woods (02/08/83)
In light of groups like net.wobegon, surely the following list demonstrates
that there are sufficient DeadHeads on the network to form our own group.
Since it fits naturally as a subgroup of net.music, I propose that we
create net.music.dead (net.music.gdead has 15 characters). That way those who
aren't interested in music at all will never see it, and those not into the
Dead can easily unsubscribe.
Someone unilaterally removed the net.gdead group again, so I have to post
this here. If you object to that, tough &%#*@!. Flames will go to /dev/null.
Here it is at long last, the list of network Dead Heads. The people with
asterisks next to their names have expressed an interest in trading tapes.
These names are listed in the order I received them (because that's easiest
for me). Please note this list is very old. If you would like to be added/
deleted/have your path changed, mail me. Here it is:
ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!knutsen Andrew Knutsen
ucbvax!ucbcory!cc-43 Stewart Huckaby
* ucbvax!allegra!lacy Jack Lacy
ucbvax!menlo70!hplabs!hp-pcd!tw
and Tw Cook
ucbvax!menlo70!hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie
ucbvax!lbl-unix!rice!skw Scott K. Warren
ucbvax!G:wwww Bill Williams
* ucbvax!ihnss!houxi!houxa!kfb ?
ucbvax!uwvax!msm Mark S. Manasse
ucbvax!ihnss!ihuxo!schnable Andy Schnable
ucbvax!menlo70!hplabs!Faunt@HP-THOR Doug
ucbvax!ucbcad!tekcad!paulp Paul Pomes
* ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods Greg Woods (me!)
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
menlo70!hao!woods
* ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rick Rick Mascitti
ucbvax!menlo70!nsc!katic Jim Katic
...!lime!burdvax!hdj Herb Jellinek
.... ucbvax!hpda!fh or ...hplabs!hpda!fh Fred Harder
hao!nbires!nbienga!rcd Dick Dunn
(see my path for paths to hao)
Whew! That's a lot of Dead Heads!
GREGee163hp (02/12/83)
Another vote for "net.music.dead" -- Larry West, UCSD
jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) (03/21/85)
>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 Rich, you have succeed in demonstrating to all of us your complete lack of understanding of not only the Dead and their fans, but also of the issue at hand. If there were a large group of people who felt strongly enough about the Beatles or the Who or Husker Du or you-name-it, such that they wanted a newsgroup where they could exchange info and trivia such as songlists, tour dates, anecdotes, bootleg tape lists, wild descriptions of cosmic jams and unlikely song combinations, who's going to what shows in what cities, etc., then I would say, well, go ahead and form a newsgroup. But the fact is, that there is not demand for such a newsgroup for the Beatles, the Who, Husker Du, or you-name-it, but there *IS* demand for such a newsgroup for the Grateful Dead. There, Rich. Did I explain that simply enough for you to understand? Seth Jackson "Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools"
6615lp13@sjuvax.UUCP (palena) (03/22/85)
In article <1211@decwrl.UUCP> jackson@dec-curium.UUCP writes: > > >>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 > >Rich, you have succeed in demonstrating to all of us your complete lack of >understanding of not only the Dead and their fans, but also of the issue >at hand. > >If there were a large group of people who felt strongly enough about the >Beatles or the Who or Husker Du or you-name-it, such that they wanted a >newsgroup where they could exchange info and trivia such as songlists, tour >dates, anecdotes, bootleg tape lists, wild descriptions of cosmic jams and >unlikely song combinations, who's going to what shows in what cities, etc., >then I would say, well, go ahead and form a newsgroup. But the fact is, >that there is not demand for such a newsgroup for the Beatles, the Who, >Husker Du, or you-name-it, but there *IS* demand for such a newsgroup >for the Grateful Dead. > >There, Rich. Did I explain that simply enough for you to understand? > >Seth Jackson > >"Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools" How about a net.music.that.is.offensive.and.has.little.or.no.artistic. value.except.that.it.is novel.in.that.the.musicians.play.out.of.tune.. It seems that these types of bands are heavily discussed on this net.If any certain type of band deserves its own net it's this type.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/23/85)
> This is a YES vote. > > What I also propose is that all of you deadheads should no longer withhold > your traffic. Bury this forum if you can, maybe some of the people who oppose > such change for no discernable reason will change their minds. > dec-rhea!dec-katadn!bottom [FLAME ON] There. That sounds like a reasoned, thinking person's way of settling the issue. It's apparent that at least some of the people supporting the notion of a separate group seem to be stuck on some sort of childish notion that having your "own" group offers your musical taste some sort of "legitimacy" that it wouldn't have otherwise. ("See, my group has its own group. Nyaah.") As evidenced above. A warning: "bury" the forum, and I'm sure it can be arranged that automatic article posters can "bury" the dead group. No pun intended. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (03/26/85)
>> What I also propose is that all of you deadheads should no longer withhold >> your traffic. Bury this forum if you can, maybe some of the people who oppose >> such change for no discernable reason will change their minds. >> dec-rhea!dec-katadn!bottom > > [FLAME ON] > There. That sounds like a reasoned, thinking person's way of settling the > issue. It's apparent that at least some of the people supporting the > notion of a separate group seem to be stuck on some sort of childish notion > that having your "own" group offers your musical taste some sort of > "legitimacy" that it wouldn't have otherwise. ("See, my group has its own > group. Nyaah.") As evidenced above. Of course whether or not people have the wrong reason for wanting a newsgroup shouldn't prevent the creation assuming there is proper justification (the "right reason") for such a group... > A warning: "bury" the forum, and I'm sure it can be arranged that automatic > article posters can "bury" the dead group. No pun intended. > -- > Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Not quite the first time that someone gets burned on a "bury" quote... Perhaps, and I can't speak for him, bottom was encouraging people like me, who have information that is of interest to deadheads and few others to go ahead and post it to net.music. In my case I am waiting until I can clear up some inaccuracies and I am hoping for the creation of net.dead, because I anticipate flames when I post a (compacted) set of playlists from 1975 to present. No doubt some people will be convinced that I am attempting to bury net.music, but that is not at all the case... there have been many people who have asked me for this information. Now for the rumor (from Mikel Box 4403 Covina CA 91723 {send him some S.A.S.E. to receive his periodic newsletter}): * was there a confrontation led by Mickey Hart on Friday where the band told Jerry he must do something about his problems? * did Jerry respond to this by leaving the house he was staying in for weeks at a time and return to the panhandle at a spot near where the Grateful Dead lived in the 60's? * was Jerry's response of going to the Panhandle and sit in his car free basing cocaine a crying out, both for the simpler days of the 60's and a crying out for help? Hmmm... It interesting to see interviews in which Jerry and Mickey are asked what brought the end to the wonderful times at Haight-Ashbury. Jerry says ~the cops~ Mickey says ~the junkies.~ Mickey is quite anti-addict; he keeps himself very fit. I can see how there might be such a confrontation. --Cliff
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/28/85)
>>>What I also propose is that all of you deadheads should no longer withhold >>>your traffic. Bury this forum if you can, maybe some of the people who oppose >>>such change for no discernable reason will change their minds. >>> dec-rhea!dec-katadn!bottom >>[FLAME ON] >>There. That sounds like a reasoned, thinking person's way of settling the >>issue. It's apparent that at least some of the people supporting the >>notion of a separate group seem to be stuck on some sort of childish notion >>that having your "own" group offers your musical taste some sort of >>"legitimacy" that it wouldn't have otherwise. ("See, my group has its own >>group. Nyaah.") As evidenced above. [ROSEN] > Of course whether or not people have the wrong reason for wanting a newsgroup > shouldn't prevent the creation assuming there is proper justification (the > "right reason") for such a group... [unmvax!cliff] I still don't think we've seen that. That doesn't seem to stop some people... >>A warning: "bury" the forum, and I'm sure it can be arranged that automatic >>article posters can "bury" the dead group. No pun intended. > Not quite the first time that someone gets burned on a "bury" quote... > Perhaps, and I can't speak for him, bottom was encouraging people > like me, who have information that is of interest to deadheads and few > others to go ahead and post it to net.music. I'd say advocating "burying the forum" is not equivalent requesting that information be posted, which of course there's nothing wrong with. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr