welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (01/08/90)
for the past month or so, there has been a fair bit of discussion
of history in soc.misc, as the notion of having a separate group,
soc.history was being tried out. this was pretty successful,
although it has slacked off somewhat over the holidays.
this is a call for discussion on actually creating the proposed
group, soc.history. barring the appearance of good reasons
not to do so, i shall call for votes in two weeks (on 19 January)
on soc.history. the voting period shall last 21 days (ending
on 9 February.)
the proposed soc.history shall be unmoderated (i saw little
need for moderation in the trial period on soc.misc) it shall
cover both non-military and military history from all periods.
as need arises, subgroups can be spun off easily (e.g.,
soc.history.mediaeval, soc.history.military, etc.) soc.history
forms nice symmetry with existing groups in soc.culture.* and
soc.politics.*
i can see a vague case for talk.history, but i think the case
for soc.history is a bit stronger.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
``air holes!? nobody said anything to me about air holes''welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (01/13/90)
In article <2840561048@lewis.crd.ge.com>, richard welty writes:
*this is a call for discussion on actually creating the proposed
*group, soc.history.
come one people, call me names or something. it's really
disappointing to propose a froup and not piss anyone off
(well, sexton did complain about placing this froup in the
soc.* hierarchy.)
the total lack of serious negative comment, combined with
positive email, suggests that i should go ahead with the vote
as proposed, on or about the dates i proposed.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
``air holes!? nobody said anything to me about air holes''unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (01/13/90)
In article <2840561048@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: > >i can see a vague case for talk.history, but i think the case >for soc.history is a bit stronger. Okay, richard - you air hole!, why not put it in talk history...I mean are we gonna talk about history or just participate in it...I mean soc.history is all well and good while we have history to socialize in, but what happens after the entire eastern block goes Wall Street and South and Central America becomes a 'burb of Texas? Then we will _have_ to have a renaming of all of the soc.history.* groups to talk.history.* since we won't have anything of historical significance happening!!! C'mon, get an input! All of the assorted fishie.flames to you!!!! Nyaaah! Phhtttthhh! AAckk! :-) It was a j-j-joke, son! (Why do I feel mischevious today?) > >richard Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%
cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) (01/13/90)
I would enjoy a newsgroup for discussions of history and related topics. My BA is in history (UCI '79) and I miss the fun of it. My one worry would be that a few would try to turn the group into a flaming talk-style group, pouring forth a flood of politically slanted, demagogic garbage. To prevent this, we might try sending a monthly posting analogous to the "Most Frequently Asked Questions" articles in some of the technical groups. This article should emphasize the importance of siting sources (few on the net will be doing original work in the field) and clearly defining the deference between primary and secondary sources. This will not stop some people from flaming away, but it could reduce the number of responses because most of the regular readers would recognize flames for what they are and ignore them. In addition to discussions of the events of the past, we could have reviews of new history books posted, discussions of the relevance to our world of history as a discipline and lament the sorry state of history education in the primary grades (K-12). -- Craig E. Ward <cew@venera.isi.edu> Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (01/13/90)
In article <113@uncmed.med.unc.edu> unccab@uncmed.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) writes: >>i can see a vague case for talk.history, but i think the case >>for soc.history is a bit stronger. > Okay, richard - you air hole!, why not put it in talk history...I mean Well, it should really be sci.history, if you want to be scientific about it. But, let's go ahead and create soc.history, sci.history, talk.history, and alt.history just to be sure all bases are covered. ;-) Terry >:-) It was a j-j-joke, son! (Why do I feel mischevious today?) ditto! -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - Craig Johnson
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (01/13/90)
In article <11372@venera.isi.edu>, Craig E. Ward writes:
*My one worry would be that a few would try to turn the group into a flaming
*talk-style group, pouring forth a flood of politically slanted, demagogic
*garbage.
i've been suprised at the relative lack of this sort of stuff
in the soc.misc trial period; idealogical rhetoric has been
rare, and its outbursts have been short-lived (requesting
citations, sources, etc. has been a remarkably effective tactic.)
* To prevent this, we might try sending a monthly posting analogous to
*the "Most Frequently Asked Questions" articles in some of the technical
*groups.
i have software to support a monthly posting; it's already in use
in rec.autos.* moreover, i also have an archive server which allows
useful articles to be stored at a central site, and requested via
email; it too is successfully supporting rec.autos.*. i see no
problems with adding soc.history (or whatever) to the list.
*In addition to discussions of the events of the past, we could have reviews of
*new history books posted, discussions of the relevance to our world of
*history as a discipline and lament the sorry state of history education in
*the primary grades (K-12).
there are already book reviews showing up in the soc.misc trial
run; as for meta-discussion about history, those would for obvious
reasons be allowable as well.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
``air holes!? nobody said anything to me about air holes''sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (01/13/90)
Richard Welty (welty@lewis.crd.ge.com) writes: >the proposed soc.history shall be unmoderated (i saw little >need for moderation in the trial period on soc.misc) >... >i can see a vague case for talk.history, but i think the case >for soc.history is a bit stronger. The group sounds interesting, but I doubt I'll get the time to read it. However, I would propose that either group is to be moderated or to be placed in talk. I haven't followed the trial period in soc.misc, but that is somehow irrelevant to the issue. I've been trying reading talk.politics.misc (fun group if you like "k" key) and it seems to be that some of the contributors to that group are not people like you and me interested in politics, but rather representants for various more or less obscure organizations and who use the net for cheaply stating their view. Their newsgroups lines does often mention a bunch of group and they could surely make a case for including a history group too. I.e. once you get the group ruling for real, you will get the garbage. So if you call it soc.history, moderate it or let ie be unmoderated and call it talk.history. (Besides, soc seems out of place to me. Soc for me is singles/men/couples/ etc and the culture groups. History doesn't belong there.) -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se Unix is a virus.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/13/90)
In article <2841149644@lewis.crd.ge.com>, welty@lewis (richard welty) writes: >come one people, call me names or something. it's really >disappointing to propose a froup and not piss anyone off >(well, sexton did complain about placing this froup in the >soc.* hierarchy.) I have long thought that a history group would be a good idea, but was too lazy to count votes for one. As to the name, it seems to me that misc.history makes more sense, but I don't feel like starting a war over it. But why soc? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 "What is algebra exactly? Is it those three-cornered things?" J.M. Barrie
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/14/90)
In article <2841149644@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >In article <2840561048@lewis.crd.ge.com>, richard welty writes: >*this is a call for discussion on actually creating the proposed >*group, soc.history. > >the total lack of serious negative comment, combined with >positive email, suggests that i should go ahead with the vote >as proposed, on or about the dates i proposed. Or, in the von Ronspach/da Silva model of net.procedure, you should just consider it silent assent and create it. --Blair "Did you get more than ten people asking how to spell history? That's plenty. Create the group."
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/14/90)
In article <2841149644@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >In article <2840561048@lewis.crd.ge.com>, richard welty writes: >*this is a call for discuss>*group, soc.history. > >the total lac>positive email, suggests that i should go ahead >as proposed, on or about the dates i proposed.Or, in the von Ronspach/da Silva model of net.prosedure, you should just consider --Blair "Did you get more than t history? That's plenty. Create the group." #! rnews 1966
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/14/90)
> Or, in the von Ronspach/da Silva model of net.procedure, > you should just consider it silent assent and create it. 5 Not voting. 2 No Group. 133 rec.aquaria 30 sci.aquaria Silent assent, eh? Even counting all the votes for sci.aquaria as votes against it, it passed. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/15/90)
In article <_:11FT2ggpc2@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Or, in the von Ronspach/da Silva model of net.procedure, > > you should just consider it silent assent and create it. > > 5 Not voting. > 2 No Group. > 133 rec.aquaria > 30 sci.aquaria > > Silent assent, eh? Even counting all the votes for sci.aquaria as votes > against it, it passed. Peter, Quit expecting rationality from Trisha. I have. She tends to use the psychological maneuver known as projection -- defending against a charge by charging others with the same offense. Thus, she replied to my comment that politicians are two-faced (a rather self-evident statement!) by calling me a liar. And she responds to criticisms of Tricky Dicky's con.aquaria hijinks by leveling charges against rec.aquaria. Jeff -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/15/90)
In article <_1213Mxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) responds to Peter da Silva who was responding to Blair Houghton who was responding to Richard Welty's proposal for soc.history: >Quit expecting rationality from Trisha. I have. She tends to use the Well, my goodness me! I wasn't even involved in this discussion and here's that nice sweet wholesome Jeff Daiell flaming me for reasons that lie hidden deep in his psyche because they certainly don't have anything to do with the subject at hand. Golly, I'm certainly impressed with -your- rationality, Jeff. And your paranoia's pretty spectacular, too. Even if you don't know what "projection" means.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/16/90)
In article <5273@huengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Bla r P. Houghton) writes: >In article <2841149644@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >>In article <2840561048@lewis.crd.ge.com>, richard welty writes: >>*this is a call for discuss>*group, soc.history. >> >>the total lac>positive email, suggests that i should go ahead >as proposed, on or about the dates i proposed.Or, in the von Ronspach/da Silva model of net.prosedure, >you should just consider > --Blair > "Did you get more than t history? That's plenty. > Create the group." >#! rnews 1966 That, kids, is a forgery, and a pretty well trampled one, at that. The path from here on that sucker is buengc!bu.edu!bu-cs!snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!\ swbatl!texbell!uudell!wroach! And it ends, there. Except that they're cowards, I'd suspect Chuq or Peter, but they're cowards, so it's probably just someone a little grumpy about the volume of stuff I've been posting, lately, who's erroneously been given the ability to manage news, somewhere. --Blair "huengc, indeed."
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/16/90)
In article <_:11FT2ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> Or, in the von Ronspach/da Silva model of net.procedure, >> you should just consider it silent assent and create it. > > 5 Not voting. > 2 No Group. > 133 rec.aquaria > 30 sci.aquaria > >Silent assent, eh? Even counting all the votes for sci.aquaria as votes >against it, it passed. As I recall, there were over 400 votes for sci.aquaria, and your little poll wasn't advertised as a newsgroup-creation vote. --Blair "Coward."
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (01/16/90)
She said that he said that she said that gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) said:
-
- I have long thought that a history group would be a good idea,
-but was too lazy to count votes for one. As to the name, it seems
-to me that misc.history makes more sense, but I don't feel like
-starting a war over it. But why soc?
I agree. A history group could go in any number of groups; I wouldn't
complain if it were in sci. Misc seems like the best place for it,
offhand.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
Is talk.lists a good idea? Is talk.lists a bad idea?
mail yesvote@sco.COM Vote ends 2/5 mail novote@sco.COMpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/16/90)
> As I recall, there were over 400 votes for sci.aquaria And nearly as many against. > and your > little poll wasn't advertised as a newsgroup-creation vote. Actually it was. The proposal was to remove sci.aquaria and create whatever group won. Go back and re-read it. Since it turns out that sci.aquaria is dead anyway I decided pushing for deletion would be a waste of time. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/17/90)
In article <7931ETCggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Actually it was. The proposal was to remove sci.aquaria and create whatever >group won. Go back and re-read it. Since it turns out that sci.aquaria is >dead anyway I decided pushing for deletion would be a waste of time. I keep getting mail of the ``hey, we just got sci.aquaria here'' type, which leads me to believe it's not dead. Hell, it ain't even sick.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/17/90)
In article <24823@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > I keep getting mail of the ``hey, we just got sci.aquaria here'' type, > which leads me to believe it's not dead. Hell, it ain't even sick. Too bad we can't say the --- nah, too easy. Too, too easy. {|8^)] -- A Fusser named McGee; a most amusing sight! He fusses every day, then fusses every night. TUNE: What can he mean, this Fusser named McGee, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF Who fusses first at you, then fusses next at me?
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (01/17/90)
In article <24823@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <7931ETCggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >>Since it turns out that sci.aquaria is >>dead anyway I decided pushing for deletion would be a waste of time. >I keep getting mail of the ``hey, we just got sci.aquaria here'' type, >which leads me to believe it's not dead. Hell, it ain't even sick. I just read in rec.arts.star-trek that "he's dead, Jim". I'm sure this must be what Peter meant. Besides, we'd only "push for deletion" if you guys were still using it. That's "the way" of USENET. Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - Craig Johnson
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/19/90)
In article <630@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes: > [...] I would propose that either group is to be moderated > or to be placed in talk. I haven't followed the trial period in > soc.misc, but that is somehow irrelevant to the issue. Please, PLEASE, not 'talk'! 'misc' might be better than 'soc', but 'talk' would surely encourage the flame-fests. And I support UN-moderation of the history group. > (Besides, soc seems out of place to me. Soc for me is singles/men/couples/ > etc and the culture groups. History doesn't belong there.) History and culture are closely related. I can see a case for an entire sub-group eventually: soc.history.usa - or - misc.history.usa soc.history.canada misc.history.canada soc.history.whatever misc.history.whatever Accordingly, I propose that the group be either of: misc.history.misc soc.history.misc -Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/19/90)
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > I have long thought that a history group would be a good idea, >but was too lazy to count votes for one. As to the name, it seems >to me that misc.history makes more sense, but I don't feel like >starting a war over it. But why soc? Agreed, on all points. -Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com
cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) (01/20/90)
In article <382@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: >In article <630@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes: >> [...] I would propose that either group is to be moderated >> or to be placed in talk. I haven't followed the trial period in >> soc.misc, but that is somehow irrelevant to the issue. > >Please, PLEASE, not 'talk'! 'misc' might be better than 'soc', but >'talk' would surely encourage the flame-fests. And I support UN-moderation >of the history group. Agreed about the "talk" part. We'll have enough trouble with flames without this; however, having a moderator would be useful and good if someone with the proper qualifications and the time were available. For the time being, let's shoot for an unmoderated group. If it gets out of hand, we can always add it. > [...] >Accordingly, I propose that the group be either of: > > misc.history.misc > soc.history.misc I like the "soc" better but I'll admit that it's mostly because it's shorter (i.e. I don't want a big fight over this either). I don't think the ".misc" is necessary. A soc.history group can be a general catch-all group just as easily. -- Craig E. Ward <cew@venera.isi.edu> Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (01/20/90)
In article <11478@venera.isi.edu>, Craig E. Ward writes: *In article <382@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: *>... * For the time being, *let's shoot for an unmoderated group. If it gets out of hand, we can always *add it. this is what i plan to call for votes on; an unmoderated group. however, i consider conversion to moderation to be a potentially risky business. *> [...] *>Accordingly, I propose that the group be either of: *> misc.history.misc *> soc.history.misc *I like the "soc" better but I'll admit that it's mostly because it's shorter *(i.e. I don't want a big fight over this either). as i have posted elsewhere, i'm running an informal email poll on misc. vs. soc.; whichever wins will be the one i call for a vote on. i'll call for a vote a week from monday (modulo the expected delays in the call for votes reaching greg woods to be posted.) *I don't think the ".misc" is necessary. A soc.history group can be a general *catch-all group just as easily. i also don't see the need for .misc; soc.history or misc.history can get the job done perfectly well. richard -- richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York ..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ``air holes!? nobody said anything to me about air holes''
sliu@amalthea.rutgers.edu (Steven C. Liu) (01/20/90)
In article <1382@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: > She said that he said that she said that gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) said: > - > - I have long thought that a history group would be a good idea, > -but was too lazy to count votes for one. As to the name, it seems > -to me that misc.history makes more sense, but I don't feel like > -starting a war over it. But why soc? > > I agree. A history group could go in any number of groups; I wouldn't > complain if it were in sci. Misc seems like the best place for it, > offhand. I'd love to see a newsgroup related to history created. However, I feel it should be called "sci.history". History is a discipline just like mathematics and physics. People who "do history" or "study history" know that it takes lots of serious critical analysis. Merely memorizing dates, being well-informed, watching the 6 o'clock news or reading a couple of survey history texts hardly qualifies one as being serious about history. A "sci.history" newsgroup should be much like "sci.math" in that it should be for people with a real interest in the subject, not a place for senseless squabbling about things like "my culture is better than yours and here's my proof". Steve -- Steven C. Liu - Supercomputer Remote Access Center, Rutgers University uucp: {ames, att, harvard}!rutgers!jove.rutgers.edu!sliu internet: sliu@JOVE.RUTGERS.EDU bitnet: sliu@zodiac.bitnet Phone: (201) 932-2908
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (01/21/90)
Dan Veditz (dveditz@dbase.A-T.com) writes: >I said: >> [...] I would propose that either group is to be moderated >> or to be placed in talk. I haven't followed the trial period in >> soc.misc, but that is somehow irrelevant to the issue. > >Please, PLEASE, not 'talk'! 'misc' might be better than 'soc', but >'talk' would surely encourage the flame-fests. And I support UN-moderation >of the history group. It's not the top level that encourages the flames, it's the subject. Would talk.politics.misc have less flames if it was placed in comp? If you want to be safe from flame-fest then moderation is the way to go. Anyone who believes that misc is free from flames is encouraged to check out misc.headlines. (Which to me just seems like an annex to t.p.m. since many articles are cross-posted to both groups.) -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se Unix is a virus.