HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:31:47 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: rec.games.frp.campaign is a split? Get real.
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
	<1e3lbpINNab6@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>

tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:

> [to James Gritton: you should watch your attribution.  All the quoted 
>  material below is all from Richard Hartman, not cbnorman.  Please be
>  mindful of this in the future.]

   Indeed I should; I forgot to remove that line from my followup. I
hope I didn't cause anyone to think I was attributing the quote to one
who didn't say it.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Usenet Culture (Was: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??)
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:07:45 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <id.HR4V.IML@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>We've seen what has happened to those
>with strong central control and formal policies and procedures. No thanks, if
>you want Fidonet you know where to get it.

No, I don't. Is this information in n.a.n? Should we have a document
that covers this? :-)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:46:14 GMT

baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes, quoting me:
>>[on motivation for users' "decreasing their own ignorance"]
>>However, the motiviation for doing so in a depth-wise manner has some
>>correlation with the perceived utility of the subject matter.  If the
>>utility of the information is not known until one has contemplated the
>>ramifications thereof, how can you imply that the motivation should be
>>there?
>Well, why are they doing it now?  

Existance of motivation does not infer its necessity.

>It's not to exclude anyone (though I'm not
>shedding any tears at the prospect of losing the input of anyone too
>lazy to read a FAQ before posting), but to increase the initial
>quality of their input.  

Your efforts are well meaning, perhaps even fascistly so. Now if every
admin were like that, I'd agree that there'd be no excuse for ignorance.

However, every admin is not (thankfully). Further, every admin should not
have to be that way, in my opinion. (Ask me why later)

>>Again, unwilling ignorance ("I didn't even know that was open for
>>discussion") is not a justification for coercion or negativity.
>Well, coercion doesn't seem to be an issue here.  

"Take your discussions to rec.music.makers.synth, and not rec.music.synth"

>As for "negativity," shouldn't we be negative about ignorance (willing 
>or unwilling)?  

No. Unwilling ignorance is best handled by gentle education, IMO.

>If we're not even willing to declare ignorance a bad thing (it does not
>require that we condemn the ignorant to do so), then we deserve the
>abysmal S/N ratio we have now.

Ah, but it does _result_ in the condemnation of the ignorant. Just look
at some of the more colorful responses to novice net reader when they 
ask stupid questions. I'm not defending ignorance, but I am defending
the ignorant. 

>>>Sadly, a great many people seem to believe that the "elitist" view
>>>that some opinions should and do count for more than others (trivial,
>>>reductio ad absurdam examples provided on request) translates into a
>>>desire to see all "non-qualified" opinions somehow suppressed or
>>>stamped out.  Those people are wrong.  (Whoops, there I go again.)
>>If you cite the example of news.groups...I'd say that these people
>>are plentiful. 
>Which people?  The "wrong" ones, or the ones who want to stamp out
>"non-qualified" opinions?  

Both. There are people (like myself) who define elitist in the way
are you suggesting, and there are people who want to discredit
"non-qualified" opinions. There are far more of the latter than
the former, though whether that is "elitist" or just plain "antisocial"
is open to debate.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

            To an ant, a drizzle is torrential rain.
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:08:41 GMT
Organization: Xanth Watch

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

>rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
>>>So there IS a standard of importance that is deemed to be "more important"
>>>than others...
>>Of course there is. My latest piece of pure nonsense in alt.fan.warlord is
>>of less importance than Dave Lawrences list of ongoing votes in 
>>news.announce.newgroups. Anyone with a different opinion is wrong.

>Whoa! There it is! An example of what I am talking about:

>> Anyone with a different opinion is wrong.

>Here's true elitism in action, folks! Let it be known that Mr Lauridsen
>is THE standard for thoughts, feelings, and actions. 

So you believe that my postings in alt.fan.warlord are important than those
of Dave Lawrences in news.announce.newgroups? In that case - thank you.

>NOT!

-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | 
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.makers.synth
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: RENAME: Those against name change PLEASE READ!
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:18:24 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

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?

>>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.

>>NO ONE HAS TO KEEP UP WITH NEWS.GROUPS TO PARTICIPATE IN VOTES.
>>THAT'S WHAT NEWS.ANNOUNCE.NEWGROUPS IS FOR.
>To participate in votes...no.

