HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:54:12 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>I'm completely flexible about implementing the expressed wishes of the net.

That I do not see from your actions.

>The net HAS spoken. You'd be just as inflexible if the vote had gone the other
>way and I was pushing to make the change happen.

Not so fast with those assumptions. I challenge you long term to wait for
a counter example and see. 

>>Look, can't you even see that there is a problem?
>Only because you're causing one with your stubbornness.

It's not just me anymore. 

>I stand by the accusation. If it weren't for you stirring the pot, this issue
>would have blown over by now and we'd have one, unsplit group. Instead, YOU
>are going to split the group up. The people have spoken, and you don't like
>the answer.

I and at least 14 others...

>understanding of the way Usenet works. I find it hard to respect the opinion
>of someone who complains about the results of an open process after the
>process has completed.

It wasn't exactly open. It was (intentionally or no) quite easy for the 
untrained user to miss. 

>The users have spoken. Can't you see that?

I am. That's why I STARTED this whole mess. They spoke. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

                  "Better to be safe than to be sorry" 
   is a remark of value only when these are the actual alternatives.
From: gwangung@carson.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: To keep the r.m.s rename is _not_ elitist (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:50:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov10.165025.27688
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov9.210810.3134@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.160559.22623@u.washington.edu>  
>gwangung@carson.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov8.235836.6224@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com  
>(Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>> >It's elitist because the only class of people that understood the  
>> >implications of the articles are those who are intimately familiar with  
>> >net guidelines, and a subject line that was descriptive would have  
>> >prevented that.
>> 	No, it's elitist because it's expected folks can chew gum and pat  
>their
>> tummies at the same time.
>How is this comment even CLOSE to the topic?

	Let me put this in words of one syllable:

	IT

	AINT

	THAT

	HARD.

	For starters, how about reading messages? For second, how about
NOT expecting things to be spoon fed?



-- 
Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu
Producer Emeritus, Asian Theatre at the UW
	"The definition of balls is for a non-singer to go karaoke singing
with the cast of a musical revue."
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:54:25 GMT
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft

In article <7731@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)  
writes:
> In article <1dbpgnINNaeg@agate.berkeley.edu>  
shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:
> >Perhaps the CFV subject line should make it clear to whom the CFV is  
relevant?
> 
> CFVs are only posted to news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, and those  
groups
> affected by the vote. How could it be made clearer? "CFV! This means  
*YOU*!"?
> -- 

I agree with Ken here. I don't think it was clear at all. If you scan  
several hundred messages a day would YOU notice a CFV if it didn't look  
like it was for your group? Things get cross-posted and re-posted all the  
time. If it had said something like "Renaming of REC.MUSIC.SYNTH" it would  
have been 10 times easier to spot.

Gordon

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Followup-To: news.groups,news.admin
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:05:19 GMT

In article <2B02B7F3.6142@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>Whoever this person is, he or she has NO BUSINESS pretending to know
>how I may or may not consider myself.  NO BUSINESS AT ALL.

According to this same reasoning, you have NO BUSINESS pretending to be
concerned over his own thoughts.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky news.groups:20861 rec.music.synth:18100
From: wtkwest@duncan.cs.utk.edu (William West)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:08:12 GMT
Organization: Musician at large
Distribution: world
Reply-To: /dev/null
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

In article <1992Nov9.100735.11698@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
|> 
|> "The Call For Votes subject line should be clear to even the first
|> time usenet reader. Otherwise people may not pay attention to it."
|> -- 
|> Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
|> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh
|> 
|> The greatest test of courage on earth is to fear defeat without losing heart.


	Dave,
Thanks for taking on the entire Usenet for the benefit of those of
us who were not aware of what was going on. I have been readng mail
and News for quite a while, but I have not learned all of those
pig-latin CFV and RFD things (Rural Fire Department? ).
	Good luck, and keep fighting for what is right. Don't
let those subscribers to
rec.usenet.protocols.undermind-the-newguys.without.vaseline
have their way with musicians.

	Maybe it is fine for those unix and vms wizards to specialize
in one or two things, and know C and PASCAL; but when you consider
readers of rec.music.synth have to learn
Notation Software
Sequencing Software
Each Individual Machine Architecture (L/A, analog, digital, FM)
Each Individual Machine Software (Korg-speak vs Roland-speak...)
Signal Specs on Equiptment
and thousands of other Musical things (voicings, chords, progressions,
	history, notations, sound theory)

And on top of that: 
The o/s for the usenet reader (here: dcl or unix)
the reader itself (vews, rn, xrn)
possibly some other CS type things (xterms, emacs, eve, vi, csh, ....)

	Don't expect all of us to immediately know what CFD stands
for. I expect that after re-installing Ensoniq VFX software after
every crash, tracking down ground loops in setups, pogramming
in new sounds, exchanging patches from Softsynth to Turbosynth
to Sound Designer, and then porting them over to an Emax and
a TX16W and a DSS-1, that I am not really in great shape to figure
out any mor archaic terminology.

	I just wonder how many of the 'renamers' would know what to do
with the following scenario, and fix it:

            EG    EG
VCO  ---     |     |
         -- VCF---DCA--DDL-->  CFV-->
DCO  ---
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: RFD:  rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:21:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.180833.10208@nstn.ns.ca> CS341A002@Husky1.StMarys.Ca (Loki) writes:
>picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu writes:
>>tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes...
>>>Travis writes:
>>No.  This is not the job of rec.games.frp.misc/dnd.  Their job currently
>>INCLUDES this, but it is not their sole purpose.  Most of the traffic I
>>have seen on these two groups is rule-oriented rather than campaign-oriented.
>
>   And campaigns don't use rules?

Campaigning also includes rolling dice.  Would you thus consider an article on
"what colored dice do you all like best" an appopriate article for .campaign?
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: pakistan
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:18:42 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1dr3nrINNb2s@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak) writes:
>In article <1dpmibINNci@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx306@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eugene F. Gross) writes:
>>
>>Is there a group dedicated to pakistani culture?
>
>   No, but I'm thinking about officially proposing the creation of
>rec.arts.sf.pakistani to provide the necessary forum.
>--
>Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst

It may actually be more appropriate than you think. If rec.arts.sf is for
science fiction (is it? I don't read it), then there was a possible
Pakistani fellow as the chief engineer of Startrek - The New Generation
but he got killed after one episode and that's how Geordi got the job.
But maybe he was Indian, he may have been called "Mr. Singh". 

:-)

While talking about culture groups, this is a question that I've had for
10 years. Is it true that soc.culture.greek was intended for FRATERNITY
people and not for Ethnic Greeks? I seem to remember that soc.culture
greek was like the first or second culture group, there may have been a
celtic group at the time. Seeing that even major traffic / audience
soc.culture groups (soc.culture.jewish for example) or ethnic groups
(soc.culture.indian) came later than scg, i wonder. Back in late
83  I remember soc.culture greek, indian, and maybe celtic. 

Anyone has the answer to the above? 

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Xref: sparky news.groups:21372 rec.music.synth:18340 news.admin:8504
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth,news.admin
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:17:00 GMT
Organization: Bradley University

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>The next thing I *originate* will be some changes to the guidelines. I'm
>sorry that you folks feel that it's an unholy thing to try and save a 
>newsgroup...but tough tiddy. I did.

When are you going to get it through your head that this newsgroup does not
need saving because it IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE.  It will still be here.  It
will have a slightly different name, that's all.  I agreed with and voted
for the name change because I thought it made sense, and I've been reading
r.m.s for years.

I cannot applaud you attempting to subvert a legal and clear vote, but I do
applaud your initiative to modify the guidelines.  I wish you luck on
that.
-- 
 davE.  Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
######### David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:57:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.235535.14732@tc.cornell.edu> riley@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Daniel S. Riley) writes:

>As the rest of my post was supposed to explain, I'm claiming
>that the way the vote was conducted skewed the composition of the
>voting population, by making it more likely that readers of
>rec.music.makers would vote than would readers of rec.music.synth.

Very good point; I missed it in my response to that post.  The
Guidelines attempt to prevent a skewed vote by, for example,
preventing the vote-taker from campaigning for or against a group
during the vote collection phase, and from posting interim results.
Affecting a vote through incidental means, such as a misleading
subject line, are not covered, to the best of my knowledge.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:19:16 GMT

In article <martel.721312155@marvin> martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no (Paulo  
Martel) writes:
> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> 
> >You don't think hundreds of messages per day that contain acronyms like  
> >'RFD' and 'CFV' cause your eyes to glaze over? Take a refresher course  
in  
> >human psychology. If you want something to be notice the LAST thing you  
> >want to do is put an over-used term with little else in a title.
> 
> So perhaps Mr.Human Psychologist would prefer that over-used terms like 
> "DANGER" or "FIRE EXIT"  be replaced by less common terms like 
> "FREE BEER" or "DON'T PANIC" :-)
> Sorry, I couldn't  resist.
> 
What was the point of your post? Clearly it wasn't to discredit my opinion  
since your text actually supports it. The point was NOT to use "over-used  
terms". Thanks for providing a nice example.

Gordon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:15:38 GMT
 <1992Nov5.213730.789@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <7739@lib.tmc.edu> <1992Nov6.190715.22999@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Nov6.190715.22999@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>>>I don't think they knew to do so. Some of those people have (and desire to
>>>have) little clue as to USENET and it's politics. They shouldn't have to
>>>have a clue when it comes to affecting their group.
>>If that's the case, then what do they care what the group is called -
>>especially those on the other side of a Usenet-to-something-else gateway?

>Because their group might be fragmented. That's why. That's why *I* care.

So don't cause the fragmentation.  Go along with the vote.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
From: nafpliot@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (Nicholas Nafpliotis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.ai.genetic
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:50:04 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I am in support of this group.  However, I would also like to see it as
comp.genetic, or comp.genetic-algs.  This is becasue GA's are nowhere near
limited to simply applications in AI.

Nick Nafpliotis
nick-n@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen)
Subject: Re: Discussion request: Keeping soc.religion.* flat
Reply-To: bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
Organization: delab
	<1992Nov10.042436.28854@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
	<1992Nov10.225423.3753@muddcs.claremont.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:18:32


IMHO soc.religion.* _is_ flat, so why all the noise??

On the other hand, I prefer logical naming in place of some incomplete
naming, just because of .... (insert the reason why somebody want
soc.religion.* to be flat, so far I have not noticed any.)

If we get hundreds of new groups under s.r.* I would have problems
navigating if they were all at the same logical level. The RFD-period
is the right time to decide if the CFV will be with a 'flat' name or a
hierarchical name. Just note what happened to the proposed
soc.religion.christian.mormon, it ended up in the CFV as
soc.religion.mormon. That was based on comments and a straw poll
during the RFD. (The group failed, and not because of its flat name,
but that is another story.)

In article <1992Nov10.225423.3753@muddcs.claremont.edu>
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:

> [ ... ]

>Let me give a couple of non-controversial examples of what I'm suggesting.
>On the left side, I have groups which might be created in a non-flat
>soc.religion hierarchy; on the right, a corresponding name in a flat
>hierarchy:

>soc.religion.christian.protestant       soc.religion.protestant
>soc.religion.christian.catholic         soc.religion.catholic
>soc.religion.christian.greek-orthodox   soc.religion.greek-orthodox

That was a bad proposal. First I see no reason why anybody should want
to split s.r.c, and secondly, if we were to split the group, I would
prefer your listing on the left.

>I've just thought of another problem, though: what about controversial
>groups whose names are a generic adjective and a supergroup? For example,
>Messianic Jews? soc.religion.messianic isn't not entirely descriptive, but
>if non-Messianic Jews don't think Messianic Jews are Jews, they'll be
>politically opposed to soc.religion.messianic-jews or .messianic-judaism
>(too long) or whatever.

This problem will not be solved by a flat hierarchy. If a group shall
be created, it must be possible to indicate its contents by its name.

>I guess it falls to the proposer of a group to come up with a political
>acceptible group name. 

Right.

>                       Keeping soc.religion.* flat pushes people in that
>direction, but obviously still can't force anything.

Why does it push people in the right direction?

> [...]

Bj{\o}rn
From: amjad@otago.ac.nz
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM.AHMADIYYA-MODERATED.
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:21:47 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

In article <1dap0oINNi2j@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
> [Dislaimer:  I neither know very much nor have anything against either
> Islam or Ahmadiyya.]
> 
> It would seem to me that the discussion of a new group has evolved
> into a religious debate.  I would respectfully suggest that it be
> moved to one of the religious groups; it does not belong here.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> -- 
> Joshua E. Randall                       randall@minerva.cis.yale.edu



Yes dear Mr Joshua, I agree with you, so due to that reason we are trying to
have a separate news group where we can discussed all the matters related to
Ahmadiyya Islam. Thank you for giving this idea.

Amjad Tariq, New Zealand.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD*...)
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:50:36 GMT

In article <BxGn7x.L5I@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>  
ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
> Dave Hayes voted.  Dave Hayes knew about the vote.  Dave Hayes did not
> foresee that the subject line was misleading the readers of r.m.s,
> else he would have mentioned it either here or to the readers of r.m.s
> directly.  Why does Dave Hayes expect Rich and the people who helped
> him modify his proposal to have foreseen something Dave Hayes himself
> didn't?  I believe this disqualifies Dave Hayes from accusing Rich of
> writing a cryptic subject line, which is the last leg of Dave Hayes'
> "uninformed reader" argument. 
> 
> Gordon, I believe you were speaking. . . ?
> 
Thanks for bringing us up to date with your interpretation of the  
proceedings.

What we should be tryng to do here is discuss whether the guidelines can  
and should be changed in such a way that people like Rich can put together  
proposals in such a way that the impact is made clear to the people in the  
affected groups. There are a lot of ideas about this. There is also a lot  
of stonewalling and argument for the sake of argument and looking "right",  
and calling people to whom it wasn't clear "ignorant idiots".

For the record, and I believe I've stated this before, I don't doubt for a  
second that Rich had the best of intentions and felt that he was following  
the guidelines. This isn't about Rich - I hope he doesn't take it  
personally although I'm sure it's hard not to. This has been a pretty  
emotional debate, and it's difficult to have people criticize what you've  
done - particularly if you spent a lot of effort trying to do it right.

The question is - could things be changed to where this process is better  
in the future. I believe they can be.

As for Dave being "disqualified" because he didn't find it cryptic  
personally, it certainly doesn't remove him from looking at the problem.  
If it did, ALL the people that thought it was just fine should be  
disqualified as well, since they obviously don't see the problem.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:33:32 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<cuz.721348728@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu's message of 9 Nov 92 22:38:48 GMT

Yes, education.  We all are enrolled in the school of hard knocks.
Whether we learn is our own business.  And that applies to admins,
as well.

And the Guidelines can be revised when they're shown to be faulty,
inadequate, or not as good as that could be.  But that's a different
question from invalidating a vote carried out in good faith according
to the existing Guidelines.  I don't believe the CFV was intentionally
made obscure; there is much precedent for its form.  But I'll
entertain arguments that improvements can be made, and perhaps should
be in the Guidelines.

In another thread.


--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Xref: sparky news.groups:20902 rec.music.synth:18127