HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rib@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.i.block)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.os.nos.lanman
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:53:48 GMT
Summary: Yes

As a satisfied reader of LANMAN-L, I endorse this proposed group.
PC's are an important computing vehicle which has shifted from
a loose collection of stand-alone machines to a shared computing
network linked by Local Area Networks.  Although not as popular
as (very proprietary Novell Netware),  Lan Manager is a viable
product.  Moreover, Lanman users will benefit highly from the
incrased flow of information since there is a dearth of published
information.
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.scuba
From: peterson@hpl.hp.com (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:48:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, California

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET> Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writes:
>                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>
>[[ Specific pointers to this article will be posted in the potentially
>   renamed groups.   tale, moderator news.announce.newgroups ]]
>
>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.
>
>In addition, obvious outdoors.* groups should be moved to that
>hierarchy.  Specially, rec.hunting should be moved.  Other
>possibilities include
>
>rec.boats 
>rec.boats.paddle 
>rec.climbing 
>rec.scuba 
>rec.skiing 
>rec.skydiving 
>rec.windsurfing 
>
>
>... should the above groups be transfered to the rec.outdoors
>hierarchy?  As moderator of rec.hunting, I strongly support the
>renaming of rec.hunting.  Readers of the other groups should post to
>news.groups with comments about their groups... 

	DO NOT RENAME rec.scuba

	The extra hierarchy that this proposal suggests does not
	sound useful to *any* of the groups mentioned.

	Why not rename rec.outdoors.fishing to rec.fishing?
	rec.indoors.fishing would be ridiculous :-).

-- 
Chris Peterson                      
Research Computing Services                      e-mail: peterson@hpl.hp.com 
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories                           phone: (415) 857-6432
Palo Alto, California USA                                fax: (415) 857-5686
From: nigelm@ohm.york.ac.uk (Nigel Metheringham)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:39:18 GMT
Organization: Electronics Department, University of York, UK

In <C162vp.FJL@dcs.ed.ac.uk> bj@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Balint Joo) writes:

>This is a request for discussion on the creation of a newsgroup
>for worldwide Computer Science Undergraduates.

>Group Name
>----------
>comp.cs.undergrad

Seems a poor choice of name - a cs heirarchy under comp gives no
real idea of what its there for - cs could stand for almost anything
(howabout Czechslovakia for UK mail people :-) ).

Why just Comp Science students - or dow we want a rash of other
parallel groups (electronics, software-engineering (and don't tell
me thats computer science - both sides would be insulted by that!). 
If you are going to make a group of this type why not more general -
comp.student....

>While such groups exist locally, so far there is no single group linking
>CS students around the world.  This group is proposed to be included in 
>the comp hierarchy of newsgroups in order to ensure that most universities
>will receive it.

Thats a poor justification for choice of heirarchy.  It all sounds
very "clean namespace" unfriendly to me, but then I'm repeating
myself.

>It is intended mainly for the discussion of technical issues in an informal,
>undergraduate manner, as opposed to many other "comp.*" groups, where the 
>discussion is often far too obscure, and assumes more practical knowledge
>and experience than it is possible for an undergraduate to have obtained.

Listen and learn....

>The readers of the group should be willing to help other undergraduates, 
>and any requests for help are hopefully intended to be independent student 
>projects.  These, while not part of any course-work, are invaluable to a 
>student as experience needed for careers in the outside world.

If this group takes the "I would like to have a fully documented
Unix kernel to hand in as my project", or the "Please send a
collection of viruses" messages out of the useful groups, then I'd
support it - unfortunately we all know that ain't so...

>Therefore, it is hoped that the proposed newsgroup will become an important
>source of ideas and information for the next generation of computer science
>professionals.

If it hopes to do that it will be a *very* wide ranging group - even
more so than news.groups :-)

>*	One thing that should not be tolerated is postings of any "..help 
>	me with  this course work.." or "..can anyone do my PhD for me.." 
>	nature.  

Alleluia!

>*	Also not to be tolerated is swapping hints on so-called "cracking".
and again!

>*	A FAQ list will be created and maintained by the proposers.
Containing answers to questions like, how do I get the FAQ for this
group (sorry, couldn't resist that... :-) ).

	Nigel.

