Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 6/7/83; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: re : Subgroups of net.music
Message-ID: <811@hao.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 00:00:06 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.811
Posted: Fri Feb  3 00:00:06 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jan-84 06:08:25 EST
References: <4066@ukc.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 19

>   What sheer arrogance!!! Subgroups rock and classical - No other sorts of
>   music exist then?? What about music.jazz, music.folk, music.blues, 

  I wasn't going to post any more articles about this, but since I have been
publically accused of having a quality I detest, I must respond. No one ever
said other types of music couldn't be discussed. If there is sufficient 
traffic, I see no reason why we couldn't have net.music.jazz or whatever
other type of music has enough volume of discussion to justify a group.
In the meantime, discussions about them could go in the parent group, that
is what it is for. If I want to discuss bowling, I don't complain that there
is no net.rec.bowling, I post my article in net.rec . The only reason I
singled out rock and classical is because they generate *far* more articles
than anything else, *not* because I believe they are somehow more worthy of
discussion.

			    GREG
-- 
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
       		        !hao!woods