HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 23 Jan 1993 09:18:18 +1100
Organization: Werple, Public Access *NIX, Oz
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

In article <8932@news.duke.edu> fls@econ.duke.edu (Forrest Smith) writes:
>
>	Why should a newsgroup with games in the title and no mention of war
>be a newsgroup about war games?  I think some kind of disclaimer needs to
>be addended, like, rec.games.miniatures.WAR.

Forrest, 

This old chestnut again.. Ah well...
This same argument could be applied to several other newsgroups, not
exclusive of rec.games.board and rec.org.sca and any other newsgroup which
concerns itself with military matters. even rec.chess.

I'd like you to be a little more specific as to WHY you think this
qualification is necessary.

many computer games deal (most computer games) simulate battles/wars, and
yet do you feel that a *.war qualification should be put on those groups?

The only difference between chess and the games we play out on the table are
that ours place themselves in an historical or fantasy context, not an
abstract one. There are many popular tabletop miniature games which recreate
sports, grid iron being one. Incidentally, the american brand of football is
something analgous to what we do on table, IT IS A GAME.

Most serious tabletop wargamers do a great deal of historical research even
before they have bought and painted figures and put them on the table.
We don't glorify war, we place it in a historical context and look at the
event from that point of view.

I hope this clears up any concerns you may have.

Bob.
From: jg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (John Greene)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:00:00 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

I am definitely in favor of comp.sys.mac.powerbook.  I do have one question
for the news.groups.net.all.mighty.self.fucking.rightous.police.....

  Why the hell do discussions on this group have to have such a harsh
  tone?  Do you net.gods really take enjoyment in random flames?


-jg (jg@titan.ucs.umass.edu)

"Love, love, love, just love yourself, like no one else...
 Love.... it's enough, and they can say what they like but they still can't
 take that..."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: flag@banco.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Steve Waddell)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:34:22 GMT

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET>, Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writes:
|>                         REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
|> 
|> In addition, obvious outdoors.* groups should be moved to that
|> hierarchy.  Specially, rec.hunting should be moved.  Other
|> possibilities include
|> 
|> rec.climbing 
|> rec.skiing 

  I think NOT!!

|> 
|> 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
|> 

  Again NO!!

____________________________________________________________________________
  Steve Waddell                                        sjw1@cc.bellcore.com
  Bellcore                                             (908) 699-7032
____________________________________________________________________________
From: turner@cs.uq.oz.au (Marg Turner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Date: 22 Jan 93 06:46:01 GMT
Reply-To: turner@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

I think it would be a great idea.  The idea of knowing that the other posters are
undergrads too would allow insight into how courses differ around the world.  It would
also not be as intimidating to post to an undergrad group.

*********  I would also like the group to be available for questions such as:
Does anyone know of articles, journals, books, references etc about .....

A *VERY* short FAQ posted weekly is a good idea.
---
  Margaret Turner		email: turner@cs.uq.oz.au
  Computer Science Department	fax:   +61 7 365 1999
  University of Queensland
  Australia  4072
From: mfuortes@cumc.cornell.edu (Michele Fuortes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Support:comp.sys.mac.powerbooks
Date: 23 Jan 1993 11:57:25 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

It's all in the subject
From: bell@cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:10:24 -0500
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
NNTP-Posting-Host: beethoven.cs.unc.edu

In article <C1J468.LKI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>[...] 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.

I think the reason is that you're looking at group subdivision from a
slightly different perspective than most folks.  When I think about
how groups should be arranged, I look at commonality of discussion.
In short, how many articles are going to be of interest to the majority
of readers?  Is there much commond ground in the discussion?  So in
the case of rec.games.miniatures, I see a lot of issues of mutual
interest to both the fantasy gamers and the historians.  I don't see
much for discussion between the historical board gamers and the
historical miniatures gamers.  rec.games.board has very little discussion
of historical issues, and I would think it unlikely that a group
combining board gaming and wargaming would have that much of mutual
interest.

You seem to be looking at it more from a commonality of readers
perspective.  Historical miniatures gamers are indeed highly likely to
have an interest in historical board games, and I doubt a board gamer
would object to pushing figures instead of cardboard squares.  And I
agree that there's probably a higher correlation between historical
boardgamers and historical miniatures gamers than there is between
historical miniatures gamers.  But a group that has basically two
distinct discussions with little real intersection is basically a
group looking for a script.

As for the newsgroup name, the emphasis being on figures for wargaming,
I personally like to use an H.G. Wells reference for the name:
	rec.games.little-wars

  Andrew Bell
  bell@cs.unc.edu
From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 23 Jan 1993 19:33:13 +1100
Organization: Werple, Public Access *NIX, Oz
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval

In article <1993Jan22.165456.24088@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>
>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?

I thought about including this in a proposal, but I decided not to
beacuse I think the hobby suffers from this sort of self imposed isolation
and "elitism". I can't speak for the USA, but in Australia and England, the a
verage age of traditional gamers (ancients, naps acw etc) has gone up a lot
in the last 10 years. Wargaming will atrophy, shirvel up and die, if you
will, if we view the "warhammer crowd" as threat instead of a challenge.

Where do you think new wargamers come from????

I am trying to change people's attitudes and I know people feel threatened
by the warhammer crowd, but our hobby is strong enough to thrive without
resorting to pigeonholing and exclusion.
>
>Also, Andrew Bell is running a Miniatures Painting mailing list - there might
>be some merit to a gateway to/from that list.
I've mailed the RFD to andrew asking him to pass it around and inviting him t
to post the Figures list on the group should it get up.

Bob, tilting at windmills, signing off.
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval frp
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:33:57 GMT
Organization: negligable

I vote for the single group for now.  I think the chauvinism shown
so far is some folks being "cheesed off" as you put it, and will not
be a real problem for the group.

I also agree that there is more in common than not between the
"histericals" and the "fantastics".  Let's give it a chance before
we try to make any statements on whether it will "work" or not?

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"186,000 mi/sec.  Not just a good idea, it's the LAW!"

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: Why lack of useful subdivision in rec.arts.books?
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:48:15 GMT

In article <forb0004.224.727773487@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:
>  [rec.arts.books is too busy]                     What is the history 
>or rationale behind the lack of useful heirarchy development?

The history is that nobody has proposed a large renaming for the particular
group, coordinated discussion, and held a vote.

The rationale is that if there's no significant level of complaints, then
the existing "lack" is adequate for the group.

-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
Windows NT documentation: "Command to change password    CTL-ALT-DEL"
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:18:19 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1k75s2INN513@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:

>So, who wants to be the vote-taker?  (We're not quite there yet, but it's
>getting close, I think.)

Feel free to find a vote-taker but don't jump the gun on this. There is no
point in speeding things up and then having the proposal fall apart.

Settle the crossposting issue and issue a 3rd RFD to discuss it, then I
think all that can be resolved will be.

The efforts to tie any other potential rec.arts.startrek. groups to this
proposal are irrelevant and that discussion doesn't need to be settled
before we go to a CFV (IMO, of course).

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

       "Economic deprivation makes freedom less relevant to a people."
				- Paul E. Tsongas
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: CFV:  news.groups.trek
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:39:57 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: nasdaq.intel.com

Charter:

	1.  It's about damn time.
	2.  If you don't like it, just get Q to change it.

				--Blair
				  "Signal-to-noise redux."
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:54:11 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <sfLmkLi00WALM3Ioc5@andrew.cmu.edu> 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,

To quote Tim Allen: "Beep Beep! Back the truck up!"

How does comp.sys.mac.powerbook follow from comp.sys.mac.apps
                                            comp.sys.mac.system
                                            comp.sys.mac.games
                    etc????

I don't see any comp.sys.mac.quadra out there, I don't see a
comp.sys.mac.68000, nothing along those lines.

I would REALLY love to hear a rational explanation of this assertion.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
____________________________________________________________________________
Channel Z. All static, all |   "Great pate, mom, but I've gotta motor if I'm
day, forever. - The B-52's |    gonna make it to the funeral."   - Heathers
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: Solution to whether or not to moderate misc.jobs.offered
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:59:46 GMT

In article <C18D7E.LKA@world.std.com>, mgw@world.std.com (maryanne g wolf) writes:
> What if the group moderation were done by a daemon.
> One could write it as an awk script.
> I am not an awk wizard, but the script would do something like:
> 1) extract the first line which begins with "Subject:"
> 2) extract the rest of the line after "Subject:"
> 3) check whether the rest of the line is of the form
> 	Company:<anything>Title:<anything>Location:<anything>
> 	(or whatever format we would like)
> 4) if it is, post it.
> 5) if it isn't, either return to sender (if you have no moderator)
>    or send to moderator.

This is a very good idea (although I'd do it in perl rather than awk),
provided that step 5 would indeed send it to the moderator.  Returning
to sender would discourage casual job-posters.  I would have the script
send the posting to the moderator, who would then reformat the subject
line and post it;  the script would fire off a brief email message to
the sender, along the lines of:  "Your posting had a Subject: line which
did not meet the standard.  The moderator has fixed it up and posted
it; however, using nonstandard subject lines increases his or her 
workload.  Please take a moment to look at the Subject: line standards
below," and append the agreed-upon format.

> Am I correct that this can easily be done with "awk"?
> Has anything similar ever been done?

I bet it's been done.  I bet perl could do it even easier than awk.

> Does nobody like the idea of renaming misc.jobs.offered.entry
> to misc.jobs.offered.newgrad?

I like the idea of getting rid of misc.jobs.offered.entry and just
having entry-level jobs have a keyword ENTRY in the subject line.
If you newgroup it, they will not necessarily come;  I don't see how
making a new group for the few entry-level jobs accomplished anything.

-- 
/\    "I'm only a human girl person.  I ain't always perfect."--Rambling Rose
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
From: dmp@cs.bham.ac.uk (Donald Peterson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Crossposting
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:22:32 GMT
Organization: Cognitive Science, Birmingham, UK

I have an AI conference to advertise on the net, and several news
groups are relevant. Is there a way of ensuring that each individual
reading the news sees the posting only once, even though it's sent to
several groups? Is this 'crossposting'? 

(Our Pnews refuses to take more than one group on the Newsgroups: line
at the moment.)

Please email me direct on D.M.Peterson@cs.bham.ac.uk

Donald Peterson.
From: camelsho@gemini.ksu.ksu.edu (   James A Seymour)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 26 Jan 1993 05:09:17 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: gemini.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval

As is often the case, the title of a group means various
things to various people.  For instance, r.g.miniatures
to me originally conjured up images of posts detailing care,
painting, modification, manufacturing of miniatures.

What it did not cunjure up was posts detailing the use of
figures in games situations.

However, I dont think that just because other people want to
post something in a group that is not quite what I expected
is a reason to create a heirachy before the parent group's
volume and substance is even explored.

And, I think having one group where we can all discuss miniatures
is a GOOD thing.  Call it hybrid viger, cross polination, or
what have you, but a wide exchange of ideas is good for a hobby.
Do you suppose its possible that people might get involved in
your aspect of miniatures from the quality of your posts?
Stranger things have happened on the net.

I for one would support an all encompassing group.  If the traffic
gets to be a problem, we can always split it of later.

james seymour/camel/camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32
Date: 26 Jan 1993 14:28:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan26.120211.6093@pollux.lu.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>Naming the group comp.os.ms-windows.nt would imply that Windows NT is
>some sort of derivative of MS Windows, which it is NOT. We should try
>to keep the namespace hierarchy meaningful.

Fire up Windows NoT. Then tell me it isn't a derivative of MS Windows.

For that matter, Microsoft is saying that NT is a derivative; if not, they
don't have a leg to stand on in their battle with Novell to include the
NetWare stuff in NT.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
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 02:16:02 GMT

In article <1jlf1oINNr4b@stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu> kwun@css.itd.umich.edu (Michael Kwun) writes:

>I'm also all for a comp.sys.mac.powerbook
>I'd be behind a comp.sys.mac.duo as well.

RFD: comp.sys.mac.{ii,iix,xi,fx,cx,ci,si,vx,...}

Blech.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S R Chisholm)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Summary: nice indeed!  a few suggested tweaks
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:16:50 GMT
Reply-To: psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S R Chisholm)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1jvvosINNeq3@rodan.UU.NET> koreth@hyperion.com (Steven Grimm) writes:
>This is the second REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION for rec.arts.startrek.reviews.

Looks good!

>- As promised, removed the crossposting proviso from the charter.

I am firmly apathetic on the issue.  (Hey, you *asked*.-)

>If one of those [regular reviewers] posts an article that doesn't belong
>in r.a.s.reviews (as determined by the moderator), the moderator may
>cancel the article in question.

Can he/she/it *do* that?  If that's possible, that seems reasonable.
The idea of "regular reviewers" is very nice.

>Subject lines will look like this:
>
>Subject: <show> <type> Review: <title>
>
>Where <show> is one of TOS, TAS, TNG, or DS9, <type> is one of TV, MOVIE,
>BOOK, COMIC, MERCHANDISE, or EVENT, and <title> is the title of the article,

Very nice indeed!  This allows killfiles by all reviews, by show and
generation, by medium, and by individual piece ("I never want to hear
about those furry little things again!")

Could we please use EPISODE rather than TV, e.g.:
	Subject: TAS EPISODE Review: "More Tribbles, More Troubles"
	Subject: TNG EPISODE Review: "Q-bert"
	Subject: DS9 EPISODE Review:  "Deep Sixed Sisko"
(If it's "More Troubles, More Tribbles", reply by e-mail not posting.)

What titles would be preferred for the six existing movies?
	Subject: TOS MOVIE Review: STI
	Subject: TOS MOVIE Review: STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE
	Subject: TOS MOVIE Review: WRATH OF KAHN

I beileve the correct convention is, book and film titles are typically
italicised (capitalized in ASCII), short story and episode titles are
quoted.  I would recommend these to posters (and the moderator), but
it's a nit.

Finally, how about some way to distinguish spoiler reviews from
non-spoiler reviews?  (For example, "More Tribbles, More Troubles" came
out a *long* time ago.  Some of you missed the first run.-)  I might
well post a non-spoiler review, in the hope you'll run down to
Blockbuster Video and rent it.)  To avoid /spoiler/:j in killfiles, I
currently might post something such as:
	Subject: TAS EPISODE non-sp**ler Review: "More Tribbles, More Troubles"
I assume all reviews contain spoilers unless labeled otherwise.

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories/EasyLink Services,
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:49:26 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.

In article <1k2etkINN6bv@werple.apana.org.au> bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) writes:
>rec.games.miniatures is a "games" group, so theoretically the art/hobby
>crowd, who don't game should be looking at one of the *.models groups like 
>alt.models. 

I'm confused... wasn't the 'painting of miniatures and creation of terrain'
part of the original RFD?

>Rec.games.board readers have the same (percieved) problems as Gary and Pete
>have mentioned and there have been no serious whinges about splits there, 
>The historical boardgamer and the SF/Fantasy boardgamer seem to coexist
>nicely. traffic is moderate and killfiles solve the "noise" problem

This may be the case.  I have not followed any groups for miniatures wargaming
to get data on this.  If they have no problems with this, I can't argue.

-- 
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               |
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: s.r.christian.bible-study
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:45:21 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:
>>  [. . .]  I see no reason for the name of the group to state
>>something contrary to the charter.  If the newsgroup is open to people 
>>from all backgrounds, I say let the name agree with that ideal.

ac999266@umbc.edu (ac999266) responds:
> The discussion will be ABOUT the Christian Bible, but 
> it is NOT restricted to the Christian point of view.
> [. . .]
>The newsgroup should be in the .christian hierarchy 
> because it is NOT about the Hacker's bible, the Satanic
> bible, or any other such book called a bible.  It is
> about the broad category of works that people call the

But it is also about the Jewish Bible, and my Bible.  Moving up 
one level in the hierarchy introduces no ambiguity, especially 
because the charter explains exactly what is meant by "Bible."  
Few would misunderstand the name soc.religion.bible-study, but as 
you can see by my own reaction, one might misunderstand the intent 
of soc.religion.CHRISTIAN.bible-study.

Again, what is the intended audience?  Those who use the Bible in
their quest for enlightenment.  The Bible is shared by several
religions, and therefore I see no reason for claiming the Bible as
your own.

-sz
Newsgroups: news.groups