HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hduncan@cs.ucsd.edu (Hal Duncan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergad
Date: 23 Jan 93 05:12:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, UC San Diego

bj@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Balint Joo) writes:
<It is intended mainly for the discussion of technical issues in an informal,
<undergraduate manner, as opposed to many other "comp.*" groups, where the 
<discussion is often far too obscure, and assumes more practical knowledge
<and experience than it is possible for an undergraduate to have obtained.

Why exactly is this necessary?  Have there been frequent incidents of
undergraduates getting knocked about in comp.* for asking "stupid" questions?
If a particular post is too "obscure", skip it.  Better yet, don't; maybe
you'll eventually figure it out.  You could also send mail to the author
asking for clarification.

I just don't see the point of having a cozy, safe group where anyone with
a degree is (for the most part) unwelcome.  I think you'll lose a lot more
than you'll gain.

<While such groups exist locally, so far there is no single group linking
<CS students around the world.

I could well be wrong (since I don't read them), but I would guess that
these local groups often end up having "local" discussions -- e.g. which
professors are good/bad, announcements of speakers, calls for study groups,
etc. -- which it would make no sense to translate up to the international
level.

<The readers of the group should be willing to help other undergraduates, 
<and any requests for help are hopefully intended to be independent student 
<projects.  These, while not part of any course-work, are invaluable to a 
<student as experience needed for careers in the outside world.

This brings up several points:
1) At every university I've been at, an independent student project is graded,
   just as a course is (although obviously on different criteria).  I think
   the concerns about originality of work apply just as strongly to such
   projects as to courses.
2) Regardless of how you propose to deal with the first point, how on earth
   do you propose to enforce or even have any hope of guaranteeing this
   condition (that requests for help not be related to coursework)?

<Also, the group should be used to exchange hints and knowledge gained by
<other undergraduates that may be of interest to the world wide student body.
<This will enable a much richer supply of knowledge than can be supplied by 
<lectures alone.

This part sounds reasonable... except why limit this exchange to Computer
Science undergraduates?  Perhaps a group such as soc.college.undergrad
should be considered instead.


-- 
Hal Duncan         University of California                     PC-challenged
hduncan@ucsd.edu          San Diego            "ObSheesh: Sheesh!" -- Jenny G.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:31:00 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

I don't care one way or the other about the miniatures group, but I can't let
this one go by...

In article <1993Jan27.131200@IASTATE.EDU> arakins@IASTATE.EDU (Brother Andrek of the Violet Orchid Brotherhood) writes:
>  I would recommend one group, and the enforcement of useful subject
>lines so that effective Kill files can be made for those who do not
>wish to view a certain subject.

"But that trick never works!"

This suggestion comes up time and time again, usually in the context of folks
not wishing to split a group. Those that have actually tried it found that it
doesn't work. Topic drift is endemic on the net, and suggestions to maintain a
standard set of Subject: line keywords usually get ignored.

All that aside, just exactly how do you propose to enforce such a thing?
Flames by email? All you'll do is generate flamewars.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "begin 666 foo 266]U(&AA=F4@;F\@;&EF92X: ` end" -- Daniel Drucker
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Brian Hughes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:30:23 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

ggraham@utdallas.edu (GREGORY S GRAHAM) writes:

>I think a Powerbook newsgroup is a great idea for three reasons:

>   1) The Macintosh newsgroups are very large,

    No, they're not very large. Take a look at the latests statistics
posting for December. Unless you see a comp.sys.mac.* group in the top
40 it just isn't that big. I don't call 50-60 articles/day big.

>   2) Powerbook users represent a large subgroup of Macintosh users, and

    Not as large as some of the other subsets of Macintosh users, like
say, Mac SE users.

>   3) The Powerbook presents unique issues that are not relevant to the
>      desktop Macintosh world.

    This is true, but the relative scope of those topics, IMHO, just
doesn't warrant the creation of a newsgroup specifically to talk about
Powerbooks, a mailing list on the other hand would be ideally suited to
this task.

--
-Brian V. Hughes 
"December 1 - What begins as a friendly transitional get-together between
 the Bushes and the Clintons ends in tragedy when Millie ralphs up what
 is later identified as Socks the cat." Dave Barry 1992 Year in Review
Xref: sparky news.groups:26288 rec.backcountry:10488
From: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 13:38:48 EST(-0500)
Organization: Accuracy, Ltd.
Reply-To: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v0

Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writes:
> Subject: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*

This is a proposal looking for a reason.  Why do you propose the change?  What
purpose will it serve?  Are you trying to solve a problem?  If so, what is that
problem?  All I see here is an urge to organize.  Though I sympathize, I don't
think that reason alone is worth the disruption of the change.

> Second, should rec.backcountry be renamed and modified to include
> subgroups?  It seems that splitting rec.backcountry might be a good
> idea.  But, where to split the group is quite another debate.

I see no reason to split the group.  Although it is quite active, it is not
overwhelming.  For example, rec.backcountry has far less traffic than
rec.bicycles did before it split, and far less traffic than sci.crypt presently
does.

Again, why should rec.backcountry be renamed?  I've never heard of any problems
due to the current name.  If such problems exist, please explain.

Many hikers and campers have a strong attachment to the concept of
"backcountry".  This is something which goes far beyond any literal definition. 
The name is a good one for reasons unrelated to organization.

> Regarding rec.backcountry, there are three things to be decided: 
> 1) Is the change of rec.backcountry to rec.outdoors.misc needed?

In a word, no.

> 2) What subgroups have enough traffic to justify them?

None.  The newsgroup as a whole has a good volume to generate discussions
without being too voluminous.  None of the split groups would be likely to
attain critical mass.

> 4) should the group be moderated?

I'll try to restrain my natural response.

> Please post any suggestions/comments to news.groups.  Email and posts
> to the original groups are not really considered in the evaluation
> process.

That's nice.  How many people who read rec.backcountry do you think also read
news.groups?  (I realize that you are only following the guidelines.  My
complaint is with the guidelines, and I have sent that complaint to those
responsible for the guidelines.)  I have crossposted my response to
rec.backcountry so that those affected will have the opportunity to read it.

Edward Reid  (8*}>
  eel:   ed@titipu.resun.com  or  nosc!blkhole!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:22:51 GMT

In article <1k379mINNkv5@beethoven.cs.unc.edu> bell@cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:

>>In terms of content, the only real overlap between historical
>>and fantasy/sci fi miniatures groups (if we wanted to divide things that
>>way) would be in terms of painting and modelling techniques.
>
>Not true.  Campaign rules, morale, (much) equipment, hidden movement, "fog
>of war," tactics, and much more are common to both.

But only to the extent that the fantasy people are trying to make their
games more like reality and less like a fantasy.

>The only real
>>difference between the two is historical miniatures discussion would
>include more specific history discussions, while fantasy miniatures
>includes discussion of magic and magical effects.

Discussions which always strike me as rather strange.  You can argue
about whether a particular form of magic destroys the play balance
in a game.  How can you argue about whether it is realistic?  Even
if that is the "only real difference" between the two groups of games,
I would argue that it is a fundamental difference.

>>When you say "our hobby is strong enough...", you are organizing the
>>world in a way I do not happen to agree with.

>>Fantasy/sci fi gaming is not part of MY hobby.
>
>"Napolean is not part of my hobby."
>"Ships are not part of my hobby."
>"Prussians are not part of my hobby."
>
>You can make whatever distinctions you like, but it doesn't change the
>fact that to an outsider, we're all a bunch of people pushing a large
>number of models around a tabletop.  We're far more alike than we are
>different.

>Andrew Bell
>bell@cs.unc.edu

Well, then, Andrew, we probably ought to combine with rec.models.railroad.
The model railroaders also push models around on a tabletop, although they
usually try to push 'em with electricity (resorting to hand pushing only
when electrical shorts or crud buildup on the wheels stop the trains).

I'm not being entirely facetious here.  I find as much commonality 
between historical miniatures players and model railroaders (both
of whom base their modeling on historical themes) as between historical
and fantasy miniatures.  Nevertheless, I feel that model railroading
and historical miniature gaming should be in separate forums --
precisely my position on historical and fantasy miniatures.

To me, it makes a very big difference indeed what kind of models
I push around the table.  I'll push Napoleonics, and I'll push
ships, but I won't push elves.  I suppose that there are many
elven-pushers who feel the reverse.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@indiana.edu
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:44:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: louie.cc.utexas.edu

cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

>I think you are being a little extreme in your definition of crossovers,
>such as "Lursa and Betor appear of ds9."  This was clearly not a full-
>fledged crossover, 

IYO.  I'd consider it one.

>and discussion of it would obviously go under a ds9
>group.  

Assuming such a group were created, I'd agree here.  That doesn't mean it
isn't a crossover, however, and I could see posting something about it in
a TNG group as well.

>I say that crossovers must have a unified plot which can affect the major
>characters on both series.  

Fine.  I say that crossovers are episodes of one series which have
referents in another.  Someone who has not seen "Redemption" would have
no clue who Lursa and B?tor really were, and why we were supposed to feel
{dread,horror,disgust,a vague ominous feeling} when they showed up.  I
seriously doubt, however, that there's anyone (except maybe Kanamori)
watching DS9 who isn't watching TNG, and that's because DS9 is that TV
staple -- a spinoff.

Frankly, I think the truth of the matter lies somewhere between your
"God-shaking events must result" thesis and the list of 59 griev...
er...crossovers.  YMMV.

>In closing, an analogy would be appropriate: did you see the need
>to label tng episodes like "The Naked Now" and "Sarek" as crossovers,
>or did you define them as tng with an occassion reference to tos thrown
>in?

This analogy isn't really appropriate at all.  It's difficult to
crossover with a series that is no longer produced.  My gut feeling is
that these would be considered "mini-spinoffs" of TOS, but, again, YMMV.

--Andrew
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.usa,alt.censorship,alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.headlines
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:26:15 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1k69aaINNgoj@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

>If you really feel this way, then you must also have felt that 
>rec.arts.startrek should have bee kept as a group and all postings to
>any of the recently created subgroups be crossposted to it, so that
>"readers of that group will still enjoy the same articles they always
>have."

This is a really stupid comment to make, since rec.arts.startrek was
rmgrouped it wouldn't make any sense to direct cross-posted articles to
it, now would it? Since rec.arts.startrek.reviews would provide an
ADDITIONAL place to post reviews and rec.arts.startrek.current is not
being rmgrouped I don't see the comparison.

People seem to have a real problem adapting to the idea that some people
want to read reviews and discuss them in a busy group like
rec.arts.startrek.current and some people would prefer to read the reviews
only in a low volume setting like rec.arts.startrek.reviews.

I say, let them read that traffic in a low volume setting. As long as
crossposting and followups are handled by a competent moderator the idea
is functional.

>And before that, "net" should have been kept as a group and all postings
>to every other group crossposted to it.

Yeah... whatever.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

                      "Whoa! Beep! Beep! Back the truck up!"
                           - Tim 'the tool man' Taylor
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: andre@king.slc.mentorg.com (Andre' Hut)
Subject: Re: Status of soc.religion.mormon?
Organization: /slc/home/andre/.organization
Date: 25 Jan 93 09:55:55

In article <732@caritas.cotdazr.org> zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org (Gordon C. Zaft) writes:

   >Okay, I guess I missed it.  What's the status of the soc.religion.mormon?
   >Has it been RFD'd?

Well, I just recently proposed a charter for a un-moderated group.  I guess that counts
as an RFD.  There hasn't been a lot of discussion however.  The issue as to moderate or
not to moderate hasn't really been settled either.  I suspect that those that want a
moderated group will get voted down by those who want it un-moderated, and vice-
versa.  It may never come to pass.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those
of my employer.

Andre' Hut       andre@slc.mentorg.com  or  utah-cs!caeco!andre
Mentor Graphics, Suite 300, 5295 South 300 West, Murray, Utah 84107
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdo
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:21:35 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1993Jan25.175243.2893@isy.liu.se>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: hakana@isy.liu.se's message of Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:52:43 GMT


Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdo

Hmmm.  Do I detect competition here? :-)
--
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
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: will@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (William Sadler)
Subject: Re: moving rec.boats
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:00:42 GMT

I could not find the original discussion for moving rec.boats
to rec.outdoor.boats.  What are the reasons for doing this?
Rec.bicycles.* would presumably also have to be moved to
rec.outdoors.*  Were they also considered?

Rec.boats is just fine where it is now.  Is the rec.* listing getting
too long?

Will
--
***************************************************************************
*   _______________\|/_      Will Sadler     will@cica.indiana.edu        * 
*   Laser 44888    /|\                       sadler@iubacs.bitnet         *     
***************************************************************************
From: dan@kronos.com (Dan Driscoll)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:39:46 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

I believe rec.windsurfing should be left alone. There is already a place
in France where windsurfing events take place indoors. There may be others
built in the future. 

-dan@kronos.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jay@uacn.alaska.edu (Jay Beavers)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:28:01 GMT

Tim Pierce (twpierce@unix.amherst.edu) wrote:
: In article <8549@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

: >In article <1993Jan26.120211.6093@pollux.lu.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
: >
: >>Naming the group comp.os.ms-windows.nt would imply that Windows NT is
: >>some sort of derivative of MS Windows, which it is NOT. We should try
: >>to keep the namespace hierarchy meaningful.

: >Fire up Windows NoT. Then tell me it isn't a derivative of MS Windows.

: Rather than not being a derivative, it's not a subproduct.  The above
: hierarchical scheme suggests that NT is some peculiar dialect of
: MS-Windows -- seeing as how NT is an operating system whereas
: MS-Windows is not, that hardly seems to be the case.  Give it a
: parallel hierarchy.

Well, while Windows NT is by no means a subproduct, neither is MS-Windows
for Workgroups a 'subproduct' of MS-Windows, but I'd certainly expect to
see any discussion for WFWG in the same c.o.ms-w hierarchy.

The fact of the matter is that Windows NT, while based upon different
underpinnings, has been designed and is being marketed as a member of the
Microsoft Windows family.  Whether you think this is a good idea or whether
you think this is true from an operating systems point of view doesn't really
matter as much as how it will be perceived.

Furthermore, Windows NT shares a very large number of features with it's less
powerful bretheren.  It has the same user interface, it uses the same software
(plus a little), it uses the same APIs to a large extent, and it's marketed
the same way.  

Ah, as another example, OS/2 2.0 has been totally rewritten from OS/2 1.x
to include many new features, a new API set, a new interface, and to be
compatible with different types of software.  Yet it still resides in the
same hierarchy as OS/2 1.x despite the fact that many people have stayed
with OS/2 1.x for the time being. 

I see the new hierarchy looking like:

comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
                  .announce
                  .apps
                  .misc
                  .network            -- To discuss WFWG changes & NT's netwrk
                  .nt                 -- To discuss Windows NT's peculiarities
                  .programmer.misc
                  .programmer.network -- WinSock, SMNP, NetDDE, etc?
                  .programmer.tools
                  .programmer.win32   -- To discuss the new APIs
                  .setup

--
Jay C. Beavers
jay@seaspray.uacn.alaska.edu
From: sclera@milori.ccit.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Summary: In favor of r.g.m.
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:22:43 GMT
Reply-To: bob@sclera.physics.arizona.edu
Followup-To: rec.games.board,news.groups
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-User: sclera

From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:18:15 GMT
>...
>While the motives listed in the RFD about "why a miniatures group" are all
>valid reasons for talking about minis on the net, I feel that rec.games.board
>already fills the need.  Most people on the net who are into miniatures already
>read this group, and so would have instant access to anything posted there.
>
>For more specific discussions, several well publicized mailing lists exist (cf:
>FAQ, news.answers).  Mailing lists also have fewer distribution problems than
>do newsgroups - more people can't read a newsgroup than people who are not
>allowed to suscribe to lists (this was shown in a recent ASL list debate).
>
>While I would also like to see more miniature stuff on usenet, I think that
>the way to get it is not a new group (which if present volume is a good
>barometer, wouldn't have much traffic), but to post more about it on r.g.b.  A
>discussion in the wider forum of r.g.b. would reach more people and stimulate
>more interest than the same discussion on a dedicated newsgroup with a smaller
>readership.
>
>	Alec

In my mind, this valid argument against r.g.m. is also a valid argument 
against any newsgroup besides alt.talk.  One reason some of us are
cheered by the chance at r.g.m. is to make discussion easier to achieve.
It is easy to miss the occasional lead-based posting among all the 
SFB, WiF, Battletech, etc. posts.  

Also, miniatures is a "multi-disciplinary" sort of hobby.  It has much in 
common with board games, yet has diorama/model railroad aspects, is very
popular with the fantasy and RPG crowd, and often involves historical
minutae and sci.military topics.  I imagine that many others besides myself
must graze in scattered pastures to get any nourishment at all.

Finally, a newsgroup which succeeds can build a sense of community.  This
will lead to more posts on the topic, many crossposted to relevant groups
such as soc.history, etc.  Hey, just ask Mutlu 8^}

That's my 0.02 Quatloos worth.

C.S. Cornuelle
bob@sclera.physics.arizona.edu
From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: New RFD: Bible Study Newsgroup
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:49:14 GMT
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <root.727629033@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith ) writes:
>
>>I understand the concerns about including the word "christian" in the 
>Of course, the moderator is going to have to add some Talmudic/Midrashic
>texts to his library so he can look stuff up as necessary...any
>suggestions?  My church has some, but I'd like to get some of my own...

There are some CD-ROMs available with Jewish works on them.
Contact these companies for details:
Kabbalah Software (908) 572-0891, fax (908) 572-0869, 
	e-mail kabbalah@israel.nysernet.org.  Windows 3 version
Davka Software 800-621-8227 or 312-465-4070, fax 312-262-9298.
	DOS and Mac versions

-- 
======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.indian