HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:47:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: stanley.1bmv6vINNo0c
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Oct16.023231.5804@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
>In article <1bhtqdINNqiu@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU>, plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak) writes:
>>    Judging by my recent posting to comp.windows.misc which did exactly
>> what you describe, it will have absolutely no effect.  Of the thirty or so
>> articles which followed mine, only about two of them were not MS-Windows-
>> specific.
>
>Did you put an expiration date on it?  My suggestion was to put an
>expiration date some time into the future on it (say a month or so),...

  Would putting an expiration date sometime in the future (I certainly
didn't put one sometime in the past :-) on it cause it to hang around
longer than if no date was set?  (I'm ignorant about how articles are
expired.)  Even so, the number of misposted articles which followed
during only the next week make me believe it wouldn't make a difference.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes)
Subject: NAPLPS Newsgroup
Organization: Old Colorado City Communications (oldcolo.com - login "newuser")
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:46:05 GMT

        Let me see if I have the rules straight. Because a growing 
number of us across the country want to add a newsgroup on the 
NAPLPS graphics standard to our deliberations.
        Naplps, of course is the ANSI, Canadian Communications 
Board, standard for the encoding of animated graphics and text for 
telecom. And its an extension of the ISO 2022 Standard for 7 and 8
bit extension. So it international. The only thing it has been 
really used for these past 10 years or so has been one-way 
'videotex' instead of truely interactive graphics. Prodigy uses the 
standard (so people with monochrome Macs can see the same frames 
that people with super vga are looking at). And others.
        But with the explosion of interest in online graphics 
brought about by better graphics on PCs, faster modems, more 
networks, color macs, vga pc's, and the opening up of 'vertical' 
communications between Usenet, the Internet, Bitnet, LAN setups, and 
BBSs via gateways a lot of scattered developers, implementors, 
sysops, would like to communicate about the standard, software that 
implements it, conversion possibilities, new developments, etc.
        For example, Indians on numerous reservations in Montana and 
South Dakota are doing original, stunning, Indian Art in NAPLPS and 
posting it on remote BBSs as 'share art.' (Online Access magazine 
ran an illustrated story on it recently) Dr. Johnston, physicist at 
MIT, is using NAPLPS to prepare an online high-school course in 
Physics, with full color graphics. Canadians use Naplps in Thailand 
to represent Thai language characters on MSDOS machines for distance 
learning. And 300 courses at Guelph University outside Toronto are
based on Naplps graphics. Weather maps for rated pilots are 
available in Naplps format by telecom. Dr Chen of University of 
Colorado has graduate students working on an X-Window implementation 
of Naplps. And Boardwatch Magazine has been reporting on the growing 
instances of its incorporation into software and online systems.
         So the interest is widespread and growing. It seems 
appropriate to add a newsgroup to the dialogue between the scattered 
persons working with the standard, those who fill my e-mail box with 
questions on it, and those who have never heard of it.
        So the choices are going for a vote on comp.graphics.naplps
or starting with an alt.naplps. (Already Arts Wire magazine would 
like a 'naplps.arts' variation of the naplps_graphics Cnews group we 
have on our own system, for they don't want to talk bits and bytes, 
but online art and theater).
        If I go through the ritual of announcing it 
(comp.graphics.naplps), let it simmer for 30 days, then call for a 
vote, it takes 100 more votes yes than no, and 2/3ds of all yes to 
create it. Right?
        And if this fails on the first go around, then does that 
prejudice setting it up as an alt.naplps group with less formality?
From: gtd543a@prism.gatech.EDU (death)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.binaries.ms-windows moderated
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:34:29 GMT
Organization: Fool's Paradise
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I like the idea of a comp.binaries.ms-windows - as long as a good
moderator is found.  If one such as the current c.b.i.p. is selected,
then the newsgroup traffic will be so small that there will be no need
to even create the newsgroup...
-- 
Jeff M. Garzik                    |
25861 Georgia Tech Station        | "Only sheep need a leader"
Atlanta, GA  30332                |                       - Nomeansno
E-Mail: gtd543a@prism.gatech.edu  |
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:53:21 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC


  Other responses not withstanding, administration and use and source
code for BSDI and BSDJ are identical for any given hardware platform.
An alleged difference that makes no difference isn't a real
difference.  There is no reason to split comp.unix.bsd along political
lines as has been proposed.

  Down with politics, adhere to the spirit of the guidelines and
wait 6 months before proposing this again !

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rwberry@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert W Berry)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.marching
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:28:03 GMT

fath1@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Fath) writes:
>There were no replies to my earlier post about colorguards so let me ask again,
>are there colorguard fans out there?
>is alt.colorguard a sufficient forum for them?

Well, yes and no.  Since our alt hierarchy seems to be somewhat
transient here, I think I would make use of the rec hierarchy group for
WGI posts.

(This is one of the biggest reasons I object to including drumcorps in
the group name, IMHO, it really should reflect the entire sprectrum of
marching arts and split into subgroups if traffic is sufficient.)

>Should there be a r.a.m.misc to include bands and colorguard, etc. or is a
>r.a.m.bands a better more informative name?

Personally, I think rec.arts.marching should suffice for now, and once
again, split into subgroups if traffic is sufficient.

There are a number of groups that function quite well with a wide
variety of topics, I don't why this should be a problem here.

>Lastly, I volunteered to be an advocate for the formation of these groups.  So
>far I have not seen anybody post a message to say that r.a.m.drumcorps should
>NOT be created.  Does anyone have reservations?  Post them now or forever
>hold your peace.

I definitely think we need a group in the main hierarchy.  And I don't
really think anyone will be against the creation of such a group.
However, we've tried to create a group before and failed because of a
lack of numbers.  (Not because people objected, but because there
weren't enough people for the group in the first place.)

I'm hoping enough people are around with marching experience to change
this.

Later,
Bob

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=- Bob Berry -=- Net-Guru's Inc.        ! rwberry@hubcap.clemson.edu   -=-
-=- Teach them quick, before they think. ! 803-654-7623 || 803-656-1076 -=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:58:30 GMT

In article <92282.134511ICSAFF@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Allen French <ICSAFF@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>I also think it is time to bring this to a vote. Let's get it settled so
>we can go back to discussing music. Who is going to run the vote? Allen

I think it's premature, because I haven't seen a concrete
proposal, including charters for any new groups and a
proposal to remove rec.music.bluenote.

The charters and such are supposed to be written and
discussed during the discussion started with the RFD.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: sold@kit.uni-kl.de (Christoph Sold)
Subject: Re: MacApp Straw Poll Result
Organization: Universitaet Kaiserslautern
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:30:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.140958.10083@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
>werner@soe.berkeley.edu (John Werner) writes:
>
>>Comp.sys.mac.oop.macapp3 is the winner, so I'll use it as the group name in
>>the Call For Votes.  I'll also a include a vote for comp.sys.mac.oop.misc
>>on the ballot.  This will make some of the Usenet purists happy and will
>>provide a place for discussions on TCL and other such things.
>
>    I haven't taken part in this discussion, but I have been following
>it, and I still don't understand why you need to gateway the mailing
>list to the newsgroup.

Of course, if you have not yet read the mailing list, you cannot know what 
is in it. It should be widely know *all* of the MacApp gurus are on this 
list, so if there any though questions, you want them to listen. I think 
they wont read c.s.m.p because of the lot of non-MacApp questions there, 
which is a great deal of noise for the real MacAppers out here.

>>Having said all this, I'm not very optimistic about the newgroup passing. 
>>It takes 100 more Yes votes than No votes, and I only got 60 votes _total_
>>on the straw poll.  So if you want to see this group created, please send
>>in your vote when the time comes (but NOT right now :-).
>
>    You would get a lot more support if you changed the name to
>c.s.m.oop.macapp and dropped the gateway. This way the group can stand
>on its own and the mailing list can do so as well. And for those who
>would read both the list and the group, they would probably benefit the
>most from this. If you gateway the list to the group all you will really
>accomplish is having a whole lot more people lurking instead of getting
>a large influx of new posters.

I disagree. There *is* already a lifely, interesting mailing list about 
MacApp. Unfortunately, it runs on AppleLink, which is not in everyone's 
budget (don't forget students or hooyists). Don't expect the experts to 
switch to INTERNET only because there is *another* discussion group. We all 
have the chance to merge them into the INTERNET, so let's take it. 

>--
>-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 

-Christoph

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christoph P. Sold                   CATS Software GmbH
                                    Mussbacher Landstr.2
sold@kit.uni-kl.de                  W-6730 Neustadt (Weinstrasse)
ger.xse0035@applelink.apple.com     Germany

"If an apple is fun, what the heck is an appletree?"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.archives.msdos.announce moderated and comp.archives.msdos.d
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.214812.11989@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
|In article <1992Oct7.130217.12582@zip.eecs.umich.edu> huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins) writes:
|>Question: what will happen to CBIPA?
|>Is it proposed to leave it alone as-is (and thus overlap the proposed
|>group in content area) or remove it?
|
|This dilemma kept us stalled for quite awhile and delayed the RFD
|before we suddenly realized that we were trying to cover too many
|things at one go.  Thus the current RFD is on creating
|  comp.archives.msdos.announce (moderated)
|  comp.archives.msdos.d

Sounds reasonable.  If there's more consensus surrounding the new
groups than what to do with the old one, it probably makes sense
to proceed with the new groups and leave the old one alone for now.

(Besides, recent experience with a group 'renaming' has led me to
believe in a new axiom: Old newsgroups never die, they just fade away...)
-- 
Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan                          huggins@eecs.umich.edu
"You cannot pray to a personal computer no matter how user-friendly it is."
                                                          -- W. Bingham Hunter
From: jcargill@oka.cs.wisc.edu (Jon Cargille)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:57:43 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison CS Dept

In article <3883@ra.nrl.navy.mil> atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes:
>
>  Other responses not withstanding, administration and use and source
>code for BSDI and BSDJ are identical for any given hardware platform.
>An alleged difference that makes no difference isn't a real
>difference.  There is no reason to split comp.unix.bsd along political
>lines as has been proposed.

Many people have gotten on a soapbox about the "politics" of a split.
I support a split, but without a political reason.  I'm not a 386bsd
user (yet, though I probably will be one day), and thus haven't yet
pledged my first-born to the Jolitz's...  :-)

However, though I want to read about both 386bsd and bsd in general, I
would prefer to read about them in two separate groups.  Keeping the
traffic in separate groups helps me deal with the volume better.  In
addition, there are many issues being discussed for 386bsd which
aren't relevant to other bsd users.  The most obvious example of this
is the constant flurry of "installation" problems.  Why should people
interested in general bsd discussion be subjected to that?

Where should the new group go?  Well, several suggestions have been
made.  Some favor having it under the bsd hierarchy, others under the
comp.os hierarchy.  I think I favor comp.os, though I'm not going to
get religious about it.  There is plenty of precedent (comp.os.linux,
for example), and I can understand people not wanting it under
comp.unix, in light of the current AT&T suit.  In general, though, I'm
not too particular.  I think a new group will be an improvement,
regardless of where it gets put.


>  Down with politics, adhere to the spirit of the guidelines and
>wait 6 months before proposing this again !
>

This is a BOGUS comment about the 6 month rule.  The rule requires
that a RFD and a CFV take place.  If the vote doesn't take place,
there is no time limit before the issue can be raised again.  

In the case of a new 386bsd group, neither an official RFD nor a CFV
ever took place.  Let's get a handle on the letter of law, before we
worry about the "spirit" you refer to.  Read the guidelines.

Jon
-- 
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Jon Cargille		jcargill@cs.wisc.edu
Want your .sig compressed?  Reasonable rates
and fast turnaround. Call today!
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote
From: wjh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (william.j.hery)
Subject: r.m.blues-that-isnt-jazz?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:18:48 GMT

I've tried not too get into the semiannual r.m.blues split debate again, but
I think the heart of the rhetoric seems to be what is meant by "the blues"
(which is another periodic r.m.bluenote discussion). Without trying to get
into a formal definition, let me quote a recent posting:

>(1) Many people are only interested in EITHER jazz OR blues, but not both.

And I (and many others here, the editors of Cadence, down beat, Wire, Jazz
Times) would contend that such an exclusive or does not make sense. Basie
played the blues; Bird played the blues; Miles played the blues; Trane
played the blues; Ornette plays the blues.

>(3) Many people find it very easy to distinguish between blues and jazz in
>    practice.

or as Richard Shapiro put it, even those of us who think Bird plays the
blues know to look for Bird playing the blues would look in the jazz
section, not the blues section.

I agree with Richard that in many (but not all) cases, we know which section
to look for things in. There is a definition in the commercial world
that for lack of a better term I will call blues-that-isnt-jazz (still
inaccurate, but closer than just blues) that people seem to be using
when they want to split off rec.music.blues. Is there a better term?
Traditional blues comes to mind, but what about contemporaries like
Stevie Ray Vaughn, etc.

If there is to be a split (which I oppose, but not strongly), maybe
the new group should be rec.music.blues-that-isnt-jazz or 
rec.music.trad-blues; rec.music.blues is too ambiguous. And the
"jazz" group should still be rec.music.bluenote, IMHO.

Bill Hery
AT&T Bell Labs
201-386-2362
hery@att.COM
From: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (Code-03 LCDR Michael E. Dobson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.windows reorganization
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:52:53 GMT
Organization: Naval Medical Research & Development Command

In article <383@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>How would changing "windows" to "windowing" help.  The MSWindows people 
>still need a place to post.  The reorg should take this into account, and
>perhaps think ahead for Windows-NT and OS-2 (not really certain whether
>NT & MS-WIN need different groups or not, haven't got ahold of the NT
>API, but I *think* it's supposed to be a different animal...)
>
If:(from my active file)

comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy 0000002406 02337 y
comp.os.ms-windows.announce 0000000063 00060 m
comp.os.ms-windows.apps 0000003610 03391 y
comp.os.ms-windows.misc 0000003953 03775 y
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc 0000002806 02637 y
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools 0000001101 01077 y
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 0000001425 01338 y
comp.os.ms-windows.setup 0000001589 01531 y

isn't enough for the MSWindows types, then nothing is.  Unless windows or
any variation is totaly taken out of the newsgroup name, you won't be able
to keep them out of the other groups.
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:34:02 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Oct5.222430.12533@netcom.com> kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
>
>I propose instead that we place it in the "misc" hierarchy: how about
>"misc.health.alternative"?  "health" would fit right in with the other
>misc groups: "consumers", "education", "jobs", "kids", "legal", etc.
>
I think that is a good suggestion.  Most of the alternative schools
of thought seem to stress the idea of practicing some discipline
to stay healthy rather than remedies (perhaps chinese medicine and
herbalism being the exceptions), even chiropractic.  

>I volunteer to facilitate: I can help draft a charter, provide technical
>help with email or setting up FAQ lists, etc.

I was hoping someone who is more a proponent of these therapies
would do so.  My main motivation is to get the level of flaming
down in sci.med by giving the alternative people a place to go
to discuss their stuff and leaving us to discuss scientific medicine.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Create a killfile? AAAAAAAARGH!
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:04:17 GMT
Organization: negligable

Then someone should get fed up enough to implement kill files for
Waffle (or whoever else need's 'em).

Note: I still support the "remote killfile" concept so the feed
site doesn't send the article in the first place.  It's not that
I don't want to see the article -- I don't even want to waste
the time getting it sent to me over the phone.

BUT that is still no excuse for whining for the change just because
"I don't have a kill file and Johnny does".  If you want a change
come up w/ a decent reason for it (like the one above) instead of
just complaining that your deficiency must be deferred to.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And when you stop and think about it	|
(you won't believe it's true)		|	-Richard Hartman	
That all the love you've been giving	|	hartman@uLogic.COM
has all been meant for you.		|
From: lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert Lenoil)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: MacApp Straw Poll Result
Date: 8 Oct 92 07:30:52 GMT
Organization: Catalogic, Mountain View, California [Voice: 415-961-4649]

In article <1992Oct6.140958.10083@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@Dartmouth.Edu writes:
>    I haven't taken part in this discussion, but I have been following
>it, and I still don't understand why you need to gateway the mailing
>list to the newsgroup.

Because the mailing list originates on AppleLink and AppleLink subscribers
have no access to newsgroups. The mailing list subscribers include some of the
most knowledgeable MacApp people around, and the newsgroup would benefit from
the AppleLink users being able to respond to questions. I have access to both
USENET and the AppleLink mailing list, and if a macapp newsgroup were created
that wasn't gatewayed to the mailing list I'd stick with the mailing list and
not subscribe to the group.

Robert Lenoil
Vice President, MADA (formerly MacApp Developers Association)
From: jcargill@oka.cs.wisc.edu (Jon Cargille)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.386bsd
Summary: comp.os.386bsd for now...
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:34:18 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison CS Dept

In article <1bj48cINN63t@daisy.ee.und.ac.za> barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett) writes:
>In article <1bbti9INNoh2@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) quotes me and writes:
>> > Right.  And they all belong under comp.os.unix.  No smiley.
>> 
>> comp.os.unix?  Now I don't follow you.  You think it should be:
>> comp.os.unix.mach  comp.os.unix.linux  comp.etc etc etc
>
>Yes, that's what I think.
>
>> I guess I am having a hard time using your position to construct a
>> viable proposal in my head.
>
>It would probably have to be done in stages.  First move
>comp.unix.* to comp.os.unix.*, and if the vote passes then
>start moving all the comp.os.<unix-by-any-other-name> groups to
>comp.os.unix.<unix-by-any-other-name>.
>

Well, if we're going to have this massive re-organization at some time
in the future, why don't we just include 386bsd in it *at that time*.
What I'd prefer to see is the creation of comp.os.386bsd now, and deal
with the change-over to this "new organization" at the same time all
the other groups are being changed-over.

>In the mean time, adding new comp.unix.* groups, such as
>comp.unix.bsd.386bsd, is reasonable.

So basically what you're saying is that the 386bsd group should be
subjected to this "new organization" before all the other groups for
<unix-by-any-other-name>.  Is that fair?  Suppose for a moment that
none of the other reorganization passes...  Then only 386bsd would be
affected.

I would prefer to see this reorganization dealt with at *one* time,
not piece-meal.  Let's create comp.os.386bsd now...

Jon
-- 
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Jon Cargille		jcargill@cs.wisc.edu
Want your .sig compressed?  Reasonable rates
and fast turnaround. Call today!