HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:07:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1ivffsINN2tc
Distribution: world
Organization: UW Computing
NNTP-Posting-Host: redx.cac.washington.edu

I agree with the idea that it should be scholarship not personal opinion - although personal responses can interesting if they are presented as personal reflections.
In article <1993Jan7.145632.22541@pdn.paradyne.com>, nelson@pdn.paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:
|> In article <1igd7qINN9hb@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
|> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
|> |>Why is this different from the existing moderated soc.religion.christian?
|> 
|> Discussions in soc.religion.christian are more topical in nature.  Some 
|> currently going on now, for example, are:  "The purpose of meetings of the 
|> local church", "Cremation", "Non-procreative sex", "Do we need to pray?", 
|> etc...
|> 
|> A Bible study newsgroup would be an appropriate place to bring people 
|> together and commonly study particular passages and then share their 
|> feelings/interpretations of those passages at the same time.
|> 
|> This group should be based on research, rather than topical conversations.
|> 
|> 
|>          
|> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
|> & Bill Nelson   & Alice: Cheshire Puss, Would you tell me, please, which &
|> &               &        way I ought to go from here?                    &
|> & AT&T Paradyne & Cat:   That depends a great deal on where you want to  &
|> &               &        get to.                                         &
|> & (813)530-8696 & Alice: I don't much care where......                   &
|> &               & Cat:   Then it really doesn't matter which way you go, &
|> &               &        does it?                                        &
|> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<id.76GW.CIJ@ferranti.com> <1993Jan8.014921.21652@cs.unca.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:11:19 GMT

BK> == Brad Kepley <kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu>

 BK> but at bottom, Church and State are forever united.
 BK>    Russel Kirk, "The Conservative Mind From Burke to Eliot", p140-141,
 BK>    1953

 BK> You really don't know anything about conservatives or their beliefs.
 BK> [...]  Any conservative knows from Burke the close relationship
 BK> between church and state.  Why don't you?  And you really expect us to
 BK> take your word over Russel Kirks about what conservatives believe?  On
 BK> what credentials?

Is Bill Weld conservative?  Does allowing same-sex domestic partners of
state employees to share benefits square with this particular definition of
conservatism?  I know that "the" Church (this being Massachusetts, there's
an amazingly high proportion of Catholic leaders ready to explain their
disdain for this sort of thing) was none too happy with that one.

(Now do you see the point Peter's making?  The label "conservative" is
becoming an incredibly fuzzy blob covering everything from the Pats
(Buchanan and Robertson) to folks like Bill Weld, who's more of a
"libertarian/conservative" (and was, notably, farther 'left' than his
Democratic opponent on social issues like gay rights).)
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
From: harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed 2nd RFD: soc.culture.native
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:14:44 -0500
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

In article <WARKENT.93Jan7142110@ltisun14.epfl.ch>, warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
> 	Teleinformatique
> Lines: 8
> Nntp-Posting-Host: ltisun14.epfl.ch
> In-reply-to: idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu's message of 6 Jan 93 11:41:49 GMT
>
> Hello Mike,
>
>   Perhaps you could use the word "aboriginal" instead of "native"
> in the text of the charter.  Otherwise, I am afraid that you
> will provoke more complaints about "who is a native".

Are you talking about the proposed name of the group or some other mention
of "native" in the charter?  If the former, this issue was already brought
up last month before the holiday break.  A straw poll was taken, and I believe
soc.culture.native won.

I have redirected followups into news.groups (this is about newsgroups not
native issues :-).
--
James Harvey    IUPUI OIT Technical Support/Networks
harvey@iupui.edu  harvey@indiana.edu  uucp:iugate!harvey  bitnet:harvey@indyvax
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: adiwan@quick.fox.cs.cmu.edu (Amer Diwan)
Subject: comp.lang.ml
Reply-To: adiwan@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, CMU
Distribution: news.groups
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:13:02 GMT

I vote a strong "yes" for comp.lang.ml.
    Amer
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amer Diwan					School of Computer Science
Fox Project					5000 Forbes Avenue
adiwan@cs.cmu.edu				Carnegie Mellon University
(412) 268-3066                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15213
From: harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:57:15 -0500
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

In article <1993Jan7.120821.24788@cas.org>, lwv26@cas.org (Larry W. Virden) writes:
> How about, as an alternative to the name, soc.religion.christian.biblestudy -
> otherwise, won't there be confusion about what bible or holy book the group
> is intended?
>[discussion about several levels of newgroups under soc.religion.christian
 deleted]

Historically, creating deep hierarchical structures of newsgroups merely in
in anticipation of potential future needs hasn't been done.  The reason why
it isn't done is simply that what is perceived as necessary for future needs
early in the development of a newsgroup hierarchy almost invariably turns
out to be wrong.

Just last month during the discussion (if you can call it that) concerning
a proposed new group soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya (forgive the spelling please
if I got it wrong) various folks pointed out that there are some very good
reasons given for keeping the soc.religion hierarchy flat.  Similar points
were brought up during the discussion about creating soc.religion.quaker
(which passed later).

A primary reason for keeping the soc.religion hierarchy flat is to prevent
discussions about proposed new groups in this hierarchy from degenerating
into discussions about religious beliefs.
--
James Harvey    IUPUI OIT Technical Support/Networks
harvey@iupui.edu  harvey@indiana.edu  uucp:iugate!harvey  bitnet:harvey@indyvax
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: oxley@pdn.paradyne.com (Don Oxley)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:06:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.061643.2801@news.acns.nwu.edu> marek@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.054851.21174@midway.uchicago.edu>
>elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>More precisely, for wont of example, what about the traffic from atheists
>interested in studying the text of the bible for academic or amateur
>research on anthropology/culture/religion studies/history/myth/sociology/
>women studies etc?  Should these people be expressly excluded from
>contributing to soc.religion.biblestudy?
>
>				-- Marek

Based on your example, these individuals would be using the bible as a
research resource rather than studying God's word.  I don't believe that
it was Bill's original intent to shun any individual or group from adding
to the discussion, but rather trying to prevent useless discussions over
whether or not God exists, the bible is truth or fable, etc.  I believe
that his intent is to create a forum to discuss verses with a goal of
gaining more insight into the scriptures.  

If anyone can provide any insight on how this can better be done, please
let it be known.

DonO

--
Don Oxley     |Internet: oxley@pdn.paradyne.com|"It is better to keep your mouth
AT&T Paradyne |UUCP:     uunet!pdn!oxley       | shut and appear stupid, than to
Largo, FL     |--------------------------------| open it and leave no doubt."
(813)530-8282 |  Opinions are mine, not AT&T   |               -Mark Twain
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: weinss@hall106.its.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein)
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:20:30 GMT

I got an e-mail message saying (in summary form)
1. misc.jobs.d is better than misc.jobs.discussion
3. 5 level hierarchies (e.g. misc.jobs.offered.entry.newgrads)
	are problematic for some reason.
5. misc.jobs.noncomputer better than misc.jobs.offered.noncomputer
My responses are:
1. We want it restrict to discussion exclusively and some people
	may not know what .d means.
3. If this is true, change misc.jobs.offered.entry.newgrads to
	misc.jobs.offered.newgrads and misc.jobs.offered.entry.almost
	to misc.jobs.offered.nearentry
5. This depends on whether we want requests for noncomputer jobs in it.

Stephen Weinstein
weinss@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: buchignani@hg.uleth.ca
Subject: Re: RFD : soc.forced-migration
Reply-To: buchignani@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:46:08 GMT

wickerhauser-victor@math.yale.edu (Victor Wickerhauser) in
<1ilfriINNfj@GOLEM.MATH.YALE.EDU> notes:
 
>In article <1993Jan8.110330.11159@vax.oxford.ac.uk> hbond@vax.oxford.ac.uk 
>writes:
>>
>>                       THE REFUGEE STUDIES PROGRAMME
>>                            UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
>>                     PROPOSAL FOR CREATING A NEWS GROUP
>>
>>                            SOC.FORCED-MIGRATION
>
>
>[Press RETURN for more...]
>
>News> 
>news.groups                       article 24056 of [23850,24070] (20 unseen)
>
>If you wish to study refugees from Bosnia-Hercegovina and occupied
>Croatia, it is much better to do it in Croatia or Germany, where there
>are significant numbers of them, rather than in England, where there
>are essentially none.
 
This comment clearly shows a less than comprehensive
understanding of the current state of refugee studies worldwide.
It is true that there are very few formal refugees in Britain
(though there are a lot of informal ones) and that there are many
in Germany and Croatia; but to extend this argument further,
there are far, far more in Africa than in the latter. 
 
This isn't really the point of such centers. The Oxford Refugee
Studies Program (as well as a few others in Canada and the US)
are aimed at such things as:
 
1) the identification of refugee issues and situations requiring
urgent attention
 
2) the dissemination of such research as widely as possible,
especially to government agencies and NGOs that play an active
role in such things as refugee resettlement, etc.
 
3) the development of refugee research competency around the
world, especially in the developing world
 
I strongly support the establishment of this newsgroup, inasmuch as
it would provide an immediate forum for the communication of
information on refugee issues worldwide--including Germany and
Croatia. No such facility currently exists. It would be
inappropriate to consider refugee issues only in groups nominally
set up to address particular countries or parts of the world, as
this would have the effect of submerging those with a specific
concern with refugee issues in a sea of others.


Norman Buchignani                e-mail address: BUCHIGNANI@HG.ULETH.CA
Department of Anthropology
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Xref: sparky news.groups:25191 sci.physics:22319
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:24:52 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>The problem seems to be that at least a few people think that Dale has
>contributed to the noise which has forced us to create the moderated 
>group in the first place, and that this disqualifies him from acting
>as moderator.  Personally, I do not see it this way.  It seems
>that some people are angry at him, and will take it out on him
>by opposing his moderatorship.

I have no anger whatsoever towards Dale.  I do have a concern about
whether he is the best filter to get rid of flame wars, but I would
not go so far as to say this disqualifies him.  In fact, I hope that
the concerns raised here are themselves adequate to serve as a reminder
to all moderators that flame wars should really not be tolerated.  I see
no reason not to go ahead with the CFV, to create the group as proposed,
and to see how it goes.

>But I have yet to see a credible
>and specific concern raised regarding Dale's qualifications or
>intentions.  Until I do, I will continue to support him.  

There is no concern whatsoever about his technical qualifications.  It
is hard to criticize his intentions when he has not made any statement
about them.  All we can review is his past history, and that history
shows 80% of his postings to be noise (by my count of the past two
weeks' postings).  I see this as a credible and specific *concern* but
not as a credible and specific *problem*.

Finally, I switched from physics to computers years ago.  While I might
vote yes on the new group to allow me the chance to listen in on the
ramblings of working physicists, I would never vote no and deny those
physicists a chance to decide for themselves whether they want such a
group.  I hope others in my shoes will act similarly.

     Richard M. Mathews			Lietuva laisva = Free Lithuania
					Brivu Latviju  = Free Latvia
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		Eesti vabaks   = Free Estonia
					        WE  DID  IT!!!
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mark@drd.com (Resident.Alien)
Subject: comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Organization: DRD Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:03:11 GMT

I've gotten a couple of rmgroups for these groups from
news@tacom-emh1.army.mil.  Are these legit or is news admin there not
setting distribution rightly?

-- 
mark.lawrence@drd.com                                     (918)743-3013
DRD Corp., 5506 South Lewis Ave., Tulsa, OK 74105         (918)745-9037 fax
Xref: sparky news.groups:25049 talk.politics.misc:66254
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: news.groups,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:36:17 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan2.045227.2091@news.uiowa.edu>, durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:
> In article <1993Jan2.040543.3614@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
> >>Oh bullshit....Conservative changes meaning every generation
> 
> >Now that *is* bullshit.  Republicans and Democrats change from Liberal
> >to Conservative every generation, but I don't know any Conservative who 
> >wouldn't immediately feel warmth for Burke and  concern about Burke's
> >concerns.
> 
> Ah, right.  William Weld and Pat Buchanan both describe themselves
> as conservatives and you think there's that much common ground
> there?  I don't think so.
> 
> Bryant Durrell					   durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu

There is one piece of common ground between Buchanan and Weld --
they both support the right to keep and bear arms.  But in general,
there are real differences between the two.

The problem is that "conservative" is used by a lot of Americans
to refer to a set of beliefs that has both libertarian components,
and the ideas loosely grouped as "civic republicanism."  Examples
include William Safire, William Weld, and William F. Buckley, Jr.

Another group of Americans who call themselves "conservative" are not
particularly libertarian.  These are big government sorts, primarily
interested in the preservation of order and the Judeo-Christian moral
code.  This includes people like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and
to some extent, Rush Limbaugh.

Largely because of the presence of the Libertarian Party, and the
poor example set by its more extreme elements, a lot of conservatives
of the more libertarian mindset are reluctant to call themselves
"libertarians," and I can't say that I blame them particularly.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.food.cooking
From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:17:34 GMT


	A little while ago, there was a lengthy thread on the possibility
of "splitting" rec.food.cooking--  or to be more accurate, about the
possibility of creating one or two new newsgorups.

	One of the ideas that seemed to receive the most support was 
creating rec.food.cookware or rec.food.kitchenware or something like
that.  

	My gut instinct on this is that there would be easily be enough
traffic to justify the creation of a cookware newsgroup.  I'm more skeptical
about the amount of traffic that would exist on a group devoted solely to 
bread machines.  There certainly wouldn't be any problem with talking about 
bread machines on a cookware newsgroup, however.

	In short, it might make more sense to call for a formal RFD on 
a rec.food.cookware newsgroup than simply for a rec.food.breadmachines
newsgroup.  

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>
Xref: sparky news.groups:25301 alt.folklore.urban:33138 rec.arts.poems:13552
From: jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (J. Furr)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.folklore.urban,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: rec.arts.poems.urdu review results?
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:16:10 GMT
Organization: Virginia Center for Lemur Fandom, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA (subscribe to alt.fan.lemurs TODAY)

In article <1993Jan10.163400.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Elmo the Stunt Elk) writes:
>
>	What was the outcome of the rec.arts.poems.urdu review?
>	I fear I missed it over holiday.  If Dave Lawrence hasn't yet
>       posted it, ignore this question; thanks in advance, otherwise.
>	Replies, please, not followups.

I believe it was revealed that 99% of the supposed "yes" voters turned out
to be residents of the largest cemetery in Chicago.

Joel "Voting the cemetery since 1933" Furr
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:13:17 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>In article <1ihrabINN23b@life.ai.mit.edu> dweinste@Gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein) writes:
>>
>>The charter goes on to limit the discussion as follows:
>>
>>#This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the 
>>#Bible, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under 
>>#question [...] 
>>
>>This is, to my mind, a major problem. It removes from the discussion *any*
>>positions which do not accept Christianity's mainline doctrines.
>
>In fact, depending on the choice of moderator, it might restrict
>discussion even further.  Different sects/churches have different
>interpretations of the Bible, attach different weight to the various
>books.  (I have been told, by a member of one church, that his church
>was based on strict interpretation of the Bible, and that their
>interpretation was correct and any different interpretation was wrong.
>A bit of digging revealed that they totally ignored the Old Testament.)
>
>The proposed group could be very interesting, but by moderating it it
>could very easily turn into a propaganda instrument to preach one
>particular view, while preventing dissenting views from being presented.
>
>I wasn't going to vote initially, but I think I now would vote no to
>this proposal.  I would refrain from voting if the group was
>unmoderated, or the name clearly reflected the scope planned by the
>moderators.
>
>A question to illustrate my point - would the proposed group deal with
>the Apocrypha, which is recognized by some and not by others as part of
>the Bible?

In my opinion, yes.  Discussions of the pseudopiegrapha, apocrypha and any 
other non-canonical writings have to be allowed, or else you really can't
have a discusison on canonicity, now can you?  

I say that the group should be moderated (to eliminate flaming, did-to-
did-not yelling, heretic calling, etc).  As I said, I'd consider being the
moderator of such a group, time permitting.  But only if the charter is
wide open to any Biblical or Bible-related topics.  And to any person,
irrespective of beleif or non-belief.

I won't support a group restricted to 'Christian' ideas, since I have no
idea what that means, and I'm a Christian!

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 06:44:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.054851.21174@midway.uchicago.edu> elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1iftqkINN77t@rodan.UU.NET> nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) 
> writes:
>>Proposal:                     "soc.religion.biblestudy"
>>This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the Bible,
>>Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under question.
>
>Then you should be proposing soc.religion.CHRISTIAN.biblestudy, then,
>shouldn't you?

Which still leaves the question:  *which* Christians?  A lot of people
use that name, and some of them try to use it exclusively . . .

I don't think this is the case here, but that all depends on who gets
assigned as moderator . . .

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 22:25:20 GMT

In article <1ihrabINN23b@life.ai.mit.edu> dweinste@Gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein) writes:
>
>The charter goes on to limit the discussion as follows:
>
>#This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the 
>#Bible, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under 
>#question [...] 
>
>This is, to my mind, a major problem. It removes from the discussion *any*
>positions which do not accept Christianity's mainline doctrines.

In fact, depending on the choice of moderator, it might restrict
discussion even further.  Different sects/churches have different
interpretations of the Bible, attach different weight to the various
books.  (I have been told, by a member of one church, that his church
was based on strict interpretation of the Bible, and that their
interpretation was correct and any different interpretation was wrong.
A bit of digging revealed that they totally ignored the Old Testament.)

The proposed group could be very interesting, but by moderating it it
could very easily turn into a propaganda instrument to preach one
particular view, while preventing dissenting views from being presented.

I wasn't going to vote initially, but I think I now would vote no to
this proposal.  I would refrain from voting if the group was
unmoderated, or the name clearly reflected the scope planned by the
moderators.

A question to illustrate my point - would the proposed group deal with
the Apocrypha, which is recognized by some and not by others as part of
the Bible?

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself