HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.crafts.metalworking
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:19:00 GMT

On 15 Oct 92 14:29:28 GMT, jonesm@nic.cerf.net (Matthew Jones) said:

M> One thing about the name rec.crafts.metalworking is that to me it implys
M> soldering and jewelerymaking which we NEVER discuss, NEVER really!

Why not?

You did discuss making cookie cutters, which involved soldering.  I
know, because I'm the one who asked.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.marching
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:54:09 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <69961@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt1293c@prism.gatech.EDU (W. Scott Radeker, IV) writes:
> 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.

Sorry about dropping into this discussion late, I haven't been
following it & we don't keep that many days of postings from this
group (news.groups) at this site.

There's certainly a distinction between `regular' marching bands
and drumcorps, but that doesn't exhaust the possibilities.  I march
in a pipe and drum corps (as in Highland bagpipes), and I know some
people who march in fife and drum corps (as in the old `Spirit of 1776'
painting).  I don't know if there would be enough traffic on these
topics to merit separate groups, but then I wouldn't think there would
be that much traffic just on drum-and-bugle corps.  (My experience
would indicate that `pipe and drum corps' are "more common" than `drum
and bugle corps' as distinct from the more generic `marching band',
but it is obviously biased ;-).  In any event I've seen very little
traffic on the subject of marching units, at least when I had an account
on a machine which took the `rec' and `alt' groups -- this site doesn't.

Anyway, if the consensus is that a group like `rec.arts.marching.band'
doesn't include drum and bugle corps, then it certainly doesn't include
these other types of units.  I don't know whether there ought to be
more than one group or not (don't know how much traffic there would be),
but there ought to be at least one group that is a `catch-all', eg:

	rec.arts.marching.band          - `full' marching bands
	rec.arts.marching.drumcorps	- drum-and-bugle corps
	rec.arts.marching.misc		- other types of units

Is there really enough traffic to justify more than just one group,
say rec.arts.marching?

Bruce C. Wright
From: earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle - Gainfully Unemployed)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Followup-To: news.groups
Summary: Just Say No
Organization: Gainfully unemployed
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:46:02 GMT

In article <1b5tr7INN9to@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Peter Cooper) writes:
>>>PROPOSAL:
>>>
>>>This RFD proposes a SINGLE UNMODERATED newsgroup, named
>>>comp.os.386bsd to service the entire 386bsd community.
>
>>Wrong spot in the hierarchy.  I'd support comp.unix.bsd.i386bsd or
>>something similar.

I agree with this 100%.  Call it comp.unix.bsd.x86 or comp.unix.bsd.386 or
whatever, doesn't matter.  The fact remains that "Jolix" is still
primarily a port of 4.[34]BSD UN*X to a specific platform, and as such
belongs under comp.unix.bsd.

Think of it this way - if/when 4.4BSD makes it out, if we're so lucky that
a lot of people decide to use Chris Torek's SPARC(station) port that a
non-trivial amount of traffic about it is generated, does it make sense to
call for a "comp.os.sparcbsd" instead of "comp.unix.bsd.sparc"?!?
Of course not.

I vote "No" on any attempt to create "comp.os.386bsd".

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.archives.msdos.announce moderated and comp.archives.msdos.d
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:56:58 GMT
Organization: Recognition Equipment, Inc.

brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) writes:

>c.a.m.a.d is needed, because where else do we report bugs?

They should be sent to the authors of the various programs.

-- 
#ifdef TRUE        | Fuzzy Fox (a.k.a. David DeSimone)       fuzzy@netcom.com
#define  TRUE   0  |
#define  FALSE  1  |   "If you can't take the heat, you haven't learned
#endif             |      a damn thing from USENET!"  -- Rao V. Akella
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: not everybody uses UNIX to read news
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 18:16:15 GMT
Organization: None for me, thanks . . . I'm driving.

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

> "Mandatory" means "required", and indeed, KILL files are not required. 
> However, they are _very_ _strongly_ _recommended_.  And if you don't use
> KILL files, any resulting problems are _yours_.  Don't bother us about
> them, okay? 

Sigh.  You'd better clarify this in the original document, Chip.  Some
people are destined to Just Not Get It Unless It's Written In Stone.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: fath1@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Fath)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:09:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct8.160933.16178
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Oct8.022803.27595@hubcap.clemson.edu> rwberry@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert W Berry) writes:
>
>Personally, I think rec.arts.marching should suffice for now, and once
>again, split into subgroups if traffic is sufficient.
>
>There are a number of groups that function quite well with a wide
>variety of topics, I don't why this should be a problem here.
>
I will repeat the argument that I've used before.  I don't know if you find it
sufficient.  One original goal was to make alt.drumcorps accessible to more
ReadNews sites.  The best way to do that is to create a rec group for
drumcorps discussion.  Keeping the word drumcorps in the name is essential
because it draws drumcorps fans directly to the group.  If you leave the word
drumcorps out, I am convinced that many drumcorps fans will not find the group.

Another important goal of the RFD was to create a forum for the discussion of 
bands and colorguards. Phil suggesting putting them under one group and you
agree with that.  I think both goals will be best served by creating two
groups as posted today by Phil in his 2nd RFD.
  
>
>I definitely think we need a group in the main hierarchy.  And I don't
>really think anyone will be against the creation of such a group.
>However, we've tried to create a group before and failed because of a
>lack of numbers.  (Not because people objected, but because there
>weren't enough people for the group in the first place.)
>
>I'm hoping enough people are around with marching experience to change
>this.
>
This prompts me to ask, how many people must vote for a new rec group to be
accepted?  Does it have to over 100 yes votes?  Who knows the rules?  


>Later,
>Bob
>
>-- 
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=- Bob Berry -=- Net-Guru's Inc.        ! rwberry@hubcap.clemson.edu   -=-
>-=- Teach them quick, before they think. ! 803-654-7623 || 803-656-1076 -=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


-- 
MM   MM FFFFF 	Michael Fath		fath1@husc.harvard.edu
M M M M F	Dept of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
M  M  M FFF     Harvard Medical School         
M     M F       Boston, MA 02115				**Enjoy life!
From: rich@apricot.co.uk (Richard Jones)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.autos.offroad
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:22:35 GMT
Organization: Apricot Computers Limited

gregc@jacobi.WPI.EDU (Greg "Your Friendly Neighborhood Poet" Charland) writes:


>     This thread has come up before in rec.autos, so this time I figured I'd
>do something.  This article is a Request For Discussion concerning a newsgroup
>for people with an interest in Four-Wheel Drive vehicles, their operation, 
>maintenance, history and other uses.
>     The discussion in this newsgroup could range from anything from
>care and maintenance of four wheel drives to off-road driving techniques to
>the environmental concerns off-road driving causes.
>     At this point, we have many choices:
>	-We can ask for creation of a rec.autos.offroad or such
>	-We can ask for creation of a rec.4wd
>	-We can temporarily create and alt.4wd to see how much discussion it
>	would draw.
>
>	-And I'm sure there are other things we can do.
>
>     It seems to me that an alt.4wd group would be a good start.
>     Anyone with anything to say about this is asked to post an opinion on 
>news.groups.  I more than welcome any suggestion.  Thank you for your
>attention.
>	Later,
>greg

Don't like the idea of "alt.4wd" much since, once an alt group gets
created it never quite seems to go away again :-(

rec.autos.something would seem sensible looking at the other groups
under rec.autos, but what that something should be though is another
matter entirely - 

	offroad		if you want to restrict the discussions to
			vehicles _designed_ to be driven off road.

	4wd		if you want to open the discussions up to
			anyone with a 4 wheel drive vehicle and I
			guess that could include a 6x4, audi quattro,
			etc :-)

	allwheeldrive	another possibility.

IMHO, looking at your description of the group, I think I would pick
"rec.autos.offroad" and go for a vote on its creation.

