Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.music.gdead Subject: Re: The new configuration of the net Message-ID: <1086@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 19:20:08 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1086 Posted: Fri Jun 14 19:20:08 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Jun-85 01:23:58 EDT References: <356@osu-eddie.UUCP> <1050@pyuxd.UUCP> <1244@opus.UUCP> Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 81 Xref: watmath net.flame:10568 net.music.gdead:244 >> In the early days of the net, there were newsgroups based on individual >> topics, such as religion, music, computer technology, food, etc... >[ad extremely nauseam, unless you've got a cast-iron stomach...] >> And so, still more subgrouping was tried,... >[and on and on and on and on...] >> And we all lived happily ever after, serene in the knowledge that we'd >> never have to face anyone who held an alternate viewpoint on anything >> at all, ever again. > The other extreme, which I must guess is Rich's choice, is to have "net" as > THE newsgroup. [DICK DUNN] Did I suggest the other extreme? Of course not, in fact at the very start of my article (SOME of which you chose to include), I pointed out how newsgroups devoted to topics and not tastes was originally the rule and a good deal of good discussion went on. You set up your straw men with the best of them. > Rich doesn't differentiate between "differing points of > view" and "differing interests". In other words, if you want to talk about > what you want to talk about (sounds dangerously like a tautology?) you > don't have specific interests; you're not even narrow-minded, or even > monomaniacal--you're a bigot. If you want to talk about what you want to talk about, say the music of a certain group, you had a forum to do so, a newsgroup. The beauty of that was that someone could read an article on an obscure group (say, the Grateful Dead) and hear about references to people like Billy Kreutzmann and Mickey Hart and Phil Lesh, and ask didn't they play in the Rhythm Devils who did part of the soundtrack for Apocalypse Now, and spark some INTERACTIVE DISCUSSION between people! (This person might not have seen articles in a specialized subgroup.) A bigot? Only if you're narrowminded enough to claim that your special tastes merit their own newsgroup isolated from those frequented by other people. > With net.music, it's almost gotten to where a sufficient justification for > a new subgroup is not to have to listen to (or 'n' past) Rich Rosen (and > his various cutesy names in the news headers). It's unfortunate--honestly > so--because Rich has a good background in music and has a lot to contribute > when he's not berating people and concepts. The only people I berate are those who resort to abusive namecalling and such (like accusing others of berating people and claiming that all that a certain person writes is automatically worth skipping over). If pointing out fallacies and such in concepts is "berating" them, that's your opinion. > I wish he could keep to the > newsgroup topics and skip the flaming. We all cut loose a flame now and > then (as...sigh...I guess I'm doing right now) ... Gee! I guess that means someone should write a ridiculous flame about you. > Again, to illustrate with net.music.gdead: The subgroup has a dedicated > following and has shown over 200 articles since it was created a couple of > months ago. The people who were following and contributing to net.music > haven't noticeably disappeared from net.music (in spite of getting flamed > now and then); they've just taken the part of the discussion not obviously > of interest to mainstream net.music readers into the subgroup. So what's > the problem? Rich doesn't like it. That's it. Nothing substantive, just > a matter of taste. Too bad. Except the opportunity for the interchange demonstrated in my example above is lost forever. I'm not the only one who's pointed this out. I'm just the most persistent one because I always thought that the net offered incredible for just that type of interchange. Pardon me for reasoning... And now, to make this a worthwhile contribution to net.music.gdead: Coming soon, from the people who brought you Beatlemania: N N EEEEE CCCC RRRRR OOOOO PPPP H H III L III A NN N E C C R R O O P P H H I L I A A N N N E C R R O O P P H H I L I A A N N N EEE C RRRRR O O PPPP HHHHH I L I AAAAA N N N E C R R O O P H H I L I A A N NN E C C R R O O P H H I L I A A N N EEEEE CCCC R R OOOOO P H H III LLLLLL III A A Not the Dead, but an incredible hallucination... :-) Who says I don't contribute to net.music.gdead? -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr