[net.music.classical] The new configuration of the net

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.

jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (06/13/85)

Rich Rosen writes:
>     
>     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,
>     								^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uh, well, thanks for the notice.

However, the record shows that I have consistently opposed the splitting
of newsgroups, though I don't really care all *that* much, one way or another.

Guess you really can't stand to lose an argument, can you...  (rib, rib)

					*** grin ***