HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Date: 29 Jan 93 00:47:17 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1k9fveINN69s@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

>You still have not answered the question I asked. Why isn't ONE group
>for the posting of reviews enough? It doesn't matter what it is called,
>either .reviews or .current. Why should there be two?

You won't like this one bit....

WHY NOT? I see no problem with having the original article in a moderated
group and a crossposted copy in an open group where any discussion might
result. It does no harm, has no effect on bandwidth plus or minus, so who
cares?

>Nobody is talking about "all of the groups". We are talking about
>.reviews. If one group of people can read reviews in a low volume
>setting, then EVERYONE can read them in that setting. Even those people
>who want to keep reading other, higher volume groups.

The proposal for rec.arts.startrek.reviews would allows for reviews of all
things Star Trek. In theory crossposted reviews and followups could affect
all of the other rec.arts.startrek.* groups except .info. If someone ONLY
cares about reviews on current episodes and they already read .current,
why not let them read the crossposted reviews there? They can skip the
reviews they don't care about and people who don't want to wade through
the traffic in .current can read .reviews. The best of both worlds so to
speak.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

                     "My heros don't appear on no stamps."
                                -Public Enemy
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew Englander)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: : comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 28 Jan 1993 19:24:48 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <C1D7KD.G57@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>In article <1jm2l5INNnok@gabrieli.cs.unc.edu>, welchg@cs.unc.edu (Gregory
>Welch) wrote:
>> 
>> I would *love* to see such a news group formed!  On several occassions I
>> have run into software problems that turned out to be problems only on the
>> Powerbooks, due to sleeping, awakening, etc.
>
>On several occaisions I have run into software problems that turned out to
>be problems only on the Quadras, due to copy-back cache, etc.
>
>I think we should create comp.sys.mac.68040 
>   or
>comp.sys.mac.quadra

If other Quadra-owners agree that a Quadra-only group would suit them,
then fine, I'm not opposed. But I really don't think there's such a
great demand for this.

So far there have been only two objections to the creation of c.s.m.pb.
These are:	1. It doesn't "fit" into the current c.s.m hierarchy,
		   because there are no other "specific-mac" groups.
		   If we approve c.s.m.pb, then we'll have to have
		   separate groups for Classics, SEs, II-series Macs,
		   Quadras, etc.
		2. The group should not have "powerbook" in its name
		   because Apple might discontinue the PowerBook line
		   and besides, Outbound users and Portable users
		   share some of the same concerns with PB users.

As for objection 1, it seems to be expounded by people who care
more about having everything neat and tidy and logical than about 
having a system of newsgroups that's practical and lets the greatest
number of people find postings of greatest interest to them with
the greatest amount of speed and convenience. It is, to say the
least, unlikely that any other group of Mac-owners will want a
group specifically for their Mac. As another poster pointed out,
the Classic and the Quadra just have far more in common with each
other than either machine has with the PowerBook. To use an SAT-type
analogy, the Classic is to the Quadra as the PB100 is to the PB180.

As for objection 2, it seems to be directed more at the name of the group
than the idea of having a group. No one supporting comp.sys.mac.powerbook
thinks that if the group is formed and someone posts a question about
Outbounds then that person would see more flames than a Cheektowaga
firefighter. If calling the group "comp.sys.mac.portable" is all it
takes to get the support of a lot more people, I don't think many
people will object.

Mathew Englander.
From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: ** Alternate vote site needed for rec.games.miniatures **
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:21:25 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Werple, Public Access *NIX, Oz
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au


An alternate site is needed to take the vote for the proposed newsgroup,
rec.games.miniatures.

My Sysadmin has advised me that he has revised his support for the creation
of this group, in that while the vote can still be taken at this site, his
preference would be that the vote is taken at another site as our mail feed
is limited due to our affiliation status with AARNet.

Will anyone who is willing to provide vote taking  facilities and has the
consent of their relevant personnel, please mail me ASAP so that the RFD and
CFV documents can be changed and reissued.


Bob Blanchett.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:49:16 GMT

In article <1k0nimINNbtt@mozz.unh.edu> pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:
>In article <1jvvqbINNeqn@rodan.UU.NET> georged@sequent.com (George Dolbier) writes:
>>PROBLEMS:
>>---------
>>	First problem: the name. comp.os.nt is short and to the point, 
>>but maybe too short.  comp.os.windows-nt is too long, comp.os.windowsnt
>>is too mushed, comp.os.ms-windows.nt IS NOT the correct location.
>
>How about comp.os.winnt or comp.os.win-nt?  Might be a little too
>abbreviated, though.  I don't mind comp.os.nt myself.

I don't think windows-nt is too long. It's exactly as long as ms-windows.
So I think comp.os.windows-nt is the proper name.

-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:18:30 GMT

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET> Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writes:
>In addition, obvious outdoors.* groups should be moved to that
>hierarchy.  Specially, rec.hunting should be moved.  Other
>possibilities include
>
>rec.boats 
>rec.boats.paddle 
>rec.climbing 
>rec.scuba 
>rec.skiing 
>rec.skydiving 
>rec.windsurfing 

I think that this part of the proposal is overly broad.  Of the groups listed,
only rec.climbing seems even close to the basic spirit of rec.backcountry
and rec.outdoors.*.  The others are more directly concerned with the details
of the particular sport (rec.climbing might be also, I just am assuming that
rock climbing tends to involve a bit of hiking).

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
From: rxb@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Ray Barry)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:29:59 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <SHIBUYA.93Jan25141428@chute.bl.cad.slb.com>, shibuya@bl.cad.slb.com (Hiroto Shibuya) writes:
> rec.outdoor.skydiving?  Sounds like news group only for floaters.  How
> about divers, people who are indoor?
> 
> Hiroto

rec.skydiving ? rec.outdoors.skydiving ?

I thought this was a serious sport, and should be treated as such ?
ie No having fun on the dropzone, no beer guzzling feats because you made your
first jump in those new socks which your girlfriend bought you for your birthday..etc

I partake in this sport because I think it is very challanging and would one day
hope to represent my country, not because it is totally mega thrilling and has an
excellent social life, and has lots of beer related activities..........NOT !

:)

Ray
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:17:28 GMT
Organization: Coastal Imaging Lab, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu

In article <C1In6z.57D@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>The more I think about the crossposting proviso the more it seems vital
>the the success of the group. If I already read .current and .misc why
>read .reviews as well? 

To read reviews? Why do you read rec.arts.startrek.misc? Why do you read
any other newsgroup?

>I can deal with the volume in .current but I see no
>reason not to create .reviews for people who don't have as much time to
>kill.

And there is no reason to create a separate group if all of its articles
are going to be crossposted from one other group.

If you want to read reviews, read .reviews. If you don't, don't. Not
crossposting harms nobody and helps some. There is no reason to mandate
crossposting.
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:46:57 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1k6l1lINNnu8@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

> There is no reason to mandate crossposting.

Mandate, no. Allow, yes.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
 "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,
  or of the press..."
  Freedom of Speech. It's not just a good idea. It's the law!
From: philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Philip Dutre)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RDF: rec.games.miniatures
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:37:48 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computerwetenschappen

I have some things to say about the recent discussion going on about r.g.m.:

1. It is clear that not all wargames are miniature games. Board wargaming does
exist, but has some distinct characteristics. Something along the lines
of rec.games.*.war is therefore not appropriate.

2. It is also clear that not all games that use miniatures are games that belong
in the class commonly known as "miniature games". E.g. games as Space Hulk (GW),
Heroquest (MB), The Dungeon (TSR) or even Monopoly use miniatures, although
they are definitly boardgames. The miniatures in these games are just there
for the visual appeal. If I played A3R, replacing each armoured division with
a miniature tank and each infantry division with an infantryman (a la A&A),
I would still have a boardgame, right?

3. Historical miniature games & fantasy miniature games have much more in
common with each other than with any other form of gaming, as are historical
boardgames & fantasy boardgames. Miniature games have related gaming mechanisms,
and that is what counts, because we're talking about games.

4. The collecting & painting of miniatures is an important part of the
"miniature games" hobby, but plays a secondary role. The most important thing
still is gaming. If this group wants to place this topic above the gaming
part, it should not be created in the games hierarchy. This does not imply
that these features cannot be discussed, but it implies that model railway
enthusiasts do not belong  in this group, although they "play" with
miniatures as well. The emphasis is on gaming, whether the game is WRG 7 or
Warhammer 4.

Therefore....

give the group another name:

rec.games.tabletop

This would reflect what is intended, forms a valuable cogroup for rec.games.board
and all miniature gaming will have its place here.

Additionaly, this doesn't exclude, but encourages discussions about painting
miniatures, making scenery, etc...


-- 
| Phil Dutre                            Dept. Computer Wetenschappen        |
| philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be             Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL)|
| Phone: (32) 16 201015 x3094/3552      Celestijnenlaan 200A                |
| Fax:   (32) 16 205308                 B-3001 Heverlee, BELGIUM            |
From: dstrout@sun.rest.tasc.com. (Dave Strout)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PowerBook Newsgroup
Date: 22 Jan 1993 11:49:30 GMT
Organization: TASC
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: dstrout@sun.rest.tasc.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: uranus.rest.tasc.com

I think there are enought unique features of the powerbooks to justify a  
new group.

dave.
--
Dave Strout	dstrout@sun.rest.tasc.com
Thompson's Rule for First Time Telescope Makers:
It's easier to make a 4 inch mirror then a 6 inch mirror
than it is to make a 6 inch mirror.
/* Opinions expressed are not the official position of TASC. */
From: kiehl@ibt013.ibt.KFA-Juelich.de (Horst Kiehl)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.os2.{announce,ver1x,beta}
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:22:51 GMT
Reply-To: kiehl@ibt013.ibt.KFA-Juelich.de (Horst Kiehl)
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH (KFA), Germany

Let me second it. Especially the beta stuff costs me a lot of time
even though I don't read it.

Horst
 

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<wine-250193161448@sed3.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:08:10 GMT

j> == jim  <wine@stress1.nrl.navy.mil>

 j> seems like a REC.FLYING.x  would be a good idea as there are 
 j> quite a few flying groups around.

Most of which are under rec.aviation.*.  Where've you been?
--
 * Christopher Davis * <ckd@eff.org> * <ckd@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:28:27 GMT

In article <1k8b4qINN82g@werple.apana.org.au> bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.164926.15974@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>
>>I'm confused... wasn't the 'painting of miniatures and creation of terrain'
>>part of the original RFD?
>
>What I had in mind was painting and terrain creation as it pertains to
>wargames and wargamers, distinct from those who paint and build models for
>their own sake i.e. dioramas and displays / collectors etc.

Ok, so is there enough of a difference in these techniques - do the
miniatures gamers make their terrain in a manner vastly different from the
miniatures collectors/artists/whatever, aside from the 'portability'
factor of wargame terrain?

In other words, is a wargame forest enough different in construction from
a diarama forest that the people wanting to construct the former can get
little useful info from those that have built the latter (or vis versa)?



-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
From: mss1@cornell.edu (Michael S. Shappe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews: proposed moderator, crossposting
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:36:06 GMT
Organization: Cornell University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uncle-mikey.cit.cornell.edu

In article <C1IoIs.6q7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu
(Thumper) wrote:
> I think that can be covered with RTFM. If someone is going to take the
> time to write a Review and submit it to a moderated newsgroup the least
> they could do is have some clue what the ground rules are. Most moderated
> groups (ie: rec.humor.funny) have a FAQ/Procedures posting of some sort
> rec.arts.startrek.reviews would need one too.

Already has the beginnings of one on file on the LISTSERV (although I just
noticed an error message when someone tried to get at it, so something my
be broken...sigh...)

Uncle Mikey
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Brian Hughes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:51:12 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

stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

>In article <C1H87M.4xy@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@Dartmouth.Edu writes:

>>Also, having a moderator set the subject
>>line of all reviews that would be posted will go a long way to cleaning
>>up the general subject line problem in rec.arts.startrek.*.

>This will do very little to clean up the general subject line problem,
>for most of the postings in .current will not be reviews crossposted
>from .reviews. Most articles will still be posted directly with whatever
>Subject: the poster feels compelled to use.

    Actually, a fairly large portion of posts are followups to reviews.
In this sense having the subject lines set my the moderator(s) will help
to clean up that portion of the traffic in r.a.s.c. I'm open to
suggestions for how to clean up the rest...

-Hades
--
From: nrp@csug3.cs.reading.ac.uk ("Independent direction socks" Neilski)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:06:13 GMT
Reply-To: nrp@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: University of Reading

georged@sequent.com (George Dolbier) writes:

>PROBLEMS:
>---------
>	First problem: the name. comp.os.nt is short and to the point, 
>but maybe too short.  comp.os.windows-nt is too long, comp.os.windowsnt
>is too mushed, comp.os.ms-windows.nt IS NOT the correct location.
>Windows NT is not a subsystem of Microsoft Windows, it is separate
>and non equal to Microsoft Windows. This is a RFD for a reason,
>I'm way open to suggestions for a new name. If someone can convince
>me that comp.os.ms-windows.nt is appropriate, great.

Why do you say comp.os.ms-windows.nt is not the correct location?
You refer to this system as Windows NT throughout your post.  So why not
have ms-windows as part of the name?  i.e.: comp.os.ms-windows.nt?
Besides, comp.os.nt is not exactly meaningful.  (Two-letter things?  Remind
you of any other OS?  mv ... cp ... rm ...)

-- neilski

-- 
 Marmite is Sex on Toast! |  _ __        _          |  "What happened?  What   
--------------------------| ' )  )      //     /    |   happened?" "He spoke   
  Is it a small plastic   |  /  / _  o // _   /_  o |   French! He's DEAD!"    
 orange from Basingstoke? | /  (_</_<_</_/_)_/ <_<_ |     "Oh my God ..."      
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mgw@world.std.com (maryanne g wolf)
Subject: Re: Solution to whether or not to moderate misc.jobs.offered
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:00:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.165946.28231@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>In article <C18D7E.LKA@world.std.com>, mgw@world.std.com (maryanne g wolf) writes:
>> What if the group moderation were done by a daemon.
>> One could write it as an awk script.
(my description of what the script might do deleted)

>This is a very good idea (although I'd do it in perl rather than awk),
perl is fine with me too, as long as we have a volunteer to write it.

>provided that step 5 <which deals with non-conforming subjects>
>would indeed send it to the moderator.  Returning
>to sender would discourage casual job-posters.  I would have the script
>send the posting to the moderator, who would then reformat the subject
>line and post it;  the script would fire off a brief email message to
>the sender, along the lines of:  "Your posting had a Subject: line which
>did not meet the standard.  The moderator has fixed it up and posted
>it; however, using nonstandard subject lines increases his or her 
>workload.  Please take a moment to look at the Subject: line standards
>below," and append the agreed-upon format.
Good idea.

I'm proposing a subject-line format as a straw-man.
I hope this'll inspire someone else to propose a better one,
assuming we want to automate the moderation.
Can anyone who knows enough about perl tell if my proposal
would be easy to verify with a script?  

We presumably still want job-title, company-name, and location.  

We may or may not want ENTRY or other keywords.  What about having
SOFTWARE and HARDWARE and NON-COMPUTER as additional keywords?

Would having a separator between the fields in the subject be good?
The choice of separator should probably be at least partly visible
(non-space), something other than ':' so as to distinguish it from
"Subject:".  Are there any chars that might confuse email or
news-posting software which we should not use as separators?
We want something which is also easy to filter in kill-files.

So if the separator was " ! ", some sample subjects might be:

SOFTWARE,HARDWARE ! System Admin ! XYZZY Inc. ! Northern California
SOFTWARE ! GUI developer ! Fizbit Co. ! Concord Mass.
SOFTWARE, ENTRY ! Assoc Windows Support ! Silly PC Software ! L.A., CA
NON-COMPUTER ! Music Professor ! Oxford ! Oxford, England
HARDWARE ! Graphic Display Designer ! Big Bits Inc. ! Montreal, Canada

(These examples are entirely fictitious.)

When I came up with these examples, they tended to be wider than 80 chars,
but using "!" without the spaces was hard to read.
I considered enclosing all keywords in "[]" to make them easier to filter,
but that also made the lines too long.

Opinions?
Better proposals?

Also, where should we run the daemon?
We could run it on the machine that deals out articles to
the moderators, I guess.

Mary-Anne Wolf
mgw@world.std.com