rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/05/90)
In article <TAR.900104111949@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> TAR%MAINE.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (Thom Rounds) writes: > PURPOSE: > This group has been proposed to lessen the traffic in the rec.music.misc >and alt.rock-n-roll, as well as make life easier for Pink Floyd fans. There hasn't been much floyd traffic on r.m.misc, so I don't think that's a very convincing argument. It will make life easier for people who like pfloyd but who aren't interested in most of the articles on r.m.misc. Are there many such people? What I'm driving at is this: why not keep it on r.m.misc? As a very casual fan of early Pink Floyd, I wouldn't subscribe to pfloyd, but I do enjoy reading the occasional pfloyd posting on r.m.misc. For this reason, I'd have to oppose such a group. Now if you could convince me that fans were discouraged from posting to r.m.misc, whereas they would post to a new specialty group (this was the r.m.dylan case), I would support the proposal. > CHARTER: > This group shall be to discuss lyrics, songs, shows, new releases, and/or >anything pertaining to the musical band Pink Floyd. > Will this also include discussions about Barrett? Just curious.
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (01/05/90)
In article <50425@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) says: > >In article <TAR.900104111949@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> TAR%MAINE.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU >(Thom Rounds) writes: >> PURPOSE: >> This group has been proposed to lessen the traffic in the rec.music.misc >>and alt.rock-n-roll, as well as make life easier for Pink Floyd fans. > > >There hasn't been much floyd traffic on r.m.misc, so I don't think >that's a very convincing argument. It will make life easier for people >who like pfloyd but who aren't interested in most of the articles on >r.m.misc. Are there many such people? > Tons. Like me. You are absolutly right, and the reason for this lack of Pink Floyd traffic is the amount of other traffic. alt.rock-n-roll has less traffic, and more Floyd-related material. It's kinda proportionate, I suppose. Another view: alot of people tend to avoid bloated newsgroups. I try to stay away from newsgroups bigger than 200, but quite often the topics inside keep me coming back to them. If a rec.music.pfloyd were created, it's average size would probably be around 150 or so, judging by my preliminary findings, which are more in favor than anyone, including me, would beleive. The point is, there is enough traffic, but not where everybody and his brother will trip over it. >What I'm driving at is this: why not keep it on r.m.misc? As a very >casual fan of early Pink Floyd, I wouldn't subscribe to pfloyd, but I >do enjoy reading the occasional pfloyd posting on r.m.misc. For this >reason, I'd have to oppose such a group. > Alot of people say this. I want to ask a question to the net pertaining to this subject. The question is this: If you wouldn't read a newsgroup, or are indifferent to it, or just plain don't care, why would you vote no, making it less likely for the people who *do* to read it? Why not just abstain? You don't have to vote no just because you don't read about it. I'm not saying you par- ticularly, but most of the net has this attitude (I'm not being critical, guys and gals, just stating what I see come in to my machine). Another point: It's not just rec.music.misc where the Pink Floyd posts land. >Now if you could convince me that fans were discouraged from posting >to r.m.misc, whereas they would post to a new specialty group (this >was the r.m.dylan case), I would support the proposal. > Not r.m.misc specifically, but certainly in alt.r-n-roll there has been quite a bit of anti-Floyd people telling us we have no right to post there. If they don't like us, well, everybody has a right to their opinions. This is a good thing, as everybody certainly *has* an opinion. :-> > >> CHARTER: >> This group shall be to discuss lyrics, songs, shows, new releases, and/or >>anything pertaining to the musical band Pink Floyd. >> > > >Will this also include discussions about Barrett? Just curious. > The group won't be moderated, so you can post literally anything. I'm quite sure Syd Barrett will pop up more than a few times. --Thom 'suddely, I'm nice!' Rounds
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/05/90)
First of all, I've been a major Pink Floyd nut for years, to the point where roommates have begged me not to play any more of it. It's one of the few rock bands with genuine philosophical and psychological insight, combined with musical excellence that knows no betters. I oppose this newsgroup. I think newsgroups should be for broad categories of discussion, and of interest to many people. I don't think they should be fan clubs. Fan clubs hardly even permit discussion, just panegyrics. One can't discuss the pros and cons of the subject matter in a fan club; one can be a member of the inside group who say everything about the idol is groovy, or one of a hated group of heretics who insist on pointing out that nothing is perfect and no one is God. I would, however, support the creation of a "rec.music.psychedelic". I imagine that Pink Floyd would be one of the most enduring subjects in such a group, but its charter would be appropriately broad-based. Fan clubs are the death of honest criticism. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, But I think it's your mind." -- Frank Zappa
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/05/90)
In article <TAR.90004223501@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > Alot of people say this. I want to ask a question to the net pertaining to >this subject. The question is this: If you wouldn't read a newsgroup, or are >indifferent to it, or just plain don't care, why would you vote no, making it >less likely for the people who *do* to read it? Why not just abstain? As explained before, I might vote 'no' if I think the community as a whole would be better served by keeping the discussion in a place where non-fanatics can see it. I would never subscribe to r.m.pfloyd because 90+% of the articles wouldn't interest me. If I don't care anything about Pink Floyd, that's fine. But if I enjoy the (very) occasional posting on r.m.misc, I lose -- I'll never see such postings because they won't be there anymore. By consolidating yourselves into your own group, you leave behind all the people with casual interest. This is the strong point of 'misc' groups -- exposure to things that you're not already a great fan of. >>Now if you could convince me that fans were discouraged from posting >>to r.m.misc, whereas they would post to a new specialty group (this >>was the r.m.dylan case), I would support the proposal. >> > Not r.m.misc specifically, but certainly in alt.r-n-roll there has been >quite a bit of anti-Floyd people telling us we have no right to post >there. I quit reading alt.r-n-r, so I can't comment. If the situation is as you say it is, then a new group is the right solution, and we casual fans lose. I would reluctantly support the creation of the group if there's good reason to think that you can't use existing groups. Have you tried r.m.misc? It has wider distribution than alt.r-n-r anyway.
howells@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (John Howells) (01/06/90)
In article <50425@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes... <In article <TAR.900104111949@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> TAR%MAINE.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (Thom Rounds) writes: <> PURPOSE: <> This group has been proposed to lessen the traffic in the rec.music.misc <>and alt.rock-n-roll, as well as make life easier for Pink Floyd fans. < < <There hasn't been much floyd traffic on r.m.misc, so I don't think <that's a very convincing argument. It will make life easier for people <who like pfloyd but who aren't interested in most of the articles on <r.m.misc. Are there many such people? < The Floyd postings in r.m.misc seem to go in cycles. Currently there is little being posted, but I seem to remember not too long ago a flood of postings. I'm sure it will happen again. On the other hand, Floyd postings to alt.rock-n-roll are almost constant. I don't think traffic congestion is a good enough reason to start a new group anyway (I think you agree?), but I'm sure that Pink Floyd fans on the net are many. Only a vote count will bear this out, though. < <> CHARTER: <> This group shall be to discuss lyrics, songs, shows, new releases, and/or <>anything pertaining to the musical band Pink Floyd. <> < < <Will this also include discussions about Barrett? Just curious. It will have to. Barrett IS Floyd. I'm only marginally interested in post-Barrett Floyd and would probably check out soon if people refuse to discuss old Syd. I suppose you could consider the case of r.m.beatles. Discussions are certainly not limited to The Beatles as a group. The solo careers of the Fab Four, no matter how marginal, are probably discussed more often than the 10 year period of the original group's existence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Howells | "Science does not | howells@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov Sterling Software | remove the terror | howells@krypton.arc.nasa.gov Palo Alto, Ca. | of the Gods" | howells%kry@ames.arc.nasa.gov
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (01/06/90)
In article <50457@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >......because 90+% of the articles wouldn't interest me. If I don't care >anything about Pink Floyd, that's fine. But if I enjoy the (very) >occasional posting on r.m.misc, I lose -- I'll never see such postings >because they won't be there anymore. By consolidating yourselves into >your own group, you leave behind all the people with casual interest. The logical extension of this argument is that USENET should be structured for things in which one only has a casual interest - can you say net.tabloid? You "lose" not because the subject matter has moved elsewhere, but because you don't have the interest, or energy, to follow it there. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (01/06/90)
In article <9504@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) says: > >First of all, I've been a major Pink Floyd nut for years, to the point >where roommates have begged me not to play any more of it. It's one of >the few rock bands with genuine philosophical and psychological >insight, combined with musical excellence that knows no betters. > >I oppose this newsgroup. I think newsgroups should be for broad >categories of discussion, and of interest to many people. I don't >think they should be fan clubs. Fan clubs hardly even permit >discussion, just panegyrics. One can't discuss the pros and cons of >the subject matter in a fan club; one can be a member of the inside >group who say everything about the idol is groovy, or one of a hated >group of heretics who insist on pointing out that nothing is perfect >and no one is God. > Okay, point taken. Now then, do you suggest we remove rec.music.gdead, and rec.music.gaffa? They are the same kinds of newgroup that I've been campaigning for. And if you read through them, there is plenty of criticism, constructive and otherwise. Why would rec.music.pfloyd be different? >I would, however, support the creation of a "rec.music.psychedelic". I >imagine that Pink Floyd would be one of the most enduring subjects in >such a group, but its charter would be appropriately broad-based. > I would say that Pink Floyd ended it's psychedelisism the minute Syd Barret sent his brain off into the land of permanent acid trips. Floyd is no longer a psychedelic band, and I'd say they stopped that beginning in Meddle, and to a screeching halt in Dark Side of the Moon, so I think it's safe to say Pink Floyd stopped being a band of psychedelics very early in their collective carreers. Not that the idea for the group isn't bad, though, why don't you give it a try? You couldn't *possibly* do any worse than I did! >Fan clubs are the death of honest criticism. Perhaps. They're also a great place to hang out and get info, material, and just about anything pertaining to the subject matter that you want. >-- >Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com > --Thom Rounds >"What's the ugliest part of your body? > Some say your nose, some say your toes, > But I think it's your mind." >-- Frank Zappa ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <------- Now THAT'S a .sig!
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (01/06/90)
In article <50457@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) says: > >In article <TAR.90004223501@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) : >writes >> Alot of people say this. I want to ask a question to the net pertaining >to >>this subject. The question is this: If you wouldn't read a newsgroup, or are >>indifferent to it, or just plain don't care, why would you vote no, making it >>less likely for the people who *do* to read it? Why not just abstain? > > > >As explained before, I might vote 'no' if I think the community as a >whole would be better served by keeping the discussion in a place >where non-fanatics can see it. I would never subscribe to r.m.pfloyd >because 90+% of the articles wouldn't interest me. If I don't care >anything about Pink Floyd, that's fine. But if I enjoy the (very) >occasional posting on r.m.misc, I lose -- I'll never see such postings >because they won't be there anymore. By consolidating yourselves into >your own group, you leave behind all the people with casual interest. >This is the strong point of 'misc' groups -- exposure to things that >you're not already a great fan of. > I really don't see why the occaisional person wouldn't still post to r.m.misc with something pertaining to Pink Floyd. People tend to cross-post alot, and if there's a good discussion going on elsewhere, someone might mention it in r.m.misc, the mention of this subject in r.m.gdead is a good ex- ample of that analogy. > >>>Now if you could convince me that fans were discouraged from posting >>>to r.m.misc, whereas they would post to a new specialty group (this >>>was the r.m.dylan case), I would support the proposal. >>> >> Not r.m.misc specifically, but certainly in alt.r-n-roll there has been >>quite a bit of anti-Floyd people telling us we have no right to post >>there. > > > >I quit reading alt.r-n-r, so I can't comment. If the situation is as >you say it is, then a new group is the right solution, and we casual >fans lose. I would reluctantly support the creation of the group if >there's good reason to think that you can't use existing groups. Have >you tried r.m.misc? It has wider distribution than alt.r-n-r anyway. As I mentioned above, I like to avoid over-bloated newsgroups. R.m.misc fits into that description. I think alot of net.news.readers feel the same way I do. --Thom Rounds
sksircar@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Subrata Sircar) (01/06/90)
In article <9504@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >I oppose this newsgroup. I think newsgroups should be for broad >categories of discussion, and of interest to many people. I don't >think they should be fan clubs. Fan clubs hardly even permit >discussion, just panegyrics. One can't discuss the pros and cons of >the subject matter in a fan club; one can be a member of the inside >group who say everything about the idol is groovy, or one of a hated >group of heretics who insist on pointing out that nothing is perfect >and no one is God. True, but perhaps not relevant. If this newsgroup is created, it won't be a newsgroup in the sense of discussion, flames, information, etc. - it will be more of a mailing list. Maybe it should be a mailing list. I offer as an example the Rush mailing list, which I get. Most of the discussion has centered on their new album, with people discussing things they liked about it, summarizations of interviews, and other inside information. Also, lately, we are looking at the section of a song to try to decide what exactly is going on. I personally enjoy listening to this, even if I don't contribute a lot. However, this is not what Tim thinks a newsgroup should be ("broad catagories of discussion") with disagreements, etc. Everybody on the mailing list has at least some interest in Rush, and likes at least some of the music and the style or else they would not subscribe to it - which is Tim's point. I would vote yes, and subscribe to a PF mailing list, and vote NO on a newsgroup. Part of the fun of USENET is arguing (NOT flaming, at least not for me) and divergent positions of topics of discussion. The proposed newsgroup won't have a lot of that. >I would, however, support the creation of a "rec.music.psychedelic". I >imagine that Pink Floyd would be one of the most enduring subjects in >such a group, but its charter would be appropriately broad-based. Worth a try, IMHO. Anybody else have an opinion? -- Subrata K. Sircar, Prophet & Charter Member of SPAMIT(tm) sksircar@phoenix.princeton.edu SKSIRCAR@PUCC.BITNET "If my life was half as interesting as other people DREAMED it..." - R"BD"D Disclaimer: As if anybody/anything would want me speaking for them...
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/06/90)
In article <927@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes: >In article <50457@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >By consolidating yourselves into > >your own group, you leave behind all the people with casual interest. > >The logical extension of this argument is that USENET should be structured >for things in which one only has a casual interest - can you say >net.tabloid? This is nonsense. My point is that .misc groups have advantages of their own, and that subgroups should *only* be created if a need can be demonstrated. Is there a need for r.m.pfloyd? What is that need? The proposer of the group suggested that he's been flamed for posting Pink Floyd articles to alt.rock-n-roll. Fine; that demonstrates a need. On the other hand, the "[il]logical extension" above has nothing to do with the r.m.pf question one way or the other.
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/07/90)
In article <TAR.90005144606@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > Okay, point taken. Now then, do you suggest we remove rec.music.gdead, and >rec.music.gaffa? They are the same kinds of newgroup that I've been campaigning >for. And if you read through them, there is plenty of criticism, constructive >and otherwise. Baloney. I also very much like Kate Bush's music. I eventually dropped out of rec.music.gaffa beacuse it was dominated by worshipful pinheads who took any criticism of any aspect of her performances as a personal affront deserving of multi-hundred-line personal flames. In the end, there was nothing of criticism in it at all, only reams of trivia and minutiae of interest only to the quasi-religious. >Why would rec.music.pfloyd be different? I very much doubt that it would be any different. It would be a fan club, and would be dominated by the same all-supportive social dynamic. >>I would, however, support the creation of a "rec.music.psychedelic". I >>imagine that Pink Floyd would be one of the most enduring subjects in >>such a group, but its charter would be appropriately broad-based. >> > I would say that Pink Floyd ended it's psychedelisism the minute Syd Barret >sent his brain off into the land of permanent acid trips. Floyd is no longer a >psychedelic band, and I'd say they stopped that beginning in Meddle, and to a >screeching halt in Dark Side of the Moon, so I think it's safe to say Pink >Floyd stopped being a band of psychedelics very early in their collective >carreers. No, they became *mature* psychedelics rather than the doodlers of occasional interest that they had been before Meddle. I certainly see a psychedelic aesthetic in works like DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, WISH YOU WERE HERE, and THE WALL. But for purposes of discusion of rec.music.pfloyd, that's really neither here nor there, so I won't develop the idea at length. And by the way, Barrett is generally believed to have fried his brain on mandies (Mandrax, a CNS depressant known in the USA as "quaaludes") rather than on LSD. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com These are not my opinions, those of my ex-employers, my old schools, my relatives, my friends, or really any rational person whatsoever.
oplinger@jupiter.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger) (01/09/90)
In article <TAR.90005144606@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: >In article <9504@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) says: >>I oppose this newsgroup. I think newsgroups should be for broad >>categories of discussion, and of interest to many people. I don't >>think they should be fan clubs. Fan clubs hardly even permit >>discussion, just panegyrics. One can't discuss the pros and cons of >>the subject matter in a fan club; one can be a member of the inside >>group who say everything about the idol is groovy, or one of a hated >>group of heretics who insist on pointing out that nothing is perfect >>and no one is God. > Okay, point taken. Now then, do you suggest we remove rec.music.gdead, and >rec.music.gaffa? They are the same kinds of newgroup that I've been campaigning >for. And if you read through them, there is plenty of criticism, constructive >and otherwise. Why would rec.music.pfloyd be different? >>Fan clubs are the death of honest criticism. Thom, I agree with Tim Maroney. I am a fan of Kate Bush. I read r.m.g for about three weeks before the 'Kate is wonderful, Kate is terrific, Kate can do no wrong' litany became old. There is no criticism there. I remember a poster saying that he had purchased a single which contained a remixed version of a song and that he could not tell any real difference. He was flammed to death by a number of the regular posters. The general respose was along the lines of 'you ignorant twit, the strings are much lusher, the .... is much, much more ....' Yes, I do believe that at r.m.g should be removed. Overbearing attitudes like those found in r.m.g would be quickly squelched by members of a general group like r.m and I would be able to find an article or two or real interest and content now and again. brian oplinger@crd.ge.com -- <#include standard.disclaimer>
jojw@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) (01/09/90)
B.S. Oplinger writes this garbage.... > > >Yes, I do believe that at r.m.g should be removed. Overbearing >attitudes like those found in r.m.g would be quickly squelched by >members of a general group like r.m and I would be able to find >an article or two or real interest and content now and again. Bullshit!!! Mr. Oplinger, I have *NEVER* seen you contribute something to rec.music.gdead in my 1.5 years on the net, so what gives you the balls to say that r.m.gdead should be removed?! It is always an active and INFORMATIVE newsgroup, and one I constantly enjoy!! Name another newsgroup that has Nethead T-shirts present at concerts, where people in the newsgroup and say hello, meet each other and have a wonderful time?? The topics in that newsgroup are just not the Dead either: they include general concert etiquette, solutions to concert problems, psychedelic music (you can find it there, Tim), the recent earthquake situation, my CD Reviews, and an overall friendliness that is sorely lacking in this newsgroup!! If you have *EVER* read r.m.gdead, you would know that!! Hey, I don't care if you dislike the Dead or hate their guts, either, but that newsgroup is not a fucking fan club either. Many folks in that newsgroup, including yours truly, give HONEST evaluations of shows and concert tapes, whether they are good, mediocre or bad. I'd like to see your comments in r.m.gdead and see how they would be taken. BESIDES the flames, I think you would be quite surprised. So if you don't like r.m.gdead, THEN STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THERE!! Because of this bullshit, this will be my last-ever posting in r.m.misc until you folks get your heads out of your asses!!! A VERY pissed-off Catfish named John Wood "Fare thee well, now, let your life perceive by its own design, Nothing to tell now, let the words be yours I am done with mine..."
jojw@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) (01/09/90)
I have just realized that Brian meant r.m.GAFFA, not r.m.GDEAD. My apologies for my embarassing mishap. John J. Wood
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/09/90)
In article <4710@ur-cc.UUCP> jojw@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) writes: | B.S. Oplinger writes this garbage.... [ quote deleted for brevity ] | Bullshit!!! Mr. Oplinger, I have *NEVER* seen you contribute something | to rec.music.gdead in my 1.5 years on the net, so what gives you the balls | to say that r.m.gdead should be removed?! It is always an active and | INFORMATIVE newsgroup, and one I constantly enjoy!! [ much, much more of same ] Most children go through two stages of using vulgarities. The first is when they learn the words and want to show off their new vocabulary. The second is when they are immature adults, lacking the emotional control and linguistic skills to express strong feelings other than by using language which they naively think will shock their listeners into silence if not agreement. My children grew out of that stage at about 15. Mr Woods has managed to cloak two valid points and three reasonable statements of opinion in a barage of crude language which I assume is his reaction to having the adults question his judgement. He actually did have something to say, and perhaps people should try to overcome his linguistic disabilities and understand his points. These things are very important to emotional children, and we should pay attention to their pitiful cries for attention. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
brooks@lclark.UUCP (Thomas Brooks) (01/09/90)
Er..umm...I hadn't gotten the impression that the group would be for people
to post things like "Yeah, Floyd. They're so great!! Oh, man that Gilmour
guitar." Maybe, just maybe, if there were a group for Floyd type people,
there could be a discussion of some of the philosophical and/or psychological
aspects of the band/music. If I were to waltz into the (god forbid)
clubhouse of THE PINK FLOYD FAN CLUB and spout something about what I think
Echoes is all about, I don't think I'd get much. ("Groovy man, now shut up
we're listening to bootlegs.")
So hey, how 'bout rec.music.pfloydfanclub for the exclamations and such?
-----------------------------------> Funky <---------------------------------
Reply: brooks@lclark.UUCPgreg@phoenix (greg Nowak) (01/09/90)
In article <4710@ur-cc.UUCP>, jojw@uhura (John J. Wood) writes: >B.S. Oplinger writes this garbage.... >>Yes, I do believe that at r.m.g should be removed. Overbearing >Bullshit!!! Mr. Oplinger, I have *NEVER* seen you contribute something >to rec.music.gdead in my 1.5 years on the net, so what gives you the balls >to say that r.m.gdead should be removed?! It is always an active and >INFORMATIVE newsgroup, and one I constantly enjoy!! I believe he was talking about rec.music.GAFFA, not gdead... >Name another newsgroup that has Nethead T-shirts present at concerts, where >people in the newsgroup and say hello, meet each other and have a wonderful >time?? Talk.bizarre. We have it all -- the t-shirts, the intoxicants, the music, the strange sexual practices, the wonderful time. And we don't have to drive to some cheesy stadium and pay an admission price, either. Gee, perhaps it's time for soc.culture.bizarre? rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "Most news readers are not UNIX sophisticates and do not have the capability of using KILL files or even know that such a thing is possible." -- Tim Maroney
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (01/09/90)
In article <9529@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) says: > >In article <TAR.90005144606@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) : >writes >> Okay, point taken. Now then, do you suggest we remove rec.music.gdead, >and >>rec.music.gaffa? They are the same kinds of newgroup that I've been g >campaignin >>for. And if you read through them, there is plenty of criticism, constructive >>and otherwise. > >Baloney. I also very much like Kate Bush's music. I eventually >dropped out of rec.music.gaffa beacuse it was dominated by worshipful >pinheads who took any criticism of any aspect of her performances as a >personal affront deserving of multi-hundred-line personal flames. In >the end, there was nothing of criticism in it at all, only reams of >trivia and minutiae of interest only to the quasi-religious. > We are Pink Floyd fans, not Kate Bush fans. Extended listening to Pink Floyd tends to broaden the mind. I'm not saying *only* Pink Floyd has the mind- opening effect, in case anyone wishes to flame me. I would like to suggest that you go through any Pink Floyd discussions in other groups. There is alot of open opinions, none of them all positive or all negative. The only thing that would be lost in rec.music.pfloyd is discussions about other bands. However, I am quite sure that other bands *would* be brought up as cross-references. Very few 'pin-heads' listen to Pink Floyd because they can't comprehend it. Almost all of the Pink Floyd listeners that I know on this planet have their reserv- ations about Floyd or any of it's performers. I see no 'worship'. >>Why would rec.music.pfloyd be different? > >I very much doubt that it would be any different. It would be a fan >club, and would be dominated by the same all-supportive social dynamic. > I disagree, for the reasons I stated above. >>>I would, however, support the creation of a "rec.music.psychedelic". I >>>imagine that Pink Floyd would be one of the most enduring subjects in >>>such a group, but its charter would be appropriately broad-based. >>> >> I would say that Pink Floyd ended it's psychedelisism the minute Syd t >Barre >>sent his brain off into the land of permanent acid trips. Floyd is no longer >a >>psychedelic band, and I'd say they stopped that beginning in Meddle, and to a >>screeching halt in Dark Side of the Moon, so I think it's safe to say Pink >>Floyd stopped being a band of psychedelics very early in their collective >>carreers. > >No, they became *mature* psychedelics rather than the doodlers of >occasional interest that they had been before Meddle. I certainly see >a psychedelic aesthetic in works like DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, WISH YOU >WERE HERE, and THE WALL. But for purposes of discusion of >rec.music.pfloyd, that's really neither here nor there, so I won't >develop the idea at length. > Agreed. That argument can wait for rec.music.pfloyd's creation. If it isn't created, the argument can manifest itself in alt.rock-n-roll or rec.music.misc. >And by the way, Barrett is generally believed to have fried his brain >on mandies (Mandrax, a CNS depressant known in the USA as "quaaludes") >rather than on LSD. I couldn't tell you. I wasn't a complete human at the time. >-- >Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com > >These are not my opinions, those of my ex-employers, my old schools, my >relatives, my friends, or really any rational person whatsoever. --Thom Rounds
nrc@cbnews.ATT.COM (neal.r.caldwell..ii) (01/09/90)
From article <4700@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, by oplinger@jupiter.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger): > >>>Fan clubs are the death of honest criticism. > > Thom, I agree with Tim Maroney. I am a fan of Kate Bush. I read > r.m.g for about three weeks before the 'Kate is wonderful, Kate > is terrific, Kate can do no wrong' litany became old. There is no > criticism there. I remember a poster saying that he had purchased > a single which contained a remixed version of a song and that he > could not tell any real difference. He was flammed to death by a > number of the regular posters. The general respose was along the > lines of 'you ignorant twit, the strings are much lusher, the > .... is much, much more ....' As a regular reader of rec.music.gaffa I'd like to point out a couple of things. First of all, yes there is a fair amount of "Kate Bush is God" sentiment in gaffa and yes, the flamage there has reached truely destructive levels on a couple of occaisions. Most of this has been the work of a few individuals who shall remain nameless. I don't think that anyone one should get flamed for simply stating the obvious - Kate is not perfect...almost but not quite :-) :-). Second, the specific example given here was a case of two archrivals clashing for the hundredth time. If my memory serves the flaming was limited to these two. Others noted that there was indeed a small difference but their remarks could hardly be called flames. More recently a relative newcomer posted a remark to the effect that his sister (a music student) wrote music of greater substance than Kate's. Rebuttals were forthcoming and firm but I would say that the exchange was kept to a civilized level (although the folks with the big flame throwers have been notably absent these last couple of weeks). > Yes, I do believe that at r.m.g should be removed. Overbearing > attitudes like those found in r.m.g would be quickly squelched by > members of a general group like r.m and I would be able to find > an article or two or real interest and content now and again. What? Has it occured to you that someone might find your opinion that r.m.g should be removed overbearing? Would you like to have your views squelched? Are we going to start threatening to remove groups that don't meet some peoples's standard of "interest and content"? I've picked up a lot of information from gaffa that interests me. For the most part I laugh at the flames when they flair up but if it bothers me I just skip them completely. There's nothing wrong with gaffa that a good kill file can't fix. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell AT&T Network Systems nrc@cbnews att!cbnews!nrc (614) 860-2206
gary@utgard.uucp (Gary Manning) (01/09/90)
Enough of this bickering. My opinion on this matter is that we should create the pfloyd newsgroup. While it is possible that the group may degenerate into a profloyd fan club, there is also a possibility that the group will not. The group (Pink Floyd) is certainly not typical and perhaps, the readers of the newsgroup, if created, will accept and respond to honest criticism. If rec.music.pfloyd does become a fan club, it will be because the readers of the newgroup want it to be so. While this is not what I want, if there is sufficient volume in the group then so be it. I am not going to force what I think is right onto others. I will simply unsubscribe and pop "Wish You Where Here" in the player and simply enjoy the Floyd. gary -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Gary Manning QMA Inc. |"A mind is a terrible thing!" | | csusac!utgard!pyrgard!gary |All comments are mine...Blah Blah Blah| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rca@dark.rtech.COM (Bob Arnold) (01/09/90)
In article <4700@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> oplinger@jupiter.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger) writes: >In article <TAR.90005144606@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: >>In article <9504@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) says: > >>>I oppose this newsgroup. I think newsgroups should be for broad >>>categories of discussion, and of interest to many people. I don't >>>think they should be fan clubs. Fan clubs hardly even permit > >> Okay, point taken. Now then, do you suggest we remove rec.music.gdead, and >>rec.music.gaffa? They are the same kinds of newgroup that I've been campaigning > >>>Fan clubs are the death of honest criticism. > >Thom, I agree with Tim Maroney. I am a fan of Kate Bush. I read >r.m.g for about three weeks before the 'Kate is wonderful, Kate >is terrific, Kate can do no wrong' litany became old. There is no >criticism there. I remember a poster saying that he had purchased I too think newsgroups should be of interest to many people. But I don't see why they should be broad, or why they shouldn't be fan clubs. If criticism of Kate Bush isn't appropriate to r.m.g, then you can hold such discussions in r.m.m. I admit that appropriate naming of the newsgroup is a problem. (In my ignorance I don't know the connection between gaffa and Kate Bush - I'd probably post to r.m.m if I had anything to say about her anyway.) If I posted a Pink Floyd criticism to r.m.pfloyd and got flamed royally, I'd learn my lesson and retreat to r.m.m gracefully. r.m.m isn't immune from flames either. I'd like to read more of r.m.m but it's too flooded for me to weed through all of it. More subgroups would help. Fan discussions are as valid as truly critical ones. Unsubscribing is easy. > ><#include standard.disclaimer> Done. __ _ _ Bob Arnold Ingres Corp. |/ \ / \ / \| 1080 Marina Village Parkway | / / | Alameda, CA, 94501 | \__/ \__/| rca@rtech.com 415/748-2819
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (01/10/90)
In article <12804@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> greg@phoenix (greg Nowak) writes: |[...] |Talk.bizarre. We have it all -- the t-shirts, the intoxicants, the music, |the strange sexual practices, the wonderful time. And we don't have to |drive to some cheesy stadium and pay an admission price, either. Gee, |perhaps it's time for soc.culture.bizarre? Nope, it should be "sci.bizarre". That way funding is available from the NSF. -- \\\\ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \66/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< \_ "Head-slam me, Jesus, on the turnbuckle of life" - Godzibo
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/10/90)
In article <TAR.90008211525@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > We are Pink Floyd fans, not Kate Bush fans. Extended listening to Pink >Floyd tends to broaden the mind. I'm not saying *only* Pink Floyd has the mind- >opening effect, in case anyone wishes to flame me. I would like to suggest that >you go through any Pink Floyd discussions in other groups. There is alot of >open opinions, none of them all positive or all negative. The only thing that >would be lost in rec.music.pfloyd is discussions about other bands. However, I >am quite sure that other bands *would* be brought up as cross-references. Very >few 'pin-heads' listen to Pink Floyd because they can't comprehend it. Almost >all of the Pink Floyd listeners that I know on this planet have their reserv- >ations about Floyd or any of it's performers. I see no 'worship'. This is a good example of the kind of holier-than-thou, aren't-we-wonderful foolishness that I was predicting. Always glad to be proven right.... -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community." -- Oscar Wilde
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (01/12/90)
In article <4430@rtech.rtech.com>, rca@dark.rtech.COM (Bob Arnold) writes: > I too think newsgroups should be of interest to many people. But I > don't see why they should be broad, or why they shouldn't be fan clubs. > Each news article posted is replicated 20,000 times (or so, what's the latest count of USENET machines?), (frequently) sent over a crazy-quilt patchwork of telephone connections at great expense. A newsgroup of broad interest, where someone could say "Pink Floyd is OK, but they aren't all THAT hot, and here's why I think so" might justify the expense; a fan club where such a message would generate 400 "KILL THE UNBELIEVER!" replies doesn't justify the expense. A mailing list is more appropriate for a fan club; they get unwieldy with a few hundred people, but they are NOT as expensive to so many uninterested bystanders. (This isn't to be taken as a commentary on the proposed group, just on the idea of USENET fan clubs.) -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Happiness is Planet Earth in your rear-view mirror. - Sam Hurt