malik@delphi.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) (09/18/85)
[me] >> Tell us something that you suspect will be INTERESTING >>to other people. Isn't that why you're posting something in >>the first place? [John] >It's been said before: don't try to dictate to others what >they can or can not do. The net is a system for people >to communicate freely and I oppose any of kind of attempt to >limit or censor others expressions (except if they express an >attempt to limit expression). If someone takes the time >to write an article, then it is interesting to him/her; and that's >all that is required. Intolerance is not appropriate. There >is always the 'n' key. - John Lipinski [me again] But that's what got Doug Allen (with whom I have no quarrel) in trouble. He evidently finds KB quite interesting, but misjudged the interest of the group at large. Bad feelings were raised on both sides. The same thing happened with Grateful Dead fans recently. And before that, with classical music. In each case, they broke off and started their own group. This is hardly the open, supportive forum that I assume we are both interested in. Group dynamics are very tricky. I offered a carefully considered suggestion as to how we might get along better. I fail to see how this can be construed as 'intolerant'. Best Wishes, Karl
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/19/85)
>>It's been said before: don't try to dictate to others what >>they can or can not do. The net is a system for people >>to communicate freely and I oppose any of kind of attempt to >>limit or censor others expressions (except if they express an >>attempt to limit expression). If someone takes the time >>to write an article, then it is interesting to him/her; and that's >>all that is required. Intolerance is not appropriate. There >>is always the 'n' key. - John Lipinski > But that's what got Doug Allen (with whom I have no quarrel) in > trouble. Bad feelings were raised on both sides. The same thing happened > with Grateful Dead fans recently. And before that, with classical music. > In each case, they broke off and started their own group. This > is hardly the open, supportive forum that I assume we are both interested > in. Group dynamics are very tricky. I offered a carefully considered > suggestion as to how we might get along better. I fail to see how this > can be construed as 'intolerant'. [KARL MALIK] I don't see how it can be construed as anything BUT intolerant. First, Doug formed the mailing list/group only because of the tonguelashings and verbal abuse he got in droves from those who simply didn't like what he had to say. Second, let's do some arithmetic. If there are 100 articles and 90 of them are about Kate Bush, what does that mean? It means among all the people who couldn't stand KB-isms, they could only amass ten articles among them on other topics. Later, the ratios changed: of, say, 100 articles, 50 may have from Doug and others about Bush, 40 were flames ABOUT Doug and/or Bush, and 10 were on the other topics. So who is at fault? Doug (et al) for writing "too much"? Or the flamers, for spending 4 times as much energy writing flames about Doug than saying things about other topics in the arena of music? This is exactly the same intolerant selfish crap that led to subgrouping once or twice before: there weren't "enough" articles on topics they liked. Why? Because no one was posting them! Simple. They felt "a separate group will have a better atmosphere in which we can feel free to post on other topics". And that is a load of crap. Because no one was making anyone feel "uncomfortable" about posting articles on different topics. Hell, forty discussions go on at the same time, you're telling me you'd be uncomfortable starting a new one? On a new topic? It would seem that some form of petty elitism is at work when someone claims not to "feel comfortable" posting articles to a public forum on music. It sure sounds to me like "I'd be drowned out amongst this riffraff talking about music I don't like". Funny how when someone does post a solitary article on a new topic in the midst of everything, it always gets seen and responded to, often in large quantity. Is there something wrong with that? -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
dsr@uvacs.UUCP (Dana S. Richards) (09/23/85)
> > I don't see how it can be construed as anything BUT intolerant. First, > Doug formed the mailing list/group only because of the tonguelashings and > verbal abuse he got in droves from those who simply didn't like what he > had to say. Second, let's do some arithmetic. If there are 100 articles > and 90 of them are about Kate Bush, what does that mean? It means among > all the people who couldn't stand KB-isms, they could only amass tenarticles > among them on other topics. Later, the ratios changed: of, say, 100 > articles, 50 may have from Doug and others about Bush, 40 were flames ABOUT > Doug and/or Bush, and 10 were on the other topics. .... This is truly bizarre arithmetic. To me the obvious conclusion is that most everyone thinks that the 10% of non-Doug is the correct amount and mix of topics for this newsgroup. Many people, myself included, do not have time to even "n" all the Doug articles. It is not right that one person should make me unsubscribe from a group I enjoy. I believe that Doug in real life is normal. However he has no notion of how screen after screen of his affects regular subscribers. (This is not addressed to him; I long ago realized he had no sense of what he was doing even after his face rubbed in it.)
sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers) (09/25/85)
>I don't see how it can be construed as anything BUT intolerant. First, >Doug formed the mailing list/group only because of the tonguelashings and >verbal abuse he got in droves from those who simply didn't like what he >had to say. Second, let's do some arithmetic. If there are 100 articles >and 90 of them are about Kate Bush, what does that mean? It means among >all the people who couldn't stand KB-isms, they could only amass ten articles >among them on other topics. Later, the ratios changed: of, say, 100 >articles, 50 may have from Doug and others about Bush, 40 were flames ABOUT >Doug and/or Bush, and 10 were on the other topics. So who is at fault? >Doug (et al) for writing "too much"? Or the flamers, for spending 4 times >as much energy writing flames about Doug than saying things about other >topics in the arena of music? This is exactly the same intolerant selfish >crap that led to subgrouping once or twice before: there weren't "enough" >articles on topics they liked. Why? Because no one was posting them! >Simple. They felt "a separate group will have a better atmosphere in which >we can feel free to post on other topics". And that is a load of crap. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Despite the fact that Doug Alan occassionally breaks down and posts a thing every now and then about Kate Bush or something else to net.music, most of his time & energies now go to his mailing list. Meanwhile, all you continually flaming netters that Rich Rosen refers to *still* don't have the postings you want. And it's too bad, because if you had just shut up, the percentage of Doug's postings that were flames would have gone down. We have 60 some people on this mailing list, and we DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT KATE BUSH....and....most important of all, there are NO FLAMES. -- "Ya know, I really *love* a phone tent." ******************************************* Shelli Meyers UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!sam ARPA: sam%bu-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa *******************************************
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/27/85)
>>I don't see how it can be construed as anything BUT intolerant. First, >>Doug formed the mailing list/group only because of the tonguelashings and >>verbal abuse he got in droves from those who simply didn't like what he >>had to say. Second, let's do some arithmetic. If there are 100 articles >>and 90 of them are about Kate Bush, what does that mean? It means among >>all the people who couldn't stand KB-isms, they could only amass tenarticles >>among them on other topics. Later, the ratios changed: of, say, 100 >>articles, 50 may have from Doug and others about Bush, 40 were flames ABOUT >>Doug and/or Bush, and 10 were on the other topics. .... [ROSEN] > This is truly bizarre arithmetic. > To me the obvious conclusion is that most everyone thinks that the 10% of > non-Doug is the correct amount and mix of topics for this newsgroup. > Many people, myself included, do not have time to even "n" all the Doug > articles. It is not right that one person should make me unsubscribe > from a group I enjoy. [DANA RICHARDS] I wasn't aware that Doug had a gun with that sort of range and accuracy to "make" you do anything. Jeff Winslow took a survey of articles coming in, and found that it reached the point at which complaints about Doug outnumbered articles from Doug. I'm not sure what's truly bizarre about that arithmetic. > I believe that Doug in real life is normal. However he has no notion > of how screen after screen of his affects regular subscribers. > (This is not addressed to him; I long ago realized he had no sense > of what he was doing even after his face rubbed in it.) The bizarreness seems to be in the self-contradictory nature of this paragraph, He's normal, but he has no sense, but ... How long must this go on? -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr