HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik)
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:20:44 GMT

ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
: 
: In article <1992Nov16.064310.27540@tamsun.tamu.edu>, gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:
: > >In article <1e4bdfINNhai@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) went on about...
: > >>
: > >>But ultimately, the majority vote is implemented.  Since the majority
: > >>of Muslims do not wish to be associated with Ahmadis, there is no
: > >>reason to force that association.  Nobody is denying the Ahmadis the
: > >>right to practice their religion.  But by adopting the name "Islam"
: > >>they are somehow associating with other Muslims.  Since Muslims far
: > >>outnumber Ahmadis, it follows that the Ahmadis should reconsider the
: > >>semantics.
: > >
: > 
: > So, at some time in the future (a century or two perhaps), IF the Ahmadis 
: > outbreed the majority muslims now, then it stands to reason that you would 
: > no longer be a muslim if they did not wish to consider you a muslim !! 
: > Whatever happened to "Islam is between man and Allah (and no one in between)".
: 
: 
: I've read all the followups with interest and none of them address the
: key issue.  Creating "IF" situations like Gopal does above seems to be
: very popular, but hypthethical scenarios are Gedanken experiments of
: little use.  The answer to what constitutes a Muslim is given in
: Islam's holy book itself, the Qur'an.  I have quoted from it to show
: how sects are not allowed, and the minute one divides from the
: religion (i.e. what the Qur'an teaches), once ceases to be part of
: Islam.  Since Muslims believe in the Qur'an, that is how they look
: upon the situation.
: 
O! How simple, isn't it!

Gopal's gedanken experiments are very relevant, because just like 
Einsteien's originl ones, it may become reality and it helps to
establish fundamentals. The fact that you have avoided answering the
question posed, shows that in fact you care nothing for democray or
majority rule, as you claim.

By the way, are you  Shia?

: Note that this all has nothing to do with right to practice whatever
: religion one likes.  The Ahmadis are more than welcome to practice
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes it does!

: whatever they like, to have their own newsgroup, etc.  In this
: situation, however, they are in conflict with an existing newsgroup,
: and since Muslims believe in the Qur'an, they have a problem if
: another group would like to use the "Islam" title.
: 
: 
: -- Shakil

Nadeem Malik
nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: CPLS13@email.mot.com (Steven_Cohn)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.home.automation
Organization: Motorola_CoveragePLUS
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:10:06 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups

In article <BxnGHr.F9p@uunet.uu.net>, CNTS12@email.mot.com (Mike Stevens)
wrote:
> 
> I am inquiry regarding setting up a home automation user group.  I 
> periodically see information in consumers.house; however, that group takes 
> all issues as it relates to homes.
> 
> Topics that relate to home automation:

> 
stuff deleted

> -- 
> | Mike Stevens                         | Internet: cnts12@email.comm.mot.com |
> | Motorola Central Systems Engineering | Voice:    708-576-8249              |
> | 1301 E. Algonquin Road-IL02 RM 0436  | FAX:      708-576-5640              |
> | Schaumburg, Illinois  60196  USA     |                                     |


As one who has both requested info, adn contributed in this area, I too
would like to see this group.

Steven Cohn
Motorola CoveragePLUS Engineering
CPLS13@EMAIL.MOT.COM
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
	<H.ea.q7Y1HKnayk6@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>
	<1992Nov15.121625.11038@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 12:56:24 -0800

In <1992Nov15.121625.11038@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
		(Dave Hayes) writes:

>jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>>	Well, as many of these same people are the ones who put the effort
>>into writing the introductory postings circulated monthly in
>>news.announce.newsusers, is it really so remarkable that occasionally
>>they express frustration when their previous efforts to act as a
>>"resource for those who could learn from them" have been completely ignored?

>No, it isn't. But to justify ostracization from a vote because of that
>frustration isn't exactly fair. 

	And to demand that the rights of people who can't even be bothered
to inform themselves of how the network they're using are being violated
isn't. "Help, help, I'm being oppressed"

>>it's very difficult to accept this as an excuse. If you want to lower
>>your standards to the lowest common denominator, feel free, but don't
>>demand it of everyone.

>Hasn't the attempt already been made with the introductory postings?

	Which attempt? The attempt to communicate something complicated in a
way even the greenest newbie can understand. If you're talking about the
guidelines, as written, they did a fairly good job for me. As the only
other poster supporting you with any volume in this thread obviously
hasn't read them, it's hard to tell in his case.

>>	The only thing I could conceive of that would work much better is
>>some sort of Usenet drivers licence, and somehow, I can't see that
>>working.

>Not with people like Jay Maynard around it wouldn't. 

	Now you're contradicting yourself again. First Jay and his cabal are
oppressing the "little guy" on Usenet by requiring that they have a
clue, now you're claining that he'd oppose requiring clues. 

>>	If it's elitist to expect people to use their brains, I guess I can
>>live with the label.

>On USENET we learn to filter out unwanted or unneeded information. So
>if you ask: "What standard does the first time user use to determine need?"
>you can't possibly get anything remotely looking like those Guidelines. 

	It's funny then how well they have worked for those who have taken the
time to read them. 

-- 
                    John Henders              " Read the guideline, Luke"
           Just another elitist Usenet user        Obi Wan Spaf
Xref: sparky news.groups:21964 news.admin:8539
From: jhildeb1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Jeff Hildebrand)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Date: 16 Nov 92 06:33:59 GMT
Reply-To: hildebra@math.wisc.edu (Jeff Hildebrand)
Organization: Don's Merry Horde of Topologists

randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
> I've said this before, I'll say it again.  Who decides which groups
> are affected?  This will lead to the same problem we have now:  people
> claiming they never saw the vote because nothing was said about it in
> their group.

	Two options here. Lesser option is that it gets posted to any group
that will wind up being rmgrouped because of a split or renaming. Stronger
option is that a message goes to all groups that the RFD/CFV goes to. The
first would probably be sufficient since most of the complaints seem to be
about "my newsgroup is going away and I wasn't told" and not "hey, some
threads are moving to a different group." (Most times in the later situation
people will just subscribe to the new group.) The second option might be
overkill, but would leave absolutely no margin for problems.

	Yes it's a little more work for the vote taker, but it would be less
time than it would take to deal with a massive flame war which erupts
afterwards. Since that seems to happen with distressing regularity with
large scale votes, it might be a hint that the extra time would be worth it.

-Jeff
-- 
Jeff Hildebrand, The Shaggy TA		       	   hildebra@math.wisc.edu
"The following statement  is an editorial viewpoint  and does not reflect 
the views of WSRN-FM, its employees, or mutant drosophila" - Off the Cuff
"You can't confuse us; we're not listening to you!"  -  topology students
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes hasn't got a clue (was Re: To keep the r.m.s rename...)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:14:23 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard):
>Dave (you know who) writes:
>>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>Chip's statement was a statement of fact. Only in the case of providers of
>>>paid Usenet services - a situation I don't believe Chip is in - do the
>>>admins serve the users. In the case of most corporate news admins, the
>>>management of the company is the only group the admin must serve.
>>
>>How assumptive of you.
>
>OK, here's another assumption: Chip will tell me, most likely in this very
>group as a folowup to one of these three messages, if my assumption is
>invalid. After this message, he may even tell me I'm right.

You're right: "You're right."  :-)

I run TCT's news system because I want to.

That the other users benefit is partly a result of my desire to spread
Usenet around wherever possible.  But mostly it's because setting up
Usenet for a dozen is just as easy as setting it up for one.  And the
half-dozen outgoing feeds I've set up are there because I like to
spread Usenet around, and also because I have the modem time available.

If someone benefitting from my volunteer work were to come to me and
ask for help, I would help -- in fact, I _have_ helped.  But if that
person were to demand that I help them -- that I _serve_ them -- then
I would give them a quarter and tell them to call someone who cares.

It's all in the appreciation.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.dcom.sys.wellfleet
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:46:28 EST
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <BxIHKw.9E@uunet.uu.net> tbooth@netcom.com (Todd Booth) writes:
>This is a formal Request for Discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup
>called "comp.dcom.sys.wellfleet" (not moderated).
>
>This announcement is cross-posted to newsgroups whose readers may have
>interest in the discussion about the new group; follow-up discussion will
>take place in "news.groups". Suggestions, comments or problems may also
>be emailed to me at <tbooth@netcom.com or tbooth@wellfleet.com>.
>
A number of people at this site would be interested in seeing this group.

Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:42:06 GMT

In article <H.ea.rVfEQ566q7c@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>I really like how, when someone
>pointed out you were helping move readers out of rec.music.synth by
>cross posting all your articles there, you changed your crossposts to
>the music-makers group. I thought you didn't carry that one?  

Catch-22.  If he had _not_ cross-posted articles to the music-makers group,
he would be accused of not including the people who disagreed with him in the
discussion.  (Actually, I think he was, though the last few hundred articles
sort of run together after a while.)
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Via: uk.ac.leeds.scs; Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:00:15 +0000
Distribution: world
X-News-Gateway: NewsGateway@phaze.UUCP (NewsGateway 1.0 by Pierre Rioux)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:59:05 GMT
Newsgroups: news.groups
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
From: ross-c@scs.leeds.ac.uk
To: usenet@phaze.cam.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Newsgroups Affected by Votes (Was: Standard RFD/CFV Format)

In article <1ebnqbINN22h@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> you write:
>
>Ah, but cannot we *also* argue over which groups are "directly"
>affected?  Take the recent misc.forsale.computers split.  I would
>argue that this "directly" affect misc.forale (non-computer), because,
>after the split, if you want to sell computer stuff, you need to know
>the "proper" group.  But if no messages are ever posted to misc.forsale,
>and you don't read news.announce.newgroups (which many people don't),
>then how will you know?

Well, for "directly affected" we could concretely state that this means
that the newsgroup will be renamed or deleted. There is no ambiguity in this
definition, and it's far better than the present situation.

If someone comes up with a better way of defining this, then we can use
the better definition. Otherwise, this will work. We shouldn't rule out
an improvement on the grounds that maybe there exists an "optimal" improvement,
except that 80,000 of us can't think of right now.

Also, I suggest that there should be a limit to the number of newsgroups
per vote. This would prevent subject lines growing to unmanageable lengths.
To prevent multiple confusing CFVs, this may slow down the voting. E.g. for
the rec.music.makers.* and rec.music.synth votes, it may have forced the
vote on rec.music.synth to wait until after the rec.music.makers.* votes 
were finished. More work for the person running the votes of course, but
in my opinion not necessarily a bad thing.

Cheers,

Ross-c
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
From: gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal)
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:59:24 GMT

In article <1e8eppINNkvl@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU>, ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Nov16.064310.27540@tamsun.tamu.edu>, gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:

|> > So, at some time in the future (a century or two perhaps), IF the Ahmadis 
|> > outbreed the majority muslims now, then it stands to reason that you would 
|> > no longer be a muslim if they did not wish to consider you a muslim !! 
|> > Whatever happened to "Islam is between man and Allah (and no one in between)".
|> 
|> 
|> I've read all the followups with interest and none of them address the
|> key issue.  Creating "IF" situations like Gopal does above seems to be
|> very popular, but hypthethical scenarios are Gedanken experiments of
|> little use. The answer to what constitutes a Muslim is given in

The point is not that IF situations are just hypothetical and therefore not
valid in any debate.  That is almost like saying "Since I am stronger than 
you and since there is no possibility of `IF you were stronger than me', I 
will continue with my bully tactics".  Not a very inspiring moral, is it ?

|> Islam's holy book itself, the Qur'an.  I have quoted from it to show
|> how sects are not allowed, and the minute one divides from the
|> religion (i.e. what the Qur'an teaches), once ceases to be part of
|> Islam.  Since Muslims believe in the Qur'an, that is how they look
|> upon the situation.

But isn't it a fact that there already are too many sects (10+) 
among muslims ? How do you address the issue of those sects ? 
Who draws the lines between the degree of variations permitted
in Islamic sects ? Just saying that "Quran says this..." does 
not mean that something contradictory to Quran is not happening.
Sects will continue to increase every decade -- an evolutionary
phenomena I suppose. You may be able to slow down this process
but never stop it.

Communism believed in homogenity. It failed miserably.
Fundamentalists believe  in homogenity. They will too.

regards,
--   
   ______ ______ ______ ______ __  |\/\/\/|
    ____/  __  /  __  /  __  /  /  |  \  /|  LIFE's COMPLEX - IT HAS
   / __   /   /  /   /  /   /  /   | (o)(o)  REAL & IMAGINARY PARTS.
  /   /  /   /   ___/  __  /  /    C      _) 
_____/ _____/ __/   __/ __/ ______/ | \___|  
E-mail - gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu       |   /   All Std. Disclaimers apply.


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign: A New Opinion
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:37:55 GMT

In article <BxqyzB.EJ7@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>.Campaign is only for non-defunct campaign posts, as in campaigns which
>are continuing.  Any fiction based on past campaigns would be put in 
>.archives (where I am currently posting the "Forbidden" and "Accursed"
>chronicals, two of my own net campaigns).
>  
Pardon me, but if they're all written up as fiction, how are you going to
tell the difference? The notion of splitting "campaign summaries" between
two groups based on the criterion of when the action is occurring seems
silly. Of course, there's no way to enforce this in an unmoderated group.



-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: RFD: Should rec.music.makers.synth stand as a group name?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:58:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.151752.24149@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes:
>Now, I feel slighted.  This thread started by my calling Dave's RFD
>a bogus revote, wherein he replied, is not.
>Dave> It is not a revote.
>Dave> It is a newsgroup creation request worded in a different way.
>stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>John> It is a vote on whether a previous vote should be accepted.
>John> It is a revote.  
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Ken> This is not obviously a sensible definition of "revote",
>Ken> any more than the word "manslaughter" means "any situation
>Ken> where a man is slaughtered".
>The bogosity meter pegs the needle when held near your dictionary.
>It sounds exactly like the definition of a revote to me.  In other words,
>Is too.

Dave said "Is not."

_I_ _didn't_ say "is not".  I said "your 'is too' isn't obvious".  There is a
difference between asserting something, and asserting that an argument
against it does not convince.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Talking to vote-takers during the vote
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:58:11 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <BxMG35.F7F@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:

>Let's say I have a question I'd like to ask the guy who proposed a new
>group and he's now taking votes on it.  The guidelines say he can't
>campaign for his group during the voting period, but can he respond to
>me if I start a discussion about it with him via email?  I don't want
>to put him in any jeopardy of invalidating the vote by tempting him to
>speak to me about it during the voting period if that's not allowed.

Asking questions about technicalities such as "How do I vote?", "In what way
was my vote malformed?", etc., should be fine.

Asking questions about e.g. the reasons for the group seems more doubtful to
me. There's nothing against you asking them, but if I were a vote-taker, I
would consider it good sense to do one of the following:

  * Not answer at all;

  * Answer with a form letter saying that my position as vote-taker
    precluded me from campaigning during the voting period;

  * Answer with relevant extracts from the CFV.

Anything else would lay me open to "entrapment" and charges of campaigning
during the vote, and such things are better avoided: even if the vote-taker
come out of them without a stain on his or her character, such things are a
huge waste of time... (Rich Kulawiec probably has something to say on the
subject!)

In short, you're not doing anything wrong, but if the vote-taker has any
sense, you'd do better talking to some other proponent of the group.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
From: wade@hobbes.ucsd.edu (Wade Blomgren)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.boats.crew
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:09:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1e9gnoINN693
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsd.edu

The group is a good idea, the name, while attractive, is not quite right.  
People looking for crew jobs on sail or powerboats will likely misuse the 
group.  I prefer rec.boats.rowing...less sexy but less ambiguous.  All IMHO 
of course.

Wade Blomgren
wade@hobbes.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: news@geovision.gvc.com (News Administrator)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.boats.crew
Reply-To: pt@geovision.gvc.com
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:54:47 GMT

gumby@spock.uucp (Danny Richman) writes:

>     It seems by popular demand that a new newsgroup is needed:
>rec.boats.paddle has recently been flooded with complaints of new articles
>that deal generally with crew.  It appears that rowers do not get along
>too well with kayakers or rafters.

I don't like the idea.  There is very little traffic on rec.boats.paddle,
barely enough to justify a newsgroup if you ask me.  If we further split,
then traffic will be even less.  If you really don't want to see crew stuff,
then we'll just ask the rowers to put the word 'ROWING' in their subject
line, and the snobs can kill/autoselect (depending on whether they are kayak
or rowing snobs) on that keyword.

This worked ok in rec.birds for a while - those who kept birds in captivity
put 'INDOOR' in thier subject lines, or got flamed by people who don't jail
birds.

-- 
Paul Tomblin, News Administrator Extraordinaire.  (pt@geovision.gvc.com)
I just administer the news, I don't make or state policy.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Bruce Norman)
Subject: Re: Call for "Straw" Votes: Rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:12:34 GMT

In article <6132@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <Bxnru1.MLE@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, by cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca:
>
>> How many people are against the group is not relevent to the Straw poll.
>> If more than 100 people respond to the Straw, there will be a CFV, even
>> if 10,000 people responded "no" to the Straw.  THE STRAW IS NOT A FORMAL
>> CFV.
>
>But you are in direct violations of the guidelines which require
>agreement about name and charter before the CFV.
>
No CFV has been issued.  All the straw poll will determine is whether or not
there will be a CFV issued or not.  The actually name and charter are still
open to discussion.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:26:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov13.081320.1017@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>There has been an occurance of a re-vote in Usenet history? To listen to  
>you guys would assume that it's a virtual impossibility.

It has happened only in those cases where a procedural irregularity has
happened. None has happened in this instance, and that's why I'm so insistent
that the vote be accepted.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.