HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:01:25 GMT
Organization: GSP Whitewater Slalom Racing Team

In article <1992Nov9.033443.7461@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>In article <96702@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
>Kulawiec) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov8.221114.5147@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com  
>(Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>> >In article <96646@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
>> >Kulawiec) writes:
>> >> I should also point out that I received no correspondence from anyone

>> >
>> >That's because most people affected didn't know it was taking place.  
>> >(Circular argument).
>> 
>> I'm not prepared to conclude that that's the reason that I didn't
>> receive any correspondence on the matter, because I don't have any
>> evidence for it.
>
>You can't even *try* to see the point here?

I'm not sure why you think this *is* some sort of point here. I made
the factual observation that no correspondence about the "Subject"
line of the CFV landed in my mailbox until the whole debate started
after the vote was concluded.  You made the claim that the reason
for this is "because most people affected didn't know it was
taking place".   That's a specious claim, that you cannot possibly
support without asking each and every person involved, and then
demonstrating that a majority ("most") fall into that category.

As I pointed out in my followup, I do not know why no such letters
showed up; I recognize a number of possible reasons, including apathy,
agreement, and mail failure; but I do not conclude that any of them
are "the" explanation  because I do not have any evidence that would
allow me to do so.  If you have hard evidence that supports your claim,
then please produce it.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign MODERATED
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:05:22 GMT

In article <1dmvcpINNsko@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>In article <BxGvuF.E03@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>[much stuff deleted]
>
>Oh, you asked for this one.  Here goes:
>
>Hey cb, I would like to be moderator of "rec.games.frp.campaign".
>Whadday say?
>
Fine, if an official Call for Votes is listed, I'll list you as a choice
for moderator.  All those who votes 'yes' for campaign will be given one
vote for moderator.  I honestly hope you do vote for yourself, I would 
prefer you to vote "yes" to .campaign and yourself than to vote 
"no".

I also think its reasonable that the moderator of a group must vote "yes"
for it's creation.  If he doesn't support it to that extent, then he has
no place pretending that he wishes to put the time into it to be its moderator.

So, since you now wish to moderator, I must assume you now support .campaign.
Glad you've "seen the light" Josh!

>By the way, what does "cb" stand for anyway?

Citizen Band.


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: woodford@fourier.ece.cmu.edu (Paul Woodford)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:23:31 GMT

I'm entirely in favor of this group.  The turnaround on the mailing list is
far too long to get or give help on most problems.

Paul
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Furr)
Subject: rec.arts.poems.urdu (Was: Re: More fuel for the music reorg debate)
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 05:40:26 GMT

In article <BxLA56.M8I@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <9211110830.AA12739@elxr.jpl.Nasa.Gov> dave@elxr.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>
>><Any group creation request which follows these guidelines to a
>>successful result should be honored...except under extraordinary 
>>circumstances.
>
>What's so "extraordinary" about this?  I find it much more
>extraordinary that of the many objections that were raised to the name
>of the recently-passed rec.arts.poems.urdu, none were ever answered.
>However, I intend to honor the vote, though it's one of the more
>poorly-named groups we've seen in a while.

Say, Tim, how long before we can issue a CFV on renaming
rec.arts.poems.urdu to soc.culture.urdu?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Xanth Watch
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:32:01 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>"rec.music.* reorganization and renaming".

>(or "alt.music.*/rec.music.* reorganization and renaming", if you want to
>count the alt groups).

But only one group is renamed and several rec.music groups are left
untouched. No, that one isn't much better.

And remember: articles do have a body.
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   |
From: Kay.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 08 Nov 92  00:45:12

On <Nov 06 16:00>,  somebody whose name appears to have gotten munged, but
whose message-ID was BxBK07.F7p@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu wrote to All;

 u>There is a specific campaign net called "Vervan's Gaming Net" 
 u>which deals
 u>with only RPG campaigns.

And each echo on that net deals with only ONE campaign.  They don't try to
jam them all into one echo/newsgroup, and they don't distribute them over
more than 50 bbss if that - I suspect 20-30 is the more usual but cannot
say for sure.  It's been awhile since I've had much to do with Vervan Net.
But there's a big difference between a clump of narrowly distributed and 
defined specialty groups, and a single, worldwide usenet group. 

