HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: New RFD: Bible Study Newsgroup
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:33:25 GMT

In article <C167r0.2I1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:
>While I was in favor before, I now strongly oppose the new Biblestudy
>charter.  The change of the name to include the word "christian" is
>exclusionary and unnecessary, especially since the charter does not
>claim to restrict discussion to Christian viewpoints.  I see no harm
>in omitting the word "christian" from the name, because any ambiguity
>in the word "bible" is cleared up by the definition in the charter.

The group as proposed would not really belong in soc.* anyway.  A better name
would be "talk.bible".

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)
From: davidb@gdfwc3 (David Brynell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: What's the concensus: comp.sys.harris or comp.sys.nighthawk?
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:57:43 GMT
Organization: General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division


So, what do we want, a Harris newgroup or a Nighthawk newsgroup?
If any H-Series weenies are out there, I would suggest speaking up.
I feel as though the RFD should go out again with all occurrences
of harris replaced with nighthawk.

Any discussion?  (even flames would be great, just as long as
some traffic is generated concerning this RFD :^)



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David Brynell			"GD - Proudly serving as one of the
General Dynamics, Fort Worth	 largest government-funded adult
gdfwc3!davidb@uunet.uu.net	 day care centers in the world!"
brynell@gdwest.gd.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky news.groups:26362 soc.culture.indian:45499 rec.arts.poems:14029
From: ajc1@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.karnataka
Subject: Re: News Groups Censors REC.ARTS.POEMS.URDU
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:30:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge

In article <C1Grz8.GvI@ms.uky.edu>, kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
|> >I wish to state that I am VERY ANGRY at the annoucenemtn that News Groups
|> >censored rec.arts.poems.urdu despite its passing fair and square in a
|> >valid vote.  
|> 
|> Considering that you're posting anonymously, who cares?

	why should posting anonymously affect whether or not one
	cares?  the poster might have good reason, they might be
	shy, or they might be planning to transmit magic messages 
	to kill all poets.

	may i suggest that the last option is unlikely?

	you're big and strong and safe and it's only usenet.  so be a
	little more tolerant.

	andrew 


    fax (0223) 337523          andrew cooke            (0223) 337504/48 
    institute of astronomy, madingley road, cambridge, cb3 0ha, england   
    i think about you in as many ways as the rain comes  norman maccaig
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: Proposed Charter for soc.culture.native
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:21:44 GMT

In <C15ytr.L9A@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@dartmouth.edu writes:

> >> I'm not sure a USENET will ever be able to do the job of alerting
> >> readers to urgent situations like NativeNet...

> >Well, since it is likely that NativeNet will be linked with the new
> >newsgroup, readers of soc.culture.native will have access to all the
> >material which is carried by the NATIVE-L mailing list.

>     Nothing in this above paragraph is likely. Any gateway to a mailing
> list needs to be discussed with the people who actually read the
> affected group.

I have yet to hear any convincing reason why any such discussion needs
to take place, and I know of no one besides Brian who objects to the
gatewaying which is proposed.

> Since this group has not even been created yet, we
> can't talk with those people. Therefore any discussion about a possible
> gateway is, at this stage, premature at best and should be held off
> until there is an appropriate group to hold the discussion. News.groups
> is not an appropriate group.

Rather than conducting the discussion academically, my view is that it
will be most productive and meaningful to talk about the subject after the
gateway is established and articles are passing back and forth across it
(as they presently are between alt.native and the NATCHAT list).  If there
are objections at that point, we can discuss them in a non-abstract manner.

We've been over all this territory before, so I have to see it as a
non-issue at present.

Gary

--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: bclegg@actrix.gen.nz (Bob Clegg)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Organization: Actrix Networks
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:58:31 GMT


My feeling is that rec.climbing is too small to be splintered
between indoor and outdoor climbing.
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware reorganization to comp.sys.x86.*
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:16:10 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to Senthil Ramas Kumar <SRK106@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>Some people have already suggested this:
>
>  comp.sys.x86.video
>  comp.sys.x86.drive
>  comp.sys.x86.hardware (motherboard etc)
>
>Thus, we do away with the "ibm.pc" part.

If you want to say "IBM PC or clone", then "x86" is a bad way to do
it.  There are Intel-CPU systems that aren't PC clones.  Rather, I
would suggest borrowing from Peter da Silva's "comp.unix.pc-clone"
suggestion (which was adopted), like so:

   comp.sys.pc-clone.hardware.video
   comp.sys.pc-clone.hardware.disk
   comp.sys.pc-clone.hardware.misc

-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:54:56 GMT


While I have no problem with such a group, I do think that the name needs
a little better focus.  Discussions about miniatures rules will drift onto
the RPG cohorts (Warhammer & DND's battle rules, fr'instance), while the
'traditional' wargames will drift onto historical issues, and the discussions
of painting/making miniatures and/or terrain will drift their own way.
Perhaps this group can be proposed with an eye towards a hierarchy?  Or
maybe a slightly tighter focus?

Also, Andrew Bell is running a Miniatures Painting mailing list - there might
be some merit to a gateway to/from that list.

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:52:37 GMT

In article <1jpp3hINNdhp@stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu> kwun@css.itd.umich.edu (Michael Kwun) writes:

>Brian Hughes (hades@coos.dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>
>: Why is comp.sys.laptop not
>: considered sufficient?
>
>because IBM compats ...

A quick substring search suggests to me that comp.sys.laptop is not
placed under the comp.sys.ibm hierarchy.  Care to clarify?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: an5445@anon.penet.fi (Bad Elf)
Subject: Rec.Games.Miniatures
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: news.groups
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:00:14 GMT

	I think rec.games.miniatures is a wonderful idea.
				
							The Bad Elf
							wrsstu@sun.cc.westga.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 19:58:59 GMT

In article <C1J468.LKI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.183020.22062@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>
>>From a boardgamer's perspective, lead is lead. The Warhammer freaks and
>>the Napoleonic grognards have much in common: they paint and push
>>lead according to very similar general rules. If you split by 
>>historical vs. fantasy, why separate the miniaturists from the 
>>boardgamers? After all, the battle of Eylau is still the battle of
>>Eylau, whether played under Empire rules with lead or L'Bataille with
>>cardboard.
>
>I agree absolutely.  That's why I suggested, several posts back,
>that a rec.games.war would better suit my particular interests than
>having to monitor both rec.games.board and the proposed new
>miniatures group and to filter out the frp stuff from both.  However,
>that suggestion seems to have met with little support.

Because many people feel that the split in board games would harm the group.

A separate miniatures group makes sense since there are many topics
relevant only to miniaturists. While I'll play miniatures if the
scenario/system looks interesting, I'm not about to buy and paint
the pieces. Discussion about them is useless to me. Similarly, a 
hard-core miniaturist doesn't care about laminating maps or counters
or storage techniques for a game-in-progress.

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.

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

Expanding on why rec.games.war would harm rec.games.board, consider my
typical weekend. Friday nights I'll usually play a rail-game (1830,
Silverton, Rail Baron). Saturdays I'm playing World in Flames. Sundays
I play Europa. And I'm not unusual in my club. And you have odd
creatures such as Titan, popular with almost everyone except the most
hardcore historicist. Rec.games.board is better as it is.

-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
From: drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G Rears (FSS) <drears>)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Instead of splitting sci.crypt, create misc.legal.computing.crypt
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:26:05 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ

In article <28664.Jan2020.10.0293@silverton.berkeley.edu> djb@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>Last time sci.crypt was flooded with articles which dealt with the
>legalities rather than the science of cryptography, we created new
>groups for the traffic. One of the new groups was misc.legal.computing.
>
>There's quite a bit of useful information running around sci.crypt among
>all the noise. The only problem is that it doesn't belong in sci.crypt.
>People---primarily post-happy sci.crypt newbies---aren't paying
>attention to the (usually rather clear) distinction between legal
>issues and technical issues. Why would they pay attention to the far
>less important (and far less clear) distinction between ``hobbyist''
>and ``research'' traffic?
>
>I suggest that we all be careful to redirect threads when they lose
>their relevance to *sci*.crypt. If misc.legal.computing is overwhelmed
>then we can create misc.legal.computing.crypt.

  How about sci.crypt.legal instead of misc.legal.computing.crypt?

dennis
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:51:45 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Newt World Order

I must say this seems to be a very reasonable and well presented
newsgroup proposal. 

I like the proposal as is. I don't see any reason to change it.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jlevine@apollo.HP.COM (Jennifer E. Levine)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:57:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval

I just read the RFD for this group.

Does it "allow" discussion of miniatures used
in a fantasy setting?

The author of the RFD talks alot about discussion
of historical information and such.

I personally use miniatures for fantasy gaming
such as D&D. Discussion of rules of miniture 
use and so on for these games would interest
me. 

If this type of discussion is to be included
then I support the group.

--Jennifer
jlevine@apollo.hp.com
Xref: sparky news.groups:26154 rec.games.board:13574
From: IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Solipsist@Large)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.board
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures Bob's 2 cents
Date: 23 Jan 93 17:20:34 GMT
 <C19L6G.MGK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1jqv2hINNj7g@werple.apana.org.au>
Organization: University of Maine System

I'm not going to requote stuff here, as I'm not responding to something
specific, but instead something general.

Miniatures use goes far beyond wargames.  There is that alluded-to
WarHammer 40K stuff, there are the RPGers who use miniatures (I've
done it myself, on occasion), and there are those people (like a
good friend of mine) who likes to collect, paint, and cast miniatures
as a general hobby.  All these people could contribute something to
an overall miniatures group.

Rec.games.war, on the other hand, is about one small segment of that
population.  I couldn't see myself voting for it.
--
Eric Alfred Burns                        "Life is full of decisions
Solipsist at Large                        but you never get to make any."
"It's all in your mind"
IK20001@maine.maine.edu                           --Linus Van Pelt
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware reorganization to comp.sys.x86.*
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:24:08 GMT

In article <2038@heurikon.heurikon.com> daves@ex.heurikon.com (Dave Scidmore) writes:
>>                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>>
>>Due to the high traffic in the group comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware, I feel that
>>it is neccessary to split the group.
>
>Maybe someone could enlighten me. How much time each day do most
>people spend sifting through postings they are not interested in?

Most postings in c.s.i.p.h are not replies.  That means there are very
few actual threads, and I bet that there are about 25% of postings that
don't get read by anybody because we're all just scanning the subject
line for something interesting.

It's time for a split, and some kind of .help group needs to be used for
all the newbies that do a grep on their .newsrc and find c.s.i.p.h and
then post stuff like
->help, my computer died, (etc) and e-mail me because I don't read this group.

I bet that there are a lot of people that can actually answer questions and
contribute to discussions on specs, performance, etc, but they don't
read the current group because of the noise.  They may be answering or
replying via e-mail, but they sure aren't adding to threads.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cls6@ellis.uchicago.edu (Cory L. Scott)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Reply-To: cls6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:16:16 GMT


>ssbc+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sam Swett) writes:
>
>>	I fully support the idea and creation of this newsgroup. Let's get it
>>going! I think it follows naturally from the groups which already exist,
>>and would alleviate the filtering of relevant PowerBook-related messages
>>and discussions on other groups.

 Follows "naturally"???!? Doubtful... I am against the separation proposal 
as suggested. Comp.sys.laptops is perfectly acceptable as it is for you
folks. Plus, the PowerBook will be dead in its current form within two or
three years, anyway.



Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native,soc.culture.misc
From: marchant@bodega.Berkeley.EDU (Will Marchant)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: sci.med.telemedicine
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:32:05 GMT
Organization: CEA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bodega.cea.berkeley.edu

I would like to see sci.med.telemedicine include discussions of first
response as well as "medicine". For example, I am a member of a volunteer
mountain search and rescue organization. Certainly, we have several physicians,
paramedics, and EMTs but the majority of us are trained to an advanced first
aid (typically the American Red Cross wilderness Advanced First Aid) level.

We had Dr Auerbach from Stanford talking about some of his research in 
portable monitoring equipment for field use by the military. What are other
organizations doing about development of turn key monitoring gear? What are
people thinking in terms of communications for telemedicine? We are very
interested in the possibilities for using packet radio, combined with GPS
navigation systems, for revolutionary changes in search management. Could
medical interaction systems be piggybacked with communications and management
functions? And, naturally, how can we implement these systems within the
financial limitations of the volunteer SAR community?
-- 

Will Marchant                   Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics
marchant@cea.berkeley.edu       University of California
KC6ROL@WA6HAM.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA  2150 Kittredge St., Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
From: Huneke_Immo@Dodo.Logica.Co.UK (Immo Huneke)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:36:52 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Logica Space & Communications Ltd.

In article <1jkr41INNr24@rodan.UU.NET>, labccc@emory.edu (Chris Chung)
wrote:
> 
>                         REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
> 
> I'd like to propose a new newsgroup.  This newsgroup would be
> called comp.sys.mac.powerbook.
> 
> Main Objectives of this Newsgoup:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1.) Provide PowerBook users and other users interested 
> 	specific resource for PowerBook articles.
> 
> 2.) More specifically provide topic of disscussion that
> 	only be pertinant to PB users. For example: Travel or
> 	power management.
> 
> 3.) PB readers would be free of sifting through large amounts
> 	articles looking for PB relevant information.
> 
> 4.) Lastly, benefit PB users by exchanging advise, opinions, and
> 	experiences.

Yes! I would like to have this newsgroup. I've owned a PowerBook 100 since
May 1992, and while I'm generally very pleased with it, I was NOT pleased
when it went out of commission and took three months to repair under
warranty. Besides that, I am always on the lookout for ways to improve the
meagre 4MB memory and 40MB disk space, which are always running out before
I know it.

Lastly, does anyone know of news reader software that enables me to
download *all* messages in my subscribed newsgroups, and read them offline?
Surely this is something required by many users of mobile machines?

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 Opinions expressed above are the author's: Huneke_Immo@Dodo.Logica.Co.UK.
 Logica Space & Communications Ltd, Stephenson House, 67-87 Hampstead Road,
 London NW1 2PL, England. Tel: +44 (0)71-637 9111 Fax: +44 (0)71-383 0530.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> If it ain't broke, why ain't it working?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: root@ute.Columbia.NCR.COM ()
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Summary: Just say NO!
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:14:48 GMT

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET>
   Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writes:
>Second, should rec.backcountry be renamed and modified to include
>subgroups?  It seems that splitting rec.backcountry might be a good
>idea.  But, where to split the group is quite another debate.
>
>Possibilities include:
>
>rec.outdoors.camping
>rec.outdoors.backpacking
>rec.outdoors.hiking

I *strongly disagree* that splitting rec.backcountry is a good idea.

The rec.climbing split off has already resulted in conversations being
carried on in two newsgroups with lots of crossposting.  Splitting into
more groups would only make the problem worse.

And please, *no* moderator!

Barry Shelton                                        Question Authority!
barry@ute.columbiasc.ncr.com                   Resist much, obey little.

Standard disclaimer.

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:41:04 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <C17IxK.8MB@panix.com>, erict@panix.com (Eric Tiffany) writes:
> 
> I'm not sure I'd buy this.  Although the Duos and the PBs are
> different, they have more issues in common (batteries, small disk,
> file sync, etc) than differences.  Bifurcation of newsgroups is
> already a problem --- maybe the new group should be called
> c.s.m.portable ?

Or comp.sys.laptop? The point is that there is already an existing group to
handle the subjects and unless someone can demonstrate why the existing groups
will not serve, then I will not support the group.

-- 
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