HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 1st Call for Votes: misc.forsale computers reorg.
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:46:01 GMT
 <1992Aug31.191800.24375@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Aug31.191800.24375@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Not A Random Name) says:
>
>newsnews@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (News Acct. 1) writes:
>
>>A YES vote is a vote for the creation all of the nine new groups
>>and the removal of the current misc.forsale.computers
>
>Wait a minute, is that kosher?  I thought every group was voted on
>individually.  Can you force a block vote?  Maybe I don't think printers
>deserves it's own group?
>
>>Remember the vote is ALL FOR or ALL AGAINST.  This is NOT a vote for each
>>individual group; either ALL nine new groups are created and the existing
>>removed or NO new groups are created and the existing group remains.


 I think a better question is: Is this a real CFV or is it bogus ???

 According to the post's date (see below) it was submitted August 30th,
but I've looked at news.announce.newgroups and it hasn't been posted
there at all. Did this individual decide to by-pass D. Lawrence all-together ?


In article <1992Aug30.232631.3104@qedqcd.rye.ny.us> newsnews@qedqcd.rye.ny.us
(News Acct. 1) writes:
>
>
>This article is the FIRST CALL FOR VOTES on a reorganization
>of the misc.forsale.computers newsgroup. This reorganization
>will provide for the creation of nine new groups to replace
>the current misc.forsale.computers group.
>
>PLEASE EXAMINE THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL BEFORE VOTING ON IT.
>
>+----------+
>| PROPOSAL |
>+----------+
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:58:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <1992Aug30.143057.8095@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers) writes:
> In article <17las7INNoe5@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joe Six-pack) writes:
>>   The name doesn't strike me as intuitive, even after reading the
>>whole article.
> 
> The first name I came up with was rec.games.strategy, but several people
> thought it might be interpreted as a place to discuss general gaming
> strategies, rather than strategy games.  rec.games.strategic was proposed,
> but it became obvious that rather a lot of games are considered strategic
> by their devotees.

Since you're talking about board games, why don't you call it
rec.games.board.abstract? Not only does this fit into the hierarchy
better, but it also is more intuitive. If you think that people will
mistakenly put backgammon and parcheesi in your abstract board game
newsgroup, then make a couple of them and call them rgb.war, rgb.dice,
rgb.abstract, and rgb.misc. You could also propose moving
rec.games.chess to r.g.b.chess but I don't think that would be too
popular. This is also a good idea for diplomacy, if you want to have a
diplomacy group make it part of the board games hierarchy rather than
staying on the games backbone.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
The more corrupt the government, the greater the number of laws -- Tacitus
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:06:31 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Sep2.155416.13929@cas.org>, lwv26@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
says:
>
>I suppose there is a need for a mechanism for having a newsgroup removed.
>
>But I have a problem with a simple 2/3 majority.  This means if 2 people
>vote for removal and one votes no, or only one person votes yes and no one
>votes no, that the group gets deleted.  That doesn't make any sense.  The
>100 vote rule should be in effect* for the vote to be valid.
>
>*Actually, the 100 vote rule should in all cases REALLY be 100 site/votes -
>if 1500 users from ucbvax.berkeley.edu all voted to remove all sysv groups
>and 500 folk from the rest of the net voted to keep it, I would not be
>in favor of seeing the group removed!


 I used to think the same way Larry does, but after his compelling post
I now believe that those who argue in favor of the simple 2/3 majority
were correct all along.

 Let's face it, if an unused group can only muster up three votes (2 against
it and 1 in favor of it) then it has no reason for continuing to exist !

 I'd like to thank Larry for opening my eyes and making me see my mistake.

 Sincerely,

-- Jose L. Martinez --
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:14:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Sep4.161412.28727
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <1992Sep4.134530.592@athena.cs.uga.edu> shimkus@athena.cs.uga.edu (Peter Gambit) writes:

>The point in fact is that Blake's Seven is every bit as important and popular
>as Blakes Seven and Dr. Who in its circle, and it deserves its own group 
>*somewhere*, whether alt.tv.blakes7 or (preferably) rec.arts.blakes7.

That remains to be seen. Try concentrating discussion in a single group (I
would recommend rec.arts.sf.tv) for awhile and see if there really is
enough interest to generate any kind of volume for more than a couple
weeks.
If there is, consider an alt group. If the alt group survives a couple
months without dying off for lack of interest, consider trying for some
sort of rec.arts.sf.* group.

rec.arts.sf.tv was created for just this sort of discussion... use it!

This method has several benefits (IMO). 1) It avoids the extensive delay
of creating a new group. 2) It prevents creation of a full rec.* group
that could die out in a couple months for lack of interest. 3) It makes
use of existing news groups which have a VERY low volume. 4) If, after
using rec.arts.sf.tv and an alt group for a period of time, you try again,
you may have the evidence required to justify a full group.

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

	"I hate Vulcans!  I hate the logic!  I hate the arrogance!"
		-Sela
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dsf@NOCMPC.csg.gss.mot.com (Scott Freemire)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Organization: Motorola Cellular Subscriber Group MIS
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:14:56 GMT
Keywords: guitar,music

As a guitarist whose news feed does not receive the alt.* groups;
I heartily approve of all of the referenced proposals, and specifically
proposals A,B,and C.

In addition to bringing the folks with similar interests together, the
addition of .tab to rec.* will give us all a place to "play".

Play on...

  Scott
-- 

************************(dsf@NOCMPC.csg.gss.mot.com)****************************
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: erodrigu@dcc.uchile.cl (Eduardo Rodriguez)
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Originator: erodrigu@tolten
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 16:05:33 GMT
Organization: Universidad de Chile, Depto. de Ciencias de la Computacion


In article <1992Sep3.093643.21729@hellgate.utah.edu>, u-lchoqu%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Choquette) writes:
> News.groups already carries much more traffic than a lot of people can keep up
> with.  I don't see a need to add to it calls to delete newsgroups that nobody
> is reading.  These unused newsgroups don't bother me, since rn never brings
> them to my attention, and I don't think most other newsreaders bother their
> users with them either.  To me the waste of human time in discussing whether to
> remove each of these groups is much more important than the small waste of
> machine resources to retain them.  How much is your time worth to you?

But you must also consider, as someone said, the space in disk wasted
due to large .newsrc, many times duplicated, with many groups that
actually can be deleted. I think the deletion procedure is OK.

edo...

Eduardo Rodriguez S        - --- - --- - --- -    erodrigu@dcc.uchile.cl
Dpto de Ciencias de la Computacion  - --- -    ...!uunet!uchdcc!erodrigu
Universidad de Chile   --- - --- - ---   erodrigu%uchdcc@uchcecvm.BITNET
- --- - --- - --- - --- - --- - --- - --- - --- - --- - --- - --- - --- 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: williams@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Williams)
Subject: Re: 1st Call for Votes: misc.forsale computers reorg.
Summary: pc.clone should be pc-clone
Keywords: CFV
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:51:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.232631.3104@qedqcd.rye.ny.us> newsnews@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (News Acct. 1) writes:
>
>
>This article is the FIRST CALL FOR VOTES on a reorganization 
>of the misc.forsale.computers newsgroup. This reorganization 
>will provide for the creation of nine new groups to replace 
>the current misc.forsale.computers group. 
>
>PLEASE EXAMINE THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL BEFORE VOTING ON IT.
>
>+----------+
>| PROPOSAL |
>+----------+
>
>Create:
>	misc.forsale.computers.pc.clone         [ibm clone systems]

Shouldn't this be pc-clone?  Dots are used to separate levels of the
hierarchy.  What other possible groups would be in the
misc.forsale.computers.pc.* heirarchy?  I'd like to vote yes on this,
but I can't with this mis-named group in it.

Sorry if this has been hashed out, but this is the first time I've seen
this issue.

Jim

-- 
Spoken: James W. Williams			Company: Hughes STX
Internet: williams@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov		Phone: +1 301 286-1131
USPS: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; Code 633; Greenbelt, MD 20771
Maryland Car Tags: DEV CAR
Xref: sparky news.groups:17221 rec.bicycles:21860 rec.bicycles.misc:98
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: all these MTB group comments
Summary: wait
Date: 27 Aug 1992 19:44:54 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Rice University


I still don't think an MTB group will work well.  But if anyone is
dead set on trying to create one, I have a suggestion:

Wait six months.  Give the new rec.bicycles groups time to settle
out.  See how things go.  See if it's still hard to find the MTB
postings.  See if they are hard to find because they don't exist,
not because they are all stuck in the generic groups.  See how the
traffic levels run on the various rec.bicycles groups.  Collect some
statistics on how many MTB postings there are in which groups.

I think waiting will result in a better plan for a group if one is to
be created.  Otherwise what I see is someone jumping in to create an
MTB group, just because there isn't one in the reorg that just passed,
without thinking about where MTBs really need a different group from
the other rec.bicycles groups.

This is my advice and probably worth what you paid for it.

	Cathy

p.s.  I cross-posted this to rec.bicycles{.misc} because I've seen
postings there about this, but further postings should be in
news.groups, so that's where I've set followups.
-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
Why throw stones even if your own house isn't glass?  Do you really want to
wreck your friends' houses?  What if your enemy retaliates with a torch?
And are you sure you don't even have a glass window somewhere?
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Keywords: perfect-information deterministic strategic no-dice
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:54:18 GMT
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies

In article <1992Aug27.185304.14443@riacs.edu> nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH) writes:
>>
>>	Mancala (Awari), Master Mind, Nine Men's Morris, Nomic, Qubic
                                                         ^^^^^
>Without exception, the entire charter of this group governs a subset of
>the material for rec.games.board.

Nomic does not require a board.  There are several categories of
non-board games which fit in rec.games.abstract, but aren't represented
in the list.  Yet.  This is because *I* personally don't know much
about them, but people have mailed me stating that rec.games.abstract
sounds like the right place to discuss them.

Hopefully, over the next month people will be sending me examples and
descriptions of games, so the list of example games will better reflect
the charter of the group.


>Furthermore, I have an objection to the vague title of the board.

One of the aims of an RFD is to provoke discussion on the group's name.
The trouble is that there doesn't appear to be a short snappy word
which summarises the subject of the group.  If someone can come up with
a better name, great.  If not, then rec.games.abstract will stand.
It seems acceptable to quite a few people though.

-neilb
From: sean@freds.cojones.com (Sean P. Ryan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: talk.politics.* results
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:52:06 GMT
Organization: Bedlam Institute of Higher Learning

In looking at the way things turned out, I guess we should all be 
thankful that all of the groups failed.  I mean, consider that 
*.politics.* is awash in clueless nimrods who cross-post everything to 
everywhere, and the last thing we would have needed was more newsgroups 
for these stupid fucks to cross-post everything to.

Does anyone on the net know how to edit their headers anymore?

This message will probably be ignored by everyone since it is only being 
posted to one group.  Oh well.

--
Sean P. Ryan (Usenet: sean@freds.cojones.com  WWIVnet: sean#fredbox@502)
The FredBox BBS +1 907 344 8437  |  WWIVnet 502  |  IDNS: freds.cojones.com
Home of a couple lunatics, a malevolent SYSTEM 0PERATOR and other cool folx.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.infosystems.* new groups
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:56:02 GMT

>comp.infosystems.cwis		- (move bit.listserv.cwis-l)
>	CWIS is "Campus-Wide Information Systems", encompassing systems
>	like Yale Enterprise, gopher, Princeton PNN, VTX, and several
>	other things used to put information on line for use on campus.
>	The mailing list is active and well used, this would simply
>	move it to a reasonable place in the news hierarchy and 
>	increase the propogation somewhat.

I would like to propose for consideration also groups

comp.infosystems.internet

For discussions and announcements of information and infosystems
available on the Internet.  I'm not sure about division between this
and the cwis group - perhaps some other division than cwis / internet
would be apropriate, something like infosystems.inet.information and
infosystems.inet.tech with the first group a bit like
alt.internet.services, for announcements of available infosystems and
discussions of available information on the infosystems and the latter
for technical discussion on the infosystems, discussions on what
systems to use for a CWIS and so on.

comp.infosystems.www (or w3?)

for the world-wide web software.

Is it desirable to keep discussions on commercial infosystems (like
Xanadu, Amix) separate?  If so, then perhaps also
comp.infosystems.commercial?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 22:57:19 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete
Distribution: na

nsw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Neil Weinstock) writes:

> I also wonder if this is the right time to again bring up the idea of a
> .marketplace group, presumably rec.music.makers.marketplace.  When the
> r.m.m hierarchy expands (assuming the proposals pass), it will start to
> get confusing where "forsale" posts should go.

Although I didn't specifically intend it that way when I proposed the
group, rec.music.marketplace seems to have become the home for equipment
sales as well as the rest of the CD/LP/tape material.  The posts are
welcome there, so if you don't feel a specific need to split the hardware
out, the problem's already got a solution. 

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

"sometimes you're better off dead"
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joe Six-pack)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:02:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Sep1.045510.23660@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>I think that the volume of messages in talk.politics.misc has grown
>unmanageably large, and so the newsgroup should be split.

   The Guidelines say that if a proposal fails its vote, it should
not be brought up for discussion for at least six months from the
close of the vote.  Maybe next time the proposal will be less
ambitious.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Keywords: perfect-information deterministic strategic no-dice
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:19:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies

In article <BtnvEJ.83G@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> nick@sunburn.waterloo.edu (Nick Fitzpatrick) writes:
>
>So my problem with rec.games.abstract, is that Diplomacy would then be split
>between 4 newsgroups, rather than just 3.

rec.games.abstract will not be the place to discuss Diplomacy.
Hopefully the group charter will make this clear enough.


>Therefore I will ask all the diplomacy players (and we have almost 800
>registered in the Washington Adjudicator alone) to vote against
>rec.games.abstract.
>Though perhaps something can be done to allow for
                                         ^^^^^ (big of you)
>the creation of rec.games.abstract.  I will withdraw my objections if
>the addition of the newsgroup rec.games.diplomacy, is added to the
>ballot.

Rather than using your influence over these 800+ players to block r.g.a,
it would be more diplomatic and constructive to explain to them that
r.g.a is not the place for discussion of Diplomacy.

If there are so many of you interested in Diplomacy, why not issue
an RFD for the group you suggested.  You should have no problems getting
the vote through.  I have mailed you the guidelines for usenet group creation.

-neilb
From: jon@multisys.com (Jon Rhein)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:47:25 GMT
Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation, San Jose, CA                        TEL: (408) 437-3031            E-mail: info@multisys.com


Yes, yes, yes!   We have needede a Blake's 7 newsgroup for a long, long
time.  As it stands now, I can think of three different newsgroups that
carry on B7 threads, and it is quite a pain to pick them out.




	Jon Rhein 
	darn, where is my .sig?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mpdillon@uuisis.isis.org (Michael Dillon)
Subject: looking for NAPLPS discussion
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 07:02:59 GMT

I have been told that there is a NEWSNET group that has discussions
about NAPLPS, the North American Presentation Layer Protocol Syntax.
This is a standard for representing object oriented graphics in a
device independent and efficient manner so that they may be transmitted
and viewed in real time. This stuff is used to implement Videotex
system. Some examples are the Telidon system, Bell Canada's ALEX,
and the U.S. Prodigy.
 
It also appears to be the latest up and coming technology in the
world of BBS's and public access systems.
 
So please mail me if you have any info at all, any leads
will be appreciated even if they lead away from NEWSNET.
 
Thanks.
From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:00:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.42304
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute

In article <1992Sep2.114925.23781@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr> boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker) writes:
>
>In article <42244@ogicse.ogi.edu>, jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
>|> here's what I'd propose that a `rec.musicians' hierarchy look like:
>|>     rec.musicians.misc
>       OK but will it be a group for misc discussions about
>       music making or a group for discussions on instruments
>       not in others groups (for example i play sax where do i
>       have to post an article about sax, here or in another group
>       (to define: rec.musicians.misc-instruments?) ??).

You have a good point - that group is ill-defined.  It should definately be
for discussion of general issues relevant to musicians, but what to do for
misc instruments is unclear.  I'm afraid the first thing that comes to
mind is to create a subhierarchy - rec.musicians.instruments, and tuck
guitar, percussion, etc under it.  Then, rec.musicians.instruments.misc would
work just fine for sax, etc.  Of course, this would only be reasonable if
it was agreed that rec.musicians.rock, etc, were also wanted.  Backstepping
a bit, the `instruments' hierarchy could also fit under rec.music quite
reasonably, if the genre specific groups weren't wanted.

>|>     rec.musicians.synth
>       I'm not really sure that 'synth' is the good name for
>       that group

I agree - perhaps `.electronic'?

--Jeff
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:58:50 GMT

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

My apologies for including talk.politics.antarctica in the vote - I
meant to drop it because of no support (as some other group was
dropped) but forgot.

Though it did get 66 votes for it.

As for the other groups - they came up as proposals during the
discussion period, there was little or no opposition to them, my
understanding of the process is that yes, they needed to be voted on.

//Jyrki
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:40:19 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Jyrki Kuoppala (jkp@cs.hut.fi) writes:
>The vote for the new talk.politics.* groups is over.  ALL the votes on
>new groups FAILED because there was no 100 yes-vote margin over
>no-votes on any of the groups.

I am without words. This reorgnization is so badly needed, both
from the view of talk.politics.misc and various soc.culture groups,
but it fail to attract any support. Of course, I never expected all
groups to pass, talk.politics.antartica is for instance hardly needed, 
but seeing all, every single one of them fail, I could never imagine.

Looking through the list of voters one finds several who voted NO
to the lot, which surprises me as I noticed no disagreement with
the idea as a whole through the discussion process. Nevertheless,
the reason that no group passed is not to be found among the NO
voters, but the lack of YES voters. No group attracted more than 
140 YES voters, and that is not much.

Why? Are the politics groups simply an interest of so few, but
talkative, persons that there is no wide support to find?

Did we take too much in one bite by voting on 40 groups at
the same time?

In any case, I would like once again express my thanks to Jyrki
for under-taking this effort, although it was so fruitless.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
F|rst till kvarn f}r f|rst vankiva
Newsgroups: news.groups