Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!randy
From: randy@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: New net.music.jazz group?
Message-ID: <1883@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Aug-83 11:14:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1883
Posted: Tue Aug 16 11:14:29 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Aug-83 21:52:46 EDT
References: <91@cubsvax.UUCP>, <127@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 39

Hey gang!  Is there really a disagreement about whether there should
be net subgroups?  Though my response on net.music.jazz has been
mostly in favor, the two or three flamers seem to be against
subgroups in general.  I'm surprised.  I had thought that
groups like net.sport.baseball, etc. were working fine and accomplishing
exactly what they set out to do.  If there is really a problem here,
I think we should hash it out now.

For starters, I'm very much in favor of news subgroups.  Suppose the only
sport I'm interested in reading about is baseball and I'm one of many
with that preference.  Then a net.sport.baseball allows me to indulge
my interest without having to wade through soccer, bowling, or whatever
articles are appearing in net.sport.  Exactly the same argument holds
for net.music.jazz and any other proposed subgroup.  If I can show that
there are enough people who agree with my preferences, then the new
group should be created.

From pyusn!rlr:
	To all jazz buffs:  THE REASON THAT ROCK
	ORIENTED ARTICLES GREATLY OUTNUMBER ARTICLES ON JAZZ IS
	BECAUSE *YOU* ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING ARTICLES!
	It is the contributions of readers that mold
	the shape of a newsgroup.

My purpose in participating in such news groups is to find people with similar
interests and exchange information and ideas.  I am *not* interested
in forcing my preferences on others or "molding" the shape of a newsgroup
by flooding it with my articles.  The reason that rock oriented articles
outnumber jazz articles is very simply because there are more rock lovers.
This is fine.  Rock lovers are free to subscribe to net.music.jazz and
see the same total set of articles they are reading now.  The only difference
is that jazz lovers don't have to see the rock articles.

Incidentally the voting on net.music.jazz is now about 8 to 3.  What is
considered sufficient?
-- 
Randy Trigg
...!seismo!umcp-cs!randy (Usenet)
randy.umcp-cs@udel-relay (Arpanet)