HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.friends
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:48:21 GMT

In article <BJORN.B.LARSEN.92Sep9092315@engels.delab.sintef.no> bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes:
>In article <BuAIu1.4rF@uunet.uu.net> andyrose@netcom.com (San Francisco Fractal Factory) writes:
>
>> Request discussion regarding soc.Friends or soc.religion.Friends
>> as an avenue for communication of some literature regarding the life
>> of members of Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).  This
>> would mainly include publication of American Friends Service Committee
>> media spec. Quaker Service Bulletin, AFSC Resources, regional office notes,
>> Annual Report, electronic and standard contacts, local meeting 
>> minutes, Right Sharing of World Resources, Criminal Justice and Prison 
>> Reform, and guides to travelling friends.
>
>May I suggest that you change the name? I am not sure that everybody
>outside America have the same interpretation of "[fF]riends" as you
>do. When I read the subject line I thought you were suggesting a forum
>for seeking friends. Like pen pals (sp?).

But under soc.religion?

>Maybe soc.religion.quakers would be better.

I thought the same thing, at first, but it occurred to me that since
I'm not a Quaker, I have very little perspective on the naming
question here.  Perhaps it is more common among Quakers to refer to
themselves as in the Society of Friends.  In that case,
"soc.religion.quakers" would be less appropriate, and
"soc.religion.friends" would be instantly recognizable to anyone In
The Know.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: timv@ccad.uiowa.edu (Timothy VanFosson)
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Organization: CAD-Research, U. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:28:52 GMT

From article <1992Sep10.151810.18609@nevada.edu>, by jamesb@nevada.edu (James Bender):
> In article <BuBy7w.C0C@uunet.uu.net> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>>Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
>>are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
>>in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
>>rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
>>these groups to rec.music.makers, creating another group, and renaming
>>an existing group.
> 
> 	I think we should just leave well enough alone. If it aint broke, 
> don't fix it.

From my perspective, since we don't get the alt.* tree, it is "broke",
so let's fix it.
-- 
Timothy VanFosson                             E-mail   : timv@ccad.uiowa.edu
Senior Systems Analyst                        US Mail  : CAD-Research
University of Iowa                                       228 ERF
Phone: (319) 335-5728   FAX: (319) 335-6061              Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: stolz@fnusgd.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.scouting.activities, rec.scouting.policy
Organization: P.S.C.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:22:30 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnusgd.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep15.184853.1376@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, mayne@phi.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) writes:
> The attempt to split rec.scouting is nothing but the attempt of
> reactionaries to have a group free from anti-discrimination
> viewpoints which they do not wish to see. It is pure hypocricy
> and unless the non-policy group is moderated it will not accomplish
> its desired anti-free speech pro-discrimination purpose. I will
> vote against it in any case just like I would vote against alt.kkk.
> 

Frankly, I'm for the rec.scouting split, primarily because of opinions and
assumptions like the one expressed by Bill.  Just because I'm an active Scouter
in the BSA DOESN'T mean that I'm for discrimination.  Personnaly, I plan on
reading both groups, but as a Cubmaster, I expect to post and respond only to
the .activities group.  It's fairly obvious (to me at least) that lots of 
scouting folk are 'babes in the woods' when it comes to computers and 
newsreaders.  The intensity of some of the threads in rec.scouting have 
convinced them that it's not worth subscribing to.  This is MY loss - I'm 
always in need of new and innovative program ideas, and can't get them from
folks who have 'given up' on the only available news group.

For the record, I'm not happy about recommending the split, but will vote for
it when the time comes.  (And, if anyone cares, I'm not happy about the
current BSA policies concerning membership restrictions, and will vote against
that too if the opportunity ever arises).

Mike Stolz
***********************************************************************
*  BITNET: STOLZ@FNAL           INTERNET: STOLZ@FNBOOT.FNAL.GOV
*  Phone:  708-840-8060         
*  MS:     120                  Wilson Hall 8 East
*  FermiLab,  P.O. Box 500,  Batavia, IL  60510
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.boycotts.calls moderated, talk.boycotts.misc
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:14:32 GMT

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

[...]
>I think it would be more like people looking at the headers (or
>reading the articles) of talk.boycotts.calls, then judging from the
>calls whether they're interested in the boycotts and if they are, they
>would read the discussion in talk.boycotts.misc.  It seems pointless
>to force people to wade thru lots of dicussion on boycotts they are
>not interested in.

Taken to an extreme every subject should have two newsgroups:
*.new-topic and *.discussion. People could then look at the headers
(or read the articles) of *.new-topic, then they would use the article
to judge whether they're interested in the topic and if they are, they
would read the discussion in *.discussion. This way we would not force
people to wade thru lots of discussion on topics they are not
interested in.

Obviously this extreme is too extreme. So when is a separate
"announce/call" newsgroup justified? I think when 1) follow ups are
unlikely to be of interest most readers (for example, a follow up to a
conference announcement is unlikely to be generally interesting) or 2)
when any given person is likely only interested in a few articles (for
example, I have almost no interest in most articles in new.groups, so
news.announce.newgroups helps me find the few I do care about).

Different people will have different feelings about how
talk.boycotts.misc fits these criteria. I think most would agree that
follow ups are likely to be interesting (since boycotts involve a
controversy), so it comes down to this: will most people only be
interested in a few boycotts or will most people be interested in many
boycotts?

I think that most people (who are interested in boycotts at all) will
be interested in many boycotts. Every boycott, by design, tries to
interest many people. They often touch issues that many people care
about: values, free expression, discrimination, worker and employer
rights. Consider these examples: America Family Association's boycott
of the advertisers of Saturday Night Live, the boycott by many Boy
Scout of America supporters of Levi's, the boycott of table grapes to
protest the condition of farm workers.

I guess I will vote "yes" on talk.boycotts.misc and abstain from the
vote on talk.boycotts.call. I encourage people who plan on regularly
reading talk.boycotts.misc to vote yes/abstain. People who plan on
regularly reading only talk.boycotts.call should vote "yes" on both.
Thus, the final vote tally will tell us if there is enough interest in
the second group to make its creation worthwhile.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: rec.games.abstract
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:08:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.193013.15895@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu (Not A Random Name) writes:
>Well, I think the heirarchy should go something like this:
>
>	rec.games.board (current group, limited to BOARD games)
>	rec.games.computer (Any computer games, NOT home video games)
>	rec.games.misc (Everything else)
>
>Now the problem is moving all the computer traffic out of misc, and
>defining what a board game is.  What I would say is that a board game
>is something along the lines of Monopoly or Clue, but not Chess or Go
>or checkers, those go in misc with Pente and Othello and other
>"abstract" games.

Chess, Go, Checkers, Pente and Othello ARE board games.  You have a
*board* and some pieces.  r.g.misc is the wrong place; it's the pool
for those games that don't have a better fitting group, that are neither
computer nor board nor video games, like card games.
For checkers, r.g.board is definitely a better place than r.g.misc
(judging from the group name).  Judging from the sort of traffic there,
r.g.abstract would be even better than that.
Besides, chess and go already have their own newsgroups.

>
>Then the trouble is a game like "Scrabble" or "Trivial Pursuit."  I
>would put them in board, others would put them in misc.  I don't see
>anyway to avoid that except to just make a decision.
>
>NOTE:  Home video games go in rec.games.video, right?
>
>Basically, I think if you get the computer game traffic out of misc,
>both misc and board will be managable for anyone to read both groups.
>The devision is already there, so why complicate things?

Because abstract board games like checkers are not misc but board (or abstract).
If you search for info about a board game, would you look at r.g.misc when
there is r.g.board at hand?  That's not logical.

>Just create rec.games.computer and be done with it.  As a matter of fact,
>I was looking for rec.games.computer earlier today, since I didn't think
>rec.games.misc would be the place to ask about Ultima VI.

I think you are right that r.g.computer would be nice, since r.g.misc is too
undefined but mostly consists of computer games.  On the other side, the
traffic there is not overwhelming.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.autos.antique
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 03:58:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.210125.8004@mcnc.org> brooks@mcnc.org (Ted Brooks) writes:
>
>A good, generally accepted definition. However, as is currently the case in
>a.a.a, let's not flame the person who is doing a correct frame-off restoration
>of a 23 or 24 year old car.

    I didn't.  I did send mail to a person who was extolling the
    virtues of a 12 year old car, however.  Could it have been someone
    else?

>>    *  Discussion concerning location of parts for an antique auto.
>And location of services unique to antique autos.

    I added this verbatim.

>>    *  Antique autos for sale or wanted.
>And parts for sale/wanted.

    And this.....

>>    *  Questions and comment regarding antique car restoration.
>Including materials, products, techniques, etc. Also, proper care and
>maintenance of features unique to antique autos.

    Added "care and" after car..

>>Rec.autos.antique shall NOT be for the discussion for the non-stock
>
>Also, this should not be for the discussion of "Brand X is a better car than
>Brand Y".

    You really think this will be a problem?  Personally, I wouldn't
    mind seeing a discussion of Packard vs. Cadillac in 1949 and the
    like.

>I also liked the part in the a.a.a charter that stated the car should be one
>you consider your friend instead of just transportation. 

    I kind of added this back in.

>The a.a.a group has an excellent signal-to-noise
>ratio, and very few flame wars - I'd like to see it stay that way.

    Yeah, I guess I'm the only troublemaker around <grin>.

--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files!           Gerry Swetsky  WB9EBO  |
|                 vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet                    |
| Home (708)833-8122       vpnet (708)833-8126      lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: peter@merlin.acadiau.ca (Peter Steele)
Subject: Bogus newsgroups
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:32:47 GMT

I acquired a copy if the "official" list of USENET newsgroups,
including the standard hierarchy as well as the alt and local
groups. There are many groups not included in that list (dated
Sept. 5). For example, alt.feminism wasn't listed, but I know
this group is an active group. The articles are now being posted
to "junk" of course. What I'd like to know is is there any sense
to even bother with trying maintain up up-to-date active file?
--
Peter Steele        Unix Services Manager            peter.steele@acadiau.ca 
Acadia Univ., Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P 1X0  902-542-2201  Fax: 902-542-4364
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.boycotts.calls moderated, talk.boycotts.misc
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:29:07 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Sep9.162433.759@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, wald@theory (David Wald) writes:
>Also, speaking as one who hasn't followed the too closely, I'm
>wondering if misc.consumers.boycotts[.*] was proposed?  Also, what's
>the status of discussion on misc.activism.boycotts[.*]?

I think someone proposed misc.consumers, but the talk hierarchy seems
more suitable for the topic.  I suppose also misc.activism was
mentioned, but the word "activism" apparently has some connotations in
the minds of many which would narrow the readership.  Talk.boycotts.*
seems best to me.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.tamil ...
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 23:41:17 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep14.205220.24166@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>In article <BuFCIE.Evq@news.orst.edu>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>> >Are such improper behaviours on part of the vote taker and co-organizers
>> >not sufficient to ask for a revote ?
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> >Are there any guidelines on vote taker selection which were violated ?
>> 
>> No.
>
>I disagree.

That is your perogative...However, since it appears that the majority
of the net is in opposition to your viewpoint, it's something akin to
spitting into the wind...

>Alok

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  quirk@pioneer.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.boycotts.calls moderated, talk.boycotts.misc
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:58:20 GMT

jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

>Like [misc.activism.progressive],
>it would simply be a source of information that one could get
>to without wading through all kinds of discussion.
[...]

Should *all* newsgroups be split in two: one newsgroup for original
posting and one for follow ups? I think this is all that
*.boycotts.{calls/misc} does.

The value of misc.activism.progressive comes not from it's lack of
follow ups, but from the judgment of its human moderator.
*.boycotts.call would not have a human moderator.

I think we need only one boycotts newsgroup. I will vote for
*.boycotts.misc and will abstain on *.boycotts.call.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.boycotts.calls moderated, talk.boycotts.misc
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:25:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.173204.641@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, spm2d@uvacs (Steven Miale) writes:
>After discussion has ended, and it turns out that the boycott
>was based on factual information, then it could be posted - 
>but the announcement should also include a rebuttal by those
>who don't think the boycott should take effect. Thus,
>t.b.calls would be more like a digest rather than a one-sided
>newsgroup as has been proposed.

There's a good point here, but how would it be chosen just what to
choose to put in t.b.calls?  I don't see a good way to do that and
avoid the impartiality problem.

//Jyrki
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.poems.urdu
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:03:38 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

In article <BuL5vr.Hv1@uunet.uu.net> ali@simserver1.mentorg.com (Ali Haveliwala) writes:
>CREATION of "rec.arts.poems.urdu"

Damn! That's one more newsgroup I'm going to have to read.
BTW, wouldn't rec.arts.poetry.urdu be better, since a ghazal
is poetry but not necessarily a poem.  I can think of a few
other other names as well.  Good luck.

j n a
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.groups
Subject: Re: news.test: global rmgroup, or make it valid?
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:29:37 GMT
Organization: Xanth Watch

michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:

>I could go either way on the issue, but something should probably
>be done.  Granted, sending the rmgroup control message probably won't
>remove it from all sites, but it couldn't hurt.  Then again, perhaps
>there's value in having a news.test group in addition to misc.test...

I have access to ~10 test groups at my site, I can't really see the need
for another one.
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.tamil ...
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:27:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.152305.13248@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>In article <6494@armltd.uucp>, dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal) writes:
>
>> And, so far as I am aware, you have only presented evidence that he did so
>> before the start of the voting period, when it was quite legitimate for him
>> to do so. 
>
>Legitimate perhaps ( I mean guidelines wise), but certainly improper.

No. Before the vote, everyone has the right to speak.

>> If you have evidence that he (rather than his friends) made such
>> comments during the voting period (rather than before or after it), please
>> make it public. Otherwise, you don't have a case.
>
>I have not been able to procure the requested evidence as I do not have access
>to emails/calls etc from and to him.

Then stop making claims that you cannot prove. 

>Now, don't you think the vote taker comments before the vote were improper.

No.

>Or to be more specific, wasn't it inappropriate for him to select himself
>as the vote taker after making such comments ?

No.

>Furthermore wasn't it inappropriate for his co-organizers to do 'canvassing'
>of votes during the vote using similar lines ?

No.

>Now once again this may be legitimate (guidelines wise), but to me
>it seems improper behaviour.

I have yet to see you admit that canvassing for votes DURING a vote BY
the vote-taker is improper. How you can now argue that doing it BEFORE
the vote starts is improper is beyond comprehension. If it wasn't
improper for YOU to do it while the vote was in progress, then you have
no right to whine about someone else doing it before the vote starts.

>Are such improper behaviours on part of the vote taker and co-organizers
>not sufficient to ask for a revote ?

No.

>Are there any guidelines on vote taker selection which were violated ?

No.

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.sun.sunnet.manager
Organization: Penn State Population Research Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 22:50:41 GMT

In article <BuL6nL.Ip3@uunet.uu.net> rlg@desktalk.com (Richard L. Gralnik) writes:
>Request For Discussion
>Proposed Newsgroup:  comp.sys.sun.sunnet.manager (open to discussion of course)

Traffic for SNM belongs in comp.sys.sun.apps.  There are other applications
in .apps with higher traffic than SNM.  This group is not worth coming to
a vote.

--Dave
-- 
System Administrator, Population Research Institute    barr@pop.psu.edu
  loose: v. to set free, or adj. not securely fastened.
  lose: v. to miss from one's possession.
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.groups
From: lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky)
Subject: Re: news.test: global rmgroup, or make it valid?
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:58:10 GMT

In article <BuEtMn.2Fv@exnet.co.uk> dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon) writes:
>
>Well here's my 0.02 Ecu's worth...
>
>So having a test group in a hierarchy everyone
>should get with the admin info seems like a good idea except for
>potential bandwidth problems.
>
>I'll even volunteer to put up an auto-reply daemon on news.test
>if/while traffic stays moderate.

    Has everyone here lost their minds?  There's only one way a
    newsgroup gets created in Usenet.  Through the RFD/CFV process.
    That's the way it's always been, except for the INET folks.

    Newsgroups are not created here by a few folks deciding it seems
    like a good idea.  News.test is not a Usenet newsgroup, so will you
    please nuke the damn thing at your site?  The same goes for
    comp.sys.ibm.hardware, comp.sys.amiga.software.pirate, rec.fitness
    and a bunch of others.

    If you don't know what you're talking about, will you please not
    participate in this discussion?  You want news.test?  Post an RFD to
    news.announce.newgroups.

--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files!           Gerry Swetsky  WB9EBO  |
|                 vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet                    |
| Home (708)833-8122       vpnet (708)833-8126      lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.autos.antique
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:49:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.194535.4952@photon.uucp> jbn@photon.uucp (Joe Naiman) writes:

>What's the difference between alt.autos.antique and rec.autos.antique?

One exists.  One doesn't.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Babylon5
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:39:07 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

yury@bknight.jpr.com (Yury German) writes:


>	Just an Idea.. but since people have an objection to a newsgroup
>with Babylon5 how about starting a mailing list for it??

>That should work quite well if the list gets circulated and people post
>about it.

    Just because I'm feeling a little superior this morning I will point
out that I suggested this about 10 minutes after the RFD showed up in
news.groups at my site. I also suggested alt.tv.babylon5.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
   "You know Television has gone to hell when, with every commercial,
	 you find yourself hoping to see the Energizer Bunny."
Lines: 13