If you're the person who is proposing this thing, speaking as someone who
HAS read rec.games.frp (at least before the split; I wasn't in a position
to pick up the splinter fragments, so dropped the whole thing), if
there's some reason that you cannot use a mailing list to play games 
I'd suggest you seriously consider an alt.* group (or even better, a
family of alt.* groups, one per campaign) instead.  While they may not
have quite the distribution of the rec.* groups, they should have quite
enough distribution to play games on..and as plenty of people have already
pointed out there ARE places in the "main" usenet heirarchies to post 
completed or even partially completed writeups. 
 

--- msged 2.06
Xref: sparky news.groups:21441 news.admin.policy:349 rec.music.synth:18367
From: jkg@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Greenlee)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:32:12 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <BxL3pA.CMK@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.210351.15888@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>>I can argue for the fact that it is misnamed. Each other "makers"
>>group has a specific instrument as a topic.
>
>Really?  What instrument is "percussion?"

It should be obvious - this is the group for piano players!

-JimG

-- 
Jim Greenlee (jkg@cc.gatech.edu)	Jryy abj lbh'ir tbar naq qbar vg!
Instructor, College of Computing	Whfg unq gb xrrc svqqyvat jvgu vg
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332		hagvy lbh oebxr vg, qvqa'g lbh ?!
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Cousin It)
Subject: Re: "BAD" music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: HappyNet Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:49:58 GMT

gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
|In article <1992Nov8.160617.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (St.  
|Elmo's Fire) writes:

|I don't think it's absurd to at least indicate the hierarchy that the  
|group is in. Rec.music.synth was NOT in rec.music.makers.* but it WAS in  
|rec.music.*.

	Fine, then you have to add alt.guitar.* and rec.music.makers.*
and you have an absurdly long subject line which tells you infinitely
less then the subject line used.

|I think I have a basis to discuss what I see as a problem with the current  
|process. I'm not whining. Other people (many of whom haven't even read  
|rec.music.synth) have noticed this conversation and have suggested that we  
|take a look at the problem (do I have to dig up the articles and quote  
|them?).

	Sure sounds like you are from where I sit.

|I'd be up for any suggestion that makes the process better than it is and  
|helps inform people in a more direct fashion. Perhaps "RFD: reorg  
|involving rec.music.* groups" would have been a better choice.

	Which addresses exactly ONE of the FIVE votes. What makes the
synth proposal immenently more prestigious then the rest. Look, No
other group had this problem (of the 4/5 it was posted to), and the
subject lines have never been a real problem in any other reorg. And
the subject lines were just as "vague" as this one. What you need is
education. The system is not broken, at least not on this point.

Cousin It                                         cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
           Special Productions Director and Engineer
WBRS 100 FM, Waltham Ma.                   WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
All Genre Music Programming            Free Live Music-4 times weekly
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 11 Nov 1992 21:59:20 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov10.220226.22217@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>They had their chance to stop it. They didn't. They lose.
>You forgot the "Nyahh!". 

Nope...I'm not the one being childish here. "I don't wanna change the group!
You can't make me! Nyaah!!!" 

>Just because you don't think so doesn't make it so. And you are hardly
>in a position to defend it's clarity as you are too familiar with the
>newsgroup creation process.

Anyone can, with minimal effort, find out just how things work on a starship.
All they have to do is read news.announce.newusers.

Do you tell folks at your place of employment that they don't have to read the
manual for whatever computer system they use in order to find out how to get
the job done?

>Actually I've reprogrammed your positronic brain to believe that I keep
>getting shot out of the saddle. This wouldn't work for a human, as there's
>too much flexibility involved and they aren't mechanical. 

Riiiiiiight. Just because you can't argue logically and get your point across,
you have to resort to calling me a robot.

>>OK...if this one is accepted as being in accordance with the Guidelines, then
>>I'll campaign against it.
>Out of spite, eh?

No. Out of respect for the current set of Guidelines, and out of a sense that
the precedent you would set would be absolutely terrible.

>Not on your life. I didn't start this mess, but I'm damn sure going to
>finish it. 