Thank you.

>To get the issues behind the votes, or to try and stop people from a
>bogus name change in the RFD stage...YES.

To achieve those goals it is necessary to subscribe to news.groups,
yes.  But it isn't necessary to "keep up" with the group's traffic;
you only need read articles relevant to the RFD (that's "the RFD",
_singular_) that _you_ care about.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
	<1992Nov17.162808.2159@metrosoft.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:19:58 -0800

In <1992Nov17.162808.2159@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van
		Huizen) writes:
>In article <H.ea.&YscglQNvGY@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca  
>(John Henders) writes:

>jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca  
>> 	Well, failing to recognise one of the author's names and accusing
>> him of being unhelpful seemed to indictate a certain lack of  
>familiarity.
>> 

>I'm sorry if I didn't recall your name as one of the authors. I could see  
>how that would offend you, but it doesn't mean that I haven't read them. I  
>don't recall any authors' names from this year's California voter's  
>pamphlets either but I read those. 

	Umm.... I didn't write any. I was refering to your postiong to Chip.
I'll post a reference if it's slipped your mind.

-- 
                    John Henders              " Read the guideline, Luke"
           Just another elitist Usenet user        Obi Wan Spaf
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Islam and Ahmadiyya -- Enough
Summary: Reality check....
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:12:23 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.


 In article <BxFHyu.8HI@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ijaz@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Tahir Ijaz) writes:
 > In <1992Nov5.222013.5810@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:
 > 
 > >randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
 > >Sir, this is one of the main reasons for the demand of such a
 > >newsgroup. Soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya would be form for such
 > >debates. Ahmadiyya Islam is a topic which interests people from
 > >all religious backgrounds.
 > 
 > I agree with Mr Rana.  The fierce debate generated only shows the need for
 > this newsgroup- SRIA.

Bovine excrement. The "fierce debate" has thus far only dealt marginally
with the topic of a proposed newsgroup. Most of it has encompassed
religious debates that boil down to the basic "Is too!" "Is not!" theme.
Neither productive nor applicable. 

-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
From: tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 18 Nov 1992 04:48:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <62157@mimsy.umd.edu> leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
)
)Nonetheless, it is plain that if the vote was held right now, it would
)fail.  Why are you guys so against the split?  How would it hurt you?
)How would it really affect you at all?  Rob?  Tom?  Is there some cost
)to the netrek community for having three newsgroups that I am missing?

I am against it because it doesn't address the problem.  The problem
is that there are lots of stupid flame wars that go on in rec.games.netrek.
If you split the group into 3, there will now be stupid flame wars
going on in 3 different groups.  This is why Alan wants rgn.programmer
moderated, but I don't agree with that, either.

Basically, splits are confusing and would needlessly clutter up the
discussions (and in addition to the standard stupid flame wars, we'd
get 'you're in the wrong group' stupid flame wars; see rec.bicycles,
rec.arts.startrek, or just about any other group that has undergone
a split).  

)By the way, how do we eliminate alt.games.xtrek?

I already sent out an rmgroup message on it, and it's gone off my
news server.  Lots of places ignore rmgroup messages for alt groups,
though.
 -Tom
Xref: sparky news.groups:21908 soc.culture.indian:37113 soc.culture.pakistan:16717 soc.culture.bangladesh:5934
From: khalid@bu-bio.bu.edu (Rasheed A. Khalid)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Summary: KICK THIS JAFFERY GUY OUT!!
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:26:21 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Biology Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1e4uffINNdcl@gap.caltech.edu> majafri@cco.caltech.edu (Mansoor  A. Jafri) writes:
>In article <BxpqCK.CKC@ucunix.san.uc.edu> bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar) writes:
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>What is going on here?
>>First Mr Jafri posts a call for votes asking that the votes be mailed
>>to him.

>>And then Mr. Jafri posts a call for votes, asking that the votes be mailed
>>to him, and inculdes some vagueness as to it being a straw vote?

>	That was Basalat Ali Raja who posted the message with a short
>	commentary regarding it to be a straw vote. Not I.

I think that this Basalat guy is just as involved in the ongoing
cheating as Jaffery who self-volunteered to be the vote taker.  God
only knows whose votes he is taking and how!  According to the rules,
the vote taker is not supposed to do any campaigning.  If the usenet
administrator(s) did not communicate with Jaffery after he did this,
how can one be sure that he is not involved in a campaign for getting
NO votes from people via e-mail?

>	I haven't  said anything about this group. Usually those people
>	who want the group post an CFV for it.

Then who was Jaffery to post the CFV.  The people who want the newsgroups
seem to not even know who he is, leave alone trusting him.  On the other
hand, they now have reasons to believe that he is a strong opponent of the
proposed newsgroup soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya.

>>BUT, first of all, PLEASE CLARIFY WHO IS TAKING THE VOTES!
>	 
>	I am still taking the votes, no one in USEnet has told me otherwise

Please stop confusing people even after your unfair practises have been
nakedly exposed.  It is extremely rare to see people with such a dead
conscience as this guy.  He does not even seem to be ashamed of himself.
I suggest that appropriate action be taken by usenet administrators against
Mansoor A. Jaffery and Basalat Ali Raja, who seem to have no value of others'
and their own time.

>	M.A.J.
>>
>>
>>---raj

Regards,
Rasheed.
From: wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.solid-state.electronics
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:35:19 GMT
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Originator: wdp@gagme


I guess I missed the beginning of this, but I don't understand
exactly WHY we need to split sci.electronics along the lines
of 'solid-state'.  I don't see much discussion about tube circutry
anymore, and I personally would not want to be bothered  scanning two
newsgroups for my electronic info needs.

Basically, I am in favor of new groups, but in this case, unless I
missed something dramatic, I cannot see why this is needed or even
desirable.

Please e-mail me if, indeed, I have missed something.

Thanks

Bill
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD rec.games.netrpg
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:16:32 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <17125@umd5.umd.edu>, duncanj@linus.umd.edu (James Duncan) writes:
>Since this is striclty a roleplaying game it should be in the frp
>domain. The name should be rec.games.frp.netrpg but personally I favor
>rec.games.frp.design where all roleplaying game designs NOT just the
>net.rpg (which hopefully one day will be completed) could be
>discussed. 

I will support rec.games.frp.design.  It seems a better alternative, since it
would be strange if there was only _one_ net.rpg.  Most likely, there will be
more, done by different group with different tastes, not to mention the other
genres the current net.rpg will develop.  .archive is the logical place to post
finished "stuff", but a mainstream newsgroup to act as a clearinghouse for
major issues of cooperative works in progress would be superior to email lists.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:38:45 GMT

In article <BALDWIN.92Nov16195410@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>>So there IS a standard of importance that is deemed to be "more
>>important" than others...
>I'm sure you can find counterexamples (maybe you *are* a
>counterexample), but it seems to me that there is a pretty broad
>USENET consensus (among the knowledgeable) that one should read the
>appropriate documents and take a little time familiarizing oneself
>with the conventions and procedures of USENET before posting,
>particularly to administrative groups concerned with the net's
>configuration.

There is a difference between "one should read..." meaning that it's a good
idea to read, and "one should read..." meaning that people who don't read
should not be taken seriously when they speak.

The former does indeed have a broad consensus to it.  The latter, perhaps
less so.  Appealing to a "broad consensus" for the latter, when the consensus
supports only the former, is equivocation.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:28:28 GMT
Organization: negligable

How do you "enforce" education?

Leisure Suit Larry has a little quiz at the beginning to
determine your age -- if you answer all 5 questions right
you get the "raunchiest" level of the game.  Assmumption
made that trivia knowledge relates to age level.

We could put a quiz-entry on trn so that if you can't
answer 5 questions (picked at random from hundreds about
the RFC's) you either don't get in at all, or maybe just
don't get posting priviledges....

Oh, by the way --           :-)


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
But I am frightened for you, children,		|
that the life that we are living is in vain,	|	-Richard Hartman	
and the sunshine we've been waiting for		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
has turned to rain....				|
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Would you ALL like a demonstration? (was Re: Dave Hayes may be right)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:45:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.234506.23473@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>Really? If I posted that "people in news.groups feel that if you see
>a message of this form...that you should read it or risk losing your 
>group name", that's deception?

Yes.  About on the same level as pulling a malicious fire alarm.

>What do you think would really happen?

Really?  What would really happen?  I think that people would flurry
in a panic over to news.groups for a couple of days, and then calm
down shortly and get back to business.

Oh, and your name would take up more disk space in KILL files around
the world than anyone else's.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.home.automation
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:47:57 GMT
Organization: negligable

More interest here.  Also using X10.  Both as X10 from DAK and from
Radio Shack under their relabel.  Have to pick up the Heath catalog....  

Maybe we should do *.automation.X10 and *.automation.misc? :)


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Philosopher and plowman			|
each must know his part			|	-Richard Hartman	
to build a new mentality		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
closer to the heart!			|

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: Intentional ignorance of newsgroup creation
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:45:09 GMT

In article <2B07A7A2.A699@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> According to gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen):
> >4. The guidelines put forth in "How to create a new Usenet newsgroup"  
> >   apply to group renames and deletions.
> >5. A description of the voting process from the voters' point of view -  
> >   not the vote-taker's.
> 
> I disagree on only two points:
> 
> Item [4] is factually incorrect; no one knows how to delete a
> mainstream Usenet group, except that by default some groups have
> withered away (such as comp.society.women).
> 
I added deletions because when you perform a rename you are performing an  
addition and a deletion. There is a difference between this a creating a  
new group from scratch. I have seen nothing to indicate to a new user that  
"How to create a new Usenet newsgroup" is the guidelines that covers this.  
All I'm asking for here is a pointer.

> Item [5] has no meaning.  The process is the process, no matter from
> which viewpoint you view it.  Reading the instructions to the vote
> taker tells voters what they need to know.
> 
There is an amount of extraneous information in "How to create a new  
Usenet newsgroup" for the user wishing to vote (not to mention an  
innapropriate title from a voter's point of view). It's easy to skip over  
important things when that's the case - human nature. If you want people  
to thoroughly read it and understand it, a "User's guide to Usenet voting"  
would seem to be a good idea. That way it's clear from the title what the  
target audience is. It could even spell out some of the other voting  
related issues that are likely to be unclear to a new user. Such  
narratives aren't really appropriate in the guidelines themselves are  
they?

> With those exceptions, [...] it would be
> good for these items to be addressed in the new user docs.  (Why not?)
> 
> I'll see what I can do.

Great!

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rafiq@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (RAFIQ ANWAR)
Subject: Re: CFV Ahmadiyya
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:57:49 GMT

majafri@cco.caltech.edu (Mansoor  A. Jafri) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.174910.25393@bernina.ethz.ch> nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik) writes:
>>I have just seen a post by Jaffrey on soc.culture.pakistan that he intends to continue
>>collecting votes and that he has collected 200 so far!
>>
>>Something has to be done to stop this indecent activity!

>	Malik, my understanding is that anyone can post CFV. So I did. Let
>	me clarify that it was not on the prompting of anyone as you alleg.
>	
>	The votes are coming in, I have no control over it. I wasn't even 
>	informed that a CFV by me is not acceptable rather it was approved
>	and POSTED by DAVID LAWRENCE.

>	Now, would you quit twisting things around?

>	M.A.J.

>>
>>Nadeem Malik
>>nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch


Mr. Jafry your CFV's has been clasified invalid by he moderator
of news.announce.newgroups (DAVID LAWRENCE). Therefore you are not
the official vote-taker. Why don't you come open say to people, not
to send their votes to you. ?


Regards;
ANWAR RAFIQ.

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.adoption
Followup-To: news.groups
Summary: Request for discusion on soc.adoption
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: adoption
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 20 Nov 1992 10:10 EST  

In article <1ei1pkINNg77@rodan.UU.NET>, gix@mdd.comm.mot.com (Brian Gix) 
     writes...

>This is a formal request for comments to create a group by the name:
>	soc.adoption
>Things most of us would like to avoid: talk.abortion

Good idea.  That last sentence sold me.  -  RG
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame