Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!bu-cs!sam
From: sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: freedom and group psychology
Message-ID: <679@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 18:29:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.679
Posted: Tue Sep 24 18:29:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 06:27:09 EDT
References: <461@decwrl.UUCP> <1734@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers)
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 35

>I don't see how it can be construed as anything BUT intolerant.  First,
>Doug formed the mailing list/group only because of the tonguelashings and
>verbal abuse he got in droves from those who simply didn't like what he
>had to say.  Second, let's do some arithmetic.  If there are 100 articles
>and 90 of them are about Kate Bush, what does that mean?  It means among
>all the people who couldn't stand KB-isms, they could only amass ten articles
>among them on other topics.  Later, the ratios changed:  of, say, 100
>articles, 50 may have from Doug and others about Bush, 40 were flames ABOUT
>Doug and/or Bush, and 10 were on the other topics.  So who is at fault?
>Doug (et al) for writing "too much"?  Or the flamers, for spending 4 times
>as much energy writing flames about Doug than saying things about other
>topics in the arena of music?  This is exactly the same intolerant selfish
>crap that led to subgrouping once or twice before:  there weren't "enough"
>articles on topics they liked.  Why?  Because no one was posting them!
>Simple.  They felt "a separate group will have a better atmosphere in which
>we can feel free to post on other topics".  And that is a load of crap.
>				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr	

Despite the fact that Doug Alan occassionally breaks down and posts
a thing every now and then about Kate Bush or something else to
net.music, most of his time & energies now go to his mailing list.
Meanwhile, all you continually flaming netters that Rich Rosen refers
to *still* don't have the postings you want.  And it's too bad, because
if you had just shut up, the percentage of Doug's postings that were
flames would have gone down.  We have 60 some people on this mailing
list, and we DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT KATE BUSH....and....most important
of all, there are NO FLAMES.

-- 
"Ya know, I really *love* a phone tent."
*******************************************
Shelli Meyers
UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!sam
ARPA: sam%bu-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
*******************************************