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 (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: freedom and group psychology Message-ID: <1734@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 18:51:14 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1734 Posted: Wed Sep 18 18:51:14 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 04:18:51 EDT References: <461@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 47 >>It's been said before: don't try to dictate to others what >>they can or can not do. The net is a system for people >>to communicate freely and I oppose any of kind of attempt to >>limit or censor others expressions (except if they express an >>attempt to limit expression). If someone takes the time >>to write an article, then it is interesting to him/her; and that's >>all that is required. Intolerance is not appropriate. There >>is always the 'n' key. - John Lipinski > But that's what got Doug Allen (with whom I have no quarrel) in > trouble. Bad feelings were raised on both sides. The same thing happened > with Grateful Dead fans recently. And before that, with classical music. > In each case, they broke off and started their own group. This > is hardly the open, supportive forum that I assume we are both interested > in. Group dynamics are very tricky. I offered a carefully considered > suggestion as to how we might get along better. I fail to see how this > can be construed as 'intolerant'. [KARL MALIK] I don't see how it can be construed as anything BUT intolerant. First, Doug formed the mailing list/group only because of the tonguelashings and verbal abuse he got in droves from those who simply didn't like what he had to say. Second, let's do some arithmetic. If there are 100 articles and 90 of them are about Kate Bush, what does that mean? It means among all the people who couldn't stand KB-isms, they could only amass ten articles among them on other topics. Later, the ratios changed: of, say, 100 articles, 50 may have from Doug and others about Bush, 40 were flames ABOUT Doug and/or Bush, and 10 were on the other topics. So who is at fault? Doug (et al) for writing "too much"? Or the flamers, for spending 4 times as much energy writing flames about Doug than saying things about other topics in the arena of music? This is exactly the same intolerant selfish crap that led to subgrouping once or twice before: there weren't "enough" articles on topics they liked. Why? Because no one was posting them! Simple. They felt "a separate group will have a better atmosphere in which we can feel free to post on other topics". And that is a load of crap. Because no one was making anyone feel "uncomfortable" about posting articles on different topics. Hell, forty discussions go on at the same time, you're telling me you'd be uncomfortable starting a new one? On a new topic? It would seem that some form of petty elitism is at work when someone claims not to "feel comfortable" posting articles to a public forum on music. It sure sounds to me like "I'd be drowned out amongst this riffraff talking about music I don't like". Funny how when someone does post a solitary article on a new topic in the midst of everything, it always gets seen and responded to, often in large quantity. Is there something wrong with that? -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com