HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfurr@vtssi.vt.edu (Joel Furr)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: re: use a KILLFILE
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:19:52 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

I'd like to respond to all the net.dictators who have so graciously set up
rules of life for everyone else to follow, especially regarding killfiles.

The situation that came up that sparked all this was the invasion of the
alt.folklore.ghost-stories feed by a group of morons who wanted to use the
feed for continually reposting junk about Cthulhu.  Usually the same jokes
over and over.  As a result, the traffic in the group dropped off a lot, I got
a lot of mail from the people in the group asking if there wasn't something we
could do to get the Cthulhu (or Cthulu, as they often misspell it) jerks out
of the group, and even a bunch of lurkers who liked to read the stories but
not post a lot spoke up and said "can't you make them leave?"

I recalled that a Cthulhu oriented group had been proposed in alt.config some
time back but had never been created and I reopened the discussion, noting
that there seemed to be considerable interest in Cthulhu as evidenced by the
invasion of the a.f.g feed, and of course the usual control fanatics spoke up
and said "under no circumstances should you create this group.  use a kill-
file, goddamnit."

To which I responded, "1, not everybody has the resources and wherewithal to
use killfiles,"  "2, by your argument, off topic messages in ANY group are
okey-dokey, no matter what they do to the volume of on-topic traffic," and "3,
for Christ's sake, stop telling people who want to create a new group that
because the wonderful things called killfiles exist, you have no right to
create any new group of any sort."

The flames proceeded to erupt thereafter...

I don't really care what the people who keep posting about it being up to me
if I want to drive without windshield wipers.  The analogy doesn't apply.

All we wanted in this case was to create an alt.fan.cthulhu group so the
morons would have someplace to go post.  It is *not* the responsibility of the
victim group to wear blinders so they don't notice the invaders.   Aha, you
say, there's a line I can quote out of Joel's message and compose some witty
reply to!  Wrong.  Read on.

If the ultimate answer to off-topic invaders in your newsgroup is "use a
killfile" then for Christ's sake, what do we have newsgroup charters for?

Hmmm?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.marching
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:19:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.154043.6644@medtron.medtronic.com> cc0001@medtronic.COM (Christopher Carriero) writes:

>I like the idea of the newsgroup: rec.arts.drumcorps.  That way it is not
>constrained under the text of "marching".  Most drum corps' do not march at
>all.

Well, the Blue Devils used to park it for a long time in their shows, but I
think this claim is a bit extreme.... ;-)

>Shows are now intricately chorographed (sp?).  Very little marching takes
>place.  So I don't feel we should have the sub group "marching" included at
>all.

This was covered in the RFD. The "marching" in the group name(s) distinguishes
that motion is part of the performances. Participants and fans of the
activities are clear that "marching" in this context includes dance, etc.
Also, "marching" is synonomous with "participating" in corps or color guards:
"I marched with Emerald Marquis in 1990."

>-- Chris

--phil


Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.comics.misc
From: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.comics.tv
Reply-To: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Organization: The John Fluke Mfg. Co.  /a.k.a. The Gizmonics Institute/
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:35:29 GMT

These days, it seems like everybody with Internet access and a shiny new
lightbulb icon over their head wants a new newsgroup.  No offense.

There isn't a deluge of Batman or other comics-in-another-medium subjects in
rec.arts.comics.misc in the first place.  (It does get a bit thick in
rec.arts.animation, but they created an alt.tv.batman (or something) group,
and it seems to have drained the pus from the blister, so to speak.))  It
just isn't a problem.

Moral: if you've got excess mental energy that you want to expend, don't
start a newsgroup.  Instead, post in a current newsgroup, go read up on your
local candidates so you can vote wisely next November [international readers
may ignore this advice], or drown said excess energy with the appropriate
compound, e.g., bourbon.

[The voice of Mr. E.G. Marshall was used during this broadcast.  Thank you.]

                           "The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies
                            and chase them before you, to rob them of their
                            wealth and to see those dear to them bathed in
                            tears, to ride their horses and to clasp to your
                            bosom their wives and daughters."
                                           -- Ghengis Kahn, civic leader and
                                              Bud man

                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET:     moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP:  {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO:        You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
                 **>> Keep circulating the tapes <<**
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.quaker
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:36:47 GMT

I wish I could have posted an objection to this sooner, but I was out
of town and have been under a heavy work load since my return.  In any
event, I object to soc.religion.quaker as an unmoderated group and
have voted that way.  I believe that unmoderated religion groups
should go in talk.religion and those in soc.religion should be
moderated.  In my discussions with the proposer I was not led to any
enlightment as to why that was unacceptable.  (Indeed, it never seemed
to be addressed in reply to my comments to this effect.)

Even if in the very particular case of the soc.religion.quaker group
it might be a reasonably unmoderated group in soc.religion, it blurs
the distinction regarding why anyone would have ever have a
talk.religion group and makes future namespace guidance in this area
more difficult.  Though this one might not end up being a volatile,
flame-filled forum (in large part because of Quaker values), religious
groups are not commonly like that and the distinction between
talk.religion, unmoderated, and soc.religion, moderated, was made a
long time ago to reflect the lower signal to noise ratio of the talk
hierarchy.

It might be a losing battle, but that is no reason to sink our own ships.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.archives.msdos.announce moderated and comp.archives.msdos.d
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:17:09 GMT

The discussion on the .d group has really got me to wondering why we have
a heirarchy at all.  If discussion on archives of msdos software isn't
under the same branch of the heirarchy as the announcement,  where do we
put it?  Evidently it should be put where ever the reader wants to put it.

So, lets all post the articles to rec.arts.chess.  Not close enough to the
charter?  Well, it's an existing group, so we don't have to form a new one.
Not appropriate?  Close enough.  Group name shows no relation to the 
.announce group?  Bingo.

There are several groups we COULD post discussion about archives to, but
none we SHOULD post discussion about archives to that would be as mission
specific as a .d group in the same heirarchy as the announcement of same.
I will be watching the announce group for information on new items, and 
the .d group for information on same.  I will not even be subscribed to
rec.arts.chess, so I guess if there's urgent information posted there about
a program, I'll miss it.

Since I can't understand why this should be so hard to comprehend, I'll just
drop this line and vote on it.

Larry J
-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.autos.offroad
From: derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 23:10:01 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu New Zealand

In article <Bvx0L2.7wu@xcluud.sccsi.com> paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (Paul Hutmacher) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.194411.26498@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>>  If you are going to limit it to 4WD you should use that as the name,
>>since offroad includes 4wd, dunebuggies, and racing.
>
>I have no problems sharing the newsgroup with the dunebuggies, etc.  What 
>would be a problem would be the Audi Quattros and All Wheel Drive types
>getting mixed up with us.  That would be a mistake.
>
>Shucks, the last time I got close to one of those low slung all wheel drive
>cars I backed over it before I ever saw it :)

One less Porsche 959 to contend with!

Seriously though, I would subscribe to the group whether called rec.autos.4wd 
or rec.autos.offroad.

rec.autos.4wd is probably better on balance though.  Many people don't 
take their 4x4's off-road as such and the name offroad has macho 'destroy
the wilderness' connotations.  I have driven many kilometers in conditions 
where a 4x4 was necessary and the skills learned would perhaps be worthy of 
discussion.  Only a very few of these Kilometers where off road per se.   

IMHO someone in a Subaru asking about driving techniques in the snow or mud 
is very relevant to this group.  Someone in an Audi Quattro discussing the 
merits of all wheel drive on dry tar probably isn't.

Whatever we call the group there will still be discussion of slick 50,
how can I fix my rabbit and what wax to use on my Quattro.  You can't escape
it.

Lets not get too restrictive at this stage.  Starting a new group can be 
hard - if we try and be too elitist many will be alienated and the vote
will fail.

One poster mentioned the sparse traffic on the offroad mailing list.  There
are in fact several related mailing lists,  the Landrover mailing list being
another example - there may be ones for Toyota's,  Jeeps etc.  Put all 
together there should be enough people to form an interesting group.

I don't think we need to worry about the Audi quattro's etc, after all we 
can just REVERSE OVER THEM WITH CAPITAL LETTERS.  


-- 
Derek Tearne. -- derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz --  Fujitsu/ICL New Zealand -- 
Some of the more aware dinosaurs were worried about the environmental
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.  
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
From: nick@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Nick Leiterman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.autos.offroad
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:30:59 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


I say yes to rec.autos.offroad.


-- 
     Nick Leitermann
     Seattle Washington
     nick@bcstec.boeing.com
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:28:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: ais.1992Oct13.222846.5799
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <430@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> I think that using "x-windows" would be a BIG help in indicating
> that this is NOT any other kind of windows (ms-windows in particular).

Maybe.  I hope so.  But I'm not very optimistic.

> we should in our reorg consider common usage and name groups
> appropriately to increase the chances that joe user out there
> will hit the proper group on the first try.
> 
> if both are under one tree (so they show up NEAR each other
> when people are scanning the group list) it should be easy
> enough to see
> 
> 	...
> 	comp.gui.windows
> 	comp.gui.x-windows
> 	...
> 
> and pick the proper one.  I think part of the problem was the
> LAST reorg that moved ms-windows way over to comp.os, and
> INCREASED the confusion level of people looking to post
> for ms-windows because the alternatives were not listed
> anywhere near each other.

This is a good point, but if you're proposing moving all of
comp.os.ms-windows.* into a new hierarchy barely 6 months after 
the last move, I think it has 0 probability of succeeding, and
it will multiply the confusion a hundredfold.  The MS-Windows
people still haven't quite brought themselves to giving up on
the comp.windows.ms.* groups (although the usage is _finally_
starting to decline), and there was a big political fuss about
wanting to be in the .os hierarchy rather than a .windows or a
.gui hierarchy.  I don't think they will agree to be moved again
to a .gui hierarchy because my impression was that many of the
people involved were trying to make a statement (about Windows), &
there is no reasonable way to put X into the .os hierarchy (!!!).

I was not very happy with the first reorg for just this reason,
and now I fear that we have gotten ourselves into a situation
from which there is no easy exit.

Bruce C. Wright
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.archives.msdos.announce moderated and comp.archives.msdos.d
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:57:56 GMT

In article <BvtyC9.zx@uunet.uu.net> tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence) writes:
>I posted my objections to comp.archives.msdos.d and this was a followup:
>In <BvtDAu.3uF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell):
>
>> I can state my reasons for not placing the announcements in those groups:
>Larry proceeded to rebutt by stating several times that none of the
>groups were suitable in directing users to upload announcements.
>
>For anyone else unclear on the concept, my objections are _not_
>to comp.archives.msdos.announce.

Yes, understood and appreciated.  The principal problem here is that
such a moderated group needs a companion discussion group in order
to function properly.  Let me elucidate. 

I think I get it now what is the real problem here.  Perhaps the
there was a missing piece in the puzzle, and we had not stated this
clarly enough.  I'll try in a hope that this will shed some positive
light on this. 

The cam.a newsgroup will be mainly a one way newsgroup, that is from
the MsDos FTP site moderators (who may, of course, be conveying the
users' upload announcements).  But it is _NOT_ the intention that
the users send in discussion material to cam.a.  The only
information they can send to this moderated newsgroup would be the
upload announcements.  (This is inherent in the charter's idea). 
This leaves the dilemma where to discuss the matters specific to
cam.a traffic.  My firm belief is that we should do it in one
specialized newsgroup (cam.d) rather than to disperse the material
over a wide area of newsgroups.  I just don't think that the latter
solution would be opertational in actual practice. 

I hope that this clarifies at least a bit what we are really
debating here, because I am not so sure that we did from the
beginning. 

   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
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ins434u@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Daniel May)
Subject: Croatian News
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:01:08 GMT

I was wondering if anyone knows how to get onto a Croatian news group.
A friend of mine asked me to locate the existence/location of such a group.

Can anyone help me?

Thanking you in advance,
	Daniel May
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 10 Oct 1992 08:30:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   I would like to make a few humble points in this discussion.

 I was very disappointed not to see a separate group formed
 for =herbalism= some of the same arguments used there.
 Now it is apparently confined to rec.food.history, etc.

 Mankind has survived for thousands of years on herbal
 medicines, and =alternative medicine= of many varieties.
 It has only been in the last 50 years or so that synthetic
 medicines have dominated medicine, although in Europe there
 is still a great deal more in the way of =alternative=
 treatments allowed.

 Science, although I find much of it an inspiration to
 the achievements of human intellect, is also quite =mad=.
 It has brought us atomic bombs, deadly chemicals by the
 thousands, and brought perhaps as much illness as health.
 As for scientific medicine, we have gained a lot but we
 have also received a variety of highly addictive drugs
 such as valium, the barbiturates, etc. as well as the
 occasional drug with produces cancer, deformed babies,
 or perhaps an occasional sudden death as a side effect.

 Now let's take a quick look at the Usenet.  Here are 
 thousands of groups.  I have only been a user for about
 six months, but there are a variety of groups on UFOs
 aliens, witchcraft, and endless list of sex related groups,
 endless hobbies, etc.  
 Yet when a group such as herbalism or this alternative
 medicine one is proposed it must go through an awesome
 gauntlet, crawling through mine fields, derision, scoffing
 and often end up in the dust heap.

 Am I missing something?  Or is this an example where the
 basic spirit of the Usenet is foundering?

-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:17:31 -0500
Organization: Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

In article <450@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> In article <2ADC1988.8DDD@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>According to hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman):
>>>I think that using "x-windows" would be a BIG help in indicating
>>>that this is NOT any other kind of windows (ms-windows in particular).
>>
>>However, "x-windows" is just plain _wrong_.  The entity in question is
>>not a system named "X Windows".  It is a window system named "X".
>>
>>>	comp.gui.windows
>>>	comp.gui.x-windows
>>
>>If you were to make this mistake, the least you could do would be to
>>call the Microsloth group "comp.gui.ms-windows".
>>--
>>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
>
>
> I have no objection.  You could even take the other suggestion
> floating around and make it:
>
> 	comp.gui.x
> 	comp.gui.ms-windows
>
> the point is that w/ ms-windows stuck way over in comp.os (yes, I
> know that was done just 6 months ago) the number of bothersome
> ms-windows msgs in the x windows group has increased.

The problem predates the move to the comp.os hierarchy.

This RFD is about moving the comp.windows hierarchy.  Why are people talking
about moving the Microcruft Windows hierarchy again?

> I just think that the way to alleviate the problem is to get
> the best names for the "average" user, not necessarly computer
> literate people.  if there is NO group w/ "just plain .windows"
> in it's name then the ms-windows people would probably find
> "anything.ms-windows" pretty easily.

Obliterate "windows" from the name completely.  If you put "windows" in the
name, they will come.

> "anything.ms-windows" pretty easily.  the problem is that the
> current x group is called ".windows", and then they complain
> because ms windows people try to post there....

No, comp.windows.* is not just for X, but for other GUIs and windowing systems
as well.  Except for MS-Windows of course.  Just rename it comp.gui.*.

> "Fosters!  It's Australian for beer, mate!"

Sounds like a good idea to me.

--
James Harvey    IUPUI OIT Technical Support
harvey@iupui.edu  harvey@indiana.edu  uucp:iugate!harvey  bitnet:harvey@indyvax
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Subject: Re: rec.sport.fencing
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: cu
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:08:15 GMT

fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) writes:


>Of the possible names mentioned so far, I prefer
> rec.sport.fencing.  

>-- 
>Francis A. Uy			now a Bawlmorean, hon.
>Program Director, WUMD		ISO part time job to pay the rent.

I second that. rec.sport.fencing sounds like the one to me.
I might add, however, that I will vote for the newsgroup regardless
of what it's called.

Scott

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Farrow - Student Programmer & Operator, Computing & Network Services
University of Colorado at Boulder, (303) 492-4428 ,farrow@spot.colorado.edu, 
HATE is not a family value. - Vote NO on Amendment #2.
From: andyrose@netcom.com (San Francisco Fractal Factory)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: MODEL UN NEWSGROUP
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:36:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

<F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>     I do hereby pledge my support to the proposed newsgroup :
>              talk.politics.world-gov
>     It's about time we started talking about things that affect
>     all human beings.
>                        Peace,
>

                              Matt

Like prisons, gosh darn it, I wan't to 
know more about prisons.  Do any prisoners
have e-mail addresses?
Hello?  Hello?  Honey, I think the lines dead...


-- 
Andrew Rose andyrose@netcom.com FAX 4155537756 When peace rules the planet 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: hch@oclc.org (Curtis Hunter)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.marching
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:27:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.142409.16146@husc3.harvard.edu> fath1@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Fath) writes:
>
>There were no replies to my earlier post about colorguards so let me ask again,
>are there colorguard fans out there?
>is alt.colorguard a sufficient forum for them?

  I did post a response to that article, but I don't know if it made it out so
I'll try again.  
  I think that as the winterguard season approaches, we will see an increase
in the traffic about color guards.  I think one of the reasons there was not
much traffic on alt.colorguard last year was because the group did not get
created until late in the season.  Towards the end of the WGI season the 
traffic increased quite a bit.  I feel that including the alt.colorguard
discussion in one of the rec groups will also serve to increase the traffic
becuase of greater visibility.
  I for one would like to see the second group named misc.  This can act
as a catch all for discussion other than drumcorps.  If the traffic for a 
specific area is big enough, we can RFD a new group.

>
>Should there be a r.a.m.misc to include bands and colorguard, etc. or is a
>r.a.m.bands a better more informative name?
>

   I think there shoud be a misc group.

--
_______________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
|  Curtis Hunter                      curtis@sporty.col.oh.us                 |
|  Online Computer Library Center     hch@oclc.org                            |
|  Dublin, OH                         CIS  76040,2605                         |
|  (614) 764-6325                                                             |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|



Newsgroups: news.groups