HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: What *HAPPENED* to rec.arts.poems.urdu?
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:33:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.195926.4595@fuug.fi> an6966@anon.penet.fi writes:
>What happened with this news group?  It passed its vote fair and square
>and has been unfairly denied newgrouping since the net Cabal has
>"investigated" it without producing a report for over three months. 

First, there is *not* a Cabal, net or otherwise.

Second, if it passed it's vote (I wasn't paying attention), then the
vote taker is entitled to post a newgroup message to create it. For some
reason, that hasn't been done--perhaps the vote taker isn't so sure it
passed "fair and square", or there's some other question.

Third, the world won't end if the group doesn't get created today, 
tomorrow, or next year. Calm down.

>Again, I ask, WHAT HAPPENED?

Try emailing the vote-taker and asking him. Most of us out here won't
have any idea, and have very little concern. 

>To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
>Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
>and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.

Why is it you feel the need to use an anonymous account to ask about this?
Are you afraid of something?


-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
Windows NT documentation: "Command to change password    CTL-ALT-DEL"
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split -- possible compromise?
Summary: Possible compromise?
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:38:46 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1jg80oINNd1g@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>In <1993Jan18.114316.19501@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>>Wrong.  Splitting it into .reviews will *EXACERBATE* the problem of
>>too much traffic in .current.
>
>While at the same time causing it to cease being a problem at all for some
>subset of the readers (those who unsubscribe to .current) and making it much
>less of a problem for others (those who continue to skim .current but read
>the reviews).

But think of how many *will* unsubscribe to current!  Surely you will
agree that we should not split the r.a.s. hierarchy in a way that
will *discourage* people from taking an interest in and participating
in intelligent discussion about Star Trek!  Let's not provide
disincentives for people to unsubscribe to .current.
Also, remember that the *point* of reviews is to take part
in the ensuing debate and discussion.  Being able to do a
little more than skim current is an important part of this,
but under the .reviews scheme, people *still* won't have
the energy to post a lot of followups.

>And it does not interfere with any of the proposals to carve up .current.
Yes, the two proposals are not mutually exclusive; I hadn't thought of
that.  We could have r.a.s.c.ds9 and r.a.s.c.tng *and* r.a.s.c.reviews.
I would be willing to compromise and accept .reviews if we also split
current so people could manageably critique the reviews.  DS9 reviews,
however, should be crossposted to r.a.s.c.ds9, and tng reviews
to r.a.s.c.tng; the moderator would be responsible for this.

If it's an either-or choice, I far prefer r.a.s.c.tng and .ds9
to a separate group for reviews, but maybe it's *not* an either-or
From: jfh@cs.brown.edu (John F. Hughes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 25 Jan 1993 12:29:23 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.cs.brown.edu


Should rec.boats be moved to rec.outdoors.boats?

I think not. I think this for several reasons:

(1) Discussions in rec.boats are often on topics like the Valdez oil spill,
or the QE II grounding, which, although they happen outdoors, should no
more be considered part of the "outdoors" hierarchy than should, for example,
the war in ex-yugoslavia, or the 2nd-to-last Mets game of the season, which 
also happen outdoors, but which have other characteristics that define
them more accurately (war, sport).

(2) Discussions on rec.boats often have to do with the *indoor* aspects of
boating: good boating books, winterizing of engines, and general maintenance.
None of these things has much to do with outdoors. 

(3) If I were looking for rec.boats, I might first look for rec.sailing, and
perhaps rec.sport.sailing, and then I'd probably give up, failing to realize
that it instead fell under "rec.outdoors." Basically, I don't think boating 
people tend to think of the thing they do as a way to connect themselves with
the "outdoors" the way that, for example, camping people might. Perhaps 
we regard it as providing a connection with "the sea" or with our boats,
but not "the outdoors." 

-John Hughes
From: gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:41:25 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <8932@news.duke.edu> fls@econ.duke.edu (Forrest Smith) writes:

>	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.

You seemed to be able to figure out pretty quick that rec.games.miniatures
will contain some posts about wargames - I think anyone who would subscribe
to it would be able to figure this out just as easy without having to
put "disclaimers" on the newsgroup's name.  If _all_ miniatures games are
wargames, the title implies "War" already, if not, you're limiting the
scope of discussion unnecessarily.  Don't you think some people might want
to talk about painting miniatures or other things, and not just talking about
wargames?

-Travis Works

-- 
 

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT])
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.os2.{announce,ver1x,beta}
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:27:44 GMT

papresco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:

>>	This is a Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of three OS/2
>>	newsgroups:
>>	(1)  comp.os.os2.ver1x      (unmoderated)
>>	(2)  comp.os.os2.beta       (unmoderated)
>>	(3)  comp.os.os2.announce   (moderated)

>How about comp.os.os2.hardware, where we could take these PAS, SCSI,
>ATI, Trident, CD-ROM, Tape Backup conversations....

In last summer's proposal the .setup group had been proposed...
This could have served similar purposes.
I already asked the author of this RfD about that, but didn't get an 
answer until now...

Regards

Christoph Weber-Fahr

-- 
  Christoph Weber-Fahr                  |  E-Mail:  weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de 
  Universitaet Kaiserslautern,  KIT     |  S-Mail:  Postfach 3049
  Tel. 0631/205-3391                    |           D-6750 Kaiserslautern
--------------------------  My personal opinion only    ---------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
From: hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:29:17 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Engineering Research Center
Originator: hooverb@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu

From article <1jfmn4INNdi@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, by stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley):
> In article <1jaufeINNiev@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>>In <1j9nmcINN59f@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>>In article <1j9di1INNc1l@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>>>>In <C0xwBH.Jrs@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong) writes:
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Do I hear a gillie? Can you provide a quote that refers to "death of the
>>>net", or are you making it up?
> 
>>Much as I'd like to, I can't take credit for the phrase; it's been
>>bandied about in news.* for years.

I posted on this topic, but none of the stuff here is mine...
(just so some hot-head doesn't send me a letter bomb or something for
things I didn't say     8-)

Bruce Hoover
hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu



 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wlieftin@cs.vu.nl (Liefting W)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:22:37 GMT

ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:

>In article <1jn32jINN2fu@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>> 
>> The rec.outdoors was specifically
>> formed to handle those subject areas which didn't quit fit into that mold.
>> Orienteering is probably close to the dividing line considering some of the
>> rec.sports groups which have come through but I think it does belong in the
>> rec.outdoors hierarchy. Perhaps if we can get some more here, we can move
>> some of the second level groups such as rec.climbing to this hierarchy.)

>This discussion is currently getting started in rec.backcountry, and
>may eventually turn to a formal RFD.  Count me as one of the people who

>1) saw no point in rec.outdoors.fishing as opposed to rec.fishing,
>2) will resist any attempt to move rec.backcountry, rec.climbing, 
>rec.bicycles.*, etc. under rec.outdoors.*,
>3) thinks the whole concept of a rec.outdoors.* hierarchy is bogus and
>pointless,
>4) agrees with the concept of rec.sport.* for competitive/pro sports
>(although this has been bent somewhat), and
>5) and would vote for rec.orienteering.  No "outdoor" or "sport" needed.

>After all, what's next?  Rec.indoor.puzzles? Rec.outdoor.bicycles.misc
>for riding to work, and rec.indoor.bicycles.misc for riding stationary
>bikes and wind trainers?  What is the problem with rec.backcountry,
>rec.climbing, rec.orienteering, and even rec.fishing that people feel
>the need to qualify them under a separate "outdoors" hierarchy?  Heaven
>knows that climbing and fishing and kayaking and backpacking and
>bicycling and skiing and orienteering are all pretty damn different
>from one another!

Yeah, and we end up with rec.outdoor.climbing.indoor, discussing the
techniques used on indoor climbing walls.

(sorry, couldn't stop myself from making this remark...)

Wouter Liefting`
wlieftin@cs.vu.nl
Xref: sparky news.groups:26434 rec.backcountry:10535
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:02:57 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>
>                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>
>There is some discussion in rec.backcountry about creating a camping
>subgroup.  If such a group is created, it should be placed in the
>rec.outdoors. hierarchy which currently contains just
>rec.outdoors.fishing.

I can't figure out why it that group is not just rec.fishing.

Where does one classify ice fishing?  Is there a rec.indoors.fishing 
for persons who ice fish from inside a structure?  Some resemble 
mobile homes these days...

There is no reason to rename backcountry.  I cannot see anyone 
getting confused as to whether we are talking about an indoor 
activity -- apart from the planning and posting parts.

>Second, should rec.backcountry be renamed and modified to include
>subgroups?  It seems that splitting rec.backcountry might be a good
>idea.  But, where to split the group is quite another debate.
>Possibilities include:
>
>rec.outdoors.camping
>rec.outdoors.backpacking
>rec.outdoors.hiking

I do not think it is a debate.  I think you have no clue where to split 
it because there is no clean split.  Hikers and campers will want to 
know about things that concern backpackers (if we define that to mean 
people who hike to a place and then camp) and vice versa.  Massive 
cross posting does not solve any problem, and I do not think there is 
a problem at present.  The group has moderate traffic and good signal 
to noise at present.  It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native,soc.culture.misc
From: jmills@cass.ma02.bull.com (John Luke Mills)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:18:45 GMT
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.

I fail to see the point of the rec.outdoors hierarchy in general, and
definitely not for the rec.skydiving group.  Besides,  indoor
skydiving have become more important.  Some of the top Freestylists
spend almost all their time in verticle wind tunnels.  Leave
rec.skydiving alone.
--
From: gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu (gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:03:27 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: math14.math.umbc.edu
Keywords: network

I favor a comp.sys.mac.laptop newsgroup as a separate entity from
comp.sys.laptop (which is centered on IBM and clones) and comp.sys.mac.*
which tend to be too general to serve the needs of Mac portable users.
As for complaints about comp.sys.mac.{ii,iix,xi,fx,cx,ci,si,vx,...},
while there certainly are enough users of each model to warrant a
newsgroup, the actual models are transient as would be any newsgroup
pertaining specifically to them... including c.s.m.pb... c.s.m.laptops,
however, is more general and less likely to die out when the
NewerShinierFasterHappierShines-Your-Shoes-In-Half-an-Hour laptop comes
out than a powerbook only newsgroup.

--gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu
From: honig@binky.ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: sci.med.telemedicine
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:09:29 GMT
Reply-To: honig@ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Organization: UC Disneyland, in the Kingdom of Bren


 dfp10@csc.albany.edu (D Parsons) writes:
>[[ This article is the edited version of two separate articles which
>   Dr. Parsons submitted.  -- tale, moderator news.announce.newgroups ]]
>
>           REQUEST for DISCUSSION: sci.med.telemedicine
>
>A new unmoderated group is proposed - sci.med.telemedicine.  It is
>intended for discussion of design, hardware, software, strategies for
>extended clinical consulting by hospital computer networks.  The
>discussion is of special interest to medical centers seeking to apply
>telemedicine to their rural consortium and to isolated physicians in
>remote regions of developing countries.

I support the creation of this group.  And the .telemedicine label.  I'm
involved in research in an applicable discipline, and the specialization of
this new group would be useful to my handling the tsunami of news...

--
David Honig

"Q: What does a C programmer say to an Ada(tm) programmer?
 A: I'll have a burger and fries, no onions."
From: rfisel@informix.com (Rick Fisel)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: NEW GROUP PROPOSAL: rec.music.acappella
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:22:19 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

While I am a fan of some sorts of a capella music, I haven't seen any 
discussion of it prior to this on any of the rec.music subgroups that I 
read. Thus I figure there isn't any need for an additional newsgroup. It
might be the sort of thing that spurs discussion, but generally, I have
found that providing a separate group for a sparsely-discussed topic 
generally does more to cut down on discussion of that topic than improve
the posting rate. For an example, see the disappointing rec.music.compose,
for which I voted, and which gets about 5 posts per month ;(. 

Rick Fisel
(Informix doesn't tell me what they think, so how could I tell you?)
-- 
Rick Fisel (rfisel@informix.com)	|	Privatize George Bush!
opinionated employee of opinionless	|
Informix Software			|
I prefer replies by email. 		|
From: haskins@mipps.myapc.com (Robert D. Haskins)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFD comp.sys.harris
Keywords: CFD comp.sys.harris
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:11:17 GMT
Organization: Maine Yankee, Wiscasset, Maine  USA

While we are not currently a user of Harris machines, we are evaluating
several real-time options for a current project.  No matter which direction
we go, I believe that a 'comp.sys.harris' would be a good group to have
available.

Bob Haskins
haskins@mipps.myapc.com
From: bj@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Balint Joo)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:04:44 GMT
Reply-To: bj@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Balint Joo)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh


Received: from image.cs.nyu.edu by dcs.ed.ac.uk id aa23262; 22 Jan 93 19:50 GMT
Received: by IMAGE.CS.NYU.EDU (5.61/1.34)
	id AA06853; Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:48:32 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:48:32 -0500
From: Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@edu.NYU.CS.IMAGE>
Message-Id: <9301221948.AA06853@IMAGE.CS.NYU.EDU>
To: Balint Joo <bj@uk.ac.ed.dcs>
Subject: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Status: REO

Sorry for the previous very short statement. I thought it was a CFV.
I am not very pleased with the idea, mainly because it does not take
into consideration that the term "undergraduate" applies ONLY to the
US and UK school systems. Italy does not even have the CONCEPT of an
undergraduate (for the time being).

Beside that, I believe that a comp.cs.students would be way more
approriate, provided that it did not duplicate topics discussed
elsewhere (which it seems to be the case from the charter).

Again, sorry for my previous message.

Have a nice day
Marco

Marco Antoniotti
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robotics Lab		| room: 1219 - tel. #: (212) 998 3370
Courant Institute NYU	| e-mail: marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu

...e` la semplicita` che e` difficile a farsi.
...it is simplicity that is difficult to make.
				B. Brecht
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:28:57 GMT

In article <SHIBUYA.93Jan25142656@chute.bl.cad.slb.com> shibuya@bl.cad.slb.com writes:
>I second Dan.  I think "outdoors" sounds way too healthy for
>skydiving.  I hope we have a hierarchy for sports, but "rec.sports..."
>seems to be reserved for people who watch spectator sports.  And

Au contraire.  Check out rec.sport.paintball - certainly not a great
spectator sport.


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Xref: sparky news.groups:26486 rec.arts.startrek.current:25674 rec.arts.startrek.misc:14477
From: mss1@cornell.edu (Michael S. Shappe)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Rec.arts.startrek splits...a plea for patience
Followup-To: poster
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:48:43 GMT
Organization: Cornell University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uncle-mikey.cit.cornell.edu

Folks, the varied discussions regarding splitting or re-reorganizing
Rec.arts.startrek have turned into a babel of babble. It's time to take a
deep breath and step back a second.

There is only one Formal Proposal on the table -- to create
Rec.arts.startrek.reviews. I won't go into the details of the proposal, as
they've been beaten up thoroughly already...but the point is that that is
the only RFD'd proposal.

Therefore, NO OTHER DISCUSSION OF REORGANIZING THE TREK GROUPS BELONGS ON
NEWS.GROUPS. News.groups is for the discussion of proposals for which a
Request For Discussion has been posted and a formal proposal floated. 

There has been no formal Request For Discussion regarding any of the three
or four different schemes I've seen so far to split
rec.arts.startrek.current, and in my opinion, there SHOULD NOT BE until the
.reviews issue is dealt with.

Waiting for .reviews to go through the whole process, including the Call
for Votes, will also allow people to cool off, think seriously about what,
if any split, is REALLY needed (it's far too early to be able to tell, I
think), and come up with a solid proposal.

Let's deal with one thing at a time. The .current volume is NOT an
emergency right now. (Neither is the creation of a .reviews group, but
that's the proposal that's on the floor). While I recognize that it MIGHT
become one now that both DS9 and TNG have new stories on at the same time,
we need to deal with these things in a more orderly manner than we
currently (no pun intended) are.

Uncle Mikey
From: adk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Andrew Kennedy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergrads
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:58:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

We tried to correct that and repost it.  Has the new version not come through?
We thought our first posting didn'y make it, and had been cancelled.

Anyway, the proposed group _IS_ comp.cs.undergrad

Thanks.

-- 
Andrew D Kennedy  -  First Year Student  -  BSc AI & CS Edinburgh University
adk@dcs.ed.ac.uk adk@festival.ed.ac.uk akennedy@nyx.cs.du.edu  lupus on mono
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here stack-pointer, here boy!, here boy!..."                         Usenet
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
From: ali@sim2server.mentorg.com (Ali Haveliwala)
Subject: REC.ARTS.POEMS.URDU "What is happening"
Originator: ali@sim2server
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:00:30 GMT
Organization: MGC; Beaverton, Oregon
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


Well, I'm back from my vacation. 

It is rather unfortunate that the moderator who claimed will review the
results of "rec.arts.poems.urdu" has dissappeared. Repeated mail messages
have yielded no response so far.

I wonder if there is a nexus with the minority that has opposed this 
newsgroup, given the bias of the moderator. It is funny that so much
weight has been given to a few who do not know what urdu is all about,
without considering the interests of a growing ethnic group in urdu 
poetry.

We have to wait and watch. "REC.ARTS.POEM.URDU is going to be formed.
It's only a question of when". 

And to the BIGOTS on the net who accuse or send hate mail. I dont care
to stoop so low to your levels.


Regards


Ali