HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aboltwoo@alfred.carleton.ca (Alana Boltwood)
Subject:  Reorg of misc.jobs.*
Keywords: Jobs
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:18:02 GMT


My two cents on the reorganization of misc.jobs.offered.*:

Some of the suggestions are good but only one is truly necessary:
Make a separate group for anything-but-computer job offers.  I don't
care if it is combined with any of the other jobs-offered groups
proposed or extant, because none of them will have a lot of traffic.
I just want to read about non-computer jobs without plowing through
dozens of computer jobs every day; it is easy to miss seeing what I
want.  (It might even be worthwhile splitting the computer-jobs group, but
I have no idea what the dividing line should be.)  m.j.o.non-computer
*will* fly, with moderate traffic.  I suspect a lot of non-programmers
are *not* using the net for job searches because m.j.o is almost all
computer jobs.

A related suggestion is to create m.j.resumes.non-computer.  This will
of course be more popular than the .offered version, at least until
non-computer employers realize the usefulness of the net. But it will
eventually be a great advantage to jobseekers and employers.

As for m.j.o.entry, it might as well be cancelled.  (I have nothing
new to say on that.)

misc.jobs.misc is OK as it is.  Renaming it will not discourage the
resume-program sellers from posting, or the other miscellaneous
commercial interests.  The traffic is not so high that it needs to be split.

That was my two cents.


Alana Boltwood (aboltwoo@ccs.carleton.ca)
4th yr. BA Honours Statistics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Looking for work (May '93) in social science research (surveys etc)
From: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Subject: Re: TOP 40 NEWSGROUPS IN ORDER BY POPULARITY (DEC 92)
Reply-To: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:15:40 GMT

  You know the recession's over.

  alt.sex has edged out misc.jobs.offered again.

--
Jonathan Lennox
jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 7 Jan 1993 04:57:30 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

Why is this different from the existing moderated soc.religion.christian?



-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
Xref: sparky news.groups:25076 alt.native:1586
From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: Proposed Charter for soc.culture.native
Keywords: charter, native, soc.native.culture
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:07:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: gnosys.1993Jan6.200758.2285

In <idoy.726208765@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
	(Mike Wilson) writes:

> Charter: soc.culture.native is for the discussion of issues 
> relating to native populations throughout the world.  This 
> newsgroup is intended to be inclusive, not exclusive, offering
> an important site for exchange among native peoples and between
> native and non-native peoples.  Topics of discussion will include
> such issues as national sovereignty, freedom of religion, 
> spirituality, and philosophy.  

This paragraph looks like a good beginning.  I feel it could also
usefully say something about the informational side of the forum,
that it can be used for posting news stories and bulletins which
alert people to urgent situations which require responses (such as
human rights cases).

We're making definite progress, I think.

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 13:49:01 GMT

In article <CKD.93Jan9001116@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>
>Is Bill Weld conservative?  Does allowing same-sex domestic partners of
>state employees to share benefits square with this particular definition of
>conservatism?  I know that "the" Church (this being Massachusetts, there's
>an amazingly high proportion of Catholic leaders ready to explain their
>disdain for this sort of thing) was none too happy with that one.
>
>(Now do you see the point Peter's making?  The label "conservative" is
>becoming an incredibly fuzzy blob covering everything from the Pats
>(Buchanan and Robertson) to folks like Bill Weld, who's more of a
>"libertarian/conservative" (and was, notably, farther 'left' than his
>Democratic opponent on social issues like gay rights).)

Look, I'm not saying that conservatives are a bunch of clones.  There are
always been disagreements among conservativthey have some common beliefs
(as I've already said) that most of them agree on, and all of them agree
on most of them.  It's also true that some people don't know what 
conservative means and they misuse the label.  But physicists and engineers
also misuse the word "integral" (they often use "integral" when they mean
anti-derivative) but that doesn't mean "integral" is no longer useful.

>The label "conservative" is becoming ...incredibly fuzzy

I deny that and I am beginning to suspect that people like you, who do
not consider themselves conservatives and don't really know what it's
all about, are the ones who are fuzzifying it.  Conscious conservatives
( no, not those who are awake but those who feel themselves to be part
of the cause) know better than you what it means to be a conservative.
So why don't you yield to them before they try to tell you your business?
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics
From: elvis@netcom.com ('kEvin')
Subject: sci.physics.research : Appropriately named?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:26:49 GMT


I stopped reading sci.physics some time ago, and just picked
up this discussion. Has a consensus formed behind the name
sci.physics.research? I would prefer to see the group named
sci.physics.moderated, which would incourage interesting
material that wasn't necessarily of interest as a research
topic.

For example, would an article discussing some interesting tidbit
from the history of physics be appropriate or not?

If not, the name sci.physics.research is appropriate,
but if it would be posted, then sci.physics.moderated
is a better name for the group.


kEvin
From: ngse18@castle.ed.ac.uk (J R Evans)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposal for sci.geo.eosdis has not been adequately discussed?
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:44:10 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: Edinburgh University

bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:

>This proposal was originally sent to news.groups about a month before 
>the two-week newgroup hiatus as sci.eos.  It was discussed then and 
>there was some discussion on the namespace, generally dealing with the 
>level.  Sci.space was considered but that newsgroup deals more with 
>the space hardware, whereas the eosdis group will be dealing more with 
>the results.  

Would it not have been polite to inform the sci.geo heirarchy *before*
shunting it off there?  The first we folks saw of it was the CFV, and
we now have the rather unsatisfactory options of allowing it either to 
proceed unmodified or to seek to vote it out.

>The community to which the information is disseminated is not small.  
>EOSDIS is a NASA megaproject, in the Mission to Planet Earth.

There are a number of aspects to this proposal which are unsatisfactory
and which raise wider issues.  For the present, I am concerned with the
means by which they can be aired, rather than the airing of them.

Russ
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:35:25 GMT


gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes:

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

Questions such as these are already discussed in talk.religion.misc and 
soc.religion.christian; if they were to be discussed here as well then 
I would agree that it *would be a waste of bandwidth*.  

All groups must have a foundation in order to filter out any non 
pertinant information. (i.e Mac users don't subscribe to IBM newsgroups 
to discuss their issues.) As the RFD says, part of the charter of this 
group is to assume the validity of Jesus Christ as the son of God and 
that the Bible is the inherant word of God.  These are not to be argued 
here since they are already being argued in the above mentioned groups.  
Instead, this will be a group where people already with these same 
beliefs can come and discuss *the Word* (hence the name Bible Study), 
not to particpate in senseless flame wars.  

I agree with Randy Finder when he made the recommendation that the group
be called "soc.religion.christian.biblestudy" rather than the original
name.  This makes it clear that this group has already made the same
assumptions as stated in the RFD.


--
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
& Bill Nelson   & Alice: Cheshire Puss, Would you tell me, please, which &
&               &        way I ought to go from here?                    &
& AT&T Paradyne & Cat:   That depends a great deal on where you want to  &
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Mike Wilson)
Subject: Re: Proposed Charter for soc.culture.native
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date:  9 Jan 93 15:41:28 GMT

gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

>think it should say something to the effect that the newsgroup will
>carry timely news bulletins from organizations working with indigenous
>peoples around the world.

In the absense of objections, I shall add this clause.

>> or Jose Barreiro's now defunct Indigenous People's Network.

>I believe it was called the Indigenous Press Network, actually.

Excuse me.  When he is sitting around telling his old war stories,
he refers to it as IPN.  I'd forgotten the original name.
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.crypt.research
From: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:47:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand

From article <1992Dec28.101950.2735@pollux.lu.se>, by magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson):
> My personal opinions on a few of the points raised:
> [...]
> 4) Sci.crypt should definitely be left as it is. That way, nobody
> would be censored, and those who don't like moderated groups can
> continue posting there.

I disagree.  Along with a number of other people on the net I believe that
its a Good Thing if all the subgroups of a hierarchy are at the same level. 
Thus, rather than

        sci.crypt
	sci.crypt.research

I would much prefer to see

        sci.crypt.misc
	sci.crypt.research

instead, with sci.crypt eventually rmgrouped.

> 5) Creating a special group for the political discussion (like
> talk.politics.crypt) can't hurt, but I'm afraid it won't help either.  
> Look at what happened when talk.politics.space was created: Lot's of
> sites don't get that group (since it's not considered as "serious" as
> sci.space), and even thos who *do* post to t.p.s in the majority of
> cases *crosspost* to sci.space (I suppose to ensure that everybody can
> hear them).

How much of the problems with t.p.s can be attributed to its being far away
from s.s in the namespace?  How about a three way split:

	sci.crypt.misc
        sci.crypt.politics
	sci.crypt.research

A split like this might actually make the politics group work perhaps.
--
Just my two rubber ningis worth.
Name: Michael Chisnall  (chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)
I'm not a .signature virus and nor do I play one on tv.
Xref: sparky news.groups:25430 rec.food.cooking:25024
From: fritz@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Katherine Fritz)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.food.cooking
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.food.breadmachines
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:36:13 GMT
Followup-To: rec.food.cooking
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Suggestion: as long as this talk about a home for the displaced
breadmachine list subscribers is going on (to newgroup or not to
newgroup? what should it be called, etc.) in an INFORMAL
stage, how about removing news.groups from the header, and
keep it in rec.food.cooking until somebody has written a
proposed charter and made a FORMAL request for discussion to
news.announce.newgroups?  Follow-ups to rec.food.cooking, please.
-- 
   Katie Fritz --Internet: fritz@ben.dev.upenn.edu -- CompuServe: 71257,3153
"From what I hear Earth is a podunk little place but they make great pastrami."
         -- Graetwist, "Roadways" #1, Comic Zone Publishing
              --Penn is not Penn State and I am neither--
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: List of Active Newsgroups, Part I
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:32:08 GMT

In article <spaf-active_726771283@cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes:
>comp.archives.msdos.announce	Announcements about MSDOS archives. (Moderated)
>comp.archives.msdos.d	Discussion of materials available in MSDOS archives.

Hello Gene,

I am very pleased to be able to inform that these newsgroups have
worked excellently since they were created.  Even bertter than I
could have hoped for. 
   But this is just small talk from me.  Here is my actual feedback:

>comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted	Requests for IBM PC and compatible programs.

It may be that there is not enough room for an altered desciption
but one of the main points is that CBIP.wanted is for PD & SW
questions only (comp.os.msdos.apps covers the fully commercial
programs).  Another point is that it does not cover all OSes on PCs. 
OS/2 and Unix questions are not covered (Windows occasionally is). 
How about

comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted   Requests for MsDos PD & Shareware programs

because this is what it really is in actual practice.  As you
probably know it is a derivative and a discussion subgroup of Brian
O'Neill's comp.binaries.ibm.pc, which in turn posts MsDos and some
Windows PD & shareware binary postings to the net.  (Brian,
incidentally, also co-moderates comp.archives.msdos.announce). 
CBIP.wanted is also a well working newsgroup, I am pleased to say. 

   All the best, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi      Co-moderator of comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:21:16 GMT

In article <104419@netnews.upenn.edu>, rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
> In article <1isp5dINNpc4@rodan.UU.NET> weinss@rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
> >These proposals are independent.  Some can be approved without the others:
> >1. Rename misc.jobs.misc misc.jobs.discussion to cut down on postings there
> >	that belong in misc.jobs.wanted or misc.jobs.offered.
> 
> Although I'm not a fan of gratuitous abbreviations, the ".d" suffix,
> as in "misc.jobs.d", seems to be the prevalent Usenet standard practice
> for discussion subgroups.  Maybe we would do it some other way if we
> are starting over, but it's probably worth sticking with this convention
> for the sake of consistency.

The problem with this is that the .d groups are for discussion of what
goes on in the non-.d groups, generally.  Misc.jobs.misc, whatever it
becomes, is not just for discussion and followups of things that 
get posted in misc.jobs.offered and misc.jobs.resumes:  recent topics
have included office politics, interview strategy, vacation policies,
software engineering vs computer programming.  I wouldn't mind renaming
it .discuss or .discussion (although I would prefer to leave it .misc)
but I think .d isn't really appropriate.

[misc.jobs.nonpermanent, misc.jobs.offered.entry.almost(!), misc.jobs.
offered.noncomputer, misc.jobs.offered.bork.bork.bork, etc]

I agree with Rsk that a lot of this is splitting hairs.  And I agree
with Joel Plutchak that many of these groups are near useless anyway,
and that creating new ones isn't going to solve anything.  IMHO the
only way to rescue misc.jobs.offered[.*] is to moderate it.  Now.

-- 
/\    "I'm only a human girl person.  I ain't always perfect."--Rambling Rose
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: joes@tgs.com (Joe Stewart)
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Reply-To: joes@tgs.com
Organization: Template Graphics Software
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:48:33 GMT

In article <1isp5dINNpc4@rodan.UU.NET>, weinss@rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
|> These proposals are independent.  Some can be approved without the others:
|> 1. Rename misc.jobs.misc misc.jobs.discussion to cut down on postings there
|> 	that belong in misc.jobs.wanted or misc.jobs.offered.
Yes.  
|> 2. Create new group misc.jobs.nonpermanent or misc.jobs.shortterm for 
|> 	temporary, co-op, summer, internship, etc., positions.  (Requests,
|> 	offerings, and discussion)  (I'm still unsure of the exact 
|> 	name.  "Temporary" has the wrong connotation.)
Yes.
|> 3. Split misc.jobs.offered.entry into misc.jobs.offered.entry.almost and
|> 	misc.jobs.offered.entry.newgrads to because of complaints by people
|> 	who felt that jobs requiring experience were de facto not entry level.
No.  Too confusing.
|> 4. Create new hierarchy misc.jobs.local.* and move all regional job groups
|> 	(aus.jobs, ne.jobs, ba.jobs, ca.jobs, can.jobs, ont.jobs, etc., etc.)
|> 	under it (e.g. make ne.jobs into misc.jobs.ne).  This may make it 
|> 	easier for people planning to move to find jobs in their 
|> 	destination area.
Yes
|> 5. Replace misc.jobs.offered and comp.jobs.offered, with
|> 	misc.jobs.offered.computer and misc.jobs.offered.noncomputer.
|> 	This should help with the current problems of computer jobs
|> 	constituting most (but not all) postings to misc.jobs.offered
|> 	and computer offerings being located in two separate groups.
Yes
|> 6. Replace bionet.jobs, comp.jobs, vmsnet.employment, biz.jobs.*, and 
|> 	similar groups, with misc.jobs.biology, misc.jobs.computer, 
|> 	misc.jobs.computer.VMS, misc.jobs.business.*, etc.
Yes

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Joseph Stewart
 Senior Applications Engineer (FIGARO+, FIGt, FIGraph)
 Template Graphics Software (TGS)
 959 Concord Street 
 Framingham MA 01701-4613 (USA)
 508-872-8700 x340
 joes@tgs.com -- tgs!joes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: alrashi@ecf.toronto.edu (AL RASHID SHAHIR)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.malaysia
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:35:58 GMT

In article <1ispaiINNpl3@rodan.UU.NET> barrera@mtu.edu (Christopher Barrera) writes:
>I would like to call together a discussion for the creation of
>a new newgroup, tentatively called "soc.culture.malaysia"
{shtuff gone!}
>3) soc.culture.asean, as mentioned in #1 above, no longer has much
>   talk about ASEAN as a whole, suggesting the group is no longer
>   fulfilling its intended purpose. Perhaps it should be dissolved
>   or renamed with a new charter. Anyhow, it now seems an apropriate
>   time for soc.culture.malaysia to be created.

I agree wholeheartedly with this proposal. Since almost everything in the
newsgroup pertains to Malaysia anyway, why not just have a s.c.malaysia?!?
If any wish to peruse news about Thailand, Vietnam and the the more northern 
countries, I recommend bit.listserv.seasia-l. Which conversely, has next to 
nothing on Malaysia.

AcEzE.
Duit tiada apa, tapi style mesti ada!!
-- 
***************** WHO AM I, YOU SAY? ****************** "If time is money, we
************ SHAHIR AL RASHID**aka**ACEZE *************  are all in debt!" (tm)
****** Alrashi@ecf.toronto.edu *** GO RIN NO SHO ****** ------------------------
** This message brought to you by the Bollocks Bros. ** no fate but what we make
From: beshers@tsavo.hks.com (George Beshers)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: comp.lang.ml
Date: 7 Jan 1993 13:51:14 GMT
Organization: HKS, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: beshers@hks.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsavo.hks.com



I support the news group as proposed by Greg Morrisett.

I would like to see interfacing SML to the real world,
(file I/O, networking, X-windows, etc.) added as an
explicit topic for discussion since it is the primary
reason I can't argue for its use in a commercial setting
over C++.  Alternatively, the goal of making SML a
realistic competitor to C/C++/Fortran could be added
as a topic.

Granted one could claim that this is covered under applications
and extensions.

				George Beshers
				beshers@hks.com
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc.religion.christian.biblestudy
Date: 11 Jan 1993 14:15:06 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


nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) says:

>nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:

>   to discuss their issues.) As the RFD says, part of the charter of this 
>   group is to assume the validity of Jesus Christ as the son of God and 
>   that the Bible is the inherant word of God.  These are not to be argued 

>   Instead, this will be a group where people already with these same 
>   beliefs can come and discuss *the Word* (hence the name Bible Study), 

These same beliefs?  WHICH same beliefs are you talking
 about?  Christians differ WIDELY in their interpretation
 of the Bible.  And not all Bible scholars are Christian.

>So you believe that any information pertinent to bible study must come
>from people believing in the bible as the inerrant word of God? You
>believe that any contributions from, say, Roman Catholics (who have a
>different doctrine) would be worthless and should be filtered out? You
>believe that any articles from people with alternative beliefs would
>lead to senseless flame wars? Writing as one who has lead and taken

Agreed.  Bill, if you want an exclusive little group
 where only those who agree with you are allowed to
 post, you better try somewhere else.  I, for one,
 will vote against.