HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:31:25 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec12.010416.8007@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>Not according to my newsspool. I've seen twice the traffic in the 
>>>old group that was in the new group. 
>>...largely due to YOUR flamewar. Congratulations.
>It's not JUST mine. 

You're the one who kept pointing it back at r.m.s...

>(Wait...let me finish this for both of us...)
[...]
>(OK?)

OK...now, have you learned anything? (Probably not.) Let me spell it out for
you: you have nobody but yourself to blame for the problems in the group.
-- 
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.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Xref: sparky news.groups:24170 alt.native:1384
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: soc.culture.native.american
Date: 13 Dec 92 03:26:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Dec13.032653.4866
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>Common usage of the term "Native American," as opposed to "American
>Native," shouldn't have anything to do with it at all.  In fact,

I agree that common usage of terms is significantly less important
than common usenet understanding...  we are naming a news group, not
a people or a culture.

>"soc.culture.native.american" seems to me more damaging a name because
>it's misleading about the structure of the Usenet namespace, in which
>dots seperate levels of generality and not just words (cf.

I don't agree with that concept.

The prime subject is native cultures, not America.  And there is a
distinct possibility that we may initially, or perhaps later,
split that namespace into subgroups.  (I would love to see the day
when there is enough traffic to create a group
soc.culture.native.alaskan!  Or perhaps s.c.native.yup'ik and
s.c.native.inupiaq some day too.)

What naming scheme could be used for naming multiple related
groups if we start with s.c.american.native?  THAT would be a
misuse of usenet namespace structure!

In the immediate future there is no harm in either s.c.native or
s.c.native.american alone.  I would hope that if s.c.n.american is
created that there would also be a group for non-american native
cultures too, because otherwise there is no better place for that
topic, and they will distract from the chartered purpose of the
group.  (I don't think the actual articles will so much as the
inevitable flames that result from off topic articles.)

Floyd
-- 
floyd@ims.alaska.edu        A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska              system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 18 Dec 1992 12:36:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec17.231459.24730@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>If a group needs a rename due to large traffic flow, it stands to reason
>that (flameguments not withstanding) once per three days is hardly a drop 
>in the bucket. In fact, it may not be enough. 

What about those groups which need to be renamed for other reasons besides
traffic flow? Your proposal would swamp those. 

>>When the folks in the apartment above hear the screams, then come downstairs
>>to find someone standing over the victim unzipping his pants, then calling the
>>cops on that person is a natural thing to do.
>I wasn't unzipping my pants...in this case.

Yep. It is your action that has divided the synth community, no matter how
loud and how long you protest otherwise.

>>Then what, exactly, do you hope to accomplish with your revote demand? 
>I meant that it appears that the rest of the net won't even let me have 
>a revote. 

OK, so if you don't think it will happen, why keep pressing for it? You're
weakening your case, not strengthening it. In particular, by pressing for a
revote instead of proposing a name change back, you're guaranteeing that
you'll lose any eventual vote.

>Well then. All this argument about "logic" and "rationality" and "intellectual
>honesty" can be thrown right out the window, huh? 

Just because decisions admins make about each individual site are made
subjectively in the end doesn't mean that logical, rational, intellectually
honest argument doesn't help convince them.

>I don't think a protracted flamewar is necessary to get that effect. Of the
>two votes I've run, I've noticed a marked correlation between the posting
>of a CFV and the incoming daily total of votes. Thus, it stands to reason
>that posting more often will increase the total number of votes. 

But it's also been shown that posting more often will also increase the
flamage and the traffic in general outside the charter of the group. This is
good?
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: rynes@slc3.ins.cwru.edu (Edward M. Rynes - M.E.D./P.o.D.)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Court Rulings Hierarchy
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:34:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc3.ins.cwru.edu

nareid@due.unit.no (Helge Nareid) writes:

>Usenet is not a local USA net, a top-level hierarchy is not local to the
>USA unless it is specifically defined to be local - i.e. put underneath
>a us.* or usa.* hierarchy

If a top level hierarchy is "not local to the USA" then why is usa.* not
distributed internationally?  And why was it allowed to be created in the
first place?

>There is no problem in interested sites anywhere getting regional
>groups from elsewhere if the users at that particular site is interested.

In that case I hearby declare that the courts hierarchy is a regional
group local to a plot of land about one block north of the intersection
of Euclid Ave and Mayfield Road in Cleveland Ohio.  Anyone outside this
area is free to receive the distribution if they wish.  They may also
contribute to and expand the hierarchy if they wish.

