HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: luke@cs.city.ac.uk (Luke Whitaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Ideas on how to split rec.aviation
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:24:45 GMT
Organization: City University

In <9207222034.AA06738@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:

>To make a (very) long story short, I advocate the following as the core 
>rec.aviation groups (and possibly the only groups):

>    rec.aviation.misc
>    rec.aviation.soaring
>    rec.aviation.powered
>    rec.aviation.powered.ifr

I think this is a great idea. I just have one minor suggestion: 

	rec.aviation.ifr instead of rec.aviation.powered.ifr

because soaring can be ifr too (isn't this the case in the USA ?). It would
seem reasonable that soaring ifr posts are at least cross posted to the ifr
group, but the name powered.ifr might put glider pilots off.

Luke
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: An aside on INET...
Date: 27 Jul 1992 03:39:57 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Slight Correction

In article <wTcDoB36w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>If the INET groups aren't going to move to their own hierarchy, then I
>suggest we start a JNET distribution.  After all, if some bunch of random
>people with Internet connectivity can create apparently mainstream groups
>without bothering with a vote, why shouldn't those of us out here in
>UUCP-land be able to do the same?

Well, the INET group isn't exactly random people.  This seems to be
a common mis-perception, but they're the ones that run many (most) of 
the bigger news machines.  Most of them are big-time names in Usenet
management and history.

That aside, there's no reason why a random group of people can't 
create a new distribution or heirarchy.  Do be careful, though.
You in the end have to convince thousands of news admins that you're
for real and that there is a good reason to listen to you.
The INET people already did this.  alt.* already did this.
Can you?

>sci.sceptic

It already exists, but properly spelled 8-)

>Of course, it will be a terrible shame if the control messages to create the
>groups accidentally leak out onto the net at large.

Oh, horrible... 8-)  Just make sure that you're as careful as the INET
people are with naming groups, if you're not going to create
a seperate heirarchy.  At least they're responsible about what they
call groups.  If you aren't as responsible, less people (admins) will
take you seriously.


-george william herbert
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug
++  copyright (c)  george william herbert.       All rights except usenet   ++
++ transmission/use and inclusion in followup/reply articles/mail reserved. ++



Newsgroups: news.groups
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: Irregularities in Soc.culture.tamil Voting
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:21:41 GMT

In article <663@frackit.UUCP>, dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
> In article <1992Jul14.135235.18823@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:

> 
> > To put these doubts to rest, I urge the vote taker to post the voting records
> > of all the YES votes immediately.
> 
> <sigh> Alok, I'd mail you a clue but your mailbox is probably full from
> all the others sent you as a result of your "contribution" to this
> thread. 
> 
> Next time, try harder to keep quiet. 
> 
> -- 
>  ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
>  frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
>  eds1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu              | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

Mr. Dave Frackit,

You must think intimidating would put the doubts to rest !
Incidentally, no one sent any mail of the clues you seem to dream off.
All I saw was Martinez calling the request reasonable, and someone from
University of Houston opposing the request on the grounds that file may be 
too long.  (File could have been posted in parts in that case).

Then Sridhar posted a reorganized list of voters by sites.
This showed that a number of sites (University of Houston being one of them) 
had contributed disproportionate number of votes.

Now comes your response apparently trying to ridicule and intimidate.
You think because you are a system administrator, you know it all
and no one has a right to even raise doubts on a vote.

I say you try to keep quiet and stop interfering on anything and everything 
on the net.

Alok
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:39:48 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to Tom Hansen <uwm.edu!realeasy!tomh>:
>Regarding comp.unix.ibm-pc-arch: IMHO, this is a rather outdated
>name; while IBM did produce the first machine capable of running
>MS-DOS, the "PC-Compatibles" of today bear little resemblence to the
>original "IBM PC".

"Little resemblance," my foot.

Take a modern '386 clone.  Plug in an eight-bit video board built for
the original PC.  Boot MS-DOS (modern version, natch, to support the
hard disk controller and new floppy geometry).  Run the original
WordStar -- the one mechanically translated from the CP/M version.

It all still works.

>I think that perhaps a name like comp.unix.isa-bus (referring to the ISA
>bus architecture) would be a more appropriate and technically accurate name.

Well, I'll grant there's some merit in this suggestion.  Of course,
EISA isn't ISA; but then, the IBM PC architecture didn't include EISA
either, so a strict reading of either group's name excludes EISA
anyway.  Does anyone want to attack or support the name "c.u.isa-bus"?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.os.coherent
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:26:36 GMT

In article <wH6BoB6w165w@willard.UUCP> dawson@willard.UUCP writes:
>> No, I think that keeping the net aware of how many alternatives there are
>> to True Blue AT&T code is important, and besides who are they going to sue?
>> Usenet?

>How 'bout Andy Tannenbaum?  Linus Torvalds?  Princeton-Hall?  Mark Williams Co.?

And moving the groups to comp.unix (a step that Andy, Linus, and the two
corporations involved had no part in) is going to make AT&T sue? AT&T is
going to sue, or not sue, no matter what Usenet (which they regard as an
underground organization, remember) does or doesn't do.

Besides, Mark Williams would just cross-license.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:05:13 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul28.182508.4350@uunet.uu.net>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>  comp.unix.sys5.r3              System V Release 3.
>  comp.unix.sys5.r4              System V Release 4.
>  comp.unix.sys5.misc            Other versions of System V.

Other versions of unix have multiple versions, too.  I think one generic
.sys5 is more than sufficient.

>  comp.unix.sys3                 System III.
>  comp.unix.osf.osf1             OSF/1.

Again, we have no compelling need to allow for osf/2, etc. at this point.
comp.unix.osf is quite sufficient.

>  comp.unix.osf.misc             Other OSF products: DCE, etc.

I don't believe it has been demonstrated there will be enough traffic for such
a newsgroup, especially since osf products will appear in other versions of
unix as well.  If comp.unix.misc isn't enough, then the product may needs its
own newsgroup, like comp.windows.x.motif already has.

If we want to differentiate later on, it should be done off the .misc group.
comp.unix.misc.osf, etc.

>Replace:
>  comp.unix.msdos -->
>   comp.unix.dos-under-unix      MS-DOS running under UNIX by whatever means.

Too long.  I'd suggest comp.unix.host-msdos.  If there is likely to be
discussion about other systems hosted under unix (pick comes to mind, and
there will be others) we could go with comp.unix.hosting.msdos, leaving
available such names as comp.unix.hosting.pick, and so forth.

>  comp.unix.sysv286 -->
>   comp.unix.ibm-pc-arch.16bit   UNIX on 16-bit IBM PC arch. (i286).

Considering how limited unix is on such a machine, and how few of them there
are that run unix, do they really need their own newsgroup?  I think not.

>  comp.unix.sysv386 -->
>   comp.unix.ibm-pc-arch.32bit   UNIX on 32-bit IBM PC arch. (i386, i486).

There are darn few NON PC-based architectures using the *86 nowadays.  I
think comp.unix.intel will cover the entire field nicely.

Summary:

  comp.unix.sys5              generic System V, all releases
  comp.unix.osf               generic OSF, all releases

  comp.unix.msdos --> comp.unix.host-msdos or
  comp.unix.msdos --> comp.unix.hosting.msdos

  comp.unix.sysv286 and
  comp.unix.sysv386 --> comp.unix.intel

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.mac.advocacy - Underwhelming responses
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:27:21 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: e16dd2a8fe4ee898d19528fdcf74c0f8

<1992Jul29.150626.19669@puma.ATL.GE.COM> rsnyder@atl.ge.com (Bob Snyder) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.022046.803@wolves.uucp> ggw@wolves.durham.nc.us writes:
>
>>The response and discussion about this new group proposal are highly
>>underwhelming.   There is barely a peep out of folks.  The comments in
>>this public discussion period are not even up to the level of the mail I
>>got during the "feeler" stage.
>[...]
>>If there are no objections, I'll probably go for the CFV somewhere
>>around the 6th of August and run the vote for a full thirty days.
>
>Maybe this is a sign that there shouldn't be a CFV at all?

	Not really.  There are groups with much less interest that go on
the CFVs and pass with a good margin.  The interpretation I'm getting is
that there isn't much to really be discussed.  The RFD was well written,
there isn't any real controversy (despite Greg Lindahl's threat) and the
comp.sys.mac folk are more interested in using netnews effectively than
in the processes by which the net is administered.

	I should have said, probably, if there are no objections from
the proponents of the group, I'll presume that the Charter in the
original RFD is acceptable, and I'll send the CFV to the moderator a day or
two ahead of August 6th, with a deadline of Sept 6th.

				Greg Woodbury
-- 
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...duke!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: ggw@wolves.Durham.NC.US  ggw@cds.duke.edu  ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>
Xref: sparky news.groups:16115 comp.unix.sysv386:12537
From: dlu@wobble.uucp (Doug Urner)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Date: 26 Jul 92 03:46:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: wobble.1992Jul26.034630.2519
Organization: dlu UNIX Consultants

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>There's a thought.  Does anyone else have words of support or
>criticism for "c.u.dos-with-unix"?

How about dos-under-unix?  Just to keep things in perspective :-)  Or
for the litiginous amongst us dos-under-unix-tm.
-- 
Doug Urner, dlu@wobble   "They tear down our comrades like leaves from a tree,
1613 Moore Street         leaves from a tree, leaves from a tree, but the
Bellingham, WA  98226     tree still stands, its roots locked to the land."
206/676-5759                              -- Song of the Exile,  Barry Guilder
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:45:03 GMT

ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig) writes:

>So, what about comp.os.unix.* ?
>
>(No, I'm not serious)

But I am.  It does make sense, if the unix moniker is kept, to place it
under comp.os.  And now would be the best opportunity to do so.

>Thomas Koenig, ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz, ib09@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters)
Subject: Re: NEW Role Players Guides Group
Summary: read the FAQ, get a life, talk to your sysadmin
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:18:06 GMT


1)	Are you getting all the new groups in the rec.games.frp.* hierarchy?

	a) NO - Talk to your friendly SYSADMIN as tell hir to add the new 
	        groups.  They contain all the organization needed at this 
                point.  Contribute to the net.books.  There is no need to 
                screw the organization or to waste bandwidth in the fashion
                you describe.

    	b) YES-	Why are you wasting our time?  Read the FAQs and look thorough
		the groups.  Everything you mention except player/gm 
		demographics are handled by the net.books (and very high 
		quality I might add).  For the player/GM demographics/locator,
		People can post those requests to REC.GAMES.FRP.ANNOUNCE and I
		will restrict the posting to a reasonable geographic area,
		i.e. State, Province or Country.  As long as I don't get 
		flooded with the "Gamers/GM wanted" posts I am willing to 
		use .announce for them (it's not specifically covered under the
		charter.)

2) There is no two.  Period.


Coyt D. Watters, Moderator of REC.GAMES.FRP.ANNOUNCE
private email to Cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
announcements to rg-frp-announce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
flames to /dev/null
From: rcox@cad625.intel.edu (Richard Cox)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.forsale.computers reorganization
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:44:21 GMT
Reply-To: rcox@scdt.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corporation

|> I vote for the above or even better: 
|> 
|>  	misc.forsale.computers.ibm
|>  	misc.forsale.computers.apple	
|>  	misc.forsale.computers.other
|> 
|> 
|> Many packages of hardware include software and visa-versa.  People are
|> often interested in hw/sw deals, but not for both platforms.

  I think we need a proposal for a full set of categories to have, and I 
nominate me to start.  Now I do not claim this is perfect, just a starting 
point for a full listing from which everyone can ammend or delete from.  But
at least we can start talking about a final solution.

misc.forsae.computers:

apple2
mac
ibm
unix
next
amiga
other-sys      <- any other system not listed
storage        <- Hard Drives, tape, cd, etc.
cross-platform <- other cross platform hardware 

I do agree that splitting to much ie m.f.c.software/hardware is going to 
far in the other direction from 1 group to 20 groups.  This seems like a 
reasonable number to me +/- changes from ya'll.

-Rich

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Rich Cox      	       	       	       	   E-Mail: rcox@scdt.intel.com 	      |
|CAD Developer                             AOL: Rich Kid                      |
|Intel Corp.  				   Mailstop: SC3-39     	      |
|      	       	        		   Phone: (408) 765-5199              |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| These opinions are shared by everyone, I asked them...                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: amlogan@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Adam M. Logan)
Subject: Re: Looking for Net psychology/sociology group
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:29:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.095831.202066@uctvax.uct.ac.za> vhspet01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) writes:
>Is there a group available for discussions of the social and psychological
>implecations of the existence of a worldwide Net? (Now and in the future).
>This would range from discussions of how user's opinions are influenced by
>the amount of traffic, to the psychology of relationships via computer 
>connection, to more diffuse discussion of remote access as an extra sense,
>as well as possibly extending discussions to future changes.
>
>If not, is anyone interested in starting one?
>
>Peter
> 
Alt.usenet.recovery and alt.culture.usenet seem to deal with such things.

Adam


Lines: 9
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 13:19:02 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Still trying to fix INET with distribution (was: INET groups)
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
	<1992Jun29.174809.15757@odin.corp.sgi.com>
	<55264@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>
	<1992Jul21.003816.15070@odin.corp.sgi.com> <^r@byu.edu> <4879@airs.com>

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:

> Why don't we just abandon the inet distribution, and say that Erik
> Fair (or whoever else creates inet groups) has the right to channel
> mailing lists into newsgroups as he sees fit.

When what freezes over?
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Is there a group with Congressional vote info?
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:09:27 GMT
	<CKD.92Jul15190307@loiosh.eff.org> <140@ulogic.UUCP>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
In-reply-to: hartman@ulogic.UUCP's message of 21 Jul 92 22:38:16 GMT

In article <140@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:

   Nope.  Norwegian language articles are covered in the no.* tree.  Likewise
   German language articles are in de.*

   These heirararchies are not regional, or topic-restricted as much
   as they are being segregated by language.

What about the national hierarchies which are English-speaking?  scot.* and
uk.* groups are all in English, apart from the occasional fragment of other
British languages.  I'd imagine that most or many articles on groups in the
ie, aus, nz, ca and za hierarchies are in English too.  Do you propose to
make all these worldwide newsgroups, or abolish them?
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Is there a group with Congressional vo
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:20:37 GMT
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article 92Jul14105213@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk, cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:
> In article <1992Jul13.231937.28213@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
> 
>    Is there a group that posts/discusses bills which are before Congress and who 
>    voted which way?
> 
> If there is, it's another prime candidate for the us.* hierarchy.
> --
> 	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
> 
> 		

And it would be nice if there were a corresponding *.d group, and if only
the bills and votes were posted to the main group in read-only fashion.
(I guess moderated is the description.)


---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       If you have a watch, you always know what time it is.
            If you have two, you're never quite sure.
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:09:09 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Jul30.062727.11053@ee.und.ac.za> barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett) writes:
>BTW, I am in favour of moving the whole mess into comp.os.unix,
>and moving comp.os.{linux,minix,etc} to comp.os.unix.{linux,minix,etc}.

Oh, boy, let's upset *both* sides now! :->
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.sysv386
From: bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:08:46 GMT

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>Okay, how about this:

>  comp.unix.sysv286 -->
>   comp.unix.ibm.pc.16bit     UNIX on 16-bit IBM PC arch. (i286)
>  comp.unix.sysv386 -->
>   comp.unix.ibm.pc.32bit     UNIX on 32-bit IBM PC arch. (i386, i486)

>This organization allows for comp.unix.ibm.ps2, if traffic warrants it
>in future.

  And it also allows for comp.unix.apple2gs.

-- 
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Ask me about the GNO Multitasking Environment
 Procyon, Inc.              |   for the Apple IIgs!   
 bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu         |   P.O Box 620334
 --Apple II Forever!--      |   Littleton, CO 80162-0334   (303) 933-4649
From: duane@thismoment.Corp.Sun.COM (Duane Day)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.moto.harley
Date: 22 Jul 1992 17:58:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: thismoment.corp.sun.com

In article <1992Jul22.171143.19888@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>,
car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers) writes:
>In article <25127@sophia.inria.fr>, 
>weigl@sibelius.inria.fr (Konrad Weigl) writes:
>> Hm...Let me see if I got this right: [...] you want
>> to _FORCE_ Harley riders _AS A GROUP_ to stay on rec.moto?

>Say, Konrad, have you studied American History in your education?  
>Specifically, are you familiar with the attempt of the Confederacy
>to secede from the United States and the pro/con arguments of the
>time?  No doubt the Southerners believed the US risked nothing by
>allowing or endorsing the secession. The Union obviously felt otherwise,
>and with considerable justification, as history has shown.

The flaw in this analogy is that Harley riders will still be motorcyclists
after r.m.h is created, and as such will be free to choose to continue to 
participate in r.m.  At the time of secession, Southerners became citizens
of the CSA and were no longer citizens of the USA.

Anti-r.m.h people:  why do you continue to base your arguments on the
premise that once r.m.h exists, Harley riders will no longer participate 
in r.m?  I have'nt seen anyone make a convincing case for that premise.  
The only thing I can see that r.m will lose if r.m.h is created is
Harley-specific discussion.  There is no reason to assume that r.m will
will lose all of its Harley-loving participants; in fact, there have been
Harley-lovers who have said they would continue to participate in r.m 
even after r.m.h is created.

>Since you (and others on *both* sides) seem to have an inordinately 
>difficult time seeing the opposition's perspective (whether you agree 
>or not), perhaps the similarities between that earlier Civil War
>and this one might enlighten?

I think the differences between the two "wars" are more enlightening than
the similarities.  However, perhaps most enlightening of all is the fact
that the U.S. Civil War would be seen by r.m.h opponents as analogous to
the r.m.h proposal.

Newsgroups: news.groups