peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/22/89)
> Creating a group to relieve another from traffic is not a good idea.
Au contraire, it's the best reason for creating a new group.
I created comp.unix.i386 to get the BellTech, Interactive, and AT&T traffic
out of comp.unix.xenix.
What do you know... it worked.
Not only that, but comp.unix.i386 is a good group.
--
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"ERROR: trust not in UUCP routing tables" 'U`
-- MAILER-DAEMON@mcsun.EU.netsommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (10/24/89)
Peter da Silva (peter@ficc.uu.net) writes: >I said: >> Creating a group to relieve another from traffic is not a good idea. > >Au contraire, it's the best reason for creating a new group. >I created comp.unix.i386 to get the BellTech, Interactive, and AT&T traffic >out of comp.unix.xenix. >What do you know... it worked. Probably the boundaries are crystal clear. Either you have a i386 or you have not. But what is rock'n'roll? What is not? Do we all agree on what is rock'n'roll? Or could be that some people think that Madonna, that's rock'n'roll, while others object heavilly and say "Madonna!!! that's not rock'n'roll, that's disco junk!" Or what about an artist like Frank Zappa that does both rock, jazz and classic? It turned out that it was even impossible to keep out questions about CD releases from r.m.misc, despite the existence of r.m.cd. So what about rock/not rock, a line that is much less clear-cut? Realize Peter, music is not like computers. -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se "My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/24/89)
In article <399@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes: > Probably the boundaries are crystal clear. Either you have a i386 > or you have not. Nonsense. These days most of the traffic in comp.unix.xenix is about running xenix on 80386es. To top that off, at Ferranti we're running 80286 Xenix on 80386es. When I proposed the name there was a fair amount of flaming about what the group should be for. And occasionally some bozo claims that AIX, Xenix, or even BellTech or SCO UNIX doesn't belong. This is Usenet. Flaming comes with the territory. > But what is rock'n'roll? What is not? Do we all agree on what is > rock'n'roll? This is a straw man. Just define the charter of the group as "everything that evolved from Chuck Berry" or something, and ignore the minor flames. And they would be minor. And ignorable. Certainly a lot more ignorable than the rock BS in rec.music.misc. > Or what about an artist like > Frank Zappa that does both rock, jazz and classic? What about him? If Bob Dylan deserves a group (no, two groups), then surely Frank Zappa does. If there's any flaming about him, I'll propose a .zappa group. Or maybe a .muffin group, to complement .gaffa. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "I feared that the committee would decide to go with their previous 'U` decision unless I credibly pulled a full tantrum." -- dmr@alice.UUCP
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (10/25/89)
In article <399@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes: >But what is rock'n'roll? What is not? Do we all agree on what is >rock'n'roll? Or could be that some people think that Madonna, that's >rock'n'roll, while others object heavilly and say "Madonna!!! that's >not rock'n'roll, that's disco junk!" Your argument goes something like: "We can't split music into `kinds', so let's have it all in one group". Well, it's true that kinds of music is not very well defined, but there *is* some broad groups of things that are easy to recognize. Mozart and Berry *are* different. The difficulty starts when we get down to "disco", "heavy", ... That's why I'm against 37 rockish newsgroups. "It's all r-n-r to me". Analogy: rec.music.classical works fine (no Madonna postings there :-). If we has rec.music.baroque, rec.music.avantgarde, etc, etc, it would not work. No, we do not all agree on what r-n-r is but we all have a general understanding of the semantics of the term. We'll all agree that Bach, Armstrong, and Libyan mountain singers does not fit. There'll be some hard cases (Weather Report) and some flames about that, but that is, alas, the way of the net. > Or what about an artist like >Frank Zappa that does both rock, jazz and classic? Perfect Stranger is classical. Joe's Garage is rock. So what? If you want to discuss his rock work, post to a rock group. Likewise for classical. If the *person* becomes a topic on its own, create a newsgroup for it (rec.music.gaffa is not about music at all, it's a religious group discussing their messiah :-). Summary: rec.music.misc (like any misc group) should be for the rare things that does not fit anywhere else. Mainstream topics, like r-n-r, should have a group on their own. Therefor, let's have a group, rec.music.rock-n-roll for the kinds (note the "s") descending from Chuck Berry, e.g. rock in the broad sense of the word. /Lars -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Seek error on /dev/brain (core dumped). CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | -- (null)