HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics,alt.fan.dale-bass
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 7 Jan 1993 22:43:23 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

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

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

>Besides, the other 3 are nice guys: we need somebody like
>Dale who can deal with Sarfatti.  :)  My vote for Dale.

Well, heck, if that's a perquisite of office then I'll
announce my candidacy right now.

				--Blair
				  "Hi, Jack!"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: RFD : soc.forced-migration
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:29:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.105532.11155@vax.oxford.ac.uk> hbond@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>                       THE REFUGEE STUDIES PROGRAMME 
>                            UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
>                     PROPOSAL FOR CREATING A NEWS GROUP
>
>                            SOC.FORCED-MIGRATION
>
>Introduction
>
>This new unmoderated newsgroup is proposed to encourage greater exchange of
>information and to promote discussion on the problem of refugees and other
>victims of forced migration/involuntary settlement, including those of
>development projects which lead to their forcible uprooting.
>
>Background
>
>The Refugee Studies Programme (RSP), based at Queen Elizabeth House, the
			.
			.
			.
I applaud the RSP for the precision of its focus.
I have a few questions which will help me under-
stand the intent:
1.  to what extent does the RSP conceive this
    topic historically?  Would you welcome
    discussions of the 1500-1850 slave-trade
    diaspora, or think that tangential to the
    aims of SOC.FORCED-MIGRATION?
2.  how narrowly do you mean "forced"?  After
    World War II, millions of French and Itali-
    ans nationals moved from their homes in
    North Africa to the national metropoles on
    the other side of the Mediterranean.  There
    was, in general, no legal requirement that
    they do so.  Do you deem this an appropri-
    ate topic for SOC.FORCED-MIGRATION?
3.  Have you considered "sci.forced-migration"
    or "soc.history.forced-migration" or other
    alternative rubrics?
-- 

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: escmar@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (~{BmOHIz~})
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.malaysia
Organization: nanyang technological university
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:51:22 GMT

Dr. Sexy Joon (antiop@iastate.edu) wrote:
: In <1ispaiINNpl3@rodan.UU.NET> barrera@mtu.edu (Christopher Barrera) writes:

: >I would like to call together a discussion for the creation of
: >a new newgroup, tentatively called "soc.culture.malaysia"

: >The proposed group is unmoderated. That is, all who wish to join
: >may freely do so.

: >Proposed CHARTER for the proposed group "soc.culture.malaysia" -

: >   The proposed group, soc.culture.malaysia, is intended for
: >   the discussion of all topics pertaining to Malaysia, including
: >   but not limited to: culture, national politics, foreign diplomacy,
	  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Including discussions pertaining to the monarchy? :-) 

: >Why I feel this newsgroup should be created -
: >   soc.culture.filipino
: >   soc.culture.thai
: >   soc.culture.vietnamese
: >   alt.culture.indonesia

: >   as well as others nearby -

: >   soc.culture.australia
: >   soc.culture.bangladesh
: >   soc.culture.china
: >   soc.culture.hongkong
: >   soc.culture.new-zealand 

: >3) soc.culture.asean, as mentioned in #1 above, no longer has much
: >   talk about ASEAN as a whole, suggesting the group is no longer
: >   fulfilling its intended purpose. Perhaps it should be dissolved
: >   or renamed with a new charter. Anyhow, it now seems an apropriate
: >   time for soc.culture.malaysia to be created.

: 	It's about time for a soc.culture.malaysia newsgroup!!!!!




-- 
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------+
Division of Instr. & Control	Internet: escmar@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg 
Nanyang Technological Univ. 	Tel. (off.): (065) 799-5635
Nanyang Avenue S2263
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.crypt.research moderated
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:23:49 GMT

In <1iftqfINN77o@rodan.UU.NET> Thomas W. Strong, Jr. <strong+@cmu.edu> writes:
>  I believe that a new group is needed simply because sci.crypt is so
>  high-volume, and has such a low signal-to-noise ratio, that it is
>  essentially impossible to use it for professional discussion about
>  cryptography.  I don't think that sci.crypt should be removed, but
>  instead that a new group, which will coexist with sci.crypt, is
>  necessary.

I disagree with this statement.  Sure, every once in a while some
issue comes along which generates a lot of noise (registering crypto
keys, legality of PGP, anything by David Sternlight, etc.) but it only
takes a simple kill file entry to trash all of the noise.  I
personally like the free flow of information currently shown in the
group and find moderated groups lack this sort of openness.

Leave it alone and things eventually reach an equilibrium, as they
have now (just waiting for the next eruption!)

/Joe
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:09:40 GMT

In article <root.726519634@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>Keep the shorter name, but open it up for serious discussion from all
>comers.  With an open-minded moderator.

I completely agree, and I would support the suggestions you (Steve
Adams) have proposed.  I would also vote for and read this group if
you (Steve Adams) were the moderator.  (I hope that was unambiguous.)

Observation:  It seems that the proposer wants a Biblestudy group for
people who share his beliefs.  If he is unwilling to change this
conception of the proposed newsgroup, I feel his goal would be better
accomplished in a mailing list.  Simply adding *.christian.* to the
name will not sufficiently describe the limited viewpoint he expects.
Being where it is proposed to be in the hierarchy, it should include
all viewpoints and have minimal moderation (ie, only disallowing
redundancy, flamefests, irrelvancies, et cetera). 

Were the group changed to be a true examination of the Bible as a
piece of literature/history/anthropology/religion/sociology/art, I
feel the group would more properly be placed under another hierarchy.
Studying it from all angles, not just religious, seems to remove the
aptness of "soc.religion.*"  However, nothing springs to mind under
the current organization of newsgroups.  *shrug*  In that case, I
advocate leaving it where it is but strongly stressing the exploratory
nature of the group (and completely rewriting the charter to reflect
this). 

-sz
Xref: sparky news.groups:25139 sci.physics:22247
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:12:06 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>I would prefer it if even moderators, yes even myself, had to follow
>normal submission procedures on sci.physics.research.  

   I agree.  I think that if we're going to have a panel of co-moderators, it
would be reasonable to require that a posting by any one of those moderators
be approved by someone else on the panel.

				     ---Steven Leffler
					leffler@physics.ubc.ca

Xref: sparky news.groups:25172 sci.physics:22304
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:10:59 GMT
	<MERRITT.93Jan7144144@macro.bu.edu>
	<1993Jan7.214556.13841@galois.mit.edu>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu's message of 7 Jan 93 21:45:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.214556.13841@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:


   Sean Merritt writes:
   >I am suggesting that if DB doesn't someone else should. 3 people would
   >always reach a majority decision. With four there is the probability
   >of deadlock.(however slim it does exist)

#   Seems to me Merritt is taking this business too seriously.  I promise
#   that if such a deadlock ever arose I would bow out, since I certainly
#   don't have the time for protracted arguments about whether an article
#   gets published in sci.physics.research.  

Seems to me you are not taking this seriously enough. If you were to
"bow out" I don't consider you a good canidate for the job.
I have read fine articles by all the proposed moderators. Of the
four there is one whom I see as a major contributor(at times)
to what is wrong with sci.physics. This is a legitimate complaint.

The other thing I am "serious" about if that if take the discussion
from a state of Anarchy(because I will agree we can raise the 
level of participation by people who have something valuable to
add), let it be a state of Democracy(although it is a represntitive one).
This requires accountability.

I'm ready to vote on sci.physics.research as it stands.

As I understand it there needs to be a 2/3 pro majority and
at least 100 more people voting pro then con.

Is this correct?


-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: soc.religion.christian.biblestudy
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 23:15:51 GMT

I think this group is needed, as the Bible has made quite an impact
on modern thought.

The group should try and view the Bible as what it says it is: the
word of God.  Therefore I think that the group should be based on two
presuppositions that are not to be argued on the group:  that God
exists, that the Bible is His word.  I see no reason to study the
Bible as something which it does not claim to be, or as something
that is less than it claims to be.  If there is a group needed for
discussion on why the Bible isn't the word of God, or for discussion
about the Bible as merely ancient literature, I'm all for it!  I
don't think those views are as important in understanding the impact
of the Bible.  Even if the group were to allow any and all discussion
about the Bible, I still think it is a good idea!


John M.
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Query on NOC Tools Groups
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:30:28 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


A friend writes me that as far as he can determine, groups

comp.networks.noctools.announce
comp.networks.noctools.tools
comp.networks.noctools.submissions
comp.networks.noctools.d
comp.networks.noctools.bugs
comp.networks.noctools.wanted

are bogus.  The question arose recently because of traffic
in one of them (*.wanted).  He says he consulted the latest
list at uunet.

