rlr (02/11/83)
Net.wobegon is a perfect example of a 'piddly little frivolous' newsgroup. Minimal traffic, limited topic. The problem was that the PHC (Prairie Home Companion?) or whatever the radio show is called did not seem to fall exclusively into a broad category (like music, tv, etc.). Perhaps a net.humor newsgroup should have been created to accommodate net.wobegon, net.tv.sctv, etc. (net.humor as distinct from net.jokes, which contains netnews readers' [attempts at] jokes). [I think] The work of the Grateful Dead can be considered music, and should probably be discussed in net.music. The motive to 'spare' us non-Deadheads the agony of sifting through the volumes of Dead-oriented stuff doesn't hold water, because, as I've already said, to date, that 'volume' consists of a few ticket requests (reasonable for net.wanted or net.music) and a request for info on how to find a record by Jerry Garcia (probably belongs in net.records--which relates to buying/selling/caring for the actual physical records that music, comedy, etc. may be contained on). Be a little more sociable, people. Join in on discussions about new wave, heavy metal, classical music, as well as dead music, in a newsgroup devoted to music. I realize that a group can be created at anyone's whim through the magic of netnews software, so no one can stop the creation of net.music.gdead. So, if it is created, I hereby propose a contest. (which can probably be applied to all new so-called 'frivolous' newsgroups). In the one month following the original posting of the first article, how many articles will be posted that 1) are not announcements of the new group, 2) are not discussions about the nature of the group itself (its charter?), and 3) could not have been posted to some other newsgroup with the same effect (topic discussed, audience reached)? The contestant with the number closest to the actual number of useful articles posted to the newsgroup /and/ the earliest postmark wins... uhh, a Grateful Dead album. (I'm tempted to say that the second place winner gets /two/ Dead albums, but I won't say that... whoops, I just did!----just kidding). Since I currently don't own any Dead albums, and I probably should own /one/, I'll kick off the contest with my entry---ZERO. The only problems: who runs the contest, and who provides the album? (I'm just proposing, not volunteering.) I think since Greg Woods had the original idea for the group, and since he surely has some old Dead albums that have been worn through to the other side, he is a candidate for both posts (JUST KIDDING!!!). I'll leave it to someone more qualified than me to explain why a proliferation of sundry newsgroups all over the place is bad for transmission of news over the net. Rich
pjm (02/15/83)
I'd just like to reply to Adam L. Buchsbaum's comment that if we had net.music.dead we should also have net.music.beatles, net.music.who, etc.: deadheads have more to talk about. Deadheads do a lot of taping and exchanging of tapes, plus we discuss the Dead's concert dates (since they're almost constantly touring). Although I'm not one for the proliferation of newsgroups, I'd like to cast my vote for net.music.dead. Phil Mercurio ...ucbvax!sdcsvax!mercurio ...philabs!sdcsvax!mercurio (PS. I'm also interested in exchanging tapes.)
jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) (03/12/85)
>[btw, I have noticed quite a bit more synth discussion in net.music.synth then > was formerly in net.music... Perhaps the issue of net.music.dead should be > raised again...] Hear, hear! I support the idea of net.music.dead (or net.music.gdead) as do the other deadheads on the net with whom I have spoken. When I read through net.music, I am generally looking for Dead-related postings, and would prefer not to have to search through mounds of material that is not of interest to me (particularly difficult on a VMS system where readnews is not available). Also, I find that deadheads, myself included, greatly enjoy exchanging all kinds of Dead-related information, trivia, and anecdotes, which would undoubtedly not be understood nor welcomed by the general readership of net.music, and therefore is generally not posted. I strongly believe that net.music.gdead would provide a forum for such postings, and increase the number of Dead-related discussion, much to the enjoyment of all Deadheads on the net (and probably to the relief of some non-Deadheads, poor souls!). Seth Jackson "We used to play for silver, now we play for life"
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (03/12/85)
> > Hear, hear! I support the idea of net.music.dead (or net.music.gdead) as do > the other deadheads on the net with whom I have spoken. When I read through > net.music, I am generally looking for Dead-related postings, and would > prefer not to have to search through mounds of material that is not of > interest to me... > > Seth Jackson > > "We used to play for silver, now we play for life" I forty-second the motion. Jeff Myers "Some folks trust to reason, others trust in might"
jf4@bonnie.UUCP (John Fourney) (03/13/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** 1 NO vote.
eg1282@dartvax.UUCP (eg128 account 2) (03/13/85)
> > >[btw, I have noticed quite a bit more synth discussion in net.music.synth then > > was formerly in net.music... Perhaps the issue of net.music.dead should be > > raised again...] > > Hear, hear! I support the idea of net.music.dead (or net.music.gdead) as do > the other deadheads on the net with whom I have spoken. When I read through > net.music, I am generally looking for Dead-related postings, and would > prefer not to have to search through mounds of material that is not of > interest to me (particularly difficult on a VMS system where readnews is > not available). Also, I find that deadheads, myself included, greatly > enjoy exchanging all kinds of Dead-related information, trivia, and > anecdotes, which would undoubtedly not be understood nor welcomed > by the general readership of net.music, and therefore is > generally not posted. I strongly believe that net.music.gdead would > provide a forum for such postings, and increase the number of Dead-related > discussion, much to the enjoyment of all Deadheads on the net (and probably > to the relief of some non-Deadheads, poor souls!). > > > Seth Jackson > > "We used to play for silver, now we play for life" *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I'll second that emotion...
