Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: rec.music.pfloyd Message-ID: <50425@bbn.COM> Date: 4 Jan 90 19:20:26 GMT References: <9001031655.AA04473@snowmass.scd.ucar.EDU> Sender: news@bbn.COM Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 29 In article TAR%MAINE.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (Thom Rounds) writes: > PURPOSE: > This group has been proposed to lessen the traffic in the rec.music.misc >and alt.rock-n-roll, as well as make life easier for Pink Floyd fans. There hasn't been much floyd traffic on r.m.misc, so I don't think that's a very convincing argument. It will make life easier for people who like pfloyd but who aren't interested in most of the articles on r.m.misc. Are there many such people? What I'm driving at is this: why not keep it on r.m.misc? As a very casual fan of early Pink Floyd, I wouldn't subscribe to pfloyd, but I do enjoy reading the occasional pfloyd posting on r.m.misc. For this reason, I'd have to oppose such a group. Now if you could convince me that fans were discouraged from posting to r.m.misc, whereas they would post to a new specialty group (this was the r.m.dylan case), I would support the proposal. > CHARTER: > This group shall be to discuss lyrics, songs, shows, new releases, and/or >anything pertaining to the musical band Pink Floyd. > Will this also include discussions about Barrett? Just curious.