HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Create a killfile? AAAAAAAARGH!
Summary: Take it one step further
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:45:35 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <9210061416.AA05577@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, jfurr@vtssi.vt.EDU (Joel Furr) writes:
> I repeat: SOME PEOPLE CANNOT CREATE KILLFILES.
> 
> Somewhere in the news.announce.newusers files that get posted, there's a note
> to the effect that it's bad manners to assume that everyone reads news on a
> UNIX box somewhere.  

And, it's equally bad manners to assume everyone reading news on a Unix
box automatically HAS killfiles. They don't always. Bnews runs on Unix
and does NOT support killfiles. 


-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.mecha
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:02:58 GMT
Organization: negligable

So far so good.... :-)

I've already said what I think under the previous discussion.
Can't wait for the 19th.....


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And the men who hold high places	|
must be the ones who start		|	-Richard Hartman	
to mold a new reality			|	hartman@uLogic.COM
closer to the heart!			|
					| on GEnie MPBtech: Etrigan
From: pauls@icecreambar.css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:36:23 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan
Reply-To: pauls@umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu

Alan P Barrett writes
| In article <1bbti9INNoh2@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
| pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) quotes me and writes:
| Yes, that's what I think.
| 
| > I guess I am having a hard time using your position to construct a
| > viable proposal in my head.
| 
| It would probably have to be done in stages.  First move
| comp.unix.* to comp.os.unix.*, and if the vote passes then
| start moving all the comp.os.<unix-by-any-other-name> groups to
| comp.os.unix.<unix-by-any-other-name>.
| 
| In the mean time, adding new comp.unix.* groups, such as
| comp.unix.bsd.386bsd, is reasonable.
| 
| > Are YOU going to handle the RFDs and votes to move all those groups
| > so that we can have comp.os.unix.386bsd and a neat little hierarchy
| > around us?
| 
| Chip just went through a comp.unix.* reorganisation, and he decided not
| to move the whole mess to comp.os.unix.*.  I don't propose to do  
anything
| about it until next time somebody does a comp.unix.* reorg.

But ultimately you are not proposing anything now, and since everything  
would be moved later anyway, I see your point as irrelevant.  If we put a  
group in comp.os and later move it to comp.os.unix that is no different  
than putting it in comp.unix and then moving to comp.os.unix.  Either way  
we are talking about making one thing now and then moving it later.
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:00:55 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <7489@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>          quackery     quackery    quackery      quackery

I have to agree with Jay 100%.  These "alternative medicines" have never been
proven safe or effective, and making such a newsgroup widely available would
advertise quackery to a host of people that might put enough trust in the
regimes to threaten their lives.  Many people died of cancer that might have
been saved thanks to laetrile, let's not make it even easier to spread snake-
oil and hokum.

Besides which, the people involved in these "alternatives" are very often
unethical.  It took the FDA over a year to shut down that "Grapefruit 45"
plan, and they just started up in a new city under a new name.  A newsgroup
will make it easier for people to find and refer to these services, I doubt
very much it will do much scientific discussion.  That is not just a commercial
use of the net, it is a most unethical commercialism at that.

I'd vote against the thing no matter where it goes.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
How about we all do something reasonable?  I bet that'll confuse 'em!
Xref: sparky news.groups:18919 sci.med:18800
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.med
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:20:36 GMT
Organization: On the Brew.

Perhaps while discussing the best place in the hierarchy for an alternative
medicine group, we should examine sci.med itself for a moment.

I've already posted why I don't think a new group will achieve the desired
result, but on reflection, it goes further than that.

Based on its content, sci.med has never had the same flavour as other sci
groups, even if the alternative medicine wars are excluded.

Only rarely do the group experts take part in any discussion of techniques,
treatments etc.  Virtually all topics start with a question from a
non-medical person.  With notable exceptions, the only theories ever
expounded are the fringe ones, and they only lead to derisive flame wars.

So sci.med has always been more of a medical Ann Landers column than a
scientific forum.  Often interesting, certainly, but not a professional forum.

If we look at this in the most charitable way, we can assume that the chat
has swamped the science, and will still do so, even if some alternative
medicine postings are moved elsewhere.

Perhaps its about time to have _all_ non-professional discussions moved out
of sci.med to see if a truly sci group would emerge.

In many ways, the early proposal of creating a top level med hierarchy
(med.talk, med.research, med.ask-a-doctor, med.nutrition, med.drugs,
med.alternative med.whatever) might be the best way to achieve this.  But
how difficult would it be to get everyone on-side in a vote - it's not just
a new group, its a pretty fundamental change.

At any rate, the alternative medicine postings are not at the root of
sci.med's woes.  Nor will attempting to move those postings improve sci.med
in any way.  The only thing it will achieve is to create a bigger audience
for the alternative medicine faction.

Now I'm not against giving them a forum (unlike some contributors to
sci.med), but that's not what we're trying to achieve by this discussion.
Unless something is done to change the fundamental nature of sci.med, all
that will be achieved is the potential for cross-posted flames.  I can feel
the heat already.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lwv26@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
Subject: Re: NAPLPS Newsgroup
Followup-To: news.groups
Reply-To: lvirden@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
Organization: Nedriv Software and Shoe Shiners, Uninc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:29:23 GMT

Let me preface this by saying while I have heard the term since a mid 70s or
so article in Byte, I have not yet figured out what NAPLPS is.  So:
o	If NAPLPS is a protocol, would comp.protocols.naplps be appropriate?
o	If it is a character set that is displayed, perhaps 
	comp.terminals.naplps would be better?
o	If it is a system of applications, perhaps comp.soft-sys.naplps?  
o	If it is really describing a type of information protocol, perhaps 
	comp.infosystems.naplps.  
o	If NAPLPS is really a mechanism for storing and retrieving data,
	perhaps comp.databases.naplps.
o	If it is a language for constructing interactive programs, would
	comp.lang.naplps or comp.{gui,windows}.naplps 
	(comp.gui.* is a newly proposed hierarchy to replace comp.windows.*)
	be appropriate?
o	Perhaps there is a NAPLPS standard that is really the topic that is
	to be discussed - comp.std.naplps.
o	Maybe comp.text.naplps ;-)

Already I have also read proposals for either:

comp.graphics.naplps	- Original proposal, because of the use in constructing
	graphical displays

comp.dcom.videotex	- Not desirable by NAPLPS community due to its negative
	publicity.

rec.arts.naplps		- Though not specifically named, implied in the original
	article as a group to discuss the medium in artistic terms.

Well, there is a start for some of the alternatives that I could think of off
the top of my head early in the am...
-- 
Larry W. Virden                 UUCP: osu-cis!chemabs!lvirden
Same Mbox: BITNET: lvirden@cas  INET: lvirden@cas.org
Personal: 674 Falls Place,   Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614
America Online: lvirden@aol.com
From: kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: misc.health.allergy vs sci.med.allergy?
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:32:59 GMT
Organization: The Information Deli - via Netcom / San Jose, California

In <1992Oct13.181817.19229@cbfsb.cb.att.com> kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
(krista.j.anderson) writes:

>Since the misc.health.alternatives name has been suggested, I've
>been thinking that misc.health.allergy might be a better place for
>an allergy newsgroup.  One main reason for suggesting an allergy
>group is to make a place for casual discussions about personal
>experiences and so on that may not be appropriate in a sci group.

Definitely.  misc.health.* is perfectly suited to non-technical
discussions; sci.med* should be reserved for scientific discussions.

>Then maybe the more scientific articles about allergies could
>remain in sci.med unless the traffic got too great.  Or maybe they
>could be cross-posted there as well as misc.health.allergy,
>although cross-posting is usually discouraged.

I'd like to strongly suggest that articles *not* be cross-posted between
misc.health.* and sci.med* -- discussions are either technical or
non-technical, and cross-posting between the hierarchies will just create
noise in one or the other group.

-- 
Peter Kaminski
kaminski@netcom.com
Xref: sparky news.groups:19010 alt.config:6163
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config
Subject: Re: coercion and Usenet
Date: 10 Oct 1992 15:18:54 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: nigel.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com) wrote:
: 
: Assuredly, "insistence" and "coercion" _are_ related concepts; without
: the former, you likely won't have the latter.  But if you have the
: latter, you don't necessarily have the former!

I will happily argue semantics with you all day, Chip.  You may happily
insist that you're just being thorough and dogged in your pursuit of the
Truth about the way the net is, and deny in the same breath that there's
anything at all that can be considered negative about that.  Indeed,
riding on every poor newbie that comes through is considered good form or
good sport on this part of the net.  

: Remember: "`p implies q' does not imply `q implies p'".

Don't mock me with your feeble predicate calculus.  Let's look at
conditional probabilities -
     P("Chip is coercive"|"Chip is inistent")
     P("Chip is helpful"|"Chip is inistent")
or just
     If he thinks he's being so helpful, why is it so annoying?

: -- 
: Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
:    "I am truly as big a genius as all other Rush fans." -- Bruce Bufalini

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski)
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Organization: The Information Deli - via Netcom / San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:28:05 GMT

Larry, I'll let your hyperbole speak for itself.  Basically, you're
operating under the faulty assumption that "alternative practioners"
are the same as "quack practioners".

They're not.

Competent, qualified health care providers meet these criteria:

 - qualified to provide care;
 - properly licensed, certified, or affiliated (as necessary);
 - willing to provide references attesting to practioner's skills;
 - able to determine if a different therapy is more appropriate
   and willing to refer patient to another specialist if necessary;
 - communicative with patient about diagnosis and treatment;
 - open to second opinions from other qualified health care practioners;
 - open to discussion about other avenues of treatment;
 - charges reasonable fees.

If you're talking about somebody who *doesn't* meet these criteria, s/he is
not a health care practioner, alternative or not -- s/he's just a quack.


In <5401@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

>In article <7489@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>          quackery     quackery    quackery      quackery

>I have to agree with Jay 100%.  These "alternative medicines" have never been
>proven safe or effective, and making such a newsgroup widely available would
>advertise quackery to a host of people that might put enough trust in the
>regimes to threaten their lives.  Many people died of cancer that might have
>been saved thanks to laetrile, let's not make it even easier to spread snake-
>oil and hokum.

>Besides which, the people involved in these "alternatives" are very often
>unethical.  It took the FDA over a year to shut down that "Grapefruit 45"
>plan, and they just started up in a new city under a new name.  A newsgroup
>will make it easier for people to find and refer to these services, I doubt
>very much it will do much scientific discussion.  That is not just a commercial
>use of the net, it is a most unethical commercialism at that.

>I'd vote against the thing no matter where it goes.

>Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
>-
>How about we all do something reasonable?  I bet that'll confuse 'em!
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:01:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.145743.12380@cs.wisc.edu> jcargill@oka.cs.wisc.edu (Jon Cargille) writes:
>Many people have gotten on a soapbox about the "politics" of a split.
>I support a split, but without a political reason.  I'm not a 386bsd
>user (yet, though I probably will be one day), and thus haven't yet
>pledged my first-born to the Jolitz's...  :-)

I would add that there was absolutely no political motivation for proposing
the new group.  I have no involvement in the politics of 386BSD and BSDI or
any of that stuff.

>However, though I want to read about both 386bsd and bsd in general, I
>would prefer to read about them in two separate groups.  Keeping the
>traffic in separate groups helps me deal with the volume better.  In
>addition, there are many issues being discussed for 386bsd which
>aren't relevant to other bsd users.  The most obvious example of this
>is the constant flurry of "installation" problems.  Why should people
>interested in general bsd discussion be subjected to that?

They shouldn't.  And it shouldn't be necessary for 386bsd users to have
to scan through the other BSD questions.

>Where should the new group go?  Well, several suggestions have been
>made.  Some favor having it under the bsd hierarchy, others under the
>comp.os hierarchy.  I think I favor comp.os, though I'm not going to
>get religious about it.  There is plenty of precedent (comp.os.linux,
>for example), and I can understand people not wanting it under
>comp.unix, in light of the current AT&T suit.  In general, though, I'm
>not too particular.  I think a new group will be an improvement,
>regardless of where it gets put.

I am similarly ambivalent about this.  After about two weeks of 
discussion about the idea of a new group in comp.unix.bsd, I got an
overwhelming response of people supporting comp.os.* so that's what
I proposed.  

>>  Down with politics, adhere to the spirit of the guidelines and
>>wait 6 months before proposing this again !
>>
>
>This is a BOGUS comment about the 6 month rule.  The rule requires
>that a RFD and a CFV take place.  If the vote doesn't take place,
>there is no time limit before the issue can be raised again.  
>
>In the case of a new 386bsd group, neither an official RFD nor a CFV
>ever took place.  Let's get a handle on the letter of law, before we
>worry about the "spirit" you refer to.  Read the guidelines.

Ditto.  So far two people have already misinterpreted the group formation
rules.  I would like to see it stop at that.

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:15:02 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <631@lax.lax.pe-nelson.com> twbrown@PE-Nelson.COM (Tom W. Brown) writes:
>Anyway, I think a reorganization would help avoid the problem (since I think
>it is just a confusion about the group name).  I like the "comp.gui" better
>than the "comp.windowing" suggestion and would opt for the following:
>
>   comp.gui.x.announce
>   comp.gui.x.apps
>   comp.gui.x.intrinsics
>   comp.gui.x.pex
>   comp.gui.x.misc
>
>   comp.gui.motif
>   comp.gui.open-look
>   comp.gui.garnet
>   comp.gui.interviews
>   comp.gui.news
>   comp.gui.misc

Incomplete.

>Question: Should the "comp.os.ms-windows" hierarchy be moved to a
>          "comp.gui.ms-windows" hierarchy? (1/2 :-)

Definately.  Windows IS a gui.  So is the Mac.  And OS/2 presentation
manager.

It's all well & good to say these folks have their own heirarchy,
but it's clear that the current comp.windows heirarchy seems to
be the first place many people look, I think the same would go for
any proposed comp.gui heirarchy.  Unless you want to make it a
comp.unix-gui heirarchy I would strongly suggest that you make
room for the non-unix guis (I'm going by X, motif, and open-look.
I *think* interviews is also a UNIX gui, and I have not heard of
garnet).  Otherwise this same situation where ms windows users
(or others) taking over comp.gui.misc will occur again as they
find no appropriate comp.gui.whatever for their own flavor.

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Ideas are not responsible for the people who believe them."
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.autos.offroad
From: rtp1@quads.uchicago.edu (raymond thomas pierrehumbert)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:07:40 GMT
Reply-To: rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


Offroad driving?

Just say no.
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:29:16 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC

In article <1992Oct9.094849.3697@aber.ac.uk> ccs@aber.ac.uk (Christopher "Jd" Samuel) writes:

>However, going on what previous people have said, is there enough
>traffic or support to warrant such a group ? 

Not really.  

  And the original name proposal was CLEARLY wrong since 386BSD is 90%
UC Berkeley UNIX source code -- a name like comp.unix.bsd.intel would
make so much more sense...
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.archives.msdos.announce moderated and comp.archives.msdos.d
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:32:21 GMT
Organization: Recognition Equipment, Inc.

jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:

>It sort of works like this.  If the group is full of junk, "in your opinion"
>then don't subscribe, or unsubscribe.  Need help, RTFM.

I see.  So I should just get out of the way when I see that someone
wants to create a group that "in my opinion" will not serve any more
purpose than the currently existing groups.  Sorry, no.  This is a
Request For Discussion, so I am discussing it.

You state the cama.d will be a place where users may post whatever noise
they like, and the powers-that-be will monitor along and give gentle
guidance when off-charter postings occur.  This is EXACTLY what is (or
was, before the great exodus) happening in cbip.a.  You are simply
renaming a newsgroup.  Is that really all you want to do?

>I get the sense that you are objecting to the formation of a group you
>will never read.  Why?

I believe in newsgroups where the information is concentrated in one
place, so that new users can find the information when they want to.
I feel that comp.os.msdos.* ought to be the place where people go to
talk about programs that run on MS-DOS machines.  Why does the method of
the program's distribution make it so that it should actually be talked
about in cbip.d, or cama.d?  Why do we need more newsgroups when the
traffic will be the same as that posted in other newsgroups?

If someone wants a question answered, he should post it in a place where
as many people as possible will see it.  If the number of newsgroup
choices is large, then that person has a higher chance of choosing a
newsgroup that will not distribute his question well.

If you think I'm wrong in the above assertion, then please, don't beat
about the bush:  Tell me I'm wrong.  Then at least I know why we can't
seem to see eye-to-eye.

>Good net-citizens, every moderated group should have a .d group to allow
>a path around a moderator.  

Apparently, I only agree in the case when there is actually something to
be discussed about the moderated postings.

-- 
#ifdef TRUE        | Fuzzy Fox (a.k.a. David DeSimone)       fuzzy@netcom.com
#define  TRUE   0  |
#define  FALSE  1  |     "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."
#endif             |                                   -- Mark Twain
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:48:18 GMT
Organization: negligable

If you're reorganizing, shouldn't we allow for MS-Windows, Windows-NT and OS-2 (whatever they call their windowing system?)


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Fosters!  It's Australian for beer, mate!"