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (03/14/85)
> > > > Hear, hear! I support the idea of net.music.dead (or net.music.gdead) as do > > the other deadheads on the net with whom I have spoken. When I read through > > net.music, I am generally looking for Dead-related postings, and would > > prefer not to have to search through mounds of material that is not of > > interest to me... I also am in favor of the re-creation of net.music.gdead -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
baskina@stolaf.UUCP (Andre G. Baskin) (03/14/85)
> > > > Hear, hear! I support the idea of net.music.dead (or net.music.gdead) as do > > the other deadheads on the net with whom I have spoken. When I read through > > net.music, I am generally looking for Dead-related postings, and would > > prefer not to have to search through mounds of material that is not of > > interest to me... > > > > Seth Jackson > > > > "We used to play for silver, now we play for life" > > I forty-second the motion. Jeff Myers > > "Some folks trust to reason, others trust in might" Another vote for net.music.dead!! "Let there be songs to fill the air."
cower@columbia.UUCP (Rich Cower) (03/14/85)
Didn't there used to be net.music.dead? I think I used to read it a few years ago while at SRI. I'd sure like to see it (again). ..Rich Cower
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/14/85)
I hereby propose the following additional subgroups: net.music.beatles net.music.stones net.music.who net.music.beachboys net.music.yes net.music.genesis net.music.siouxsie&thebanshees net.music.residents net.music.huskerdu net.music.pristinearea To be followed soon thereafter by: net.music.beatles.XXXX where XXXX is a beatle [jokes about net.music.beatles.dead will be shredded] net.music.genesis.withgabriel net.music.yes.no net.music.dead.drugs Is there anyone else who thinks THEIR favorite group is so different from the rest of the world of music that it deserves its own subgroup because it would just be IMpossible to discuss things in net.music? In case you hadn't guessed, this is a NO vote. -- "Right now it's only a notion, but I'm hoping to turn it into an idea, and if I get enough money I can make it into a concept." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mag@gitpyr.UUCP (Mark A. Gravitt) (03/17/85)
In article <2832@dartvax.UUCP> eg1282@dartvax.UUCP (eg128 account 2) writes: >> Hear, hear! I support the idea of net.music.dead (or net.music.gdead) as do >> the other deadheads on the net with whom I have spoken. I'd like to register a "NO" vote on the subject of net.music.dead. This would appear to be better suited to a mailing list. (Otherwise, I suspect that the net will drown under a flock of net.music spinoffs. (net.music.duran is one of the more hideous possibilities... :-) )) -- Mark A. Gravitt | "You, therefore, love one User Assistant | another and in patient Office of Computing Services | endurance conceal one Georgia Institute of Technology | another's shortcomings." Atlanta, GA | [Testament of Joseph 17:2] ..!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}gatech!gitpyr!mag ..!{rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!mag
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (03/18/85)
[ "We can share what we got of yours, 'cause we done shared all of mine... " ]
I support net.music.dead for 4 reasons:
(1) Net.music needs subgroups to keep it readable
(2) The Deadheads post in reasonably high volume AND have
done so for a long time (unlike, say, the 3 Stooges fans
or the Prisoner fans on net.tv)
(3) This material is not of general interest
(4) The subgroup is well defined enough that people can reasonably
be expected to decide whether an article goes in the subgroup
or the parent group.
Note that reason #2 explains why this is not (yet) going to make
net.music a mass of net.music.beatles, net.music.duranduran, etc.
The Deadheads are ALREADY active.
--
"Hey, check it OUT! I'm leaping tall buildings with a single BOUND!
Stay right where you ARE! I've gotta locate a SPEEDING BULLET!"
-- Ambush Bug
Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rickrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (03/18/85)
> I hereby propose the following additional subgroups: > net.music.beatles > net.music.stones > net.music.who > ... Well, we had to go and pull Rich Rosen's string, didn't we? One of Rich's roles in net.music seems to be to categorically oppose the creation of subgroups. Fine, flame at that if you will, but he's got a good point in general, and the postings on creation of a dead subgroup in particular give him ample ammo, since practically none of them give any indication of a decent reason for creating the group: > ... > net.music.yes.no > net.music.dead.drugs > > Is there anyone else who thinks THEIR favorite group is so different from > the rest of the world of music that it deserves its own subgroup because > it would just be IMpossible to discuss things in net.music? The reasons that net.music.*dead MIGHT make sense include substantial traffic in net.music (which MIGHT be getting to annoy net.music readers) and a moderate content of only remotely musically related material--such as Garcia's bust or his new red t-shirt(s). > In case you hadn't guessed, this is a NO vote. No, I hadn't guessed. Actually, that was not a "vote" but a "flame". "Votes" are tallied by someone who has volunteered to take them BY EMAIL and report the results. (Small matter of netiquette.) BTW, I'm counting votes, but only the ones I get by mail. [My reason is not to exclude anyone's opinion; I just can't go back in time and comb votes out of everything in net.music.] Maybe it's fine as it is. (D'Heads are always out to make converts.:-) Maybe a mailing list could work for some of the less interesting stuff, tho that can be a headache to maintain. Maybe a subgroup should exist. But in any case, let's collect opinions and see how they stack up. As I said, I will collect the votes and post the result. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.
stein@druny.UUCP (SteinDW) (03/19/85)
1 YES vote. Don Stein druny!stein "Full of hope, full of grace is the human race, But afraid that we may lay our home to waste."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/19/85)
>>Is there anyone else who thinks THEIR favorite group is so different from >>the rest of the world of music that it deserves its own subgroup because >>it would just be IMpossible to discuss things in net.music? > The reasons that net.music.*dead MIGHT make sense include substantial > traffic in net.music (which MIGHT be getting to annoy net.music readers) WARNING from Joe Blow, average netnews reader: if there is any substantial traffic about a group/artist I care little or know nothing about, I will become annoyed. I'd guess we have a lot of annoyed readers then. Again, is this any different from substantial traffic about ANY group/artist? > and a moderate content of only remotely musically related material--such as > Garcia's bust or his new red t-shirt(s). I'd guess that if topics only remotely related to music were being discussed, perhaps a more limited forum (like a mailing list, as Mr. Dunn suggested) might be in order. (I didn't know I had a "role" in this newsgroup. Will I win an Oscar? :-) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (03/19/85)
*** When we subscribed to the net about two years ago there was a newsgroup called "net.gdead." There was never much traffic. I assume it went away because it was not used much. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. ucbvax!twg --> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 fortune!idsvax -/
jcjeff@ihlpg.UUCP (jeffreys) (03/20/85)
> When we subscribed to the net about two years ago there > was a newsgroup called "net.gdead." There was never much > traffic. I assume it went away because it was not used much. > > Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 I'm not surprised that there was not much "Traffic", as it was ment for "Greatful Dead" :-) I only hope that this boring dialouge will stop. I've now decided after an initial NO vote to change to a YES vote. The sooner they get this news-group going, the sooner I'll be able to stop reading about it. Afterall, I only view about 20% of all the news-groups available, another one I won't read will not make a big difference. SOMEBODY, PLEASE GIVE THEM THE NEWSGROUP THEY WANT. -- [ You called all the way from America - Joan Armatrading ] [ You're never alone with a rubber duck - Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || From the keys of Richard Jeffreys ( British Citizen Overseas ) || || employed by North American Philips Corporation || || @ AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || General disclaimer about anything and everything that I may have typed || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/20/85)
> When we subscribed to the net about two years ago there > was a newsgroup called "net.gdead." There was never much > traffic. I assume it went away because it was not used much. WRONG!!! net.gdead was not used much because some system administrators decided unilaterally that it wasn't a valid group, and removed it from their systems. As a result, an article posted to net.gdead only made it to a small portion of the net, rendering the group useless. THAT'S why there was no traffic. Personally, I think the fact that this discussion (whether the Deadheads should have a separate group) comes up at least twice every year is sufficient evidence that net.music.dead *should* be created, if only to end this recurring discussion! It, and other Dead-related postings, accounted for over 30% of the articles in net.music last week. If that isn't good enough evidence that a subgroup is needed, I don't know what is. Also, we (Deadheads) tend to post lots of stuff that isn't really related to music, like the color of Jerry's T-shirts, tickets needed, etc. A separate group is clearly warranted, and I think the fears of Professor Paranoid about every band having a subgroup are unfounded. If a group gets 30% of the articles, I would have no objection to them having their own subgroup, but so far that hasn't happened. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "Please don't dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say..."
sullivan@harvard.ARPA (John Sullivan) (03/21/85)
Here is a yes vote for every group that wants to be created. I find that it is much easier to choose what groups/subgroups I want to read at a particular time than to look through (often misleading) subject lines. John M. Sullivan sullivan@harvard
baskina@stolaf.UUCP (Andre G. Baskin) (03/30/85)
This is yet another vote for net.music.dead. There is more than enough interest and material generated by Deadheads to support such a group. Where else could one write of the colour of Jerry's shirt, your best concert trip (and I don't mean the one to the event), post play lists to one's heart's content, or deal on ticket, story, and tape trading? Free net.music for the sheep who follow the "Piper of New Wave and other Noise". Deadheads of the net only want a place to call their own, not much to ask. "Let there be songs to fill the air" iphn4!stolaf!baskina or iphn4!stolaf!ccnfld!baskina
lethin@yale.ARPA (Richard A. Lethin) (04/07/85)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Keywords: ditto, vote for net.music.dead, to save net.music from complete domination.