HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:34:14 GMT
Organization: Hyperion, Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: spud.hyperion.com

Michael Shappe, mss1@cornell.edu, has agreed to moderate the newsgroup.
He recently started (and moderates) the TREK-REVIEW-L mailing list, which
will be maintained after .reviews is created.  The group and the mailing
list will be linked.

While he and I were talking about the group, he mentioned a possible quick
and easy answer to the crossposting question.

In short, crossposting or not would be left up to the individual reviewers.
If a submission comes in crossposted to .current or .misc, Michael would
crosspost it.  Mailed-in submissions with a "please crosspost this" note
would likewise be crossposted.  By default, submissions would only appear in
r.a.s.reviews.

That's the idea.  Comments are invited.  My personal view is that we should
turn this around; the default should be to crosspost, but the submitter
should be able to request that a review only be posted to .reviews.
Otherwise, novice reviewers won't know that the option is available.  That
can be alleviated by sending mail to each first-time reviewer, but their
first reviews would not be crossposted or would be held up while Michael
waited to hear whether they wanted to crosspost or not.

So the relevant section of the charter would read:

All reviews will be crossposted to rec.arts.startrek.current or to
rec.arts.startrek.misc, as appropriate, so that readers of those groups
will still enjoy the same reviews they always have.  If further splits
of the rec.arts.startrek heirarchy occur, reviews will be crossposted to
the appropriate new group (e.g. rec.arts.startrek.tng, if such a group
were to be created.)  Reviewers may request that their reviews not be
crossposted, but followups will be directed to the appropriate discussion
group in any case.

Again, comments are invited.  Would this satisfy those who aren't comfortable
with their reviews being crossposted?

-Steve
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 27 Jan 1993 03:13:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>In article <1jvvosINNeq3@rodan.UU.NET> koreth@hyperion.com (Steven Grimm) writes:

>>This is the second REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION for rec.arts.startrek.reviews.

>>6. What about rec.arts.startrek.info?
>>
>>R.a.s.info's moderator has stated that he believes it is counter to that
>>group's charter to post reviews there.  Since there is currently no procedure
>>for changing the charter of a newsgroup, a .reviews group is the way to go
>>if segregating reviews is desired.

>Just one suggestion: if there is currently no procedure for changing
>a group's charter, why not make one up?  If there's nothing in the
>rules expressely forbidding it, then why couldn't we just have a cfv
>on changing info's charter?  

Unless there is strong evidence that the charter of r.a.s.i and the way in 
which Jim Griffith moderates r.a.s.i is somehow *faulty*, I would find any
attempt to change r.a.s.i's charter rather...tacky.  Out of respect for Jim,
I would oppose any move such as this.

>>Crossposting
>>------------

>I would be in favor of crossposting, since it would provide a base
>reference for followup discussions in .current or wherever.  

Seconded.

>I think that while r.a.s.reviews is a worthwhile proposal,
>the biggest problem with the r.a.s. groups is that .current is just too
>big.  

I disagree.  The biggest problem is that people are posting articles to 
.current when the articles should be elsewhere.  This has the side effect of
making .current's volume heavy, but is not something that will be solved by
*yet another* split, IMO -- and certainly not a TNG/DS9 split.

>Now, here's the point: I will vote for the creation of .reviews *if*
>people generally agree to get serious about splitting .current in some
>way after the .reviews group is created.  

Sounds to me like your vote's for sale, sir.  I suggest you treat this 
proposal on its merits and allow others to do the same for yours.  I will
"get serious about splitting .current" just as soon as it seems warranted and
as soon as someone offers a split proposal that isn't unworkable from square
one.  If that offends you enough that you would "deny" r.a.s.reviews your vote,
that's your business.

>Indeed, when someone first pointed out that proposals to create .reviews
>and to split .current into ds9 and tng branches were *not* mutually
>exclusive, and I posted in support of this idea, the reaction of 
>many people was just that -- "How many groups does Trek need?"

And regardless of what happens to .reviews, my bet is it will continue to
be.  Trying to hold .reviews "hostage" for your own brainstorm's benefit is
a tactic extremely likely to backfire.

As for me, the only thing about this I'm only slightly wary of is the 
subject line requirements, and I can definitely live with those.  Keep the
crossposting proviso in, pick a sane moderator, and you've got my vote.

Tim Lynch
From: koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split
Date: 21 Jan 1993 11:20:31 -0800
Organization: Hyperion, Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: spud.hyperion.com

In <1993Jan21.105357.19611@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>If you agree that reviews and comments are intimately linked, then
>why have a special group for reviews to begin with?

For the reasons I've been expounding since posting the original RFD.  I
often don't have time to sort through a lot of comments (most of which I'm
not interested in) to get to the reviews I want to read.

That is not the same thing as saying that comments are bad, or that people
shouldn't be encouraged to comment on reviews.  I'm just saying that I'd
like the option of reading the magazine article and not the letters to the
editor without having to expend a lot of unnecessary effort.

-Steve
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: suopanki@stekt1.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Reply-To: suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
	<1jn32jINN2fu@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:42:23 GMT

>>>>> On 21 Jan 1993 21:03:15 GMT, rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) said:

> I support rec.*.orienteering, but I feel the name should be
> rec.sport.orienteering.  Orienteering is a sport.

Richard> Gee, how much does someone make as a professional orienteer? Does the NCAA 
Richard> regulate it or is it a club sport? Who is the high-school champs this year?

I don't know about North America, but here in Nordic countries
orienteering is definitely a sport.
And rather popular one...


-Heikki
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:25:00 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

I think this is a wonderful idea (in fact, I was surprised when I started
looking the other day that there was not already a Windows NT group).

Because this group would definitely have the potential to require splitting
into mucho sub-groups, I would suggest starting with

comp.os.nt.misc

leaving room for

comp.os.nt.programmer
comp.os.nt.programmer.apps
comp.os.nt.programmer.drivers
comp.os.nt.intel
comp.os.nt.mips
comp.os.nt.alpha
...

And all the other beasts which will no doubt be summoned.

(But I can't really say I care all that much what it is called, I would be
more interested to see the group than the name of the group).
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cmcurtin@bluemoon.use.com (Matthew Curtin)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:49:12 EST

georged@sequent.com (George Dolbier) writes:

> This is a Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of:
> comp.os.nt (unmoderated)

I like it. :-)

> PROBLEMS:
> ---------
> 	First problem: the name. comp.os.nt is short and to the point, 
> but maybe too short.  comp.os.windows-nt is too long, comp.os.windowsnt
> is too mushed, comp.os.ms-windows.nt IS NOT the correct location.
> Windows NT is not a subsystem of Microsoft Windows, it is separate
> and non equal to Microsoft Windows. This is a RFD for a reason,
> I'm way open to suggestions for a new name. If someone can convince
> me that comp.os.ms-windows.nt is appropriate, great.

comp.os.nt might not be descriptive enough, i.e., people who say "What's 
NT?" but understand when you say "Microsoft Windows NT." I don't see a 
problem with comp.os.windows-nt; it isn't THAT long, and it is certainly 
much better than such silliness as comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32.

 __________________________________________________________________________
| C. Matthew Curtin             ! "But I am the enlightened one, they are  |
| P.O. Box 27081                ! but mere sheep, following each other in  |
| Columbus, OH 43227-0081       ! the name of compatibility." -B. Heineman |
| 614/365-3272                  !                IRC:GS-Matt               |
|_cmcurtin@bluemoon.use.com_____!___Apple_II_Forever!_GNO_your_AppleIIGS!__|
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:50:31 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1993Jan22.101558.15204@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rapickering@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:

>I support the creation of the comp.sys.mac.powerbook newsgroup.
>Apple has currently made no mention of straying from the use of the term
>Powerbook to identify its line of portable computers.  Therefore the use
>of the term seems appropriate.

Uh huh. So the other Mac portable computers don't count? Any future
Macintosh portable computer will be excluded? The line between a PowerBook
and a Newton is getting blurry. In time, there will be a product between
them that is a portable Macintosh computer and NOT a PowerBook.

>As for reasons to create the group...I believe that the current hierarchy
>of groups within comp.sys.mac.* greatly benefits the general Macintosh 
>user community.  However, there are numerous aspects of Powerbooks that are
>specific to these types of machines.  Whereas many of the other Macintoshes
>share very simmilar architectures.  The creation of a group for powerbooks
>would benefit the user community of PowerBook users by allowing us to 
>quickly gather and transmit information that concerns only us, and not the 
>general Macintosh community

And what will you do when PowerBook owners begin to post general mac
traffic to .powerbook? Enough people will be too lazy to read anything but
.powerbook to cause such traffic. Enough people will not know what is a
PowerBook issue and what is a Macintosh issue. The group would be useless
crossposted gibberish with a very poor signal to noise ratio.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
_____________________________________________________________________________
 Cerebus for Dictator in 1993!!    | "Responsibility is when someone can
     "Vote for me or else."        |  blame you if something goes wrong."
From: pmontgom@math.orst.edu (Peter Montgomery)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Disciplines in misc.jobs.offered postings
Date: 24 Jan 1993 23:55:53 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University Math Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: lab12.math.orst.edu

>We presumably still want job-title, company-name, and location.

>We may or may not want ENTRY or other keywords.  What about having
>SOFTWARE and HARDWARE and NON-COMPUTER as additional keywords?

        I don't need a company name (unless it is RECRUITER).
But I do want classifications (cf. those in newspapers), such as Wolf's
HARDWARE and SOFTWARE.  NON-COMP is far too broad, and omits fields
such as computer administration, teaching, and computer sales.
If the economy improves under the Clinton administration,
then the number of job postings will grow.
We must be prepared for the growth, both in number and in variety.

        Any academic discipline, such as PSYCHOLOGY, should be allowed.
Subdisciplines, such as DATABASES and NETWORKING, can be allowed if they
fit in one word.  Long names like CHEMICAL-ENGINEERING and NUMERICAL-ANALYSIS
should perhaps be hyphenated (or have other delimiters).
They might instead be abbreviated like COMPU-ADMIN and ARTIF-INTEL.

        If the discipline comes first on a subject line,
then those using rn can (gradually) build KILL files for
the disciplines we are not interested in.  But there should
be only one discipline per posting.  Otherwise, if a posting begins

   PHYSICS,MATHEMATICS,SOFTWARE | Satellite simulation | NASA | Houston, TX

and I choose to kill everything beginning with PHYSICS, then I won't
see the article even though I am interested in MATHEMATICS posts.
A discipline like SIMULATION might be appropriate here.

        The precise set of disciplines can grow gradually.
If the job requires foreign language skills, then one might use the
foreign name of the discipline.  And we shouldn't care whether
(for example) the employer selects HEALTH or MEDICINE or NURSING
as a discipline name, since those of us interested/disinterested in these
professions can put none or all of those words in our KILL files.

        Postings to misc.jobs.resumes should have similar keywords
identifying the discipline(s) of the poster, but here it is
reasonable to have multiple disciplines.  We need comments
from employers on what they would like in that newsgroup.

-- 
        Peter L. Montgomery              Internet: pmontgom@math.orst.edu
        Dept. of Mathematics, Oregon State Univ, Corvallis, OR 97331-4605 USA
My visiting professorship ends in June.  Interested in program optimization,
compilers, architecture, number theory.  PhD with 17 yrs industrial experience.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: barth@wam.umd.edu (Kevin J. Barth)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:16:48 GMT


I, too, am interested in miniatures from a fantasy standpoint rather than 
a historical one.  However, with the exception of one brief (apx. 10 note)
string in alt.games.frp.dnd, I have not seen any interest in the topic 
displayed.  Perhaps there is more of a need among the historical wargamers,
but I don't see that the interest is out there for frp-types.

If there is, in fact, sufficient interest among frp-players I would support
the group.  Right now I am ambivalent about it at best.

Kevin Barth
barth@wam.umd.edu
From: arch@cisco.com (Arch Mott)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Rename rec.boats to rec.outdoors.boats
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:49:57 GMT
Organization: cisco Systems
NNTP-Posting-Host: amott-ss2.cisco.com
Summary: please don't

Folks-

My personal feeling is that the "outdoor" hierarchy should sooner go away than
have more groups moved to it. I personally know of no-one who a) fishes inside
or b) boats inside (bathtub toys excepted). Boating is a wide enough topic that
it deserves its own rec sub-hierarchy, though perhaps a sail/power split should
be forthcoming (a la paddle).

