Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.music.rock
Message-ID: <6652@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 24 Oct 89 11:47:39 GMT
References: <399@enea.se>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 30

In article <399@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
> Probably the boundaries are crystal clear. Either you have a i386
> or you have not.

Nonsense. These days most of the traffic in comp.unix.xenix is about running
xenix on 80386es. To top that off, at Ferranti we're running 80286 Xenix on
80386es. When I proposed the name there was a fair amount of flaming about
what the group should be for. And occasionally some bozo claims that AIX,
Xenix, or even BellTech or SCO UNIX doesn't belong. This is Usenet. Flaming
comes with the territory.

> But what is rock'n'roll? What is not? Do we all agree on what is
> rock'n'roll?

This is a straw man. Just define the charter of the group as "everything
that evolved from Chuck Berry" or something, and ignore the minor flames.
And they would be minor. And ignorable. Certainly a lot more ignorable than
the rock BS in rec.music.misc.

> Or what about an artist like
> Frank Zappa that does both rock, jazz and classic?

What about him? If Bob Dylan deserves a group (no, two groups), then surely
Frank Zappa does. If there's any flaming about him, I'll propose a .zappa
group. Or maybe a .muffin group, to complement .gaffa.
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"I feared that the committee would decide to go with their previous        'U`
 decision unless I credibly pulled a full tantrum." -- dmr@alice.UUCP