HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary_preckshot@lccmail.ocf.llnl.gov (gary preckshot)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes will not quit
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:08:30 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <BxIL8z.K0s@unix.amherst.edu>, ljnelson@unix.amherst.edu (Laird Nelson) writes:
> 
> Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com) wrote:
> > Just so everyone knows what they're getting into:
> > 
> > According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
> > >R.m.s readers do not want their name changed. 
> > 
> > As long as Dave incorrectly believes that he speaks for the People, he
> > will not be persuaded.
> 
> Which is why maybe if we ignore him and his claim to a position he'll go
> away.  Followups haven't yet--but should be--directed to
> alt.dave.hayes.champion.of.the.little.man
> alt.dave.hayes.legend.in.his.own.mind
> 
> LAiRD
> 
Mr. Salzenberg and Mr. Nelson are certainly reasons why Mr. Hayes shouldn't
quit.  Their supercilious dismissal of his valid concerns is hardly
professional conduct for a system administrator, which many claim to be.
Rec.music.synth is yet another example of a very poorly conducted poll
of user sympathies regarding group name and place, with self-righteous
claims of rectitude being used to deflect valid criticisms of poor notice,
inflexible attitudes, and lack of attention to the opinions of the real
users of the group.  Somehow, the fact that Usenet groups exist for the
benefit of the actual users seems to have escaped serious consideration.

A way to discover whether Mr. Hayes really "speaks for the People" is to redo
the vote, with attention this time to ensuring that participants in
rec.music.synth are well and truly notified of all of the issues to be
decided about the group.  Sophomoric comments like the one above by Mr. Nelson
don't reflect on anybody but Mr. Nelson.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: Call for "Straw" Votes: Rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:11:39 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <Bxnru1.MLE@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>How many people are against the group is not relevent to the Straw poll.
>If more than 100 people respond to the Straw, there will be a CFV, even
>if 10,000 people responded "no" to the Straw.  THE STRAW IS NOT A FORMAL
>CFV.

Well, if he doesn't want to get a good picture of how likely his group
is to pass, that's his business.  I guess.  Me, if I were running a
straw poll, I'd remember that there are a few more factors in group
voting than just 100 yes votes.

At this point, I think he's demonstrated his Resist Reason 10' Radius
spell to my satisfaction.  What say we just watch, let Loren or 
someone post a nicely reasoned anti-r.g.f.c argument at the RFD and
the CFV, and watch it fail?

Bryant Durrell
durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu
From: sjsmith@cs.umd.edu (Stephen Joseph Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.games.netrek readers: Just skip Dave Hayes
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:31:48 GMT
Organization: ENPN [Entertaining Netrek Posting Network]

I don't know who this Dave Hayes character is, and I don't really care
about rec.music.makers.synth.  But his practice of writing *30* articles in
a rush is annoying as hell.

rec.games.netrek readers, I know that news.groups has a lot of volume, and
it's difficult to go through it all to keep up with the discussion of *our*
newsgroup.  But to make it simpler, just skip any articles from this Dave
Hayes idiot; it's apparently a Good Idea to keep our new group discussion
here in news.groups.

- Gamera
Xref: sparky news.groups:21284 soc.culture.asean:7956
From: sjsmith@cs.umd.edu (Stephen Joseph Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:35:14 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Maryland at College Park

Discussion: Nobody seems to think this is a good idea at all.  Volume is
really not that high.  If you don't want to read about INL, put it in your
kill file.

I will vote NO, if it comes to it, but I really don't think a CFV is
necessary, because support will not come near the 2/3 majority needed.  Is
there any way to just kill this proposal?

- Gamera
Xref: sparky news.groups:21129 rec.games.netrek:9537
From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.netrek reorganization
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:47:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxIsJr.6Iv.2
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

adc@tardis.cl.msu.edu (Alan D. Cabrera) writes
  [ proposal to split rec.games.netrek deleted]

Ok, here's a start at the discussion:

 * Alan's article was posted on November 10th, 1992, 3 days after the
   beginning of his proposed discussion period.  Hardly a good start.

 * No-one seems to want Alan as moderator of anything.

 * No-one seems to want a split of the newsgroup except Alan and one
   overseas player who objected to the intra-USA INL flame wars (for
   whom we could all start being nice and using Distribution: lines)

Regular denizens of rec.games.netrek who want to talk about this
should probably subscribe to news.groups in order to catch all the
responses to Alan's original article.

Jonathan H., jch@cs.cmu.edu                        Spaceman Spiff, Flying Pig
I run a Netrek information archive.   Access: [1] WAIS (gourd.srv.cs.cmu.edu, 
port 6000, name netrek-ftp)  [2] AFS (try cd /afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/jch/netrek)  
[3] Anon FTP from gs69.sp.cs.cmu.edu   [4] e-mail from ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD*...)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:03:40 GMT

ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
>been trying to talk about changing the guidelines and have NOT been
>beating the dead horse of ex post facto laws.  

I was actually pleading for some common sense and compassion. There 
wasn't much of it out there. There is a lot of legalese, which is of
COURSE known for it's common sense.

>I do not retract my statement that he should not expect
>Rich to have foreseen a problem with the subject line.

I never said he should have forseen one. I was asking that because
of the unfair subject line that some sane action be taken. Instead,
*I* get blindsided for trying to be fair. Is this your idea of rationality?

>My post was intended to show that Dave Hayes cannot cry foul on THIS
>vote.  

I can cry foul on anything I want to. It's quite obvious that agreement
among us is another matter. 

>He can point out how there is perhaps a problem with the
>guidelines, using this vote as an example of how a subject line can in
>fact be misleading when not intended to be, but he has no reason other
>than personal preference for invalidating a vote that followed the
>guidelines and was not intended to skew the voting population.  

But it *did* skew it. And my personal preference is irrelavent to that
fact. Until you folks admit the possibility thereof, what's the use
of trying to fix it any other way than harping on it?

>He is so intent on proving that this vote was unfair that we are forced to
>stay on that topic.  Discussing this newsgroup renaming must occur
>NOW, while it's in transition, but the guidelines can wait until we're
>finished.  Dave Hayes has the power to move us on to discussion of the
>guidelines, but he insists that we discuss this vote.  Until he either
>convinces everyone that the vote was misconducted or admits that the
>vote must stand, we're stuck talking about it.  

You are certainly giving me a lot of power. If I control what you say,
then perhaps I should use it to force you to agree with me, hmmm?

It's not so black and white. I will never admit that the vote must
stand, but it wasn't misconducted (technically) either. I simply am
requesting the grey area of a revote. According to guidelines, if
it was misconducted it would have to be dropped for 6 months. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not 
for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:12:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.200218.8888@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <7805@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>The relevant content of the proposal would be that someone didn't like the
>>result of a fair, open, and properly conducted vote, and was annoying the net

>This is begging the question; whether or not the vote was fair, etc. is
>exactly what is in dispute.

So who ever said Usenet votes were supposed to be fair?
The purpose of Usenet votes is to give Usenet administrators an idea
of what "the net" wants to do, but ultimately each administrator gets
to make his or her own decision anyway.  I think that the synth group
belongs under rec.music.makers, but what will ultimately determine
where I put it (unless someone with authority over me intervenes) is
where the majority of other sites put it, because that will provide
the best group for our users.  At this point, that's going to put it
under .makers, because I've only seen one admin who has promised not
to change it.

Dave Hayes is almost right about his class system.  The voting and the
guidelines are not controlled by a real class.  Anyone who has posting
or email access can get involved.  The ultimate implementation of any
vote results IS controlled by a class:  news administrators and the
people who pay their salaries.  Anyone who doesn't like this is
welcome to try to change it, but I honestly can't think of a practical
way to do so, myself.  I try to listen to what users here want, but if
the folks paying for the hardware and my salary tell me to do it a
certain way, I will.  (Unless it's something I feel strongly enough
about to be worth risking my job, which could happen, although the
synth group hardly qualifies.)  Flames about how evil it is that them
that pays the bills calls the shots should be directed to /dev/null,
because we've had that flamewar several times before.

	Cathy
-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign - give it up cbnorman
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:03:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.143407.29261@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters) writes:
>In article <BxFKoD.L3M@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>>While I'm on a roll...
>>
>>I'd like to address another issue raised by opponents of rec.games.frp.campaign.
>>Namely, many people have disected it and told me basicly that each component of
>>.campaign can be placed in a different existing .frp newsgroup.  This does
>>not surprise me, after all, their exists a rec.games.frp.misc group, and
>>frankly, in any hierarchy where there is a .misc group, there is *some* place
>>for people to post messages about anything even remotely related to the 
>>hierarchy.  This is great, and wonderful, and should definitely stay. 
>>However, obviously, it is not grounds for aborting a new newsgroup as 
>>otherwise we could just add a .misc group to every existing hierarchy and
>>thus stop any further discussion of new newsgroups.  And hey, if anyone
>>wants to create a new hierchy, we can always send them to misc.misc....
>
>MISC IS NOT A "STEPCHILD" GROUP OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM CREATED BECAUSE THERE
>WERE MESSAGES WHICH WERE TOLD THEY NEEDED TO STAY OUT OF THE OTHER GROUPS.
>MISC is the direct successor to rec.games.frp, the original group.  Every split
>so far has mades sense from a TRAFFIC point of view.  We have not created ANY
>groups just because one person wanted it.
>
I never suggested that .misc was "created because there were messages
which were told they needed to stay out of the other groups."  That statement
has come *completely* from your own mind.

<much entertaining but irrelevent history deleted>

>One thing which grinds me is you are proposing this group with the foregone 
>assumption that *YOU* should be the moderator.  You want to know pretty much
>how I and the others on the heirarchy got our positions?  We volunteered 
>*AFTER* the proposal was hammered out.  I was a net.clueless.fairly.new.user
>who volunteered to moderate if there were no other takers.  Guess what.
>
If you'll check the .campaign proposal, you won't see any statement that 
I should be the moderator.  No one else has spoken to me about being
interested in the job.  If someone does, then the issue of who should
be the moderated will be raised.


Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:45:11 GMT

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:

>A point no one has raised about this whole *tedious* Synth debate...
>Why doesn't Dave just propose a name change back to the old name, and go
>through proper UseNet protocol for discussion etc., and then have a CFV?

Quite because the damage will have already been done and this will 
fragment r.m.s even worse. Also because No votes have more weight than
Yes votes...and the "spite" vote is out there. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

  It is your attachment to objects which makes you blind and deaf.
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Xanth Watch
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 17:25:15 GMT

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

>I could care less about the precident, or any other legalese that is
>being thrown about like holy writ. There are users who are complaining
>and users who stand to lose out over this. WHAT ABOUT THEM? 

Yes what about them, what do they lose? Exactly what is so redicaly different
about rec.music.synth that no other names can be used?
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | 
Xref: sparky news.groups:21612 rec.games.frp.advocacy:3200 rec.games.frp.misc:8325
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Bruce Norman doesn't have to blah blah blah
Summary: who should apologize?
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: cbnorman@undergrad.waterloo.edu
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <BxoAnH.A7x@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cbnorman@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu writes:
> I think, Millerl, it's time for you to make an appology to me and the other 
> readers of the following newsgroups where you posted this message:

I won't apologize for speaking out against your pet newsgroup, which I
and most others posting believe is both redundant and unworkable. I
won't apologize for posting *one* large message to the rgf.* newsgroups
after you have dumped huge texts dozens of times trying to gather
support for your pet newsgroup. I won't apologize for posting when I set
the followup to news.groups so that discussion wouldn't continue on the
roleplaying newsgroups, when you have just posted your blather willy
nilly on all these newsgroups without changing the followup line. 

I have been keeping the discussion on news.groups as per the guidelines.
I have tried to respond to your obvious inexperience on the net by being
helpful, understanding, and civil, and you respond with insults and
innuendo. You have asked me to document my statements that your proposal
is a bad one by pointing to contradictory statements within it, and
despite the fact that its difficult to find *any* concrete ideas in your
statements I did as you asked, and documented it. You have promised to
all of us to drop your campaign if shown where you contradicted
yourself, and now you refuse, and ask for my apology.

One of us *should* apologize. Exactly whom is left as an exercise for
the reader.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
From: gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM.AHMADIYYA
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:25:58 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <100396@bu.edu$  khalid@bu-bio.bu.edu (Rasheed A. Khalid) writes:
$ 
$ 	IF MODERATORS OF SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM ARE WILLING TO DECLARE
$ PUBLICLY THAT THEY CONSIDER AHMADIS AS MUSLIMS AND THAT THEY HAVE
$ NEVER IN THE PAST AND WILL NEVER IN THE FUTURE, DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
$ THEM ON THE NET, then, they may argue in favor of restricting Ahmadis
$ to the Islam newsgroup.  If they do not believe that Ahmadis are
$ Muslims, it does not make sense for them to oppose a separate newsgroup
$ for Ahmadis and, as such they should cease to do so immediately.

I am publically willing to declare that I have done my best to not
discriminate against Ahmadis or any other group as a moderator of
soc.religion.islam.  I also intend this to remain likewise in the
future.

I am not willing to declare that I consider Ahmadis to be Muslim.  I
consider Ahmadiasm to be distinct from Islam.  Furthermore, you make
the implicit assumption here that we oppose an Ahmadi newsgroup.  This
is not correct.  We only oppose an Ahmadi newsgroup with the name
Islam in it.  I have stated this in the past, and I will keep on
stating it as many times as you make it necessary.

Peace be with you all,
Basalat Ali Raja.


Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth,news.admin
From: fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:13:36 GMT

In article <c9T1TB8w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|Stick the following (one line, wrapped here) in your WAFFLE\SYSTEM\USENET
|file:
|
|rec.music.synth /dir=W:\NEWS\REC\MUSIC\MAKERS\SYNTH
|   /name="Type HELP SYNTH at the main menu for important synth news"

Um, better add /post=10 or something, wouldn't want to allow people to
*post* to this nonexistent newsgroup...

  Bill
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:53:35 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

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:

>First of all, I never said that I did know "something about campaigning" that
>those of you who have been here for 7 years don't.  The description of
>.campaign does not read "a group for cbnorman to teach you about campaigning"
>does it?

    You are correct, I made a false claim, and I apologize. But you do
basically imply that with the addition .campaign that all of this "new
interest in campaigning" will appear as a direct result of the group's
creation. And this just isn't going to happen.
  What I would like to know is how can you think that what will be
discussed in .campaign is any different than what is being discussed in
the r.g.frp.* hierarchy already? For someone who has only been reading
the r.g.frp.* groups for 2 months, virtually everything discussed would
seem to be a "new" topic related to compaigning.

>I also object to your implication that knowledge of campaigning is directly
>proportional to the length of time one has been reading rec.games.frp.*.
>*That* is utter nonsense.

    What I was attempting to get accross, is that someone with very
little experience (time-wise) with the r.g.frp.* groups has almost no
idea about the kinds of campaign discussions that have been happening in
these groups for the past 7 years. The addition of another group
"devoted" to campaigning will not foster any "new" discussion topics
that haven't already been discussed at some point in the past. And, in
fact, your proposal to moderate .campaigns will cause people to not post
their discussions about campaigns to that group in favor of posting to
the non-moderated groups already in r.g.frp.*.

>What is your point? All I said was I am sure that either of use will accept
>the results of a formal CFV!

    My point is that it has nothing to do with what WE accept, it has to
do with what the sys admins accept. If enough of them feel that there is
no need to create this group, due to it's inherant redundancies, then
.campaigns will not get created.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
	"Hey, we're on the Cutting Edge!"
	"Too bad it's not the side you keep." - Mr. Boffo
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.med vs. misc.health.alternative
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:13:06 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

I feel that the new group should be created because 
the alternative medicine theories are unscientific,
and thus do not belong in sci.med, which should be
reserved for forms of medicine which accept the scientific
paradigm.  It also would cut down on the flamage that
these postings call forth there.  People who want to
hear about alternative cures for what ails them can
go to the new group.  

Clearly those who believe in these alternative theories
would like to discuss them at length without the guffaws
of the scientists, and this is an opportunity to do so.
It isn't up to us to censor the use of the net for unscientific
purposes, I think.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Is there a general fault-tolerance news group?
Keywords: fault tolerance
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:54:09 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <lg5phmINNsu9@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, shuford@cs.utk.edu (Richard Shuford) writes:
> 
> Perhaps the time is ripe to issue a Request for Discussion (RFD) on
> the creation of 'comp.arch.fault-tolerant'.  Would one of the folks
> who previously advocated this idea like to take on the task of
> cheerleading an effort to create the group?

Better yet, start a thread in comp.arch about fault-tolerant architecture. 
It would be a welcome diversion from the current subjects and would help to
guage the interest in a topic. I have no major objection to a new group
other than the fact that I have seen no discussion on the subject in comp.arch
and would like to see some traffic before creating the group. Remember, the
idea of 'if we create the group, we will see some discussion on this topic' as
a general rule does not work, unless there is an underlying interest in the
topic in an existing group, the creation of a new group will not cause 
interest to appear. 
-- 
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