HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shell@gandalf.Berkeley.EDU (Shelly Culbertson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Moderated newsgroups
Date: 13 Sep 1992 20:19:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.berkeley.edu

Could someone tell me please what the process would be for a newsgroup
to change from being unmoderated to being moderated, if the participants
of the group wished to do so?

thanks for any assistance --
Shelly Culbertson
shell@gandalf.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: davidc@brahms.udel.edu (David Casper)
Subject: Re: Unofficial 2nd RFD: rec.music.classical.guitar
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.121226.19507@yang.earlham.edu> johnl@yang.earlham.edu (John Fiskio-Lasseter) writes:
>Well discussion regarding the creation of rec.music.classical.guitar has 
>been quite dead for awhile.  However, I *KNOW* there is interest in it 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 YES!!!                                         I hope so!

>because there are morMYe than 150 people on the mailing list that Bill 
>Brown collected.
>
>Just a note about that list:  Bill and I tried to find a home for it at my 
>site.  Result:  nada -- the sysadmin and other powers that be shot it down.
>So for now the list is hosed, lacking a good place to call home (unless 
>someone else wants to volunteer a home for it/- contact me if you're inter-
>ested).
>
>The upshot of all this:  BE SURE TO VOTE WHEN THE CFV COMES UP.  Right 
>now, people, it's all we've got. 

I've sent everyone on Bill Brown's list a short reminder...please
pass the word...
>
>BTW, I believe David Casper posted the original RFD and proposed charter 
>of rec.music.classical.guitar.  David, if you are reading this, would you 
>post that again with a 2nd offical RFD?

Sorry...caught me asleep at the wheel :-P 
The 2nd "official" RFD has been posted...

>
>--John 
-- 
David W. Casper
davidc@brahms.udel.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.groups
From: lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky)
Subject: Re: news.test: global rmgroup, or make it valid?
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.073416.9480@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
>
>Lately there has been a fairly steady stream of postings to the
>bogus newsgroup news.test.  Should somebody (David Lawrence, for
>example) issue a global rmgroup, or should we go through the
>motions of making this a valid newsgroup?

    Why is everyone so concerned about the presence of news.test, but
    no one seems disturbed about comp.sys.ibm.hardware or rec.fitness
    or any of the myriad of other bogus newsgroups which receive many
    posts daily?

--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files!           Gerry Swetsky  WB9EBO  |
|                 vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet                    |
| Home (708)833-8122       vpnet (708)833-8126      lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
From: steveh@grafex.Cupertino.CA.US (Steve Harding KA6ETB)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: MISC.DISASTER.*  NEWSGROUPS
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 20:15:30 PDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The GRAFex Company

I missed the original post, but reading between the lines...

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
 
> It would be far speedier, in the case of a true disaster, to set up an
> emergency mailing list for disseminating information.  News articles
> can take _days_ to get to other sites.  On the other hand, the
> quantity of information and number of subscribers to such a mailing
> list would be *enormous*, making it an extremely high-bandwidth list
> and incredibly difficult to read.  (If you are not interested in
> discussion, but only in reporting news relevant on a wide-scale basis,
> you could moderate it and accept only messages that are relevant to
> the population at large.)

In the case of a disaster, such as the Loma Prieta earthquake, hurricanes
Hugo and Andrew, etc., communications are disrupted...telephone lines are
down.  In some cases, electrical power is lost.  Now, since most internet
traffic is handle via telephone lines and computers need electricity, that
means that disaster information coming from the area will most likely not
make it into the internet.

During the Loma Prieta quake, I was fortunate.  I was only 6 miles from
the epicenter and I never lost my telephone and we were without power for
only four hours.

However, because of the situation, making a call out of the area was
difficult, because of the overwhelming reaction.  Everybody had to call
home.  Nobody could call into the area for several hours, in some cases,
days.

Also, remember that those people in the area have better things to do
than to hop on their computer and pass traffic into the internet.  Any
information out of the affected area will be days old because of the
situation.

It's an admirable suggestion, but IMO unworkable.

steve

play:steveh@grafex.Cupertino.CA.US 408.252.0578     work:harding@nas.nasa.gov
              A prince trapped in the body of a dirty old man.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: MISC.DISASTER.*  NEWSGROUPS
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:58:57 GMT

In article <9209020452.AA00644@cs.utexas.edu> YSAR1111@VM1.YorkU.CA (Rick Broadhead) writes:

>Does anyone think this is a good idea?

It would be far speedier, in the case of a true disaster, to set up an
emergency mailing list for disseminating information.  News articles
can take _days_ to get to other sites.  On the other hand, the
quantity of information and number of subscribers to such a mailing
list would be *enormous*, making it an extremely high-bandwidth list
and incredibly difficult to read.  (If you are not interested in
discussion, but only in reporting news relevant on a wide-scale basis,
you could moderate it and accept only messages that are relevant to
the population at large.)

-- 
____ 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
From: bn510@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Matthew L. High)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Fuck You All
Date: 9 Sep 1992 07:04:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Please please please to anyone thinking about replying to this
message:

Think twice before you reply!  This is not the place for it.
If you must, please move the discussion to a more appropriate
place, like alt.stupidity.  This newsgroup does not need another
senseless flameware.

Please - somewhere else.

  - net.spy!  (probably in fvain...)

PS Sorry for the spelling errors above.  Lousy editor...
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.chem.organomet
Keywords: chemistry,organic,inorganic,organometallic,science
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:24:15 GMT

In article <BuL4M9.GpL@uunet.uu.net> cabku01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Hartwig Kuehbauch) writes:

>         sci.chem.organomet
>
>This newsgroup could be a home for all chemists who work on organometallic
>chemistry, but also for all people who work on organic chemistry, because
>an organometallic chemist is always an organic chemist too!

In that case, the group should be named "sci.chem.organic", in order
to target organic chemistry in general, including organometallic
chemistry.  It could later be split into "sci.chem.organic.metallic"
should the need arise.

-- 
____ 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
From: jenkinsj@blowfish.taligent.com (John H. Jenkins)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:55:22 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Taligent, Inc.

In article <1992Sep4.161412.28727@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner) wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

Good idea IMHO.  There are a number of B7 threads going on in rec.arts.sf.tv right now.  It's easy to find them (they're the ones with "B7" in the subject line).  Typically, there is so little posting going on about B7 that a newsgroup of its own does seem a bit excessive (say I as a B7 fan myself).  


----
John H. Jenkins
John_Jenkins@taligent.com
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Why Mr. Bazyar abuses and still calls himself moral (Re: Why Alok ...
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:32:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <bazyar.716521105@teal>, bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:
> 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.
> 
> >Did I get it right ?
> 
> >Alok
> 
>   I think what's happening is that Alok simply likes to look at his
> own 'prose'.  It's good for his ego and self-respect. Play along, folks.
> I'll be the first to admit this 'discussion' has gone on far too long, 
> but if Alok's ego requires that we fight him, we can tolerate it.
> Perhaps we should have a RFD:"soc.alok.alok.alok" or "soc.alok.knows.best".
> Or wait, NBC beat me to that one; check the new fall lineup.
> 
> -- 
>  Jawaid Bazyar              |   Ask me about the GNO Multitasking Environment

This is the same Mr. Bazyar who went insane a month back - shouted all
types of abuses and threatened  ...

No Mr. Bazyar, I don't insist that everybody else but me is immoral.

There are many sane users of high integrity and character on this USENET.
Unfortunately you do not belong to that group ...

Neverthless your psychiatrist seems to have done a nice job on you ...
(No obscenities in your post !)

Have fun,

Alok
Xref: sparky news.groups:17939 comp.sys.apple2:20474
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: CFV: comp.sys.apple2.gno
Date: 15 Sep 1992 20:34:07 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep15.152443.14121@ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>>The vote for this newsgroup will last from today (September 15, 1992) to
>>October 6 1992, a total of 21 days.
>And why is the voting period only 21 days?  The 30-day figure called
>for in the guidelines wasn't chosen out of a hat; it was established
>with good reason.

Last time I checked, the guidelines said three weeks to four weeks voting
period, not fixed 30-day.  I've tended to run one-month votes when I do
them, just for ease of figuring out how long 8-), but a three weeker
should be valid.


   -george william herbert
   gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com 


Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.boycotts.calls moderated, talk.boycotts.misc
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:32:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department

In article <1992Sep9.154252.1830@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> I think it would be more like people looking at the headers (or
> reading the articles) of talk.boycotts.calls, then judging from the
> calls whether they're interested in the boycotts and if they are, they
> would read the discussion in talk.boycotts.misc.  It seems pointless
> to force people to wade thru lots of dicussion on boycotts they are
> not interested in.

My concern with the boycott groups is that it would be too easy to
spread a boycott based on falsehoods, whether intentional or not.

For instance, take Procter and Gamble. They were accused of
having a "satanist" symbol. News of this spread, even though
it was clearly wrong. Eventually, after many years, P&G had to
change the symbol. 

This could easily be done in such a newsgroup. A boycott based
on incorrect information could be spread, and by the time a
retraction was posted, it would be too late.

IF there is to be a moderated .calls group (or .announce group),
it would work better this way: proposed boycotts would be posted
to talk.boycotts.misc. That way, the users there can discuss
whether or not it is based on factual information.

After discussion has ended, and it turns out that the boycott
was based on factual information, then it could be posted - 
but the announcement should also include a rebuttal by those
who don't think the boycott should take effect. Thus,
t.b.calls would be more like a digest rather than a one-sided
newsgroup as has been proposed.

Steve
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.boycotts.calls moderated, talk.boycotts.misc
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:49:34 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Sep9.191432.101@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I guess I will vote "yes" on talk.boycotts.misc and abstain from the
>vote on talk.boycotts.call. I encourage people who plan on regularly
>reading talk.boycotts.misc to vote yes/abstain. People who plan on
>regularly reading only talk.boycotts.call should vote "yes" on both.
>Thus, the final vote tally will tell us if there is enough interest in
>the second group to make its creation worthwhile.

This seems like a reasonable way to decide whether to create the calls
group to me, but I'm still open for suggestions on the role of the
"calls" group.

//Jyrki
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 10 Sep 1992 12:52:04 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <9SEP199218531515@rosie.uh.edu> lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
[Somebody else wrote:]
>>A specific group for a single TV show is basically a bad idea, YES there
>>are exceptions to that but they represent far more established phenomena
>like Star Trek and Dr. Who.
>
>Does this include 90210, Simpsons, Thirtysomething, etc.?  All of
>these I have seen newsgroups for.

   None of them are mainstream USENET groups.

   If you want to discuss a specific TV show, either set up a mailing
list, create an 'alt' group, or pick a logical existing group (e.g.
rec.arts.sf.tv) and use it.  If after awhile traffic is overwhelming,
propose a new mainstream group.  That's how one works within the system.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.miracles
Keywords: Christianity Love Forgiveness Peace Miracles God Mysticism
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:33:50 GMT

In article <BuBy7E.Bz4@uunet.uu.net> finchc@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (finch clifton d) writes:

>NewGroup request: soc.religion.miracles

This is definately *not* the right name for this group.  It should be 
something like soc.religion.acim, or it will get all kinds of traffic
about purported miracles which have nothing to do with the group as
proposed.  Moreover, it should be decided if the group is to be
moderated or not, and if so, by whom.  Religion groups in the "soc"
area have traditionally had moderators.  An alternative possibility for
an unmoderated group would be talk.religion.acim.



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprect-Karls University 
                gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.groups
Subject: news.test: global rmgroup, or make it valid?
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:34:16 GMT
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA


Lately there has been a fairly steady stream of postings to the
bogus newsgroup news.test.  Should somebody (David Lawrence, for
example) issue a global rmgroup, or should we go through the
motions of making this a valid newsgroup?

I could go either way on the issue, but something should probably
be done.  Granted, sending the rmgroup control message probably won't
remove it from all sites, but it couldn't hurt.  Then again, perhaps
there's value in having a news.test group in addition to misc.test...

Any opinions?

-- 
Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,
"Lovers are like... dentures.  You don't want them in your     |    /oo \
mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's   |    <>__|
reach in the morning!"  --- Miss Elmira Gulch                  |    |  U|
From: sharen@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Sharen A. Rund)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.autos.antique
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:15:02 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.

In article <Bu7tHM.9AF@uunet.uu.net> lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:
>Some months ago, I created alt.autos.antique.  There seems to have been
>sufficient traffic in that newsgroup to justify a discussion and vote
>on the creation of rec.autos.antique.
>
 [ 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.

at the time you created alt.autos.antique I was very interested in the
group, then, I lost you (due to interference on my end of the net
I can have not been able to get to alt.autos.antique for several
months)
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 -
needless to say, since I own a 33 roadster "hot rod", a 46 buick
sedanette "customized" and several 55, 56 & 57 buicks all in some
state of customization, I guess I can take it you don't want any
input from me, or people like me who are not "purists"

please correct me if I've jumped to the wrong conclusion, and/or
verify if I have not

thank you



-- 
________________       __        ________________   "They that can give up
\_________      \     /_ \      /      _________/  essential liberty to 
 \_________      \_____/  \____/      _________/  obtain temporary safety
  \___________________      __________________/  deserve neither liberty 
                     /______\                   nor safety."  
ALL disclaimers apply ....                           --Benjamin Franklin
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.babylon5
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:13:23 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

yury@bknight.jpr.com (Yury German) writes:

>In article <Bu229A.KIv@apollo.hp.com> @apollo.HP.COM (Jennifer E.
Levine) writes:
>>I will vote for an alt.tv.babylon5
>>
>>Although the show is not out yet it has gotten alot of attention and
>>discussion. There are lots of posts about it in the ST heirarchy. 
>>
>>I would like to be able to read the ST groups for stuff about Star Trek and
>>have a place to go to hear the latest on this new show. The whole creation 
>>process of Babylon5 is very interesting. But, I don't think this information
>>belongs in the ST heirarchy.

>	I agrre with this... but how about a different approach.. Since
>STAR TREK newsgroups are just tooo HUGE!!!

>	How about adding a newsgroup to the Star Trek Hiearchie.. with
>Babylon5. Where if you want you would junk the rest and just read this. 

    So your proposing rec.arts.startrek.babylon5? Yeah, right. You would
have better luck getting comp.sys.babylon5 passed.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
	    "Egads! These look like a women's fingerprints"
						   -- Durlock Holmes
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.boycotts.calls moderated, talk.boycotts.misc
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:42:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.140647.8068@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>A boycott call is an attempt to persuade people to act usually based
>on a political argument. I think that attempts to persuade people not
>to act with political counter-arguments should be the same forum. I
>don't see why calls to boycott should be given preference over calls
>not to boycott. For this reason, I oppose talk.boycotts.calls (but
>support talk.boycotts.misc).

I think it reasonable to have two groups, with one for calls and one
for discussions.  A call to create a new Usenet newsgroup is a
political move, yet I see no one demanding that the discussion on why
_not_ to create the proposed newsgroup should be in the same forum,
ie. news.announce.newgroups.

>The only reason I can see for anyone voting for talk.boycotts.calls is
>if they really expect to read it but not talk.boycotts.misc. Given the
>one-sidedness inherent in a boycott call, I hope that there will not
>be too many such readers.

I think it would be more like people looking at the headers (or
reading the articles) of talk.boycotts.calls, then judging from the
calls whether they're interested in the boycotts and if they are, they
would read the discussion in talk.boycotts.misc.  It seems pointless
to force people to wade thru lots of dicussion on boycotts they are
not interested in.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.scouting.activities, rec.scouting.policy
Organization: Summit NJ
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:48:34 GMT

>This is the first official call for discussion on the reorganization of 
>rec.scouting into rec.scouting.activities and rec.scouting.policy. 

For the record, I oppose any split to rec.scouting.  If there's a problem
with the current group, it's because a few groups with their own
political agenda are trying to use rec.scouting as a soapbox for
their views.

Now, one charter comment-
>========================================================================
>
>Name:   rec.scouting.activities
>
>  rec.scouting.activities     Scouting Movement activities worldwide
>
>Charter:
>
>A companion group, named rec.scouting.policy at the time of this
>chartering, is expected to handle topics and queries relating to
>membership, advancement and funding policies among various
>organizations. 

I feel rank advancement belongs in this group and not the policy group.
I don't want to have to wade through the potential noise on "policy"
(such as the atheist and gay agendas that have been cluttering up
rec.scouting) to find legitimate BSA items.
-- 
Stan Krieger                     All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
AT&T UNIX System Laboratories    if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
smk@usl.com
Newsgroups: news.groups