HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins)
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.tamil ...
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:03:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.222221.22121@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
|In article <7331@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep14.203519.23870@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
|>>In other words, it is okay for the vote taker to appeal to people
|>>to vote YES only or abstain, and then issue a CFV and start collecting votes.
|> 
|> Exactly correct, so long as the vote taker makes no appeals while the vote is
|> in progress. He can do anything his little old heart desires, as long as he
|> does it before the CFV.
|
|I simply disagree. A vote taker making such comments even before
|voting starts, is acting improperly.
|
|I would not trust such a vote taker.

Frankly, Alok, you're completely out of touch with news.groups precedent.
Most CFVs are conducted by the same person who issues the original RFD
and usually is a major advocate of the group.  Very rarely is there
any attempt to disqualify a potential vote-taker because of stated
preferences for the group.

Now vote-taker behavior *during* the vote -- that's a whole other subject...

Speaking as the vote-taker for the rec.arts.startrek re-organization,
I think that it may be difficult to find someone to deal with the
hassle of running a vote who isn't strongly motivated to do so.  Usually
that means that the vote-taker is a supporter of the group.  (How many
dis-interested observers would be interested in getting 1000 votes over
4 weeks, with every 20th one or so requiring some sort of live action? 
Sure, there's a few noble souls out there ... but not that many.)

-- 
Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan                          huggins@eecs.umich.edu
"You cannot pray to a personal computer no matter how user-friendly it is."
                                                          -- W. Bingham Hunter
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.boycotts.announce moderated, misc.boycotts.misc
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:55:04 GMT

In article <1210@nominil.lonestar.org>, linimon@nominil (Mark Linimon) writes:
>I would agree.  To me, this sounds like a natural for talk.boycotts,
>unmoderated.

OK, I'll change the RFD to reflect this.  But I think it would still
be a good idea to have an announce group automatically moderated (ie.
grepped for keyword lines).

//Jyrki
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Date: 6 Sep 92 13:57:40 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Tim Pierce (twpierce@unix.amherst.edu) writes:
>That's exactly the problem Lazlo and I had -- you have to come up with
>forty seperate decisions on how you feel about a particular group even
>if you're inclined to vote.

Now, that is a misconception. There is something called "abstain".

I would however agree that taking all 40 groups in one batch
was overmuch. Not so much for the size of the ballot, but for
the problem of getting the names and charters of all groups
correct. And keeping concerned groups that exist already informed 
about the development.

In practice it was not a split of one talk.politics.misc, but
also soc.culture.europe, s.c.latin-america, sci.med.health etc.
Probably the proposal should have been along these lines, with 
one vote for each batch of groups which are related.



-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
"Recreation of source code from design documentation can be costly"
IEEE Std 1042/1987
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.friends
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:10:32 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 9 Sep 92 02:56:23 GMT, andyrose@netcom.com (San Francisco Fractal Factory) said:

> Request discussion regarding soc.Friends or soc.religion.Friends
> as an avenue for communication of some literature regarding the life
> of members of Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).  This
> would mainly include publication of American Friends Service Committee
> media spec. Quaker Service Bulletin, AFSC Resources, regional office notes,
> Annual Report, electronic and standard contacts, local meeting 
> minutes, Right Sharing of World Resources, Criminal Justice and Prison 
> Reform, and guides to travelling friends.

Surely something in the soc.religion hierarchy is appropriate.  I
agree with other comments that soc.religion.quaker would be more
obvious than soc.religion.friends.  I don't see why (as one responder
suggested) you ought to make it US only, and I'd question any formal
Charter that made the newsgroup unnecessarily US specific.

> Unmoderated or moderated.  Suggest unmoderated.

I agree.
--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.rpg.board
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Illini Mastication Society
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:34:38 GMT

lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

> Request for new group: rec.games.rpg.board

> This is a proposal for a news group which would discuss those
> games containing elements of both role playing games and 
> board games.  The primary games under consideration are 
> Battletech/Mechwarrior and Warhammer/Warhammer 40K although
> is not limited to those two.  

(1) rec.games.rpg is bogus, isn't it?  This should be under 
    rec.games.frp.

(2) When I hear "board", I think of chess.  The title should
    probably reflect the term "wargame."  Perhaps, this should
    be simple rec.games.war or rec.games.tabletop?
-- 
Thomas Aaron Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." -- Edward R. Murrow
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: marek@mermaid.msel.unh.edu (Marek Lugowski)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.poems.urdu
Organization: UNH Marine Systems Engineering Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:22:08 GMT

Can't help but think that this proposed newsgroup is not a rec.* but a
soc.* The somber tone of the charter foreshadows a non-recreational
entity.  I'm also troubled by the phrase about serving the needs of
all people within the Indian subcontinent.  I would like to have my
needs served too.  If this is an Indian group, local to the country of
India, I don't think it should be chartered as part of a worldwide
hierarchy, as rec.arts.poems.urdu implies.

Besides, rec.arts.poems is scarcely overcrowded with Urdu poems and
discussions about ghazals.  I mean, when was the last time anyone
posted a ghazal about a unicorn, or anything else for that matter?

I say, bring on the Urdu poetry traffic to rec.arts.poems -- it's here
for everyone.  I'd love to see more stuff here, and if there is to
be a new group, let it hang off the soc.* hierarchy ... and serve all.

				-- Marek


In article <BuL5vr.Hv1@uunet.uu.net> ali@simserver1.mentorg.com (Ali Haveliwala) writes:
>CREATION of "rec.arts.poems.urdu"
>
>Charter:
>This group will serve the needs of all people within the Indian sub continent
>that have a interest in the Urdu Language and its rich poetry collections.
>	
>Will be a forum of discussion for Urdu ghazals and interpretations.
>
>Will be a forum to discuss the Urdu Language and its impact on arts within
>the subcontinent


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:25:53 GMT

In article <06hn-x+@lynx.unm.edu>, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> 
> >>> What's so damn wrong in reminding people to cast their votes and hope 
> >>> them to vote favorably ?   
> 
> "Hoping people to vote favorably" isn't "unbiased", Alok.
> Now *shut the hell up*.
> 
Fine it is unbiased but the whole reason we are having this discussion
(or shouting match from your side) is that similar unbiased comments
were made by the soc.culture.tamil (SCT) vote-taker. 

So if you must knock down SCIA vote on this ground (and so it was done), SCT 
vote should be knocked down too.

> 
> --
> Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
> 
> "People who attempt to have reasoned discussions with raving
>  morons deserve what they get." 	-- Melinda Shore

"But the people think the person who is shouting is the moron !"

Alok
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.autos.antique
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:02:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.191502.25405@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> sharen@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Sharen A. Rund) writes:
> [ stuff deleted ]
>
>>Rec.autos.antique shall NOT be for the discussion for the non-stock
>>modification, customization or souping up of antique autos.
>>
>>Let the discussion begin.
>
>but - I was under the impression, at that time, that all areas of
>antique cars, e.g., rods & customs, would be included - now, by your
>statements in this posting, only "purists" topics will be allowed -
>I guess I can take it you don't want any
>input from me, or people like me who are not "purists"

Combining these two groups of discussions (people discussing ordinary,
stock factory 30's to late 60's cars and people discussing doing freaky
things to them) are as different as *.msdos and *.unix, and belong
in different groups.

I don't want to sift through how to chop your 40's coupe, and put radial
tires on it, and a blower.  If you're so interested in it, and there's
enough of you out there, at least create alt.rape.your.car        
(or alt.autos.hot-rodding).  God, isin't there enough commercial
publications/magazines that cover that kind of thing?

(my $.02, tax not included...)
From: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: news.software.inn
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:54:41 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <mt61Ht$om9@atlantis.psu.edu>, barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
> It remains to be seen wether there's enough traffic to support both
> news.software.transport.inn _and_ groups like transport.c, transport.b,
> transport.anu, etc.

You can leave ANU News out of the discussion, since it is both a
transport and a reader combined in one program.
-- 
USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045
E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 5 Sep 92 04:16:32 GMT
Organization: Bradley University


>|> As per current RFD:
>|> D:  Use rec.music.makers for misc discussion
>|>     Overload rec.music.{classical,bluenote,etc} for genre specific
>|>       musician discussion
>|>     Create rec.music.makers.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
>|>     Overload rec.music.marketplace for instruments as well
>|>       (or create rec.music.makers.marketplace)

To me, this proposal seems to be the most reasonable.  It utilizes existing
hierarchies while creating the newsgroups most necessary, those being the
instrument-specific groups under r.m.makers.  rec.music.synth could simply
be renamed rec.music.makers.synth, for instance.

I do think it would make the most sense to retain the label 'synth' rather
than keyboards, since it would not preclude discussion of alternative
controllers (which I've seen quite a bit of discussion on), and the number
of people who play other keyboard instruments (piano, organ, harpsicord)
but not synths is fairly small.  

I would certainly vote yes on a call for votes on a proposal like the
above.  It's efficient and makes sense.

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
    Your shame is neverending...just one psychological drama after another.
--------------------------{dave@bradley.bradley.edu}---------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.best-of.usenet moderated, misc.best-of.usenet.d
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:39:58 GMT

In <BuMop4.39u@uunet.uu.net> ziegast@uunet.UU.NET (Eric Ziegast) writes:

>This is a request for discussion regarding creation of two newsgroups for
>the submission and discussion of articles that the posters consider as
>the "best" articles found on USENET.  A similar unmoderated newsgroup,
>alt.best.of.internet, was created for the purpose of posting articles
>only, but it is currently suffering abuses including cross-posting, fol-
>lowups, and even cascades.


>The groups:

>#### misc.best-of.usenet  Selected USENET postings.  (Moderated)

>#### misc.best-of.usenet.d  Selected USENET postings discussion

I don't think this is a good idea.  At the very least, the moderator should
be someone already known for being a good moderator.  I don't think any
such person would be interested.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: deng@dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov (dp)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.boycotts.announce moderated, misc.boycotts.misc
Organization: RHIC: (Au+79)-> Little BIG BANG <-(Au+79)
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:33:54

>>>>> In article <1992Sep1.015811.30347@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>>>>> "Carl" == Carl M. Kadie <kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> writes:

  Carl> I think the idea of a newsgroup about boycotts is excellent, but I'm
  Carl> uneasy at the idea of a moderated announce newsgroup.

I don't like boycott in general, but that's not the point.  Here's a
question: will a call to boycott misc.boycott.*** be acceptable ?  ;-)

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.international
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:14:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.033923.780@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>>Comp.std.misc exists "for discussion of various standards."  I fail to
>>see how this group is inappropriate for the topics you mention.
>
>There are no standards for all aspects of internationalization.  For
>example, is there a standard for patching GNU emacs to handle 8-bit
>characters?  Is that a discussion of various standards?  How about
>discussing retrofitting some existing software for switchable
>languages?

If bullfrogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses when they land.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.abstract
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:34:40 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <1992Sep01.053212.9009@microsoft.com> bethmo@microsoft.com writes:

> I'm surprised that no one has pointed out yet that 1830 and Civilization
> are both diceless games of perfect information.  :-)

Is the Civilization you're talking about the one by Avalon Hill? I've watched a
game, and there are PLENTY of concealed cards, which makes it not a game of
perfect information.

A game of perfect information is one in which nothing is hidden except players'
intentions. Chess, checkers, and go are examples.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject:  Re: RFD: rec.arts.poems.urdu
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:01:09 GMT

In article <3004@ucl-cs.uucp>, B.Kumar@cs.ucl.ac.uk writes:
> 
> >CREATION of "rec.arts.poems.urdu"
> >
> >Charter:
> >This group will serve the needs of all people within the Indian sub
continent
> >that have a interest in the Urdu Language and its rich poetry collections.
> 
> NOoooooooooooo! 
>  
                               [...deleted...]
> What "rich" poetry collection?. Other than mostly third rate shers  all of
> those *obessively* talking about women and wine again and again and again...
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> till they make its reader sick. I would call its so called poetry of mentally
> retarded neurotic sexophiles who could not see any thing beyond wine and 
> woman. What is there to discuss about such rubbish in a separate news group?
> 
                                [...deleted...]
> Forget it. If you need to discuss the poetry. You can discuss on SCP or SCI.
> 
> B. Kumar

On the contrary, that sounds like JUST the sort of thing we need right
here on the ol' rap!   "A little Urdu every day" ought to be our motto.

Seriously, why can't we read and discuss Urdu poetry on rap?  Must we have a
separate newsgroup for every language?  One of these days you won't be 
allowed to disuss Spencer and Cummings on the same newsgroup.  Ridiculous!

Marie Coffin



Newsgroups: news.groups
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.tamil ...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:35:19 GMT

In article <7305@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.152305.13248@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> >Now, don't you think the vote taker comments before the vote were improper.
> >Or to be more specific, wasn't it inappropriate for him to select himself
> >as the vote taker after making such comments ?
> 
> No. It was completely appropriate and legitimate, and in fact nearly all
> proposals adopted for new groups had their votes taken by the proponent.
> -- 

In other words, it is okay for the vote taker to appeal to people
to vote YES only or abstain, and then issue a CFV and start collecting votes.

Did I get it right ?

> Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can

Alok
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: macman@bernina.ethz.ch (Danny Schwendener)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.scouting.activities, rec.scouting.policy
Organization: Peppermint Software Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:03:44 GMT

First of all, I would like to ask all posters to make sure that they 
DON'T cross-post discussions on this RFD on rec.scouting or 
rec.backcountry. Normally, your News program should take care of this,
but it's always better to double-check.

jreece@sousa.intel.com (John Reece) writes:
>I note that rec.scouting.activities is proposed as an *unmoderated*
>group.  From the example of rec.hunting and rec.guns if you don't make
>it moderated you might as well not bother splitting rec.scouting 
>up.  Otherwise the activists will simply be all over Scouting's ass in
>two sub-groups instead of one top-level one.

rec.scouting.activities is clear enough both in its name and its charter
that it should prevent any political and ethical flame wars in it.
I don't think that a moderated status is justified for this group,
especially if you look at all problems that not only can, but definitely
will show up in a moderated group. 

What I plan to do (presuming the vote for rec.scouting.activities
passes) is to post the charter in monthly intervalls and send a friendly
note to posters who mispost their messages. Kind of a 'post-operative
moderation' if you wish.


rec.scouting.policy is for what its name says: discussions and questions
on policies. Flame wars are not welcome, but founded argumentation is.
Again, I don't think that a moderation of the group would be healthy,
especially not for the moderator. I've been moderating groups for
several years, and from my experience it is *very* difficult to draw a
line between the valid and the invalid messages. It always ends up in
people accusing the moderator to be partial and to censor messages for
'unfounded' reasons.

The only groups where moderation is justified are the '.announce' newsgroups,
which suppose a minimal, concentrated traffic, with no noise. 


-- Danny Schwendener         macman@bernina.ethz.ch
   Wolfsmeute Nidau/Glockenhof, Sihlstr. 33, CH-8001 Zurich, Switzerland
   m.h.c. Troop 14, San Francisco

PS: Please note that these are my personal opinions. They do not have to
coincide with what the final charters will look like. So please keep on
posting comments and suggestions.
From: macman@bernina.ethz.ch (Danny Schwendener)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.scouting.activities, rec.scouting.policy
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:17:11 GMT
Organization: Peppermint Software Inc.

anthropo@carina.unm.edu (Dominick V. Zurlo) writes:
>[...]  I don't think it should be split, there really isn't 
>enough traffic to warrent one at this point in time.  

The traffic volume on rec.scouting doesn't justify the split, everybody
will agree on that. However, other aspects justify the split.

The reason why I'm proposing a split is because there are two audiences
in rec.scouting - one interested in the theoretical aspects (i.e. what
was, is and should be scouting) and the other interested in the practical
aspects. Both aspects are, in my opinion, important. But by following
the discussions on rec.scouting, it became clear that there is a large
part of either audience who is not interested in the other aspect, and
who finds it painful to browse through a load of messages, half of which
they will never be interested in.

I'll give you an extreme example. Have a look in the newsgroup 
'junk', which is usually the place where system administrators
redirect messages posted in groups they don't want to have
on their machine. So junk usually looks like a giant kaleidoscope.
Now try to pick out the messages that you believe to be interesting
to you. It won't take long until you resign and unsubscribe to this group.

I'm still waiting for someone who can give me a solid argument against a
group split. I could imagine that some people fear to see the audience
for their postings reduced, but if you think about it, you will realize
that the audience you lose by posting to a splitted group (rather than to
a universal group) are the people who aren't interested in your topic
in the first place, otherwise they would have subscribed to both groups.


-- Danny Schwendener         macman@bernina.ethz.ch
   Wolfsmeute Nidau/Glockenhof, Sihlstr. 33, CH-8001 Zurich, Switzerland
   m.h.c. Troop 14, San Francisco
Newsgroups: news.groups