HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *poing*
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:00:17 GMT

emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) displays his artistic talent.

I just wanted to say that it was very creative. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   There is no greater calamity for a nation or individual
                 than not finding contentment in one's sufficiency.
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native
Reply-To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 10:35:03 GMT

In article <1906@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:

>  In article <WARKENT.92Dec14103204@ltisun14.epfl.ch>,
>	warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

>  > "aboriginal" (adj.)
>  >   1. Indigenous, existing in a land at the dawn of history, or before
>  >      arrival of colonists. [the best option, in my opinion -kw]
>  
> Agreed. Even my little pocket New Websters defines aborigine as "early
> native of a country"
>  
> soc.culture.aborigonal.* anyone?
                    ^
Dave has just identified one of the problems with this name:  it's too easy
to misspell!

> It fits. Only question is what to call the final subgroup for THIS
> proposal. How about something like this?
> 
> soc.culture.aborigonal.n-america
>     soc.culture.aborigonal.n-america.usa
>     soc.culture.aborigonal.n-america.canada
>     soc.culture.aborigonal.n-america.mexico
> 
> soc.culture.aborigonal.s-america

etc.

This is not an issue that should be decided by people in news.groups - it's
really a matter best decided by those who have an interest in the subject
of native/indigenous/aboriginal peoples.  I tend to feel there is no need to
create so many subdivisions, for several reasons.  One of the best reasons
is that the political reality is that dividing people and their issues is a
good way to breed feelings of dissimilarity.  The First Peoples of the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico have much in common.  To divide the exchange of informa-
tion along geographical lines in the case of immediately adjacent territories
would, in my view, be a grave mistake.

A better division for the near term is one along the lines of dividing
informational exchange from discussion, as I have proposed recently.  I hope
our next straw poll will enable us to learn how people feel about that issue
and that we can interest people with a long-standing interest in the subject
of native peoples to express their opinions on the subject.

Gary
-- 
    Gary S. Trujillo                             gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts               {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:08:31 GMT

dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>I fully expect some smarmy smart-ass tap dancing comment in response.

*poing*
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

With a jar on his back, a blind man walked at night, holding a lamp. A
passer-by said: "What ignorance. Day and night is the same for you and
you're carrying a lamp in the dark!"
  
"The light is for blind people like you so that they won't knock against 
Xref: sparky news.groups:24562 news.admin.misc:823
From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:10:00 GMT
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec17.113806.45717@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) writes...
>In article <EMCGUIRE.92Dec12155241@mother.intellection.com>, emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>>...  It would be nice if someone with more vote results archived would apply
>> the proposed rule to them and report the results.
> 
>Here is a list of 508 passing votes over the last couple of years, and
>how they would have fared under these rules.  Only 152 of the 508
>would have passed.
>-- 
>USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045
>E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444 
> 
		[list deleted]

Using the statistics from the same list, if the rule were
	YES>=100+2*N (instead of 200)

356 would have passed.  Of the 114 that would have failed
25>NO (no controversy, but limited interest) 11
75>NO>25 (some controversy, some interest) 68
150>NO>75 (considerable controversy and interest) 31
NO>150 (extremely controversial but massive support) 4

The greatest difference would be among groups that now pass but would 
have failed by votes of typically 175-50.

Some of the more interesting examples...

The misc. forsale.computers split (opposition)
The rec.arts.comics split (minimal interest)
rec.arts.mange (opposition)
Three of the rec.arts.sf groups (opposition)
The very active sci.skeptic (interest moderate, some controversy)
soc.feminism (interest)

				BMS
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:56:47 GMT

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Dec12155241@mother.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:

>However, rather than raising the number from 100 to 200, the new rule
>should instead figure in the number of Usenet sites and the existing
>traffic on the topic.  The latter might be difficult to measure.
>Perhaps it could be arrived at by consensus during the discussion
>period.

This ought to be a good idea, but...
I think that it would be SO difficult to measure that it would start
flamewars, even if there were a specified guideline for determining
it.  I think consensus would be highly unlikely in controversial
proposals.  Possibly the fixed number should be changed, possibly
a whole new procedure should be put in place.  But I think tying the
voting rules themselves to something as nebulous and hard to count as
"usenet sites" or "traffic on this topic" would be asking for group
wars that would make all previous group wars look like minor
skirmishes.

