dman@homxa.UUCP (#D.ANDERSON) (05/07/84)
I have waited until net.music.classical was 100 articles old before I posted any messages pertaining to its creation. The call for `net.music.classical' has gone out many times before - each time a round of "yeahs" appears, followed by a several "but this topic has had no discussion", and then a denial for creation. 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. If action was taken and the group failed, that would be the end of it. If the group succeeded then we'd have a another healthy active newsgroup. It appears that the chance paid off. There are many administrators on the net. Any one of them has the power to give a newsgroup existence. However, the life of a group can come only from its readers. The direction 2.11 may take is a step more towards Notes, where "discussions" arise - apparently subgroups are too limiting or intimidating. In any case the group/subgroup scheme is inflexible enough to cause messages like "yes, it should be created / no, it should not be created" to circulate. We all should have the right to discourse on any subject under a given framework, free from any objection of its right to exist. 2.10 is good, but it is a bulletin board; what we really want is a bathroom stall to write on. Keep it clean - Dave Anderson 201-949-5552