Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Request for net.music.classical news group
Message-ID: <627@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-May-84 10:52:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.627
Posted: Thu May  3 10:52:25 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 03:26:22 EDT
References: <639@ihuxn.UUCP>, <515@ucbvax.UUCP>, <518@ucbvax.UUCP> <467@flairvax.UUCP> <618@pyuxn.UUCP> <94@tilt.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 45

From a Mr. Ray Chen, after erroneously assigning quotes to yours truly:
-------
[Rich Rosen]   <<<--- NOT TRUE, MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE (UNKNOWN) WHO DERIDED
				A RATHER SNOOTY STATEMENT ABOUT "ROCK" ARTICLES
>>> Come on!  Do you think that these classical music articles are going to 
>>> magically appear once this new group is established?  What makes you think 
>>> that any more people are going to submit articles to the group than to the 
>>> old group? Establish a REAL need first,  THEN start the group.  And if you 
>>> think that there aren't enough classical articles in net.music, why don't
>>> you start writing some instead of complaining that there are none to read?

[Someone]
>> Well, the group has been established, and the articles *have* "magically"
>> appeared.  

[Rich Rosen]
>So, tell me, oh wise one.  Why didn't all of you "magicians" submit all of
>these articles to net.music in the first place?????
>(I guess they felt so uncomfortable conversing with us common people.
>Jeeves, fetch the Rolls.)

<<FLAME ON>>   <<<---THE FLAMES OF MR. CHEN
Talk about a**h*l*es and electronic sneers !!  Listen, bud, if you don't feel
comfortable with the idea of net.music.classical then unsubscribe and leave
us who do *ALONE*.  The newsgroup *has* been established, and it's chugging
along quite nicely, thank you, (more articles than a lot of other newsgroups I
could name) so if you can't post anything constructive to it then *DON'T POST*.

You seem to have been against the idea from the very beginning.  That's fine.
Everybody has a right to his opinion.  *But* the issue has already been decided
and the decision's probably not going to reversed, so why don't you stop and
a dead dog lay, instead of taking pot shots at all those who *want* net.music.
classical?
--------- [END CHEN INPUT]

The "issue" was decided by unilateral action on the part of a proponent, which
is not part of a democratic process as I understand it (no flames about
"usenet is an anarchy", it's actually a "malarchy"--controlled by bad people:-)
And anyway, since proponents saw fit to clutter net.music with this discussion
("No," he said, "the clutter was that damn rock music!"), why not move the
clutter here?
-- 
"An argument is an intellectual process.  It isn't the automatic gainsaying of
	what the other person says."
"... Can be."					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr