HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp reorg - need for cyber/srun group
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:11:43 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Cyberpixie) writes:

>OK, OK, I'll get out of the way.  Again, my guess is that there are
>people who would vote against a forced unmoderation because they
>feel it'd be a bad precedent (myself not among them).  I reserve the
>right to say I told you so if the vote fails, though, and of course
>acknowledge your right to do the same if it passes.  <grin>

    I never said that we shouldn't inform and include in the discussion
rec.games.cyber. Personally I feel that putting this item on tha ballot
will be a bad thing, because no mention of what we have been discussing
has appeared in rec.games.cyber, and to attempt to change their group
out from under them is not a cool thing to do.

>Now.  As to timing -- when should this vote be taken?

    Good question. Why don't we see if the current RFD passess before we
worry about rec.games.cyber. I also think that we should hold off on
placing a cyber group on the ballot.

--
-Hades  (Brian V. Hughes)   | "When you get right down do it there is only
 hades@Coos.Dartmouth.Edu   |  one thing that matters here...
 Mac Database Developer     |                       I Have Mob Ties!"
 Dartmouth Medical School   |      -Mario Cuomo (played by Phil Hartman)
Date:  7 Apr 92 02:26:21 GMT
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Reply-To: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
 >    Purview? All I was talking about in that paragraph was the
 >appropriate place for the group. And what does the format of the comic
 >have to do with anything? The simple fact remains that the majority of
 >the net thinks that a comic book is a comic book, and while we may know
 >different, we are not the only people to consider in this mattter.

Actually, we are.  Why should we consider the opinions of the uninformed?
Why should people who don't know anything about manga tell us what it
is and isn't, and where it should fit in the (already totally illogical)
namespace?


--
Iain Sinclair   axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au                             ne cede.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dbasinge@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Basinger)
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp reorg
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: news
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:39:38 GMT

Isn't time to vote on the rec.games.frp reorg yet, before we lose 
interest in it??

Mike
-- 
D. Michael Basinger: Not speaking for I.U., UCS, or anybody but myself.
dbasinge@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu		dbasinge@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
dbasinge@ucs.indiana.edu (VAX/VMS)	dbasinge@iubacs.BITNET (Bitnet)
dbasinge@arapahoe.ucs.indiana.edu (NeXT Mail)
Xref: sparky news.groups:10507 sci.bio:1788
From: cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The rec.arts.{comics.}manga wars continue
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:37:28 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <ku9hg8INNgh9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun
Kim) writes: 
>I am not going the defend the use of "uninformed" but I have to point out
>one thing:  Should the RFD have said:  .....manga....manga....manga...
>and have no references to comics?  Seriously, that would have left me
>confused if I never heard of the term before.

Yup, just like `rec.arts.manga' will confuse people scanning through for
interesting groups if they've never heard of the term.  If they see
`rec.arts.comics.manga', they'll have some idea, and you might even get a few
new readers that way.  People who enjoy western comics may dabble in the group
to see what it's about and actually get interested.  The best solution for the
people who want western comics and Japanese comics at the same level is to
create the rec.arts.comics.manga group in the sensible place, and then see
about creating a western specific group under the same hierarchy.

Cheers,

Rob
-- 
UUCP:   ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!cudcv	PHONE:  +44 203 523037
JANET:  cudcv@uk.ac.warwick             INET:   cudcv@warwick.ac.uk
Rob McMahon, Computing Services, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, England
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.enya
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 15:46:47 GMT

In <6344@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.014054.2819@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>The passage of rec.music.phish and, to a lesser
>>extent, alt.music.enya has rather badly damaged newbies' impressions
>>of the newsgroup creation process.
>Damaged it or liberated it?

Damaged it.

>In particular, the Erlandites

I don't even know who this Erland person IS, you dork.  Yet you would
classify me with the "rest".  "Where is your EVIDENCE?"

>				would have folks believe that a 100-message/day
>rec.music.misc is not too much to wade through. Obviously, folks disagree with
>that. This proposal is yet another sign that rec.music.misc is breaking up,
>whether the Erlandites like it or not.

Well, gee. I guess a kill file is completely impossible to use.

Not only that, but in general, I WOULD agree that 100 messages a day ARE
a bit excessive.  But there HAS to be a better split than by artist.
I don't see you suggesting anything.  I'm not suggesting anything because
I honestly don't have any idea, except that current state is more manageable
than "a thousand points of music".
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
             Admittedly he was listening to a _Best of Queen_ tape,
  but no conclusions should be drawn from this because all tapes left in a car
    for more than about a fortnight metamorphose into _Best of Queen_ albums
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:03:06 GMT
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: I thought "manga" was a tropical fruit
Keywords: fresh perspective
Reply-To: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Summary:  comes outa volcanoes or somethin', don't it?
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (scott.forbes) writes:
 >I don't know what a "manga" is.

What's a "gaffa".

 >If a newsgroup named "rec.arts.manga" were created, I wouldn't have the
 >slightest idea what went in it.  I'd probably post questions about kiwi fruit.
 >Or assume it's some strange dance that I've never heard about.

Maybe you could read the articles in it, or check the newsgroups file.
Works for me, anyway.


--
Iain Sinclair   axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au                             ne cede.
From: wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:17:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: mintaka.1992Apr9.131706.29417
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT

In article <axolotl.702785613@syzygy> axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
>wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:
> >The group is currently focused on American and British comics, but
> >I know of nothing in its charter that constrains it this way.

(By the way, I apologize to the readers of Canadian comics for the
unintended slight above.)

>Well, that's certainly true.  But how often are charters respected?
>How easy is it to change the content of a newsgroup once it's
>consumed with a certain type of traffic?  (eg. alt.postmodern.)

But this aspect of the charter is respected, in the sense that the
manga discussions that do show up in rec.arts.comics are accepted as
appropriate for discussion in the group.  The content of the group is
not fixed; if there weren't already a newsgroup's-worth of manga
postings demonstrated, I would also be urging that the manga
discussions be merged into rec.arts.comics.

> >Manga are within its purview.  "Comics", as used in the newsgroup
> >name, properly covers all of the "sequential art forms" people have
> >been discussing.
>
>Rather like any film ever made, or Bosch's triptychs, all of which
>are appropriately discussed in newsgroups which aren't subordinate to
>rec.arts.comics.

Is anyone here using "sequential art forms" to mean movies?  If so,
I've misunderstood what you mean by the term.

-David
--
============================================================================
David Wald                                           wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu
   "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God"
             -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0
============================================================================
From: wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:45:18 GMT
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT

In article <8APR199215101438@vms2.iscs.nus.sg>
limkiong@vms2.iscs.nus.sg (Twas brillig, and the slithy toves...) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.145126.12954@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>,
>wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes...
>
>>Given the discussion so far, I still fail to understand how creating
>>rec.arts.comics.manga would declare manga to be a subcategory of...
>>American and British comics.
>
>if its one level of hierarchy below the newsgroup that discusses
>Western comics, what else can we infer? Isn't that the whole point of
>having hierarchies in the first place, so that subcategories can be
>grouped under a main category?

The group is currently focused on American and British comics, but I
know of nothing in its charter that constrains it this way.  Manga are
within its purview.  "Comics", as used in the newsgroup name, properly
covers all of the "sequential art forms" people have been discussing.
Putting manga in rec.arts.comics.manga would, in fact, make this
clearer, as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, as I've said, I have no opposition to moving rec.arts.comics
to rec.arts.comics.misc.  I say this as a regular rec.arts.comics
reader (though far from the most devoted or prolific).

>>  1) If the CFV is for rec.arts.manga, I will vote against it.
>
>I really hope u will keep ur mind open on the subject until the CFV.

My mind is always open.  That's why I'm continuing the discussion.

-David
--
============================================================================
David Wald                                           wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu
   "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God"
             -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0
============================================================================
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.mud
From: thwang@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Tommy Hwang)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:32:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.44476
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr8.172632.2715@tc.fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (The Napoleon of Crime) writes:
>I would recommend against it at this time; I have seen almost no spill-over
>of manga discussions into rec.arts.comics, which is where this would be

     This is because either side has no business with each other :) :)

>Suggestion: try posting in rec.arts.comics with the keyword "MANGA: " at the
>beginning of the subject line for a month or two, and we'll see how the
>traffic stacks up to everything else there.

     Excellent suggestion, bad timing.  summer vacation is coming and
many net readers will be GONE (in the U.S. anyway).

                                                         -TKH '92
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The rec.arts.{comics.}manga wars continue
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:24:10 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School


Was written...
>> The _charter_ for this group refers to manga as a type of comic book.
>> By accepting this charter proposal the supporters of the group are
>> telling us (the uninformed) that manga are comics. 

Was also writen (in response to what was written)...
> To the best of my knowledge, it is the only way to make the proposal
> understandable by you (the uninformed). 

This is the most bizarre thing I have read since Alok's last tirade.

'The uninformed,' how nice. How condecending. Why should I vote for a
group that can't even be described by its supporters in a
non-contradictory way?

If you can't write a charter that makes it clear that manga is NOT a comic
then you really have no place insisting that it isn't.
It is or it isn't, if you can't prove that it isn't then it is.

I understand allright. The only way that rec.arts.manga supporters can
describe manga is by calling it a comic. Well, I got news for you, if 'the
informed' call it a comic then as one of the 'uninformed' I am going to
call it a comic as well. 

And if it is a comic it belongs in a rec.arts.comics.* hierarchy along
with the rest of the comics discussion.
Prove that it manga does not = comic or change the RFD.

And someone start a new complaint about this group or I'll have to repeat
myself a third time.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU  -  Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
Freedom of Speech isn't just a good idea, it's the law. Are you abiding by it?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cfm2h@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Christopher Mullins)
Subject: Re: RFD for new IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:22:58 GMT


It seems that there are two different groups being proposed -

  1. A group about imaging - techniques used to visualize 2d data, including
     any pre-processing (such as restoration, enhancement, deconvolution, etc.)
     This would (IMHO) fall naturally into sci.imaging or comp.imaging.
     I think comp.imaging describes the topic better, since it is not a science,
     and other people besides scientists use imaging techniques.
 
  2. A group about image processing - techniques used in processing 2d data.
     This includes topics such as pattern recogition, edge detection, motion
     estimation, coding, compression, etc. (which are not necessarily graphics
     or AI related).  This would fall naturally (IMHO) into comp.image-proc or
     comp.dsp.image-proc.  I think comp.dsp.image-proc is more appropriate,
     since all image processing techinques are dsp techniques by definition
     (assuming you are doing things digitally, which you are if you are using
     a digital computer).  Comp.2d or comp.dsp.2d would also be good.

I think the only difference between *imaging* and *image processing* is that
with imaging, it is implied that someone will eventually eyeball an image, after
prehaps much processing.  With image processing, you put an image into an
algorithm but don't necessarily get one back - you may just extract information
or make a decision based on it, etc.  Thus, to me, imaging is a subset of
image processing.

Now- do we need two groups?  Since I believe image processing is a superset of
imaging, if we only create one group I think it should be comp.dsp.image-proc.
(or comp.dsp.2d).  What does anyone else think?  Am I misunderstanding what
other people mean by imaging?

Chris Mullins
cfm2h@virginia.edu
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The rec.arts.{comics.}manga wars continue
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:55:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.x=sjjan
Organization: Living in a satellite fantasy, waiting for the night to end.

dcb@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (David C Blume) writes:

> Lazlo's getting pretty impassioned about this debate.  His tone is
> getting worse and worse. 

Tell me about it.  You think I enjoy having to repeat the same arguments
over and over in the hope that someday someone who wants rec.arts.manga will
finally understand why that's the wrong name for the group?

> The group for the discussion of western comics should be on the same
> level as the group for the discussion of asian comics.  

Why?  The level of the name is not a value judgement.  Groups don't
"deserve" to have a lower or higher position in the hierarchy -- it's
simply a matter of *classification*.  The more specific the subject being
discussed, the more dots there are in the name.  As it is used on the
net and elsewhere in the English-speaking world, "manga" is a more specific
term than the general term "comics", therefore "manga" belongs in the "comics"
hierarchy.   *Nothing about this classification implies that manga are
somehow "lesser than", "subordinate to", or "a subclass of" western comics,
because nothing about the classification "comics" implies that the comics
being discussed are western comics.*

Answer me the "why" question -- why the manga newsgroup "should" be on the
same level as the general comics discussion group, taking into account
what I just said above -- and I'll stop fighting you on the issue of where
the manga newsgroup goes.

> Currently the group for the discussion of western comics is
> rec.arts.comics.  That can change, and if so, we'd be happy to move the
> proposed rec.arts.manga too. 

Moving groups creates a lot more work than simply putting them where they
belong in the first place.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.comics
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.who-would-win
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 15 Apr 1992 09:36 EST  

In article <1992Apr14.224827.25388@wpi.WPI.EDU>, boisvert@wpi.WPI.EDU 
     (Brian Richard Boisvert) writes...

>In article <1992Apr14.050925.8490@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> fau@po.CWRU.Edu 
>     (Francis A. Uy) writes:

>>In a previous article, forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (scott.forbes) says:

>>>This is a formal Request For Discussion, proposing the creation of an
>>>unmoderated newsgroup: alt.who-would-win

>>Here on rec.arts.comics we call it "Ho'od Win".  Makes sense as a group.  
>>But would enough people use it?

>Who cares?  

I do, for one.

>If it will get this stupid, pointless thread off this newgroup, 
>then I say go for it.  

I think this thread is no more stupid and pointless than *some* I have seen.
Is my opinion equal to yours?

>Can someone out there who knows how create alt.who-would-win?  
>I'm not sure how, but I know it isn't hard to create an alt group.

That last sentence is contradictory.  If it's easy, it should have been
done by now.  If neither you nor most others know how, it's not easy.

Reminder: the best way to get rid of "stupid, pointless threads" is to
avoid following them up.  :-)

RG
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.comics.manga is anomalous and misleading.
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:33:26 GMT
Organization: Exile Government of Bramming


  If I was to buy some mange in this town (placed in non-english country)
I would go down to shop called "comics".

-- 
No News is Bad News
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: All of you guidelines thumpers (was Re: BENDING THE GUIDELINES IS
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:48:44 GMT
 <92102.150802JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
 <1992Apr12.151713.1@wharton.upenn.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Apr12.151713.1@wharton.upenn.edu>, millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
says:
>
>Specifically, Iain's suggestion was that rec.games.frp.misc be proposed
>with the rider that it would not actually be newgrouped unless some of
>the other groups passed. The reason to do this is simple. There is a
>relatively strong perception that some or all of the rec.games.frp.*
>groups may fail, and it would be ludicrous to move discussion from
>rec.games.frp to rec.games.frp.misc if none of the other proposed groups
>pass.
>
>The .misc subgroup is being proposed by people who worship at the shrine
>of the net guidelines. Jose, as you seem to have appointed yourself
>their spokesman, would the guideline worshippers like it any better if a
>number of subgroups were created without proposing to move the main
>discussion group to a .misc subgroup?
>


 Loren you do me a great injustice. I OPPOSE the rec.games.frp.MISC and
I have said so repeatedly; so, how can you say I am the "spokesman"
of those that want to push this group through ??

 If you do such a stupid thing as attaching a provision that *.misc
will fail if other certain groups fail, then you may force me to vote
against other groups that I think should be created just to make sure
that rec.games.frp.misc is not created.

 Sincerely,

Jose L. Martinez
From: jprovo@Gnu.ai.mit.edu (Genetic Jones)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD for new IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:22:57 GMT
Organization: Russell Street UNIX Consultations

pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:
>dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes:
>>I have to disagree, Andy.  My first suggestion would be sci.image-process
>>or sci.image-proc, or even sci.image.processing.  (sci.image-processing
>>would exceed the limit on some systems, but would otherwise be my first
>>choice.)  I would reluctantly support comp.image-proc, if pressed.
sci.image.processing implies that there is a sci.image.* heirachy.
I would go with sci.image-proc or comp.image-proc, and see where the leaning
went.  I would personally like to see the comp. group, but that's just because
I am doing hackwork for a cellbio group...

just PLEASE avoid using `ip', ESP. in the comp heirarchy!  People may gather
the impression that it is for InternetworkingProtocol!

>I'd have no problems with this, but is there enough interest to
>justify it?
ditto.  I say, go with comp [as that's where the original thrust was for] and
if there is the _need_, try for a sci.

>>>	I would be in support of an UNMODERATED newsgroup.
>>Likewise.  Unmoderated, please.
>Yes.
Yuppers.

joe
-- 
Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions as mine."
jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu   --UN*X and Networking Solutions--   jzp@gene.ummed.edu
Joe @ 90.5 FM in Worcester, MA  Rev. Dkr. Nick LaRG0, ASC  BBI Havoc     SPOO!
From: imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.comics.manga is anomalous and misleading.
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:34:56 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.


  If manga == japanese comics 
then r.a.c.manga == r.a.c.japanese.comics.

Seems a bit redundant to me :-)

		~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord	~~~~/()\~~~~	Fri Apr 10 13:34:55 WET DST 1992
		~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dcovell@intelhf.hf.intel.com (David Covell)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.compose
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 17:56:35 GMT

josh@tekelec.com (Josh Barinstein) writes:

>***** PROPOSAL FOR NEWSGROUP TO DISCUSS COMPOSING/SONGWRITING:

>NAME
>----

>     rec.music.compose

Being a musician/writer/home-studio owner, I'm interested in such a group,
but I wonder whether there'll be enough long-term contributions to keep it
going. I'm sure there'd be enough initial discussion to keep it lively for
a month or so, but once we've hashed through the philosophy and "technique"
of composing, will there be grounds for further exchange? Trading tapes
seems like a good approach to this, and if we could ensure that many of the
regular contributors to the group got to hear every tape (problematic) then
there could be some net discussion/critique of the submitted material. 
Sounds like the longevity of this group could be contingent on someone
volunteering enough time/effort to coordinate it. If I had more time I'd
consider it myself, but somehow i think my employer would frown on it...
I've never had my work critiqued in a public forum; it must take some getting
used to. I'm game for it.
It would be interesting to see some data on the evolution/early-demise/etc
of newsgroups. Perhaps we could avoid some of the pitfalls that can destroy
groups.
When the official voting begins I'll vote "yes".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID COVELL (dcovell@pcocd2.intel.com)|Wrangler of acoustic, electric, and
INTEL FOLSOM (California)              |Midi guitars, basses, synths, CAD tools
DESIGN ENGINEERING, EPG GROUP          |and assorted other techno-beasties
Xref: sparky news.groups:10171 rec.games.mud:4862