HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposal for comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:53:32 GMT
Organization: ASCI

>>>>> "Gregory" == Gregory Welch <welchg@cs.unc.edu> writes:

Gregory> I would *love* to see such a news group formed!  On several
Gregory> occassions I have run into software problems that turned out
Gregory> to be problems only on the Powerbooks, due to sleeping,
Gregory> awakening, etc.  It would be nice to have a source of
Gregory> discussion/advice regarding such problems (& features, etc.)

So what's wrong with comp.sys.mac.hardware?

Bob
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: Disciplines in misc.jobs.offered postings
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:54:27 GMT

In article <C1E7ww.A71@world.std.com>, mgw@world.std.com (maryanne g wolf) writes:
> In article <1jvaaaINNstj@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> pmontgom@math.orst.edu (Peter Montgomery) writes:
> >        Any academic discipline, such as PSYCHOLOGY, should be allowed.
> >Subdisciplines, such as DATABASES and NETWORKING, can be allowed if they
> >fit in one word.  Long names like CHEMICAL-ENGINEERING and NUMERICAL-ANALYSIS
> >should perhaps be hyphenated (or have other delimiters).
> >They might instead be abbreviated like COMPU-ADMIN and ARTIF-INTEL.
> 
> I strongly disagree with allowing many keywords or unrestricted keywords.
> How hard would it be to make the perl script check for
> any keyword that is part of a small finite list?
> 
> If we allow employers to use absolutely any keyword they want, without
> standardization, then the keywords will be a whole lot less useful for
> searching.  If I wish to rule out all computer programming posts, I
> should not have to place DATABASE and OPERATING SYSTEM and GUI and DOS
> and PC and TELEPHONY and UNIX and COBOL and NEXT and QA and TESTING
> and PORTING and so on in my kill file.  Yes, if I want only UNIX and
> GUI, the keywords will not find me everything I want...
> ...The job-title is intended to be unrestricted,
> unstandardized, and more descriptive than the keywords.  Remember also
> that people can search for strings within the articles to find the
> things they DO want to see.  The keyword is mostly for a quick kill,
> as far as I see.

I think that the utility of the keywords is more for visual scan to 
pick out the ones you want, rather than to kill on the ones you don't
want.  I am of mixed feelings on this;  I think that I would "allow"
otherwise correctly-formed subject lines with "non-standard" keywords
through, but send the poster a message:  "The keyword you have chosen,
$KEYWORD, is not on the standard list of keywords.  Your posting has
been approved anyway, but you may want to consider using one of the
standard keywords in your next posting.  Using standard keywords allows 
job-seekers to zero in quickly on the jobs they are qualified for and 
interested in.  Here is the list of standard keywords: ..."  I would
also want to have some flag that would let me see the non-standard
keyword;  if it seemed like a good, useful, nonredundant one, I'd add
it to the list of standards.

-- 
/\    "I'm only a human girl person.  I ain't always perfect."--Rambling Rose
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: RFD soc.religion.mormon -- to moderate or not
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:37:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.173512.8494@umr.edu> scotth@cs.umr.edu (Scott Hayes) writes:
>>I favor a LDS moderator for two reasons.
>>1.  Signal to Noise
>>2.  To often non-mormons want to offend Mormons.  To some, freedom of speech
>>implies the freedom of good manners. 
>As a non-Mormon, I agree with Jason.  Some people are not really interested
>in discussion but in posting some impish insult and then running away.

The problem is that it's conceivable that a Mormon moderator would consider
as not "good manners" things other than impish insults.  For instance,
discussions of the temple ceremony.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:41:59 GMT
Organization: Hyperion, Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: spud.hyperion.com

In <1993Jan20.005906.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Elmo the Stunt Elk) writes:
>rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>> morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Elmo the Stunt Elk) writes:
>>>	Eschew crossposting except where absolutely necessary.
>> Why?
>encourages inappropriate postings (eg, a post about a tech appearance in a
>current TNG episode -might- be appropriately crossposted to both groups,
>but the discussion will quickly digress into either a tech topic...