	Cathy
-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
Why you should recycle bytes:  "Believe it or not, most deleted bytes currently
find their way straight into the Internet refuse stream, often to turn up in
postings to Usenet, or worse, OSI standards documents!"  -- Peter Deutsch
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:10:57 GMT

In article <JAAPJL.92Dec15115951@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov> J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
> A technical solution would be to gateway the mailing-list into a
> local newsgroup, for those sites with more than a few readers (and
> competent newsadmins).

I do that, as a matter of course, and ride herd on users who get their own
subscriptions... but there's only so much of that you can do.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
From: djb6@ellis.uchicago.edu (Dennis Brennan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.baltic/balticum
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:14:41 GMT
Reply-To: djb6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In the United States (specifically in the news media),
the term "The Baltic States" refers specifically and exclusively
to the republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and does not
include Poland, Russia, Finland or Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the 
Kaliningrad Oblast or any other territory.

(unless, of course, I'm wrong :-)

-- 
Dennis Brennan
djb6@midway.uchicago.edu
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Date: 12 Dec 1992 02:05:16 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec12.010008.7863@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>If he'd known that this would happen, he'd have voted no. That's an 
>ignorance that doesn't get cured by reading some documentation.

The newsgroup management process is political.  In the
context of pluralistic democratic forms, that means that
the people who are personally interested in the outcome
of a vote are the ones who must assume the responsibility
for informing others of the possible consequences.

Dave made a mistake when he guessed that the r.m.s name
change would fail, so he didn't work to educate other
users about the possible consequences.  Now he's blaming
the system and demanding that an ill-defined "someone
else" assure perfect knowledge of the issues among all
potential participants in a vote.  That will not happen,
because (a) it's impossible, (b) few people think it's
desirable, and (c) the principal proponent doesn't
seem to be willing to expend the effort to try to implement
a solution.

Face it, Dave: you screwed up, nobody else cares, and
the consequences haven't been all that dire for anybody.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF)
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
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: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:57:52 GMT

In article <H.eg.1S3XHPIqigY@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>In <1992Dec12.002031.7215@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
>	(Dave Hayes) writes:
>
>>And this business of asking for established proof, failing to
>>answer one's opponent's calls for proof after this asking, and
>>implying that someone is a scoundrel is usually used by people who
>>want to take unfair control of things. Are you one of those?
>
>	And in another post writes:
> 
>>We have provided evidence. The subject line was misleading (CFV: 
>>rec.music.makers.* reorganization) and the vote topic was far enough
>>down in the body of the CFV (greater than 21 lines) that it was probably 
>>missed by those who have 24 line screens (a sizable percentage). 
>
>	But Dave, until you answer the proof already presented, that a
>separate posting by one of the rec.synth readers with a clear
>unambuiguos subject line was posted to, and even replied to by another
>reader, how do you expect anyone to accept your evidence? Does this
>evidence have to be reposted daily for you so you can't ignore it's
>inconvenient existance? Or are you hoping if you ignore it long ebnough,
>it will just be conveiently forgotten. Until you answer existing proof
>that your arguments are based on misleading evidence, why should anyone
>bother debating with you?

You shouldn't.  He's not debating, he's only selecting out parts of your
posts that seem weaker than other parts and replying to them.  Each time
someone's really posted something that zings Dave but good, he lets it go
right on by, which is human nature, but still.  Just stop arguing with
him.  If everyone stopped replying to his posts, what would he reply to?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Give up, Dave, you've lost!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:07:14 GMT

jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>Dave, Dave, Dave.  It's not going to WORK, Dave.  We've already filled the part
>of Zippy the Pinhead.  Jay Maynard got the role.  

So I noticed. 

>It's over and done with.  I appreciate your Sean Young-like desire to do 
>anything you can to get the part but it's just TOO LATE.  Even if you were 
>to bump Maynard off, we've already got an understudy for the Zippy role: 
>Mark Brader.  

Who?

>You're just not going to win, you're really not.  

Who says? And define "winning". 

>Show the world you can take a defeat.  Show the world that you can bounce 
>back, stronger than before.  Don't continue this futile struggle to win 
>the title "Stupidest Person on USENET."  Just let go.  Do it for us, Dave.  
>Do it for us.

I...I...can't! I've just GOT to be just like Jay Maynard! I can't help it,
but I worship the ground the man walks on! I gotta be ... JUST like him!

;-)
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Xref: sparky news.groups:24243 alt.native:1403
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native.america
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:32:04 GMT
	<1992Dec14.045801.13711@spdcc.com>
	<1992Dec14.065618.22240@raven.alaska.edu>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu's message of 14 Dec 92 06:56:18 GMT

Concerning "native", "indigenous", and "aboriginal".

My Concise Oxford has the following definitions. My comments enclosed
in square brackets.

"native" (noun)
  1. One born, or whose parents are domiciled, in a place; local
     inhabitant; (Australia) white born in Australia. [so much for
     creating a soc.culture.native.australian group -kw]
  2. Member of non-European or uncivilized people.

"native" (adjective)
  ...
  3. Of one's birth, where one was born; belonging to one by right
     of birth.
  4. ...
  5. Born in a place (esp. of non-Europeans), indigenous, not exotic;
     or the natives of a place.

"indigenous" (adj.)
  Native (esp. of flora and fauna), belonging naturally. [looks a bit
  confusing -kw]

"aboriginal" (adj.)
  1. Indigenous, existing in a land at the dawn of history, or before
     arrival of colonists. [the best option, in my opinion -kw]

"aborigines" (noun, plural)
  First inhabitants, or those found in possession by colonists.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Xref: sparky news.groups:24392 soc.motss:52451
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* (was Re: new newsgroup proposal:talk.politics.motss)
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:12:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Dec15.201217.20434
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

Jess, a proposal to split motss *and* a claim that the quality of
soc.motss is worse than it ever has been before, both in the same
message? Wow!

In article <1992Dec15.012442.27914@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) suggests:

>soc.motss.politics
>   Discussions of interest to our political lives.  Phobes
>   not welcome *at all*.  No debates over "is it OK to be
>   queer?"

This won't work. We can't prevent people from posting to a newsgroup.
People will inevitably turn it into a flame pit.

>soc.motss.politics.documents
>   The famous Brian Blumberg offerings, letters received and
>   sent, manifestos, texts of laws pro and con, newspaper
>   and other media accounts, etc.

this might work, if it were moderated. No discussion at all. I still
prefer the name "soc.motss.info".

>soc.motss.coping
>   The coming-out stories, dealing with parents, dealing
>   with other individuals who have important roles in our
>   lives, including us ourselves.
>soc.motss.misc
>   The traditional fare, from opera stars to recipe books to
>   movie and pop-music icons to rodents in the rectum.

I don't think these two are separable.

I like the idea of a newsgroup for the discussion of the political
ramifications of homosexuality. But please put it in the the
talk.politics hierarchy, where it belongs, not in the soc heirarchy.
"talk.politics.homosexuality" seems to be a fine name, although
"talk.politics.motss" would work.

In any case, I think it will be a complete flame pit and largely
useless to people who are doing work on gay rights. But the similar
situation never stops talk.politics.abortion..
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/           Fortune presents gifts not according to the book
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:46:16 GMT
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC

In article <Bz7Mqv.Inq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
> And just how long will it be before 200 people cast their votes for
> rec.arts.binaries.pictures.erotica.* ?

No, meathead, that's rec.binaries.pictures.arts.erotica.
-- 
%Peter da Silva/77487-5012 USA/+1 713 274 5180/Have you hugged your wolf today?
/L{lineto}def/C{curveto}def/F{0 562 moveto 180 576 324 648 396 736 C 432 736 L
482 670 518 634 612 612 C}def/G{setgray}def .75 G F 612 792 L 0 792 L fill 1 G
324 720 24 0 360 arc fill 0 G 3 setlinewidth F stroke showpage % "Peerless"
From: mdebuitlear@vms.eurokom.ie
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 19 Dec 92 07:00:53 GMT
Organization: EuroKom Conferencing Service

In article <524@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.092916.12010@vms.eurokom.ie> mdebuitlear@vms.eurokom.ie writes:

Stuff deleted.
> 
> And now for the other side:
> 
>>Who exactly has proven that NONE of the above therapies work ?  I feel sorry 
>>for arrogant people like you with closed minds. Remember, there are close to 
>>1,000,000 people in China, for instance, who would disagree with you. 
> 
> Numbers alone do not constitute proof.

I never said it did. I was refuting the claim that all the mentioned therapies 
had been _proven_ not to work. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that the 
chinese people have been fooled for thousands of years by a therapy that 
doesn't work. (1,000,000 should actually read 1,000,000,000 as was pointed out 
to me).
> 
>>I suppose the knowledge gained over thousands of years by the chinese and 
>>here in the west (Acupuncture and Herbalism) is quackery ?  While quacks 
> 
> Not neccessarily(sp?), but that doesn't automatically make it 
> worthwhile either.  We used leeches for hundreds of years ourselves
> (interestingly enough, there are now some accepted uses for them
> to prevent blood clotting.....)
>
It was not my intention to imply proof - this, I hope, was clear in the 
context of my original post. 
> 
> Never speak in absolutes.  It will always lead to trouble.

Couldn't agree more - thats what prompted my original post.

Micheal.
E-mail M.De.Buitlear@EuroKom.ie
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RESULT: comp.society.folklore unmoderation fails 729:151
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:08:32 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

[Joel's napalm chest-thumping aside, I still can't post to
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.folklore.computers,alt.config,alt.folklore.urban
...]

In article <BzCIKI.751@polaris.async.vt.edu> jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joel K. Furr) writes:
>When you compare the incredible illogic of Brader's hijacking proposal with the
>simple reality that five minutes filling out a registration form at any of
>several free newsreading sites would have taken, you really wonder why he went
>to all this bother.

I've already shot this one down, but Joel keeps coming back to it...the facts
don't support his case. It's simply not as easy as he makes it out to be;
either there are expensive or difficult registration requirements, severe
access limits, or both.

>My thanks to the 729-odd people who said NO and saved alt.folklore.computers.

...from the 28% of the net that can't get it; presumably, the wrong 28%.
-- 
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.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Arlen Speights)
Subject: Re: STRAW VOTE ON NAME FOR NATIVE AMERICANS NEWSGROUP
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:22:33 GMT

gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

>> I still favor "soc.culture.aboriginal[.american]," absent any
>> objections from the new group proponents.  I submit it as an addition...
>> "Aboriginal" clearly distinguishes between the original occupants of
>> the land and other (largely European) "natives" who came later.  It is
>> apparently in frequent use in Canadian media in preference to
>> "Indian."

>Yes.  It is technically more correct than "native," if a bit less
>recognizable that the more commonly used terms.  As I've said before,
>for whatever it's worth, I could live with "soc.culture.aboriginal,"
>with "soc.culture.aboriginal.american" possibly to come later, if the
>traffic warrants.

Just my $.02:  I prefer "indigenous" to "aboriginal," because aboriginal,
while semantically correct, tends to refer to the Austrailian Aborigines
in common usage.  And while their situation is very similar to their
counterparts the world over, it's less general than "indigenous" or for
that matter "native."  If a general term for indigenous/aboriginal/native
peoples is the goal, I think "indigenous" is most applicable with the 
least confusion.  It's not in usage among many North American Indian
groups that I know of, except for persons who are well educated and active
in social/political scenes.  And I'm not sure that all net.readers would
recognize the purpose of the group under such a name.  But it does
distinguish the peoples it describes more accurately than "native."  Do
we want to name the group with the Most accuracy and risk having some
potential participants not recognize the group?  If "indigenous" and
"aboriginal" are likely to belie the nature of the group, then I'd rather
go ahead with soc.culture.native.  Any thoughts?

Arlen
-- 
:-(-:-(-:-(-:-( speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu )-:-)-:-)-:-)-:
"Even now, we scarcely feel our hearts beat before they break in protest"
                                                         -Stanley Diamond
                                                                       --
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native