HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:13:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0IJJB.5q.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Some comments on Bill Nelson's proposal:

>This would be an excellent place for Christians, Bible Scholars, 
>or people just interested in reading the Bible to come together 
>from all over the world and share *their* interpretations of God's 
>word.

>This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the 
>Bible, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under 
>question.

There are plenty of Bible scholars who are not Christian, or who do not
believe in the inerrancy of the Hebrew or the Christian Bible.  The first
excerpt above implies that their contributions would be welcome, but the
second one implies that discussion would be limited to 'orthodox'
Christian viewpoints.   Which is it?

(I should add that the moderated religion groups I'm familiar with
 require posts to be on-topic, but do not require them to be from any
 religious viewpoint; for instance, postings from both Christians and, say,
 atheists, are welcome on s.r.christian.  This is a good policy, IMO.)

> I would like to propose that the 
>members of the group decide upon what they would like to discuss
>[with discussion limited to a week normally.]   If 
>further discussion is desired, the group can either decide to 
>continue the discussion or take it to email.

How would these decisions be determined?  It's easy in a small face-to-face
group or mailing list to determine consensus, but I'm not sure how
it would work in a Usenet newsgroup.

It may be a better policy to use standard prefixes on subject lines to
identify which books or passages are being discussed.  That way,
discussion can continue in parallel on particular segments as long as
people are interested (or until they start getting repetitive), and
readers can use subject search and kill facilities to follow the
threads they're interested in.

>For those who do not have access to Bibles, they can either be 
>directed to an ftp site where they can access electronic copies, 
>portions of the Bible can be broadcasted on the last day of the 
>prevous discussion period (as long as permission is granted first 
>- to avoid copyright infringement)

The King James version is available on many sites, and is not under
copyright, so it can be broadcast freely.  Newer translations are
generally still under copyright.  I'm not sure where you'd get the
deuterocanonical books (the 'Old Testament Apocrypha'), though; are
they in any of the on-line KJV's?  (If there's a Douay translation
on-line, that should be out of copyright now, and would have them.)

John Ockerbloom
-- 
==========================================================================
ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu                4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217
From: Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 15:05:16 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

I posted a request for discussion in rec.food.cooking, and the positive
response is phenomenol! We believe this will be a VERY ACTIVE newsgroup,
and so are requesting it be added.

Renee Roberts
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:10:35 GMT

>I used to apply this label to myself, until I got tired of trying to
>justify some of the inanities that scoundrels looking for a flag to
>wrap themselves in attached to it.

Oh come on, you're not really going to let your opinions about certain
"scoundrels" ban a useful word from the vocabulary?  Come to think of it,
what interest is it of yours anyway?  You no longer think of yourself 
as conservative, fine, but what right do you have to decide who gets to
use that label or even if it can be used at all.  Most of those 
you consider "evangelical scoundrels" I would consider kindred spirits
on most political issues.  Granted that Pat Robinson is a dangerous man,
but not all the evangelicals are  Pat Robinson and even though I think 
he's either a nut case or a dangerous demagogue, I wouldn't presume 
to take away his right to use the word conservative.  There are always
fringe groups. That doesn't mean that "conservative" needs to be disgarded.
From: warren@opl.com (Warren Lavallee)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Input on RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:13:20 GMT
Organization: OPL, Inc.

Here's my thoughts.

The name should have the "christian" tag in it somewhere.

soc.religion.christian.biblestudy  (as someone else suggested is fine.)

A statement needs to be made (if it hasn't been already) what the
definition of "christian" and "bible" mean.

There are so many different interpretations of the word christian and bible
in the world, we all need to be talking about the same thing.

Some may define a christian as Steve Martin in the new movie, 
President-Elect Clinton, or Randall Terry.  Some may even use the words
"Faith" "In-Errant" "Bible" and "Jesus" in the same sentence.

Bible needs to be defined as well.  We can assume a "christian Bible".  
Are the Catholic's additions to the bible bible too?  Is the Quran bible
too?  The Pearl of Great Price?  D&C?  The Watchtower?  The Essene Gospel 
of Peace? etc...

I think a line needs to be drawn between "christian" and "christian cult" and
cult.

A policy needs to be made on what posts will be accepted and what will not
be accepted.  Strict rules are not censorship.  Many moderators have strict
rules/policies on submissions.

After all these are resolved, I would probally vote for it.

-- 
--- 
Warren Lavallee - System Manager
warren@opl.com

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lwv26@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Reply-To: lvirden@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
Organization: Nedriv Software and Shoe Shiners, Uninc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:05:47 GMT

How about, as an alternative to the name, soc.religion.christian.biblestudy -
otherwise, won't there be confusion about what bible or holy book the group
is intended?

Even that probably isn't specific enough - perhaps:

soc.religion.christian.protestant.biblestudy

so that later one might see 

soc.religion.christian.mormon.biblestudy

soc.religion.christian.catholic.biblestudy

soc.religion.christian.newage.biblestudy

whatever...
-- 
Larry W. Virden                 UUCP: osu-cis!chemabs!lvirden
Same Mbox: BITNET: lvirden@cas  INET: lvirden@cas.org
Personal: 674 Falls Place,   Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposal for sci.geo.eosdis has not been adequately discussed?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 23:07:07 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: news
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

J R Evans (ngse18@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: community.  I feel this proposal needs discussion, as the CFV fails to
: show why this objective cannot very satisfactorily be fulfilled through a 
: mailing list. (I say this as one with a potential interest in the material).

The existence of a newsgroup does not preclude the availablitity of the
same info via a mailing list.  If anything it makes it easier, since
it is trivial to turn a moderated newsgroup into a mail distribution
at any site running a modern version of news software.

--Ed
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.lang.ml
Originator: nickh@SNOW.FOX.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1993Jan9.234250.29867@olymp.informatik.uni-bonn.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:30:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.234250.29867@olymp.informatik.uni-bonn.de> mh@uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de (Martin Honnen) writes:

   As not subscribed to the sml-mailing list, i don't know the topics discussed
   there, but regarding the topics described above i think there is no need
   for a new newsgroup especially for the ML family of languages.

   All the proposed topics can be discussed on the newsgroup comp.lang.functional, and i think they should be discussed on this list
   because the majority of the members of the functional language community
   is interested in functional language topics, as this ML topics are, 
   independent of the personal favourite language. 

Ah, but not being subscribed to the mailing list you are missing part
of the point of a new newsgroup. Recent discussions on the mailing
list include pretty-printing SML, extending the SML type system in
various ways, porting the SML/NJ compiler to various architectures,
styles of using the ML module system, teaching texts for ML
(recommendations, questions, corrections), ML libraries, and the
Extended ML language for formal development of SML programs. Many of
these topics are too specific for c.l.f, a group that is in any case
dominated by lazy languages.

SML is turning into a major language, with tens of thousands of users.
It is used for programming real applications in industry, and as a
research language in operating systems, databases, concurrency, and
(of course) language compilation. It is more than `just another'
research functional language, and needs more than just a corner of
c.l.f

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: foo@netcom.com (Mark Hall)
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Summary: entry newsgroup has too little traffic to split
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:18:58 GMT

In article <1isp5dINNpc4@rodan.UU.NET> weinss@rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
)These proposals are independent.  Some can be approved without the others:
)3. Split misc.jobs.offered.entry into misc.jobs.offered.entry.almost and
)	misc.jobs.offered.entry.newgrads to because of complaints by people
)	who felt that jobs requiring experience were de facto not entry level.

   In the 8 months that misc.jobs.offered has existed, there have been
about 428 articles. I would guess that more than half of those articles 
were NOT job offers at all. Near graduation, about 90% were 'I want a job' 
and 'you're an idiot, quit posting that you want a job' postings. 

   The actual offers have been less than 1 per day.

   Rather than split the group, it would be more appropriate to rmgroup it.
Surely there is no need for *another* entry-level group.

  - mark
From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: <None>
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:08:08 EST

In article <1992Dec18.030145.18903@ssc.com>, markz@ssc.com (Mark Zenier) writes:
> 
> JKF (jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
> : People who are at sites where the news admins are STILL refusing to carry
> : alt.folklore.computers can always telnet to nyx.cs.du.edu, login as guest,
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Netnews is not just on the Internet.
> 
> A UUCP site with a restricted feed, or worse yet, a MS-DOS (Waffle?)
> site feed from whatever source just doesn't work that way.  And out

Ah, but we Wafflers can usually find someone nearby who is willing
to feed a newsgroup we want to be able to read.  We are not at the
mercy of some almighty sysadmin.  We are the sysadmin or we have
access to the sysadmin.  And we're usually not considered a nuisance.

dan   dlhpfm!dlh
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics,alt.fan.dale-bass
From: craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:04:30 GMT

In article <1iibmbINNmcd@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.014448.2722@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (.) writes:
>>   I don't agree. He is just the only one with the patience and
>>tenacity to bother with some of the noise-makers.

>Didn't he just aggravate the "Religion & Physics Don't Mix"
>debate by using his Physicist reputation in a Religious pose?

   Why do you always claim that he is religious?  He stated many times 
in that debate that he was an atheist.  Those who didn't follow this debate 
(and who can blame them?) would not be aware that it consisted largely of 
you and Dale insulting each other.  It finally came to an end with his 
announcement that he would stop, i.e. in the end he showed more committment 
to noise reduction than you did.  You are hardly in a position to take the 
high moral ground here.


===================================================================
  Doug Craigen, Department of Physics, Acadia University,
  Wolfville, N.S., B0P 1X0, (902) 542 - 2201 x150

  Da seaweed is always greena
  In somebody else's lake
      -Sebastian (the crab in "The Little Mermaid")
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.lang.ml
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:27:59 GMT

In article <8592@laas.laas.fr> bernard@ava.laas.fr writes:
>I vote yes for comp.lang.ml

No you didn't; neither did the other two or three posters I've seen
here, either. 

1) The group is still in the *discussion* phase;

2) Posted votes *do not count*.

Please wait for the Call For Votes (CFV) and follow the instructions
in it for your voting...


-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Data sheet: HSN-3000 Nuclear Event Detector. The [NED] senses the gamma
radiation pulse [from a] nuclear weapon." As if we wouldn't notice...
Lines: 11
Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 09:36:17 MST
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Newsgroups: news.groups
Followup-To: news.groups
Subject: Re: proposal to rename comp.sys.novell
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
	<oes1b1-user.1.726132032@oes1q3.itri.org.tw>
	<1993Jan5.014723.12621@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na

psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S R Chisholm) writes:

> I agree with the suggestion that comp.sys.novell be renamed.  I like
> the comp.os.netware suggestion.

   I agree that the name comp.os.netware is better than
comp.sys.novell, but not so much better that renaming the group is
worthwhile.  Comp.sys.novell may not be the best name for the group,
but its a clear and unambiguous name that works.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: ythoo@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Yih Toong Hoo)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.malaysia
Date: 12 Jan 1993 02:50:27 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Christopher Barrera (barrera@mtu.edu) wrote:
: I would like to call together a discussion for the creation of
: a new newgroup, tentatively called "soc.culture.malaysia"
: 
: The proposed group is unmoderated. That is, all who wish to join
: may freely do so.
: 
: Proposed CHARTER for the proposed group "soc.culture.malaysia" -
: 
:    The proposed group, soc.culture.malaysia, is intended for
:    the discussion of all topics pertaining to Malaysia, including
:    but not limited to: culture, national politics, foreign diplomacy,
:    economy, peoples, and land.
: 
: 
: Why I feel this newsgroup should be created -
: 
: 1) The current newsgroup in which most discussion of Malaysia
:    occurs is "soc.culture.asean". It seems that most of the
:    discussion in this group as a whole pertains to either
:    Malaysia or Singapore (which perhaps should have a group) 
:    rather than pertaining to ASEAN. This strongly hints that
:    a separate group should be created for discussion of Malaysia.
:   
	[ much stuffs deleted ] 
: 
: 3) soc.culture.asean, as mentioned in #1 above, no longer has much
:    talk about ASEAN as a whole, suggesting the group is no longer
:    fulfilling its intended purpose. Perhaps it should be dissolved
:    or renamed with a new charter. Anyhow, it now seems an apropriate
:    time for soc.culture.malaysia to be created.

	Yup! I strongly support the above idea !!!
--
..................................................................
    /                ___     
   /-------  \  /   |   |  /  ~- Yih Toong Hoo ( Malaysian )       
  /| --- |  ------  | / | / / ~- ythoo@tartarus.uwa.edu.au          
   | | | |   /  \  ------- /  ~- University of Western Australia   
   | --- | |------| |   | / / ~-----------------------------------
   |     | | \  / | |   |  /    Avoid all evils ! Do all good ! 
   |    \|----------|  \| /     
       

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:18:07 GMT



nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>> In fact, depending on the choice of moderator, it might restrict
>> discussion even further.  Different sects/churches have different
>> interpretations of the Bible, attach different weight to the various
>> books.  (I have been told, by a member of one church, that his church
>> was based on strict interpretation of the Bible, and that their
>> interpretation was correct and any different interpretation was wrong.
>> A bit of digging revealed that they totally ignored the Old Testament.)

>> The proposed group could be very interesting, but by moderating it it
>> could very easily turn into a propaganda instrument to preach one
>> particular view, while preventing dissenting views from being presented.

Propaganda is the farthest thing from my mind when I proposed this group.
I simply wanted to present a forum for people to come together and discuss
their interpretations of the Bible.  Yes this is going to be diverse, but
I am currently in a *personal* Bible study group now and find out that 
differing opinions can be quite interesting and enlightening.  

>> I wasn't going to vote initially, but I think I now would vote no to
>> this proposal.  I would refrain from voting if the group was
>> unmoderated, or the name clearly reflected the scope planned by the
>> moderators.

Yes, the name has come under a bit of scrutiny.  A more appropriate name
has been proposed as "soc.religion.christian.biblestudy".:w

>> A question to illustrate my point - would the proposed group deal with
>> the Apocrypha, which is recognized by some and not by others as part of
>> the Bible?

I would say that if information in sources such as the Apocrypha deal with
the topic at hand, then they should be allowed in the discussion.



--
Bill Nelson
AT&T Paradyne
Largo, FL (USA)
(813)530-8696
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.food.cooking
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:05:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.013436.16143@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>It might make a lot of sense to issue a formal, official, posted-by-Tale
>RFD on SOME variant of this idea.  

For pete's sake man, lay off, ok?  You've made the point, and nobody
has disagreed with you.  It's in an informal stage right now, and
there's nothing wrong with that.  Given the wide range of ideas right
now, it makes more sense to select a reasonable name over the next few
days, *then* go to a formal RFD stage.

>Prediction: three weeks down the road, someone's going to finally author the
>official, formal, posted-by-Tale RFD.  One week after that someone will
>post the CFV and get upset when they're told "sorry, but you've got three
>more weeks of discussion to go through before you can do that."

Prediction:  Joel Furr continues to have a bug up his as*, and keeps
spouting the same thing over and over again for the next several days,
oblivious to the fact that everyone heard him the first time, and stopped
listening after his second post...

-- 
Michael Bryan     michael@resonex.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 04:50:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.200615.21938@pdn.paradyne.com> oxley@pdn.paradyne.com (Don Oxley) writes:
>
>Based on your example, these individuals would be using the bible as a
>research resource rather than studying God's word.  I don't believe that
>it was Bill's original intent to shun any individual or group from adding
>to the discussion, but rather trying to prevent useless discussions over
>whether or not God exists, the bible is truth or fable, etc.  I believe
>that his intent is to create a forum to discuss verses with a goal of
>gaining more insight into the scriptures.  

I would oppose a group that imposed a limited set of conclusions to be
reached in discussion/debate.  Usenet's strength is discussion between
varying viewpoints, not propaganda (and anything that propagates only
"approved" views is propaganda).

Take the opposite example - the creation of a moderated atheism group
that didn't allow the discussion of God's possible existence.  What's
your reaction to such group?

If someone's reading of the Bible leads them to different conclusions
from yours, then that is a valid subject for discussion.

>If anyone can provide any insight on how this can better be done, please
>let it be known.

I would suggest a mailing list, if this is your intent.  Usenet should
be open to anyone, whatever their beliefs; all moderation should do is
try to improve the signal/noise ratio, not restrict dissenting views.

The purpose of the discussion is to restrict discussion to a topic, not
to an opinion.  (I know - you don't think of your beliefs as "opinions".
But you do think of my own, different, beliefs as opinions, and I am
free to feel the same way about yours.)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: roder@cco.caltech.edu (Brenda J. Roder)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Date: 6 Jan 1993 19:51:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) writes:

>Why not just have a rec.food.bread or rec.food.baking? You can discuss
>all forms of bread or baking without having a group for some fad machine.
>However, I'm open to change. Convince me. Why don't you start with an
>alt group and see how long the enthusiasm lasts?

One thing not mentioned is that the main impetus for this group proposal is
the shutting down of a 600 member mailing list.  I would say that shows a
certain amount of existing traffic and approval.
-- 
-- Brenda (roder@cobalt.caltech.edu)
Thought before action, if there's time.
    _The Edge_  Dick Francis
Xref: sparky news.groups:25289 rec.food.cooking:24803
From: 01f@pnet16.cts.com (Rmc Walker )
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.food.cooking
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:36:05 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet16], NCTAMS EASTPAC

How about rec.food.breadmaking?
Scott

UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!01f
ARPA: humu!nctams1!pnet16!01f@nosc.mil
INET: 01f@pnet16.cts.com
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:53:24 GMT

In article <id.ILEW.B28@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>My original point was a reaction to
>the people who wanted to call it "talk.politics.reactionary", and the
>motivation was to point out that one tag is as good as another, so why
>not let folks use whatever name they want?
>
>Are you *trying* to start *that* proposal up again?

Oh, just you wait for talk.politics.conservative.logs!

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /