HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mick@maxine.wpi.edu (Ravi Narayan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.moto.harley
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:38:14 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Somewhere, Sometime, Thus Spake paulb@harley.tti.com (Paul Blumstein):
:- +
:- Voting down rec.moto.hd will not make anyone come back.  
:- Voting down rec.moto will just keep the bulk of the HD riders off of
:-  usenet.  If that is your goal, vote NO.

	please go read my previous posts.

	- ravi


'''---```---^^^^^^-----#-----~~~~~----'''------~~~~-----````~~~---------=\ /=
.sig (n): a piece of mail with a fool at one  :  Ravi Narayan, CS, WPI   (0)
          end and flames at the other. (C).   :  DoD# tan90-SuzukiGS500E  H
   o     _          _           _           _ :         _           _     H
 _/\_> =| |========| |=========| |=========| |=========| |=========| |=======
0,> /0,=|w|,,=====,|,|.,===,,==| |,,===.,==|.|..======w| |..,,.====| |====,,=
From: wesley@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Wesley D Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.forsale.computers reorganization
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:23:07 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul29.001115.13247@informix.com> rfisel@informix.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.182453.4243@uunet.uu.net> mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (Mike  
>Miskulin) writes:
>> 
>> At a maximum (for purposes of this RFD), a succession to:
>> 
>> 	misc.forsale.computers.hardware.ibm
>> 	misc.forsale.computers.hardware.apple	
>> 	misc.forsale.computers.hardware.other
>> 	

How about using misc.forsale.computers.hardware.generic
instead of *.other.  Generic would be more reprentative of disk drives,
etc which fit multiple platforms rather than have people post 
their SCSI drives to all three groups since it can be used by 
ibm, apple, sun,etc.

I would lean toward the minimum grouping myself.

wesley@ecn.purdue.edu
From: daver@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (David Ray)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.virtual-worlds.apps
Date: 30 Jul 1992 23:05:50 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu

Re: creating new newsgroup sci.v-w.apps
Sound good to me. I don't know why anybody would object.
-Dave

PS Could we shorten the names a bit? like sci.vr or something?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: bdianton@cs.ulowell.edu (Mark Diantonio)
Subject: [all] Forget about rec.games.frp.guide
Originator: bdianton@cs.ulowell.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:29:39 GMT


I have tried to say before that I have GIVEN UP.  I don't want to make this
new group.  I just suggested it.  Three days and 700 flames later I am
trying to tell EVERYONE that I didn't mean to offend everyone by suggesting
this.  I just haven't been able to tell everyone "thanks" or send them
a reply.  My suggestion was taken the wrong way.  I'm sorry about that.
I don't want to ruin your dinner tonight, because you have to worry about
someone not following the correct protocol.  So PLEASE stop the flame mail.
Not only does it fill up alot of my mailbox space, but it also gets 
confusing with mail that I NEED.  Vandalism isn't legal, so don't Vandalize
my account.  I don't want to see, a few days down the line, another 
message about "Follow the rules" or "Stop sending us messages" or 
"You must do this to do this"  

I repeat - I'M SORRY - I didn't know so many people were mad until my 
supervisor told me about all the complaints.  It won't happen again.

In the immortal words of Porky pig - "Thats All Folks!!"

Mark DiAntonio
bdianton@cs.ulowell.edu
Keywords:
From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.aviation reorganization
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:35:18 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: ecc0a2faf6549ef7595ebae5ea50f599

I DON'T read rec.avation simply because is it too big and disorganized,
but this particular set of groups is using an elephant gun to kill a
gnat!

In article <1992Jul15.221252.18024@uunet.uu.net> av-reorg@peck.com writes:
>GROUP I
>  .airline      discussions relevant to airline passengers and aficionados
>  .homebuilt    information on building one's own aircraft and on
>  .military     military aircraft of the present and past, including
>  .owning       buying and owning general aviation aircraft, including
>  .soaring      soaring and hang-gliding: equipment, maintenance,
>  .piloting     information pertinent to pilots of general aviation
>  .training     questions, answers, and experiences relating to learning
>  .answers      a *moderated* newsgroup containing periodic informational
>  .misc         a "service" group which contains aviation-related postings
>GROUP II
>  .cfi          discussion of flight training issues from the viewpoint of
>  .digest       a *moderated*, low-volume group containing a strongly
>  .events       a group used only to announce fly-ins, airshows, contests,
>  .hang-gliding  topics pertaining to hang-gliding: equipment, sites,
>  .humor        "heard on the air" and other funny stories
>  .ifr          topics of interest to instrument pilots
>  .products     aviation toys, including intercoms, headsets, LORANs,
>  .regs         discussion and interpretation of aviation regulations
>  .simulators   flight simulation, particularly discussions of computer-
>  .theory       aerodynamic theory, modelling, powerplant theory and
>GROUP III
>  .noise        a place for all the articles which you don't want to read
>  .pets         my three cats insisted that they wanted a newsgroup
>  .spins        if centrifugal force is really a myth, who's going to

This is just totally ridiculous!

	.misc		thing not covered elsewhere
	.announce	Events, products, announcements
	.advocacy	comparative commentary
	.flying		the personal factors, piloting, navigation, etc.
	.military
	.non-powered	flying without an engine
	.technical	the technology of flying
	.legal
	.owners

This is a set of 9 that seems to cover most of the others in some form
or another, the names could be better, but doesn't invoke the extreme
narrowness of the others proposed.

	I might start reading again if some kind of resaonable reorg
passes, but the full set would just make it *more* difficult to find the
items of interest to me.
-- 
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...duke!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: ggw@wolves.Durham.NC.US  ggw@cds.duke.edu  ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: The comp.{os,unix}.*... thing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:46:37 GMT

I share the opinion that "comp.unix.*..." needs to go ... everything should
go under comp.os.*...".   It also seems a little silly to have "unix" or
"unix.{att,usg,usl,bsd}" in there -- who really cares about the entire
family history? (I can just see it now:
comp.os.unix.usg.att.usl.bsd.ultrix.posix.mach.osf.osf1.dec  - yikes!)
Since only a few comp.os.* groups wouldn't have "unix" as the third
level, I'd propose just having everything be comp.os.foo, as in:
comp.os.sys3, comp.os.vms, comp.os.hpux, comp.os.linux, comp.os.osf1, etc.
(although comp.os.unix.foo would not be unspeakably horrible).

Well, that's my $0.02 worth,
John
-- 
John Hascall           Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: comp.binaries.apple2 moderated
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 00:09:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul27.152421.22828@unlinfo.unl.edu> gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>>>gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg "Life..." Berigan) writes:
>
>>>>The moderator and assistants reserve the right to
>>>>cancel any posting in comp.binaries.apple2 that is deemed inappropriate.
>>>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>I'm not sure I like that last part (mind you, I'm still for moderation).
>>>Maybe it should be "... deemed inappropriate as stated in the charter"?
>
>>Agreed, it should be spelled out exactly in the charter. If it does pass,
>>lets at least iron out any apparent problems.
>
>Well, "inappropriate" has a wide spread.  That the article was actually
>approved by a moderator would imply that it was appropriate, but it
>could turn that under closer examination it was not.  However, it is
>primarily there as a clause to authorize a moderator to cancel
>postings not made by a moderator.

Too wide a spread. 
 
>The charter doesn't explicitly state that only moderator-approved
>articles are to appear, but it is understood net-wide that that is the
>case with a moderated newsgroup except where denied (alt.hackers).

Since the moderators will have to explicitly post the files to the
net, I see no way anything -but- moderator approved articles could be
posted.
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>How about "deemed inappropriate by the charter, moderators, and/or the
>net at large"?

How will the net at large be able to assess programs possessed only by
the moderators? I remember when the runtime version of Hyperstudio was
posted with some stacks, and there were people complaining that 
commercial software had been posted. Net users make mistakes as well.

But if the charter is so vague that it does not specify what should
not be posted, then the netgroup users have no say, the moderator can
rule with an iron fist (so to speak, and I do not mean to allude to
Jawaid).

The charter should specifically mention materials which are inappropriate,
which would obviously include commercial programs.

Why should there be a problem with spelling this out in the charter?

BTW, who are the proposed moderators? Jawaid would have my vote, but at
this point I am not sure about Tero. Are there others?


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: OSF/1 newsgroup?
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:26:49 GMT
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames



a quick grep of my .newsrc (2113 groups) didn't show any groups
specificially dealing with OSF/1 issues.  We've just taken delivery of
our first OSF/1, and will soon be undertaking a major project with an
OSF/1 based machine.  Are we the only ones?

--
J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
'91 CB750, DoD# 0378
From: bible@iastate.edu (Anthony E Bible)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Ideas on how to split rec.aviation
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:50:34 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

In article <9207222034.AA06738@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>
>To make a (very) long story short, I advocate the following as the core 
>rec.aviation groups (and possibly the only groups):
>
>    rec.aviation.misc
>    rec.aviation.soaring
>    rec.aviation.powered
>    rec.aviation.powered.ifr
>
>
	I agree with the idea of keeping the number of groups small, and I
would vote for a structure like this.  Two small nits that I'd like to comment
on:

	rec.aviation.soaring doesn't seem -- to me -- to fit into this naming 
scheme.  Soaring seems more restrictive in scope than what I understand the
group would actually include.  On the other hand  rec.aviation.unpowered
doesn't contrast with the string  rec.aviation.powered enough to avoid
confusion in discussions of both groups.  I don't have a good suggestion; maybe
rec.aviation.non-powered.  (Hey, I said these were nits!)

	 rec.aviation.powered.ifr should not be structured as a group under
rec.aviation.powered; it should have its own group, e.g.,  rec.aviation.ifr.
If subsuming the ifr discussion under rec.aviation.powered doesn't bother 
anyone else, then I'd suggest omitting rec.aviation.misc and putting its
contents in plain old rec.aviation.

	No offense to Geoff, et.al., who spent a lot of time and effort coming
up with the more detailed structure, but I like the idea of a few broadly based
groups such as Robert proposes.  Further refinement can be added in the future
if the need develops.

Just my opinion.  And thanks for the post Robert.

Regards,
tony
From: lon@edsi.plexus.COM (Lon Ponschock)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: misc.support.smoking
Date: 20 Jul 92 19:10:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: edsi.1992Jul20.191040.28561
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI


I have received an additional name suggestion for this proposed 
group which I believe is better than those posted previous.

Seth Briedert <seth@fid.morgan.com> suggests

     ==>   misc.support.quit-smoking

to better convey the intent of this group.  I have forwarded the 
suggestion to David C. Lawrence who will very likely have the 
final say as regards name changes.

I will post new information as it becomes available.

lon@edsi.plexus.com
-- 
   Question Recently
   Posed to the Net:'Kukla, Fran & Ollie' which one is which?
   Answer: Tom Servo is Kukla, Crooow is Ollie and Joel is Fran.
   lon@edsi.plexus.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:05:15 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan):
>Any thought to also including a split of comp.unix.bsd?

No.  The Jolitzes, for what I can only assume are legal reasons, do
not favor a 386BSD group under comp.unix.  Most of Usenet, realizing
that 386BSD is UNIX (complete lack of AT&T code notwithstanding),
believe that comp.unix is the right place.

I'm not about to fight that battle when there are more pedestrian
things that need doing.  Maybe after this reorg is done, I'll do
another one for BSD.  Maybe.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:32:50 GMT
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <K2KH29I@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|In article <1992Jul20.144107.13097@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> gibian@ljohub.enet.dec.com writes:
|>make it MORE accessible to those not UNIX literate, and lays the
|>groundwork for significant movement of much of the UNIX community to
|>other operating systems such as Plan 9, NT, and other emerging systems.
|
|Plan 9 is a variant form of UNIX. So is just about every other emergent
|system (Mach, Amoeba, etc...) except for where Microsoft and IBM are fighting
|a rearguard action against the UNIX API.
|
|In fact, OS/2 and its derivitive NT is the only significant OS announced
|since 1985 that *isn't* a UNIX variant.
|-- 

Hmm ... maybe the info I got while working at Microsoft (oh no, does that
brand me a Unix enemy?) was wrong, but as far as I know, NT is not a
derivative of OS/2.  Rather, NT (strictly speaking) is a small kernel
on top of which a "subsystem" is implemented.  Microsoft is promising
to implement Windows and POSIX subsystems, and originally had an OS/2
subsystem planned until they had their falling-out with IBM.

NT and Mach are similar in spirit (since Mach is also a small kernel designed
to have subsystems implemented on top of it), and Mach is not a Unix variant.
However, most implementations of Mach have a Unix subsystem on them, and early
versions of Mach had lots of BSD junk in the kernel (presumably because the
subsystem was not yet written).  The idea is here, you could just as easily
put a VMS subsystem on top of Mach (or on top of NT, as far as I know).


ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.forsale.computers reorganization
From: <MDSQC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 31 Jul 1992 16:05:16 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

While I do think that there's too much volume going through the m.f.c.
I think there are better ways of organizing in order to:
   1) Eliminate overlap
   2) Fine focus the groups

m.f.c.   peripherals
         cpu.apple
             ibm
             other
         software.apple
                  dos
                  unix
                  other
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.apathy
From: kupixel@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:02:43 CDT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

In article <1992Jun29.195805.13513@uunet.uu.net>, jfurr@vtssi.vt.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
> I am requesting discussion on a proposed new newsgroup, which I propose to
> name rec.apathy.  
> 
> The charter of rec.apathy would be more-or-less as follows: rec.apathy is
> intended to serve as a group for apathy fans, serious apathetics, discussions
> of apathy, apathy tips, questions from those who would like to be apathetic,
> and apathy legends and lore.
> 
> Please let news.groups know what you think of this idea (especially if you
> don't care one way or another.)
> 
> Joel Furr                                                   jfurr@vtssi.vt.edu

   rec.apathy?  who cares?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: clear@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz (Charlie Lear)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.models.scale
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 01:29:20 GMT

In article <13659@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>Actually, since most models are by definition 'scale', I would proposed instead
>to filll the hole in the rec.models hierarchy and go ahead and propose 
>	rec.models.misc 

I strongly disagree.  The charter as suggested is very specific.  

rec.models.scale is to the point and pulls no punches.  .misc implies that
anything and everything can be talked about with impunity.

"Whaddya mean we can't argue about whether my MicroMachines are better than
his Hot Wheels??? This is a .misc group, bozo, if you want to rant about
better ways of making 1/600 naval figures then go get yourselves a .scale
group!"

Have a look at any of the comp.sys.*.misc groups if you don't know what
I mean.

Almost without exception, .misc groups have become mere chatter forums
rather than useful sources of information.  Creating a .scale group should
avoid that problem.

Of course, since I am unlikely to change your viewpoint by erudition alone,
we could compromise and instead discuss a rec.models reorganisation, and
do a block vote on r.m.scale, misc, autos, aircraft, boats, military.

That way everyone will have their own little group and everyone will 
crosspost to the .misc group anyway.

At least with a .scale group I'd get to read useful tips about modelling 
realistic snow scenes for military dioramas, and use the knowledge from
there to improve my railway modelling.  If we fragment the groups then
it probably wouldn't have got past .misc and .military and I wouldn't
have read either...

-- 
Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz | Kawasaki 750GT DoD#0221
Ph/Fax +64 4 564-5307 |  You're not paranoid.  They really ARE out to get you.
  The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 5642269 V32 | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand
Newsgroups: news.groups,can.politics
From: cline@cs.scarolina.edu (Ernest Cline)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.canada
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Jul 92 09:12:36 GMT

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>I have just noticed a CFV for a whole range of talk.politics groups 
>including talk.politics.canada . This seems to be a completely redundant 
>newsgroup, in that we already have can.politics, which covers the same 
>subject matter. Furthermore, can.politics will probably reach more sites 
>than talk.politics.canada, as many of us have no interest in the "talk" 
>subset. While I have no objection to any of the other groups, I urge that 
>the proposal for creation of talk.politics.canada be defeated.

On the other hand this site does not carry any of the groups of the can.*
heirarchy but it does carry all of talk.* Your observation of it being a
duplicate certainly applies to those sites that carry groups in the can.*
heirarchy but for politics talk.politics.* probably has a wider folowing.
Depends on whether you think the group is primarily for those interested in
Canada or those interested in politics.

Ernest Cline	cline@cs.scarolina.edu	TheUSC
"To turn the computer on, turn the on switch on to the on position."
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.christian,alt.rock-n-roll,alt.rock-n-roll.metal,rec.music.misc
From: pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.kings-x (retraction)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:52:08 GMT


For purposes of sparing the net from the obvious, I'm retracting my RFD on  
rec.music.kings-x for the time being.  Defeat of the group was relatively  
certain and a vote on the group would have been useless.

For supporters of the group, fear not.  A King's X mailing list does exist  
and is put out by Barry B. (I forget the e-mail address; Barry, could you  
post?) and I'll likely put in a new group proposal to alt.config.

Once it explodes with posts, I'll put in a more supportable RFD for  
rec.music.kings-x.

Thanks to all supporters for their help.

clueless chuck
PearsoDC@NeXTWork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Is there a group with Congressional vote info?
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:38:16 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <CKD.92Jul15190307@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>Erik> == Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> 
>
> Erik> You'll probably see a difference in the raison d'etre for the no.*
> Erik> hierarchy and the us.* hierarchy if you look closely.
>
>Hm, lessee.  Norwegian-specific topics are covered in the no.*
>hierarchy, which we don't bother to get since nobody at this site is

Nope.  Norwegian language articles are covered in the no.* tree.  Likewise
German language articles are in de.*  --  what *topics* those groups
will allow are an entirely separate issue, I believe there is a de.comp.*
sub-tree that has articles on computing stuff (a la the upper level
comp.* tree), except that these articles are in german.  I doubt there
are many German-specific computing issues (The Atari-ST is big in germany
from what I understand -- mebbe there's a de.comp.atari.st) but if I
read german it may make perfect sense for me to get information from
such a group, even to I'm a US citizen.

These heirararchies are not regional, or topic-restricted as much
as they are being segregated by language.


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In Munchen steht ein hofbrau haus, ein... zwei... g'suffa!

Newsgroups: news.groups