glenn1@mtuxt.UUCP (G.SCHWARTZ) (06/21/85)
This is an apology for letting anger get the best of me. I guess that this goes back to the formation of net.music.gdead, when there were some nasty exchanges made. I just could not understand why there was apparent vehemence toward forming the group (negative, that is) by net.music readers. Rosen was there stereotyping us as usual. I just don't know why he feels it is his responsibility to comment on everything. I was wrong, he does have a right to speak his mind, yet after reading months of color commentary I couldn't take it anymore. Gdead news is a haven for some of us. I like to read it every day and it makes me feel good (as I'm sure it does for all deadheads). It is a place where I know that I am communicating with good people who enjoy the same things that I do. I was sure that opinionated busybodies would have no desire to intrude. When I read rosen's article I felt violated. I deal with enough discrimination from cops who pull me over for the dead sticker on my car etc...... Sorry about such a negative posting in this relatively peacefull group. See you all at saratoga! Half of my life, I spent doing time for some other fuckers crime....
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/22/85)
> This is an apology for letting anger get the best of me. I guess > that this goes back to the formation of net.music.gdead, when > there were some nasty exchanges made. I just could not > understand why there was apparent vehemence toward forming > the group (negative, that is) by net.music readers. Rosen had some quite good arguments against the formation of a Grateful Dead subgroup. He stated them. He has a rather acerbic manner that not everyone likes and sharp opinions that he states freely. You may disagree with them (I know I do, often) but that does NOT give you the right to insult him publicly (and make a royal jerk out of yourself in the process. > Rosen > was there stereotyping us as usual. I just don't know why > he feels it is his responsibility to comment on everything. One of the reasons USENET exists is to allow for people you have not met and may never meet to exchange opinions. If only sympathetic viewpoints responded to people's articles, it would, in my humble opinion, become pretty boring > I was wrong, he does have a right to speak his mind, yet > after reading months of color commentary I couldn't take it > anymore. Gdead news is a haven for some of us. I like to > read it every day and it makes me feel good (as I'm sure > it does for all deadheads). It is a place where I know > that I am communicating with good people who enjoy the same > things that I do. I was sure that opinionated busybodies > would have no desire to intrude. When I read rosen's > article I felt violated. I deal with enough discrimination > from cops who pull me over for the dead sticker on my >reasons car etc...... Whatever this paragraph means, it is completely out of line. Are you advocating censorship of anything likely to disrupt the "haven" that exists only to "make you feel good"? Or are you unwilling to engage in serious debate with someone who disagrees with you? I hope this individual's repulsive attitude is not shared by other readers of this group. Marcel Simon
wimp@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Haferman) (06/24/85)
>> This is an apology for letting anger get the best of me. I guess >> that this goes back to the formation of net.music.gdead, when >> there were some nasty exchanges made. I just could not >> understand why there was apparent vehemence toward forming >> the group (negative, that is) by net.music readers. > Rosen had some quite good arguments against the formation of > a Grateful Dead subgroup. He stated them. He has a rather acerbic > manner that not everyone likes and sharp opinions that he states > freely. You may disagree with them (I know I do, often) but that > does NOT give you the right to insult him publicly (and make a royal > jerk out of yourself in the process. >> Rosen >> was there stereotyping us as usual. I just don't know why >> he feels it is his responsibility to comment on everything. > One of the reasons USENET exists is to allow for people you have not > met and may never meet to exchange opinions. If only sympathetic > viewpoints responded to people's articles, it would, in my humble opinion, > become pretty boring >> I was wrong, he does have a right to speak his mind, yet >> after reading months of color commentary I couldn't take it >> anymore. Gdead news is a haven for some of us. I like to >> read it every day and it makes me feel good (as I'm sure >> it does for all deadheads). It is a place where I know >> that I am communicating with good people who enjoy the same >> things that I do. I was sure that opinionated busybodies >> would have no desire to intrude. When I read rosen's >> article I felt violated. I deal with enough discrimination >> from cops who pull me over for the dead sticker on my >> reasons car etc...... > Whatever this paragraph means, it is completely out of line. > Are you advocating censorship of anything likely to disrupt > the "haven" that exists only to "make you feel good"? > Or are you unwilling to engage in serious debate with > someone who disagrees with you? > I hope this individual's repulsive attitude is not > shared by other readers of this group. C'mon guys... MELLOW OUT! -Jeff "If a man among you has no sin upon his hand, Let him cast a stone at me for playin' in the band"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/24/85)
I'll keep it brief. > This is an apology for letting anger get the best of me. Accepted. > I guess that this goes back to the formation of net.music.gdead, when > there were some nasty exchanges made. I just could not > understand why there was apparent vehemence toward forming > the group (negative, that is) by net.music readers. I thought the example I gave about Hart/Kreutzmann/Lesh in the Rhythm Devils made it very clear. The channels of communication between people who subscribe to subgroups as opposed to the more ecumenical general topical newsgroup essentially break down, and exchange of information (isn't that what the net was formed for?) is damaged. > Rosen was there stereotyping us as usual. I just don't know why > he feels it is his responsibility to comment on everything. The word is "right" to comment. (Stereotyping?) > When I read rosen's article I felt violated. I deal with enough discrimination > from cops who pull me over for the dead sticker on my car etc...... I feel really sorry for people so afraid of being exposed to other opinions. Really. And I find it extremely hard to believe that cops in New Jersey (or most places for that matter) pull cars over on the basis of a bumper sticker. I doubt they can even see what the bumper sticker says when you're doing 65 (which might be a more likely reason for being pulled over). Seriously, I'd be very interested in hearing substantiated stories of people whose cars were pulled over because of a Dead sticker. This sounds like wishful thinking to me. (If you do wish to offer instances, let's keep it in the mail unless you think the topic is worthy of the group.) -- Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr