HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: The call for a new moderator of rec.arts.erotica
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:05:39 GMT

In article <2A9E3B8F.9B1@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>I'll ignore the rest of Christophe's prattle, but there's one point
>he made that requires at least some clarification.

I'm touched.

>Bullshit. Even when r.a.e works properly, a.s.s would still be necessary.
>There are reposts, requests for reposts, postings of stories that are
>unacceptable to the moderator, commentary, etc.

As you wish.  Alt.sex.stories was, in fact, created in direct response
to your lack of performance as rec.arts.erotica moderator, and your
consistent lack of reply at best or abuse at worst of anyone who so
much as dared hint that this may be the case (I archived the creation
discussions, if anyone cares).  At this point, r.a.e is essentially
redundant, except for its place in the main hierarchy and the
distribution that affords.  I hope that a new moderator can bring a
new, more productive use to it, and I hope that you, I and everyone
else can be less stressed out about it.
--
-- Christophe

"Black is the color of non-conformity.  Everyone has to have it."
	T-shirt company executive
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 02:01:53 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

> Did we take too much in one bite by voting on 40 groups at the same
> time? 

Ding.  As someone who doesn't participate in t.p.* I wasn't particularly
interested in spending an hour or two trying to formulate a reasonable
vote for this reorg.  Forty groups is a *ludicrous* size for a
reorganization . . . 

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.babylon5
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:14:16 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

techy@iastate.edu (Troy A Rutter) writes:

>This is a request for discussion on the creation of a new newgroup,
>rec.arts.sf.babylon5.

>Babylon 5 is a new Science Fiction television show which will be produced
>by Warner Brothers and, tentatively, airing this fall.  Although for
>a while the only posts will be my bi-weekly and/or monthly FAQ: WHAT IS
>BABYLON 5, once the sreies gets started, IU am fairly positive that demand
>will be there for the new group.

    Let me make sure I have this straight: You want to start a group for
a TV show that hasn't even started yet so you have no idea if anyone
will even like the thing. And you want it to be a mainstream group in
the rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy even though the show could be cancelled
after a single season. And to top it all off, you haven't even followed
the correct procedure for posting an official RFD. Sounds to me like the
group you want is alt.tv.babylon5. Why don't you try the proposal out in
alt.config and see what kind of response you get.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info
		   "A clear case of curare poisoning
	       of one of her Majesty's Cold-Cream Guards"
						   -- Durlock Holmes
From: sll28@cc.usu.edu (Lorna Payne)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:14:47 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Aug31.135820.11772@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
> 
>>In article <BtpH33.2KD@uunet.uu.net> ramsey@cua.edu (Betsy Ramsey) writes:
>>>This is a Request For Discussion about a proposed new group
>>>rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7, the purpose of which would be to discuss the
>>>British science-fiction television show _BLAKES 7_.  Some preliminary
>>>discussion has already taken place in rec.arts.tv.uk and alt.config.
>>>
> 
>>A bit of a mouthfull ain't it ???
> 
>>why not just plain rec.arts.blakes7 like Star Trek is rec.arts.startrek
> 
>     Well, first off r.a.sf.tv.blakes7 would be the correct name for the
> group if it were to exist in the mainstream hierarchies. Secondly, how
> in the world can you compare this with Star Trek and the r.a.startrek.*
> sub-hierarchy?
> 
>>Or alt.tv.blakes7 similar to alt.tv.red-dwarf or alt.tv.twin-peaks
> 
>     This is the only group that makes any sense.

While I don't have any problem with and alt. group per se, the objection
that several people have had is that distribution of alt. groups is
limited, particularly if they are bogus groups (e.g., alt.tv.mst3k).
Because of this, if an alt. group is created, then all those people
who don't get it will continue to discuss Blakes 7 on each of the three
or four groups where discussion goes on now--meaning that people who
*do* get the alt. groups will just have to follow another group.  The
only remedy for this that I can think of is to crosspost 100% of
alt.tv.blakes7 to rec.arts.sf.tv, which defeats the purpose of having
a Blakes 7 group in the first place.

Lorna
-- 

     -------------------------------------------------------------
               Lorna Payne
               Certified Math Geek and Grammarian
     -------------------------------------------------------------
     The concept is simply staggering.  Pointless, but staggering.
                         -The Doctor (The Pirate Planet)
     -------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers)
Subject: Re: rec.games.abstract
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:40:11 GMT

[generic usenet response #87 --- quote out of context]

mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>I (neilb) wrote:
>> [generic usenet response #769 --- extrapolate to the max]
>> I surprised you don't recommend everything be posted to rec.games,
>
>But then the volume would be too high.

