rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/02/84)
>>> Aye vote here for net.music.classical. Finally, something worth reading, >>> instead of countless rock articles. >> Come on! Do you think that these classical music articles are going to >> magically appear once this new group is established? What makes you think >> that any more people are going to submit articles to the group than to the >> old group? Establish a REAL need first, THEN start the group. And if you >> think that there aren't enough classical articles in net.music, why don't >> you start writing some instead of complaining that there are none to read? > Well, the group has been established, and the articles *have* "magically" > appeared. So, tell me, oh wise one. Why didn't all of you "magicians" submit all of these articles to net.music in the first place????? (I guess they felt so uncomfortable conversing with us common people. Jeeves, fetch the Rolls.) -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
chenr@tilt.UUCP (Raymond Chen) (05/02/84)
[Someone] >>>> Aye vote here for net.music.classical. Finally, something worth reading, >>>> instead of countless rock articles. [Rich Rosen] >>> Come on! Do you think that these classical music articles are going to >>> magically appear once this new group is established? What makes you think >>> that any more people are going to submit articles to the group than to the >>> old group? Establish a REAL need first, THEN start the group. And if you >>> think that there aren't enough classical articles in net.music, why don't >>> you start writing some instead of complaining that there are none to read? [Someone] >> Well, the group has been established, and the articles *have* "magically" >> appeared. [Rich Rosen] >So, tell me, oh wise one. Why didn't all of you "magicians" submit all of >these articles to net.music in the first place????? > >(I guess they felt so uncomfortable conversing with us common people. >Jeeves, fetch the Rolls.) >-- >Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! > Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr [My turn] <<FLAME ON>> Talk about a**h*l*es and electronic sneers !! Listen, bud, if you don't feel comfortable with the idea of net.music.classical then unsubscribe and leave us who do *ALONE*. The newsgroup *has* been established, and it's chugging along quite nicely, thank you, (more articles than a lot of other newsgroups I could name) so if you can't post anything constructive to it then *DON'T POST*. <<flame off>> (Boy, that felt good...) You seem to have been against the idea from the very beginning. That's fine. Everybody has a right to his opinion. *But* the issue has already been decided and the decision's probably not going to reversed, so why don't you stop and a dead dog lay, instead of taking pot shots at all those who *want* net.music. classical? -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/02/84)
> Here's another yes vote for a new group, but I do think you folks have > the whole situation backwards. THe new group should not be called > net.music.classical, it should be called just plain net.music. The > <old> group should be called net.music.rock, or net.music.junk, or > something else appropriate to its highly restricted view of the musical > universe. Spare the flames, please, serious proposal. Dick Grantges > hound!rfg Mr. Grantges' view of the musical universe is, of course, not quite so highly restricted. *He* likes ALL real music, whatever he doesn't like is thus clearly defined as junk. Which is why no one should get to do the sort of broad bogus classifying he proposes. (Snobs? We're not snobs. Ugggh, Hector, a rock musician!! Call the police!) (Who then say: "Doan stann so close to me!") (Note that I've removed net.audio from the list of groups to which this is sent, while adding net.music.classical; after all if the proponents of a split can fill up net.music...) -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/03/84)
From a Mr. Ray Chen, after erroneously assigning quotes to yours truly: ------- [Rich Rosen] <<<--- NOT TRUE, MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE (UNKNOWN) WHO DERIDED A RATHER SNOOTY STATEMENT ABOUT "ROCK" ARTICLES >>> Come on! Do you think that these classical music articles are going to >>> magically appear once this new group is established? What makes you think >>> that any more people are going to submit articles to the group than to the >>> old group? Establish a REAL need first, THEN start the group. And if you >>> think that there aren't enough classical articles in net.music, why don't >>> you start writing some instead of complaining that there are none to read? [Someone] >> Well, the group has been established, and the articles *have* "magically" >> appeared. [Rich Rosen] >So, tell me, oh wise one. Why didn't all of you "magicians" submit all of >these articles to net.music in the first place????? >(I guess they felt so uncomfortable conversing with us common people. >Jeeves, fetch the Rolls.) <<FLAME ON>> <<<---THE FLAMES OF MR. CHEN Talk about a**h*l*es and electronic sneers !! Listen, bud, if you don't feel comfortable with the idea of net.music.classical then unsubscribe and leave us who do *ALONE*. The newsgroup *has* been established, and it's chugging along quite nicely, thank you, (more articles than a lot of other newsgroups I could name) so if you can't post anything constructive to it then *DON'T POST*. You seem to have been against the idea from the very beginning. That's fine. Everybody has a right to his opinion. *But* the issue has already been decided and the decision's probably not going to reversed, so why don't you stop and a dead dog lay, instead of taking pot shots at all those who *want* net.music. classical? --------- [END CHEN INPUT] The "issue" was decided by unilateral action on the part of a proponent, which is not part of a democratic process as I understand it (no flames about "usenet is an anarchy", it's actually a "malarchy"--controlled by bad people:-) And anyway, since proponents saw fit to clutter net.music with this discussion ("No," he said, "the clutter was that damn rock music!"), why not move the clutter here? -- "An argument is an intellectual process. It isn't the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says." "... Can be." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (05/05/84)
Rich Rosen says: >The "issue" was decided by unilateral action on the part of a proponent, which >is not part of a democratic process as I understand it (no flames about >"usenet is an anarchy", it's actually a "malarchy"--controlled by bad people:-) When Rich says a proponent, I assume he refers to me, as I have initiated this round of request for net.music.classical. My request was supported by many others. It is possible that the majority of net.music subscribers were opposed to the net.music.classical idea, and the proponents of the new group are a minority. However, in matters of personal preference (which our request is such a case) the majority does not have a right to impose their preference on the minority. An example may clarify this issue. Let us assume a majority worships god Y, and a minority worships god X. Does the majority have the right to impose a law requiring everyone to pray to god Y, including those who worship god X? The issue is not how many are for and how many are against the formation of the new group. The formation of a new group should be determined by the number of its proponents. Those who oppose the group have the choice not to subscribe to it. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho