HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cornhead@netcom.com (Jeff Miller)
Subject: Re: misc.forsale.computers reorg
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 08:36:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: opposed
Followup-To: news.groups
Keywords: rfd

I am very opposed to the division of misc.forsale.computers. My strong feelings 
spring from the belief that it will be a severe inconvenience for me especially 
because the cross-posting problem will be horrendous. But that is 
debatable.

The fact that most of these groups already exist as comp.sys.*.wanted or 
similar and are only modestly 
popular (though they do serve a valuable purpose I appreciate) is 
not debateable. The fact that m.f.c is in its own right popular in the 
face of these groups is sufficient proof that it should exist untampered 
with. 

I further suggest that the fact that this issue comes up and is either 
shot down or passively dies about every 4 months makes it a dead issue, 
and MOST IMPORTANTLY those of us who have seen it come and go so many 
times are so jaded and tired of spelling out our objections that the 
context for a meaningfull or representative debate is lost. 

I am not too familiar with request-for-votes protocol but I think 
whoever is responsible for taking the votes should post the total 
number of votes received to m.f.c on a daily basis so that this 
"silent majority" I hypothesize has ample warning to respond if, this 
time, the possibility of splitting the group becomes a very real threat.

I do favor the creation of a misc.forsale.computers.discusion group. 
That would be a dream come true. Personally I would like to 
see the name of misc.forsale.computers changed to misc.market.computers 
to better reflect the groups acceptance of "wanted" posts but I don't 
think it would be worth going through the bother of changing the name. 

To sum, my feeling is "Don't muck withe the only newsgroup I read on a daily 
basis!" and I think many people feel the same way. If this is not handled 
carefully and we all wake up one day to find our favorite newsgroup decimated 
I think you will have some very upset people on your hands. 

-cornhead
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jimf@shared.com (Jim Franklin)
Subject: RFD: comp.sys.stratus
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:46:40 GMT
Organization: Shared Financial Systems, Dallas, TX

I would like to say that I am in favor of the idea of creating the
news group "comp.sys.stratus".  When I say "Stratus", I am including
not only all Stratus systems but also IBM System/88 and Olivetti
CPS-32 systems.

The new group would serve as a forum for:

        - Discussion of operating systems(VOS, FTX, etc.) and vendor
          utilities related to benefits, capabilities and/or their
          shortcomings,

        - People not familiar with Stratus and its products to see
          what is happening,
          
        - Leads to third party software that would extend the users
          capability,

        - Questions, hints, news, discussions, arguments and the
          eternal flames.


The current mailing list was a good starting point for Stratus
oriented discussions.  The mailing list audience is currently limited
to the people that have subscribed to the list.  The non-subscribers
are excluded, although not intentionally.  I feel that more people
might find the news group than would find the current mailing list.

-- 
  Jim Franklin             Shared Financial Systems, Dallas, Tx
  uunet!shared!jimf        Voice: 214-458-5440   Fax: 214-458-3876
  These are my ramblings and may not be shared by Shared.
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc.culture.indian.american
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:40:36 GMT

In <5DWIEUL@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>You're intimately familiar with all the groups in question, how they were
>created, and so on. You don't just see "New newsgroup soc.culture.asian.
>american... subscribe?", like most people. A name has to first work out of
>the context of other groups, because that's how it's presented to new users.

Well, I DO get a one-line description (for most new groups or groups which
I resubcribe to).  I'm not sure who generates the description.

Using nn through nntp.
--
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; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: goudswaa@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter Goudswaard)
Subject: Re: 1st Call for Votes: misc.forsale computers reorg.
Keywords: CFV
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:37:09 GMT

newsnews@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (News Acct. 1) writes:



>This article is the FIRST CALL FOR VOTES on a reorganization 
>of the misc.forsale.computers newsgroup. This reorganization 
>will provide for the creation of nine new groups to replace 
>the current misc.forsale.computers group. 

>Create:
>	misc.forsale.computers.pc.clone         [ibm clone systems]

Although the discussion period has ended, I have been told on a few
occasions that renaming:
			misc.forsale.computers.pc.clone
		to:	misc.forsale.computers.pc-clone

will save a considerable amount of disk space (when all sites are taken
into consideration).  Has this been discussed?

I posted this here because I don't think that most posters bother to
read the discussion groups.  (And don't bother me with flames.)

I feel, too, that if you don't vote, you'll be doing a disservice to
the folks who post and read this group.  Please vote.

>  1. Discussion:
>     The official discussion period began when the first RFD appeared
>     in news.announce.newgroups, that is, 28 July 1992.  It ended on 
>     28 August 1992.

I'm sorry if I missed this, but was there a posting in this group about
the discussion in n.a.n.?
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:01:22 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

ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

>Hades> == Hades  <hades@coos.dartmouth.edu> 

> Hades> There are just no guarantees that a tv show will last longer
> Hades> than a couple of years and we have no need for more dead weight
> Hades> in the mainstram hierarchies.

>Given that the show's already dead, the argument that there won't be
>traffic after it dies doesn't hold a whole lot of water.

    I realize this, but I was speaking in a general manner. The fact
that the particular show we are talking about is already dead means this
group really shouldn't be created, IMHO.

>At least the RFD was for the Right Place in the Grand Scheme of Things.

    This is true.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
	    "Egads! These look like a women's fingerprints"
						   -- Durlock Holmes
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Wording of CFV (was: CFV: comp.graphics.opengl)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 17:35:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.163322.8739@kpc.com>, hollasch@kpc.com (Steve Hollasch) writes:
> 
>     Did I miss something?  I never saw an RFD for this newsgroup.  Was it
> posted to something other than comp.graphics or news.groups?  Was this
> newsgroup placed up for discussion under a subject line that didn't
> contain the proposed name or the word RFD?


Over the last few CFV's, I have seen similar expressions of wonder about a
CFV for which a person did not see a corresponding RFD. May I suggest that
all future CFV's contain a summary of the RFD [or at least a reference to
when the RFD was first posted in news.announce.newgroups] It would help
reduce this type of question (I am not picking on Mr. Hollasch since I have
posted almost identical articles on other news groups.). 

-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.diplomacy
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:46:39 GMT
 <BtnvEJ.83G@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> <1992Aug28.131916.24508@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <185ddpINN1gi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>

In <185ddpINN1gi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) writes:


>Even though Diplomacy is beautiful + deterministic + pure,
> it's not an issue here.  I love Dippy, and would have
> loved to see it included with the others, but it's one
> of a kind.  Including it would have made the charter
> (and especially the group name) impossible.

(A minor point; Dippy has simultaneous moves, thereby making it not a "game
of perfect information".)
--
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; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
From: lars@kopasker.is (Lars H Andersen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Divination
Keywords: Divination, supernatural
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:43:56 GMT
Organization: Primary School of Kopasker, Iceland

Dear friends,

Does anybody know of a group concerning divination and similar
matters?

Regards from Iceland

Lars H Andersen
Akranes
Iceland
lars@kopasker.is
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Splitting news.groups? Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:11:03 GMT

>Perhaps it's time to split news.groups? On what lines, though? By hierarchy
>is usually suggested at this point, but that would be a mistake: often the
>choice of hierarchy becomes a critical factor and a by-hierarchy split would
>tend to hide proposals from people who should be interested. Crossposting
>isn't the answer here, because the proposer tends not to consider his own
>choice inappropriate.
>
>How about splitting by phase: a group for brainstorming, a group for RFDs,
>a group for CFV flames^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussions, and a group for mop-up?

news.groups.ideas	First rehashing of ideas for new groups
news.groups.groups	Discussions following RFD's for new groups
news.groups.reorgs	Discussions following RFD's for reorganizations
news.groups.policy	Meta (RFD/CFV flames, vote count flames, changing
			the guidelines for creating new groups


News.groups.groups could be news.groups.newgroups.  groups/reorgs
should have better names.  Or perhaps it should be
"news.newgroups.ideas" etc.

The groups/reorgs division is a bit problematic, since proposals for
new groups and reorganizations are sometimes hard to separate (and for
some other reasons also).

Then again, I think news.* shuld be renamed usenet.* and a new news.*
should be created with the idea "news is not clarinet".

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:06:37 GMT

>   must be stated positively, i.e., do **not** allow:
>
>      Motion: CFR: It is moved that NEWS.ANNOUNCE.NEWGROUPS be retained.
> 
>   If less than 100 votes are received, then this vote will fail,
>   and the newsgroup **must** be removed!

If this is likely to be a problem, then don't use "yes" and "no."  Let
the procedure require that the votes be called "Keep" and "Remove" (or
something) so there can be no ambiguity.


Cathy
-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
Why throw stones even if your own house isn't glass?  Do you really want to
wreck your friends' houses?  What if your enemy retaliates with a torch?
And are you sure you don't even have a glass window somewhere?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Keywords: perfect-information deterministic strategic no-dice
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)
Organization: y
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 19:22:25 GMT

In article <Btp6EA.IKs@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> nick@sunburn.waterloo.edu (Nick Fitzpatrick) writes:

>I have read the RFD again, and again, and it seems to describe Diplomacy
>to a tee, with the exception of the use of country names, and etc, there
>is little connection to reality.  The game WAS afterall modelled on chess.
>If diplomacy does not fit the description, I don't know what does.
>
>Nick
>

If diplomacy fits the description, it is due to an inadequacy in the
description.  I think you have a valid point -- the description could
use a little work.

What excludes diplomacy is this:

(1) It is a simulation of political wrangling, using a map of the world
(2) It involves negotiations and secrecy, and your ability to win depends
	partially on your ability to convince and mislead people.

Can you suggest a way that the description could be altered so as to 
reduce this confusion?

And by the way -- if you posted an RFD for rec.games.diplomacy, with as
many people as you seem to have, I'm sure you would win.  I would probably
vote for it also.


Justin
sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: sridhar@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Sridhar Venkataraman)
Subject: Re: Wording of CFV (was: CFV: comp.graphics.opengl)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:24:23 GMT

rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
writes on news.groups:

)Over the last few CFV's, I have seen similar expressions of wonder about a
)CFV for which a person did not see a corresponding RFD. May I suggest that
)all future CFV's contain a summary of the RFD [or at least a reference to
)when the RFD was first posted in news.announce.newgroups] It would help
)reduce this type of question (I am not picking on Mr. Hollasch since I have
)posted almost identical articles on other news groups.). 

The solution is to make it mandatory (WHAT!!) for anyone to subscribe
to news.announce.newgroups. There is a weekly summary posted there.
All that people have to do is grep (Is grep Kibo's [tm]? :-).

)-- 
)Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
)Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
)Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
)                                           Houston, Texas 77030

Sridhar.
From: mholtz@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark A. Holtz)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: IMPORTANT: news.admin groups split details wanted
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:11:29 GMT
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix

Does anyone know which groups were created from news.admin split
which, I think, was announced a few weeks ago.

A prompt response is NEEDED!
-- 
         Do America a favor:          <:> UUCP: PacBell.COM! -> mholtz!sactoh0
When a pollster calls, if you are for <:>     ucbvax!csusac! /
 Clinton, say so. If you are all for  <:> Internet: mholtz@sactoh0.sac.ca.us
  Bush, tell 'em you're for Clinton   <:>  Fidonet: Mark Holtz@1:203/90.1701
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: d-lewart@uiuc.edu (Daniel S. Lewart)
Subject: Vote change?
Originator: dslg0849@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: d-lewart@uiuc.edu (Daniel S. Lewart)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:54:27 GMT

I am running a CFV for a new newsgroup.  One person voted "No" and made
a comment.  I replied to the comment.  Now, that person would like to
change their vote to "Yes".  Is this okay?

Thank you,
Daniel Lewart
d-lewart@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Subject: Re: rec.games.board.???
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 05:04:05 GMT


In a previous article, irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) says:

>In a prior article, Justin Wells (sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca) writes:

>> The real problem is that "rec.games.board" is actually
>> "rec.games.war" in disguise.  

[various games described]

>These games have some features in common with each other, but often fairly
>little in common with military-simulation war games. What _all_ these games
>have in common is that they involve a board. They are not card games (well,
>Wiz War comes close), they are not role-playing games in which one has
>characters and a game master, they are competitive multi-player games which
>rely heavily on the placement of some sort of pieces on some sort of board.

I would have to agree that Rail Barons, Civilization,
 etc, would not be well served by the name "war games".
 That genre should probably keep r.g.board, including
 the war games.

>Games like Chess, Checkers, Othello, Backgammon, et al are similar to these
>games, though many (all the ones I've named) are two-player. This might be an

Wrong list of games.  Backgammon uses dice, it's outcome
 is not purely strategic.  The games we're talking about
 have no, repeat NO, element of chance.  Othello, Diplomacy,
 etc.  Or am I way off base? 

