Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!maine.bitnet!tar From: TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: new Pink Floyd newsgroup Message-ID: Date: 20 Dec 89 04:07:38 GMT References: <423@mirsa.UUCP> <475@sci34hub.UUCP> <89346.135842TAR@MAINE.BITNET> <506@sci34hub.UUCP> Lines: 136 In article <506@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) says: > >In article <89346.135842TAR@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) >writes: >> In article <475@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (I) said: >> > >> >I'd like to make a suggestion, here. We seem to have a proliferation >> >of newsgroups under rec.music for individual artists and groups. These > > [ ..... ] > >> I don't see what's so bad about seperate newgroups. At least the traffic >is >> well sorted, and if you lump all of these together, you'll have one HUGE - >news >> group, and I certainly won't even look at a newsgroup > 200 articles. >> [ .... ] That is the whole reason I am demanding a >> new newsgroup (note the use of the word demand, not propose, I'm just >demanding >> nicely :->). [ .... ] > >> >How about creating a news sub-hierarchy under rec.music that all >> >of these could be placed into? I suggest rec.music.shows to hold >> >these individualized groups. [ .... ] > >> Pardon my impetuity, but how can these groups be 'individualized' if >they >> are all congealed and agglutinated? > >By doing it the way I suggested in the preceeding paragraph, if you >bothered to read it (don't worry, I've had the same problem myself). > >To explain the proposed structure more clearly (in laymans' terms, >perhaps): > >A new hierarchy would be created: rec.music.shows > >rec.music.beatles would become: rec.music.shows.beatles >rec.music.gdead would become: rec.music.shows.gdead >rec.music.gaffa would become: rec.music.shows.gaffa > >And if you don't induce too much antagonisim with your "demand", >rec.music.pfloyd would instead be: rec.music.shows.pfloyd > >Ok? Is that a little clearer? The newsgroups remain separate >newsgroups, the articles are not mixed, you don't have to >dig thru the beatles articles to find out about the Deads' >upcoming concert schedule, the groups are simply moved-- >NOT combined, mixed, agglomerated, congealed or agglutinated. > I don't see how this is going to help. All I see it doing is making the name longer. As it is right now, you don't have to dig thru .gdead to find .beatles stuff. And besides, we'll be disussing more than shows, and the chart- ers of the current aforementioned groups discuss more than shows. Therefore, the addition of 'shows' to the titles will not change anything and will just make the names longer. >There could also be a rec.music.shows.misc to start up new >specialized newsgroups (it's easier to get a newsgroup >created if you can say "there's 48 postings per day about >this in the .misc group"). > You already can say that. There's a rec.music.misc. I don't see how your idea would help any. >> >For those who have favorite shows, this would allow better tracking >> >of what's going on, and make it easier to find out about other >> >shows of interest. (Psssst...it'll also clean up the namespace a >> >little, but don't tell anyone...) > >> If I'm interested in a Grateful Dead show, I'll look in rec.music.gdead. >> If I'm interested in Pink Floyd going on tour, I'll look in rec.music.pfloyd >> when it's created, and while I live, it will be. > >Fine. With the arrangement I proposed, you can still find the info >you want, in a newsgroup dedicated to a specific show. None of that >would be changed. I wouldn't dream of making Usenet harder to use >for anyone. There's no point in that. > >By the way, do you intend to commit seppu ku if the vote fails? > No, but the way you talk, homicide comes to mind. Why don't you grow up? >> >Incidentally, I recommend the term "shows" because that's the term >> >used in the industry--I used to be a theatrical support technician. > >> Golly, I'm just a simple layman, and I use the term show as well. I >think >> most people do. > >Really? I hear lots of people talking about seeing "a band" or a >specific performer. Ask Madonna if people come to see her or her >band. Ask Elton John. Or Rod Stewart, Tone Loc, Belinda Carlile, or >any other "name" performer. The fans come to see them, not a band. >Conversely, Expose', White Snake, Bad English, and so on are there >as a group. "shows" is a generic term that encompasses individuals, >groups, or mixtures of the two. An alternative could be "acts". > Excuse me, but you haven't mentioned a single show. You've named bands. 'Radio K.A.O.S.' is a show. Roger Waters is a performer. 'Delicate Sound of Thunder' was a show (boy, was it ever!). Pink Floyd is a band. What is your point?? >> The bottom line to this whole thing is I am not going to give up now. > >I wasn't aware anyone ask you to. I just suggested an alternate place >for it to go. (Of course, if this turns into an extended flamefest, I >may make a few other suggestions as to where you could put it. :-) ) > Oh, boy, am *I* impressed at this show of masculinity. >> On >> December 17, the call for votes shall be put out. If it's cast down (which I >> doubt, knowing all the support I've received through e-mail), I'll start >over >> again. > >Remember the six-month waiting period before resubmittal of a new newsgroup >proposal, though. > >> As long as I have a telephone, I'm going to do what I can to put >> rec.music.pfloyd in it's proper place on the net. > >A modem might be useful, too. > Thank you, wise ass. >I'm not trying to prevent the start of a Pink Floyd newsgroup. I just think >the "proper place in the net" is rec.music.shows.pfloyd. > I don't. And I don't see why you do. >> > Gary Heston [ some .sig below ] >> Thom Rounds >-- > Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager