Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Fate of,net.records

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Greg Woods

Feb 1, 1984, 3:23:29 AM2/1/84

Well. We've had a lot of discussion, what do we do? People support
different parts of my view more than others. There seems to be a
general consensus that net.records should be eliminated. Therefore,
unless there is strong mail opposition, I will remove that group
(Adam, care to comment?) I have also heard lots of pros
and cons (OK, I'm prejudiced: pros on my part) about having subgroups
of for rock and classical, with *no denial* of opportunity
to discuss other types of music in the parent group (I am not arrogant,
damn it, for the person who sent me the ridiculous letter from his
"censor" refusing to aknowledge my private mail on the subject) and with future
opportunities to create subgroups for other types of music if traffic
warrants. I think it's bloody high time it's done. I really hate the
"your music stinks" articles that seem to predominate
these days. It's true, these subgroups won't really prevent this,
but in my view it's a step in the right direction. I don't see why
we couldn't have a (remember that one, old timers?),, etc. The Rich Rosen's of this world seem to object
to subgroups on general principles. What general principles? Send
me mail and I *promise* to post a summary to the net, *especially*
if the mail I get disagrees with my view.
Let me emphasize once again: The creation of subgroups to
recognizes only that certain types of music generate more traffic,
not that certain types of music are "better" than others. I think
already that there is sufficient support to get rid of net.records
and combine it with (or its subgroups as appropriate),
so I, as one who has the power to do so, am willing to do this.
I will wait an appropriate time (a week or two) before taking
any action. But be warned: no response is taken as agreement, I
*will* do what I have suggested.

I'm waiting for responses, both supportive and flames. I want
both. I will base my decision whether to do anything totally
on the mail I receive in response to this article. Nothing ever
gets done on this net unless *someone* takes the law into one's
own hands. I am willing to do that now.

{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}


Feb 5, 1984, 6:35:27 PM2/5/84
References: hao.821

I think it's a damn good idea, and high time it was done... ( contemporary hit radio )


Rich Rosen

Feb 6, 1984, 10:25:09 AM2/6/84
Greg Woods seems to forget all the discussions we've had on
nova and type subgroups, and so he asks again what are
the "general principles" on which I (and apparently many others) oppose the
creation of subgroups.

1) Greg says he is offended by the "looking-down-your-nose-at-other-musics"
syndrome. The notion of subgroups only serves to perpetuate that
syndrome, not to alleviate it. When people create
because they're sick of all the 'y' music articles in,
that promotes snobbishness and divisiveness. After,
and and, what then? The notion
of (only "real" music in this
newsgroup, none of that atonal crap) and (none
of that new wave shit in MY newsgroup) is not that farfetched. After
all the same motivations that caused splitoffs in will still
exist in the subgroups.

2) Call me a sentimental old fool, but I have higher ideals for the net then
just the creation of type
subgroups. If there can't be a newsgroup where you can discuss MUSIC
without having to pick a subgroup to post to, then what's the point
of having at all? Why not just change the whole newsgroup
structure to look like; that way only topics of
interest to YOU will be posted to YOUR newsgroup. Isn't that what
you're gearing up for?
you're gearing up for? If you can't have the crossfertilization of
ideas that the net promises from its variety of users, then it's
sort of pointless. Let's all just form clubs with people who think
alike and mumble and nod to each other all day.

3) Alternately we hear the arguments for "splitting off" the "high traffic"
subjects into subgroups and for "splitting off" the subjects that
aren't getting any attention in the parent newsgroup. So which is
the reason? Are we forming because there's so much rock
in Or are we forming because
those subjects haven't seen as many articles? As I've already said,
the very notion of splitting off is snotty, but assuming that a
sudden flurry of interest will give rise to thousands of articles just
because there's now a subgroup is just plain dumb. If you want to
see more articles about YOUR type of music in the group, submit some,
or at least submit an "Anybody interested in..." article. But the
answer is NOT subgroups.

4) The other reason some people seem to want subgroups is self-legitimacy.
If there is a, then that makes rock a "legitimate"
topic. Similarly, there are those who would want to legitimize
their own particular tastes with "" or "net.gdead"
newsgroups. Why one particular taste merits its own newsgroup is
beyond me. Music is music, and is for discussing it,
but don't hide behind "splitting off" your discussion from the
mainstream of, when all you're really saying by asking
for a subgroup is and elitist and isolationist diatribe.

Please submit comments to, and flames to net.pyuxn.rlr...
(or net.hao.woods for that matter)
Pardon me for breathing...
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr

0 new messages