HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian.american,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: SCIA: The new CFV... is it needed ?
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:33:48 GMT
 <92094.112018JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
 <1992Apr6.204406.26298@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Apr6.204406.26298@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com
(alok.vijayvargia) says:
>
>How can there be a CFV because there is no consensus whether a CFV is
>needed  as a result of this new RFD (which by the way is a violation
>as explained in my previous post) ?
>
>Furthermore why is the RFD period restricted to seven days ?
>Any RFD should be alllowed 30 days.
>
>Disgusted,
>
>Alok


 The RFD was submitted on Feb 27; when S.C.I.A was finally
chosen by 48% of those participating in the discussion/poll
(INCLUDING YOURSELF) as the name that would appear on the CFV
then YOU started asking if the RFD should be posted all
over again. I asked Mr Lawrence if that was the way to do things
and he told me that if we *must* we could extend it a few more days,
but that the expiration date for the RFD would be 30 days from Feb 27.
So as you can see, this RFD has now been running 41 days ! Longer
than any other RFD ! So stop moaning and complaining; I'm starting
to get fed up with you !!

 Had you done things right in the first place, there would not be
a need for us to try to clean up the mess you created. I have tried
to be patient with you and tried to accomodate you as much as possible,
but now I see you are just grasping at straws, making a futile and
infantile attempt to cast doubts on the integrity of this vote.

 Well, it won't work, because as soon as the CFV is issued, both the
vote-taker and myself are going to go into silence. As far as what you
and everyone else choose to do, I couldn't care less. Campaign all you
want; flame away; kill each other;  be as disgusted or as
happy as you want to be; I couldn't care less. I am fed up with this s##t !

 The CFV will be posted.

Jose L. Martinez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Yes I said what I said and that's all that I said and I
            stand by everything I said.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: misc.multilevel
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:06:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>What happened to this group? Is it still around?

I don't believe it ever was created.  Several months ago, I originated a CFV
for a misc.* group to discuss multi-level marketing, but it did not pass.
However, I recently got enough interest to form:

alt.business.multi-level

There's active discussion going on there right now.  Hopefully, you can access
that newsgroup.

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: csteele@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Christopher E Steele)
Subject: Re: RGM split was Re: Um, okay, I did it.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:04:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.014422@cunix4.prime.com> jasonp@cunix4.prime.com (Jason R. Pascucci) writes:
>I agree, Lydia....
>
>So, let me repost *MY* suggestion, which seemed to have
>been pretty well recieved, and let me post it in two parts:
>
>1) Taking the 'Game' out of rgm: Change it to rec.mud...this has
>a few interesting features, one of which is the modifying the 
>percieved notions about mudding, such that it is *only* a game,
>and not worth thinking about realistically, which, in fact,
>is just not true. It's recreation, but frequently not
>truely a game, in the conventional sense. <And, frequently,
>very much a game, in the conventional sense>
>
I agree, the 'game' should be taken out.
And when taking it out, other groups should be formed to replace the old
'rec.{games}.mud'  Plain and simple.  And I read a lot of other groups
that have split with less traffic than rec.games.mud gets.

>2) The Group Split:
>R{G}M.Announce: Unmoderated. I've decided that moderating it isn't 

But someone has VOLUNTEERED to moderate it.
>
>R{G}M.VR: Unmoderated. Discussions of things from a virtual reality

Yeah!
>
>R{G}M.{Code, Tech}: Unmoderated. Discussion of things in the servers,

Yeah!
>
>Another thought: Will the LP group maybe take on the DIKU group,
>the only one who seems to really care? No big deal, however. 
>
No....I really dont think Diku wants to sort thro LP stuff, and LP most
likely doesnt want to see Diku stuff.
--Chris

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: friedman@maple.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark "Crimson" Friedman)
Subject: Re: RFD:  rec.games.mud.social
Organization: NAIVE - New And Improved Virtual Environment
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:05:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.181224.15737@uunet.uu.net> alansz@cogsci.berkeley.edu (Alan Schwartz) writes:
] Rationale:
]	...Moreover, the issues raised by social mud players are
]	often significantly different than those raised by
]	adventure-type mud players.

Indeed, many of the issues raised by social mud players are deemed
quite silly by people who program the actual mud servers and client
programs, who would rather discuss technical issues (which either bore
or scare the social players! :-) instead of listening to babble about
weedings and hatchings.

						- Mark Friedman
						(mud programmer)

All in one run-on sentence, too!  :-)
-- 
+----====>>>))) Mark Friedman is friedman@cis.ohio-state.edu (((<<<====----+
|   "There is nothing former   |   "If you put a hungry ferret in your     |
|      about King Crimson."    |      trousers, he'll run around..."       |
|    - Robert Fripp, 5/11/90   |               - Nigel Tufnel (Spinal Tap) |
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 05:30:13 GMT
Organization: Living in a satellite fantasy, waiting for the night to end.

axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:

> But manga don't really have anything to do with comics apart from being
> "sequential art", an incredibly nebulous term of which Western comics
> are just a subset. 

"Sequential art" is the working definition for the entire rec.arts.comics
subheirarchy.  Could you please explain to me why manga should be exempt from
this? 

> Some objections to rec.arts.comics.manga:
>
>  - implies that all manga are "comics".  Wrong.
>  - implies that manga are less widely read or less popular or have
>     less diversity than "comics".  Wrong.

"Wrong" yourself.  The name rec.arts.comics.manga does not imply *any such
thing*.  You are betraying a fundamental lack of understanding about why
there is a classification system to begin with, and are imposing your own
prejudices against Western comics to boot.

Manga are of the same essential form as every other medium that currently
lives under rec.arts.comics: comic books, comic strips, cartoons and
graphic novels.  I have yet to hear one convincing argument why manga
should get their own subhierarchy rise above the resounding chorus of
"Becaaaauuuuuuse!" that continues to come from the manga fans.   

>  - utterly pointless without a proper reorganisation of rec.arts.comics.
>     (as you admit).

Hooey.  It would be make a little more obvious *sense* if rec.arts.comics
were renamed rec.arts.comics.misc, but it wouldn't change the meaning of
the group's location any.

> The people who will post to the new group want it to be rec.arts.manga;
> the people who won't want it to be rec.arts.comics.manga. 

Stupid assumption; I'd subscribe to rec.arts.comics.manga the day it was
created here, and I'm the person arguing loudest for its creation under
rec.arts.comics.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:22:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: jingoro

In article <1992Apr9.140702.12210@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>ie: (to quote an already posted example)
>rec.honda is a dumb idea. rec.autos.honda makes sense. Does this say that
>Honda's are inferior to all other cars? No, it says that enough people
>want to discuss hondas and they want a place to do it apart from
>rec.autos.
>

Sorry for saying this for the third time:
The analogy is more like "cars" vs "autos".  If it were "hondas" vs "autos",
we would not be having this discussion.

>Get a grip and stop assuming that a practical suggestion is an insult to
>your ego.

I don't believe that defending what you believe to be true is necessarily
a defense of one's ego.  "Suggestion" is one thing; threats (to vote
down something) is another.  Please continue suggesting.  The discussion
might get heated but it should be interesting.  But there's no need
to threaten, since that will surely bring up ill feelings.


--
Jun Kim                                         jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.Com
Sun Microsystems
Mountain View, CA                               "Oboete imasu ka..."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pckyip@athena.mit.edu (Patrick C Yip)
Subject: Re: Another problem with rec.arts.comics.{manga/japan}
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:53:23 GMT

In article <77lhbmkg@csv.warwick.ac.uk> cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) writes:
>In article <axolotl.702885083@syzygy> axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
>>With rec.arts.manga, it would be rec.arts.manga.gag (or
>>rec.arts.manga.strips).
>>
>>With rec.arts.comics.manga or no mainstream manga group, it would be either
>>rec.arts.comics.manga.strips or rec.arts.comics.strips.manga.  THAT'S an ugly
>>namespace.
>
>... or rec.arts.comics.manga.gag.  Seems fine to me.  There are 75 newsgroups
>in our active file with names as long as that or longer.  How often do you
>have to type the name of a group, anyway ?  When you do how much extra effort
>is 7 characters ?

rec.arts.comics.manga.gag and rec.arts.comics.strip on different level of
hierarchy? Sounds strange.

And also rec.arts.comics.manga.adult and rec.arts.comics.adult on different
level of hierarchy? Sounds strange too.


Patrick YIP
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA (A violation of net guidelines)
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:48:44 GMT
	<1992Apr3.161354.4882@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
	<1992Apr6.203727.26072@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central


 Alok> == alok.vijayvargia  <alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> 

 Alok> While I maintain that the initial reasons for taking it off the
 Alok> official list were the problems associated with its name, I would
 Alok> also like to point out that whatever the reasons for earlier SCIA
 Alok> group to be not official, the current RFD is a clear VIOLATION of
 Alok> the net guidelines.

This is incorrect; in the case of an invalidated vote, a revote is *not*
contraSpafual.  The precedent was set quite effectively after the first
rec.arts.sf-lovers reorganization vote...

The more you scream, whine, and flame about this, the better I feel
about having a revote.  And don't get into me about being "against" you
or "your" group or anything; I don't particularly care about you, the
newsgroup, or your flamage.  I do care about having a reasonably useful
group creation procedure, and every instance of vote-taker misbehavior,
either real or perceived, weakens that procedure.
--
Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> |    ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
System Manager & Postmaster     |  "There's always something going out of
Electronic Frontier Foundation  |      business in Central Square."
+1 617 864 0665  NIC: [CKD1]    |   -Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>
From: jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:59:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: jingoro

In article <2gqj_kd@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim) writes:
>
>> I do not see what makes people so certain that manga is a subset of
>> comics.  Sounds a little narrow-minded to me. 
>
>On a network that is global in scale and which uses English as its primary
>language, "manga" are a subclass of the larger group "comics".  Even the
>fj.* hierarchy uses "rec.comics" as the newsgroup name. 
>
>If you want to convince anybody that manga aren't comics, you're going to
>have to give at least a couple of *reasons* why they aren't.

I really doubt I was trying to "convince anybody that manga aren't comics"
was I?  You might have confused me with somebody else, but I'd wish you'd
attribute people's efforts correctly.  I was trying to show how manga
could be basically viewed as an equivalent to comics, therefore not
truly requiring a subset status.  To me, its like saying "cars" are
a subset of "autos".  Does denying that fact mean that one is
denying that a car is an auto? 

Please, if you're going to challenge me into doing stuff for you, and
challenging me with well-placed asterisks, try to make sure that you
understand where I'm coming from.  You're just assuming I'm against you
because I tried to make a point contrary to one of yours.  Personally,
I think I could deal with either title, but I don't want to see it
not become r.a.manga just because people aren't comfortable in viewing
manga differently than they are used to.  



--
Jun Kim                                         jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.Com
Sun Microsystems
Mountain View, CA                               "Oboete imasu ka..."
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
From: tkogoma@triton.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Subject: Re: BENDING THE GUIDELINES IS BAD NEWS
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 04:53:20 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <9F56iB3w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk writes:
>I'd strongly advise against introducing another "grand reorganization" with
>interdependent votes; nobody wants to see another rec.arts.sf-lovers-style
>fiasco.

Awww...where's your [Usenet] Olympic Spirit? ;-)

>mathew

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  tkogoma@triton.unm.edu
  I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                           what I have now...
Xref: sparky news.groups:10058 news.admin:3536
From: entropy@yaya (Lawrence C Foard)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: BENDING THE GUIDELINES IS BAD NEWS
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:45:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: wpi.1992Apr11.204539.25743
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

In article <1992Apr10.215632.3457@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>entropy@joseph (Lawrence C Foard) writes:
>
>>Personally I don't think it is a danger in this case, homophobes tend to
>>post alot and all in caps giving the impression that there are more than
>>there are, but fortunitly these people only get to vote once unless they
>>resort to forging votes.  
>
>Interesting point. I wonder how easy it is to check for forged votes?

If it got to the point where it was an issue (hopefully it won't), the vote
taker could respond to each vote with a random # and ask the person to send
the number back if they infact voted a certain way. 

-- 
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1  
Hackers do it for fun.  |  Being Bisexual squares your         \    / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. |  probability of not getting   \  / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. |  laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA (Is a new CFV really needed ?)
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:34:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <29E9804E.6856@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> According to alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia):
> 
> In point of fact, your vote has been ignored by the majority of sites.

Why are 48 % of the worldwide 45000 sites still carrying it ?

This is more than soc.culture.usa (only 46 % sites carry it !)

Most of the sites carrying SCIA and SCU are USA sites.
That has been the intention for SCIA at least. Carry it in USA sites only.

> Therefore, ipso facto, your vote was invalid: it didn't count.

But it did !

> -- 
> Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>

Alok
Xref: sparky eunet.news.group:4 news.groups:9983
From: adf@crosfield.co.uk (alex france)
Newsgroups: eunet.news.group,news.groups
Subject: Re: RfD eunet.aviation
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:40:34 GMT
Reply-To: adf@crosfield.co.uk (alex france)
Followup-To: eunet.news.group,news.groups
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <WOLFGANG.92Apr9105817@sam.first.gmd.de> wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de writes:
>This is a Request For Discussion on the creation of a new Usenet newsgroup.
>	eunet.aviation

Seems like a good idea, especially if it does prompt more passive
readers to come out of the woodwork and have more european (and
Scandanavia, of course) biased discussions. I wonder at whether the
volume will justify it, though, given the small number of european
based articles that do appear in rec.aviation. Is volume of traffic an
issue or requirement when it comes to creating a new news group?

Hopefully Wolfgang is right, and a lot more people will contribute if
they feel the news is more 'local' and not feel that the item has to
be of earth shattering importance before it can be launched into the
ether, as might be felt about rec.aviation.

My vote would be for, but if it comes to a vote, could I ask that
someone (Wolfgang?) publish where/what/how the voting should take
place for people like me who can't quite lay their hands on the
Usenet manifesto just at this moment .....

# Alex France, Crosfield Electronics, | Phone: +44 442 230000 xt.3541 #
# Three Cherry Trees Lane,            | Fax:   +44 442 232301         #
# Hemel Hempstead, HP2 7RH, England.  | Email: adf@crosfield.co.uk    #
From: alien@essex.ac.uk ("Adrian F Clark")
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD for new IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:10:50 GMT
	<1992Apr14.192258.29497@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: University of Essex, UK
In-reply-to: cfm2h@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU's message of 14 Apr 92 19:22:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.192258.29497@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
cfm2h@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Christopher Mullins) writes:

> Now- do we need two groups?  Since I believe image processing is a superset of
> imaging, if we only create one group I think it should be comp.dsp.image-proc.
> (or comp.dsp.2d).  What does anyone else think?  Am I misunderstanding what
> other people mean by imaging?

I seem to remember that everyone was only moderately unhappy with
having no newsgroup devoted explicitly to image processing until very
recently.  So let's create a single group to start with and, when that
becomes too bloated with rubbish to be useful, think about
partitioning it.  This is precisely what happenned with comp.graphics
just a few months ago.

Many of the techniques that are used in image processing are derived
from those that are used in dsp; equally, many are not.  Who has heard
of, for example, halftoning or colour space conversion in the context
of (1-D) dsp?  Furthermore, a newsgroup called comp.dsp.2d would
presumably rule out those imaging applications that used imagery of
higher dimensionality.  This is no joke: the developing international
standard for image processing represents images as FIVE-dimensional
structures: three spatial dimensions, time, and `spectral'.

The official ISO term for image processing is "image processing".
Likewise, most relevant text books include these words in their
titles.  So let's call the newsgroup just that: comp.image-processing.
This will be of immeasurable benefit to those people whose first
language is not English.

Finally, the subject area.  The abovementioned standard is centred
about representations based around structures of pixels.  This would
seem to be quite an appropriate guideline for the newsgroup.  To show
you what this implies, here is something cut from the standard:

            INCLUDED                   EXCLUDED
    primitive image manipulation  computer graphics
    image enhancement             pattern recognition
    image restoration             image understanding
    image analysis                multimedia
    image classification          communications
    image visualization           window systems 
    standard colour models
    image transport
    image (de-)compression

--
 Dr Adrian F. Clark                                   JANET: alien@uk.ac.essex
 INTERNET: alien%uk.ac.essex@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk          FAX: (+44) 206-872900
 BITNET: alien%uk.ac.essex@ac.uk              PHONE: (+44) 206-872432 (direct)
 Dept ESE, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex, C04 3SQ, UK.
From: thwang@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Tommy Hwang)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.comics.manga is anomalous and misleading.
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:41:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.44614
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <awrj5+=@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:

>they walk like comics, they talk like comics, they smell like comics -- so
>they're *comics*.  


     Corrections, *comics* walks like manga, *comics* smell like manga --
so *comics* are mangas.  (this also works, ne?)  


>Conceded.  So now you can explain to me again why these Japanese,
>Taiwanese, and Hong Kong comics aren't *really* comics (They're MANGA!)
>and therefore don't belong in the comics hierarchy.   


     Then, can you explain why they are a subunit of *comics*?  If not,
Then, why don't we have something like rec.arts.manga.comics... or of the
sort?  Obviously this will not be done, but look at your own reasons.
Although I will support either r.a.c.manga or r.a.manga, I personally
do not feel that mangas are a subunit of comics.  (come on! it is
just the SAME term used by two different worlds.) 


>Goddammit all to hell, "comics" means "PRINTED STORIES TOLD PRIMARILY
>THROUGH VISUAL IMAGERY," not "OVERMUSCLED SUPER-TYPES IN LONG UNDERWEAR
>WHO BEAT UP ON EACH OTHER".  Manga are comics just like boxing is a
>martial art.  *Why* is this so *difficult* for you to *understand*?


     I would suggest you to check in the dictionary.  ONLY in the
U.S. or countries that used "American English" are these books 
called *comics*.  Also, I think the comparasion should be more like
"Mangas are comics just like boxing is to Judo." (I hope you get it.)

                                                      -TKH '92
 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: albertw@netcom.com (Albert Wong)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 04:58:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:
> 
> You're misinterpreting this.  A name does have intrinsic value, as an
> index.  That is why I prefer rec.arts.comics.manga: I think it is much
> more useful as an index then rec.arts.manga.

I would think that rec.arts.manga would be easier to find than
rec.arts.comics.manga, because r.a.m is only three levels deep in the
hierarchy.
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------+
| Albert Wong                                     |
| albertw@netcom.com                              |
+-------------------------------------------------+
| "Welcome to the Jusenkyo Spa and Resort Hotel!" |
+-------------------------------------------------+