HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: killer@robin.cs.hut.fi (Kalle Kivimaa)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, CS lab
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:47:13 GMT

In <1992Nov6.194951.23530@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>>If we now hold a re-vote, we have a precedent that a vote held according
>>to guidelines is not neccesarily valid.  This implies:
>Oh my god...shall I say it....IMMINENT DEATH OF THE NET PREDICTED.

Not neccesarily, but the organized anarchy (is there such :-) would turn
to anarchy --> altnet.

>Because it wasn't broken in the first place, AND because the vote was 
>not handled in a fair manner.

Tell me what was unfair.  The Guidelines are in fault by your reasoning,
not the vote in question.

And besides, if people who participated in discussion think that the
logical place for synth discussion is under makers-subhierarchy and
not under music, then it was broken.

>*I* certainly have lost respect for the Guidelines. Who's next? Do you
>really want this to continue?

No.  Go ahead and change the Guidelines, you will have my support for it.
But I maintain that no change should have any effect to votes conducted
before the change.
--
************************************************************************
* The night sky over the planet Krikkit is the least interesting sight *
* in the entire Universe.  -- Douglas Adams, HHGTG                     *
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:51:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.175058.11263@bradley.bradley.edu>  
pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
> 
> I can see that there was a misunderstanding.  We should adjust for it
> in the future.
> 
Bravo! Let's do so...

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: michalj@fuw.edu.pl (Michal Jankowski)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 8 Nov 92 14:58:09 GMT
	<ZVTSBQ3T@cc.swarthmore.edu> <96563@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Warsaw University Physics Dept.

How about adding this to the guidelines:

  Every RFD and CFV should contain names of the affected groups *in
the subject field* 

I don't read rec.music.synth. I don't care how it is called.
But I think that CFV in this case had misleading 'Subject' fields, and were
violating the spirit of USENET guidelines.

    Michal

PS. I could only find GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION. Are there
any GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP REORGANIZATION?


    
   
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:42:35 GMT

In article <BxJAM7.29K@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John  
Stanley) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.215301.18928@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>  
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
> >stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
> >>I suppose you have mail in your mailbox from Bill Clinton objecting to
> >>the r.m.s rename vote.
> >
> >From: clinton@democrats.org
> >To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
> >Subject: Renaming of rec.music.synth
> 
> Sorry, Dave. Your forgery falls flat. Democrats.org is a non-existant
> domain.
> 
> Just goes to show how far someone will go to create facts when they
> have none. 
> 

Oh c'mon! Obviously this was a joke. 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:47:03 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <BxKsnF.DJL@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>In article <BxIrM6.C73@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
>>
>>thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:

Please watch your attribution; it looks (incorrectly) like I wrote the
following text.
>>
>>>What is the opinion of everyone else on this issue? The moderation issue is
>>>certainly an important one.  Can we "trust" readers to follow guidelines?
>>>We could always have a standerd note to be sent to all players which would
>>>require them to explicitly state they understand the rules of .campaign
>>>before they get involved with a campaign.
>>
>>the least of which is its redundancy.  However, on moderation; whoever
>>would moderate the newsgroup would necessarily have to be the GM for
>>all the campaigns, unless he wants the post-to-appearance time to be
>>*really* slow.  
>
>I disagree.  A slight delay on a post which would probably come out every
>two weeks or less is not signifigant.
>
Certainly.  Now apply this to a discussion group.  I give an example:

Dave Nalle posts something to .misc that I wish to comment on.  His article
diffuses out from his site.  The next time I read news after it hits mine,
I can comment on it.  My article diffuses out from my site.  Possibly he will
get my response the same day he posted his article.

Dave Nalle posts something to .campaign that I wish to comment on.  His
article goes to cbnorman's site, awaiting cbnorman's attention.  cbnorman
approves it, and it diffuses out from cbnorman's site.  The next time I
read news after it hits mine, I can comment on it.  My article goes to
cbnorman's site, awaiting cbnorman's attention.  Once he approves the
messages again, it diffuses out from his site.

Assuming cbnorman checks the messages once a day, we've only got a one-
day delay in the discussion.  Even so, odds are that somebody gets disgusted
with the time lag and sets followups to .misc, .dnd., or .advocacy.

If you want discussion of campaigns in .campaign, drop the moderation.

>>Player moves posted to .campaign would have to go
>>through the moderator, to the GM for that campaign, back to the
>>moderator, and then be posted to the newsgroup.  
>
>Player moves are made in e-mail.
>
Yup.  You said this before.  Now, please tell me what, that is suitable for
.campaign and is *not* discussion, is not suitable for .archive.  Player
moves are made in email, and the GM posts the turn results in .campaign.
WHY NOT .ARCHIVE?  I don't normally shout on the net, but I'd really like
to get an answer to this question.

DHT
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:31:51 GMT
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft

In article <2B0010D3.90DC@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> According to mjp@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Mike Prudence):
> >Not having an interest in anything to do with the 'news' software, I
> >have never even glanced at the groups 'news.*'.  Nowhere, in any of
> >the groups I read, in four years, have I seen anything telling me to
> >'read news.groups' ...
> 
> Then whoever set you up for Usenet access did you a disservice by
> failing to educate you... which says nothing about the validity of
> the current process.
> 
If the process REQUIRES that you receive adequate and accurate information  
from a 3rd party, the current process has a hole, IMHO. Can the hole at  
least be partially filled? I think so.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky news.groups:20385 rec.music.synth:17806
From: killer@robin.cs.hut.fi (Kalle Kivimaa)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:01:52 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, CS lab

In <1992Nov5.213730.789@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>news.groups...MOST people probably kill based upon any "news.groups" in
>the header. But aside from that...what seems to happen over and over is

Why should they do that?  Oh, I know.  People are discussing things
simultaneously in n.g and their group, they don't want to see it, they
kill it.  That is precisly why the discussions for group creation/renaming
are kept solely in n.g.  Then you don't have to kill all crossposts to
n.g as there are only CFV's and RFD's that have such crosspost.

I personally will remove r.m.s from every subsequent post from me.
Interested r.m.s readers, subscribe to news.groups.

>I don't think they knew to do so. Some of those people have (and desire to
>have) little clue as to USENET and it's politics. They shouldn't have to
>have a clue when it comes to affecting their group.

Then they should read news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions.
--
************************************************************************
* The night sky over the planet Krikkit is the least interesting sight *
* in the entire Universe.  -- Douglas Adams, HHGTG                     *
************************************************************************
From: randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for "Straw" Votes: Rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:46:59 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <Bxo9p5.8Ew@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu writes:
>Sure, if they want to respond that's fine.  I'm not going to count their
>message as a vote *for* campaign if they're against it.  I'm also not
>going to tally the results though.  If someone else wants to run a straw
>poll against campaign, be my guest, but the results won't have an affect
>on whether or not I run a CFV.  The only reason I won't run a CFV is if
>there are no supporters of .campaign.

Allow me to publicly state:

Bruce Norman, you are a MORON.  Obviously there won't be "no" or
"zero" supporters of .campaing, because *you* support it.

You are so blatantly biased it is unbelieveable.  You state that "the
results won't have an affect on whether or not I run a CFV".  So then,
what the FUCK is the point of even bothering to hold an RFD, if you
are going to call for votes no matter what anyone says?

You, Bruce, have already wasted THOUSANDS of dollars with this idiotic
attempt to create a new group.  Stop!  Give it up!  It is not
necessary!

STUPID MORON!!!!!!

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: Discussion request: Keeping soc.religion.* flat
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:10:19 GMT

In a prior article, Nicholas Jodar (jodar@aludra.usc.edu) writes:
> It is assumed that such a move would mean some restructuring of
> existing groups, but that doesn't sound too difficult.

Actually, it wouldn't: as far as I can tell, the only groups presently in
soc.religion.* are:

  soc.religion.bahai
  soc.religion.christian
  soc.religion.eastern
  soc.religion.islam
  soc.religion.quaker

So a policy of keeping soc.religion.* flat would not affect any existing
groups. It would affect the proposed soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya, which I
plan to vote NO for when it comes to a vote, solely because of the name. (I
have told the proposed moderator this, incidentally.)
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why
several of us died of tuberculosis." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
From: randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall)
Subject: Re: About the elitism in news.groups
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:16:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.081205.5985@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
[quoting someone from r.m.m]

>> [...]It's disappointing to hear that
>>people who evidently know more consider themselves superior instead of
>>consider themselves as a resource for those who could learn from them.
>
>That last sentence sums it up pretty well. Comments?

I don't feel bad at all.  I do feel superior.  I went to the trouble
to read the posts in news.answers and news.admin, and to read
news.groups for long enough to figure out what is going on.  I don't
jump into groups and start asking questions, I read them for at least
a month to see if there is a FAQ or something like one.  And I check
pit-maganer.mit.edu for possible info.

If everyone would do as I do, the net would run much more smoothly.

Oh, by the way, I'm very secure and no one can say anything to make me
feel bad, so don't even bother.

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:03:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.172346.28493@daimi.aau.dk> rorschak@daimi.aau.dk  
(Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
> 
> >And think you that there's been no serious damage already? Do you guys
> >even CARE about how many people you alienate with your damn  
inflexibility?
> 
> What harm? The name rec.music.synth is not some godgiven constant, any
> piece of software that can operate with the name rec.music.synth can
> also deal with rec.music.makers.synth with a trivial change. 
> 

I operate a stand-alone system and pay (quite a lot) for my newsfeed. I  
don't know how to change over to the new group. Could someone point me at  
the appropriate document to read, and possibly what section so I don't  
have to waste a lot of time? This is a sincere request for information  
from someone that would like to be better educated and not lose contact  
with a group of interest.



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:11:47 GMT

In article <BxI8E1.LL5@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.175147.22259@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>>In article <BxBLtM.H60@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>>Moderated discussion groups are a bad idea.  Moderation slows down the
>>flow of conversation, and really is only of value when the topic needs
>>to be enforced.  I haven't noticed much problems with off-topic posts
>>in the r.g.f hierarchy so far.
>>
>>I will therefore vote against this proposal if it is not amended to
>>remove the duplication with r.g.f.archives and to remove the moderation.
>>
>The problem I see happening is that players will start responding to campaign
>moves in the echo, even though it is forbidden to do so.  Messages such as "Bob swings his tennis racket at the gigantic flaming moose" will compromise the
>echo.  I've also received intense mail from people saying that the last
>thing they want to see in .campaign is "Bob swings his tennis racket at the
>gigantic flaming moose" type messages.
>
Actually, my suggestion was to drop the campaigning entirely, reserving that
for r.g.f.archive, leaving the campaign discussion which should be unmoderated.
One problem with r.g.f.campaign as proposed is that it is trying to do two
somewhat incompatible things:  serve as a moderated "important postings" group
*and* a discussion group.  Since we have a perfectly good place to post
the campaign moves and backgrounds, I suggest we leave this to r.g.f.archives
and make r.g.f.campaign unmoderated.  I'm still somewhat dubious on it, but
making it an unmoderated discussion group is certainly a reasonable proposal.

>What is the opinion of everyone else on this issue? The moderation issue is
>certainly an important one.  Can we "trust" readers to follow guidelines?
>We could always have a standerd note to be sent to all players which would
>require them to explicitly state they understand the rules of .campaign
>before they get involved with a campaign.

If you stick with the group as proposed, it will not be used much as a
discussion group because it's moderated, and it will duplicate r.g.f.archives
for most of the rest of its functions.  If you change the proposal to
unmoderate the group, it *will* get the "tennis racket" messages.  If
you have insufficient net and r.g.f.* experience to know this, trust me
on it :-).  IMHO, your only hope of having a reasonable group is to drop
the campaign reports and make it an unmoderated discussion group on role-
playing campaigns.

DHT


Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Intentional ignorance of newsgroup creation? (was Re: *BAD*...)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:44:51 GMT

In article <2B03B48B.638E@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>In any case, the key bit of information in the guidelines is that
>news.announce.newgroups is the place to find all proposals and votes.
>So anyone interested in participating knows to read n.a.newgroups.

So in that case, the only purpose the crosspost to the affected groups serves
is to catch some of the lazy people--the ones who didn't bother to read n.a.n.

Fine so far.  But now consider that in light of the complaints about the synth
vote.  The complaints, translated using the above definition, are complaints
that the subset of lazy people caught was a biased one.

Unfortunately, many replies to these complaints have been on the order of
"well, they are lazy people.  We have no obligation to inform lazy people".
But the complaint was not specifically about the number of people informed,
it was about the _bias_ in who was informed.  To use an analogy, that's like
promoting only the men in your company, and then telling a woman that she has
no grounds for complaint because you are not obligated to promote anyone at all.
--
"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)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:04:42 GMT

igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
>> This sounds just like any argument used to justify inconsideration and 
>> disrespect to an ignorant or powerless minority. Sort of like "No ethnic
>> minorities in the streets after 10pm". Shall I continue on this line
>> of reasoning?
>Rename compared to racial segregation!  Next move: killing of group
>compared to genocide, Jay-as-Hitler, imminent death of net predicted,
>film, even, at eleven.

Hey! No fair...Jay Maynard was supposed to do the hitler comparison! 8-)
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

A man had lost a ring. His friend stopped by that morning and offered to help.
By late-afternoon, his friend remarked "I don't see it anywhere. Are you sure 
you lost your ring here?"
"Oh no," replied the man, "I lost it in the room over there...but the room
is too dark. Here I can see better."
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik)
Subject: Re: RFD: SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM.AHMADIYYA-MODERATED.
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:01:07 GMT

merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant) writes:
: In article <1992Nov4.192850.177@otago.ac.nz>, amjad@otago.ac.nz writes:
: > In article <1992Nov3.002700.1@uwovax.uwo.ca>, 3040_3744@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
: >> In article <1cscdiINNqd6@life.ai.mit.edu>, gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer) writes:
: >>> In article <1992Oct28.170008.3789@bernina.ethz.ch> nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik) writes:
: >>> 
: 
: 
[lots of deletion]
: 
: There is only ONE perspective in Islam for *all* the Muslims and that is
: following the sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (SAW).

The problem here is that what Ms Rukhsana is talking about is the mystical 
ideal concept that there is only one Islam. This is agreed by everyone. But,
as anyone who thinks just half a second about it will realise, we are human
beings and we have our diffeerent prespectives -- so who defines the one
Islam that Ms Rukhsana is referring to?

: 
: If the Ahmadiyya community claim to have another perspective, they are a 
: *different*  religion!!  (No matter how many dictionaries define it to
: be a sect of Islam.)  I *will not* call another person claiming to be
: Muslim a non-believer, but I also know that a Muslim has no need for
: *Ahmadi* in front of Muslim. 

No, actually, Ahmadi Muslims claim only to have the perspective of the one
Islam which you have referred to. In that case who are Sunnis and Shia and
Wahabi and Ismaelis and Bohras? 
: 
: 
: Create a seperate newsgroup since the need is to propaganda the Ahmadiya
: religion.  The mainstream Muslims define Islam as following the
: sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (SAW) and the Holy Quran.  Period.

Dare I ask the obvious question; why do you need the *mainstream* tag in front
of Muslims? Who are the mainstream? Which *sect* of group of mullahs do
you belong to? Sunni, Shia? Or some other tag?

Actually the correct definition of Islam is the other way round:
Follow the Holy Quran (first) and then the sunna of the Holy Prophet (SAW).
This is the Ahmadiyya Muslim definition of Islam. (This is the second
time that you have made this error; is it possible that you have learnt
Islam at the hands of Alhe-Hadis (an other sect) which favours Hadis above
the Quran?)

: 
: Since the Ahmadiyya community claims to have a different perspective,
: then they need a seperate newsgroup, but NOT under soc.religion.islam.

That different perspective is actually the correct ONE ISLAM; it is the
majority 72 other sects which are wrong. If we had been first on the 
network, we would have adopted soc.religion.islam for ourselves.
: 
: 
: Rukhsana Merchant
: 
Nadeem Malik
nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch
Xref: sparky news.groups:20917 news.admin.policy:247
From: wade@hobbes.ucsd.edu (Wade Blomgren)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Followup-To: poster
Date: 9 Nov 1992 23:35:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsd.edu

In an article, dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave "Just because I'm paranoid
doesn't mean you're not out to get me" Hayes) writes:

> >  - Dave Hayes' name appears in the voters' list for rec.music.makers.*
> >    reorganization, with a 'N' vote for rec.music.makers.synth.
> 
> I was waiting with baited breath for this. 
> 

Now that's an interesting Freudian mis-spelling....