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.music,net.flame Subject: Re: NET.MUSIC.CLASSICAL GARBAGE Message-ID: <642@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-May-84 16:25:19 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.642 Posted: Tue May 8 16:25:19 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 9-May-84 02:37:53 EDT References: <3744@tekecs.UUCP> <6904@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 58 > Maybe we should have a seperate newsgroup for Rich Rosen, called > appropiately enough net.music.rlr > Maybe then will the newsgroup go back to normal level of activity. -- > Tim Wicinski > University of Maryland Oh, Timmy. Are you just sore because you came in second in the punk trivia quiz? :-) Your idea is not even an original one. ihuxf!ajs (Al Sawyer) had proposed net.music.rosen during the last round of music separatism discussions. He apologized for proposing a newsgroup dedicating to hurling insults at an individual netnews user. And what's more you miss my point about newsgroup separatism. Having net.music.rlr would add to that isolationism that net.music.classical started. A quick survey of net.music.classical shows that many people (including myself) post to net.music.classical who also post to net.music proper. In fact, ANYTHING I post to net.music.classical that is of general interest is posted to net.music as well, which is more than I can say for the net.music.classical snitheads who think discussions on absolute pitch are only for those interested in "serious" music. And this is the very problem I was afraid would crop up: classical isolationists posting articles on generic subjects that would be of interest to all music lovers (though from their narrow perspective they might not think so). By the same token, articles that may be of interest to classical music lovers are posted to net.music only, perhaps because a question is asked from a rock or jazz perspective that might be expanded to encompass all musics. Since those who subscribe to net.music.classical ONLY do so by clear choice, I say it's their loss when they miss such articles in net.music, and the hell with them. But when those who subscribe to net.music but not to net.music.classical (it's just as much their right not to like classical music as it is other people's right to like it) miss generic articles posted only to net.music.classical, that's not a voluntary omission. They are forced to miss that discussion, forced to miss the chance to contribute to it and/or to get something out of it. The obvious solution: post all articles to both newsgroups. Which leads to the question "why have two newsgroups at all?". And for those who say "we didn't want net.music.classical because we're snobs, we wanted it because not enough of the traffic in net.music was of interest to us." WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE MAJORITY (OR EVEN A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE) OF THE ARTICLES IN ANY NEWSGROUP IS OF INTEREST TO ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON????? Do you honestly think I read net.music to see opinions on Michael Jackson's possible hermaphroditism or about how Rush are the greatest musical artists since yesterday at noon?? Remember the axiom "90% of everything is shit"? Well, for each person out there, there's a different 10% of the whole of the universe that's non-fecal. So if you want to see newsgroups where the vast majority of entries adheres to your view of the world, you're leaning towards net.music.timw, if anything. The newsgroup net.music was designed as a place for ALL music lovers to speak out, with all their diverse points of view. If you're unable to share a newsgroup with all those others (because your valuable time is somehow worth more than my or someone else's valuable time such that it warrants a separate group), then you are indeed a snob. At the very least... (Who's game for net.politics.* ...) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr