HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: Proposal for pnw.motss
Date: 01 Oct 92 18:55:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group
Distribution: pnw
Keywords: new newsgroup motss for pnw

An excellent idea, and long overdue, if I may be so bold.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: rickc@agora.rain.com (Rick Coates)
Subject: Re: Proposal for pnw.motss
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:46:43 GMT

nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.193143.8265@amc.com> john@amc.com (John Sambrook) writes:
>>If you can get enough people to vote for creating your group, as per
>>the conventional rules, then I think you have done all you have to do
>>to justify creating the group.

>except that in the case of the pnw.* heirarchy, no one knows what
>"enough people" means, or whether a vote is required. No one seems to
>know if there are *any* guidelines for creating pnw.* groups, so in
>the absence of rules we're hoping to get enough news admins to think
>it's a good idea so it will be proapagated.
>                __
>nelson@reed.edu \/                                    D is for lots of things

Good grief!

I understand the concern about too many pnw groups (agora receives all
of five, three of which even have postings), but, ya know, it *could*
be deleted, if necessary.

How much traffic does pnw.sys.sun get, anyway?

Let's give it a shot.


Rick

rickc@agora.rain.com
From: kimf@ogicse.ogi.edu (Kim Flowers)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:08:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.43674
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Oct05.143015.13877@microsoft.com> davidst@microsoft.com (David Steckler) writes:
>	...
>Because guns are so small and easy to make, gun control laws only effect
>those who choose to obey the laws. Washington DC, NY NY and LA have some
>of the toughest gun control laws on the books - any questions?

Therefore we should stop trying to ban guns, and ban gun manufacturing!
It's a little easier to find a gun factory than a gun.

Send all assassins hired by gun manufacturers to alt.flame.

Mr. Kim Flowers
kimf@cse.ogi.edu
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Proposal for pnw.motss
Keywords: new newsgroup motss for pnw
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:43:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: dogear.c8ZZRB1w165w
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:

> There is no formal policy because it hasn't been necessary.  This does
> not mean that anyone should go creating groups willy-nilly.  The net is
> a cooperative effort, and succeeds to the degree that we cooperate.  We
> recently went through this discussion in seattle.admin.  You have taken
> the appropriate first step:  announcing your intent and allowing a
> discussion period.  However, your criteria for creating the new group is
> flawed, IMHO.  Rather than creating the group if there are no
> objections, the group should only be created if there is SIGNIFICANT
> SUPPORT of the group.
> 
> >Estimated traffic will average around 5 messages/day, based on the
> >traffic on the pdx-motss mailing list.  Traffic may be a little higher 
> >for the next few months as Oregon's Measure 9 battle, and similar 
> >efforts getting underway in Washington, probably will be a frequent 
> >topic of discussion.
> 
> Why is this group needed?  Is there some reason why the minimal traffic
> couldn't be supported in pnw.general?   It's not like pnw.general is
> flooded with new messages every day.  I would prefer to see any relevant
> issues discussed in pnw.general until such time as there is either
> a) sufficient traffic to justify a new group b) some other overriding
> reason why the traffic is not appropriate for the pnw.general group.
> 

Well put. I agree except on one point. The participants of these topics
have better things to discuss than defense. So pnw.g would amount to
asking for a constant series of topical interruptions.

But, in agreement, let me add to your well-put suggestions:

Additionally, groups which are 'unproven' also may use the mail-list
format which allows people to communicate by posting to a mail address
which is then forwarded to the subscribership. They're very easy to
set up, and are a great way to determine if a separate group is needed
for the number of posts/interested readers. Sinc you speak in terms of 
5 posts (or so) per day, this might be a good idea as a beginning. An
addidional benefit of a maillist is moderation --to a certain extent.
Given the the nature of the proposed group, and the intervening which
some of the less tolerant are inclined to inject, a mail-list may be
the best alternative --again, as a beginning.

When you have an established traffic, and are able to take a reasonable
measure of the range and scope (how many, where from, etc), then I
suspect few, if any, would have any objections to the creation of a 
new group. It would also give the users an opportunity to pre-define
the essential charters, decide on moderation as a newsgroup v. the
maillist approach, and other administrivia.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: john@amc.com (John Sambrook)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Proposal for pnw.motss
Keywords: new newsgroup motss for pnw
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:59:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: amc.1992Oct3.205911.28430
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Applied Microsystems, Redmond, WA

In article <1992Oct3.004526.12305@fnx.uucp> del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
>In <1992Oct2.193143.8265@amc.com> john@amc.com (John Sambrook) writes:
>
>>Volume can be a reason to create a newgroup, but it isn't the only
>>reason for creating one, nor is volume a necessary precondition.  What
>
>Agreed.

