HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: billd@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Bill D'Camp)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Grumman Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:37:36 GMT

Is it really necessary to go through all of this again?  While the PB
series has some unique features, it is not sufficiently different from
desktop MACs to warrant a separate newsgroup.  I am against this
unnecessary fragmentation of comp.sys.mac.*.  I say this even though I
own a PB140 and use it constantly at home and on the road.
-- 
    _   /|
    \`o_O'
      ( )    Aachk! Phft!
       U     billd@gdstech.grumman.com
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Brian Hughes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split -- possible compromise?
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:40:48 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

cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

>In article <1jg80oINNd1g@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>>In <1993Jan18.114316.19501@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>>>Wrong.  Splitting it into .reviews will *EXACERBATE* the problem of
>>>too much traffic in .current.
>>
>>While at the same time causing it to cease being a problem at all for some
>>subset of the readers (those who unsubscribe to .current) and making it much
>>less of a problem for others (those who continue to skim .current but read
>>the reviews).

>But think of how many *will* unsubscribe to current!  Surely you will
>agree that we should not split the r.a.s. hierarchy in a way that
>will *discourage* people from taking an interest in and participating
>in intelligent discussion about Star Trek!  Let's not provide
>disincentives for people to unsubscribe to .current.

    Disincentives? The people who would unsubscribe from .current are
those people who aren't interested in the debates but are interested in
the review of the shows. That is the whole purpose of subscribing only
to .reviews. There is no disincentive here.

>Also, remember that the *point* of reviews is to take part in the
>ensuing debate and discussion.  

    No, the point of a review if for the reviewer to express his/her
opinion on what ever is the subject of said review. The debate and
discussion that you talk about is a side effect of UseNet.

>Being able to do a little more than skim current is an important part of
>this, but under the .reviews scheme, people *still* won't have the
>energy to post a lot of followups.

    So? All of this talk about this proposal not reducing the level of
traffic in .current, and here you are complaining that more people won't
post followups to reviews. 

>We could have r.a.s.c.ds9 and r.a.s.c.tng *and* r.a.s.c.reviews.  I
>would be willing to compromise and accept .reviews if we also split
>current so people could manageably critique the reviews.  DS9 reviews,
>however, should be crossposted to r.a.s.c.ds9, and tng reviews to
>r.a.s.c.tng; the moderator would be responsible for this.

    Am I the only that really doesn't want to deal with 5 level
newsgroup names? The proposal is for rec.arts.startrek.reviews, and not
r.a.st.current.reviews. Is there some law someplace that says you can't
review something that might not be considered current? It would be quite
trivial to set the Followup-To: header to rec.arts.startrek.misc instead
of .current.

--
-Brian V. Hughes 
"December 1 - What begins as a friendly transitional get-together between
 the Bushes and the Clintons ends in tragedy when Millie ralphs up what
 is later identified as Socks the cat." Dave Barry 1992 Year in Review
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen)
Subject: Re: s.r.christian.bible-study
Reply-To: bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
Organization: delab
	<1jmcmvINN3f1@umbc8.umbc.edu> <C17w3M.44s@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<adams.727664008@spssig>
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:56:59

In article <adams.727664008@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:

>>But it is also about the Jewish Bible, and my Bible.  Moving up 
>>one level in the hierarchy introduces no ambiguity, especially 
>>because the charter explains exactly what is meant by "Bible."  
>>Few would misunderstand the name soc.religion.bible-study, but as 
>>you can see by my own reaction, one might misunderstand the intent 
>>of soc.religion.CHRISTIAN.bible-study.
>>
>>Again, what is the intended audience?  Those who use the Bible in
>>their quest for enlightenment.  The Bible is shared by several
>>religions, and therefore I see no reason for claiming the Bible as
>>your own.

>No one is claiming the Bible as their own.  There will be no restriction in
>posters' ideologies.  Placing it in an existing heirarchy helps get it
>picked up by sys admins. 


But then soc.religion IS an existing hierarchy!

Why is soc.religion.christian a better hierarchy than soc.religion?

I will not oppose the group with the proposed name, but I think we have
seen far more valid reasons for s.r.b-s than for s.r.c.b-s.

Bjorn

--
______________________________________________________________________
               s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________
From: eomiya@borland.com (Elliot Omiya)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:30:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Borland International, Inc.
Originator: eomiya@genghis.borland.com

re: Move rec.boats and rec.skiing and others to rec.outdoors.*

No.  They're fine where they are.  If you want to move camping and back-
packing there, fine, those all seem related.


-=<EHO>=-
Xref: sparky news.groups:25938 rec.arts.startrek.misc:14119 rec.arts.startrek.current:24877
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:11:46 EST
From: Jeffrey S. Payne <JSP6@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: rec.arts.startrek.current - split survey

Well folks, here it is, the final results of the r.a.s.c split survey!

I proposed that 2 new groups be added to r.a.s:

rec.arts.startrek.current.ds9
rec.arts.startrek.current.tng

and further amended my proposal to LEAVE .current for discussion of
movies, comics, etc.

...And here are the results:

Yes, split as above:                     61
Yes, split, but with some other plan:     4
No, do .reviews as an alternative:        3
No, don't do any stinkin split:          21

Last week I posted some preliminary results, hoping that if the "no" people
saw that they were behind by a 2 to 1 margin, it would get out a bigger "no"
vote,  giving a truer representation of the net.opinion.  Well, obviously
I was wrong, and the majority grew to a 3 to 1 margin, SHOWING CLEARLY TO ALL
that there is considerable support for a split of some form.

I have been beat silly by two opinions made by the "No" supporters:

 1) DS9 is Too young to be considering a split...give it a couple of months.
 2) It would take a couple of months before there could even be a vote for a
    split.

I think those two points meld together quite well:  another bit of wisdom I rea
d over the last two weeks is that splits shouldn't be made hastily, that much
discussion needs to go into a split.  (hence point #2)  I think it is obvious
that some sort of split of the traffic on .current needs to be made.  If we
take the time NOW to discuss the best way to make that split, in a couple of
months, when there is a CFV, DS9 will have matured, giving readers a better
Idea of what the traffic is going to be like on a regular basis.

Hopefully this discussion can change from "Should we have a split?" to "What
kind of split should we have?".  I think this step is critical.  If there were
a CFV for the .current split above, it would surely pass, But I believe that
further discussion is important to make sure that it would be the right split.

I have thought about the .reviews idea, and my opinion is that the traffic in
.info is very low, and I think that it should be considered adding reviews to
the charter.  (continuing to be moderated of course)

Last point:  This discussion should take place in news.groups.  My news reader
will not let me set the followup groups, so please, if you followup to this
post, do so to news.groups only.  Let's not make the traffic on .current any
worse.

Jeff Payne
Penn State Ogontz Campus              |Bitnet:   JSP6@PSUVM
Computer Assisted Learning Center     |Internet: payne@toto.oz.psu.edu
"Why don't you handle your love problems like a man...do some push-ups...
 take a cold shower...buy a new socket set..."
       -Jim Dial to Murphy, _Murphy_Brown_
From: zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org (Gordon C. Zaft)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Status of soc.religion.mormon?
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:59:07 GMT
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ

Okay, I guess I missed it.  What's the status of the soc.religion.mormon?
Has it been RFD'd?

GZ
-- 
* Gordon Zaft     Argus Consulting  4500 E. Sunrise #N-6, Tucson, AZ 85718
* zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org | noao.edu!coyote!caritas!zaft
                 Semper fidelis Christi et Vicarii sui.
From: wmcgillivray@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU (DARK_KNIGHT)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: proposed star trek split
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:35:57 GMT
Reply-To: wmcgillivray@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: oavax.csuchico.edu

Personally, I would like to see a group r.a.s.t.r or rec.arts.startrek.
reviews and another called r.a.s.t.ds9.r or rec.arts.startrek.DS9.reviews.
These two groups would be solely for reviews of the shows, not for nit
picking on particular things on the show.  That way those of us who wish
to read the reviews only without a lot of pickey-pickey stuff in them
can enjoy a review covering the whole show and not just a minor detail
pickey part.  I, for one, do not care that there are inconsistancies,
character flaws, or what have you.  I watch the show for enjoyment,
not to find errors.

Wayne
From: psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S R Chisholm)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Summary: perhaps comp.os.win-nt?
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:26:49 GMT
Reply-To: psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S R Chisholm)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1jvvqbINNeqn@rodan.UU.NET> georged@sequent.com (George Dolbier) writes:
>This is a Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of:
>comp.os.nt (unmoderated)
>
>SYNOPSIS:
>---------
>	The proposed newsgroup is intended to provide a forum for 
>discussing topics relating to the Microsoft Windows NT operating 
>system.
>...
>PROBLEMS:
>---------
>	First problem: the name. comp.os.nt is short and to the point, 
>but maybe too short.  comp.os.windows-nt is too long, comp.os.windowsnt
>is too mushed, comp.os.ms-windows.nt IS NOT the correct location.

"windows-nt" is only (um, carry the three) nine characters.  Too long
for what?  If you want something slightly shorter, try "win-nt".  Only
time will tell if "NT" will be a recognizable abbreviation for
Windows-NT; more time than you want to take creating groups.

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories/EasyLink Services,
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.usa,alt.censorship,alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.headlines
From: cass8806@elan.rowan.edu (Kyle Cassidy)
Subject: Re: public appeal to John DiNardo to stop posting to soc.culture.usa
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:39:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.194420.24912@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:

>At the very least, we could get 100 people to vote in a group named
>"alt.pacifica" (moderated by him, of course), so that interested readers 
>could find all his stuff in one place.  Then, he could "spread the 
>word" by posting notices of what is there -- rather than harassing the 
>readers of all these boards with multiple, multipart postings rebroadcasting 
>every single transcript in its entirety.
>
hear hear! what a brilliant idea. i'd vote for it. i don't mind seeing his 
posts, but seeing them on EVERY board i read is something entirely 
different. least he hasn't been on rec.rollercoasters in a while....
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:26:05 GMT
Organization: Coastal Imaging Lab, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu

In article <C1J5qA.7Mn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1k6l1lINNnu8@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>
>> There is no reason to mandate crossposting.
>
>Mandate, no. Allow, yes.

This has been a discussion of the mandatory cross-posting provision of
the proposal.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: Proposed Charter for soc.culture.native
Keywords: charter, native, soc.native.culture
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:11:59 GMT

In <C15yru.L5C@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@dartmouth.edu writes:

>     I know that this post seems out of date, but everything that I have
> posted since the first of the year never made it out of my site. I
> apologize if the discussion in question has already ended.

...

>     With all of the posts coexisting in the one group, I don't see why
> there is a need to single out the "informational side of the forum".

Yes, this aspect of the discussion has, I believe, already ended, since
Mike has incorporated the language suggested about "the informational
side" into the new RFD.


> What makes a post about a human rights case any more important than some
> other post? They are all posts to soc.culture.native.

It's important in the sense that direct human suffering is being talked
about.  Importance, like beauty, may be in the eye of the beholder, though.

> ...Personally I don't see the need
> for further discussion on Mike's proposal for s.c.native.

Then you need not take part in the discussion.  However, Mike has issued
a new RFD, so some dialogue will likely be taking place.

--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:04:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.195859.4880@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:

>While cross-fertilization is good, traffic and ease-of-use concerns
>encourage a split. Since the gaming hobby as a whole has a standard
>split (rpg, boardgames, miniatures), it makes sense to split
>according to that. And the hobby _as a whole_ lumps all miniaturists
>together. Just as Europa players are lumped in with Axis & Allies 
>players.

I don't think so.  I agree that the hobby does acknowledge a split
between boardgames and miniatures.  However, it also acknowledges
a split between historical and non-historical gaming.  Look at
the publications, for example, where you have your DRAGON on the
one hand and your COURIER on the other.  Then look at your conventions.
Some are indeed mixed.  However, others, such as Historicon, are
exclusively or almost exclusively for one or the other type of
gaming.  Look at your local clubs.  Again, some are mixed, while
others seem to concentrate on one game type or the other.

>Historical discussions could be cross-posted or put in soc.history or
>alt.war.*.

Would extensive discussions of the merits of this or that rules set
as a historical simulation really be welcome in those groups?

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@indiana.edu
From: jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Smiley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Mailing list software (Was Re: RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated)
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:16:43 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

bell@cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:
:)Also, I've been unable to find generic mailing list software, and had
:)to write my own shell scripts.  Are there any PA mailing list software
:)packages available for generic UNIX sites?

The procmail mail handling package inclues some pretty decent sections for
handling mailing lists. It can be anon-ftp'd from 137.226.112.172.

-- 
        Josh Laff              #     #      
email to: smiley@uiuc.edu     _       _     Hello! I am a signature virus!  
      (217) 384-6249         |#\_____/#|    Join the fun and copy mo*#(*&^!>.
                              \#######/
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergad
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:31:54 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu


I see nothing in this RFD that is not already part of the subject matter for
existing groups. The technical issues can be handled by the comp.edu
newsgroup; the social issues by the soc.college or sci.research.careers

The group is also badly named. It is not obvious what it is about unless
you read the charter, At the very least, it should be part of the
comp.society hierarchy. I do not see any reason for a new second level
redundant hierarchy (comp is approx equiv to cs IMHO). 
-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:24:43 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1jkr41INNr24@rodan.UU.NET> labccc@emory.edu (Chris Chung) writes:

>2.) More specifically provide topic of disscussion that
>	only be pertinant to PB users. For example: Travel or
>	power management.

I am strongly opposed to any new comp.sys.mac.* group that is centered on
a particular model or Apple Product Family. 

However, that said, I would consider a comp.sys.mac.* group dedicated to
portable computing issues to be of value. A hypothetical
comp.sys.mac.portable (or whatever) would provide a place for Portable,
PowerBook, Outbound, and PowerBook Duo users to discuss the issues that
are particular to portable computing. Travel and power management being of
particular interest.
Hardware conflicts, software incompatibilities, etc belong in
comp.sys.mac.hardward and the other approriate groups. If we started a new
group for every set of macs that had some individual traits then we would
have a group for every single Apple product family (bad idea!).

Also, a generic portable computing group would be able to encompass all
new portable Macintosh computers without any name conflicts (PowerBooks
won't be around forever, hopefully Apple will come up with a successor).
This would ALSO maintain the general style of the current comp.sys.mac.*
hierarchy structure.

>3.) PB readers would be free of sifting through large amounts
>	articles looking for PB relevant information.

Bad reason. Next the Mac II and Quadra owners will want the same thing.
Where do you draw the line? When you get to comp.sys.mac.quadra.cache-off?

>4.) Lastly, benefit PB users by exchanging advise, opinions, and
>	experiences.

We can already do that.

> If you support the creation of this group, please submit articles to
> news.groups.

And please submit something more than "Gee, I'd like to see that." If
that's all you have to say wait for a vote! Save the bandwidth for
something else.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
    "An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible,
     whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
		-Spock, "STVI:TUC", Stardate 9523.8
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split -- possible compromise?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:58:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>In article <1jg80oINNd1g@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>>In <1993Jan18.114316.19501@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

>>>Wrong.  Splitting it into .reviews will *EXACERBATE* the problem of
>>>too much traffic in .current.
>>
>>While at the same time causing it to cease being a problem at all for some
>>subset of the readers (those who unsubscribe to .current) and making it much
>>less of a problem for others (those who continue to skim .current but read
>>the reviews).

>But think of how many *will* unsubscribe to current!  Surely you will
>agree that we should not split the r.a.s. hierarchy in a way that
>will *discourage* people from taking an interest in and participating
>in intelligent discussion about Star Trek!  

This is a spurious argument.  This proposal, ideally, would allow people to
remove themselves from discussions in which *they are not interested in 
participating*.

This was the point of r.a.s.info:  it allowed people to get the informational
posts without having to wade through the mire of rec.arts.startrek.

This was also the point of r.a.s.tech and r.a.s.fandom, and to some extent
r.a.s.current.  .tech and .fandom had specialized groups of fans interested
in the group; those people found the discussion more localized, and those 
people *not* interested in, for instance, tech discussion had an easy chance
to unsubscribe completely from r.a.s.tech and concentrate on the discussions
that *did* interest them.  (And yes, I'm using myself as an example for that
last.)

If your aim is not to let anyone unsubscribe from anything, then no split
you propose will do a damned bit of good.  

>Also, remember that the *point* of reviews is to take part
>in the ensuing debate and discussion.  

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what the point of things I happen to 
*write* was, Chris.  My reviews express my opinions; Michael's express his.
Neither Mike Shappe nor I respond much in the subsequent discussion, because
we've said what we felt we needed to.  The reviews are certainly, in part,
likely to *spark* discussion, which is good; but that does not necessitate
that the original reviewer be a participant in the followups.

>Yes, the two proposals are not mutually exclusive; I hadn't thought of
>that.  We could have r.a.s.c.ds9 and r.a.s.c.tng *and* r.a.s.c.reviews.

You must be kidding.  Just how many groups does Trek deserve, Chris?

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wlieftin@cs.vu.nl (Liefting W)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:18:11 GMT

fms@sw.stratus.com (Faith Senie) writes:

>Hey, wow, an orienteering newsgroup would be great!  I learned about orienteering
>at a kayaking symposium (of all places) last summer, and have not heard anything
>about any orienteering activity in my area since then.  This would be a great way
>to find out more about the sport, and find out if there is any activity in my
>area.  Consider me in favor of the group!

Yeah, me too.
but I think the name should be rec.sport.orienteering, or maybe even
rec.orienteering, instead of r.outdoors.o

I think the creation of the whole r.outdoors.* hierarchie is unnecessary,
since it is obvious that orienteering, skiing, kanoeing etc. etc. is an
outdoor activity / sport.

I would, although, love the idea of creating rec.backpacking. (And it's
obvious that that's an outdoor activity too...)

Wouter Liefting
wlieftin@cs.vu.nl