.cards	postings ONLY about and for card collecting
|> 	-and-
|> 	rec.collecting.misc	
|> 	-or-
|> 	rec.collecting.other	postings about ALL non-card collecting such 
|> 				as coins, stamps, figurines, plates, etc...
|> 
|> Then we can get rid of rec.collecting altogether as it seems to be obsolete 
|> these days.  Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth...

I don't really see the point of a .misc subgroup when there is only
one more subgroup.  "Everything that isn't cards, is misc." doesn't
seem right.  :-)

I think it would be best to just create the cards group now.  Make it
a simple yes/no vote for this one group which I beleive most readers
here (card collectors or not) will see the immediate need for.

Then we can wait a while and see how thing evolve in the parent group
- maybe the traffic on coins, stamps etc. grow enough to warrant their
own subgroups.

That was my $0.02 (12 |re) worth....

---
Bj|rn P. Munch               | Dept. of Comp. Science & Telematics,
Bjoern.P.Munch@idt.unit.no   | Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH),
PhD Student                  | N-7034 Trondheim, Norway
Univeristy of Trondheim      | Fingerable addr:  bjornmu@multe.idt.unit.no
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:11:28 GMT

In article <2AFE689F.549E@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
> 
> >Are you also admitting that there is a USENET class system?
> 
> There are two classes.  Those who care enough to participate, and those
> who wait until things have already happened and then whine.  But there
> is no "class system", because these classes are _self_selecting_ and
> _open_to_all_.

They aren't "self selecting" at all. They are "open" to people that have a  
certain amount of "net experience". This argument of people not caring  
enough and waiting is old and obstructive. Please move on.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: About the elitism in news.groups
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:12:05 GMT

Here's what an actual poster from the rec.music.makers has to say.
I'd strongly advise that you listen:

>I've read Chip Salzenberg's arguments and I have to say I disagree.  I
>am not very familiar with how the networks work.  That doesn't mean I
>don't have an interest.  Quite frankly, if I wanted to know something
>about the policies of reorganizing a bboard, I wouldn't even know where
>to start looking for information.  It's disappointing to hear that
>people who evidently know more consider themselves superior instead of
>consider themselves as a resource for those who could learn from them.

That last sentence sums it up pretty well. Comments?
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

         It is the wise bird who builds his nest in a tree.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: RFD: Should rec.music.makers.synth stand as a group name?
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:13:47 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <BxIHor.Es@uunet.uu.net> dave@elxr.jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>>This is a request for discussion on letting rec.music.makers.synth stand
>>as a replacement for rec.music.synth. 
>It should be a discussion on a vote to rename rec.music.makers.synth back to
>rec.music.synth.

But it's not. 

>>about synthesizers and computer music. Recently, a newsgroup voting process
>>was held, a name change was proposed to "rec.music.makers.synth", and it
>>passed technically. 
>Your last qualifier was unnecessarily and inflammatory. (What else should I
>have expected, given the history of this discussion??) The vote passed, pure
>and simple.

That is your opinion, not a consensus opinion. 

>>votes. Since the resulting flamewar has called much attention to this matter,
>>any vote should capture a more unbiased sample of the will of the net. 
>By definition, the will of the net is free of any meaningful bias. The vote
>that passed WAS the will of the net. Your refusal to recognize that fact is
>the proximate cause of the current trouble.

Sorry. This point is also under debate.

>NO! You're revoting the original question, on which the net has already
>spoken. 

Damn Straight. And it hasn't spoken as fully as it might. 

>You should, in order to follow the Guidelines, ask if the group should
>be renamed back. I will campaign as loud, and as hard, to have that vote
>overturned on procedural grounds as you are against the current result - and,
>I suspect, I'll get a better response.

Great! 

>There's no precedent requiring an unbiased vote taker, but if you choose to
>get someone else to run the vote, I won't object.

I'd better...to give you less fuel for the fire and me a chance to campaign.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Fool (n.) - 1. A person trying to be honest with the dishonest.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:24:28 GMT

lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>The only conclusion that follows from this is that you're lying about having
>the proof in the first place.  Under those circumstances, why should anyone
>take anything you say seriously?

This is yet another common argument used to discredit people. If you don't
want to take anything I say seriously, God Himself cannot stop you. There
ain't any proof I can bring up that you won't discredit.

For example...the next step in this particular argument is "Well...those 
N people are just being childish by unsubscribing to the name change. They
aren't worth taking seriously, therefore YOU aren't."