My $.02 worth.
-- 
Arch Mott                 | arch@cisco.com     |"In this case, it is the
cisco Systems, Inc.       |Voice:(415)688-8245 | author's opinion that 
1525 O'Brien Drive        | FAX:(415)688-4575  | said user will get what
Menlo Park, CA 94026      |                    | he deserves."  -tcsh man page
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.databases.object
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:21:44 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1jmscfINNh23@rodan.UU.NET>, jamesm@procor.dialogic.com (Mark James) writes:
> 
> The proposed newsgroup "comp.databases.object" is intended to serve as
> a medium for the sharing of knowledge about systems which combine
> object-oriented technology with that of database management systems.
> 
> 1.  Is the name "comp.databases.object" the best one?

No, there is not an exsiting newsgroup for comp.databases.relational 
or comp.databases.hierarchial or comp.databases.network so I see no
reason for a group specific to object databases.


> 
> 2.  Should the new group come under the comp.databases hierarchy at
>     all, or would it be better placed under comp.object?

If you insist on going ahead with it, it should be under databases

> 
> 3.  What should our attitude be toward vendor publicity?  (This
>     should be a guideline only, since we probably don't want a
>     moderated group -- but we can consider that too, if desired.)

No other general comp newsgroup is moderated; This one should not be 

> 
> 4.  Would there be enough contributors (and not just readers) to the
>     new group to warrant its creation?

And here is the crux of the matter; at the current time there are almost no
implementation of object databases outside of some research projects. (Unisys
claims that SIM is an object database). Thus comp.databases.research seems
like the perfect place to discuss the topic until we start seeing some real
product and then we can discuss the need for a separate group. Object databases
are so integral to other topics in databases that I would not want this subject
broken off into a separate group. I really thing it needs to stay in the
comp.databases.research group
-- 
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
From: mgw@world.std.com (maryanne g wolf)
Subject: Re: Solution to whether or not to moderate misc.jobs.offered
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:54:49 GMT

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

This will greatly reduce the number of things the moderators would read,
and speeds up the posting of jobs that have correct subject lines.
If we put this onto a computer that is up a lot, or possibly have
redundancy on two computers in very different parts of the country,
it should be reliable enough.  Right?

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

A less drastic alternative would be to provide this script to the
moderators, but run it manually.

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

Mary-Anne Wolf
mgw@world.std.com
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:03:00 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1k72koINN393@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

>>Since rec.arts.startrek.reviews would provide an
>>ADDITIONAL place to post reviews and rec.arts.startrek.current is not
>>being rmgrouped I don't see the comparison.

>Why should there be an ADDITIONAL place? Isn't ONE enough?

Because people with stone age newsreaders and no kill files would be able
to read just reviews. I can live without a .reviews group but some people
can't.

>>I say, let them read that traffic in a low volume setting. As long as

>I say, let everybody read that traffic in a low volume setting, and let
>others benefit from less traffic in a high volume one.

There is no way to subdivide rec.arts.startrek.* so that all of the groups
are low volume all the time. Get real.

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

       "Economic deprivation makes freedom less relevant to a people."
				- Paul E. Tsongas
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wine@stress1.nrl.navy.mil (jim )
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: nrl
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:15:53 GMT



seems like a REC.FLYING.x  would be a good idea as there are 
quite a few flying groups around.

=================================================
wine@stress1.nrl.navy.mil
B-15788
"Are you ready to skydive?!?..............DOOR!!"
=================================================
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:28:59 GMT

In article <1jvvqbINNeqn@rodan.UU.NET> georged@sequent.com (George Dolbier) writes:
>This is a Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of:
>comp.os.nt (unmoderated)
>
>SYNOPSIS:
>---------
>	The proposed newsgroup is intended to provide a forum for 
>discussing topics relating to the Microsoft Windows NT operating 
>system.
>
>RATIONALE:
>----------
>	Windows NT is an operating system that will be separated and
>different than either MS-DOS or Microsoft Windows. Currently the
>available news groups to discuss Windows NT are comp.os.ms-windows*,
>comp.os.msdos* and others. There is no central location to discuss
>issues relating to Windows NT.
>


Great idea!  I second (third, forth [sic], whatever) the idea!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: fls@econ.duke.edu (Forrest Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:24:22 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.


	Why should a newsgroup with games in the title and no mention of war
be a newsgroup about war games?  I think some kind of disclaimer needs to
be addended, like, rec.games.miniatures.WAR.
-- 
   __  __                                     
  |__ |__                             %  
  | |  __|  fls@keynes.econ.duke.edu  %  See what the bears in the
    |__                               %  back room will have.
Newsgroups: news.groups