HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
Subject: Re: Alt.war charter (a non-starter)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:47:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.231440.4812@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>
>    I am the one who mentioned making a charter. Specifically I meant to
>add a 'no crossposts' line to the charter. Alt.war already has a charter, 
>and while NAFTA doesn't really fit, most of the other flame war can't
>be specifically excluded.
>    I still think that we should put 'no crossposts' into the charter. It'S
>not that I think it would stop the crossposts, but would give us real
>alt.war'ers some basis to complain.
>
[more stuff on cross-posts..]

I agree completely.  'No cross-posting' would be an excellent addition to the
charter.  Although, now that I'm writing, I can think of a couple of groups 
from which I'm sure no-one will mind cross-posts.  Sci.aeronautics, 
sci.military come to mind.  So maybe the thing would be to compile a list 
of 'allowed' cross-post groups or something like that (or I guess if that's
a hassle we could always just have a blanket no - most of us read those 
groups anyways).  Any ideas, suggestions, etc. etc. ? 
 
Gerald
From: dxper@dtek.chalmers.se (Per Anders Olausson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Vikings (Berserkers)
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:26:53 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:

>Though this may be disputed (according to the Random House College dictionary)>viking is probably a gerund form of a verb which means, "to raid costal areas.
>But I'm not sure if that derivation would be Anglic or Scandanavian.

  I think it is more likely that the name is derived from the name "Viken" 
which used to be name of the coastal part of Western Sweden which Sweden
annexed in late 17th century from Norway. The name Viking would then denote
someone from "Viken". 

  Anyway it is open to a lot of interpretations but this is the one which seems
most likely to be correct, IMHO.

  And just a couple of more cents on the violent part...researchers have lately
come to the conclusion that the reputation of the Vikings from 13-14th century
thereon had little to do with reality. As evidence they have found a lot of 
weapons and armour which didn't seem practical to use which is taken as a sign 
that they weren't in use but more showpieces. It was probably different before
then though however. And drop the silly horn stuff will you?! It's fiction and
nothing else. The real Vikings had much more lighter armour, probably much like
what you would find in Byzans, because that's were they served until the 
emperor threw them out.

pao
--
-------------------------------Andrew Olausson--------------------------------
--------------------------Unemployed Unix Specialist--------------------------
------------------------------pao@cd.chalmers.se------------------------------
-------------------------------pa-ola@proxxi.se-------------------------------
From: d8ahlcr@dtek.chalmers.se (Christopher Ahlberg)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Ground troops in Yugoslavia
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:58:45 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

Reading the discussions going on in this newsgroup regarding employing
ground troops in (the former) Yugoslavia I get very dubious. Even if you talk
about employing 10-12 division to protect the road, you're still talking about
a country which seems pretty much ideal for guerilla warfare. Being trained
on an Artic Ranger unit there seem to be great possibilities for nice ambushes.
Even employing units every say 5-10 kilometers on the road will not stop
someone from doing a mine-ambush, not using a single handheld weapon.
Just use a mortar or a mine stop the convoy, and then pull one thread blow
of say 10 or 20 mines, and the convoy will be history. The one man needed to
pull the string will probably be able to escape.

And now we have a winter approaching fast. Although it's easier to find
guerillas skiing by the tracks they leave, it makes it even more difficult 
for the ground troops to reach them. And by doing some pre-attack fake
tracks you can fool most enemies. With all the respect I have for American
soldiers, I would like to see them catching Yogoslavian guerillas the have
been skiing their mountains all their life.

--
Christopher Ahlberg		       Chalmers University of Technology
email: d8ahlcr@dtek.chalmers.se	       School of Computer Science & Engineering
				       G|teborg, Sweden

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Subject: Re: Info on books
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:25:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.144212.1464@csd.uch.gr> kermits@ikaros.cc.uch.gr (Aggelos Keromyths) writes:
>I've been looking for Clausevich (sorry if i mispelled-just woke up anyway)
> book(s) but can't find any,so i was wondering if anyone out there can tell me
>  the publisher/editor of the book.Any other good books on the same theme (
>  war theory) ?
>Thanks,
>	Aggelos

You did not find any works of Clausewitz ? Too bad. The "Vom Kriege" (Of War)
is really good text. But as alternative, there are many good choices.
Try "The Prince" by Macchiavelli or "The Art Of War" by Son Ze (Sun Tzu).
There are also a whole lot of ancient Greek and Roman manuals surviving;
most of them in Ancient Greek or Latin; the surviving Byzantine (Romanoi)
manuals, like "Strategikon" by emperor Leon might also be interesting.
Just consult your nearest military or historical library ! Sources of
history should be plentiful in Ellas, though...


  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: effect of crossposts
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:27:31 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.


     Kill files are fine, but there is a definate negative effect of
crossposts.

    The problem is that alt.war is a small and fairly poorly distributed
group. It is about 1000th in popularity, and low in volume. When I high
volume group like talk.politics.misc crossposts to alt.war, it can swamp
our smaller group easily.
   In order for our group to get better distribution and higher readership,
we must get more people to see value in the group. Readers won't follow it if
all they see is crossposted flame wars from t.p.*.  News admins won't carry
it if all they see of it in thier junk directory is the same flame wars.
   I would estimate that a crossposted flame war generates 10 times as many
articles as the rest of alt.war over the same period. There is no way that
we can build up this group if this continues.

   This is why I suggested a ban on crossposts for the charter. Of course,
this being alt, we will have no mechanism to stop innapropriate articles, but
at least it will give us a united reason to object.
   It will be united if we all agree, that is. When I suggested it before,
the responce was very poor. If we don't form a concensus, then there is no
point in discussing it further.

   Final note: I'm not suggesting an absolute ban on crossposts. Things
like announcments would be OK as long as the followup is redirected (to
alt.war if appropriate).

   Another final note:  The charter (which I wrote and nobody objected to)
already says that alt.war is for those things not covered by other groups.
t.p.*, alt.desert_*, sci.military, etc should be used unless you feel
that your article doesn't belong in those groups. If that is true, then
post here.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: bknutson@higgins.ecn.purdue.edu (Brian A Knutson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO SCI.MILITARY??
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:08:15 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


	I have been receiving sci.Military without interruption.  He 
(the mod) did post a note which said that there were some problems with
his net feed.  But I have gotten new articles fine.  Talk to your news
guru's.

bkntuson@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: List of All Ongoing Conflicts
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 08:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.153454.28141@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <ARA.92Aug13232835@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>>
>>Is there a list available of all of the ongoing armed conflicts in the world
>>today and their current status?
>>
>   I thought of keeping a list, but decided it was wildly impractical.
>If you get clarinet, check out clari.news.fighting. If you don't, bug you
>sysadmin to get it. s'great.
>   If anyone has the time to keep a list, by all means attempt it.
>
>DanZ
>
You may not be able to find a list on the net, but I would guess that the
information is compiled for the US government by the CIA. This might be available to the public. Another possibility si the Jane's Defence Publications. I
would also try posting this request on sci.military. Maybe some of the military
posters there could give you a lead.
  I live in Boulder Colorado which has a government depository of publications
including all the unclassified publications of each agency. Perhaps there is
something similar in your area.
>
>-- 
>This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
>narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
>not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
>
Charles Buckley



Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dege@milli.cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles)
Subject: Re: Info on books
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:25:49 GMT

In <1992Aug15.144212.1464@csd.uch.gr> kermits@ikaros.cc.uch.gr (Aggelos Keromyths) writes:

>I've been looking for Clausevich (sorry if i mispelled-just woke up anyway)
> book(s) but can't find any,so i was wondering if anyone out there can tell me
>  the publisher/editor of the book.Any other good books on the same theme (
>  war theory) ?
>Thanks,
>	Aggelos


"On War", by Carl Von Clausewitz.  Edited with an introduction by Anatol
Rapaport, 1991, Dorset Press, New York, ISBN 0-88029-719-2.  This is
a reprint of a Penguin Books Ltd., 1968 edition.

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Alt.war charter (crossposts)
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:39:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

->I meant to add a 'no crossposts' line to the charter. 

I think the most effective tactic in the past has been to
send email to crossposters reminding/asking them not to
crosspost to the group. Posting requests not to crosspost
sometimes just congest the groups even more :-)

(Some people will flame you for *NOT* crossposting, by
posting the same article in seperately in different groups :-)

Not that anything short of a hydrogen bomb will stop Mutlu :-)

Maybe someone could be the "crossposting policeman", sending
out warning notices by email :-)

Also, there ought to be a utility that allows someone we
might choose as watchdog to cancel unwanted articles (kind
of like a "moderator after the fact" :-)

-- 
"Ye Highlands and Ye Lowlands, Oh where haw ye been?
They hae slay the Earl of Murray, and Lady Mondegreen."
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Subject: Re: Alt.war charter (a non-starter)
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:37:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.231440.4812@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>   When I asked for support, I got a grand total of 2 (two) replies saying

Make that 3:)
>will deter the more rational folks.


Like Mutlu ?   :)

I FLEX IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!!! :)
VOLCANO
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Bush's position on Bosnia
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:40:21 GMT

In article <59681@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.160936.9365@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>>[I've heard that some NATO general has said it would take 100,000
>>troops just to keep the supply corridor open.  Keep in mind that this
>>would entail a willingness to just continually soak up casualties,
>>since that is NOT enough men to pursue a war against the folks trying
>>to cut the supply lines.  Bad idea.]
>
>General MacKenzie (Canadian) said, incorrectly, that the Germans
>had 34 divisions in Bosnia keeping the guerrilas under control. 
>A letter to the editor in the Washington_Post today debunked that
>statistic. Until the final months, the Germans generally had about
>15 divisions in all of the Balkans. Perhaps two or three were in 
>Bosnia. During the final months, the number of Axis divisions in 
>the Balkans went up, since that area became the front line, and 
>Axis divisions became small enough to fit several on the head of
>a pin.
>
>
I saw Mackenzie's comments on TV, it's not incorrect as stated.
Basically he said 30+ AXIS divisions went in "Yugoslavia" in 1941
13 of them German, the rest of them are Italian, Hungary, 
Bulguria(not quite sure, I don't remember).   They finished the 
invasion in 2 weeks, with only 151 war dead.  Three years later the 
30 divisions were still there running around chasing Tito in 
the Mountains.   


Newsgroups: alt.war
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Vikings (Berserkers)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:10:30 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

Though this may be disputed (according to the Random House College dictionary),
viking is probably a gerund form of a verb which means, "to raid costal areas."

But I'm not sure if that derivation would be Anglic or Scandanavian.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: Convoys (was Re: Bush's position on Bosnia)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
	<Bt3vDA.IoH@rice.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:45:22 GMT

In article <Bt3vDA.IoH@rice.edu> billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell) writes:

>against convoys).  If you're into the stuff, read Frederick Pohl's Mercernary
>(I think it's called Falkenberg's Legion now--I could have the author wrong).

Pournelle.  An iffy proposition as a teacher of tactics...

[more deleted]

>On another front, it seems that Bush has his sights set more on SH, so 2 large
>scale foreign commitments aren't going to happen.  On a related note, is any-
>one else as disgusted as I that not only are we the world's policeman (I don't
>really mind this to an extent that we can afford it.), but that we solicit

No we can't "afford it"...we can barely afford keeping our military
armed and trained (and staffed) for wars that we may need fought...
using up our stock of munitions without money to replace that stock is
a poor way of maintaining readiness...especially if used for someone
elses war.  Granted the US has big interest in not watching the
European and Japanese economies go tits up but Kuwati and Iraqi oil
impact them far more than us.  As industrialized first world nations
they should bloody well be able to look after their own interests
don't you think?  If not they should certainly shoulder the financial
burden of a war if we have to spend American lives to protect mutual
interests because they choose not to maintain sufficient military to
do the job.  

The Japanese and Germans have an excuse...but it would be rather
chancy for them to annoy the US because the next time we may let their
economies go a little sour before rectifying the situation if they
saddled us with the bar tab this time around.

>payment for it?  The biggest "Gulf War Firsts" was that ti was the first time
>in our nation's history where we prostituted ourselves to others.  I find it
>reprehensible that we've become a nation of mercernaries.  Perhaps that's
>the reason the Japanese keep us around, we're so good at fighting everyone.

Mercenaries?  Not at all...if your allies can't send troops then they
better send war material...if they can't send war material then they
better send money.  We have certainly gone the other route in WWI and
WWII with lend lease and other monetary gifts until we finally sent
troops.  Nobody called the Brits or Russians mercs for taking money
and war material to fight the Germans while we did not.

   -- 
   Bill Blackwell             P H P <==me!   "A just request is to be met

Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
From: kermits@pasifae.cc.uch.gr (Aggelos Keromyths)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Clausewitz
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:11:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Crete HELLAS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

I am trying to Clausewitz book but can't find any.What's the publisher/editor?
Any other suggestions for books on the same topic?
Aggelos
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Alt.war charter (crossposts)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:15:11 GMT

In article <16g9hiINNdmi@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>
>I think the most effective tactic in the past has been to
>send email to crossposters reminding/asking them not to
>crosspost to the group. Posting requests not to crosspost
>sometimes just congest the groups even more :-)

    The problem is that crossposting is generally an accepted procedure.
Unless there is a concensus here (alt.war) that we don't want crossposts,
then we don't have any reason to complain. If there is such a concensus,
then we won't have a means to stop it, but rather a basis on which
to complain. 
    Most inintial crossposts have some relevence to alt.war, and so cannot
really be excluded. The problem is that things crossposted from *.politics.*
tend to wander rapidly, and people do not edit thier headers. My goal is
to stop the initial article. We will never get any significant number of
people to edit thier headers.
>
>
>Maybe someone could be the "crossposting policeman", sending
>out warning notices by email :-)
  
    This would only work if there was something "official" in the charter.
Otherwise you wold only get flamed for minding other people's business.
The best thing would be for several people to keep the charter, and mail
it to people who crosspost, and post it to the other groups.

>
>Also, there ought to be a utility that allows someone we
>might choose as watchdog to cancel unwanted articles (kind
>of like a "moderator after the fact" :-)
>
   There is such a utility. It is called NNTP. :-)

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: List of All Ongoing Conflicts
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:34:54 GMT

In article <ARA.92Aug13232835@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>
>Is there a list available of all of the ongoing armed conflicts in the world
>today and their current status?
>
   I thought of keeping a list, but decided it was wildly impractical.
If you get clarinet, check out clari.news.fighting. If you don't, bug you
sysadmin to get it. s'great.
   If anyone has the time to keep a list, by all means attempt it.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Bush's position on Bosnia
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:54:45 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Aug14.160936.9365@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>[I've heard that some NATO general has said it would take 100,000
>troops just to keep the supply corridor open.  Keep in mind that this
>would entail a willingness to just continually soak up casualties,
>since that is NOT enough men to pursue a war against the folks trying
>to cut the supply lines.  Bad idea.]

General MacKenzie (Canadian) said, incorrectly, that the Germans
had 34 divisions in Bosnia keeping the guerrilas under control. 
A letter to the editor in the Washington_Post today debunked that
statistic. Until the final months, the Germans generally had about
15 divisions in all of the Balkans. Perhaps two or three were in 
Bosnia. During the final months, the number of Axis divisions in 
the Balkans went up, since that area became the front line, and 
Axis divisions became small enough to fit several on the head of
a pin.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
Subject: Re: Convoys (was Re: Bush's position on Bosnia)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:04:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.091550.15929@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY) writes:
|> [lots of stuff deleted - The last two messages are so long that you might as
|> well dig them out and read them cause I just ain't a gonna keep hitting :d
|> all day]
|> 

Yeah, I do have a tendency to be long-winded


|> P.S. 10-12 divisions total would be sufficient. I have seen statistics which
|> claim that there is now a 10-1 ratio of support to combat troops. 10 divisions
|> would still be enough to cover the road. I do not have FM 71-1 but if I recall
|> correctly, a divsional defence would occupy miles of a front as well as a depth
|> of several miles. 

Yeah, I didn't want to give exact numbers, but in the Army, it is 10-1. 
However, in the USMC, it runs about 1-1 (since the USN generally supplies the
remaining 9 guys.  I think the 10K troops that are going to the region from
Europe will be sufficient to bring the conflict to a reasonable level.

And since I can get away with it on this newsgroup:

Damn, if only Dan Quayle would've taken up TV news producing.  Hmmmm, maybe
he needs some foreign policy exposure.  How about a sniper,  whoops, I mean 
fact finding trip...  o     \
                        ---  |
                      '     /

|> sorry about the short post. I'm just not myself today.

ditto (see above)
-- 
Bill Blackwell             P H P <==me!   "A just request is to be met
billb@owlnet.rice.edu     F L L F       in silence, by the act."
Houston, Texas, USA          8       -Dante Alighieri "Inferno" XXIV ln.77-78
"My opinions are mine, no one else is that stupid"
Newsgroups: alt.war