HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nickel@cs.tu-berlin.de (Juergen Nickelsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.lang.ml
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 7 Jan 1993 17:50:59 GMT
Organization: STONE Project, Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Reply-To: nickel@cs.tu-berlin.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: desaster.cs.tu-berlin.de
In-reply-to: jgmorris+@VACHE.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU's message of 6 Jan 1993 19:34:06 -0500

In article <1iftpuINN77m@rodan.UU.NET>
jgmorris+@VACHE.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU (Greg Morrisett) writes:

> First Call, Request for Discussion: comp.lang.ml 
> 
> PROPOSAL:  This is a request for discussion on creation of an unmoderated 
> newsgroup on the topic of the ML family of programming languages. The 
> suggested name is comp.lang.ml.  

I'd really like to see this group. Although I am subscribed to the ML
mailing list, I'd prefer reading these messages in the News (and
keeping my mailbox for personal messages only).

In an unmoderated newsgroup there would also appear some more of the
"How can I ..." stuff -- since I'm an ML newbie, it might be
interesting to read answers to questions I wouldn't even think of
asking.

--
Juergen Nickelsen
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: styri@hal.nta.no (YuNoHoo)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.crypt.research moderated
Reply-To: styri@nta.no
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:04:02 GMT

In the RFD, Thomas W. Strong, Jr. <strong+@cmu.edu> writes:
> [...]
>
> 	Charter	Scientific and technical matters applying to
>		data en/decryption. (as opposed to the law, 
>		politics, licensing, and ethics thereof)

Some of you may oppose the following suggestion, but I'll give it a
try anyway: To some extent legal matters would be appropriate in
the proposed group. Because legislation may affect the research and
use of crypto-techniques some brief information would not hurt. But,
we should restrict it to informative articles and direct the discussion
to `sci.crypt'. (And, before you post a `no, no - never' reply - please
remember that law is different from ethics and politics.)

Using the same line of reasoning I'd also like to see articles that
inform us about patents granted in the proposed group. But, the
discussion should be redirected to some other group.

---
Haakon Styri
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: conty@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (E. Kontei)
Subject: Guidelines on splitting a newsgroup echoed on a mailing list?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:43:08 GMT


If I understand correctly, the current Guidelines suggest that when an
RFD is posted, discussion should be moved to news.groups.  This is done
so the newsgroup to be split is not overrun by "split" traffic.

What would be the proper procedure when the newsgroup in question is
being echoed by a BITNET mailing list?  All the people in the
mailing list will be unable to follow the discussion in news.groups.
And they *do* get to vote if a CFV is generated.

Aside:  could someone point to me to an FTP site where I can find
the greatest-n-latest version of the Newsgroup Creation Gudelines?

Thanks in advance.
-- 
			    E n r i q u e  C o n t y
			       Master of Science!
			      jester@ihlpm.att.com
		    Disclaimer: You're not dealing with AT&T
Xref: sparky news.groups:25353 sci.aeronautics:2714
From: mark@uab21.larc.nasa.gov (Mark Flanagan)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.aeronautics moderation
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:39:36 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: uab21.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1in5e6INN1qq@rodan.UU.NET> Robert Dorsett <rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> writes:
>This is a proposal to change the status of sci.aeronautics to that of a
>moderated group.


NO! (pardon the caps)  The volume in this group is low enough that moderation
will *completely* kill the group.  While i'm not really thrilled with the
s/n ratio here (e.g. aircraft nicknames, prettiest aircraft, etc..)
I don't think that moderation is the answer unless we *already* have 
volunteers to submit good seed articles to stimulate discussion. 

Mark Flanagan

-- 
mark@uab21.larc.nasa.gov  Unsteady Aerodynamics Branch LaRC  <disclaimer>
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:56:32 GMT

Why should this group not go under soc.religion.christian.bible-study?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: dweinste@Gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:03:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: life.1ihrabINN23b
Organization: Chaos under Glass
NNTP-Posting-Host: wombat.gnu.ai.mit.edu

I have two objections to the proposal as given, one fairly minor, one
major.

The proposal states:
#Proposal:
#---------
#The creation of a new newsgroup to be called:
#
#                     "soc.religion.biblestudy"
#
#Overview:
#---------
#This would be an excellent place for Christians, Bible Scholars, 
#or people just interested in reading the Bible to come together 
#from all over the world and share *their* interpretations of God's 
#word.  (It should prove quite fascinating to see how people from 
#other countries view the Bible.)

Now, very clearly, this is not a generic Bible Study (something which becomes
extremely clear later on). The name seems like it ought to be something
along the lines of "soc.religion.christian.bible-study".

The charter goes on to limit the discussion as follows:

#This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the 
#Bible, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under 
#question [...] 

This is, to my mind, a major problem. It removes from the discussion *any*
positions which do not accept Christianity's mainline doctrines. Jewish
exegetics of Isiah would be gone, as would any scholarly position which
refutes Christian doctrine. Perhaps the group should be renamed
"soc.religion.christian.bible-study.people.who.agree.with.the.moderator".
Or perhaps it ought not be created with this charter at all.

--Dave
 
-- 
Dave Weinstein
Internet: dweinste@gnu.ai.mit.edu
"Wives have no sympathy for Rugby injuries." -- Dan Smith
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Query on NOC Tools Groups
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:38:00 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: anderson@macc.wisc.edu's message of 8 Jan 93 01:30:28 GMT

You haven't heard about the INET groups?
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.lanman
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:06:45 GMT

I should also mention that comp.sys.novell -> comp.os.netware is
currently in RFD, so comp.sys.lanman may not be the appropriate
hierarchy for yet another reason.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chrisf@brtph316.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Chris Fulmer)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Reply-To: woodstock!chris@mcnc.org
Organization: BNR Dept 3B91, RTP
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:07:45 GMT

In article <79365@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes:
> 
> The mod isn't going to allow questioning of some of the more basic,
> and yet more complex, problems concerning this collection of works,
> and he presumes there will be any real discussion?  Sounds like a
> waste of bandwidth to me...  not that I'll have anything to do with
> anything remotely related to the group anyway, but I'll vote against
> it just on the principle that if you're not allowed to question 
> *everything*, your search for truth is meaningless.  Censorship at
> its very worst.

Yow.  Well, there are plenty of non-newsgroup bible studies that go
on, with a good deal of discussion.  So, I'd expect some real discussion.

As for the question of whether you should question everything, I'd say
that you should.  However, I'd also say that there are some forums where
it may not be appropriate to do so.  In any discussion, including a Bible
study, it is necessary to set some common ground on which to build.  The
less common ground you have, the less in-depth the discussion can go.

Looking at it from a mathematical perspective, it'd be like having a
newsgroup dedicated to a discussion of Euclidian Geometry, when some of
the participants believe that parallel lines do cross. 

There have been arguments made along the lines of "What about people 
who believe such-n-such?," where "such-n-such" conflicts with the
basic premises of the newsgroup.  Those people would naturally not
be able to contribute, unless they would be able to make arguments
based on the premises of the newsgroup.  (Of course, there's the
question of whether they'd want to participate, anyway....)

As for the question of censorship, I fail to see how creating a
NEW newsgroup, even if it does have some restrictions on it, can
be a form of censorship.


------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fulmer                    Bell-Northern Research
Sr. Software Designer            Research Triangle, NC
mail to woodstock!chris@mcnc.org (preferable) or...
        chrisf@bnr.ca            (not so preferable)
Oh yeah.  The usual disclaimers apply here.
From: Jonathan Egre' <jonathan@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.british.minorities
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:36:29 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin) writes:

> NEW GROUP PROPOSED:  soc.culture.british.minorities
> 
> STATUS:  unmoderated
> 
> CHARTER:  As Great Britain becomes increasingly multicultural, there
> is an increasing need for discussion of race relations and the special
> concerns of ethnic minorities.  This group is intended to be inclusive
> of all perspectives and ethnicities (including the indigenous British)
> and will serve as a forum for the examination of the condition and
> identity of ethnic minorities in the UK, and the encouragement of
> constructive social dialogue across cultural and racial boundaries.

"Minorities" is not really a synonym for "ethnic groups".

The newsgroup name "*.minorities" would certainly encompass discussions 
about provisions for disabled people, the elderly, and non-heterosexual 
people - as well as ethnic minorities, of course.  Also, "minority issues"
usually encompass women's issues, even though women are not literally a 
minority group.

When you say "the indigenous British", do you mean the English people or
do you mean the original Celtic people who have lived in the British Isles
since before the Romans invaded?  The English are certainly not a minority,
although they are an ethnic group.

Your charter suggests that you really want "soc.culture.british.ethnic-groups"
("ethnic-groups" is 13 characters long).
--
Jonathan Egre' = jonathan@mantis.co.uk = jonathan_e@cix.compulink.co.uk

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:58:48 GMT

In article <1iftqkINN77t@rodan.UU.NET> nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:
>This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the 
>Bible, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under 
>question and topics such as abortion, creationism, etc will NOT 
>be discussed in depth - since these already exist in the 
>"talk.religion.misc" and "soc.religion.christian" newsgroups.  

There is secular Bible study which calls into question some of what Christian
groups see in the Bible.  Would you permit or prohibit someone who says "J is
saying in so-and so section of the Bible, ..." where J is a hypothetical
author other than the one religious authorities believe wrote the section?

What about other religious groups that use the Bible?  (Baha'is, for instance.)
If a person from such a group studies the Bible from the point of view of
assuming a God not like the Christian God, does this count as questioning the
validity of the Bible?

What about Jews?  Why should a generic Bible study newsgroup require its
participants to not question Jesus Christ? 

All of these really collapse into one objection: what one group calls "study"
is the same as what a second group calls "questioning the Bible's validity".
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Subject: Re: Proposal for sci.geo.eosdis has not been adequately discussed?
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Distribution: news
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 20:10:12 GMT

In article <29988@castle.ed.ac.uk> ngse18@castle.ed.ac.uk (J R Evans) writes:
>It is not clear to me precisely how this situation has arisen, but
>I suggest that interested users of these groups should be offered an
>opportunity to comment before proceeding.  On the other hand, I do not 
>see how that can fully be accommodated within the guidelines.

There are several ways to accomplish this:

a) Discuss the issue right now, during the vote.

b) Withdraw the vote and re-open discussion.

c) Vote down the proposal, and let the proponents try
   again in six months.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
From: danmz@echosphere.com (Dan Zirin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:19:56 GMT
Organization: Echosphere/Houston Tracker Systems

In article <1993Jan12.041858.6537@netcom.com>, foo@netcom.com (Mark Hall) writes:
> In article <1isp5dINNpc4@rodan.UU.NET> weinss@rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
> )These proposals are independent.  Some can be approved without the others:
> )3. Split misc.jobs.offered.entry into misc.jobs.offered.entry.almost and
> )	misc.jobs.offered.entry.newgrads to because of complaints by people
> )	who felt that jobs requiring experience were de facto not entry level.
> 
>    In the 8 months that misc.jobs.offered has existed, there have been
> about 428 articles. I would guess that more than half of those articles 
> were NOT job offers at all. Near graduation, about 90% were 'I want a job' 
> and 'you're an idiot, quit posting that you want a job' postings. 
> 
>    The actual offers have been less than 1 per day.
> 
>    Rather than split the group, it would be more appropriate to rmgroup it.
> Surely there is no need for *another* entry-level group.

Assuming everything you say is true, I think this group is important enough
to readers throughout the network that moderating rather than rmgrouping may
be appropriate (it sounds like a *SIMPLE* moderator's task -- but I'm not
volunteering).

>   - mark

My two cents...
-- 

Daniel "Zar" Zirin                                         DanMZ@Echosphere.Com
"...no matter where you go, there you are." - BB           Raptor!DanMZ@CSN.Org
Xref: sparky news.groups:25201 rec.food.cooking:24709
From: dawn@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Dawn Burgess)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.food.cooking
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Date: 8 Jan 1993 20:36:38 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan8.040030.16459@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>In article <C0ICGx.23B@rice.edu> cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:
>>In article <id.D8IW.2SA@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>
>Cathy.  I'll use short words so you can understand me, okay?
>

Actually the following is 5 VERY long hyphenated words, but then,
what should we expect? 

>Stop-being-such-a-dork-and-asking-our-opinion-before-the-RFD.
>
>Post-an-RFD-on-SOME-proposed-name-to-tale@uunet.uu.net.
>
>When-it-appears, discuss-up-a-storm.
>
>Then-take-the-name-that-looks-most-promising-and-hold-a-vote.
>
>Okay?


Joel, stop being such a jerk, and think for a moment, if you can.
You have explained the procedure for starting the formal process.
You have explained the procedure more than once.
A few people have decided to continue the discussion informally.
Conclusions:
   A: These people are ignoring you just for spite, in which case your
      tirade is futile

   B: These people are pitifully stupid, as you assume, and you might
      as well give up (and spare the rest of us)

   C: These people are enjoying the discussion, and don't want to 
      formalize it right now, in which case you can add this line
      of discussion to your kill file and cool off.

Geez.  The fate of the free world does not hinge on when we start our
formal discussion.  Lay off.

Dawn
      
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:09:43 GMT

In article <id.MAJW.EAH@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>Moi:
>> >Not if they can't separate politics and religion, and there's no place for
>> >religion in politics. 
>
>In article <1993Jan8.014921.21652@cs.unca.edu> kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>> >The Church (of which Christianity, "a fortunate accident," is one form,
>> >but is not identical with the Idea of a Church itself)
>
>Sounds to me like the Church, as described by Russel Kirk, itself has nothing
>to do with religion. Religion is at the base, belief... and if any belief will
>do what sort of Church is that?
>
>It seems to me that what he's referring to is simply the social contract.
>-- 
>Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
>Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
>Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
>+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
There's no One and Only True Church.  Conservatism agrees with Montesquieu
that what works best for one country may not work best for another.  Burke,
for instance, was an Englishman but he sympathised with India and the
American colonies when it came to disputes with England.  Nevertheless
he considered Christianity the highest religion and thought that properly
run states were the e unfolding of God's will.  Conservatism has always
combined with Christianity from its first days.  And notice, that although
Kirk's writing is 40 years old it could have been written by any 
Conservative today (although much less eloquently) or one hundred fifty
years ago which pretty much annihilates the claim that someone made that
it changes every generation.


Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.food.cooking
From: newcomb@pops.navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-5492]: pops.navo.navy.mil
Reply-To: newcomb@pops.navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb)
Organization: Naval Oceanographic Office
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:32:09 GMT

In article <C0HHCq.M7I@polaris.async.vt.edu> jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (J. Furr) writes:
>>1) will the group have enough support?  Probably, but let's go on.
>>2) Is this the best name for the group?  Um, this is just my opinion but
>>       if you try to name the group rec.food.breadmachines, it's gonna go
>>       down in flames.  Try rec.food.baking.

Brenda,
 Just one constructive suggestion, this time, why not 
rec.food.cooking.breadmachines or rec.food.cooking.baking . This follows
the logical hierarchy of rec.food. As presently set up, cooking would
include anything that I understand can be done with a breadmachine.
This creates an overlap in the groups' subject areas. As breadmachines
are cooking instruments, they should be under the cooking group in
the hierarchy.

>>3) Is there some other newsgroup that could handle this traffic so we don't
>>       have to create another newsgroup?  I dunno, IS there?

Iduno, misc.misc? 8-)

>>4) Should the mandate for the group be widened so as to take in a few
>>       related subjects?  Or narrowed so as to keep it from being TOO broad? 
>>       Hmm, perhaps we should discuss that.

I agree.
--
Donald R. Newcomb                * Views expressed are strictly those of the *
Naval Oceanographic Office       * author. Mention of commercial products or *
Stennis Space Center, MS 39522   * organizations constitutes no endorsement. *
newcomb@navo.navy.mil            * Phone (601) 688-5998  
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.food.cooking
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:18:30 GMT

In article <C0H3H5.Jqp@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong) writes:
>Maybe I'm stupid, but I never heard of a CFD? There is a CFV which is
>certainly premature, and a RFD which is request for discussion, which is
>what this thread was titled and which is totally appropriate at this
>stage and is exactly the place for the sort of things Brenda was saying.

Joel most likely meant "RFD" instead of "CFD".  However, his main point
is quite valid.  This RFD was just posted to news.groups, rather than
news.announce.newgroups (via Dave Lawrence, the moderator).  Until
somebody does that, this RFD is invalid, and no official group can be
voted on or created.

As for the appropriateness of this new group, I think it's far to
specific in name.  Perhaps rec.food.bread, or rec.food.cooking.bread,
with bread machines being *part* of such a group.

-- 
Michael Bryan     michael@resonex.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jgmorris+@cs.cmu.edu (Greg Morrisett)
Subject: Re: comp.lang.ml -- yes
Followup-To: news.groups
Keywords: comp.lang.ml, SML
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:57:12 GMT

Benli Pierce writes:

>> It is certainly time for an ml newsgroup with broader distribution
>> than the SML-LIST and broader coverage of MLs other than SML.  
>> 
>> However, I submit that such a group's usefulness depends, in large
>> part, on the willingness of "ML heavyweights" -- language designers,
>> implementers, and theoreticians -- to read the group and participate
>> actively in discussions, and that this depends on maintaining a very
>> high signal-to-noise ratio.  This doesn't mean that questions from
>> beginners should be excluded -- only that they should be filtered by
>> someone who can decide whether they have already been answered (in an
>> FAQ, for example) and redirect common questions, flames, and
>> administrative junk as appropriate.
>> 
>> I support the group's creation, but strongly request that it be
>> moderated. 
>> 
>>         Benjamin Pierce

A very good point.  Moderation wouldn't be a bad idea to keep the 
signal/noise ratio high -- but it's a lot of work.  Perhaps moderation 
could be done by a group of people to spread the load?  I would volunteer, 
but my hands are full from the SML list (among other things).  That's 
why I suggested that it be unmoderated.  

-Greg

-- 
-Greg Morrisett
 Moderator, SML-LIST
 Requests:    sml-list-request@cs.cmu.edu
 Submissions: sml-list@cs.cmu.edu
Xref: sparky news.groups:25144 sci.physics:22253 alt.fan.dale-bass:45