Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!maine.bitnet!tar From: TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: rec.music.pfloyd Message-ID: Date: 5 Jan 90 03:35:01 GMT References: <9001031655.AA04473@snowmass.scd.ucar.EDU> <50425@bbn.COM> Lines: 62 In article <50425@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) says: > >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? > Tons. Like me. You are absolutly right, and the reason for this lack of Pink Floyd traffic is the amount of other traffic. alt.rock-n-roll has less traffic, and more Floyd-related material. It's kinda proportionate, I suppose. Another view: alot of people tend to avoid bloated newsgroups. I try to stay away from newsgroups bigger than 200, but quite often the topics inside keep me coming back to them. If a rec.music.pfloyd were created, it's average size would probably be around 150 or so, judging by my preliminary findings, which are more in favor than anyone, including me, would beleive. The point is, there is enough traffic, but not where everybody and his brother will trip over it. >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. > Alot of people say this. I want to ask a question to the net pertaining to this subject. The question is this: If you wouldn't read a newsgroup, or are indifferent to it, or just plain don't care, why would you vote no, making it less likely for the people who *do* to read it? Why not just abstain? You don't have to vote no just because you don't read about it. I'm not saying you par- ticularly, but most of the net has this attitude (I'm not being critical, guys and gals, just stating what I see come in to my machine). Another point: It's not just rec.music.misc where the Pink Floyd posts land. >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. > Not r.m.misc specifically, but certainly in alt.r-n-roll there has been quite a bit of anti-Floyd people telling us we have no right to post there. If they don't like us, well, everybody has a right to their opinions. This is a good thing, as everybody certainly *has* an opinion. :-> > >> 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. > The group won't be moderated, so you can post literally anything. I'm quite sure Syd Barrett will pop up more than a few times. --Thom 'suddely, I'm nice!' Rounds