Did you notice the following lines after that paragraph?

	[note for the humor impaired: feel free to insert a liberal amount of
	smilies in the above paragraph]

I.e. I'm joking, don't bother to follow up.


>You see, my arguments are based on the real situation in this group,

We're not trying trying to force a change in r.g.b, we're trying to
create a new group because there are enough people interested in
abstract games who aren't interested in the majority of topics
discussed on r.g.b.


>not on some personal criterion on what constitute "good" or "bad" games.

As far as I can tell, no-one has been elitist about this, by trying
to claim that the abstract games we're interested in are `better' than
those which form 90+% of rec.games.board traffic.
They are *different*, and although there are people who are interested
in both, there are a lot of people who're interested in one, but not
the other.  People who fall into the former category just subscribe to
two groups.  Is there a problem with this?  I don't think so.

-neilb
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nick@sunburn.waterloo.edu (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.babylon5
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:51:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.192320.25896@stsci.edu> wmorgan@stsci.edu (Windsor A. Morgan) writes:
>In article <BtpH2r.2J0@uunet.uu.net> techy@iastate.edu (Troy A Rutter) writes:
>>This is a call for discussion on the creation of the new newsgroup
>>rec.arts.sf.babylon5.
>
>I don't think so.  The show hasn't even been broadcast and has only
>recently started recording episodes.  Even though there is a lot of
>interest in the show (or at least in anecdotes about the recording of
>the episodes) it doesn't make sense (in my opinion) to make an
>"official" newsgroup for something that has not been seen yet.
>
>There is movement every year to create a Quantum Leap newsgroup, and
>(quite justifiably) it is not created.  Even "The Simpsons" does not
>have a rec* newsgroup; it just has alt.tv.simpsons.  I suggest
>creating a alt.tv.babylon5 newsgroup; if "Babylon 5" is around for a
>few years, *maybe* it would justify a rec.*.babylon5.

Very good point, perhaps that would be best, however on the off-chance that
this one wins (even if only because the trekkies want all the traffic
moved out of their newsgroups) perhaps we had better agree on the name issue.
>
>Finally, there was talk about making a "rec.arts.babylon5".  Again, I
>don't think so.  Maybe when (*if*) "Babylon 5" becomes the cultural
>icon as "Star Trek", "Doctor Who", and "Star Wars" have become would
>it warrant being a newsgroup name likee that.
>-- 
Another good point, however meanwhile Blake's 7 (same production group 
as Doctor Who) is presently after a group with the heirarchy
rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7,  surely either it belongs in rec.arts.sf.blakes7, or
this one should be rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.  Having SF tv shows
with 3 different (not to mention alt) name systems is confusing.  

Nicholas Fitzpatrick
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:02:17 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Aug27.211626.13584@ists.ists.ca>, by os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group):
> Actually I was impressed by the extent to which the proposal deviated
> from the aims and goals of rec.games.board -- 

Some agreement on this point.
 
> Furthermore, over the last few days rec.games.board has been getting
> some 40+ messages a day, so I hardly would call it low volume.

...of which around 15 per day (3/8) came from exactly this or related
threads (i.e., with rec.games.X as the subject).  Hardly a valid
argument.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: mpdeffen@apgea.army.mil (Michael P. Deffendall <mpdeffen>)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.babylon5
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:45:16 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: APG-Edgewood


 I also belive that this group would be best served in the alt.tv.*
hierarchy.

Just my $.02.

Deff

mpdeffen@crdec6.apgea.army.mil

#include std.disclaimer
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.startrek.misc
From: techy@iastate.edu (Troy A Rutter)
Subject: RFD: rec.arts.sf.babylon5
Followup-To: news.groups
Summary: Babylon5 newsgroup
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:04:20 GMT

This is a request for discussion on the creation of a new newgroup,
rec.arts.sf.babylon5.

Babylon 5 is a new Science Fiction television show which will be produced
by Warner Brothers and, tentatively, airing this fall.  Although for
a while the only posts will be my bi-weekly and/or monthly FAQ: WHAT IS
BABYLON 5, once the sreies gets started, IU am fairly positive that demand
will be there for the new group.

Rec.arts.sf.babylon5 shall be unmoderated, but as I said i will be making 
the monthly FAQ on what B5 is.

The group shall be created for discussion of the Babylon 5 television show, which includes: News, stories, and anything else pertanent to the show.

A CFV will be called one month from this posting.

Folowup To: news.groups


-- 
-Troy Rutter        |  Another Budding Programmer of the rare
Iowa State Univ.    |      species of technobabblonians.
Project Vincent     |
  "If you prick me.. do I not...  leak?"   -LtCmdr Data- ST:TNG
Xref: sparky news.groups:17360 soc.culture.indian:29938
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:18:11 GMT
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Illini Mastication Society
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

paigen@tfs.com (David Paigen) writes:

> aryeh@cash.ucsc.edu (Aryeh Friedman) writes:

> I agree.  Our active file is over 1900 lines now, and 25% of those
> groups are alt.groups.  A brief glance would imply that maybe a
> quarter of these are 'joke' groups, like
> 	alt.american.automobile.breakdown.breakdown.breakdown
> and
> 	alt.business.multi-level.scam.scam.scam.

> I would love to get rid of these.  They just waste space.  No
> traffic (here, at least).

Alt groups really wouldn't be affected by this, just like people don't
usually vote for their creation.  The solution to bogus alt.* groups is
to ask your news administrator to remove them.  The alt hierarchy exits,
in part, so that groups which might not have enough merit to fit into a
"serious" hierarchy can be created, and carried by those who want them.
-- 
Thomas Aaron Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  I speak for myself, and not for the State or University of Illinois.
  "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." -- Edward R. Murrow
From: slb3y@cc.usu.edu (Punk Rocketeer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: misc.forsale.computers reorg
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:54:45 MDT
Organization: United Order of Non-joiners

<BtLsqM.C15@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, rcox@cad625.intel.edu (Richard Cox) writes:
> |>      misc.forsale.computers.isa.systems
> |> 	misc.forsale.computers.isa.software
> 
> question: Shoud isa be more general like ibm or something which is not
>           so specific?  I thought there were several bus structures for
>           the PC market and could be grouped together?  (pardon my ignorance)

     Yeah.  ISA, EISA, and MCA, so far as I know.  *.pc.* would
probably be better, since those who use them generally understand the
principle of a "clone."
-- 
Patrick S. Clark | When the world's in trouble I am not slow.
Email is life!   | So it's hip-hip-hip and away I go!
Usual Disclaimer | (You should know this one.)
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RESULT: rec.motorcycles.harley passes 362:47
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:26:47 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Aug18.142224.29783@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, shz@garage.att.com (Keeper of the 'Tude) writes:
> In article <Bt4wsr.5D1@uunet.uu.net>, ciotti@nas.nasa.gov (Robert B. Ciotti) writes:
> >  Rec.motorcycles.harley passes 362 yes votes to 47 no votes.
> 
> Good has triumphed over evil!  Thanks to those that voted in favor of
> the subgroup (or abstained) and shame on those that tried to stifle other 
> people's religious freedom.

I'm still trying to figure out what all the sour grapes is about. The
margin of victory for this group is so great that the number of disputed
votes I've seen mentioned wouldn't even come CLOSE to overturning the
vote if they were discounted. 

Too many personalities involved in this little fracas. Too many
attitudes bent out of shape and too many childish accusations. The vote
is over, the margin is quite large so everyone should accept it and lets
get on with things around here. Unless, of course, someone can dispute
216 votes? :)

BTW, I attempted to vote FOR the group twice, using uunet, rutgers AND
psuvax1 as smartpath for smail and all 3 times the message came
bouncing back as undeliverable, unknown.  Anyone else have that problem?

-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: CFV: rec.aviation reorganization
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:05:47 GMT

In article <1950002@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> woof@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Steve Wolf) writes:
>It's my feeling that *.piloting and *.misc are redundant.
>rec.aviation.piloting's charter is "Information pertinent to pilots of
>general aviation aircraft which would not fall into one of the other
>non-misc rec.aviation groups."
>
>This should actually be the charter of "rec.aviation.misc", who's
>charter is currently "... relatively little traffic here, but net
>convention is to have a "catch-all" .misc group for things which might
>have been missed."
>
>Thus, my minor tweak would be to nix "rec.aviation.piloting" in favor of
>"rec.aviation.misc".  Then we won't have to continually explain to new
>users that our little corner of the net goes against "net convention".

The idea behind "specialist" groups is to concentrate on one aspect of 
the hierarchy.  In rec.aviation's case, the group-charter is general 
aviation: *flying* is *one* part of that.  

One take on this is that the whole idea behind misc groups is that they
should be read by *all* readers.  Thus, traffic should be kept low, and
there shouldn't be a massive component of posts dedicated to one aspect of
aviation--this could cause users to unsubscribe.  

Yet another take is that there's a lot of support for a "purer" flying-
oriented group; a dedicated flying-group provides this.  "Misc" doesn't.
There's risk of decidedly non-flying traffic getting mixed in with flying
stuff: fly-ins, media-gripes, one-liner "wit" threads, etc.  By my estimate,
this sort of stuff comprises 30% of the total traffic on rec.aviation.  
At least with a flying group, inappropriate traffic can be "shouted out" by 
those who just want to read about flying (and vice-versa :-)).

I don't think there'd be a high component of inappropriate, "flying-type"
posts in misc, any more than there are, say, programmer discussions on 
comp.sys.mac.misc.  They do pop up from time to time, but they're always 
flash-in-the-pans.  

Especially in this respect, Geoff's CFV hit the mark, IMHO.  "Misc"
and "flying" were the most fundamental parts of the re-organization concept.

IMHO. :-)


---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,alt.activism,soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
From: hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil (Dan Hoey)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.racing,rec.motorcycles.dirt
Subject: Re: rec.motorcycles.harley vote acknowledgment
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:46:00 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

>jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist) writes:
>>Now wait just a minute.  Haven't _any_ of you ever experienced the
>>variable reliability of e-mail?  Does all your mail go through in
>>an hour?  A day?  A week?  If you sent some mail in, two days later
>>saw a vote summary, and your name wasn't in it, would you resend
>>the mail to get your vote counted, or just say, "oh, well, it'll
>>count anyhow".....?

steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier) writes:

>I briefly considered the possibility you put forth, and dismissed it.
>I have never had any email delay of more than one day between university
>sites and major orgs such as NASA.

Ah, a newbie.  You should shut up until you have enough experience to
know what you're talking about.

It is a good idea to look over the list and locate the suspected
duplicates.  To suspect, absent further evidence, that the duplicates
are attempts at ballot box stuffing is ridiculous.  It just goes to
show that some ignorami like to be obnoxious about it.

Dan Hoey
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.international
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:06:36 GMT
Reply-To: peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC

comp.i18n?

We really need a comp.design hierarchy for internationalization, component
design, interoperability issues, API philosophies, etc...

comp.design.i18n?
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
$ EDIT/TECO LOVE                                              'U` 
%TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war?                        Have you hugged your wolf today?
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.      Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012       +1 713 274 5180
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.boycotts.announce moderated, misc.boycotts.misc
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:39:54 GMT

>> misc.boycotts.announce	Announcements of boycotts. (Moderated)
>
>	Unworkable.  Where are you going to find someone that both (say)
>anti-abortion and pro-choice people would approve of to handle (say) clinic
>protests/protection?

How about having the group moderated and having an automated moderator
which greps the message for a couple of fields which are described in
the charter, passing only conforming messages?  This would allow
announcements from anyone, but would hinder the group from being
infected by discussions, careless crossposts and such.

This wouldn't satisfy the person who said that criticism needs to be
in the same group, though.

//Jyrki
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:15:20 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Newt World Order

I agree that such a procedure needs to be in place but there has to be
some kind of use test for the newsgroup. Namely this should only be done
to newsgroups that have <X posts per month over Y months. I'd go for
something like X=20 and Y=6 myself.

The other thing that would be nice is if newsgroups stayed dead once
they were killed. Each rmgroup attempt only kills 50 or 60% of the sites
with a certain newsgroup, and we need to get that proportion higher,
like 95% or more.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
The more corrupt the government, the greater the number of laws -- Tacitus
From: David.Beasley@cm.cf.ac.uk (David Beasley)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.lang.pop
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:36:44 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College of Cardiff

I think a newsgroup for pop-11 would be a great idea.
--

David Beasley                          (David.Beasley@cm.cf.ac.uk)    
Department of Computing Mathematics 
University of Wales College of Cardiff                          __o
PO Box 916                                                      \<,   
CARDIFF    CF2 4YN                         ___________________()/ ()___  
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: flalbert@lascar.puc.cl (L.Alberti IIC.FUN)
Subject: alt.music.progressive and its description
Organization: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:53:17 GMT


I'd like to say just one thing: the current description for the group
alt.music.progressive is "??" - I don't think it is a good one.
I'd suggest something like "Genesis, Yes, Marillion, etc."

That's it.

MIGUEL FARAH - 25/VIII/92