I ain't wasting no effort. There are net.examples. If you are truly interested
in facts, go fish. As for me...I have observed that you have already formed 
an opinion and are stuck to it. Fine. I can certainly accept that you 
think anything I say is not serious. Now go away.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Show me a person who really knows what 'good' is, and I will show you that 
the person almost never uses the word.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM.AHMADIYYA Moderated
Date: 6 Nov 1992 13:43:11 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Oct31.190044.19085@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:

>So is the case with "Ahmadiyya Islam". The two words are in-separatable! 

Sure there are.  If you were to ask me what religion I am, I would 
say "I am Muslim".  Now where do you see "Ahmadiyya" anywhere in
that sentence?  Once again, you have to learn: just because you say
something is so doesn't make it so.

>Ahmadiyya is not compelete without including Islam, Ahmadiyya has to be
>included to differentaite from non-ahmadiyya Islam!

Ahmadiasm may not be complete without Islam.  Islam itself seems to
be quite complete without Ahmadiasm.  The two concepts are quite
separate and distinct.

Basalat Ali Raja.
Xref: sparky news.groups:20423 rec.music.synth:17830
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:07:01 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Nov5.030317.10383@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <7723@lib.tmc.edu>
	<1992Nov5.213730.789@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.213730.789@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

   jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
   >

   Well gee. Let's look at that logic. Given the amount of flame traffic in
   news.groups...MOST people probably kill based upon any "news.groups" in
   the header. But aside from that...what seems to happen over and over is
   that concern about a vote doesn't appear until after something bad happens
   to a group. 

"Duh....  Officer, I didn't think that stop sign applied to me, so I
ignored it."  People are responsible for what they killfile.

   The logic still stands that people in a newsgroup (readers AND posters)
   should have some say so over the name of their group. If (after the fact)
   there is a lot of complaining about a name change...then something is 
   wrong! I don't care how much legalese you use to back it up. The desired
   goal is a consensus, right?

A vote can only reflect those interested enough to vote.  Nobody else has
any room to complain (about the vote, that is).

   >>I assert that it is unfair to change the name of a newsgroup without the
   >>consent of a plurality of the participants. 

They had the opportunity to vote.

   >Au contraire - that's precisely the point: the group inhabitants you're so
   >keen to defend were notified, and had 21 days to register their opinion. They
   >didn't do so, at least not in the manner you're describing.

   I don't think they knew to do so. Some of those people have (and desire to
   have) little clue as to USENET and it's politics. They shouldn't have to
   have a clue when it comes to affecting their group.

news.announce.newusers.  news.newusers.questions.  CFV was posted with
adequate info for votes.  No pity here.

   >Right. Actually, it's because someone decided to be obstinate and ignore the
   >expressed wishes of the net as a whole.

   Please be precise. "...the expressed wished of a fractionally small subset 
   of the net as a whole". Or are you going to now claim that 271 people speak
   for an estimated 6 million? 

Yes.  The ones that bother to vote are the ones who speak where it counts.

Stop fussing, Dave.  All I've heard so far is you complaining because
a vote didn't go your way.  You have the right as newadmin to
configure your site however you wish.  Isolate your own readers.
Don't cry because the other admins observe a legal and above-board
vote.
--
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: randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:30:07 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <1992Nov9.174800.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:

[much well thought out, reasoned discussion deleted]

> [...] Since you haven't been reasonable up 'til now, I expect you to
>slog forward through the RFD and CFV process until your proposal fails,
>and then wonder why everybody gives you such a tough time.

But the danger is that the group will pass!  I think that "cbnorman"
probably has a large contingent of FidoNet readers who will vote "yes"
to the group regardless of its obvious flaws.

Guys, he's serious about this!  Don't let it happen!
-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall@minerva.cis.yale.edu
From: eng20009@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAN GIM WEE)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.singaporean
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:34:06 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Magical_Flute (mmurali@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg) wrote:
:
: [stuff deleted]
: 
: That is very interesting to hear.
: How about telling us about these newsgroups?
: 
: I remeber there was one such newsgroup when Bitnet was started
: a couple of years ago here- called NUS list or something like
: that and it was a dead dead dead group. 
: 
: The formation of a newsgroup also provides a channel for
: Singaporeans to use Singlish and local slang- something
: which foreigners cannot understand or something for
: foreigners to appreciate!
: 
: MD

If you are using the C shell, perhaps you can try this:
	setenv NNTPSERVER nuscc.nus.sg
This may allow you to connect to the nuscc server to get our local
newsgroups.
By the way, I tried the above command on the ntuix server and i was
allowed to connect to get the news from NTU. :-)


--
---------------------------------------------------------
Tan Gim Wee
EE Dept, NUS
internet: eng20009@nusunix1.nus.sg
bitnet: eng20009@nusvm.bitnet
"It was a dark and stormy night......"	-  Snoopy
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Subject: Re: leave alt.folklore.computers alone, rmgroup comp.society.folklore
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 02:17:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.184932.10967@u.washington.edu> starfish@stein.u.washington.edu (Sarah Skovronsky) writes:
>bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes:
>
>[discussion deleted]
>
>>How about
>
>>alt.folklore.computers ->	misc.folklore.computers
>>alt.folklore.science ->		misc.folklore.science
>
>>comp.society.folklore -> 	(delete)
>
>>alt.folklore.urban ->		soc.folklore.urban
>
>No No No!  We have had many discussions on alt.folklore.urban and the "alt"
>should be KEPT in a.f.u.  This should not be moved.  We've discussed this
>particular one to death.  Since alt.folklore.urban should remain alt, I
>don't see why any of the other groups should be renamed, either.
>
>>alt.folklore.college ->		soc.folklore.college
>
>See above.  I don't see the practicality of renaming ALL *.folklore groups
>just because some sites don't get alt.folklore.computers.  IMHO, these
>groups fit into the alt hierarchy very well, and if some people don't get
>them...well...perhaps a petition to one's sysadmin?
>

The side benefit of this discussion, other than convincing the ravaging
hordes of Huns out fot alt.folklore.* blood to leave us alone, is that all
this may convince a few syadmins to start picking up alt.folklore.*! 
After all, we're demonstrating here that there're at least a few people
out there who value those groups enough to either try to swipe them or to
defend them to the death! :)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:45:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.231540.5813@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov8.160325.26727@daimi.aau.dk> rorschak@daimi.aau.dk  
>(Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
>
>> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>> 
>> >All we're saying is that the  
>> >person that posted the RFD's and CFV's should have taken the time to write  
>> >a subject line that indicated that r.m.s was affected.
>> 
>> Several groups were involved, subject lines are finite, long subjects lines
>> are unreadable.
>
>So therefore people aren't entitled to some form of clear notification?  
>Those are problems that can be solved.

If you can suggest a workable such solution, I think that you will be
able to ensure that this sort of thing never happens again for the
sake of "mislabeled" subject lines.  What do you have in mind?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth,news.admin.policy
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:45:45 GMT

In article <JAAPJL.92Nov9095740@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov>  
jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.085116.10707@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>  
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>    twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>    >>>If you choose to ignore RFDs posted to a group you read, you do so  
at
>    >>>your own peril.
>    >>This is supposed to be a good practice?
>    >Yes.
>    Why?
> 
> Are we going to limit ourselves by the most ignorant?
> 
Please explain how clear presentation of information is "limiting" without  
creating a cast structure.
 
> There are those who care to be informed and take an active role (by
> exercising a right to vote) and those who complain about their
> ignorance as if the rest of the world has actively encouraged their
> ignorance and should somehow share the responsibility.  I claim to
> not be responsible for someone else's chosen ignorance and wish not
> to be bound by it.
 
Please explain how the casual or new Usenet reader would have known that  
the proposal messages affected rec.music.synth from their subject lines.  
Do it without using terms like "ignorant", "inactive", "lazy" etc. or  
simply stating that if they took the time they would know. I'll help make  
it easy for you to provide constructive information.

Are there existing documents that they can obtain that give them every  
piece of information they need to know without obtaining an amount of "net  
experience".

Show where:

1. RFD and CFV are defined as acronyms and their impact is explained.

2. It is stated explicitly (not merely implied) that such messages in a  
group mean they directly affect that group and can mean nothing else.

In the absence of 1 and 2, show were "RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups"  
states that:

1. A reorg is occuring

2. You can vote on it

3. It affects rec.music.synth (or anything not under rec.music.makers, or  
anthing in any of the other affected groups for that matter)

I would argue that it should be even clearer (specifically stating the  
rename of the group). But so far I haven't seen any evidence that any of  
the above can be substantiated.

All in all I think it's a broad class of people that you are calling  
"ignorant". And aside from "net experience" there isn't a way to gain this  
knowledge.

If you CAN produce 1 and 2 that'd be a great start for pointing people to  
information they need to know. 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------