History lesson: I said this once, about a year or so ago. During the
rec.arts.sf-lovers reorg earlier in the year, I was shocked and dismayed that
a small number of Trekkies had banded together to destroy the entire reorg
because they didn't like one part of it. When they proposed their own reorg, I
launched a personal crusade much like yours to stop them in their tracks in
retaliation. After a while, I was convinced that this led to an endless cycle
of retaliation and counter-retaliation, and dropped it. It's not possible for
you to finish it, for you're arguing against the expressed wishes of the net,
and many more folks will defend that than will your crusade.

[about the maintainer of SYNTH-L, who refuses to fix his gateway]
>He's tired of seeing control freaks make more work for him.

Just how much work is it to grep his control files for "rec.music.synth", and
edit them to say "rec.music.makers.synth"? If it's more than 5 minutes' work
for him, he needs the education that such an exercise would provide.
-- 
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: srfergu@rufus.erenj.com (Scott Ferguson)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Exxon Research & Engineering Co.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:19:42 GMT

Please, people, don't change the subject line if you feel you absolutely
must follow up to it. You're only angering the people who have sent this
thread into their KILL Files.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Ferguson                        Exxon Research & Engineering Co.
Project Engineer                      New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Always bark at a dog."
Xref: sparky news.groups:20419 rec.music.synth:17827 news.admin.policy:150
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 6 Nov 1992 17:19:27 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Nov4.182116.6695@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <7713@lib.tmc.edu>
	<1992Nov4.232744.9048@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Nov5.194718.4650@bradley.bradley.edu>
	<1992Nov6.000935.2031@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:09:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.000935.2031@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

   dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
   >
Thanks, Dave V, for giving an alternative voice from r.m.*.

   The subject lines said "CFV: rec.music.makers.* groups". There was no 
   indication of any correlation with the rec.music.synth groups. At the very
   least, a revote should be held with this one subject separate from the rest
   of the votes, with a clear and precise subject line so that ALL people
   in rec.music.synth are made aware of this. 

It was posted to r.m.s because it was relevant.  People ignored it.
If you see an RFD or a CFV in a group you read, it can affect you.
Ignorance is not a valid defense here.  Ignoring a CFV is not the
fault of the net.

   I would also like it if some way were made so that those out there on
   the BBS echos could vote their minds also.

Propose something.  If they aren't USENET, they should be properly
gatewayed so that the USENET name change doesn't affect them.

[* news.admin.policy added to Newsgroups, since I think that's what
we're discussing.  n.a.p readers can refer to the thread in news.groups
for context *]
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:16:59 GMT

In article <7767@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)  
writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.190715.22999@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>  
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
> [about posting CFVs for renamed groups to the affested group only; I  
objected
> that this would disenfranchise news admins]
> >Then crosspost it to news.groups. Each rename should involve a clear
> >subject line (e.g. RENAME rec.music.synth -> rec.music.makers.synth),
> >and should be posted separately from other renames. 
> 
> 1) You've completely removed the reason to post it to the affected group  
only:
> to force folks to read the group.

Too much information is a bad thing?

> 2) You've (in the case of this reorg) quadrupled the news traffic, and  
the
> mail traffic, to no real gain.
> 

Unless you consider being clear about a proposition to be a "gain" and  
those people it would affect to be a "gain". 

> Voting on Usenet is like voting in the real world: If you don't vote,  
you let
> those who do speak for you. This is true in Presidential elections, and  
it is
> true on the net as well.

Except that in the real world there is better control over the format and  
distribution of ballots, and that the people that supervise the process  
are accountable to people other than themsleves.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,talk.bizarre
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:29:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.203351.3335@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
> No way. If you folks won't compromise, I won't. Nyahh. <grin>

Dave Hayes: a man who makes you a compromise you can't refuse.

ian
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Group splits, killfiles...
Date: 10 Nov 92 12:21:36 GMT
Organization: GSP Whitewater Slalom Racing Team

In article <1992Nov9.185403.2064@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>In article <96769@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
>Kulawiec) writes:
>> BTW, one useful tip for folks whose
>> newsreaders support killfiles or an equivalent mechanism: since articles
>> in news.announce.newgroups are usually followed by a discussion in
>> news.groups, if you see a thread starting that doesn't issue you,
>> add the subject to your news.groups killfile. 
>
>Hmmm. This would have been a great way to add the rec.music.makers  
>proposal article subjects to your killfile based on the first RFD which  
>didn't affect rec.music.synth.

Yes, it would have done exactly that -- in news.groups.  Please note
that the subject of the 1st CFD was:

	RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups

and the subject of the 2nd CFD, which did involve rec.music.synth, was:

	RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups

and the subject of the 3rd CFD, also involving rec.music.synth, was:

	3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups

Note that a killfile which skipped articles with the first subject line
in news.groups would (a) not skip any articles in news.announce.newgroups
and (b) would not skip articles with the second and third subjects.
(In fact, two of the reasons that I changed the subject line werethat
the original proposal called for creating the groups at the top level
of rec.music, and the original proposal did not involve rec.music.synth.)

---Rsk
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: To keep the r.m.s rename is _not_ elitist (was Re: *BAD*...)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 06:12:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.210646.19912@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>I'll consider revoting rec.music.makers.synth right after we revote
>>sci.aquaria, misc.activism.progressive, and rec.arts.manga.
>*I'm* not against doing such things. Would you like to put forth
>the RFD's?

I think a point is being missed here.

The controversies about those other groups were controversies about the
arguments made for or against the groups.  They were not controversies about
the _way_ the vote was conducted.  Some people thought that the groups proposed
were inappropriate and the arguments for them were dumb, but nobody seriously
claimed that the way the votes were conducted itself violated the spirit of the
Guidelines.  (except _maybe_ for m.a.p, where one could argue that taking
many votes from a mailing list did not show the general support implicit in
the spirit of the Guidelines).  So a revote for r.m.s doesn't imply a precedent
that if it had existed would have allowed a revote for those other groups.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: khan@twg.com (Sharaz Khan)
Subject: Re: Re. soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:29:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.144801.1390@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> njamil@nyx.cs.du.edu (Nasir Jamil) writes:
>	  AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO ALL THOSE WHO THINK AHMADIS 
>	ARE NOT MUSLIMS BECAUSE THEY DO BELIEVE THE PROPHET 
>	          CAN COME AFTER MUHAMMAD (PBOH)
>
>
>	Please refer to the following verses in the Holy Quran:
>
>	"And who so obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall
>	among those whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely,
>	the PROPHETS, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous.
>	And excellent companions are these.
>
>	This grace is from Allah, and sufficient is Allah, the All
>	Knowing."
>
>				C:4, V: 69,70.


Just two questions:

- Since when you start changing the meaning of the entire verse?
- Whose translation have you used?

Here are the same verses from Shakir Ahmed's translation:

**********************************************************************
69. And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle, these are with
					               ^^^^	
those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors from among the
prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the good, and a
goodly company are they!

70. This is grace from Allah, and sufficient is Allah as the Knower.
**********************************************************************


Just look at the hipocrasy that is shown by this liar. If the readers
look at both verses carefully, everyone will fine the fundamental differences
in both verses.  Please stop this slander of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)
and the Holy Book of Allah.

There is a verse in the Qur'an that I always have used to show how 
God (Glorious be He)describes the Qadiani menace.  It is as follows:


Chapter 3 The Family of Imran
****************************************************************
7. He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses 
are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are 
allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is 
perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, 
seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) 
interpretation. but none knows
its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted
in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and
none do mind except those having understanding.

8. Our Lord! make not our hearts to deviate after Thou hast
guided us aright, and grant us from Thee mercy; surely Thou art
the most liberal Giver.

9. Our Lord! surely Thou art the Gatherer of men on a day
about which there is no doubt; surely Allah will not fail (His)
promise.
****************************************************************


My dear readers, 

Please do not be mislead by this band of liars.  There are many among 
them who are sincere in what they believe in and do not understand the
depth that they are in; but amongst them are the foxes who play with
the minds of those who are trapped in their purjery.

A sincere "MUSLIM" (not belonging to a sect),

Sharaaz Khan

>Nasir Jamil

Newsgroups: news.groups