That's not the issue at all here.  I'd agree that that crossposting might
not be a great idea in the circumstance you describe.  But we're talking more
along the lines of news.answers' crossposting, where an original article is
crossposted once and discussions are always directed to just one newsgroup.
There's no danger of a discussion digressing away from .reviews because there
will never _be_ any discussion on .reviews.  (Which doesn't mean you can't
follow up to a .reviews article; your followup will be posted to .current
like it is now.)

-Steve
From: rrdjro@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Jonathan O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD rec.games.miniatures (fantasy)
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:09:42 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

Would this group include discussion of fantasy (rpg) miniatures?
Lots of people use them in rpgs for atmosphere, without any clearly
defined rules system.

	Jonathan@RMIT.edu.au
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD soc.religion.mormon
Date: 23 Jan 93 16:42:42 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Okay, here's a new angle.

What about creating a Mormon specific newsgroup or two on a trial
basis.  For example:

trial.soc.religion.mormon  moderated
trial.talk.religion.mormon  unmoderated

After all, isn't that what the trial.* groups are for?

Also, is seem that one part of the moderation aspect can't be
resolved until a moderator (or moderators) are chosen.

Someone informed me that the reason that many LDS voted against
the last proposal was that they didn't like the views of the
selected moderator.  (AAARRRRGGGHHH, HOW COME YOU WAITED UNTIL
*NOW* TO LET ME KNOW???)

So this time around, I will take nominations by email for
moderators.  Basically I will do this:  You send me the name and
email address of someone that you think would make a good
moderator.  I will contact that person via email.  If they are
willing, they will submit a charter or some basis guidelines that
they will use for moderation.  After a week (or two, or three) I
will conduct a straw poll to see which moderators/charters have
the most support.  Based upon the results of this straw poll, It
will be decided who the moderator(s) will be or if there will be
one, or if both a moderated group and a non-moderated group get
created.

At any rate, I think the trial.* newsgroup is a good idea, so we
can give the group(s) a testdrive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: m.ruppel@imperial.ac.uk
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.os2.{announce,ver1x,beta}
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.17 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: m.ruppel@imperial.ac.uk
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:52:32 GMT

In <C19p8w.I03@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> papresco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>> This is a Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of three OS/2
>> newsgroups:
>> (1)  comp.os.os2.ver1x      (unmoderated)
>> (2)  comp.os.os2.beta       (unmoderated)
>> (3)  comp.os.os2.announce   (moderated)
>
>How about comp.os.os2.hardware, where we could take these PAS, SCSI,
>ATI, Trident, CD-ROM, Tape Backup conversations....
>
>
I would like to second that motion. But is it possible to add groups after 
the RFD w/o issuing a new RDF ?

Markus Ruppel
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 28 Jan 1993 02:19:08 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:

>Michael Shappe, mss1@cornell.edu, has agreed to moderate the newsgroup.

Alas, poor Michael.  I knew him, Horatio...:-)

Seriously, excellent choice.  He's very responsible where such things are
concerned, IMO.  (And hell, I *lived* with the yutz for two years, so I
have plenty of data...;-) )

On crossposting:

>In short, crossposting or not would be left up to the individual reviewers.
>If a submission comes in crossposted to .current or .misc, Michael would
>crosspost it.  Mailed-in submissions with a "please crosspost this" note
>would likewise be crossposted.  By default, submissions would only appear in
>r.a.s.reviews.

Sounds good to me.  I prefer this version to your "crossposting unless on
request" idea, actually -- but in either case, the situation will quickly
settle down.  (I very much agree with Geoff Bronner's generalization that
any relevant group be an option, rather than just .current or .misc.)

Looks good on this end.

Tim Lynch
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:48:27 GMT
Organization: Coastal Imaging Lab, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu

In article <1k4vrmINNni1@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>In short, crossposting or not would be left up to the individual reviewers.
>If a submission comes in crossposted to .current or .misc, Michael would
>crosspost it.  Mailed-in submissions with a "please crosspost this" note
>would likewise be crossposted.  By default, submissions would only appear in
>r.a.s.reviews.

In other words, the normal way the net works.

>Otherwise, novice reviewers won't know that the option is available.  That

If novice reviewers do't care to read the net documentation that talks
about cross-posting, then that is their decision.

>So the relevant section of the charter would read:
>
>All reviews will be crossposted to rec.arts.startrek.current or to
>rec.arts.startrek.misc, as appropriate, so that readers of those groups

Uhh, the first paragraph and this paragraph are not saying the same
thing. 

>will still enjoy the same reviews they always have.

I wish this straw argument would go away. All it takes to enjoy the same
reviews is to read the reviews group.
From: fjc@werple.apana.org.au (Frank Copeland)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 28 Jan 1993 23:33:50 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

In general terms I agree with Gary Charbonneau
(charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) who suggested a rec.games.war group to
cover the entire subject of war/conflict games.  To improve the signal/noise
ratio for those with less wide-ranging tastes than me, a hierarchy would
need to be created: how about r.g.w.historical, r.g.w.S-F, r.g.w.fantasy and
r.g.w.modelling?  rec.games.board would be abolished.  This would reflect
what I perceive to be the _real_ interest groups in the hobby.

However, I accept the reality that a complex proposal is less likely to get
up, so I support a r.g.miniatures group in addition to the existing
r.g.board group. This would at least ensure that the _entire_ hobby is
covered in one or other of the groups, which does not happen now.

As for the problem of Warhammer people drowning out other interests, so
what? That is what kill files are for.  They should rather be pitied for
falling prey to such a blatant marketing ploy.  Discussions of painting and
modelling issues would also have a place, since the vast majority of
miniatures gamers paint their own figures (although enough are rich/lazy
enough to keep *me* in pocket money :-)).

Frank.


Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.board
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:31:51 GMT

In article <C198uG.y0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: 
>
>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.

Actually, this is the very reason I support this proposal:  I read
rec.games.board to hear about board games that are NOT war games.  My
kill file has a heyday killing all the keywords I can think of that
indicate wargames.  In my opinion, the rec.games.board newsgroup is
being overrun by one specific type of board game, and this indicates
to me the need for a new group to house them.  However, since I'm not
a wargamer myself, I can't comment on the name.

-sz
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:34:00 GMT
Organization: Coastal Imaging Lab, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu

In article <C1Iz7s.Kz1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>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? 

If it had been kept as a group (i.e. it still existed) it would still be
a stupid idea to have every subgroup posting crossposted to it. Doing so
would have met your criterion that people could read all the same
articles in the same newsgroup they always had. This casts doubt on the
validity of using that as an argument for mandating crossposting -- if
this were such a great reason, then rec.arts.startrek wouldn't have been
removed, it would be getting all the startrek articles.

>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.

Why should there be an ADDITIONAL place? Isn't ONE enough?

>I say, let them read that traffic in a low volume setting. As long as

I say, let everybody read that traffic in a low volume setting, and let
others benefit from less traffic in a high volume one.

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: New RFD: Bible Study Newsgroup
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:26:24 GMT

In article <1jn1i5INN1np@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>In article <C16KBp.45H@athena.cs.uga.edu>, brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>> 
>> The group as proposed would not really belong in soc.* anyway.  A better name
>> would be "talk.bible".
>
>Why do you say this? The USENET convention is that moderated religious groups
>belong to the soc.religion hierarchy and unmoderated groups belong to the
>talk.religion groups. The group does really belong in soc.religion.*. 

Yes, this is true.  My mistake.

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: echoi@athena.mit.edu (Eric H Choi)
Subject: comp.sys.powerbook
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:37:25 GMT

I wholeheartedly support the creation of a group of Macintosh Powerbook users.
It seems quite unecessary for PowerBook users to have to search the
large message bases of the regular Mac groups in order to find out 
information for their PowerBooks.

-Eric


--
Eric Choi (echoi@athena.mit.edu)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(617) 225-8721
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<C1H87M.4xy@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
	<1993Jan27.114602.19858@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:18:32 GMT

cs> == christopher stone <cstone@husc8.harvard.edu>

 cs> IMHO, if things like "rec.arts.breadmachines" warrants a separate
 cs> newsgroup, then ds9 does.

WARNING: the net.surgeon-genral has determined that since there is no
"rec.arts.breadmachines" newsgroup, nor even an RFD for same, that this
argument is specious at best, and should be deleted.
--
 * Christopher Davis * <ckd@eff.org> * <ckd@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.outdoors.* is a stupid idea
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:51:41 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.


Top 10 Reasons Why "rec.outdoors.*" is a stupid idea:

10) forcible renamings of groups don't usually pass
9)  forcible renamings of groups generally go down in flames
8)  people aren't gonna think to look for a scuba group in with the hunting
    and fishing groups and will go start alt.scuba (for example)
7)  it's already getting things confused... rec.sport.orienteering would
    be a no-brainer, completely obvious naming to most people, but now things
    are getting confused as people say "aha! but who won the national 
    orienteering championship last year and which beer company was the
    sponsor?  orienteering is not a sport!  it's an outdoors activity!"
6)  Dave Hayes probably will refuse to honor it
5)  Jay Maynard will share his limitless wit and wisdom on the subject
4)  the CFV ballot will be a crawling horror from the sewers of hell second
    only to that insane "let's add sixty groups to talk.politics.* all at
    once" ballot and we'll have total confusion
3)  it'll further convince people in the affected groups that USENET is run
    by madmen who'd boil their own babies with rhubarb and pineapple if it
    would somehow further the goal of "neato namespace"
2)  it'll spawn infinite variations of the same groups, as the "renamed"
    groups never go away and people start making alt. groups since they won't
    be able to find the rec.* groups for their subjects.
1)  IT'LL EARN NEWS.GROUPS THE "SEWER OF CHAOS" AWARD BACK FROM ALT.
Xref: sparky news.groups:26387 soc.culture.japan:14327 soc.culture.jewish:26168 soc.culture.latin-america:5645 soc.culture.german:10317
From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.latin-america,soc.culture.german
Subject: Re: International Software Assignments
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:47:56 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: dimebox.cs.utexas.edu

 hcrms@porpoise.chvpkh.chevron.com (m s craig) writes:
>In <C1Fy35.5r7@iat.holonet.net> icpa@iat.holonet.net (Tony Rodriguez) writes:
|
|> The International Computer Professional Association is 
|>
|>Tony Rodriguez, Director ICPA
|>International Computer Professional Association
|>2261 Market Street, Suite 309
|>San Francisco, CA 94114
|>Tel: (415) 695 - 7618
|>Fax: (415) 252 - 5769
|>email icpa@holonet.net
|
>Dear Tony,
> In case you don't understand Spanish, I am writing in English.
> The internet is not the place for solicitations, it is for educational
> purposes. If you want to sell your services, pay for an ad in a magazine.
> I tried to tell you this once before by email but the mail bounced.

	yes, this Tony fellow is one of the most obnoxious people on the net,
	repeatedly posting his ads (monthly?) to many different groups (not
	(just the one cross-posted to here) and many people have protested
	(or tried to) against this practice, to no avail...

	best I can tell, the only way to deal with him is to try to get
	his account/feed cut off (short of paying him a personal visit,
	maybe, something I would not recommend however)

	ideas, anyone?  (follow-ups to news.groups, btw)...
-- 
  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet

              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
Xref: sparky news.groups:26484 soc.culture.usa:10232 alt.censorship:10137 alt.individualism:6292 alt.society.civil-liberty:7539 misc.headlines:7579
From: pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.usa,alt.censorship,alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: public appeal to John DiNardo to stop posting to soc.culture.usa
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:41:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: srvr1.1k76jbINN29s
Followup-To: news.groups,soc.culture.usa,alt.censorship,alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.headlines
Distribution: world
Organization: Michigan Technological University
NNTP-Posting-Host: pace3.cts.mtu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Bruce A. Martin (bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov) wrote:
>In article <lm8hiqINN9ro@dimebox.cs.utexas.edu> werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) writes:
>Werner, I appreciate your attempt to make a reasonable appeal
>to John DiNardo, but I fear your efforts are wasted.

>In the past, many others have asked him both publically and privately to
>refrain from posting lengthy transcripts to multiple groups, in multiple
>pieces (with variant headers designed to defeat thread-kills).  Such requests
>are generally ignored, or more typically the entire request is reflected back
>to the sender, who reads the "answer" only to find that nothing whatsoever
>was added.

Wrong approach. I have mailed root@virginia.edu. Try doing the same. I
already tried acs.virginia.edu, but that doesn't seem to exist, so the
next higher site is virginia.edu. And if that doesn't work, perhaps when
people who are having disk storage problems and bandwidth problems because
of this guy petition NSF, the fur would really fly, but for now, just a
nice letter to root@virginia.edu is appropriate.