HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.british.minorities
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:00:26 GMT
Organization: SunConnect
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.france.sun.com

In article <1in5nfINN1t0@rodan.UU.NET>, achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin) writes:
> NEW GROUP PROPOSED:  soc.culture.british.minorities
> 
> STATUS:  unmoderated
> 
> CHARTER:  As Great Britain becomes increasingly multicultural, there
> is an increasing need for discussion of race relations and the special
> concerns of ethnic minorities.  This group is intended to be inclusive
> of all perspectives and ethnicities (including the indigenous British)

So why not just leave the discussion in soc.culture.british, rather than
encouraging discrimination by trying to categorise things as 'minority'
and 'not minority' ?

Steve
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: seob@eskimo.com (Samuel Bayne)
Subject: medical,electronics,manufacturing groups
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:51:14 GMT


 I am looking for a listing of groups relating to medicine,
manufacturing, and electronics.  The company an aquaintance is working
for might connect up, if we can show the value to them.
I will monitor this group, but I would like it if someone could e-mail
me a listing, my address is seob@eskimo.com.  Thanks in advance!!!
From: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Query on NOC Tools Groups
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:40:32 GMT
Organization: Naval Medical Research & Development Command

In article <JAAPJL.93Jan8113801@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov> J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>You haven't heard about the INET groups?

Didn't we just leave this party?

Funny thing though, if the INET distribution is supposed to be the
promotion of mailing lists into newsgroups with Distribuiton: inet, I
wonder why these were created.  There doesn't seem to be any traffic in
them and I get the inet dist.


LCDR Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil
nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil      | UUCP:   ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30
AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.3     | BITNET:   dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc
CMC TCP/IP for 3B2 V 2.6.1      | 
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:42:59 GMT

To add a couple more IMHOs re sci.physics.research:

1) Any posting with more than 2 (maybe 3?) entries in the Newsgroups:
   line should be automatically dumped.

2) Any posting in which the repetition of previously posted material
   (">" lines) runs off the bottom of the first screen should also be
   automatically dumped, without even reading subsequent screens.

Actually I don't understand why the first of these isn't Usenet-wide
policy; any way to make a news reader implement the second one (before
the offending article is even opened)?
From: a111@mindlink.bc.ca (Anthony J. Lynn)
Subject: Taoism
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:15:04 GMT

Does anyone know of any discussion groups or mailing lists that deal with
Taoism?  Thanks.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Lynn - (a111@mindlink.bc.ca)

"Get the car, Krantz," he screamed. "Get the car, get the car!..." - L.Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:16:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1993Jan5.130311.4854@drd.com> mark@drd.com (Resident.Alien) writes:

>I've gotten a couple of rmgroups for these groups from
>news@tacom-emh1.army.mil.  Are these legit or is news admin there not
>setting distribution rightly?

They're legit.  The groups were officially removed about 2 years ago.

(tale may not be back from vacation yet.)
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
From: rick@rgb.com (Rick Davis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:20:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: RGB Spectrum

mark@drd.com (Resident.Alien) writes:

>I've gotten a couple of rmgroups for these groups from
>news@tacom-emh1.army.mil.  Are these legit or is news admin there not
>setting distribution rightly?

I also go them here.  They sure don't look legit to me, but how do
you tell?
-- 
                   R  G  B  Spectrum
              950 Marina Village Parkway  / "You can't fight in here - this
                  Alameda, California     / is the war room!" - Dr. Stragelove
                     rick@rgb.com
Xref: sparky news.groups:25136 sci.physics:22238
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 11 Jan 1993 00:02:44 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1993Jan10.054259.4364@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>1) Any posting with more than 2 (maybe 3?) entries in the Newsgroups:
>   line should be automatically dumped.
>Actually I don't understand why [this] isn't Usenet-wide
>policy;

It's a feature, not a bug.

Some days you just need to crosspost to six groups
(especially when the interested groups are split eight ways
and you know there are gumbies who read only one of each;
I expect this of sci.physics and sci.physics.research;
everyone wants What's New on both, and Calls for Papers
will be posted to both, as well; but we've already heard
from people who admit they don't even read sci.physics;
presumably they were in sci.misc when they read the message
to which they responded).

>2) Any posting in which the repetition of previously posted material
>   (">" lines) runs off the bottom of the first screen should also be
>   automatically dumped, without even reading subsequent screens.
>any way to make a news reader implement [this] one (before
>the offending article is even opened)?

Most NNTP servers prohibit any posting which includes more
old text than new text (ignoring the header but not the
attribution).  But this is a stylistic problem, on the
order of poor spelling (or spelling-flaming), which I've
learned to ignore.

A good discussion usually means that you can follow up
without attribution or inclusion; some, like this one,
require the inclusions for context, and often a little
editing to improve its organization.

				--Blair
				  "All answers must be in the
				   form of a full sentence."
From: wickerhauser-victor@math.yale.edu (Victor Wickerhauser)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD : soc.forced-migration
Date: 8 Jan 1993 22:12:50 -0500
Organization: Yale University Mathematics Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2155
NNTP-Posting-Host: golem.math.yale.edu

In article <1993Jan8.110330.11159@vax.oxford.ac.uk> hbond@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>                       THE REFUGEE STUDIES PROGRAMME 
>                            UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
>                     PROPOSAL FOR CREATING A NEWS GROUP
>
>                            SOC.FORCED-MIGRATION

If you wish to study refugees from Bosnia-Hercegovina and occupied
Croatia, it is much better to do it in Croatia or Germany, where there
are significant numbers of them, rather than in England, where there
are essentially none.

Victor
-- 
Prof. M. Victor Wickerhauser                      <victor@kirk.wustl.edu>
Department of Mathematics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 USA
Telephone:  USA(314)935-6771, USA(314)727-0749;     FAX: USA(314)727-4963
Sto se ljuckim trudom uzdignulo, Ljuckim znojem jopet se ponavlja. --Medo Pucic
From: rwh@CS.CMU.EDU (Robert Harper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.lang.ml -- yes
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:51:34 GMT
	<RABIN.93Jan7133225@nuthatch.CS.Yale.Edu> <C0JzJL.AzE.1@cs.cmu.edu>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: rwh@GOTTLOB.TIP.CS.CMU.EDU

I endorse the idea of creating comp.lang.ml as a forum for discussion of
topics related to the ML family of languages.  My preference would be for a
moderated newsgroup in order to keep the s/n ratio as high as possible, but I
appreciate that being the moderator is rather burdensome.  Were it not for the
fact that some members of the sml-list cannot read news, I would suggest
abandoning sml-list entirely in favor of a moderated comp.lang.ml.  Is there
an automatic means by which the periodic digests from comp.lang.ml could also
be forwarded to those on the net who cannot read news?

-- 
Bob Harper	(rwh@cs.cmu.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: marek@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:16:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.054851.21174@midway.uchicago.edu>
elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1iftqkINN77t@rodan.UU.NET> nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) 
> writes:
>>Proposal:                     "soc.religion.biblestudy"
>>This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the Bible,
>>Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under question.
>
>Then you should be proposing soc.religion.CHRISTIAN.biblestudy, then,
>shouldn't you?

More precisely, for wont of example, what about the traffic from atheists
interested in studying the text of the bible for academic or amateur
research on anthropology/culture/religion studies/history/myth/sociology/
women studies etc?  Should these people be expressly excluded from
contributing to soc.religion.biblestudy?

				-- Marek
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Date: 12 Jan 1993 08:39:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


I'd just like to say that I am in favor of all the changes in the
recent RFD for misc.jobs, especially making misc.jobs.discussion.  The
only thing is that I wonder if misc.jobs.entry is really big enough to
split.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
From: hugh@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca (Hugh D. Gamble)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Request for new group discussion/vote guidelines.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 04:04:21 EST
Keywords: guidelines new group creation
Summary: Can someone send me the current guidelines?
Distribution: world
Organization: Phaedra V

Hi all. This aught to be in a FAQ somewhere, but I can't find it.
Would someone be so kind as to send me a current copy of the
guidelines for starting a formal discussion and vote on a new group?

Due to popular demand and mailing lists wasting bandwidth I'd like to
start a discussion on moving the long standing and successful
alt.sys.amiga.uucp over to comp.sys.amiga.usenet-sw.

Pointers to where to get the guidelines would also be welcome, even an
off the top of the head, "discuss for N weeks and handle the vote like
this" would be a good start. I've been scanning news.groups and some
other places for about a month now without finding it in a FAQ.

Thanks.
-- 
# Hugh D. Gamble  UUCP: hugh@kink.UUCP  Domain: hugh@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca     %
# AMIX: HGAMBLE  bix: hgamble  voice: +1 416 267 6159                        %
# '"U.S. is more restrictive than other places, except maybe Canada."        %
# The kindler, gentler fascists to the North don't consider any form of      %
# self-defense legal.' - Mondo 2000 No. 8                                    %

Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:49:21 GMT

In article <id.76GW.CIJ@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>
>Why not? The purpose of language is to communicate, and to do that you need
>to establish a common base of ideas. This base *can't* contain words so prone
>to misinterpretation.
Wow!  And _you're_ the right kind of guy to decide misinterpretation of
"conservative"? 

How do you square this:
>
>Not if they can't separate politics and religion, and there's no place for
>religion in politics. 

    Pete da Silva

with this:
>The Church (of which Christianity, "a fortunate accident," is one form,
>but is not identical with the Idea of a Church itself) lives not mererly
>in partnership with the State, but with it constitues a unity.  Upon 
>considerations of expediency and convenience, we may seperate the actual
>operation of government and of churchly authority; but at bottom, Church
>and State are forever united.  Society cannot subsist unless both its 
>constituent elements thrive.

   Russel Kirk, "The Conservative Mind From Burke to Eliot", p140-141,
   1953

You really don't know anything about conservatives or their beliefs.  You
don't like certain conservative "scoundrels" so you attack them by 
attacking the word conservative.  Any conservative knows from Burke
the close relationship between church and state.  Why don't you?
And you really expect us to take your word over Russel Kirks about
what conservatives believe?  On what credentials?

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:03:10 GMT


dweinste@Gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein) writes:

>> I have two objections to the proposal as given, one fairly minor, one
>> major.

>> The proposal states:
>> #Proposal:
>> #---------
>> #The creation of a new newsgroup to be called:
>> #
>> #                     "soc.religion.biblestudy"
>> #
>> #Overview:
>> #---------
>> #This would be an excellent place for Christians, Bible Scholars, 
>> #or people just interested in reading the Bible to come together 
>> #from all over the world and share *their* interpretations of God's 
>> #word.  (It should prove quite fascinating to see how people from 
>> #other countries view the Bible.)

>> Now, very clearly, this is not a generic Bible Study (something which becomes
>> extremely clear later on). The name seems like it ought to be something
>> along the lines of "soc.religion.christian.bible-study".


I agree, this group *should* be called something other than 
"soc.religion.biblestudy"; this IS WAY TOO GENERIC and should be named 
something like "soc.religion.christian.bible-study". That would alleviate
much of the confusion as to who this group will be addressed to.  It would
also alleviate the major problem pointed out by David in the following 
comment:  

>> The charter goes on to limit the discussion as follows:

>> #This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the 
>> #Bible, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under 
>> #question [...] 

>> This is, to my mind, a major problem. It removes from the discussion *any*
>> positions which do not accept Christianity's mainline doctrines. Jewish
>> exegetics of Isiah would be gone, as would any scholarly position which
>> refutes Christian doctrine. Perhaps the group should be renamed
>> "soc.religion.christian.bible-study.people.who.agree.with.the.moderator".
>> Or perhaps it ought not be created with this charter at all.


As the RFD says, this group is meant for believers of Jesus Christ and the
Bible.  The fact that this is a *Christian* Bible study, however, does not 
limit the discussion to only information from this book.  There are several 
sources of information that prove to be quite fascinating and can be 
discussed as well; they will not be the main focus of attention however.  

As far as moderation goes, the only things that I could see being filtered 
out would be arguments against the validity of Jesus Christ or the Bible 
and and senseless flaming of others - these are already being discussed on 
talk.religion.misc and soc.religion.christian and would be a waste here.



--
Bill Nelson
AT&T Paradyne
Largo, FL (USA)
(813)530-8696
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:29:12 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1993Jan12.041858.6537@netcom.com> foo@netcom.com (Mark Hall) writes:
>   In the 8 months that misc.jobs.offered has existed, there have been
>about 428 articles. I would guess that more than half of those articles 
>were NOT job offers at all. Near graduation, about 90% were 'I want a job' 
>and 'you're an idiot, quit posting that you want a job' postings. 

   I've been keeping non-rigorous track of it, and it's *much* less than 
50%.

>   The actual offers have been less than 1 per day.

   About one every 2.5 days, by my count.

>   Rather than split the group, it would be more appropriate to rmgroup it.

   Good idea.  Now if only there were a procedure for doing so. :-(
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Disclaimer: Involuntary vocalization may occur.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Reply-To: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:07:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.190745.571@brtph560.bnr.ca> 
woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:
>There have been arguments made along the lines of "What about people 
>who believe such-n-such?," where "such-n-such" conflicts with the
>basic premises of the newsgroup.  

If the people who believe "such-n-such" derive their belief from the Bible, 
then a group that claims only to be for the study of the Bible should allow
their participation. If what the moderator wants is a group that only
discusses the interpretation of the Bible by a certain subset of the people
who base their beliefs on it, then the group should be called soc.religion.
catholic.biblestudy, or whatever is appropriate.

-jenneke

   Only Boys Accepting Feminism Get Kissed Meaningfully  -- Geoff Marcy
The only unnatural sexual act is that which you cannot perform. - Alfred Kinsey
		jenneke is: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:18:36 GMT

spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) writes:

>>For those who do not have access to Bibles, they can either be 
>>directed to an ftp site where they can access electronic copies, 
>>portions of the Bible can be broadcasted on the last day of the 
>>prevous discussion period (as long as permission is granted first 
>>- to avoid copyright infringement)
>
>The King James version is available on many sites, and is not under
>copyright, so it can be broadcast freely.  Newer translations are
>generally still under copyright.  I'm not sure where you'd get the
>deuterocanonical books (the 'Old Testament Apocrypha'), though; are
>they in any of the on-line KJV's?  (If there's a Douay translation
>on-line, that should be out of copyright now, and would have them.)

Many modern translations also allow quoting of series of verses so long as
they are reproduced accurately and include the source.  For example, to
quote my Zondervan NIV Study Bible:

  "The NIV text may be quoted in any form (writen, visual, electronic or
   audio) up to and inclusive of one thousand (1000) verses without express
   written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not
   amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do the verses quoted count
   for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are
   quoted

   Notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page of the
   work as follows:...(deleted copyright notice)

   When quotations from the NIV are used in non-saleable media, such
   as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies or
   similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the
   initials (NIV) must appear at then end of each quotation."

So, lots of text can be quoted, so long as someone doesn't type in the
entire Bible, or an entire book, without permission...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: dweinste@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.biblestudy moderated
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:29:52 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan8.160310.5664@pdn.paradyne.com> nelson@paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:
#>> The charter goes on to limit the discussion as follows:
#
#>> #This would be a group where the subject of the validity of the 
#>> #Bible, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit will NOT be under 
#>> #question [...] 
#
#>> This is, to my mind, a major problem. It removes from the discussion *any*
#>> positions which do not accept Christianity's mainline doctrines. Jewish
#>> exegetics of Isiah would be gone, as would any scholarly position which
#>> refutes Christian doctrine. Perhaps the group should be renamed
#>> "soc.religion.christian.bible-study.people.who.agree.with.the.moderator".
#>> Or perhaps it ought not be created with this charter at all.
#
#
#As the RFD says, this group is meant for believers of Jesus Christ and the
#Bible.  The fact that this is a *Christian* Bible study, however, does not 
#limit the discussion to only information from this book.  There are several 
#sources of information that prove to be quite fascinating and can be 
#discussed as well; they will not be the main focus of attention however.  
#
#As far as moderation goes, the only things that I could see being filtered 
#out would be arguments against the validity of Jesus Christ or the Bible 
#and and senseless flaming of others - these are already being discussed on 
#talk.religion.misc and soc.religion.christian and would be a waste here.

What you are doing is not limiting the topics of discussion (which is what
any Newsgroup charter does), but limiting the positions which can be taken
in those arguments. Someone interested in discussing Biblical exegetics, but
from a non-Christian perspective would be *removed* from the discussion
by the moderator. And that is not what should happen on a newsgroup.
If you want a limited scope discussion, form a mailing list. Don't ask
the rest of the net to create a newsgroup solely for people who argee
with you. By the way, who are you proposing as the moderator?

--Dave



-- 
Dave Weinstein
Internet: dweinste@gnu.ai.mit.edu
"Wives have no sympathy for Rugby injuries." -- Dan Smith
Newsgroups: news.groups