rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/04/85)
> We have come to the conclussion that there are many who subscribe to this > newsgroup who don't participate because they feel they will be attacked for > whatever they believe. We propose two new newsgroups to replace > net.religion.jewish: net.religion.jewish.frum and > net.religion.jewish.notfrum. [ADAM BESLOVE] In the early days of the net, there were newsgroups based on individual topics, such as religion, music, computer technology, food, etc. Large numbers of people of diverse backgrounds and tastes had the opportunity to converse with each other, exchange information and opinions, and, as a whole, expand everyone's knowledge about the topics and about each other. [e.g., net.religion, net.music, etc.] However, some people of opposing points of view within individual news- groups were disturbed by the open conflict between points of view. They would prefer individual newsgroup environments for individual tastes within a given topic. While some saw this as divisive and eroding at the foundations of the eclectic nature of the netnews community, those who wanted subgroups based on taste won out, and soon there were news- groups for every conceivable taste within every conceivable topic. [e.g., net.religion.ubizmo, net.music.washboard, net.micro.abacus, etc.] Yet, despite the well-designed subgrouping configuration, people found that there were still differences of opinion amongst the contributors of individual subgroups, and some people proposed FURTHER subgrouping by more precisely defined taste boundaries as the answer. Once again, though others disliked the idea as being contrary to the spirit of the net, they won out, and the age of the four-level subgroup for very specific tastes was upon us. [e.g., net.religion.jewish.sephardic, net.music.jazz.*real*, etc.] This configuration lasted for a time, but, perhaps precisely because the people in the individual sub-subgroups had no one else to argue with, they began to argue with each other, discovering that even those with whom they thought they had so much in common were, at times, different from them. And so, still more subgrouping was tried, and still more, until someone finally proposed the ultimate solution to the whole problem of having to face those with different points of view in the same newsgroup: net.site-id.user-id Though the idea met with some resistance in the beginning, soon it was universal. Everyone had their own newsgroup. To post to. To read. To never again have to fear someone with a different point of view interfering with one's peace of mind. And so it was. There were groups called net.nsc.chuqui, and net.qubix.lab, and net.tekecs.jeffw, and net.pyuxd.staffwagger, and net.pucc.jeff. (Actually, there was a problem with that last newsgroup: it seems that the person for whom it was intended would post his problems, then post his own solutions, and then post followups claiming the invalidity of the solutions.) There was even a net.dec.arndt, but unfortunately that newsgroup had to be further broken up into subgroups, because the person for whom IT was intended complained about obnoxious childish attacks directed at him that he had posted himself. 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 END -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rcd@opus.UUCP (06/11/85)
> 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. 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. Case in point: Rich hasn't bothered to post anything to net.music.gdead until this most recent spate of bitching. He doesn't care to read what we're discussing, and he sure as hell doesn't want to contribute to it. I'm not sure what he wants...wish I knew; maybe we could give him a newsgroup for it!(:-):-):-) 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. 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) but Rich's anti-subgroup vendetta has come to be a drag for everyone and even an albatross to him (which he carries all too proudly). 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. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.