rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/10/84)
I have been accused of driving this issue into the ground, but this is only because none of my fundamental questions as to why this group was created have been answered. One person asked why I am rational about such things in net.religion, but I propose an irrational position here. Another suggests that I relax and back off, since the group has already been made. Another claims (unfoundedly) that for some reason articles on classical music would be trampled or shouted down or interrupted in net.music proper (this has never happened to any classical article submitted there!!). This is why I posted the survey. Please try to answer it completely and honestly. from homxa!dman: > I am the malicious proponent that Rich Rosen spoke of; it was I who took > a unilateral action and created the group, although others have sent > mail to me saying that they would have if I hadn't. I don't consider > myself "bad" for the net, but this is a question that is at best very > subjective anyway. I saw money being spent to transmit the same back- > and-forth every time the classical music subject came up. To this I ask one last time: there was a forum for music discussion on this network. Why wasn't it used? Please answer by mail and/or respond via the survey as this topic is not relevant in any of these newsgroups. Tyranny of the plurality apparently provides a quorum for newsgroup creation, but now that that's been done, let's go with it. Even I submit to net.music.classical, but I'm most always sure to submit to net.music as well because the existence of this newsgroup should not force other people to be left out in the cold. This has indeed happened, as I feared, and I hope to continue to make sure it doesn't happen again (witness the perfect pitch article not submitted to net.music!). -- Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr