HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg@marvin.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:18:19 GMT

In article <1gouilINN3v5@news.UU.NET> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>This is a request for discussion about creating a new moderated group
>for discussion of physics, [namely sci.physics.research].

Although it is not yet what many people hoped it to be,
sci.math.research is one of the best and most promising news groups on
the net.  I'll do what I can to round up the troops.

>I believe that a new group is needed simply because sci.physics is so
>high-volume, and has such a low signal-to-noise ratio, that it is
>essentially impossible to use it for professional discussion about
>physics.

This is incontrovertible.

>My own feeling is that we shouldn't impose a very stringent cut at
>all: we should allow almost anything, and just filter out the
>content-free personal attacks, the wild claims that are "not even
>wrong," and the articles that have nothing to do with physics.

I would say that you should follow Dan Grayson's example with
sci.math.research.  The only qualification I would make to that would
be to make the charter a little broader to allow anything at all
related to serious physics (especially WHAT'S NEW), and at the
same time make the moderation a little tighter by sending back cryptic
or disorganized postings for more editing.

>Moderation will be by a panel of three or four people; we'll announce
>the names of those people before a CFV is issued.

One moderator would suffice, but if you prefer a panel, that's fine too.

Good luck.
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:35:09 GMT
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>	But Dave, until you answer the proof already presented, that a
>separate posting by one of the rec.synth readers with a clear
>unambuiguos subject line was posted to, and even replied to by another
>reader,

ONE article? That makes a difference, for sure...what with 75 articles
per day average one article is bound to make a difference huh?

>that your arguments are based on misleading evidence, why should anyone
>bother debating with you?

If you think it misleading, then stop arguing with me. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

               Most anything that annoys you is a mirror. 
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Arlen Speights)
Subject: Re: soc.culture.<whatever>.* [ native/indigenous/aboriginal ]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:47:14 GMT

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

(about the comp.forsale hierarchy)

>the reason it is such a mess.  The problem was originally a single
>group with 100-200 articles per day that was very difficult to
>wade through.  The "solution" resulted in a split into several
>groups, so now one wades through a high percentage of the messages
>more than once, and in multiple groups.  (A net loss of
>functionality...) 
...

>It would appear to me... that if we decide it is likely that
>the hierarchy would ever be split into a number of groups along
>one of the above line or the other, then we should select that
>particular naming convention and go with it.  I suspect the concept
>of the first list of names (either by geography or ethnic division)
>is one that most people have been considering almost exclusively.
>I also suspect that if all other things were equal (e.g. if we
>could find a generic set of names that would not influence which
>way it goes) that the second set is actually more likely to be
>useful at some future time.

I agree, but I'm not sure that a .d newsgroup that's also specific
to an issue or even a geographic particular (although I think that
more containable discussion would have to do with the latter) would
be a good idea down the road:  a large part of the discussion on
alt.native seems to be sparked by informational and query posts that
gradually evolve into discussions, likewise on the NativeNet list.
There, the moderator(s) graciously move discussion to nn.chat, whereas
if the s.c.*.*.*  hierarchy were split into many specific issues-based
groups, moving discussion to a dedicated .d group might be awkward and
consumptive of somebody's time.  Maybe this would work:

soc.culture.<whatever>.general      for informationals on all issues
soc.culture.<whatever>.american     for discussion of NA issues
soc.culture.<whatever>.apocalypse   etc
soc.culture.<whatever>.d            for miscellaneous discussion

so that informational and query posts may be found in a .general group,
and its spinoff discussions land in .d, while room is left open for
specific native american or innu or cherokee discussion to be based.
If moderation is necessary to move discussion, it would be easier and
more compatible with NativeNet, whose link to the groups is IMHO a very
important component of what we should facilitate.  The .general might
link with nn.general, while the other link into nn.chat, which goes in
turn to .d on usenet.

Arlen
-- 
:-(-:-(-:-(-:-( speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu )-:-)-:-)-:-)-:
"Even now, we scarcely feel our hearts beat before they break in protest"
                                                         -Stanley Diamond
                                                                       --
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:31:09 GMT

In article <1gg5q1INNfn0@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>
stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>
> Renaming a group, in and of itself, has no effect on the
> contents of that group.
> 
No? Then why bother renaming groups at all? This notion of
'namespace purity' as a disconnected concept from how
the names affect how groups are located, read and posted
to is intriguing.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:21:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.125426.17747@ulrik.uio.no> jarleb@diana.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann) writes:
>1. What will go into this, I mean, what is really the most interesting
>   discussions here IMHO, are when someone is asking a rather "simple" 
>   question, and then get lots of replies. I don't see that as an 
>   easy task for a moderator. Usually, moderated groups are for posts
>   which seldom is followed up, and if they are, one need a discussion 

You should take a look at sci.math.research.  People ask questions and
they get replies.  What they don't get is a superfluity of replies.

If you want lively, extended discussions on the physics of our times, 
you might be disappointed.  Debate, in the sense of a presidential
debate, is not the way that serious math or physics is conducted.
Usually, you have your own opinions and when you air them people
understand them and agree with them, or not, and there's no interest
in further debate.  When people feel they might actually learn
something from an extended discussion, discussion is encouraged.

If you are a student or consumer of physics rather a producer, 
you would ideally get one or two abbreviated explanations in response
to your question plus some good references to textbooks.

>   Shall we create a s.p.research.d ?

I think there's already all the ".d" you might want in sci.physics.

I believe that anyone who wants to comment on sci.math.research
is free to do so in sci.math, but so far no discussion in
sci.math.research has been redirected to another group or broken
off prematurely.  The closest I can think of is a guy who had a long
stream of journal-style articles that became voluminous, and I personally
had doubts about their content.  What Dan Grayson did, although not in
response to my query, was suggest that he make his writings available
via anonymous ftp and Dan would post the location of the site.  I don't
know whether this plan was actually carried out.

>2. Will there be enough postings ? This is really no problem, but I'm 
>   not sure if people will use a group, where their questions will come 
>   up late, maybe a couple of days after posting  ?

Again you should look to the example of sci.math.research.  On
some days there is no traffic.  On other days there are five or so
postings, and most of them are potentially interesting.  But the
group doesn't look dead, just quiet.

Usually when I submit a posting it appears by the end of the day.
Sometimes it takes several days and this can get mildly frustrating,
but obviously a moderator has to take a break to go on a picnic or
whatever.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:14:55 GMT

peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>In article <Bz7Mqv.Inq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>> And just how long will it be before 200 people cast their votes for
>> rec.arts.binaries.pictures.erotica.* ?

>No, meathead, that's rec.binaries.pictures.arts.erotica.

Do I hear any comments for rec.binaries.pictures.dirty.female.drool.drool.drool?

Sorry...couldn't resist.  8)
--
Michael Adams				| Science without religion is lame;
Actuarial Science Program @ UIUC	| religion without science is blind.
StarOwl@uiuc.edu (NeXTmail OK)		| 		-- Thomas Edison
an692@anon.penet.fi (anonymously)	| NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv	     
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.baltic
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:58:40 GMT

In article <1gacd1INNltk@rodan.UU.NET> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>This is a request for discussion of creating of the newsgroup
>soc.culture.baltic, which I think is long overdue.

>The group would be unmoderated.

>The group would be devoted to the countries Estonia, Latvia and
>Lithuania, often lumped together under the label "The Baltic states".

>Topics would include culture, networking, language, politics,
>shortly anything you expect from a soc.culture.* group.

>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se

     I would very much like to see such a group, though I hope that the
BALT-L list is gated into it, even if the reverse is not done. 

							Peter Trei
							ptrei@MItre.org
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Mike Wilson)
Subject: Re: soc.culture.native.american
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 13 Dec 92 12:01:26 GMT

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


>I'm not in favor of restricting the "common vision" to just usenet,
>to just "america", or to just "indian" cultures.

>I am in favor of anything that increases distribution.  I am in
>favor of anything that increases participation.

>Are those things that we could call part of the "common vision", or
>not?  And are there others?

>Floyd
>-- 


Hello Floyd,

Good to hear from you again!  Let me hasten to say, first, that
I DO NOT envision this new newsgroup as for native people only.
From a concerned writer in an e-mail message, I learned that
I did indeed mis-speak, and not for the first time! (Nor for the
last, I fear) 

At Cornell University, we have recently built a new residence
house with the architectural motifs resembling both a longhouse
and an eagle.  At this house, we insisted from the first day of
of its design that it would house half native and half non-native
people so that we could create a cultural exchange.  The house
was called AKWE:KON, meaning "all of us," and I am committed
to that idea in the new newsgroup.

As for the new newsgroups relationship to any ListServ, such as
NativeNet or AISESNET, I'm really not sure t hat is within the 
purview of this discussion.  In my opinion (and I would welcome
input on this one), I think whether this new group should be
linked with such services should be decided BY THE USERS of
that group. Perhaps they wouldn't want to (I think that would
be a mistake), but I think it should be the decision of the 
group.

Andso when I expressed our common vision about this newsgroup,
I didn't pull it off the top of my head: I was being descriptive
of what had been expressed.  I believe that is our common vision
so far: from the mail and the posts, it clear that many people
want this newsgroup and virtually everyone wants to find an
appropriate name.

Thanks, Floyd. Talk to you again soon.

Mike

idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.cyber renaming and unmoderation
Organization: Chambers of the Archmage
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:43:06 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Richard M. Hartman (hartman@ulogic.UUCP) wrote:
: Wrong answer -- a clear definition should be part of the charter (yes,
: I know it's not been written yet).  You should HAVE a written charter
: that we can discuss, this seems more of a pre-RFD....

  I'm not intending to include a definition of cyberpunk in the charter.
It can't be defined so easily.

: Interesting.  We just promoted a proposed group from the smaller 
: definition to the more broad one during it's RFD period -- finally 
: passed as rec.games.mecha.
: 
: I am not really objecting to rec.games.frp.cyber, but if you already
: have a more generic group, why go backwards?  The generally accepted
: reason for a group split (which this would become) is high traffic
: for one portion (frp) that swamps conversation of other aspects.

  Because there is cyberpunk rpg traffic also in r.g.f.misc. As there
was discussion both about .cyber group and .shadowrun group, I decided
to go for the broader approach. SR makes a substantial part of .misc
traffic, but it's not the only cyberpunk game discussed.
  I think cyberpunk roleplaying games should have an own group since
they are quite far from other cyberpunkish games (don't know any, but
there surely are some).

: If I were you I'd change the proposal to just unmoderate r.g.cyber.
: Part of what we wanted in r.g.mecha was the ability to talk about
: other aspects than the frps (books, computer games, etc).  I'd suggest
: taking that tack w/ a modified charter to r.g.cyber (there are certainly
: a bunch of Shadowrun books -- which according to the restricted charter
: couldn't be discussed because r.g.f.cyber would be ONLY for the frps....)

  Wouldn't rec.arts.sf.written be a good place to discuss SR books?

  Well, I think the ballot will have one vote to unmoderate r.g.f, one
vote to remove it, and one to create r.g.f.cyber.

: (I still gotta get r.g.mecha on my feed -- thanks for reminding me! :)

  I have it already.. Got it as soon as was possible :-)
-- 
Elandal		(aka Ismo Peltonen)			| Hanuripolku 5B15
home (UUCP)	elandal@archtwr.tower.NullNet.FI	| 00420 Helsinki
Univ (internet)	ipeltone@cc.Helsinki.FI			| FINLAND
data		+358-0-5072005			voice	+358-0-537515
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Rename rec.music.maker.synth to rec.music.synth?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 02:45:40 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec12.012625.8335@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>While my position stands, I do _care_ about the users in both forums.
>(Those of you who flame that last statement _will_ be ignored)

(biting my tongue, and muffling the *poing* in the background) You sure have a
funny way of showing it.

>My question is...what do we do about this? I am prepared to gateway one
>group into the other if that is the only way we can resolve this 
>problem. 

How about:
1) completing the renaming
2) either fixing/reinstating the gateway to the SYNTH-L list, or, failing
that, establishing a new mailing list, gatewaying it to
rec.music.makers.synth, and posting several notices (enough to even satisfy
your standards of clarity and sufficiency) to SYNTH-L about the new list.

If you don't think this will solve the problem, be specific as to why not.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
From: idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Mike Wilson)
Subject: Re: soc.culture.native.american
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 13 Dec 92 03:03:17 GMT

gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

>I didn't say I opposed a person.  Rather I take strong exception with a
>proposal, since it appears to me to represent the antithesis of what I
>see us striving for as a group.  I simply find the proposed name to be
>unacceptable, for the reasons I stated in my previous article.

Hello Gary,

Good to hear from you again.  Let me begin once again by saying
I value your opinion because of your upwards of three years in 
managing the excellent organization NativeNet.  But I would hope that,
at this point in the discussion, very little will be considered
"unacceptable."  It is my sincere hope that whatever the concensus
decides will be acceptable to most everyone because we are working
toward the creation of a very worthwhile newsgroup.  In my own 
humble opinion, I don't think it is for one person to decide what
is acceptable or unacceptable for everyone involved in this 
discussion.  I would hope, instead, that we can move away from
the language of divisiveness and toward the language of concensus.

>I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible,
>but I think that sometimes it's fair to ask a person what his or her
>real interests might be.  If we don't share a common vision, it will
>be very difficult to agree on a means to come up with a plan that
>serves that vision.

Within the parameters of this USENET discussion, I believe the 
common vision is quite clear: 1) the creation of a newsgroup for
native peoples and 2) naming this group so that it is logical,
it is good for us native people, and it is good for others like
you who will have direct contact with it through NativeNet and
still others who feel the name affects them in other ways.

>Good advice, Mike.  I think we should all keep it in mind.  But I
>think we should not be afraid of requiring good reasons for certain
>proposals, nor of using sound logic in evaluating them.

Absolutely, Gary -- and not only should we hear the "logic" of 
these suggestions, but also heartfelt considerations.  I think that
may be one of the main difficulties of naming this group;
it combines the logic of computer hierarchies with a highly     
emotional issue: reason and emotion, head and heart -- and so on.

Because we are in such a tight spot, perhaps it would be wise for
us to put forth our own positions in a POSITIVE manner rather than
feeling the need to chop someone else down -- in other
words, to engage in the language of peace instead of the language
of war.

Let me know what you think, Gary.


Mike

idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot
Reply-To: rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Organization: Design Systems Division, Evans & Sutherland, SLC, UT
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 05:23:28 GMT

In article <1gjc0uINN2qa@news.UU.NET>
	brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:
>I would like to propose a newsgroup for the patriot movement in the U.S.
>This would include discussions on rights violations by legislation, gold 
>and silver as payment for debts, freedom organizations and many other basic 
>US Constitutional topics.

I think there are existing newsgroups that cover this.  A quick grep
of my newsrc file shows these groups that could be used:

    alt.politics.elections
    alt.politics.libertarian
    alt.politics.reform
    alt.politics.usa.constitution
    alt.politics.usa.misc
    talk.politics.guns
    talk.politics.misc
    talk.politics.theory

Much of what you are mention is already discussed in these groups (and
possibly others).  Of course there is the volume problem with
t.p.misc.

							-- Rich
-- 
		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
Xref: sparky news.groups:24176 alt.native:1386
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: soc.culture.native.american
Date: 13 Dec 92 06:35:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Dec13.063502.9391
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <idoy.724215797@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Mike Wilson) writes:
>gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

>>I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible,
>>but I think that sometimes it's fair to ask a person what his or her
>>real interests might be.  If we don't share a common vision, it will
>>be very difficult to agree on a means to come up with a plan that
>>serves that vision.

>Within the parameters of this USENET discussion, I believe the 
>common vision is quite clear: 1) the creation of a newsgroup for
>native peoples and 2) naming this group so that it is logical,
>it is good for us native people, and it is good for others like
>you who will have direct contact with it through NativeNet and
>still others who feel the name affects them in other ways.

I think we need more discussion of exactly what the "common vision"
is.

We need, in my opinion, to consider more than just Usenet.  We do
need to consider the effect of mailing list participation because
it is 1) being offered, 2) has a history, and 3) has been very
effective in relation to alt.native and increasing the quantity
and the quality of both participants and discussion.

We need to consider the effect of restricting the group in various
ways, both by choice of a charter, and by choice of a name.  IMHO
we need more than anything else to increase the participation and
that means not just distribution (i.e. mailing lists and a main
stream usenet group), but also increasing the attraction.

We could create one group for each native culture.  The traffic
in all of them put together would not be as interesting or as
enlightening as it would be if we make just one group that includes
all.  All put together they create a group with enough volume and
enough attraction to be a much better service to each of us than
one group designed for each different culture.

I'm not in favor of restricting the "common vision" to just usenet,
to just "america", or to just "indian" cultures.

I am in favor of anything that increases distribution.  I am in
favor of anything that increases participation.

Are those things that we could call part of the "common vision", or
not?  And are there others?

Floyd
-- 
floyd@ims.alaska.edu        A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska              system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.