From: wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *Any* kind of r.a.b split, or at least a *serious* discussion
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:21:24 EST
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <BzMJ73.GJo@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) wrote:
>> You seem to be under the impression that rec.arts.books should function
>> the way many "technical" newsgroups function: that is, one poster asks a
>> question, and another responds, publicly or privately, with an answer.
>> Me, I always thought that r.a.b. functioned as a forum for *conversations*.
>> If I simply wanted answers to questions, I could consult my reference books.
> 
> Yeah.  Conversations about *books*, however broadly construed, like the one-
> line summary of the group's remit says:
> 
>            Books of all genres, and the publishing industry.
> 
> That does not stretch to interminable maunderings, however they got started,
> about modal logic and the ethics of sexuality, or the sociology of SAT
> scores, and still less to the CB-like prattle that's built up over the last
> few months which is about nothing in particular except the egos of the
> protagonists.  If you want to do that sort of thing, get an IRC channel for
> it.
> 
> As I emailed one of the people proposing the group split, I don't think it
> would work without being backed by persistent, varied and unignorable
> vilification of people who persist in waffling on in the parent group.  And
> if enough of us stood up and did that, the egomaniacs might just get a sense
> of relevance anyway, making the split unnecessary - most of the threads we're
> complaining about *already* have obvious places to go to (like talk.politics.
> homosexuality for the major one just now).
> 
> Followups to news.groups; protracted meta-discussions are inappropriate too.
> 
> [ One aspect that might be relevant to rec.arts.books: does anyone know of
>   a good book about the sociology of interactive communications media, like
>   amateur radio and CB?  The forces that drove their descent into triviality
>   are clearly at work here too, and it might be nice to have a source of
>   suitably minatory quotes to wave at the timewasters. ]
> 
> -- 
> --  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
> 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
> INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
> BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp

There is a zen parable about three monks who agree to meditate in silence
until they all attain satori.  They light the lantern.  Later, it sputters
and goes out.  One monk gets up to relight it, and asks where the oil is.
"You shouldn't have said anything," says the second.  "Only I have remained 
silent," says the third.

Let us all love one another in this season of reindeer and wrapping paper 
and midnight masses.  Let us forgive each other's trespasses, whether these
be long-windedness, peevishness, or insufficient familiarity with modal 
logic and the peculiarities of the later Frege.  Let us share tidbits about 
books with each other.

There's a book chock full of parables like the one above, yclept 
_Zen Flesh, Zen Bones_; the name which is where an author's name 
usually is is Paul Reps.  A little bit hippie, I know, but it's nice 
to have on the shelves.
							-Luke