wade@nmtvax.UUCP (04/28/84)
> I quit net.music and net.records since all the articles were > about rock, and not about music. Listen buddy, if your cocky enough to say that rock isn't music, then why don't we have a new newsgroup for you and your friends, net.dumbshit? Kiss my baroque!
wade@nmtvax.UUCP (05/01/84)
PLEASE, NO MORE GARBAGE ABOUT NET.MUSIC.CLASSICAL, WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE STUPID NEWSGROUP SO STOP POSTING VOTES FOR IT!!!
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (05/02/84)
> PLEASE, NO MORE GARBAGE ABOUT NET.MUSIC.CLASSICAL, WE'VE ALREADY > GOT THE STUPID NEWSGROUP SO STOP POSTING VOTES FOR IT!!! Amen! And no more stupid flames about its existence or "snobs", either! Thanks to Rich and others, we now have an easy way to tell if you're a snob or not: Do you like classical music? Will you contribute to net.music.classical (regardless of how you felt about its creation in the first place)? Then it's easy - you're a snob. Enjoy it. I am. I notice that once again some ignoramus has advanced the curious theory that "classical" music somehow just ended about 1900. Will he ever wake from his blaster-induced stupor? Another rhetorical question: Anybody else besides me notice the contradiction between epithets like "wimp" and "pansy" and the terrible defensive furor these supposed weaklings aroused? My, my. classical snobs arise...you have nothing to lose but your detractors - Jeff Winslow "Whew - what a day. Guess I'll get out my old Tom Lehrer..."
nxs@fluke.UUCP (05/04/84)
Jeff: So you want I should shut up and quit posting to net.music just because I have my own news-group to bore? WELL THEN -- I WILL. Right this minute. I'm not going to post another word to your lousy net-group, so there. And there is no way you can change my mind. Thats right, I'm leaving and I'm not going to say another word about it. No-sir-ee not from me. Thats it, silence from now on. You'll have to find someone else to berate and ridicule, as for me, I'm leaving, right now. See that door, well I'm opening it and heading out. I don't want to have another word of discussion, I'm tired of talking to you. From now on, you won't hear another peep, not even a murmer, not even so much as a wisper, I Won't even .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Bruce (I am not jeff winslow) Golub
timw@umcp-cs.UUCP (05/04/84)
Maybe we should have a seperate newsgroup for Rich Rosen, called
appropiately enough net.music.rlr
Maybe then will the newsgroup go back to normal level of activity.
--
Tim Wicinski
University of Maryland
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!timw
CSNet: timw@umcp-cs
ARPA: timw@marylandrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/08/84)
> Maybe we should have a seperate newsgroup for Rich Rosen, called > appropiately enough net.music.rlr > Maybe then will the newsgroup go back to normal level of activity. -- > Tim Wicinski > University of Maryland Oh, Timmy. Are you just sore because you came in second in the punk trivia quiz? :-) Your idea is not even an original one. ihuxf!ajs (Al Sawyer) had proposed net.music.rosen during the last round of music separatism discussions. He apologized for proposing a newsgroup dedicating to hurling insults at an individual netnews user. And what's more you miss my point about newsgroup separatism. Having net.music.rlr would add to that isolationism that net.music.classical started. A quick survey of net.music.classical shows that many people (including myself) post to net.music.classical who also post to net.music proper. In fact, ANYTHING I post to net.music.classical that is of general interest is posted to net.music as well, which is more than I can say for the net.music.classical snitheads who think discussions on absolute pitch are only for those interested in "serious" music. And this is the very problem I was afraid would crop up: classical isolationists posting articles on generic subjects that would be of interest to all music lovers (though from their narrow perspective they might not think so). By the same token, articles that may be of interest to classical music lovers are posted to net.music only, perhaps because a question is asked from a rock or jazz perspective that might be expanded to encompass all musics. Since those who subscribe to net.music.classical ONLY do so by clear choice, I say it's their loss when they miss such articles in net.music, and the hell with them. But when those who subscribe to net.music but not to net.music.classical (it's just as much their right not to like classical music as it is other people's right to like it) miss generic articles posted only to net.music.classical, that's not a voluntary omission. They are forced to miss that discussion, forced to miss the chance to contribute to it and/or to get something out of it. The obvious solution: post all articles to both newsgroups. Which leads to the question "why have two newsgroups at all?". And for those who say "we didn't want net.music.classical because we're snobs, we wanted it because not enough of the traffic in net.music was of interest to us." WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE MAJORITY (OR EVEN A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE) OF THE ARTICLES IN ANY NEWSGROUP IS OF INTEREST TO ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON????? Do you honestly think I read net.music to see opinions on Michael Jackson's possible hermaphroditism or about how Rush are the greatest musical artists since yesterday at noon?? Remember the axiom "90% of everything is shit"? Well, for each person out there, there's a different 10% of the whole of the universe that's non-fecal. So if you want to see newsgroups where the vast majority of entries adheres to your view of the world, you're leaning towards net.music.timw, if anything. The newsgroup net.music was designed as a place for ALL music lovers to speak out, with all their diverse points of view. If you're unable to share a newsgroup with all those others (because your valuable time is somehow worth more than my or someone else's valuable time such that it warrants a separate group), then you are indeed a snob. At the very least... (Who's game for net.politics.* ...) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
timw@umcp-cs.UUCP (05/13/84)
> Maybe we should have a seperate newsgroup for Rich Rosen, called > appropiately enough net.music.rlr > Maybe then will the newsgroup go back to normal level of activity. -- > Tim Wicinski > University of Maryland >Oh, Timmy. Are you just sore because you came in second in the punk >trivia quiz? :-) >Your idea is not even an original one. ihuxf!ajs (Al Sawyer) had proposed >net.music.rosen during the last round of music separatism discussions. >He apologized for proposing a newsgroup dedicating to hurling insults at >an individual netnews user. No, I'm not upset and I don't see why we don't do it. It would save my 'n' key a lot of use. I could go off and yell and scream and holler about you losy writing and how it bores the hell out of me, but I don't have all that free time like you do. And if I keep going on, I could set myself up for some people to punce on me and get their little kicks from flaming about my style. So i'll shut up and go off rewrite vnews so everthing from pyuxn!rlr will be skipped as quick without looking at it. Its probably better than reading them anyway. -- Tim Wicinski University of Maryland UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!timw CSNet: timw@umcp-cs ARPA: timw@maryland