HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:30:09 GMT
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft

In article <BxIqMH.AAv@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John  
Stanley) writes:
> In article <MJP.92Nov9173819@prudence.hplb.hpl.hp.com>  
mjp@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Mike Prudence) writes:
> >It could be informational.  In this case, I assumed it was.  I assumed
> >that a well meaning person had crossposted this to rec.music.synth as
> >the readsership of that group will also contain people for whom the
> >new groups might be of interest.
> 
> So, in other words, it applied to the readers of rec.music.synth.
> 
There's quite a difference between something that is informational and  
something that directly affects you.

Informational: Your neighbors house will be painted blue next week.

Directly affects: Next week your house will be removed and replaced with  
your neighbor's.

> It was quite explicit. You didn't bother to read the article that talked
> about it. That is not the same as not being told.
> 
The pathway to the 26th line of the article (which is tha part that needed  
to be reads) could have been quite a bit clearer. It's explicit if you got  
that far. I know it doesn't sound like much, but it certainly can be. All  
it takes is the wrong split-second decision. IMO, we should work toward  
making that decision more foolproof.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.misc
From: marek@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski)
Subject: when is VOTE RESULT to be given? -- rec.arts.poems.urdu, 4 Nov.
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:24:15 GMT

What do the Guidelines say about when a vote is to be disclosed?
And is the list of votes mandatorily made public?

I am interested in seeing the list of votes for rec.arts.poems.urdu
of which voting deadline passed on the 4th of November.

So far no indication of outcome.

				-- Marek
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 17:41:28 GMT

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
> Not true. By the letter of the law (which you all seem to be so intent
> on holding to) I can hold an immediate revote. The point is that the 
> damage will be done. An rmgroup will damage the group irreparably. 

The vote passed, and there isn't much support for your position of declaring
it invalid.  So for now it appears the new name stands for now.

If you're going by the fact that it's not a group creation, so you can call
another vote right now, I suppose you might be able to do that.  In that
case, though, you'll have something like:

    CFV: Rename rec.music.makers.synth to rec.music.synth

What's even more interesting --- you'd need 100 more YES votes than NO votes
in order to rename it back to rec.music.synth.

I mean, is it really worth it?  Jay has offered to assist in fixing any
broken news-mail gateway software -- and if you read news, it really doesn't
matter to most users what the group is called.  Most newsadmins appear to
prefer rec.music.makers.synth.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:11:10 GMT
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Originator: irilyth@fenris

In a prior article, Gordon Van Huizen (gvh@metrosoft.com) writes:

> There's quite a difference between something that is informational and  
> something that directly affects you.

True, but your example is not apt.

> Informational: Your neighbors house will be painted blue next week.
> 
> Directly affects: Next week your house will be removed and replaced with  
> your neighbor's.

I don't think this is a valid analogy. Try this:

Informational: California will add a new area code next week.

Directly affects: Next week your area code will be replaced with a new one.

As it turns out, my area code is being replaced with a new one next week, so
this example is strangely well-timed. (Actually, it's happening Friday, but
still.) The point is that the phone company adds new area codes on a regular
basis, which has a direct and severe impact on my life: people who want to
call me must now dial a different area code than they were used to, and I
must inform anyone who might try to call me that I now have a new area code.
Fortunately, the phone company thoughtfully keeps the old area code around
for a while, so anyone calling either 714/my-number or 909/my-number will
still get my number (for six months, I believe).

Usenet works in quite a similar fashion: rec.music.synth will be kept around
for a few months while people get used to rec.music.makers.synth, after
which time it will disappear. Usenet is even nicer than the phone company,
in that decent newsreaders announce the existence of a new group when you
start them up--if I read rec.music.synth, and I see "rec.music.makers.synth
not in .newsrc--subscribe? [ynYN]", I say "Gee, there must be a new synth
group, wonder what it's about," and check it out.

Incidentally, note that the phone company does not invite me to vote on
whether I will get a new area code or whether the other half of 714 will--
they just do it, and leave me to deal with it. They do a pretty good job of
warning me ahead of time; if you think Usenet does not, it might be time to
work on better informational files. Dave says he's doing this, and I (quite
honestly) eagerly await the result.
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why
several of us died of tuberculosis." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: sergei@is.morgan.com (Sergei Poliakoff)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:10:01 GMT

|>    The logic still stands that people in a newsgroup (readers AND posters)
|>    should have some say so over the name of their group. If (after the fact)
|>    there is a lot of complaining about a name change...then something is 
|>    wrong! I don't care how much legalese you use to back it up. The desired
|>    goal is a consensus, right?

As inappropriate as it sounds, I can attest that it is not that easy  for a 
newcomer to music newsgroups to find them in the first place , what with 
half of it in alt.* and music.makers being a mash of them all.  
I feel overwhelmed by  the grievances of the old-timers
who now have to cope with an extra suffix in the group name, but for 
someone trying to make sense out of the chaotic arrangement  of music
newsgroups this structural change is a welcome one.

Sergei

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.philosophy.language
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:22:45 GMT

In article <BxIHqC.IK@uunet.uu.net> Rick.Horowitz@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Rick Horowitz) writes:
>SINCERE APOLOGIES! The first posting didn't go to
>news.announce.newgroups because of a misplaced 's'.  I was advised to
>repost to make it official...
>
>The following is an OFFICIAL request for discussion to create a
>newsgroup called sci.philosophy.language.  (At least in my mind) It
>supersedes a previous post I made requesting the creation of
>talk.philosophy.language.  It has been pointed out to me that a
>designation of sci might be more appropriate.
> 
>The proposal is to create a group with the following parameters:
> 
>Name of group:           sci.philosophy.language
>Mode:                    unmoderated


Such a group would be a wonderful addition.


>Rick Horowitz     CSUF, Philosophy     rhorowit@mondrian.csufresno.edu

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III



-- 
Charles O. Onstott, III                         (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and the Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School
           "For [the study of] history, too, has its fashions."  (Anouilh)
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: leave alt.folklore.computers alone, rmgroup comp.society.folklore
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:07:56 GMT
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden

In article <Bx80qv.AvF@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.094001.4254@pollux.lu.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>
>>In an ideal world, moving a.f.c to the mainstream Usenet would have two
>>effects: 
>>
>>a) Everybody who doesn't receive it today, because their news manager
>>is a paranoid, anal retentive fascist who believes alt.* is inherently
>>evil, would receive the new group.
>
>You know, a lot of system managers *are* just overworked, and simply
>don't want to have to deal with the likes of John Palmer and Bruce
>Becker.  

But I can't understand why carrying *just* alt.folklore.computers would
force people to have to deal with the likes of J.P. and B.B. But then
I'm just a whining adolsecent, so don't expect me to understand how the
minds of those semi-gods we call newsadmins work. 

>This sort of adolescent whining is hardly called for.

Gee, you're really angry, aren't you?

I apologize sincerely if anybody of all those honest, hard-working
newsadmins out there who really have made an _informed decision_ not
to carry certain groups feels insulted. My "adolescent whining" was
directed at the people who - from ignorance or whatever - refuse to let
their users read perfectly valid and serious newsgroups (and there are
more serious groups than a.f.c on altnet) just because some idiots use
altnet as their private playground. They *don't* have to carry all of
altnet, or honor automatic newgroups, or whatever, just because they
carry one or two alt groups.

The remark was HHOS but I should really have known better than to let
such an inflammatory comment stand unqualified. Sorry.

Magnus Olsson                   | \e+      /_
Dept. of Theoretical Physics    |  \  Z   / q
University of Lund, Sweden      |   >----<           
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se     |  /      \===== g
Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52          | /e-      \q
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:32:03 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov10.004253.5370@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Well, some don't know enough to know that the name by which they previously
>referenced the information has changed. 

mathew@mantis posted two separate ways you have available to fix that. Do your
job.

>>Only if you (or whoever maintains your gateway) continue to be obstinate and
>>refuse to make the trivial changes needed to change the name of the group 
>That's not the point at all.

It's about half of the point. (The other half is that folks had an opportunity
to participate and didn't.)

>The point is, because of continued obstinance, inflexible dogma, and 
>arbitrarily decided naming rituals, you've already alienated many 
>people from these lists (I have it on good authority). I am merely
>doing what I have to do so that maybe you'll listen to the other side
>of the argument. 

I've listened to your continued, slippery switching from argument to argument
in desperate search of one to support your unilateral action to break the
group. None have even come close to convincing me.

You have yet to convince me - or, indeed, anyone not directly associated with
rec.music.synth - that there is any reason to throw this vote out.

If the people from those lists (whoever they may be) are being alienated
because someone points out the way the real world works and how that applies
to Usenet, then that's their problem. They'll have to get over it.

>Apparently there's no way to get you to listen or even understand. 

I'm listening. I'm simply completely unconvinced.

>See...most people aren't as obstinate or loud as I am. They just tend
>to go away when they see this kind of inflexibility. You rob Usenet of
>the very strength that Usenet can have...it's diversity. You folks aren't
>helping the net at all with your damn inflexibilities and your purile 
>ideas about newsgroup naming...all you seem to care about is keeping that
>control. 

You, on the other hand, are being completely inflexible about listening to the
expressed wishes of the net, just because YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESULT!!

Most folks learned about that in kindergarten. You apparently missed the
lesson.

Of course, you aren't willing to listen at all about the advantages of
hierarchical naming in an increasingly complex name space, simply because that
leads right back to that result you don't like.

>Well not this person. I'm willing (and always have been willing) to fight 
>as much as I have to until some sort of change takes place. Watch.

Right. Go for it. Until you accept the result of a properly conducted, fair,
and open process and rename the group, prepare to be shouting into the wind.
-- 
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.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Xref: sparky news.groups:21560 rec.games.frp.misc:8307 rec.games.frp.advocacy:3195
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.173958.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.175147.22259@news2.cis.umn.edu|, thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>| In article <BxBLtM.H60@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu| cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>And the name also blows chunks. Absolutely every single part of a
>roleplaying game is related to the campaign. 

Not true whatsoever.  To give a minor example, how does "falling damage"
affect a campaign? The entire concept of the campaign is totally non-rules
specific.  This is because campaigning is based totally on role playing.
You can have an adventure without a campaign.   You can have a string of
adventures without a campaign.  You can not have a campaign without role
playing and a "world environment" for the characters to live in.

That's because every single
>extended roleplaying game is called ... a "Roleplaying Campaign". 

People who call a string of unrelated adventurers where characters play a game,
go into hibernation, and then magically "pop" into the next adventure are not
playing a campaign.  They may call it a campaign, but they're no more valid
than the people who say that "I swing my longsword at the orc" is role playing
(hey, it's a role-playing game, I'm playing it, so I must be role playing!)

I don't think so....


Xref: sparky news.groups:21494 soc.culture.british:15791
From: dok_amo@pkinbg.UUCP (Andrew Moores,OVD,)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: RFD: Should UK groups be sent to UUnet?
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:20:14 GMT

From article <BxJx17.4nz@sci.kun.nl>, by hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne):
>>I would be quite interested to see uk.politics, also uk.jobs (or is this a
>>null set? he asked wittily).
>Especially uk.politics.

I, too, an Englishman abroad in Europe, would welcome the opportunity to keep
up-to-date with English (and even British) affairs, especially politics -
how much longer will Lamont last - and football, if anyone ever sends the
results to any of the mailboxes.

Hope my voice adds another aye to the list.
--
                    | Philips Kommunikations |Voice:  +49 911 5263477 
                    |      Industrie AG      |Fax:    +49 911 5263545 
  Andrew C. Moores  |  Techn. Documentation  |E-Mail: 
                    |   Nuremberg, Germany   |dok_amo@pki-nbg.philips.de
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.archives
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: CFV: comp.archives.msdos.announce and comp.archives.msdos.d
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:48:58 GMT

In article <a_rubin.721611956@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>
>      Subject:  Returned mail: User unknown
> 
>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> While talking to TACOM-EMH1.ARMY.MIL:
> >>> RCPT To:<vote@tacom-emh1.army.mil>
> <<< 550 <vote@tacom-emh1.army.mil>... User unknown
> 550 vote@tacom-emh1.army.mil... User unknown

As I already explained to another gentleman, this is a spell of back
luck we seem to be faced with the voting.  The recipient machine had
a disk crash and it took some time before it was realized that the
voting alias was lost.  Now it should be back on.  The address is
correct, so please try again. 