>group; if this is deemed to be the case, I'd suggest that the new group be

Diplomacy isn't abstract.
-- 
Francis A. Uy			now a Bawlmorean, hon.
Program Director, WUMD		ISO part time job to pay the rent.
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Splitting news.groups? Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:37:13 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Aug31.201103.14601@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki
Kuoppala) writes:

>[quoting someone unnamed]
>>How about splitting [news.groups] by phase: a group for brainstorming, a group for RFDs,
>>a group for CFV flames^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussions, and a group for mop-up?
>
>news.groups.ideas	First rehashing of ideas for new groups
>news.groups.groups	Discussions following RFD's for new groups
>news.groups.reorgs	Discussions following RFD's for reorganizations
>news.groups.policy	Meta (RFD/CFV flames, vote count flames, changing
>			the guidelines for creating new groups

Any proposal like this, which requires threads to migrate from one group to
another in the normal course of events, is IMHO doomed. When a thread
migrates at present, it almost never happens cleanly: not enough people
either set appropriate follow-ups of their own or observe other people's.
Unfortunately, all this proposal would do is ensure that each proposal that
migrated from news.groups.ideas to news.groups.groups/reorgs would
subsequently get discussed in both places - with some articles going only to
one, some only to the other, and some to both. A recipe for confusion...

However, subdividing news.groups into news.groups.groups and
news.groups.reorgs does seem a reasonable idea to me: threads would usually
stay in one place only, and I suspect the initial "ideas" discussion can
almost always be placed in the right group from the start!

To bring in some other threads, perhaps we also need news.groups.removals
and news.groups.mod-changes (1/2 :-).

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: MTB newsgroup,  lottsa interest !!
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:03:46 GMT

Douglas Bender writes:
> I'm all for a rec.bicycles.mtb news group. Since the recent split of
> rec.bicycles I would like a single group where all MTB related
> postings can be read.

This was, of course, discussed during the recent division debates.
Instead of branishing this slogan, I suggest that you state what
charter you would like to see for this newsgroup.  All aspects of
mountain biking, including engineering, maintenance, equipment,
off-road rides, racing, social issues, injuries or whatnot?

What you and the other proponents of this idea seem to be saying is
that you would like a newsgroup that covers your specific interests,
but you haven't identified just what they are.  If you think that the
topic should be carved up along the lines of equipment & venues, then
you should also favor separate newgroups for road, cyclocross, track,
BMX, and hybrid cycling.  Not to mention artistic cycling and bicycle
polo.

--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: MISC.DISASTER.*  NEWSGROUPS
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:36:46 GMT

>I am surprised that Usenet, a powerful and international medium of
>communication, has not been more widely used to assist in the dissemination
>of information during crisis situations and calamities.  For example, I am
>sure there would be great support for newsgroups such as misc.disaster.reports
>and/or misc.disaster.coordination, which could be used:

I support the idea.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:04:23 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

herbison@erlang.enet.dec.com writes:

> I don't read t.p.* and I would much rather see one large vote then ten
> or twenty separate votes.  One vote means less traffic in news.groups
> and one vote takes much less time to submit than ten separate votes. 

True enough, but do you really think that all forty of those groups even
needed to be voted on?  I mean, talk.politics.antarctica?  Come on . . .

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

"what kind of dream was this, so easy to destroy?"
Newsgroups: news.groups,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.legal.family moderated
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:12:22 GMT

In article <02AQ02rr20Zq01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>I'd support the proffered newsgroup if for no other reson than to help clean 
>up misc.legal.
>
>On the other hand perhaps it does not go far enough.  Should misc.legal and 
>misc.legal.computing be reorganized into a misc.legal.______ family?

I tend to think that the problem with misc.legal is not so much noise
per se as it is cross-posting. 

I realize that overlapping of subject matter is unavoidable, but this
is not an extension of talk.politics. Or, rather, it shouldn't be.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:41:07 GMT


In article <BtyEpu.2CM@uunet.uu.net>, aryeh@cash.ucsc.edu (Aryeh Friedman) writes...
> 
>	I recently did a line count on my .newsrc and found that there are
>1660 groups in it.  Surely not all of them are needed.  To reduce the number

This is just the tip of the iceberg. My .newsrc has 3,700+ groups in it!

Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.     Suas
  Internet: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com                           leis
  UUCP:..!decwrl!edieng.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      a'
                                                                   Gha\idhlig!
  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital