HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:24:46 GMT
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.2 PL6]


I am not sure whether or not I would be in favor of a split, but I do have to
agree with Richard Shapiro on one point: there has been very little "cross-
discussion" of the sort that would lead to cross-posting.  I am uncomfortable
with the assertion that there is no special relationship between jazz and
blues (and yes, I've read your ellucidations, and I remain unconvinced), but
the fact remains that probably 98% of the traffic here has been unequivocably
one or the other.  And so what if there is occasional cross-posting?  I predict
less cross-posting between .jazz and .blues than we currently see between
bluenote and .makers.

I do take exception with the original claim that there is too much posting on
blues in rec.music.bluenote.  While there has been a spike recently,
historically, this has not been the case.  I could see the opposite case being
made - a blues fan who was not interested in jazz tiring of wading through the
jazz articles.  Then again, I have never yet seen a newsgroup that doesn't have
about half of its articles ignored by any given reader for various reasons.

If you want an example of a bad newsgroup split, check out what just happened
to rec.bicycles.  I originally thought the split would work, but this clearly
is not the case so far, and the way the charters are currently being
interpreted, I see no hope of it ever working without half the articles psoted
being flamed for having been posted to the wrong group.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.chem.organomet
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:10:46 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy):
>sci.chem.orgo
>sci.chem.inorg
>sci.chem.phys
>sci.chem.misc

There's no need for such gratuitous abbreviation.  Rather:

  sci.chem.organic
  sci.chem.inorganic
  sci.chem.physics
  sci.chem.misc

-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
    "My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
     group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
     are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur."           -- Matt Welsh
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.jazz
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:22:40 GMT
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center

In article <1992Oct1.135646.23823@bmers145.bnr.ca> passier@bmerh9a1.BNR.CA (Chris Passier) writes:
>But my question to you is, could you not exist quite happily with two
>groups, rec.music.jazz and rec.music.blues? By cross-posting and subscribing
>to both groups, would you lose anything that currently exists with the one group?

Here are two of the problems that I see with that; here's one thing we'd
gain, and one we'd lose.  This is by no means exhaustive; but it's a
partial answer to your question.

The thing we'd gain is confusion over which group (if either) is appropriate
for music that can't be clearly labeled "jazz" or "blues".  There's already
been a lot of discussion about just how subjective those labels are; but
we currently don't have to resolve that issue because one group encompasses
jazz, blues *and* related types of music.  If separate groups are created,
what guidance will we be able to provide to potential posters and readers to 
help them decide what articles go in which group?  Who will decide what
constitutes "jazz" and what constitutes "blues"?  And where will we send the
articles that currently fall under "related types of music"?  And how will
we cram all this into the one line descriptions in the list of newsgroups?
And what point is there to splitting the groups if one of the first
recommendations we have to make to people is to crosspost their articles?

We'd lose the community that has grown up over the years that this
newsgroup has existed.  The cohabitation of jazz and blues fans has
probably taught each quite a bit about the other, and that learning
process has been remarkably civilized, by Usenet standards.  Of all
the hundreds of newsgroups that I've watched come and go over the years,
rec.music.bluenote has had one of the best track records in terms of
the quality of contributions.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.fencing
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:24:40 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

I'd like to see this group, but shouldn't it be rec.sport.fencing?
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.lists,news.admin,news.lists.ps-maps
From: gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RFD: rec.marching vs rec.arts.marching
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:09:48 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University

>>As far as I can tell, there is no problem with the length of a name like
>>rec.arts.marching.drumcorps. If there is someone out there who does have
>>a problem with the length of this name, could they please step forward
>>and tell us exactly what the length problem is?

I don't have a problem with the length.  My problem was whether
*marching* is an art.  I agree that drumcorps is an art, and I agree that
drumcorps is a type of marching, but it doesn't logically follow that
marching is an art (although SOME types are).  I never saw a response to
this argument.

Thus, at this time, I understand:   rec.marching.drumcorps
                                 or rec.arts.drumcorps

         but I don't understand:    rec.arts.marching

Not that I couldn't be convinced.   :)
                                                          Scott
From: nrp@csug3.cs.reading.ac.uk ("Educated bags" Neilski)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFD for *.apathy newsgroups
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:02:35 GMT
Reply-To: nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: University of Reading

I would comment, but I can't be bothered.

-- neilski

-- 
nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk  \--------------------------------------------------
----------------------------\ I'm the kinda guy who likes to have
his own ... special odour.  And that's why I wear ... TUNA FISH SANDWICH!
From: swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: soc.religion.quaker
Date: 26 Sep 1992 01:42:45 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: boogie.cs.utexas.edu

In article <BJORN.B.LARSEN.92Sep23091101@engels.delab.sintef.no>
bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes:

>I still feel that this group should be moderated. If you leave it wide
>open it may be flooded with anything.

But Quakers are used to this, in a sense.  The structure of an
"unprogrammed" Quaker meeting-for-worship happens to provide an open
forum to anybody off the street who wants a semi-captive audience for
his/her rant.  This doesn't happen too often, but I think most Monthly
Meetings have had experience with this, and it's tolerated.  So it
seems unquakerly to make the newsgroup moderated to "keep *those*
people out" when Quakers otherwise wouldn't.

>It is my impression that most soc.religion.* groups are moderated, and
>see no reason why s.r.quaker should not be.

True, being the only unmoderated religion group might be like having
the only house on the block without a burglar alarm.  But a moderator
could be added later if it seems truly necessary.

Xref: sparky news.groups:18449 rec.music.bluenote:7454
From: brummer@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Charlie Brummer)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote
Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:28:37 GMT
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens

>
>If you want an example of a bad newsgroup split, check out what just happened
>to rec.bicycles.  I originally thought the split would work, but this clearly
>is not the case so far, and the way the charters are currently being
>interpreted, I see no hope of it ever working without half the articles psoted
>being flamed for having been posted to the wrong group.
>
>--
>Marc Sabatella
>marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com

Oh I don't agree with this at all.  The rec.bicycles split was a great idea and
once people get comfortable with it, there will be few problems.  Before the 
split I couldn't wade through all the bike stuff each day.  Now, granted I may
miss a few things, but overall it's much better.  Anyway the split between 
jazz and blues is a natural one.  NO ONE is saying that the blues are unimport-
ant or that jazz is better or that blues is better.  Just different and two
groups is better than one.  If you like both, read both; if you only like one
only read one.  Jeez, it seems pretty simple to me.

Charlie Brummer
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: sharen@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Sharen A. Rund)
Subject: Re: RFD rec.autos.antique
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 19:45:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.023859.17462@vpnet.chi.il.us> lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.133720.2751@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>>
>>I'm a little unsure just what the discussion accomplishes, beyond informing
>>people about the (potential) imminent creation of said group.
>
>    It's the rules.  Besides, I've made certain modifications to the
>    proposed charter as a result of some suggestions I've read here.
>
>>Does this discusion lead to a concrete definition of the charter?        
[ stuff deleted ]
>
>
>>With the topic of old cars and emissions, would it be fair game to discuss
>>environmentaly friendly modifications (like  TB-fuel injection, electronic
>>ignition, cat converters)?
>
>    I suppose so, but we purists are gonna nail you to the wall on that
>    one.
>
 I suppose I'll get it on this one, but thought you'd like to know
 that one of the more prominent judges at the Concours d'Elegance
 at Palo Alto, Pebble Beach, etc has a souped up '36 he refers to
 as his 'resto rod'....
 ...you see, you can combine talk on both subjects ....B-)

-- 
________________       __        ________________   "They that can give up
\_________      \     /_ \      /      _________/  essential liberty to 
 \_________      \_____/  \____/      _________/  obtain temporary safety
  \___________________      __________________/  deserve neither liberty 
                     /______\                   nor safety."  
ALL disclaimers apply ....                           --Benjamin Franklin
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz)
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:41:57 GMT
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: jojw@uhura.cc.rochester.edu's message of 26 Sep 92 17:43:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.174326.7070@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> jojw@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) writes:

   jazz, fusion, R&B, bluegrass, and folk.  Sometimes, I just like to enjoy
   *music*, and avoid this categorization business in general. 

Only sometimes? :)  But like it or not, usenet *already* depends
categorization as a means of organizing discussion. The only question
here is this: is the "bluenote" categorization the best we can do? 

Let me emphasize that this isn't an anti-r.m.bluenote crusade. It's
just a simple restructuring suggestion, which I believe will be more
in line with the way people actually use r.m.bluenote right now: two
groups in one, converted into two different groups. I like
r.m.bluenote but I would like r.m.blues + r.m.jazz even more.

rs
From: lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed new group alt.dentistry
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:31:29 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark

rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>In article <1arvbhINNiu2@spool.mu.edu>, ellswort@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Alec
>Ellsworth) writes:
[Proposal to create alt group for dentists?]
>Sci.med has been used successfully as a place for dentistry and seems to work
>quite well. If you really NEED to have a separate group, get the information

No need, the group exists already. At least I'd say
alt.sadistic.dentists.drill.drill.drill should fit quite well.
;-)

BTW, why do people always propose alt groups in news.groups?
I thought alt.config is meant for such things?
--
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen             ! "I AM THE CRAWLY CATERPILLAR, WHO IS
lhp@daimi.aau.dk - Inf.&Media Sci.  ! THE COCOON, WHO IS THE BUTTERFLY, ALL
Aarhus University, DENMARK          ! AT ONCE. RIGHT NOW." -Vaughn Bode
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.comics.tv
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:05:55 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

jeff@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Williamson) writes:

>The primary objection, however, was the lack of propagation of the
>alt group. This is one of the reasons I suggested a rec group.

    The distribution of alt.* groups is a bit of a problem, but for a
mainstream group you need to show support. Said support usually comes
from message traffic, and fir this kind of a topic there just isn't that
much traffic.

>Frankly, I think you're wrong. Someone else posted a list of comics-
>related TV series (past *and* present) which could generate enough
>other discussion. 

    What it "could" generate isn't the issue here. What is at issue is
why there is need for this group when there are at least 2 groups that
could adequately hold the discussion.

>As for the possibility that the two shows you mention will *not* be
>around after next season--why, then, create an alt group whose purpose
>may dry up after a mere year? Why not create a group which is not
>anchored in such limited scope, which can handle discussion of
>comics-related TV for years to come?

    Because these types of shows just don't generate that much traffic.
Even the Flash show message traffic was low enough as not to get lost in
rec.arts.tv, and it has probably had the most discussion about it for
any comics related tv show. If you have an alt.group that suddenly has
no more traffic, so what? It could be easily removed at a later date.

>The reason certain shows are "not being discussed" is that traffic on the
>TV shows gets swallowed up among regular comics traffic. Creation of
>r.a.c.tv (or some other bastard spawn of intense discussion) would, in
>fact, foster discussion of other shows.

    No it doesn't. Traffic is rec.arts.comics.misc hasn't been so great
as to swallow up the Batman discussion, it just died down in that group
and picked up in rec.arts.animation.

>I won't bother addressing your opinion that the other shows are "not worth
>discussing". 

    If they were, then people would be talking about them.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
   "You know Television has gone to hell when, with every commercial,
	 you find yourself hoping to see the Energizer Bunny."
From: gt1293c@prism.gatech.EDU (W. Scott Radeker, IV)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.marching
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:20:58 GMT
Organization: Hog's Breath is Better than No Breath at All.

In article <1992Sep30.173411.4449@desire.wright.edu> byork@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I am also of the opinion that there should be two groups:
>
>         rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
>         rec.arts.marching.misc
>
                            ^^^^ I prefer band instead of misc.

Having marched in top-notch marching bands (singular), I do not
wish to see band listings cluttered up with information about an
activity that is not the same ( drum corp in particular ). I am
only trying to prevent the possibility that people would begin to further
associate drum corps with marching band.

Scott Radeker

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ________   ________         gt1293c@cad.gatech.edu
   |   | (___  |__)   | \  /      Box 24860 Georgia Tech Station 
   |_|_|_____) |  \  _|__\/__         Atlanta, GA 30332-1001
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.kibology
From: brent@socs.uts.edu.au (Disco Inferno Curtis)
Subject: Re: Proposal of new group: soc.culture.kibonia
Reply-To: brent@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Date:  2 Oct 92 04:37:38 GMT


 (Stupendous Man) writes:
 >(James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
 >> 	It would also be the only soc.culture.* newsgroup to be read by
 >> EVERYONE in its native country, and would serve as an excellent example
 >> of how Usenet will soon control the world.