Anyone with any other views?

>-- 
>     ---------------------------------------------
>      Gregory M. Charland-----> gregc@wpi.wpi.edu  
>     ---------------------------------------------
-- 
 _ __            Apricot Computer Limited    Tel:   (+44) 21 717 7171
' )  )      /    3500 Parkside               Fax:   (+44) 21 717 0123
 /--' o _. /_    Birmingham Business Park
/  \_<_(__/ <_   BIRMINGHAM  B37 7YS         Email: richardj@apricot.co.uk
Richard Jones    United Kingdom                     ..!uknet!apricot!richardj
From: T.D.G.Sandford@bradford.ac.uk (TDG SANDFORD)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.archives.msdos.announce moderated and comp.archives.msdos.d
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:35:36 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908106@muser

In article <1992Oct13.223221.2@rei.com> fox@rei.com (David DeSimone) writes:
>jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>
>>It sort of works like this.  If the group is full of junk, "in your opinion"
>>then don't subscribe, or unsubscribe.  Need help, RTFM.
>
>I see.  So I should just get out of the way when I see that someone
>wants to create a group that "in my opinion" will not serve any more
>purpose than the currently existing groups.  Sorry, no.  This is a
>Request For Discussion, so I am discussing it.
>
>You state the cama.d will be a place where users may post whatever noise
>they like, and the powers-that-be will monitor along and give gentle
>guidance when off-charter postings occur.  This is EXACTLY what is (or
>was, before the great exodus) happening in cbip.a.  You are simply
>renaming a newsgroup.  Is that really all you want to do?
>

The point (as I understand it) is that cam.a will contain ONLY posting by 
archive maintainers relating to new material on their archives, or problems
with their archives. We then want a discussion group for questions about
programs on the archives, wanted messages etc plus a place to flame the
moderators of cam.a :-) . This should be in the same tree as the 
moderated cam.a group, hence cam.d (NB NOT cama.d it is a general discussion
goup for com.archives.msdos and not just cam.a - see the title of this
thread) (I don't think David was the one who started calling it cama.d
so this isn't a flame, just clarification).

And yes, part of the point IS to move archive announcements and related
discuusions out of the cbip tree, because they don't really belong there,
so while we are introducing a new, moderated, group let's get it in the
right place. 

>
>... lots of other stuff deleted
>
--
Thomas Sandford | t.d.g.sandford@bradford.ac.uk
From: dave@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: NAPLPS Newsgroup
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:40:29 GMT
Organization: Old Colorado City Communications (oldcolo.com - login "newuser")

In article <1992Oct12.034506.29477@lyxys.ka.sub.org> wolfgang@lyxys.ka.sub.org (Wolfgang Zenker) writes:
>How about a comp.dcom.videotex for all the videotex-standards
>and applications worldwide (NAPLPS, CEPT, PRESTEL, ANTIOPE,
>CAPTAIN) ?
>
>Wolfgang

Ha! Wolfgang, it is *precisely* to break out of the bad connotations
of the term, and concept, of 'videotex' that we seek to relate the
NAPLPS topic to comp.graphics. In the US at least, the term videotex
is so discredited by a whole series of big-company failures (AT&Ts
Viewtron, a Los Angeles newspaper videotex flop, the failing of
Canadian (Bell Canada's) ALEX project that the national association
even changed its name to get rid of the term in its title!

'dcom' might work, for even NAPLPS, with its wait and blink functions
giving dynamic rather than static graphics, and its inherent ability
to handle 'text-as-a-graphic' for language and symbol fonts, goes
beyond the scope of mere 'graphics.' And insofar as it pertains to
true interactivity, user-created frames, not just 'advertising
studio', it also goes beyond videotex, which means one-way graphics
to passive consumers in this country at least.

I would not mind, at some time in the near future, to learn enough
about the other protocols, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEING HOW TO 
INTERCONNECT TO THEM WITH NAPLPS, but the last thing I am trying
to do is get into another nationalistic videotex-standards war.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows)
Subject: Re: rec.games.mecha (was: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.board) 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
 <1992Oct1.005555.25895@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 03:47:42 GMT


I am totally for rec.games.mecha, and I'll tell you why.

Many of my favorite games are mecha/robot-related games.  BattleTech,
Robotech, Rifts, etc., as well as computer adaptations of them (Cres.
Hawk, MechWar 1.0 for Dos, etc.).  Having one single place to discuss
them all would be a (Net)godsend.  

Also, there is at least one other genre-related game group that does
not come under the header of rec.games.frp.*.  This group is           
rec.games.cyber.  Cyberpunk is a legitimate sci-fi genre--who can
deny that mecha is also?  Look at all the mecha or giant robot-based
books, role-playing games, movies, etc.  We should have a place to
discuss games based on this genre.  And there are many more games than
just those mentioned by other posters, surely.  For example, I saw
a game based on Robert Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS in a TSR catalog.
STARSHIP TROOPERS could be called one of the first mecha novels.  And
many other games have elements of mecha in them.       

And I've noticed comparisons of Robotech and BattleTech mecha in R.g.b
recently.  Rec.games.mecha would be the perfect place for such com-
parisons, because all mecha would belong there.  It fits.

The lab's closing and I have to go, but I've said what I need to say.
I support Rec.games.mecha over r.g.btech, r.g.armored-combat, or any-
thing else.  

---Chris Meadows

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:19:21 GMT

> 
> PROPOSAL:
> 
> Here's a proposal for an UNMODERATED group in comp.os.* dedicated
> to the 386bsd operating system developed by Bill and Lynne Jolitz.
>  
> 
> This RFD proposes a SINGLE UNMODERATED newsgroup, named
> comp.os.386bsd to service the entire 386bsd community.
> 
> My informal polls have shown that the vast majority of 386bsd users
> favor the creation of (initially) only ONE new group for 386bsd traffic.

No thanks.  The current use of comp.unix.bsd is just fine.

Besides, putting it under comp.os is inappropriate.  It belongs under
comp.unix with all the other Unixes and Unix lookalikes.

Why would anyone want to imply that it's no longer Unix, or at least
a very faithful lookalike?

-- 
Richard Foulk		richard@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: guru@halcyon.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Create a killfile? AAAAAAAARGH!
Summary: Lurker delurks
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:53:56 GMT

In article <rawdon.718939267@cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>In <N3LDsB4w164w@jwt.UUCP> bbs-jwelch@jwt.UUCP (Johnathon Welch) writes:
>>> So please, those of you who have a kneejerk reaction to an otherwise worthy
>>> newsgroup or alt. group to say "You slobs, USE A KILLFILE," try remembering
>>> that not everyone CAN.
>
>>Thanks Joel, yes people, some of us CANT use a killfile..  Some of us 
>>DONT go to college and have access to a UNIX system!
 
Tough!  I don't go to college either!  I pay for access to a
semi-commercial BBS so I _can_ have access to a Unix system.
I suggest you try something similar, and/or quit
complaining!
 
>Ahhh, logic.  "If we don't have 'em, then it's our moral duty to drag those
>that do back to the dark ages."
 
Yes, isn't it great?  With logic like that we would all be
driving at 35 mph on the freeways so the mopeds and antique
Model A's could keep up with traffic!
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: use a KILLFILE
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:34:37 GMT
Organization: negligable

A vote  needs to be taken in news.groups to start a "main tree" group,
but form what I understood any joker could start an alt. group.

Go ahead and make alt.fan.chthlu, add "Followup-to:" headers to the
chthlu msgs you get & eventually most of 'em should be redirected
to the new group.

If there *are* any "net.dictators" in charge of alt., present them
with a fait accompli.  But alt. groups are (as far as I understood it)
created every day seemingly on the whim of whoever figures out how
to issue a "newgroup" message......

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Between the silence of the mountains	|
and the crashing of the sea 		|	-Richard Hartman	
there lies a land I once lived in	|	hartman@uLogic.COM
and she's waiting there for me.		|
From: dww@bnr.co.uk (David Wright)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec or alt.joke - does one exist?
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:07:17 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Limited, Harlow, UK

In article <380@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
#So do you have an un-confusing suggestion?

Yes.  Try rec.humor and its sub-groups
	rec.humor
	rec.humor.d
	rec.humor.funny
	rec.humor.oracle
	rec.humor.oracle.d

rec.humor.funny is the best, because it's moderated to leave out all the
repeats and un-funny postings.  There's also eunet,jokes, but that is a 
European group and is not available at all sites.

Regards,     David Wright BNR Europe, London Road, Harlow, Essex  CM17 9NA, UK
dww@bnr.co.uk <or>  ...uunet!mcsun!uknet!stl!dww <or>  PSI%234237100122::DWW
Usenet works on the principle that 10,000 people know more about the answer to
any question than one does.  Unfortunately they know 10,000 different answers.
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Correction (Re: 3rd CFV and VOTE ACK: sci.aeronautics.airliners)
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:59:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: cactus.1992Oct14.055918.20635
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx

In article <Bw2Gxz.3EI@uunet.uu.net> airliner-vote@rascal.ics.utexas.edu writes:
>                   CALL FOR VOTES: SCI.AERONAUTICS.AIRLINERS

>rdd                                      Robert Dorsett
>rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu                Robert Dorsett

Sorry about that.  The first rdd should be from Steve_Smith@kcbbs.gen.nz,
who sent a message with an invalid header on Thu Oct  1 05:06:25 CDT.  The
ID's got confused in a subsequent attempt to clear things up.




Cheers,

---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Xref: sparky news.groups:18990 alt.config:6152
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config
Subject: Re: coercion and Usenet
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:07:09 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: nigel.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com) wrote:
: According to eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya):
: >
: >Actually he is right.  FAQs (for instance, and I should know) are a bit
: >coercive, but then so are roads ("drive here").  So are charters, so are
: >Constitutions.  So is language.
: 
: With apologies to Douglas Adams, I reply: This must some new meaning
: of the word `coercion' I wasn't previously aware of.

This section is from the roget's thesaurus, the bit about "take no denial"
seems to be the most relevant.  

---------------------------------------------------------------
#744. Compulsion.-- N. compulsion, coercion, coaction, constraint,
duress, enforcement, press, conscription.
     force; brute force, main force, physical force; the sword, ultima
ratio; club law, lynch law, mob law, arguementum baculinum, le droit du
plus fort, martial law.
     restraint &c. 751; necessity &c. 601; force majeure; Hobson's choice.
     V. compel, force, make, drive, coerce, constrain, enforce,
necessitate, oblige.
     force upon, press; cram down the throat, thrust down the throat, force
down the throat; say it must be done, make a point of, insist upon, take no
denial; put down, dragoon.
     extort, wring from; put on the screws, turn on the screw; drag into;
bind, bind over; pin down, tie down; require, tax, put in force;
commandeer; restrain &c. 751.
     Adj. compelling &c. v.; coercive, coactive; inexorable &c. 739;
compulsory, compulsatory; obligatory, stringent, peremptory.
     forcible, not to be trifled with; irresistible &c. 601; compelled & c.
v.; fain to.
     Adv. by force &c. n., by force of arms; on compulsion, perforce; vi et
armis, under the lash; at the point of the sword, at the point of the
bayonet; forcibly; by a strong arm.
     under protest, in spite of one's teeth; against one's will &c. 603;
nolens volens &c. (of necessity) 601; by stress of circumstances, by stress
of weather; under press of; de rigueur.

<--  p.  249   -->

(Roget's 1911 Thesaurus available from Project Gutenberg, from the
Reference shelf in the U Mn gopher, and from a WAIS server
'roget-thesaurus' running at CICnet.)
     
  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562


 
Newsgroups: news.groups