-- 
#   Nigel Metheringham  -- (NeXT) EMail: nigelm@ohm.york.ac.uk    #
#   System Administrator, Electronics Dept, University of York    #
#   York YO1 5DD. Phone: +44 904 432374, Fax: +44 904 432335      #
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: edandavi@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Allen and Avi Rappoport)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:27:28 GMT


I'm for one group, covering fantasy and historical miniatures, including
modeling, scenics, rules, scenarios, etc. as topics.  I do all sorts of
miniatures gaming, and find little difference in my area effect 2" template
being for a mortar or a fireball. I play DBA with Lord of the Rings
armies (fantasy troops, not from our history, but with no magic) which
is pretty hard to tell from historical gaming, as one example of the
gray zone in between.  Coming from the other end, most WRG games that
I've seen played had such ahistorical matchups, point mongering, terrain
set up in weird ways for advantage, etc, that those Romans might as
well have been fighting orcs as Aztecs for all the historical value
there was to the competition scenarios.

Ed Allen
edandavi@well.sf.ca.us
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: hankedr@mail.auburn.edu (Darrel Hankerson)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.os2.{announce,ver1x,beta}
Organization: Auburn University, Alabama
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:58:30 GMT

In article <8523@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) 
writes:
> [Hankerson suggests leaving 1.x questions in the main group]
>
>That's fine if you're a 2.0 person looking to skip 1.x postings; it's not so
>fine if you're a 1.x person looking for a few nuggets among the torrent of 2.x
>postings. As for losing the help of experts, having 1.x in its own group would
>do more to keep the 1.x experts around than anything else, as they could read
>.ver1x and ignore version 2 if they wanted to.

I'm a 1.x and 2.x user. I would argue that most of the experts are using
2.x, so I am afraid that we will lose their help. Many of the 2.x postings 
do have some significance for 1.x users, but I understand your remark on this.

We may be missing the main point: How can we get folks to read a few posts
and the FAQ before posting (so that we can avoid the "torrent")?  Alas, I 
don't know any group which has solved the problem (other than by going 
moderated). 

--Darrel Hankerson hank@ducvax.auburn.edu

Xref: sparky news.groups:26058 comp.os.os2.misc:43535
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.os.os2.misc
From: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.os2.{announce,ver1x,beta}
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 11:08:49 GMT

Mike Levis (mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu) wrote:
: I also received suggestions for changing the charters.  I am
: glad to hear what you have to say, but please post them to news.groups
: so that everyone can judge your suggestions (I am only a lowly vote
: keeper, and not some net.authority with special powers).

Please cross-post them to comp.os.os2.misc as well as some of us
don't read news.groups as there's virtually nothing relevant +
news.announce.newgroups gives all the necessary info about new
groups being proposed.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk                     tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television
						      - Husbands and Wives
From: al455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jamie Rishaw)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: ALT news group traffic
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:41:04 GMT
Organization: -
Reply-To: gavroche@nin.wariat.org (jamie rishaw)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, sysjmk@sarah.albany.edu (Joe Kane) says:

>
>  I am interested in receiving a feed of the ALT news group and would like 
>to know the amount of disk space required by this group on a daily basis. I
>would appreciate it if someone would e-mail me this information.


ditto.. if anyone has info on traffic, mail to me, too?

(or just post..)

-jamie
-- 
     -+=-                    hey.. guess what?                         -+=-
      -+=-                    i love Jenn!!!!                         -+=-
                         (shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!) =)
              jamie   --   al455@po.cwru.edu   --   gavroche
From: mkc@Graphics.Cornell.edu (Mitch Collinsworth)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:19:54 -0500
Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics
NNTP-Posting-Host: rex.graphics.cornell.edu

In <1993Jan21.142539.5142@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr) writes:

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

As the instigator and manager of the orienteering mailing list I will
first say that I strongly support the creation of an orienteering
newsgroup.  This has always been my goal from the beginning.  The
mailing list was a method of getting started and organizing a group of
active netters interested in the sport.  After a somewhat slow start it
eventually became so popular and active that during the height of the
competition season this past fall a large number of subscribers
unsubscribed, mainly due to the volume of mail they were receiving.  I
eventually added a digest option which has been helpful to some but it
doesn't really solve the total volume problem, only the problem of
organizing one's mailbox.  A newsgroup will solve the volume problem as
it will allow people to read when and what they want without worrying
that if they go out of town for a week they will come back to an angry
system manager.

Secondly I would like to thank Paul for taking charge of starting the
wheels turning toward creating a newsgroup.  It's nice to receive some
help with this since I have to get some work done for my employer, too.
On the question of what to name the newsgroup, my first thought would
also be rec.sport.orienteering rather than r.outdoors.o, but I would
like to understand why it was proposed with this name and to know if
others have strong feelings one way or the other.  Obviously NOW is the
time to get it sorted out.

Lastly I will say that while we have done a lot to publicize the
mailing list, the benefit of having a presence on Usenet cannot be
underestimated.  I have already received about 10 new subscription
requests since Paul posted the RFD message.  Oh, one more thing just
for accuracy's sake, the subscription level of the mailing list is about
200 at latest count.

-Mitch Collinsworth
 mitch@graphics.cornell.edu
From: worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Rename rec.skydiving to rec.outdoors.skydiving
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:52:37 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

I don't want to see this proposed change.  I don't see that reorganizing
the naming of this newsgroup under an arbitrary convention will help the
group any.   Seems like somebody has too much time on their hands, or has
to prove their worth by changing things that are working just fine.

-- 
Dennis Worden, not representing $  When the TEAM succeeds, you succeed,
anybody, not even himself, in   $  but when the Team fails, you're FIRED.
any way shape or form.          $  Don't EMAIL me at worden@berlioz.nsc.com
From: shl0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Samson H. Lee)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: New RFD: Bible Study Newsgroup
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:17:38 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1993Jan20.165349.26269@pdn.paradyne.com>, nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:
>...
>    The duties of the moderator are as follows:
>
>        o To enforce the moderation guidelines given above.
>
>        o To maintain FAQ files on common discussion chains. These are
>          not designed to "answer" common threads, but merely to provide
>          those who join the group and restart a thread to be given
>          a recap of the most cogent statements of the various positions
>          without flooding the newsgroup.
>
>        o To append to each rejected posting an explanation of why it
>          was rejected, and any changes that would need to be made in
>          style, or topic, or newsgroup to be more appropriate.
>

Is a moderator really necessary?  Sure does sound like a lot of work.
Unless several moderators are available, there could be a very long
backlog of articles and a slow rate of posting.  Most moderated groups
show about a dozen or so articles a day max.  Until the group caught
on, people would probably lose interest pretty quickly.

Responding to each rejected posting could be tedious too.  If this is
to be a discussion group, then make it so.  Most groups seem to weed
out extraneous material by ignoring the comments or writing personally
to person involved.

The generation of a FAQ may not be warranted until recurrent themes
develop.  What sort of themes do you anticipate?  Aren't there books
already written on most subjects?  Perhaps a book list covering
different subjects would be appropriate for the FAQ.  Anyway, a
moderator is not required for compiling and submitting a FAQ.

So, the idea for the group is great, but the mechanism doesn't seem
appropriate.  That's my $0.02 worth.

Sam.

-- 
-----
shl0@lehigh.edu
He [Ed's Uncle Anku] doesn't like doctors?
   He doesn't trust them.
Why is that?
   He *is* a doctor.
Oh really?  Which kind?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:38:57 GMT

In article <93026.163649IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Solipsist@Large) writes:

>If, a few months down the line, it looks like there is terrific
>amounts of traffic for all different types of miniatures, we
>can discuss splitting the group.  If there is a lot of, say,
>WarHammer traffic and next to no Napoleonic traffic, that is
>*not* a justification for splitting, since the traffic would
>not justify the expense of creating a new group.

I'm taking a lot of flak for proposing that the frp and historical
miniatures discussions be separated into different groups.  Let
me be as frank as possible by stating what I have only been hinting
at elliptically.  I'll read and participate in a .miniatures group
however it is structured.  However, I am afraid that some of the
true history-oriented grognards may not.

This statement is based on years of experience in an informal club
environment at my university.  Here the frp and historical gamers
generally meet at the same times and share the same rooms.  The
history crowd often has difficulty gaining and keeping critical
mass.  Some will argue that this is because frp has more drawing
power than historical gaming.  However, I've seen too many instances
where new people have wandered in looking for some historical gaming
action, saw all the frp stuff going on, and never showed up again.
I think there's some kind of Gresham's Law operating here, in which
frp gaming drives out historical gaming (I'm speaking as one who
is old enough to remember when Gen Con was a wargaming convention --
board and miniatures).

I fear that the same thing could happen in an electronic environment.
People who are interested in historical miniatures might eavesdrop
on a wide-open .miniatures group only long enough to see that most
of the posts are frp or sci/fi related, and then never tune in
again, much less participate.  Call such people "elitists" if you
will -- they're the ones I want to talk to.

In other words, I don't think that one can conclude that lack of
traffic about historical miniatures in a group which also includes
frp necessarily means that there's a lack of interest in the former.
It may simply mean that the historical miniaturists have decided
that the group is not for them.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@indiana.edu






Newsgroups: news.groups
From: steve@test490 (Steve Comen)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:56:16 GMT

IMHO, there is no reason to move rec.boats to rec.outdoor.boats. The name
brings no new meaning to the naming of the group and would cause more confusion
than anything else.
-- 
Steve Comen steve@test490.pac.sc.ti.com
C15 #3706
From: ac999266@umbc.edu (ac999266)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: s.r.christian.bible-study
Date: 21 Jan 1993 09:41:35 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc8.umbc.edu

ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:

>Well, I personally feel excluded by its movement into the .christian
>hierarchy.  Yet, I feel my ideas on the interpretation of the Bible
>(in a spiritual context or otherwise) are just as valid as anyone

>crashing a party.  I see no reason for the name of the group to state
>something contrary to the charter.  If the newsgroup is open to people 
>from all backgrounds, I say let the name agree with that ideal.

ALL newsgroups are open to ALL people.  Period.  Are you
 claiming that men are not allowed to read soc.women? 
 The discussion will be ABOUT the Christian Bible, but 
 it is NOT restricted to the Christian point of view.
 The namespace is not meant to exclude people, it is
 meant to explain what topics the group will cover.

The newsgroup should be in the .christian hierarchy 
 because it is NOT about the Hacker's bible, the Satanic
 bible, or any other such book called a bible.  It is
 about the broad category of works that people call the
Xref: sparky news.groups:26487 rec.scuba:7229
From: wcc@cup.portal.com (wcc - usa)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.scuba
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 11:07:51 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan27.014827.6255@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET> Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writ
es:
>                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>
>[[ Specific pointers to this article will be posted in the potentially
>   renamed groups.   tale, moderator news.announce.newgroups ]]
>
>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.
>
>In addition, obvious outdoors.* groups should be moved to that
>hierarchy.  Specially, rec.hunting should be moved.  Other
>possibilities include
>
>rec.boats 
>rec.boats.paddle 
>rec.climbing 
>rec.scuba 
>rec.skiing 
>rec.skydiving 
>rec.windsurfing 
>
>
>... should the above groups be transfered to the rec.outdoors
>hierarchy?  As moderator of rec.hunting, I strongly support the
>renaming of rec.hunting.  Readers of the other groups should post to
>news.groups with comments about their groups... 


	But is SCUBA really an outdoors activity ??  I thought it was
an underwater activity.. So shouldn't it be renamed:

			rec.underwater.scuba ???

	Just a thought..

But I disagree, scuba is not classified an "Outdoors" sport.  I would
leave that to hunting, fishing, football. etc..

Darryl Harvey			WEBSTER COMPUTER CORP.
wcc@cup.portal.com		My opinion, Not theirs...
From: IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Solipsist@Large)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:36:49 GMT
 <1993Jan25.143358.7329@nastar.uucp> <1k2etkINN6bv@werple.apana.org.au>
 <1993Jan26.164926.15974@nastar.uucp>
Organization: University of Maine System

My take on `rec.games.miniatures' is a group devoted to gaming
with miniatures, be it fantasy role-playing, wargaming, or
fantasy wargaming.  I would suggest to those people who wish
to reject one or the other of these aspects, that you are
always free to post whatever you wish, and so are other people.
You don't have to read miniatures posts on the subject areas
you're not interested in.

For the record, I would vote for and support rec.games.miniatures.
I would not vote if the proposal were rec.games.war.  I would
vote against multiple groups, like rec.games.miniatures.war plus
rec.games.miniatures.fantasy as a waste of net resources until
proven otherwise.  I would vote against rec.games.board.miniatures
and rec.games.frp.miniatures, as both groups exclude a significant
portion of the interested readership.

If, a few months down the line, it looks like there is terrific
amounts of traffic for all different types of miniatures, we
can discuss splitting the group.  If there is a lot of, say,
WarHammer traffic and next to no Napoleonic traffic, that is
*not* a justification for splitting, since the traffic would
not justify the expense of creating a new group.
--
Eric Alfred Burns                        "Life is full of decisions
Solipsist at Large                        but you never get to make any."
"It's all in your mind"
IK20001@maine.maine.edu                           --Linus Van Pelt
From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 23 Jan 1993 08:53:09 +1100
Organization: Werple, Public Access *NIX, Oz
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

In article <93021.154622IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Solipsist@Large) writes:
>I have no problem with the proposed rec.games.miniatures.  However,
>I'd like a list of those `several groups, mailing lists and digests'
>where minatures discussion is taking place.  The implication is that
>discussion is very common, while I've never noticed more than a few
>token messages in rec.games.frp.misc or rec.games.board.  I may be
>wrong, of course.
>
>I'm not debating the usefulness of the group -- I'm just looking for
>the alluded-to evidence.
>--

Eric,

read the FAQ for Rec.games.board. it lists a number of lists. Also look at
the "publicly accessible mailing lists" documents found in the news.* groups
it lists a number of gaming groups as well

most of the miniatures discussion takes place on 3 or 4 lists.

Bob.