You guys are silly. Isn't kibo a person, not a country? 

This is a joke, right? 

 >kibo.culture is the needed group.

You Americans are so funny. I can never tell when you're serious! 

I think the only groups with "kibo" in their name should be in
the alt.hierarchy (apart from comp.lang.kibol).

What does ultimo mean, anyway?

                       Brent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
'"Martha, the sister of him who was dead, |    Brent Curtis
 saith unto him, Lord,                    |    School of CompSci	
 by this time he stinketh:                |    UTS
 for he hath been dead four days."'       |    New South Wales
Xref: sparky news.groups:18584 rec.music.bluenote:7554
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote
Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz)
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:14:55 GMT
	<RSHAPIRO.92Sep28170608@kariba.bbn.com>
	<SMEHTA.92Sep29101819@kwela.nynexst.com>
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: smehta@kwela.nynexst.com's message of 29 Sep 92 10:18:19

In article <SMEHTA.92Sep29101819@kwela.nynexst.com> smehta@kwela.nynexst.com (Sandeep Mehta) writes:
   > rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes:
   > In real life, outside of esoteric
   > discussions in r.m.bluenote, we all know what blues means, at least
   > more or less.  We know what section to look in at the record store; we
   > know what to expect from a blues show; we know, at least roughly, what
   > someone means when they say they like blues or jazz.

   I'm all for a focussed discussion. While I do not mind a
   genre-specific definition of the blues I have, so far, being trying
   to emphasize that if we rise above such specific definitions -- no
   matter how convenient, how helpful, how organized -- then both sides
   of the fence, so to speak, would benefit from it.



The continuation of my original article would go as follows: if we
continue to look at this issue pragmatically, we discover that the
actual usage of r.m.bluenote corresponds exactly to the pragmatic
definitions of blues & jazz that we all use in the real world. We get,
and can easily recognize and distinguish, blues articles and jazz
articles. The overlap is too small to be significant.

So, the proposal is really just this: let's rearrange the hierarchy a
little so that it corresponds to what actually happens, rather than
trying to get it to correspond to someone's theory (yours or mine or
Ali Farka Toure's or anybody else's) of what blues is, what jazz is
and what the relationship between the two is. We'll never settle those
more general questions in a way that satisfies everybody.

I agree completely that rising above categorization in our *listening*
is crucial. One thing this implies, at least to me, is listening to
jazz without the assumption that it must share the blues aesthetic.
But more importantly, I'm just not sure this whole aspect is relevant
to the simpler question of how to organize this piece of rec.music.
The benefits you mention are nice in theory but don't seem to be real
in practice.



   Does keeping r.m.b "united" (yikes! :)) guarantee that some Usenet
   neophyte will not have another CFV rave and rant come December??

Finally, after years of periodic proposals, we've really had the
discussion. This is a first. If the proposal fails (which looks likely
to me), we can *honestly* say in 6 months that we've already been
through this. Before this current discussion, that would have been
impossible. 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: SFINE00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Fineman, Stephen Elliot)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.marching
Organization: Rice University  
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:59:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.104653.15966@husc3.harvard.edu>
fath1@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Fath) writes:
 
> . . .        I'd be happy with a
>rec.marching.drumcorps
>and the option of a rec.marching.bands
>
  I have to agree here.  It seems to me that rec.marching.etc is preferable to
rec.arts.marching.etc for reasons of length, and because the inclusion of arts
seems unnecessary (consider rec.music).  But just to name the group rec.march-
ing would be to ignore the contributions of alt.drumcorps, from which (presum-
ably) most of the new group's readership will come.  Many readers (including
myself) would have seen alt.marching or alt.marching.band and ignored it --
"Oh, high school marching band was nice, but I really don't care that much
about it."  But when I saw alt.drumcorps, my reaction was different.  It seems
to me that drumcorps fans might not initially be turned on to "marching", but
that "drumcorps" would attract both corps and band fans (as it does now).  I
strongly agree with the creation of the group under the new "rec.marching"
hierarchy because it leaves room for rec.marching.band, rec.marching.colorguard
, and even others if the traffic demands.
 
                                 Steve
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote