malik@star.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) (09/12/85)
Warning; non-music article follows This is prompted by the Doug Allen vs. Anti-Doug Allen er, ...um, ...debate. Here's what's wrong with 'XXX is great and YYY sucks'. No one cares! And I don't mean this just for Doug. It applies to a large percentage of postings to net.music. I mean, do you really care whether or not I like Bach? What possible difference does it make what other people like? Do you come home from school/work and tell your friends 'Boy, I learned something interesting today, Fred Zork doesn't like REO Speedwagon'? This is a relatively anonymous forum. It's not like talking with friends. We're not interested in you (and you're not interested in me). We're interested in what you have to say. Tell us something that you suspect will be INTERESTING to other people. Isn't that why you're posting something in the first place? - Karl
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (09/12/85)
> From: malik@star.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) > I mean, do you really care whether or not I like Bach?.... What > possible difference does it make what other people like? I care about why you do or why you don't like Bach. I care about what other people think and why they think that because I live in a world with other people. Art is about communication -- not isolation. > We're not interested in you (and you're not interested in me). We're > interested in what you have to say. And that's why "Foobar sucks!" is a lousy posting, and "I don't like Foobar because ...." followed by thought-out reasons is a reasonable posting. -Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
lip@masscomp.UUCP (John Lipinski) (09/13/85)
In article <398@decwrl.UUCP> malik@star.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) writes: > Here's what's wrong with 'XXX is great and YYY sucks'. >No one cares! [MALIK] Wrong. I care. I like to read different opinions. Other opinions are interesting. > I mean, do you really care whether or not I like Bach? >What possible difference does it make what other people like? Yes. It makes a lot of difference. Most people spend much of their time thinking about what other people like and dislike. >We're not interested in you (and you're not interested in me). Then don't use the net. > Tell us something that you suspect will be INTERESTING >to other people. Isn't that why you're posting something in >the first place? 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
rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (09/14/85)
In article <5295@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: >> We're not interested in you (and you're not interested in me). We're >> interested in what you have to say. > >And that's why "Foobar sucks!" is a lousy posting, and "I don't like >Foobar because ...." followed by thought-out reasons is a reasonable >posting. > -Doug Alan to read this, you'd think doug was the smartest, most understanding person in the world. his letter makes perfect sense. but he doesn't even come close to following his own advice. he does "foobar sucks!" without explination (or "i don't have to give one") often enough. oh well, i give up. this has to be the most disapointing group i've looked into in quite a while. i never contributed much to this group because i believe in reading a new group for a while, THEN starting to throw my $0.02 in. in this case, however, it doesn't seem to be worth the effort... later, ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/14/85)
>>> We're not interested in you (and you're not interested in me). We're >>> interested in what you have to say. >>And that's why "Foobar sucks!" is a lousy posting, and "I don't like >>Foobar because ...." followed by thought-out reasons is a reasonable >>posting. -Doug Alan > to read this, you'd think doug was the smartest, most understanding > person in the world. his letter makes perfect sense. but he doesn't > even come close to following his own advice. he does "foobar sucks!" > without explination (or "i don't have to give one") often enough. That's funny. I can't recall one time that Doug posted a foobar-sucks-and- that's-it article. In fact, if anything, he could only be accused of being overly long in his "thought-out reasons". Why the need to tar him like this? -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tp@ndm20 (09/17/85)
I, for one, have benefitted from the discussion. By hearing critical comparisons of groups to each other, some of which I am familiar with and some of which I am not, I can form a tentative opinion of the groups with which I am not familiar. I have determined from the discussion that I would probably like 'The Dreaming' by Kate Bush, and might or might not like her other albums. I will probably buy this album soon (if I can find it). I have also decided there are groups that I would not like (even though the posters of the critiques did like them). If this kind of discussion is not what you want to read, what do you think should be in this group? I am on Doug's mailing list and I don't see why ALL of that traffic is not in this group. That is what net.music is for, what else? The traffic on that list is much more than the traffic on this one, so I'd say it has a better claim to being a net group than net.music. Why don't those of you who can't stand to see your favorites criticised start your own list (or use mod.music, it is available, and you don't like discussion anyway) and quit trying to censor net.music. Terry Poot