blickstein@speedy.DEC (Dave Blickstein) (09/05/85)
> From Rich Rosen >> But you seem to have completely missed the point. Variety is EXACTLY what >> we desire. In my opinion, saturating net.music with Kate Bush articles >> does not constitute variety. >> >> Dave Blickstein > >If you want variety, then post articles on other topics!!!! Don't order other >peopl to/not to post articles of predefined quantities on predefined subjects. >If you want to see other things, they don't appear magically, they appear >because YOU post them. First of all, I don't see where I have ordered anybody to do anything. The person who wrote the note I responded to was claiming that people complaining about the quanitity of Bush postings were doing so because they didn't want variety in net.music. I don't even see how anyone could come to that conclusion. It's exactly opposite to the obvious truth in all respects. Also, I regularly post stuff to the net although very recently I've been either busy or on vacation. Maybe your using your 'n' key on my stuff. Dave Blickstein (UUCP) {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-orphan!blickstein (ARPA) BLICKSTEIN%ORPHAN.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (09/06/85)
> From: blickstein@speedy.DEC (Dave Blickstein) > The person who wrote the note I responded to was claiming that people > complaining about the quanitity of Bush postings were doing so because > they didn't want variety in net.music. I don't even see how anyone > could come to that conclusion. It's exactly opposite to the obvious > truth in all respects. You don't get variety through censorship! You get variety by encouraging everyone to write about whatever they want to (and everybody should!). I'll post articles about what I want to, and you post articles about what you want to, and everybody else should post articles about want they want to, and we'll have plenty of variety, and we'll all be running up that hill with no problems. -Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
rpk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Krajewski) (09/07/85)
I suppose that what gets into net.music depends on both how strongly a person feels about music and how verbally motivated he is. Of course, this is true of other forums, too. Boston Rock, for example, which is a magzine that deals mostly with hipper types of music, with emphasis on the local scene, once got a letter asking why there weren't articles about Boston heavy metal/mainstream rock bands. Well, the writers just didn't like that music, or they though it was interesting enough to write about. They invited the letter writer to submit his own articles, but there were never many articles on those types of bands even after that. -- ``Bob'' (Robert P. Krajewski) ARPA: RpK@MC MIT Local: RpK@OZ UUCP: genradbo!miteddie!rpk
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/16/85)
In article <5234@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: >> The person who wrote the note I responded to was claiming that people >> complaining about the quanitity of Bush postings were doing so because >> they didn't want variety in net.music. I don't even see how anyone >> could come to that conclusion. It's exactly opposite to the obvious >> truth in all respects. >You don't get variety through censorship! You get variety by >encouraging everyone to write about whatever they want to (and everybody >should!). I'll post articles about what I want to, and you post >articles about what you want to, and everybody else should post articles >about want they want to, and we'll have plenty of variety, and we'll all >be running up that hill with no problems. Well, the history of usenet would appear to indicate otherwise; constant hammering on a single subject eventually wipes out others, if only because people stop following the group. Incidentally, those of you who use rn should be aware that you can set up a newsgroup so that you do not have to listen to a particular person or site. If you have rn, you have no excuse for complaining about D. A. posting too much. Charley Wingate