;)
-- 
Edward M. Rynes  <rynes@INS.CWRU.Edu>              "Even in my drunken stupor
Information Network Services                I've got to admire your ingenuity
Case Western Reserve University               And I nod my head, oh so wisely
Cleveland, OH  44106-7072                      to the rhythm of your cruelty"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.games.cyber renaming and unmoderation
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:30:59 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <1gtvkvINN42r@news.UU.NET> elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
>This is an RFD to

>1) unmoderate rec.games.cyber
>2) remove rec.games.cyber moderated
>3) create rec.games.frp.cyber unmoderated

>  The first two votes might seem contradictory, but unmoderation vote is
>included in case r.g.cyber won't be removed.

>[[ Moderator's note:  the eventual vote will have to be to rename
>   rec.games.cyber, moderated, to rec.games.frp.cyber, unmoderated. -- tale ]]

Um.  What's wrong with a dual vote -- one on removal of r.g.c
and one on addition of r.g.f.c?  It's slightly more complex,
and there is a small risk of ending up with two cyber groups,
but it's a really small risk.  On the up side, it will make
everyone happy.  The people who don't want any cyber group
will have a chance to get rid of it, the people who don't
want r.g.c to move will be able to vote for that, and the
people who want it moved will be able to vote for that.  The
only option not possible is simple unmoderation of r.g.c, but
I haven't seen anyone championing that one yet.

-- 
Bryant Durrell					   durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 I feed on the flesh of the living, and I vote.
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.folklore.computers,alt.config,alt.folklore.urban
From: fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: RESULT: comp.society.folklore unmoderation fails 729: 151
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:37:10 GMT
Organization: Recognition Equipment, Inc.

jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joel K. Furr) writes:

>Basically, the idea of 'promoting' alt.folklore.computers was a really stupid
>idea, and that's all there is to it.

Well, it didn't happen, and it's not going to happen, so why are you
still going on and on about it??

-- 
#ifdef TRUE        | Fuzzy Fox (a.k.a. David DeSimone)       fuzzy@netcom.com
#define  TRUE   0  |
#define  FALSE  1  |  "You have been recruited by the Star League to defend
#endif             |     the Frontier against Xur and the Kodan Armada."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.cyber
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:53:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec09.211519.4783@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire) writes:
>>From what I understand, this group also covers non-rpg material such
>>as board and wargames that are in the mecha genre. As a result, it does
>>not belong in the frp heirarchy. Note that rec.games.design covers rpg
>>material, but due to the generality of its subject, does not belong in
>>the frp heirarchy either.
>
>Although the charter covers non-RPG material, in fact, almost none is
>actually posted.  Therefore, I do not think a move to rec.games.frp
>would change the traffic on the new group.  The charter would need to
>be tightened a little, but that would just make it closer to what
>the real traffic actually is.
>
>Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)  pseudo-moderator of rec.games.cyber


    \_/
     |ou should check the text that you quoted more carefully.  It was
 in fact referencing rec.games.mecha, not rec.games.cyber.  The charter
 of rec.games.mecha includes all forms of mecha gaming, and the majority
 of it would not actually fit under the rec.games.frp hierarchy.
 

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kogoma@vesta.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma)
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:31:39 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon

In article <631.9212091049@csparc12.scs.leeds.ac.uk> ross-c@scs.leeds.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Nov29.042839.13103@bcrka451.bnr.ca> you write:
>>I don't think you understand how democracy works.
>>
>>Democracy only works if people take the trouble to LEARN WHAT'S GOING ON
>>and to PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS.

Um...who wrote this?

>Yeah, like a 99% non-turnout rate is democracy. If you get turnouts like
>this then democracy is NOT working, and SOMETHING is WRONG.

Please explain where you (Ross) got the greatly mistaken idea that
Usenet is a democracy.

>>The greatest danger in a democracy is that the leaders will spoonfeed
>>information to the (passive) voters.  The greatest good in a democracy
>>is if voters SEEK information to evaluate the performance of the
>>leaders, and to control their own destiny.  (Many voters don't do this.
>>Thus, they abdicate their share of power.)
>
>99%?????? Rubbish! The ability to vote is not sufficently publicised.
>The voting process is not sufficiently clear. It isn't working and it
>isn't democracy.

Again.  Usenet has never claimed to be a democracy.  However, I remain
greatly confused about why it's "not sufficiently clear" to read the
article where the CFV (often spelled out as "Call for Votes") is
announced for the voting instructions.  Guess I'm just special.

(True, I have encountered occasional difficulties getting my vote
registered, but all of these have been network-related in my
experience.)

>Like, if the leader of a country institutes a literacy test for voting
>priviliges, this is promoting democracy? After all, if the voters don't SEEK
>to become literate they're abdicating their own power. Sheesh.

Again, Usenet is a technocratic oligarchy masquarading as a
cooperative anarchy.  Democracy doesn't enter into the picture
anywhere.

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  kogoma@vesta.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Message to Joel and Jay
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:17:58 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec15.163745.7525@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>Joel, Jay, why don't you two just step outside and settle this between
>the two of you?  Your chest beating and posturing are nowhere near as
>amusing as Dave's efforts . . .

Well, I would, but it'd just appear here anyway, with my name forged on it...
-- 
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.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth?
Date: 14 Dec 1992 16:09:46 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec14.134054.8600@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>I have a funny way of showing a lot of things. Sorry...that's who I am.

Apparently.

>I don't know who took over SYNTH-L so this is not possible. What's wrong
>with holding a revote and both sides agreeing beyond all recall that the
>new vote stands? (And don't cite guidelines)

So send a message to synth-l-request (or whatever the maintainer's address is)
and ask him.

Sorry, but the Guidelines are how things get done in the realm of the Usenet
group system. You _can't_ unilaterally demand that they be tossed out any more
than you can demand that you be allowed to dictate who takes the oath of
office on 20 January 1993. (Well, actually, you can, and are, but you'll be
just as widely ignored.)

>>If you don't think this will solve the problem, be specific as to why not.
>There's other news admins who are keeping the old name, and who aren't 
>listening to this group at all. No I don't have any proof...but it's
>reasonable to assume given email I've gotten and posts I've seen.

*poing*
There you go again with the "my mailbox is full" argument. You might as well
say "My hovercraft is full of eels!" for all the validity it has.
-- 
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.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* (was Re: new newsgroup proposal:talk.politics.motss)
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:51:34 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups,soc.motss
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Dec15.012442.27914@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu
(Jess Anderson) wrote:

> I've stopped reading, for the most part.

And so the bell tolls, and to the dusty bits of creation the Cabal
shall pass - its Grand Wizard, by his own hand, laid to rest.

*X*
(gloat is not the word - there isn't one...)
Xref: sparky news.groups:24361 alt.native:1417
From: gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: STRAW VOTE ON NAME FOR NATIVE AMERICANS NEWSGROUP
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:28:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec15.072803.3597
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting

In article <zgk2t8m@rpi.edu> speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Arlen Speights) writes:

> Just my $.02:  I prefer "indigenous" to "aboriginal," because aboriginal,
> while semantically correct, tends to refer to the Austrailian Aborigines
> in common usage.

However, leaders among the First Peoples of Canada, like Elijah Harper,
frequently refer to themselves as "aboriginal peoples."  But I do agree that
most people probably do not recognize the dictionary definition of the word.

> ...If a general term for indigenous/aboriginal/native
> peoples is the goal, I think "indigenous" is most applicable with the 
> least confusion.

I can buy that argument, and would be quite willing to support the name
"soc.culture.indigenous."

> ...it does
> distinguish the peoples it describes more accurately than "native."  Do
> we want to name the group with the Most accuracy and risk having some
> potential participants not recognize the group?  If "indigenous" and
> "aboriginal" are likely to belie the nature of the group, then I'd rather
> go ahead with soc.culture.native.  Any thoughts?

I think words are a tricky business.  :-)

Gary
-- 
    Gary S. Trujillo                             gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts               {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: what does it take to get someone to vote?
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:07:08 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA

>>Those who have claimed
>>that "something is wrong" have, so far, not produced the slightest shred
>>of verifiable evidence.  I consider their claims baseless.
>>
>>rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)

 >We have provided evidence. The subject line was misleading (CFV: 
 >rec.music.makers.* reorganization) and the vote topic was far enough
 >down in the body of the CFV (greater than 21 lines) that it was probably 
 >missed by those who have 24 line screens (a sizable percentage). 
 >
 >dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)

^%@^%&$#^&$#@!!!

what kind of _pathetic_ _moron_ would POSSIBLY whine that
"well, i saw the subject line and i selected the article and i read the first
twenty lines and i saw the message <31 more lines> at the bottom of the screen,
but i didn't see anything very interesting in that first page, so i 'n'ed out
of the post completely" as an excuse that he didn't get to vote?????

jesus!  if *this* is the best you can do, dave, then you will NEVER get a
single damn drop of sympathy from me.  any user that would perform the sequence
above AND THEN BITCH ABOUT IT is totally worthless and deserves no respect.

just how ____ing much hand-holding are you going to do, dave?
in fact, how much hand-holding do you want _me_ to do??

here is a list of words:  leech, parasite, bloodsucker, freeloader.

and finally:  there will _always_ be subject lines which can be considered
as "misleading", since they are limited to 40 characters.  get real and 
worry about something you *can* change.

ok
dpm
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"
From: brian@audiofax.com (Brian Troxell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:22:45 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Dec14.133509.8480@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>ONE article? That makes a difference, for sure...what with 75 articles
>per day average one article is bound to make a difference huh?

Well, if that is the problem, how about a suggestion from you instead
of the constant carping: What is the ratio of CFV posts per day to
total articles per day would you find acceptable? 

So far,we can assume it is higher than 1:75. What is it, Dave?

-- 
|~~\ rian        2000 Powers Fy Rd. | "I got up this morning with
|--< _____       Suite 200          |   a lot of carrots on my mind."
|__/   |         Marietta, Ga 30067 |  
       | roxell  (404)933-7600      |    	John_-_Winston, Loonie. 
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: sridhar@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Sridhar Venkataraman )
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native-america
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:47:00 GMT

[Crossposted to alt.culture.us.asian-indian]
[Followups to news.groups please]

StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:

)It seems to me that "Indian" on the net implies South Asian origin, not
)of pre-European American origin.  I think that the [South Asian] Indians
)and the [South Asian] Indian-Americans might have some comments about
)the creation of a soc.culture.american.indian.

Surely Alok will have something to say. :)

Indian-Americans are presently on alt.culture.us.asian-indian. They
will have something to say on this. Whoever wishes to comment please
try browsing the past postings on news.groups on this and related
threads.

)Michael Adams				| Science without religion is lame;

Sridhar.
--
Sridhar Venkataraman			sridhar@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native.america
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:07:23 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.


 In article <WARKENT.92Dec14103204@ltisun14.epfl.ch>, warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
 > Concerning "native", "indigenous", and "aboriginal".
 > 
 > My Concise Oxford has the following definitions. My comments enclosed
 > in square brackets.
 
 [ ... ]
 
 > "aboriginal" (adj.)
 >   1. Indigenous, existing in a land at the dawn of history, or before
 >      arrival of colonists. [the best option, in my opinion -kw]
 
Agreed. Even my little pocket New Websters defines aborigine as "early
native of a country"
 
soc.culture.aborigonal.* anyone?

It fits. Only question is what to call the final subgroup for THIS
proposal. How about something like this?

soc.culture.aborigonal.n-america
    soc.culture.aborigonal.n-america.usa
    soc.culture.aborigonal.n-america.canada
    soc.culture.aborigonal.n-america.mexico

soc.culture.aborigonal.s-america
    soc.culture.aborigonal.s-america.brazil
    soc.culture.aborigonal.s-america.panama
    soc.culture.aborigonal.s-america.equador

soc.culture.aborigonal.europe
    soc.culture.aborigonal.europe.germany
    soc.culture.aborigonal.europe.g-britain
    soc.culture.aborigonal.europe.spain

(Etc.....)

This is, of course, based on countries and since boundaries have moved
over the years it's probably not optimal. This doesn't help the proposal
at hand since there is no solution here for the "native american"
question. It's just a possibility for future structure. 

Next?


-- 
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Xref: sparky news.groups:24564 alt.config:8011 alt.folklore.computers:18037 alt.fan.john-palmer:458
From: tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config,alt.folklore.computers,alt.fan.john-palmer
Subject: Re: RESULT: comp.society.folklore unmoderation fails 729:151
Date: 17 Dec 1992 19:53:58 GMT
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.
	<1992Dec17.020351.23814jp@tygra.Michigan.COM>
	<1gorc2INNt5p@apache.dtcc.edu> <scs.724598988@hela.iti.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ten.uu.net

In article <scs.724598988@hela.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
> Before getting too excited, it's worth doing a bit of research . . .

> The Path: on the article when it arrived here was 
>   hela.iti.org!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!caen!destroyer!Tygra.Michigan.COM!news

> A few quick connects to the nntp servers on destroyer, caen and uunet show
> that neither of the first two has the article while the third does.  I
> was not able to retrieve the article from uunet, so cannot say what the
> path looks like there.

It looks like: