HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glenn@BESSEL.UMD.EDU ("D. Glenn Arthur Jr.")
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: TV-TS Newsgroup?
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:34:23 GMT
Organization: The Space-Time Fabrication Institute, Rockville, MD.

>Everybody seems to agree that we want a group. I suggest we get the ball
>rolling toward starting one.

Well, I've been collecting responses to my .signature, and the response
has been generally positive, but not exactly overwhelming in volume.  I
know that some of the folks I know from the two TV/TS mailing lists and
IRC are actually against a newsgroup.  I, unsurprisingly, favour one.

I would prefer to have a group in the main hierarchy but one question 
that has been raised is, "How many of the people who want a TV/TS 
group are willing to use their names and net addresses publically for
a vote?"  I don't yet know the answer.

Look for more from me in a day or two.  :-)



-- 
D. Glenn Arthur Jr., The Human Vibrator, glenn@bessel.umd.edu
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."

How much interest is there in a TV/TS newsgroup?  How many would post there?
You can send me mail anonymously at wi.2743@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (was wi.79)
From: ads3@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew D. Shults)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.rpg.board
Date: 14 Sep 1992 21:33:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ads3@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew D. Shults)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) says:

>Request for new group: rec.games.rpg.board

I'm posting this in the vain hope that T.S.Blandino might actually read
it before attempting to forge ahead with this hair-brained idea:

REC.GAMES.RPG IS A BOGUS NEWSGROUP

Creating a hierarchy under a bogus news group is a BadThing (tm).  The
name needs to be changed before this group has even a shred of hope for
passing.

You'd think Blandino would have learned after posting that Sci-Fi games
didn't belong in r.g.frp.misc and that discussion should move to r.g.rpg
and then being repeatedly told to read the FAQ since the entire answer
is found there.

   ---Andrew
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: davidc@brahms.udel.edu (David Casper)
Subject: rec.music.classical.guitar
Followup-To: news.groups
Keywords: classical,guitar
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:28:59 GMT


Well,  Sept 19 is upon us!  This is when the CFV will go out for
"rec.music.classical.guitar"  ... I have re-posted the RFD (it should
appear just before this post on "news.groups")..discussion has been
quite dead for r.m.c.g.  ???  I know I'm partially responsible, 
life (time) has been HELL for me lately (not something to be discussed
here!)...so I haven't posted much...I am hoping, though, that
the people on the mailing list (150 or so) are still interested!  
I realize that most of the details for the proposed newsgroup were
worked out during the (much healthier) 1st RFD...so maybe that's
why there hasn't been much to say???

I have put the mailing list into an "alias" on my mailer...however,
the first text editor I used wrapped lines (and truncated some addresses)
so what I have done is sent a little CFV reminder to those on this
mailing list...if you DO NOT receive mail from me (davidc@brahms.udel.edu)
within a reasonable time from SEPT 15 (today), please accept my apologies
and MAIL your email address to me...or, if you never were on the list,
and would like to be, please mail as well.

Once again: "rec.music.classical.guitar" CFV on Sept 19!!!

As of now, the group will concentration on ANYTHING RELATING in any
way to the classical guitar...personally, I'd rather weed out
articles that I felt didn't apply to my interests...than to 
impose a strict limitation on the newsgroup.  (i.e., some have suggested
that the newsgroup be open to discussion of other "forms" of
acoustic guitar playing, such as flamenco, etc...IMHO these ARE
NOT exactly classical guitar...but -- although I feel that the
proposed r.m.c.g. is quite wothwhile, and will be used by and
will benefit MANY people -- I really don't foresee a TRAFFIC 
PROBLEM on r.m.c.g. !!!)  These are my opinions...there are
3 or 4 days left to work things out (via discussion, which is
what r.m.c.g. needs on "news.groups" coming down to the final lap
before the CFV :-) !!!)

May "rec.music.classical.guitar" enjoy a happy and healthy CFV!



-- 
David W. Casper
davidc@brahms.udel.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: techy@iastate.edu (Technobabblonian)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.babylon5
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:00:50 GMT


I would just like to clarify that Babylon 5 has NOTHING whatsoever to do
with Star Trek.  It was suggested to try and put this in the trek hierarchy,
which would not make much sense since it has nothing to do with Trek.  
Deep Space 9 is the new Trek spin-off.  

Just clarifying that up. :)
-- 
-Troy Rutter        |  Another Budding Programmer of the rare
Iowa State Univ.    |      species of technobabblonians.
Project Vincent     |
    "Beware Romulans bearing GIFs."  -me with apologies to De.
From: boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 7 Sep 92 09:17:25 GMT
Organization: Centre d'Etudes de la Navigation Aerienne
Originator: boubaker@bendy


|> Variations on a theme:
|> C:  rec.music.makers
|>     rec.music.makers.{rock,jazz,classical}
|>     rec.music.instruments.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
|>     rec.music.instruments.misc
|>     rec.music.instruments.marketplace
|> 

   That's my favourite variation :
   1/ IMHO rec.music.* seems to be a better organisation than rec.musicians.* 
      ( A & B ) because it's not 'close' to non musicians:
      - rec.musicians.instruments.* look like places for discussions of 
        musicians about their instruments.
      - rec.music.instruments.* look like places for discussions for 
        everybody loving music about some specific instruments.
   2/ rec.music.* hierarchy already exists and it is perhaps unnecessary
      to create a parallel hierarchy only for musicians:
      It could be a (little) humility lesson for musicians to share
      something about music with non-musicians ;-J 

   My only remark will be about rec.music.instruments.marketplace :
   what about selling things like sound-effects, trackers, ... a better
   hierarchy could be:
   rec.music.marketplace.material (from jack to full recording studio)&
   rec.music.marketplace.misc (for collectors, books , concert ...)

 Here is my proposal:

 o rec.music.maker         
   ( general discussions )
 o rec.music.maker.<genre> 
   ( discussions on making music for a specific genre )
                   pop-rock
                   bluenote ( jazz , blues )
                   classical
                   world    ( musics from India , Africa , Orient ...)
 o rec.music.instruments
   ( general discussions )
 o rec.music.instruments.<instrument>
   ( discussions on a specific instrument )
                         guitars ( remark the 's': guitar and bass-guitar )
                         keyboards
                         electronics ( midi , samples ... )
                         misc ( others instruments )
 o rec.music.marketplace.material
                        .misc
 o remove rec.music.synth .

 
 heddy
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: deff@access.digex.com (Michael P. Deffendall)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.babylon5
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:44:45 GMT

 
yury@bknight.jpr.com (Yury German) writes:
 
>       How about adding a newsgroup to the Star Trek Hiearchie.. with
>Babylon5. Where if you want you would junk the rest and just read this.
 
    Last time I checked, B5 has NOTHING to do with ST, except that there
are both Sci Fi.  IMHO B5 should not have its own r.a.sf.* group, but it
definately does not belong is r.a.s.*.
 
 
Deff
 
#include std.disclaimer
deff@digex.com

Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.apple2
From: tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Subject: Re: CFV: comp.sys.apple2.gno
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:42:40 GMT

In <1992Sep15.152443.14121@ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron):

   As far as I know, no formal RFD was ever posted for this proposal.
   None of Mr. Lawrence's last three lists mention this group, and there
   are no articles on the subject in news.groups.

This proposal began as comp.unix.apple2gs on 8 July and public
discussion in news.groups brought the name to comp.sys.apple2.gno.
I do think a 2nd RFD would have been good.

   And why is the voting period only 21 days?  The 30-day figure called
   for in the guidelines wasn't chosen out of a hat; it was established
   with good reason.

The Guidelines say a voting period should be from 21-31 days,
at the pollster's choice.

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Philip Dutre)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.rpg.board
Organization: Dept. Computerwetenschappen
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:14:32 GMT

In article <BuL4M4.GoF@uunet.uu.net>, lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
|> Request for new group: rec.games.rpg.board
|> 
|> This is a proposal for a news group which would discuss those
|> games containing elements of both role playing games and 
|> board games.  The primary games under consideration are 
|> Battletech/Mechwarrior and Warhammer/Warhammer 40K although
|> is not limited to those two.  
|> 

There are no games containing both elements of boardgames & roleplaying games.
There are, however, well developed gaming worlds (e.g. Warhammer, BTECH), in 
which a lot of games situate themselves, being roleplaying, board, or tabletop.

IMHO, any game can be classified in this category:

AD&D: roleplaying & boardgames (battlesystem, greyhawk wars...)
Warhammer: WFRP & WFB
Warhammer 40K: WH40K, Space Hulk, Space Crusade, Armaggedon...
BTECH: Mechwarrior, BTECH, Succesion Wars...

There are boardgames for the runequest world, Call of Cthulhu, Judge Dredd,
etc...

Now, what do all these games have in common? Nothing, except that they are
games, which classify themselves as roleplaying or boardgames. And it is my not
so humble opinion that we have an excellent subdivision for these already.

-- 
| Phil Dutre                            Dept. Computer Science              |
| philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be             Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL)|
| Phone: (32) 16 201015 x3094/3552      Celestijnenlaan 200A                |
| Fax:   (32) 16 205308                 B-3001 Heverlee, BELGIUM            |
From: pd2n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter W. De Bonte)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: comp.forsale.computers redundancy
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:27:47 GMT
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Not only is this newsgroup's name redundant, but there is also a
comp.forsale that gets the same posts.

The real computer clasifieds seem to be in misc.forsale.computers, since
it is the only one that gets more than a post a week.

I'll admit that I am not a news wizard, but this seems strange to me.
Any chance the comp.forsale... boards could be removed?

Pete W. De Bonte (x4173)                    pwd+@cmu.edu 
"Knolege is powef, Speling is unimportnt"   (but pd2n is unaceptable)
From: shuford@cs.utk.edu (Richard Shuford)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.boycotts.announce moderated, misc.boycotts.misc
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 7 Sep 92 03:04:02 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville--Dept. of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Expires: 8 Oct 1992 22:23:24 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Summary: bad idea
Keywords: boycott, politics

Regarding the proposed newsgroup "misc.boycotts.announce" --
this is a spectacularly bad idea, at least, if you want Usenet
to continue in its present form.

The bulk of Usenet is a \tolerated/ (although sizable, and sometimes
even useful) sideshow to the main event of computer networks that are
maintained either with public money (because they benefit scientific
research and allow government agencies to conduct their daily
transactions) or with private money (because they allow commercial
enterprises to do business).  Certainly there are sites of Usenet that
are run by political organizations, and perhaps these all send their
traffic by dialup UUCP, but Usenet in general is now quite dependent
on all that NNTP traffic over the Internet.

Any announcement of a boycott is bound up in somebody's political
agenda.  If the \perceived authority/ of some network moderator
is put behind some boycott, the bemused toleration of Usenet by
the scientists and bureaucrats will disappear.

-- 
 ....Richard S. Shuford  | "A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge,
 ....shuford@cs.utk.edu  |  but the simple keep going and suffer for it."
 ....BIX: richard        |  Proverbs 22:3 NIV
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
From: ctwilson@rock.concert.net (Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account)
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Keywords: unwanted groups, removal in stages, not too bad
Organization: CONCERT-CONNECT -- Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:32:54 GMT

Here's an alternative method that may take a little while but it 
should work, although overdone (see my note at the end):

$ sed -n '/\!/p' .newsrc > some_file  # find all unsubscribed groups

$ sed 's/\!/:/' .newsrc > temp  # reactivate the groups

$ mv temp .newsrc  # prepare to read them again

Now, here's the time-comsuming part: read all of the groups so far as to 
mark them as read, ie. 

$ rn alt.foobar.baz

now just mark all of this group as read....no more long lines, right?

when all unwanted groups are marked, do this:

$ sed '/\!/d' .newsrc > temp
$ mv temp .newsrc # you're done

I really doubt that all of this is necessary, as I have done the last
two commands several times without any ill effects.  Sed typically works 
*a line at a time* irregardless of the line length.  I just wrote the 
preliminaries for those who feel uncomfortable with something as terse 
as a one-line (well, two commands actually) solution.  If there is a 
newsreader that doesn't handle this, let me know about it and why it
doesn't.

Tom Wilson
ctwilson@rock.concert.net 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rcj@engin.umich.edu (R o d Johnson)
Subject: Re: Moderated newsgroups
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 19:28:45 EDT
Organization: Lost Tribes of Gazebo

In article <1907o7INNrp2@agate.berkeley.edu> shell@gandalf.Berkeley.EDU (Shelly Culbertson) writes:

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

No doubt this is about poor violated rec.music.phish, which managed to
catch part of a cross-posted flame war.  You had exactly the sort of
control you wanted when you had a mailing list, and you chose to give
that up and join the hurlyburly of Usenet, Shelly.  It's the nature of
things that the more open structure of the net is more vulnerable to
"attacks" by people who don't share your vision of the group.  But is
it really such a trauma?  Are your sensibilities really that fragile?
How about just being less of a crybaby, learning how to not read
articles you don't like, accepting this as the unpleasant aberration
it is and getting over it?  There's no excuse for the recent
flamebait, but enforcing groupthink isn't a good answer.

-- 
       Rod Johnson  *  rcj@caen.engin.umich.edu  *  (313) 764-3103
    
                "What I do doesn't happen in a warehouse"
                                          --Jim Dickinson
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.chem.organomet
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:20:39 GMT

In article <LOTTO.92Sep15091150@laura.harvard.edu> lotto@laura.harvard.edu (Jerry Lotto) writes:
>>>>>> On 14 Sep 92 20:22:56 GMT, cabku01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Hartwig Kuehbauch) said:
>Hartwig> As most of you'll know there is a substantial lack of science
>Hartwig> newsgroups, especially related to chemistry. To my knowledge
>...
>Hartwig> to initiate the discussion about a new newsgroup called
>Hartwig>          sci.chem.organomet

When I tried starting a newsgroup, nobody like the idea of forming it to 
*stimulate* discussion. I think it's perfectly valid, but I am not all net.
voters.

>If you are going to go through the discussion and voting process, I
>suggest that you consider an RFD for AT LEAST the set of:
>
>sci.chem.organic
>	.inorganic
>	.organomet
>	.biochem
>	.molbio			if you ignore the overlap with bionet
>	.physical		What about .physorg?
>	.analytical		and analytical.instrumentation...
>
>Often, the creation of a new newsgroup is justified in terms of
>excessive traffic on a particular subject.  If we had used this
>criterion to float the proposal for sci.chem, it would have never
>gotten off the ground.
>
>I personally don't think that there is a need for all of the groups
>mentioned above at this time. 

See what I mean?

> That's the point of a discussion, to
>reach a concensus on the need for new groups and establish a charter.
>You may never get the interest and the required number of votes for
>ANY of these groups if you limit the discussion to one area at a time.
>
>At the end of the discussion period, a subset of the proposed groups
>may be ready for a CFV.  If there is more than one, it is simple
>enough to conduct multiple votes in parallel.
>--
>Jerry Lotto <lotto@lhasa.harvard.edu>      "Have you hugged the curves today?"
>Chemistry Dept., Harvard Univ.              MSFCI, HOGSSC, BCSO, AMA, DoD #18


I guess I'd have to agree somewhat with Jerry. The traffic here is not excessive
but I would support the formation of the organomet groups (and all the other
groups for that matter) because I think it will indeed attract more 
participation and this is a 'good' thing.

I'd vote for it.  We are not losing anything by forming that group; we can 
only gain from it.

You might consider, if it is looking grim, to form an alt.sci.chem.organomet
and see how much support/discussion you can muster.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: alvin@netcom.com (Alvin H. White)
Subject: [G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.] RFD: comp.song
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 19:05:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: Applications of computer singing in planetary consciousness.
Keywords: Computer Singing Song


rfd comp.song

song.book
  computer usualis
hymn.book
hymn.comp
comp.hymn
comp.hymn.society.paperless
comp.society.hymn.paperless
song.computer
  sony
  yamaha
  cray
  att
    phone
    phoneme
      I don't know if att is allowed to produce phonemes under present FCC.
  convex
song.comp.chinese.soundblaster
comp.song.chinese.soundblaster
whale.song
song.whale
comp.song.whale  = song produced by computer programmed by whales
  Some one said whales may have enough intelligence to sing
  I don't know of any computers that have enough intelligence to sing
    I heard dectalk
song.dynasty
comp.song

alvin@netcom.com

Alvin H. White, Gen. Sect.
G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.
1505 De Rose Way #66 
San Jose, CA 95126 USA

(408) 286-2794
(408) 286-4244

Government Online Database Systems
Bureau for Resource Allocations to Information Networks
[an idea waiting to happen]

120 West 38 North
From: Kay.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Law
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:49:02 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992

Would somebody mind telling me what all this is about (VIA NETMAIL)?  I
came in on the middle of it, and all I can tell is that somebody is mad at
AT&T for something presumably having to do with netmail, and possibly unix
systems.  

Again, please reply via netmail - I DO get the impression that this topic 
has worn it's welcome out in here (and frankly it doesn't sound related to
new groups.)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kay Shapero                            ! 
Kay.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org   !  Endeavor to Persevere!
on Fidonet: 1:102/524                  !
Designated Topic Cop of alt.music.filk !
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 


--- msged 2.06
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jjhayes@nbrwh75.bnr.ca (Jeff Hayes)
Subject: Re: RFD: news.software.inn
Keywords: INN
Reply-To: jjhayes@bnr.ca
Organization: Northern Telecom Public Switching, Bramalea Product Tech. S908
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:23:11 GMT

In article <BuF4p3.7zy@uunet.uu.net>, kent@imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield) writes:
_]NAME:    
_]	news.software.inn
_]STATUS: 
_]	unmoderated

i think it is a good idea.  I have been trying to follow INN discussion
in several places and would say the traffic is high enough to support
a new group.

jeff hayes                      ESN 333-3894   phone (416) 452-3894
jjhayes@bnr.ca                  Northern Telecom, Prod Tech, Bramalea Ont
Xref: sparky news.groups:17908 sci.chem:3515
From: lotto@laura.harvard.edu (Jerry Lotto)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.chem
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.chem.organomet
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:11:50 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Chemistry Dept., Harvard University
In-reply-to: cabku01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de's message of 14 Sep 92 20:22:56 GMT

>>>>> On 14 Sep 92 20:22:56 GMT, cabku01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Hartwig Kuehbauch) said:
Hartwig> As most of you'll know there is a substantial lack of science
Hartwig> newsgroups, especially related to chemistry. To my knowledge
...
Hartwig> to initiate the discussion about a new newsgroup called
Hartwig>          sci.chem.organomet

If you are going to go through the discussion and voting process, I
suggest that you consider an RFD for AT LEAST the set of:

sci.chem.organic
	.inorganic
	.organomet
	.biochem
	.molbio			if you ignore the overlap with bionet
	.physical		What about .physorg?
	.analytical		and analytical.instrumentation...

Often, the creation of a new newsgroup is justified in terms of
excessive traffic on a particular subject.  If we had used this
criterion to float the proposal for sci.chem, it would have never
gotten off the ground.

I personally don't think that there is a need for all of the groups
mentioned above at this time.  That's the point of a discussion, to
reach a concensus on the need for new groups and establish a charter.
You may never get the interest and the required number of votes for
ANY of these groups if you limit the discussion to one area at a time.

At the end of the discussion period, a subset of the proposed groups
may be ready for a CFV.  If there is more than one, it is simple
enough to conduct multiple votes in parallel.
--
Jerry Lotto <lotto@lhasa.harvard.edu>      "Have you hugged the curves today?"
Chemistry Dept., Harvard Univ.              MSFCI, HOGSSC, BCSO, AMA, DoD #18
Newsgroups: news.groups