HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:44:29 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <Bx8rLr.6vF@cen.ex.ac.uk>, ma90gjp@cen.ex.ac.uk writes:
> Can somebody please let me know how to get onto rec.games.frp.campaigns
> cos I can't find it.
> I've run out of ideas for high level (10+) scenarios and I think this group
> might help

See how bad the name is? We don't even have the group and people already
think it's something other than the person who proposed it intended. By
the way, Graham, if you want a group for campaign descriptions, try
rec.games.frp.archives.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
Xref: sparky news.groups:21411 alt.folklore.computers:16167 alt.folklore.urban:28312
From: otto@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (M. Otto, "Virtual Prisoner of the VAX")
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: leave alt.folklore.computers alone, rmgroup comp.society.folklore
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:34:48 GMT
Organization: University of North Texas

The only way I can see alt.folklore.urban being moved to the soc.* heirarchy
is to have the name soc.net.alt.folklore.urban.  That keeps the "alt"
contingent happy.

--
         __ ____ __      otto@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
 /|/|   / / / / / /  A virtual prisoner of the VAX     // I'm sorry; my karma
/   |. /_/ / / /_/  at The University of North Texas \X/  ran over your dogma
                             Denton, USA
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Intentional ignorance of newsgroup creation (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:36:00 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
>chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>There are lots of important things that the majority of people don't
>>bother to learn, because they just don't care to go to the trouble.
>
>ALL ignorance is not born out of awareness and then denial!

Of course.  But then, that wasn't my claim.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
From: gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Islam and Ahmadiyya -- Enough
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:51:20 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <1dap0oINNi2j@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>[Dislaimer:  I neither know very much nor have anything against either
>Islam or Ahmadiyya.]
>
>It would seem to me that the discussion of a new group has evolved
>into a religious debate.  I would respectfully suggest that it be
>moved to one of the religious groups; it does not belong here.
>
>Thank you.

I have refrained from indulging in continuing a religious discussion.
I agree that it is not relevant in this newsgroup.  I also request
anyone who is interested in my opinion to refrain from long religious
discussions here - whether Ahmadis are Muslim or not is not all that
relevant.  I believe that by now everyone who is interested in this
issue is conversant with all the different viewpoints.


At least, I will *try* to refrain.  That is no guarantee that I 
will succeed. :-)

Basalat Ali Raja.
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 13 Nov 92 08:13:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: jato.1992Nov13.081328.29087
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>Despite numerous requests for this information, you have declined to
>provide it, to date.  Will you do so now?

When I was given this information, I was warned that you folks would
ask me to prove in detail each one. I submit to you that no matter 
what I say, you will find some way to discredit or disprove that
fact...whether it makes sense or not. This, therefore, is wasted
effort on my part. I know it to be true, and that's enough for me. 

>people who do not admit this (including me).  The fact that some people
>claim this is the case does not make it so; and you have not produced
>numerical proof that it was so, despite numerous requests for it.

And the fact that you claim it is not so does not prove it is not
so either. There is dispute about it...that should be enough for you
to examine what happened. 

>I'm sorry, but at this point all three points are simply claims made
>without proof.  I have provided proof for each point that I have been
>queried on; will you provide similar verifiable proof for the points
>that you have been queried on?

Not willingly. 

In order for me to entertain this discussion in a good way, there would have to
be the possibility that it would get me somewhere.

But all you seek to do is to discredit each point and prove me wrong. Fine.
Tell me why I should coooperate? What do I gain besides being kissed?
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.  There might be a
law against it by that time.
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.makers.synth
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: RENAME: Those against name change PLEASE READ!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:00:47 GMT

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
>>chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>Directing followups only to r.m.m.s is a puerile trick.
>>I wanted to show that I was fair.
>As opposed to excellent or good, perhaps?

Ah HA! So you ADMIT that a "fair" vote is not necessarily "good"!

>>>Dave, you do your argument irreparable harm by continuing to bring up
>>>straw men like "keeping up with news.groups."
>>Why?
>Because you like to champion positions not based in fact; the more you
>do so, the more people will tend not to take your positions seriously.

Facts can be massaged to hide lots of bullshit. 

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

   History is not usually what has happened.
            History is what some people have thought to be significant.
From: nsw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Neil Weinstock)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:19:16 GMT
Organization: The Flying Squid Patrol

In article <1992Nov10.184750.960@oclc.org> hch@oclc.org (Curtis Hunter) writes:
[ ... ]
>   First let me say that I don't read the affected groups, but being currently
>involved in a CFV for rec.arts.marching.* I have something to say about the
>above statement.  There are very few people I know of on alt.drumcorps or
>alt.colorguard that regularly subscribe to news.groups.  When it was decided
>to issue an RFD for the new rec groups several people posted short messages
>stating that discussion was being held in news.groups about creating
>rec.arts.marching.* to let people know where to voice their opinions.  When 
>someone posted a discussion about the new groups they were refered to 
>news.groups.  I feel that a vast majority of people that are/were concerned 
>with the new groups posted on news.groups.  Also when the CFV was issued a 
>similar message was posted telling anyone that wished to vote for the groups
>(either for or against) should look on news.groups and news.announce.groups (I 
>think that's the correct name?) for the CFV.  I think it has worked well and 
>cannot believe that NOONE on r.m.s was aware of the RFD and CFV and the affect 
>it would have on r.m.s.  I would hope hope that someone would have let the 
>group in on the "secret".  If noone did I question their interest in the group.

I did that during the RFD.  Subsequently, there still was not altogether much
discussion on it.  It did not seem like such a big deal, the name change
seemed pretty logical to me, and there weren't hordes of people howling about
it, so I didn't bother to send another notification regarding the CFV.  Had I
even dreamed of what might ensue, I would have.  Live and learn...

                                - Neil

--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--
Neil Weinstock @ AT&T Bell Labs         //     What was sliced bread
att!edsel!nsw or nsw@garage.att.com   \X/    the greatest thing since?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Subject: Re: leave alt.folklore.computers alone, rmgroup comp.society.folklore
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: Sat, 7 Nov 92 02:55:09 GMT

In article <532@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <7689@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>My administrator explicitly does not do alt.*. At all. Period. You see, he has
>>this philosophical argument with the sewer that is alt.*. He doesn't want to
>>have to deal with alt.this.time.we'll.kill.kill.kill. Not carrying alt.* is
>>his statement.
>
>You don't have to carry alt.* to carry alt.computer.folklore.  Sys files
>can be very selective.  Sometimes roses can be found in sewers, you don't
>have to take the whole sewer home to pick the rose....
>
>The point of the alt.folklore.* group seems to be that they already
>TRIED to go mainstream, and were turned down flat.  It's all or nothing
>so give 'em talk.folklore.* or soc.folklore.* and everybody will be
>happy <g>
>

NO NO NO NO NO.

Leave alt.folklore.computers RIGHT WHERE IT IS and we'll be happy.  This
is the only option you've got unless you _really_ feel like putting
forward a CFV that would get a quick 500 no votes.
From: gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD, s.r.i.ahmadiyya (Back to the Issues II)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 13:08:12 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <nahmed-301092190202@amac179.acns.nwu.edu> nahmed@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (NAWAZ AHMED) writes:

>YOU AND MODERATORS HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO MY CHALLANGE TO PRODUCE THE SENT
>BACK MESSAGES/POSTINGS WHICH MR. AZHAR HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED HERE. SHOULS I
>POST HIS WRITING AGAIN. I HAVE IT WITH ME STILL. IF THEY CAN'T PRODUCE
>THOSE IT MEANS THAT NO ONE ACTUALLY KEEPS THR RECORD. BUT NOT HAVING RECORD
>DOES NOT MEAN THTA INCIDENCES DID NOT HAPPEN.

It is not necessary for the moderators to prove 
that we reject postings that are not relevant
to Islam.  Do you deny that we reject postings
relevant to Islam?  Why do you want us to prove
it?

>THERE WAS POST FROM RASSALAT AN OTHER MODERATOR WHO PASSED VERY DEROGATORY
>REMARKS ABOUT THE FOUNDER OF AHMADIS AND WAS TAKEN TO TASK BY ANOTHER
>NEUTRAL READER. I HAVE IT IN PRINT WITH ME. DO WANT ME TO POST THAT AGAIN. 

Yes.  *All* of it.

>I  DON'T CARE HOW YOU VOTE. I KNOW FROM THE BEGINING HOW YOU ARE GOING TO
>VOTE.YOU CANT SHED OUT THE ARABIAN PREJUDICE. ACCORDING TO MARGRATE THECHER
> EX. PRIME MINISTER OF UK " THESE PEOPLE (ARABIANS) DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE
>LANGUAGE OF REASON AND LOGIC."

What was that about being derogatory again? I will 
give you another word.  It is "H Y P O C R I T E".

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:20:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.105551.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <BxKtJC.F46@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>> In article <1992Nov10.164056.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>>
>> Technically, the only question he asked in there was "Are you out of your mind."
>> I also responded to his statement "but you say that no campaigns are
>> discussed in rec.games.frp.*" which was more of a lie than a question.
>
>It wasn't a lie, it was a quote from your previous note. Just because
>you edited it out of this note doesn't mean you didn't write it. Damn
>it, Bruce, you must think we're really stupid!
>
Find the original quote, post it, and I hereby sware I will immediately
withdraw from news.groups and forget my proposal.  You are either 
misremembering, or fabricating.

>>>Here's an interesting form of argument. Use statistics (4 types of post)
>>>to conceal the substance of the disagreement. Never mind that cbnorman's
>>>RFD includes 5 types of post rather than 4. I'm after the interesting
>>>rhetorical tools, not just bald-faced lies. It is quite possible, by
>>>specifying one type of post, to encompass all roleplaying discussion.
>>>
>> Read'm and weep, 4 types
>>   -FAQ
>>   -Campaign Moves
>>   -GM Statistical Posts
>>   -Discussion of Campaigns
>>
>> These are from the November 6th posting of the charter.  Check your facts
>> before you flame.
>
>Oh, I guess it's hard to keep up with the latest version of the charter
>when every single charter you post has the same subject line, and the
>only official RFD you have posted was the one with five topics and
>included ongoing campaign posts from players as one of the acceptable
>topics (Now you claim that player moves were *never* part of the
>proposal). 

Stop putting words in my mouth.  I never said that.  Once again, provide
any proof of that quote and I will drop my proposal immediately.

>> He was complaining about me changing my charter, I was sarcastic in reply.
>
>No I wasn't. And sarcasm doesn't carry on the net. With the net
>experience you claim you should know that by now.
>
Once again, I am in awe of your clarity of thought.

Would all people who did not recognize that last line as being sarcastic 
please e-mail me.  I'll list how many replies I get for you.


>Colored dice (mentioned in another of your posts) could also affect the
>campaign. Use of a different colored die as a ghost die, or to speed up
>play by rolling all dice at once, or use of big, heavy stone dice that
>make a noise like thunder when rolled and only come out when an
>important roll has to be made, all those things can affect the GM, the
>scenario, the players, and the campaign.

You would honstly post an article about the different colored dice you use
in an .campaign rather than .misc?  Very well, I'll add some more qualifiers
to the proposal, explaining in more detail what does constitute a "campaign"
related post.

Expect a revised proposal in a few hours.
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:56:28 GMT
Organization: Exile Government of Bramming

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:

>>He can point out how there is perhaps a problem with the
>>guidelines, using this vote as an example of how a subject line can in
>>fact be misleading when not intended to be, but he has no reason other
>>than personal preference for invalidating a vote that followed the
>>guidelines and was not intended to skew the voting population.  

>But it *did* skew it.

You don't know that. You can't prove it. So stop presenting it as a fact.
-- 
No News is Bad News
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:33:27 GMT

In article <BxD2tL.Bvz@xcluud.sccsi.com> dkl@xcluud.sccsi.com (David  
Leikam) writes:
>    So people assumed the RFD/CFV wasn't relevant? Well, they were wrong, 
> then, weren't they?
>  
The point was and is that the RFD/CFV WAS relevant but didn't appear so  
from the subject. If only the contrary were true.

>   I'll reiterate publicly what I said privately: If you see an article  
with
> the words RFD or CFV in it, posted to a group you're interested in, then
> you ignore it at your peril.  Assuming that subject lines are accurate
> and complete descriptions of the contents, is not a good idea.
>  

A lot of people have said that. The people that have been unknowing  
affected by this vote are now painfully aware of this. Why keep bashing us  
about it?

There are concrete steps that can be taken to help avoid this problem in  
the future before more people find out 'the hard way'. I don't think  
encouraging brief non-descriptive subject lines and proposals that cover  
too much ground is a good idea either. We're listening to you and taking  
your advice. Are you listening to us?

> 
>   Maybe it's not fair. Maybe it's not a good thing. But this is the way
> it IS, and will remain until the guidlines change. Bitching about it
> merely wastes your effort.
> 

This isn't bitching. This is constructive criticism. Aside from Dave's  
initial posts the most emotional and negative comments have come from the  
people that maintain that the vote was OK. People that have a different  
point of view are attempting to point out what we felt was wrong and give  
some ideas about how to change it.

> 
> -- 
> dkl@xcluud.sccsi.com | My company doesn't know Usenet exists, and my  
boss
> and other places,    | would have kittens if he thought I spoke for  
them.
> even more unsavory.  | My opinions are better than theirs anyway.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Date: 7 Nov 92 07:16:44 GMT
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft

In article <7754@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)  
writes:
> ... to allow a properly run vote to be overturned because a few folks  
who
> couldn't be bothered to participate in an open process don't like the  
result
> would severely damage the only accepted means by which decisions are  
made on
> Usenet. This would be the first time that agonized screaming would have
> reversed a vote that had NO procedural irregularities.
> 
In YOUR opinion it was properly run - obviously more than a few people  
disagree with you. And it isn't because we "couldn't be bothered" - it's  
because for reasons already stated WE DIDN'T KNOW. 

> The last part is immaterial, as I've repeatedly explained. You'd be
> disenfranchising the folks who voted YES the first time, and who  
participated
> in the process.
>
Sounds to me like you're PLEASED that so many people that actually are  
involved in the newsgroup were unaware of the vote.

Gordon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame,talk.bizarre,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.humor
From: forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes)
Subject: =0= Prologue.  '92 Usenet Winter Olympics.
Followup-To: rec.humor
Summary: "Prologue" is not a computer language
Keywords: Usenet Winter Olympics coverage -- exclusively on USPN!
Organization: Usenet Sports Programming Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:35:17 GMT

Gene:
>Okay, let's get down to business.  The 115th meeting of the USENET
>Backbone Cabal is hereby called to order, President-for-Life
>Spafford presiding.  Our first order of business is the size of
>the net:  It's *still* growing out of control, with new newsgroups
>popping up like rabbits, and the number of people reading netnews
>is going up way too fast.

Dave:
>The average IQ of the net readership is dropping like a stone.
>Most of these newbies don't even have Computer Science degrees,
>and some of them are even [shudder] Liberal Arts majors.  At this
>rate, brethren, people like ourselves -- the elite, the brilliant,
>the vanguard of the New World Order -- could become outnumbered
>and lose control of the net.

[A collective moan echoes around the table.]

Peter:
>So far all of our efforts to drive away the riff-raff have been
>unsuccessful.  I've got news.groups bent into contortions trying
>to rewrite the Guidelines -- which we still control, of course --
>and so far nobody's caught on.  But it hasn't slowed the number of
>new groups being created.

Brad:
>I've been making rec.humor.funny more and more uninteresting, and
>posting jokes that only a CS professor would understand, much less
>laugh about.  But the number of readers keeps going up.  I don't
>know what else to do:  How can we drive people away from the net?

Gene:
>Last year's noble sacrifice by Brother Kent bought us time, but
>it was far from enough to rectify our situation -- and it left us
>with a vacancy on the Cabal.  [Nods to the Cabal's fifth member,
>who is lost in thought and does not respond]  We must take action,
>and it must be soon.

Dave:
>Chaos.  The net will fall apart; complete chaos in a matter of
>years, maybe even months.  None of this would have happened if we
>hadn't broken up AT&T, Peter.

Peter:
>Don't start blaming me again.  YOU're the one who deregulated
>cable TV, and I'm not even going to bring up Ross Perot --

Gene:
>Gentlemen, this is getting us nowhere.  We need a plan, something
>that will send the rabble packing and put USENET back in the hands
>of the ruling class, of the kind of people who designed it.  Ah,
>for the good old days, when we ruled the net with an iron fist...

[A collective wistful sigh echoes around the table.]

Rich Kulawiec:  [snaps fingers]
>Gentlemen, I have it.  I've developed a cunning plan, one that
>will drive the newbies away from the net AND reduce the number of 
>readble newsgroups at the same time.  And, best of all, we'll use
>the Guidelines to make it work!

Gene:
>Brilliant!  Nefarious!  Rich, you've made a fine addition to the
>Backbone Cabal.  Do you have a particular newsgroup in mind as you
>start putting your plan into effect?  [rubs hands together]

Rich:
>I know *just* where to begin.


[Fade to black, and to the sound of evil laughter...]