Thank you.  

>>matters, according to the accepted rules, is that you be able to
>>convince sufficient people to vote for your proposed group.
>
>You have misinterpreted the function of the 'accepted rules' here.  The
>purpose of the rules is to foster a discussion of why the newsgroup
>should be created, and then to show that there is an interest in the
>group sufficient to justify it's burden to the net.  The way you state
>it, the rules are merely an obstacle to your desire, which can be
>subverted by convincing people (that may have no interest in the group) to
>vote for it.

I suppose it's my Stallman-esque speech that is to blame here.

I support having rules that everyone tries to follow.  The only point
I wanted to make was that it wasn't necessary to have a large volume
of messages in order to create a new newsgroup, according to the
conventional USENET newsgroup creation rules.

I'd be interested in a simple characterization of the costs (to the
network and its users) of carrying an extra newsgroup.  It doesn't
seem to me like the costs would be very large.  Our active file here
at Applied contains 1084 lines, so an individual newsgroup can't
"cost" all that much in terms of system resources.  What else is
there?

-- 
John Sambrook                             DNS: john@amc.com
Applied Microsystems Corporation	 UUCP: amc-gw!john
Redmond, Washington  98073               Dial: (206) 882-2000 ext. 630
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly)
Subject: Re: Proposal for pnw.motss
Date: 04 Oct 92 05:51:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
) Additionally, groups which are 'unproven' also may use the mail-list
) format which allows people to communicate by posting to a mail address
) which is then forwarded to the subscribership. They're very easy to
) set up, and are a great way to determine if a separate group is needed
) for the number of posts/interested readers. Sinc you speak in terms of 
) 5 posts (or so) per day, this might be a good idea as a beginning. An
) addidional benefit of a maillist is moderation --to a certain extent.
) Given the the nature of the proposed group, and the intervening which
) some of the less tolerant are inclined to inject, a mail-list may be
) the best alternative --again, as a beginning.

We already have several mailing lists and have demonstrated to
our own satisfaction that there is a desire and need for
pnw.motss.  The pdx-motss mailing list has over 30 members. 
The internal Microsoft mailing list has almost 180 members. 
Most of the bigger companies on the net in the PNW have similar
lists. There are dozens of posters to soc.motss and soc.bi at
the University of Washington and the other universities on the
net in the PNW and (presumably) hundreds of readers.  And then
there are the readers and posters at the small commerical and
public-access sites.

I post several messages to soc.motss and soc.bi every month
with a PNW distribution.  If there were a pnw.motss, I would
post those messages there.

I share Mark Morrissey's opinion that the traffic will be closer
to 20 messages per day.  The combined traffic of the pdx-motss
and Microsoft mailing lists alone would run to more than that.

) When you have an established traffic, and are able to take a reasonable
) measure of the range and scope (how many, where from, etc), then I
) suspect few, if any, would have any objections to the creation of a 
) new group. It would also give the users an opportunity to pre-define
) the essential charters, decide on moderation as a newsgroup v. the
) maillist approach, and other administrivia.

This has already been discussed on the pdx-motss mailing list. 
The charter would essentially be the same as soc.motss's (safe
space, supportive environment, no condemnations or
"justifications" of homosexuality).  There would be no
moderation.

As Wendy Thrash pointed out, "if you build it, they will come."
This is true for roads and it's true for newsgroups.
________________
George V. Reilly   <GeorgeRe@Microsoft.Com>
Newsgroups: pnw.general,alt.politics.elections
From: zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Zintel)
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:55:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.221309.14625@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street 
>with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US 
>murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" 

Murders per capita?
Murders with guns?
Population density of each half?
Employment level?
Average, top, and bottom income?
Racial breakdown?
Education level?
Religions?
Police per capita?
.
.
.

Easy availability and common acceptance of guns does not prevent killing with
guns. Guns are for killing. Folks that want to strap on a gun want the ability
to kill. At the very least, they don't want to kill, but they don't want to be
afraid that someone (including the government, with biggest guns of all) wants
to kill them. At the worst, they love the godlike life and death control of 
carrying a gun. Children with guns barely understand that death is the end of 
life.

I am not sure that legislation to make guns harder for civilians to get will 
prevent killing with guns either. Possibly a society willing to pass such laws
will have an attitude toward life that will reduce killing. 

A society that values life, wishes not to live in fear of one another, 
understands the benefits to everyone of tolerance and respect, and has a 
healthy respect for the danger of just and righteous killing might reduce the 
killing. I don't think this can be legislated.

Gun control is not a panacea, however the assertion that a proliferation of
guns will reduce killing is equally misguided.


-- 
---
Mike Zintel             zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com not zintel@mdi.com anymore
Motorola Mobile Data
Bothell, WA
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Proposal for pnw.motss
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:46:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Oct2.234645.21620
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Oct2.193143.8265@amc.com> john@amc.com (John Sambrook) writes:
>If you can get enough people to vote for creating your group, as per
>the conventional rules, then I think you have done all you have to do
>to justify creating the group.

except that in the case of the pnw.* heirarchy, no one knows what
"enough people" means, or whether a vote is required. No one seems to
know if there are *any* guidelines for creating pnw.* groups, so in
the absence of rules we're hoping to get enough news admins to think
it's a good idea so it will be proapagated.
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                                    D is for lots of things
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:59:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.021322.20515@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> slh@gibdo.engr.washington.edu () writes:
>In article <43674@ogicse.ogi.edu> kimf@ogicse.ogi.edu (Kim Flowers) writes:
>>
>>Therefore we should stop trying to ban guns, and ban gun manufacturing!
>>It's a little easier to find a gun factory than a gun.
>>
>	In all countries?
That was my thought exactly!  Criminals will get their tools anywhere
they can, because they are _criminals!_  If necessary, they will _make_
them.  Ask any one who has worked in a prison how easy it is to make a
gun that is effective at killing people.

The above "solution" is a fairly typical statement from those that are
so sure that _their_ solution is the only _correct_ solution, that they 
will go to _any_ extreme to get it implemented.  Re: All the ineffective
_crime_prevention_ laws and programs in existence.  Most notably the
"War" on Drugs.
From: kaliyuga@carson.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: How to defeat CID, ANI, and Caller Return
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:30:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct5.113059.21469
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Call City Council re Folklife
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: seattle, pnw
Organization: Not Enough
Keywords: 

There will be a public hearing at 7 pm Thursday, October 8, 1992 in
the City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, 11th floor, 600 Fourth Ave
in downtown Seattle. Seattle Center proposes to begin charging an
admission to Northwest Folklife Festival this year and into the future.
Folklife has been free to all for the entire 21 years of its history. Over
7000 people volunteer their time and energy to make it the most fun of all
the public events held in Seattle. Performers and many other individuals
donate their services, and more than 80% of the cost of the festival comes
from donations, sales, and corporate and foundation support. Many other
cultural events are held free of charge at Seattle Center, which is part
of its reason for being, as stated in its mission statement. 

Now Seattle Center management has singled out Folklife from all the other
non-commercial events held there, to attempt to begin charging. Please
call all the members of the City Council (684-8888) and the Mayor
(684-4000) and ask them to prevent this from happening. Also please attend
the City Council public hearing and speak up against the fees. Many
families attend the whole long weekend with their kids. If there was a
fee, more would not be able to do so. 

Please call Northwest Folklife for more information on how you can help
prevent this wonderful cultural event from being limited and
commercialized (684-7300), and please attend the public hearing. Go at
6:30 to sign up to speak.
From: merlyn@ora.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Sister Paula (was Re: Tell Viacom Cable to add the SCI-FI Channel)
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:30:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: romulus.MERLYN.92Oct2093041
	<MERLYN.92Sep30090108@romulus.reed.edu>
	<1992Oct1.211458.6402@data-io.com>
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Stonehenge Consulting Services; Portland, Oregon, USA

In article <1992Oct1.211458.6402@data-io.com> jewell@Data-IO.COM (Cal Jewell) writes:
   I thought that was you. Seriously. I saw the name and the production 
   location and thought, "na, that couldn't that Randal Schwartz, could it?"

   So, now that I've got your ear, a question: what's the deal with
   Sister Paula? I've never been able to watch the show long enough
   to figure out what's going on. Any information would be appreciated.

"What's the deal?"  Paula Nielsen is seriously a cross-dressing
televangelist.  She believes in what she is doing, and how she is
doing it; the forefront message is "accept Christ as your personal
lord and savior", and the backgound message is "gays are forgiven as
easily as straights".

I started helping out with the studio show last year, filling in
occasionally, and became the director after the previous director
quit.  I offered Paula the chance to do a couple of location shoots
with my personal equipment (I have $7000 worth of personal audio and
video gear), and she liked it so much she's doing the entire fall
season that way (for a BIG promo in the closing credits and a token
fee to cover my hard expenses).

Me, I have a lot of gay friends, but I'm happily straight (and looking
:-), even though I'm usually the only straight one on her crew.  I'm
also not a biblethumper, so I pretty much ignore the content of the
show.  Why do I do it?  For a possibility of tagging along if she gets
national publicity.  (She may have mentioned my name as her producer
on Joan Rivers, for example... she's not telling me!)

She's 6'4", and in her mid 50's, and has been "out of the closet"
since age 12, and recieved her calling into the ministry about that
time as well.  She was raised in the pentecostal churches, with the
old revival tents and everything.  One of the upcoming shows that we
taped last week is a pentecostal service in Southeast Portland that
consists for the most part of homosexual men and women.

Just another video producer (looking for my 15 minutes of fame),
--
Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
merlyn@reed.edu (guest account) merlyn@ora.com (better for permanent record)
cute quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon -- home of the California Raisins!"
From: wendyt@tera.com (Wendy Thrash)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Tell Viacom Cable to add the SCI-FI Channel
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:00:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: tera.1992Sep29.000053.7136
Reply-To: wendyt@tera.com
Organization: Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA

Jim Lubin suggests we call Viacom to request the Sci-Fi Channel.
Sounds fine, but what will they remove?  If I could get them to
dump Channel 34 (all religion, all the time) or Channel 33 (shop
till long after you drop) or even Channel 29 (badly-made, out-of-
focus local access) I'd be happy, but I don't want to lose anything
interesting, and I'm afraid they'd dump Channel 32 (Canadian TV,
on those rare occasions when it hasn't been blacked out) or Channel
30 (second PBS option -- probably the most likely to go).

Anybody know what they might drop?  Somehow I doubt it would be 34.
Maybe if we all promised to go to the church of their choice 34 would
go away.
---
-Wendy T., couch potato[abcdfghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz]
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: jewell@Data-IO.COM (Cal Jewell)
Subject: Re: Tell Viacom Cable to add the SCI-FI Channel
Organization: Data I/O Corporation
Distribution: pnw
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:14:58 GMT

In article <MERLYN.92Sep30090108@romulus.reed.edu> merlyn@ora.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
#In article <1992Sep29.192720.12774@data-io.com> jewell@Data-IO.COM (Cal Jewell) writes:
#   #or even Channel 29 (badly-made, out-of- #focus local access)
#
#   Until the laws get changed, public access is the law of the land.
#   Cable companies are required to offer production facilities to any
#   cable subscriber and to air the resulting programs unedited and 
#   uncensored. Besides, where else would you see Sister Paula? Amazing
#   stuff.
#
#Sister Paula? So *that's* where Paula is playing in Seattle!
#
#Hey, don't look too close at the credits for that show (especially the
#new fall season).  You may see a familiar name (c.f. the .sig file
#below).

I thought that was you. Seriously. I saw the name and the production 
location and thought, "na, that couldn't that Randal Schwartz, could it?"

So, now that I've got your ear, a question: what's the deal with
Sister Paula? I've never been able to watch the show long enough
to figure out what's going on. Any information would be appreciated.

#
#By the way, Sister Paula was interviewed by Joan Rivers two days ago,
#and will be appearing on the show broadcast by WGN on Wednesday,
#October 5th.

I wish we got WGN in Seattle. Unfortunately, Viacom gets more money to
show the QVC and the Home Shoppin Network. :-(

-- 
Cal...                        "By analysis of usenet source, 
                               the hardest part of C to use 
 jewell@Data-IO.COM            is the comment."
 ...!uunet!pilchuck!jewell       -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crd.ge.com)
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan {IS})
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Perot's (latest) candidacy
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:05:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep30.160531.28024
Organization: UW Computing

In article <1992Sep30.101715.7720@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> slh@gibdo.engr.washington.edu () writes:
>In article <3663@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.214611.12518@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>>
>>>  I know what you mean.  But on the other hand, the God-damn Democrats
>>>  and Republicans have been fooling us for years.
>>
>>Are you saying that the American public is stupid enough to allow
>>themselves to be fooled year after year?? Hey, I'll go along with that!
>>
>>Europeans like to describe Americans as like cattle: fat, dumb and herded.
>>
>>Mike
>
>	Like I give a rat's ass what some grubby europeans think.

Perhaps like children, europeans should be seen and not herded :)
From: stu@voodoo.boeing.com (Stuart Liddle)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: No on Bush/Clinton
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:11:40 GMT
Reply-To: stu@voodoo.boeing.com
Organization: BoGart System

In article <1992Sep23.094408.15890@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>, bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
|> 
|>   I believe there are some states where the electoral votes are divided
|>   along a somewhat proportional basis. 

Please tell us, which states are these?  I thought they were all winner-take-
all.  Enquiring minds want to know.

-- 
________________________________________Thurgood Marshall on President G. Bush:
Stuart Liddle      (206) 865-6559 (wk)  \"It's said that if you can't say some-
BoGART Project     stu@voodoo.boeing.com \thing good about a dead person, don't
Boeing Comp. Svcs..uunet!bcstec!voodoo!stu\say it. Well, I consider him dead."