We very much regret this, but such matters as hard-disk crashes are
beyond our control. 

   All the best, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland
From: mjp@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Mike Prudence)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:33:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK

>>>>> "Chip" == chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

Chip> Not so.  It all depends on whether you believe that those who didn't
Chip> read n.a.newgroups should be held responsible for their (in)action.

and

Chip> But all you need have done is read n.a.newgroups.  That's all.

Oh dear.  This is starting to sound like a Monty Python sketch.
Usenet isn't an organised entity.  There is no ruling body, and no way
to enforce rules.  There is no minimum level of knowledge required to
read or post articles.  You can't assume that people know things.

That's it.  If you can't accept those points, then you win, if that's
what you want to hear.  Quite frankly, I give up.  My head is sore
from bouncing it off the proverbial brick wall.

Cheers,

Mike

mjp@hplb.hpl.hp.com                   "Only those who attempt the absurd will 
                                                     achieve the impossible."
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 6 Nov 1992 01:27:37 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1dcc64INNeo5@agate.berkeley.edu> shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:
>That is just plain incorrect.  According to the guidelines:
>    "A request for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted
>    to news.announce.newgroups, and also to any other groups or mailing lists
>    at all related to the proposed topic if desired.  [... Then] a call for
>    votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or
>    mailing lists that the original request for discussion might have been
>    posted to."
>It is clear from the guidelines that the CFV can go to any group at all
>related to the proposed topic, and not just groups affected by the vote.

You're right; I apologize. That said, the volume of cross-posting from
news.groups, and certainly from news.announce.newgroups, is small enough that
it's not unreasonable to expect folks who care about uch things to read the
messages when they appear in a given group. There was plenty of notice given;
those who did not take notice and participate in the process - which is kept
scrupulously open, for this exact reason - are accepting whatever those who
choose to participate decide.
-- 
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.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes will not quit
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:19:16 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to gary_preckshot@lccmail.ocf.llnl.gov (gary preckshot):
>Mr. Salzenberg and Mr. Nelson are certainly reasons why Mr. Hayes shouldn't
>quit.  Their supercilious dismissal of his valid concerns is hardly
>professional conduct for a system administrator, which many claim to be.

(How can "many" of two people claim anything?)

Supercilious dismissal of futile whining _is_ professional conduct for
Usenet administrators, who perforce face such whining constantly.

Decisions as to whether Dave Hayes' complaints constitute valid
concerns or futile whining are left as an exercise for your local
system administrator, who makes the important decisions anyway.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 10 Nov 1992 14:37:41 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <BxI95n.n0p@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>"I swing my longsword at the orc" is role playing
>(hey, it's a role-playing game, I'm playing it, so I must be role playing!)
>I don't think so....

"cbnorman" (and boy, I'm getting tired of calling you by your login
name, do you think you could bless us with your real name?), this
post, more than any other, shows your complete lack of experience.  In
fact, it calls into question your honesty.

Because...this very subject (i.e. "what is true role-playing") comes
up time and again on r.g.f.dnd (and probably also .advocacy).  Had you
actually been reading it for the last two months, you would have seen
it.  Also had you actually been reading it, you would have seen the
FAQ (which is posted quite regularly and is very detailed and
well-written, I might add) which addresses this issue.

I think that cbnorman should receive about a hundred copies of the FAQ
via e-mail.  This will probably flooed his mailbox, and he'll be so
busy wading through it, he won't be able to bring this idiotic group
up to a vote.

OK, I'm sending that mail now....

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall@minerva.cis.yale.edu