HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native-america
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 10:42:21 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>As if "American Indian" has any meaning in and of itself.  The indigenous
>peoples of the Americas are not from India.  The only reason that misnomer
>was applied was because some Spanish sailor of the 15th century got lost,
>and thought he was off the coast of Asia when he landed in the Bahamas.

Nontheless, you will agree with me that if you walk up to just about 
any US citizen and as him/her if he knows what an American Indian is,
you'll get an answer that points to the indians of the type that
helped the Pilgrims.  I suspect most people would react to "native
american" with either puzzlement or offence at yet another newspeak
PC term.

>At least the term "Native American" doesn't immediately call to mind (IMHO)
>as many erroneous stereotypical images to your average U.S. resident as
>the term "Indian" does (you know...the noble savage injuns who walked around
>wearing big warbonnets, carrying tomohawks, scalping folks, saying "Ugh!" and
>"How!", etc.).

You mean like my ancestors over in Cherokee, NC who make indian trinkets
for sale in souvenir stands and who host one of the world's largest
bingo games on the reservation while dressing up like "savages" in order
to entertain the tourists?  How about the ones in NE Tennessee
who do the same thing?

>"Native Americans," "Aboriginal Americans," "Indigenous Americans," whatever.
>The latter two are more correct, and I think the first term is fairly well
>understood, at least among educated folks of the North American continent.
>"[American] Indian" is (IMO) an unacceptable term.  It's primarily just a
>pet peeve of mine, and to me it smells slightly racist.

Ah  yes, retreat to the "r" word when you run out of arguments.  Sorry,
doesn't work with me.  If you want to consider my using "American 
Indian" to refer to American Indians as racist, go right ahead.
As far as poking at the politics of racial separatism, I try to be 
an equal opportunity offender.

>You weren't around for the soc.culture.indian.american fiasco, were you?

Oh yes.  My kill file still bulges.

>It seems to me that "Indian" on the net implies South Asian origin, not
>of pre-European American origin.  I think that the [South Asian] Indians
>and the [South Asian] Indian-Americans might have some comments about
>the creation of a soc.culture.american.indian.

Oh I'm sure they would.  I'm equally capable of ignoring them.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
From: roberson@hamer.ibd.nrc.ca (Walter Roberson)
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:09:05 +0600
Organization: NRC Institute for Biodiagnostics

In article <1992Dec11.190254.17656@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>Dave, you seem to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the
>average Usenet reader.  I believe the average user was quite capable of
>understanding the CFV posted to r.m.s.  and acting on it, if he bothered
>to (his choice).

I must agree with Rheal here. I forwarded a CFV to my mother, who had never
seen one before. She had no problem at all understanding it, and voted
immediately after I told her how to address a mail message off-site.
A member of the computer elite she is not -- over Christmas I'm going to
have to re(re)explain to her what directories are, for example.


[ Speaking of Christmas: people might want to consider giving their computer-owning
  parents a modem and an account on a system with email service. 2400 baud
  modems are something like $75 or less these days, and email is a great way
  to keep in touch if you no longer live in the same city as they.

  Usenet -- the gift that keeps on flaming  :-)  ]


  Walter Roberson                  roberson@ibd.nrc.ca
From: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: All your postings to this newsgroup might go wasted!
Date: 18 Dec 92 09:32:05 CST
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1gsd9qINNg5o@apache.dtcc.edu>,
 weave@apache.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling) writes:
> OK, I am confused now.  Scanning back over news.announce.newsgroups and 
> news.groups, I see no mention of c.b.i.p.archives being zapped. Not that I
> care, being that I am not a fan of DOS based machines, but my users might.

Email to Dave Lawrence has confirmed that this was an oversite, and
that comp.binaries.ibm.pc.archives should have been in the list of
group scheduled to be deleted. Keith's rmgroup was perhaps a little
premature, but eventually the group should be deleted.
-- 
USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045
E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:03:00 GMT

In article <id.FFUV.O5I@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes...
>In article <id.QZTV.TPD@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>> I have received a copy, and I'm going to analyse it on the basis of my
>> proposal to see what the effects would be. I can see two or three votes
>> that would have failed under it, and there may be others that would pass.
> 
>OK, here's the result:
> 
>My proposal has significantly different results than simply increasing
>the surplus of YES>NO votes to 200: it had less impact on the outcome, and
>I think that the votes that passed by my criteria but failed by the 200
>surplus criteria tended to be low noise, high quality groups with little
>opposition. I think such groups SHOULD pass.
> 
>A few votes that passed by the 200 vote criteria failed mine.
> 
>Some of the reorgs would have come out differently. Why was there such
>opposition to rec.games.frp.misc, anyone know?
> 
>I'd like to add some of the groups that failed under the current system
>so I could see if any of them would pass. Anyone keeping those statistics?
> 
>The columns:
> 
>	Std 100		Standard rules, 100 YES>NO, 3:2 YES/NO ratio
>	Std 200		Standard rules, 200 YES>NO, 3:2 YES/NO ratio
> 
>	 50 100		Max 50 NO votes, min 100 YES votes.
>	100 100		Max 100 NO votes, min 100 YES votes.
>	100 200		Max 100 NO votes, min 200 YES votes.
> 
>                                                  Std Std   50 100 100
>Group                                    Yes  No  100 200  100 100 200
	[individual statistics deleted]
>TOTAL                                             178  92  127 160 102
>-- 

I went through the list quickly using the YES>=100+2*NO criterion and 
found that 150 passed.  Of the 28 that failed, most would have failed 
under the Std 200 and 100/200 rules, most would have passed under the 
100/100 rule, and about half would have passed using the 50/100 rule.
I didn't do the YES>=200+2*NO criterion, but the carnage among the 
low noise, high quality groups with little opposition would have been 
considerable.  Of three recent major controversies that come to mind,
rec.music.phish would have passed, and rec.arts.manga and
rec.music.makers.synth would have failed. 

				-BMS
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:42:40 GMT

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>Once again, the person who's been complaining that the r.m.s.  vote
>wasn't open enough 

I never complained that it wasn't OPEN enough...I complained that it
wasn't CLEAR enough. Get it?

>>Because that's the number of people who can get, read, and understand
>>the voting practices and procedures material that is currently posted.
>Dave, you seem to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the
>average Usenet reader.  

Nonsense. It takes more than intelligence to find the correct information
here on USENET. Try "persistance", "fortitude", and "intuition". 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Honest (adj.) - Someone who is secretly regarded by everyone as an enemy.
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native-america
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 10:25:45 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:

>John, nothing is wrong with American Indian.

>But most everyone has expressed an interest in discussing all of
>the various native cultures in either the world, or in the
>America's.  Even for the more narrow definition of just Native
>American, you surely would not suggest that Hawaiian, Aleut,
>Yup'ik, or Inupiaq cultures are Indian, would you?

No, but indigenous cultures of the world would not fit under any  of the 
proposals that involve .american. in the name.  I'm not familiar enough
with the history of Hawaiian, Aleut, Yup'ik, or Inupiaq to comment but 
I do take great exception to American Indians trying to appropriate 
the moniker "native americans".  I consider my pre-revolutionary French
ancestors equally native to my Cherokee relatives.  As I said
before, the only difference is when they stepped off the boat (or
walked across the continent, as it may have been).

I only drop into this thread occasionally because it goes on and on and
on and on and on.. but the last time I looked, the debate was what to
call a group where American Indians could chat.  I've seen nothing
in the last few messages to make me think things have changed, other than
your post.  Did I miss something.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<1992Dec12.202255.5783@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:56:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.202255.5783@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam Costello) writes:

   I don't see why there should be no-votes at all.  I think if 200 people
   want a new group, let them have it.  Those who don't want it don't
   have to subscribe.

The name and charter of a new group are arrived at by its proponents.
Sometimes the final proposal is flawed.  It may have insufficient
interest to warrant transmission via netnews, or it may be misnamed.
Perhaps an existing group should be used to carry the traffic, such as
a quiescent ".misc", despite the enthusiasm of the proponents.  The
no-vote provides a mechanism to kill flawed new group proposals.

I don't care about the particular mechanism used, but some way to
avoid groups with limited traffic and to "maintain namespace purity"
ought to be defined if the no-vote is removed.

   It's not as if creating new groups increases the total volume of
   USENET.  It just makes it easier for people to locate the
   information they're looking for.

It can create unnecessary volume of network traffic.  Creating a low
traffic group wastes bandwidth, because the messages are carried to
many sites where nobody subscribes.  It is better handled by a mailing
list, which delivers only to the subscribers.  For the most part,
netnews should only carry groups which are cheaper to deliver to all
sites due to high readership.

If 200 is enough to make this likely, then I agree with you modulo
what I wrote above about flawed proposals.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
From: harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: STRAW VOTE ON NAME FOR NATIVE AMERICANS NEWSGROUP
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:56:06 -0500
Organization: Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Dec13113739@mother.intellection.com>, emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
> If the new group proponents agree to open the group to aboriginal
> issues in geographical areas other than the Americas, as some have
> suggested, then use "soc.culture.aboriginal."  Otherwise,
> "soc.culture.aboriginal.american."
>
> Reactions?

I prefer "soc.culture.aboriginal" of the names discussed so far.  It's easy
to spell and it doesn't have unwanted connotations that will confuse either
aboriginals or non-aboriginals.  How many messages a day does the NATIVE-L
mailing list run?  Why not just start with a CFV for a general group named
soc.culture.aboriginal and leave the possibility of any split later?  One
really won't know the best way to split it (or even if a split is justified)
until the group has been in operation for a while anyway.  Also, I think a
simple CFV creating a single group is more likely to be passed.

Some posters have mentioned "replacing" the alt.native group as if it will
"go away" or something once this group is created.  I don't think the CFV
should mention the alt group AT ALL; alt groups are not/should not affected
by the Usenet newsgroup voting process.
--
James Harvey    IUPUI OIT Technical Support/Networks
harvey@iupui.edu  harvey@indiana.edu  uucp:iugate!harvey  bitnet:harvey@indyvax
Xref: sparky news.groups:24512 alt.config:7972 alt.folklore.computers:18002
From: weave@apache.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: RESULT: comp.society.folklore unmoderation fails 729:151
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:15:14 -0500
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
NNTP-Posting-Host: apache.dtcc.edu

In article <1992Dec17.020351.23814jp@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>
>PS: I'm sending you a Christmas present :->

Pretty cute, unfortunately, the rest of us have to deal with your present...

In article <1992Dec17.020219.23751news@tygra.Michigan.COM> it *appears* you 
   sent a control message:

> newgroup comp.society.folklore


... with the comment ...

> As per voting.
>   FOR: 729
>    AGAINST: 151
>   FOR COUNT > 100? YES


No sweat, it's been dutifully ignored here...

-- 
Weave's 10/90 recipe for insanity: Take one programmer, divide into portions: 
10% programming consisting of equal parts in systems and applications plus
admin duties broken down into 20% for Unix, 5% PRIMOS, 10% hardware & network, 
35% DOS/Windows, 10% news, 5% postmaster, and 5% babysitting IRC kiddies.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.baltic/balticum
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:41:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.011441.5774@midway.uchicago.edu>, djb6@ellis.uchicago.edu (Dennis Brennan) writes:
> In the United States (specifically in the news media),
> the term "The Baltic States" refers specifically and exclusively
> to the republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and does not
> include Poland, Russia, Finland or Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the 
> Kaliningrad Oblast or any other territory.
> 
> (unless, of course, I'm wrong :-)
> 
> -- 
> Dennis Brennan
> djb6@midway.uchicago.edu

The usage described above is exactly the way CNN uses the term.

Still, the only factor uniting Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
is the Soviet occupation, which is a negative identity.

The positive identity for Balticum could be the Baltic sea
that unites our cultures and economies.

with best regards
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum
From: tjw+@pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.folklore.computers,alt.config,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: RESULT: comp.society.folklore unmoderation fails 729:151
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:30:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.config
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BzCIKI.751@polaris.async.vt.edu> jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joel K. Furr) writes:

>In article <1gltddINNhq7@news.UU.NET> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:

>>My proposal to unmoderate comp.society.folklore and make it a replacement
>>for alt.folklore.computers has been given one of the most decisive defeats
>>I have ever seen a newsgroup proposal suffer.

>I can't claim with authority that I know why people voted no in
>such numbers, but I can *guess* that it had something to do with...

OR it could have been from those "flame-bait" postings that Joel and I put
in rec.arts.startrek entitled "Lost in Space Was Better" in which we set a
"reply-to:" address of "vote-no@sq.com".  ;-)  As I said, if you're going
to commit VOTE FRAUD, you've got to use IMAGINATION!!!


>>If my original guess had been close and the proposal had failed by a
>>narrow margin, I would have considered alternative plans for "promoting
>>alt.folklore.computers out of the sewer".

Now we'll never get to see the "ALT.sewer.admins" VS "NEWS.GROUPS.righteous"
flame war when the Alt administrators refused to alias the group and ignored
the newgroup requests.  Yes, we certainly have missed an opportunity for a
great flame war!  Why this would have surpassed the great breakup of the
Backbone-Cabal that comp.society.women caused.

Ever wonder why "comp.society" groups seem to cause such a hullabaloo and
then fade away?  Maybe it's a "bad idea" to have "talk" groups in the "Comp"
hierarchy?

>My thanks to the 729-odd people who said NO and saved alt.folklore.computers.

Yes, "odd" is the right word! ;-)  My thanks to everyone in rec.arts.startrek
who "voted".

Terry "Yours for better VOTE FRAUDS" Wood

                        Just say NO to USENET VOTING!
                                Nancy Raygun

-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: RFD: Rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth?
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:07:08 GMT

In <1992Dec14.223629.1947@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <8111@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Sorry, but the Guidelines are how things get done in the realm of the Usenet
>>group system. You _can't_ unilaterally demand that they be tossed out any more
>>than you can demand that you be allowed to dictate who takes the oath of
>>office on 20 January 1993. (Well, actually, you can, and are, but you'll be
>>just as widely ignored.)
>Actually, the Guidelines contain a clause about extraordinary circumstances.
>If someone claims that the current situation is an extraordinary circumstance
>where typical procedures should not be followed, it is incorrect to speak of
>him as not wanting to do things according to the Guidelines, simply because
>the Guidelines themselves say that you don't always do things according to the
>Guidelines.

However, the consensus seems to have been that these AREN'T extraordinary
circumstances.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
         We are obviously very close to reproducing the Muslim paradise
                   where every orgasm lasts six hundred years
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Questions about rec.games.cyber
Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:29:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


This whole cyber debate has left me with a few questions:

1) r.g.c evolved out of a cyber-l mailing list, correct?
 The moderator felt that traffic was sufficient to support
 a newsgroup.  Now people are saying that traffic is low.
 What gives?

2) the frp hierarchy is divided by type of content (i.e.
 archives, advocacy, etc) rather than genre.  Creating
 frp.cyber would counteract this arrangement.  Why is 
 this desirable?

3) There's a few other cyberpunk groups lying around
 (?.?.chatsubo, et al).  What ground do they cover, and
 what do their readers think of this?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: starfish@stein.u.washington.edu (Sarah Skovronsky)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with the folklore people
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:36:13 GMT

dct@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (David C. Tuttle) writes:

>Yes, and those of us without access to alt.* will just sheepishly
>crawl back to our cold, drafty little corners of the Interent to face
>the harsh, cruel winter without the creature comforts so jealously
>hoarded by the privileged. *whine* *whimper*

>(I'm not really that put out by the vote, I just want to make you feel
>guilty :-).

>But seriously, if comp.society.folklore had any traffic at all, this
>whole vote thing probably wouldn't have happened.  So throw us a bone
>once in a while, OK?  (I ask that here since I can't get to the alt
>group directly).

Har har.  :)  Do you have any particular opposition to telnetting to a
site which does carry alt groups?  As has been posted in this group,
there are various sites which allow just about anyone to call up and
read news.

-- 
************************************************************************
*            Sarah Skovronsky     starfish@u.washington.edu            *
*                "Blasphemy!"  "Spanking time!"  --MST3K               *
**********fnord!********furrfu!********hi-keeba!********meep!***********
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Subject: Re: 386bsd Neutral Vote Collectors
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:28:59 GMT

In article <RICH.92Dec10200524@omicron.Rice.edu> Rich@rice.edu writes:
>
>Chris Demetriou has handled the RFD for a 386bsd newsgroup in a mature
>way so far.  Who besides Randall Atkinson thinks Chris cannot conduct
>an impartial vote?

No one said (I certainly did not say) anything about Chris personally.

  It IS conventional USENET practice in cases where there is
significant polarisation and controversy to employ a neutral
thrid-party vote collector.  It eliminates a lot of potential problems
up front.  Heck, it even saves the proposer some amount of work
(counting votes isn't a trivial exercise -- I've done it a few times
myself :-).

Or are YOU opposed to conventional USENET practice for some reason ?

There is no shortage of volunteer vote collectors for this vote, 
so one of them SHOULD be used.  

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native