Our news admin has this on file:

-----begin quote-----

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:29:16 PST
From: Eliot Lear <lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com>
Subject: INET newsgroups on the way
To: nntp-managers@colossus.apple.com

I'm going to issue control messages with distribution INET for the
following
groups today (with Erik's blessing):

comp.networks.noctools.announce		Info and announcements about NOC
					tools (Moderated)
comp.networks.noctools.tools		Descriptions of available NOC
					tools (Moderated)
comp.networks.noctools.submissions	New NOC tools submissions
comp.networks.noctools.d		Discussion about NOC tools
comp.networks.noctools.bugs		Bug reports and fixes for NOC
					tools
comp.networks.noctools.wanted		Requests for NOC software

comp.org.isoc.interest			Discussion about the Internet
					Society

The first group are for the NOCTOOLS Working Group, and the other is
to be tied to the isoc-interest mailing list.

Flames, etc, to me...

Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]

-----end quote-----

What is the official status of these groups, if anyone knows?

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pcbk1@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (bryan.s.katz)
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:48:36 GMT
Summary: "misc" is gratuitous

In article <1isp5dINNpc4@rodan.UU.NET>, weinss@rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
> 1. misc.jobs.discussion 
> 2. misc.jobs.nonpermanent or misc.jobs.shortterm 
> 3. misc.jobs.offered.entry.almost and misc.jobs.offered.entry.newgrads 
> 4. misc.jobs.local.* 
> 5. misc.jobs.offered.computer and misc.jobs.offered.noncomputer
> 6. misc.jobs.biology, misc.jobs.computer, misc.jobs.computer.VMS, etc

I can sort of see a need to consolodate all "jobs" items, although it
is not very difficult to look through them all now - as long as the titles
are well-written.

However, I do not see what the "misc" adds to the title.  Why can't it just
start as "jobs"?
Xref: sparky news.groups:25146 rec.food.cooking:24634
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.food.cooking
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:41:21 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <id.D8IW.2SA@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>I thought she did rather well for an obvious neo. Be nice.

On Usenet, nice?  Hahaha.  I wish.

But really, I did have more point to posting than just to
be cynical.  :-)
How about a generic group for the discussion of cooking
equipment, instead of one limited to bread machines?

	Cathy
-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
off to see the lizard
From: chuahl@ocf.berkeley.edu (Chua HakLien)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Rec.arts.cinema : rmgroup?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 17:53:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <28153@dog.ee.lbl.gov> TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan) writes:
>You propose rmgrouping a group because as of now in your newsreader
>it has no posts?  Sheesh.  BTW, might you consider posting to 
>rec.arts.movies also to let them know what you're up to?  I'd expect
>that some folks there may have input since I would assume that
>they helped bring it about in the first place.  Maybe we ought to
>get rid of alt.cult.movies too since that's redundant too huh?
>

Hmm... Actually it hasn't had any posts since March or so last year.
For one thing, i'm not sure of the difference between cinema and movies,
unless the former discusses the quality of movie theaters. =)     
For alt.cult.movies, the area in discussion is specialized, so of course
it should remain. From the title of the group, one can clearly see it's
a subset of discussion about movies. That distinction isn't so clear
b/w the names of r.a.c and r.a.movies.
I was making an assumption that r.a.cinema and r.a.movies
were talking about the same area of interest, and since I had never had
a chance to read ANY post in r.a.c, was never able to figure out what
the group was for.  To me, r.a.c and r.a.movies were duplicates; kind of
like having a rec.pets.canines and rec.pets.dogs.

Anyway, if anyone does have the charter for r.arts.cinema, or know where
it can be dug up, please post it. 

>Terry Chan
>--

Chua
+==+
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:31:49 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dweinste@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.160310.5664@pdn.paradyne.com> nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:
>#>> The charter goes on to limit the discussion as follows:
>#
>#>> #This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the 
>#>> #Bible, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under 
>#>> #question [...] 
>#
>#>> This is, to my mind, a major problem. It removes from the discussion *any*
>#>> positions which do not accept Christianity's mainline doctrines. Jewish
>#>> exegetics of Isiah would be gone, as would any scholarly position which
>#>> refutes Christian doctrine. Perhaps the group should be renamed
>#>> "soc.religion.christian.bible-study.people.who.agree.with.the.moderator".
>#>> Or perhaps it ought not be created with this charter at all.
>#
>#
>#As the RFD says, this group is meant for believers of Jesus Christ and the
>#Bible.  The fact that this is a *Christian* Bible study, however, does not 
>#limit the discussion to only information from this book.  There are several 
>#sources of information that prove to be quite fascinating and can be 
>#discussed as well; they will not be the main focus of attention however.  
>#
>#As far as moderation goes, the only things that I could see being filtered 
>#out would be arguments against the validity of Jesus Christ or the Bible 
>#and and senseless flaming of others - these are already being discussed on 
>#talk.religion.misc and soc.religion.christian and would be a waste here.
>
>What you are doing is not limiting the topics of discussion (which is what
>any Newsgroup charter does), but limiting the positions which can be taken
>in those arguments. Someone interested in discussing Biblical exegetics, but
>from a non-Christian perspective would be *removed* from the discussion
>by the moderator. And that is not what should happen on a newsgroup.
>If you want a limited scope discussion, form a mailing list. Don't ask
>the rest of the net to create a newsgroup solely for people who argee
>with you. By the way, who are you proposing as the moderator?

This seems pretty accurate in it's assessment.  If what is wanted is a
'discussion' by people of similar opinions, a mailing list is correct.  If
what is wanted is a free-wheeling bible study, which would include all
opinoins and information, then a newsgroup is the right way to go about it.

I think the second of the two is the proper way to go about it.  I've
volunteered as moderator (based on a personal assessment of the time
required to do a decent jon), if anyone wants to take me up on it...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky news.groups:25149 sci.physics:22266
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:22:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.231035.4656@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
> >I used to apply this label to myself, until I got tired of trying to
> >justify some of the inanities that scoundrels looking for a flag to
> >wrap themselves in attached to it.

> Oh come on, you're not really going to let your opinions about certain
> "scoundrels" ban a useful word from the vocabulary?

Why not? The purpose of language is to communicate, and to do that you need
to establish a common base of ideas. This base *can't* contain words so prone
to misinterpretation.

> Come to think of it, what interest is it of yours anyway?  You no
> longer think of yourself as conservative, fine, but what right do you
> have to decide who gets to use that label or even if it can be used at all.

Oh boy, now you're sounding like one of those political correctness types.
What right do I have to express my views in a public forum, indeed!

Just because I've abandoned the term, doesn't mean I've abandoned the
ideas where they make sense.

> Most of those 
> you consider "evangelical scoundrels" I would consider kindred spirits
> on most political issues.

Not if they can't separate politics and religion, and there's no place for
religion in politics. Simple practicality demands that. And classical
conservatism must remain, above all, practical.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
Xref: sparky news.groups:25059 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11669 talk.politics.misc:66350
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patr
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 22:18:24 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:

> >I used to apply this label to myself, until I got tired of trying to
> >justify some of the inanities that scoundrels looking for a flag to
> >wrap themselves in attached to it.
> 
> Oh come on, you're not really going to let your opinions about certain
> "scoundrels" ban a useful word from the vocabulary?  Come to think of it,
> what interest is it of yours anyway?  You no longer think of yourself 
> as conservative, fine, but what right do you have to decide who gets to
> use that label or even if it can be used at all.  Most of those 
> you consider "evangelical scoundrels" I would consider kindred spirits
> on most political issues.  Granted that Pat Robinson is a dangerous man,
> but not all the evangelicals are  Pat Robinson and even though I think 
> he's either a nut case or a dangerous demagogue, I wouldn't presume 
> to take away his right to use the word conservative.  There are always
> fringe groups. That doesn't mean that "conservative" needs to be disgarded.


I think Peter's very point is that "Conservative" is not exactly a useful 
label anymore.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Mike Wilson)
Subject: Proposed Charter for soc.culture.native
Summary: Proposed charter for a new native newsgroup.
Keywords: charter, native, soc.native.culture
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date:  5 Jan 93 04:39:25 GMT


Hello All:

After the straw vote indicated a preference for the  name
		soc.culture.native
I revised the charter to reflect the change of the name and
thus the focus of the newsgroup.  I wanted to make the charter
descriptive enough to be useful yet vague enough not to exclude
anyone.  Please let me know if you have any suggestions for making
this charter better.  

Charter: soc.culture.native is for the discussion of issues 
relating to native populations throughout the world.  This 
newsgroup is intended to be inclusive, not exclusive, offering
an important site for exchange among native peoples and between
native and non-native peoples.  Topics of discussion will include
such issues as national sovereignty, freedom of religion, 
spirituality, and philosophy.  

--------------------------------------------

Thanks for your input.

Mike


==========================
Michael Wilson
idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
==========================


Newsgroups: news.groups