From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: one last alt.music.techno argument before we die
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 05:31:04 GMT

In <1684914232.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu> EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>I've tried several arguments and none can seem to convince a news admin
>or two who doesn't want to deal with one more alt.* group. No matter what I
>say, or how I say it, they simply say "we are bigger and stronger and
>we don't want it"

No, we say "it's useless, pointless, and a waste".  But far be it from me
to tell your brain how to interpret the words you see.

>If I present lists of others in favor of alt.music.techno, they produce a list
>of persons-- half of whom have only said "but there already *is* an alt.rave"
>as if alt.* groups had to be decided by vote.

I believe it was *YOU* who posted something to the effect of "a vote for
alt.music.techno is a vote for legitimizing techno as the musical form it
is".  *YOU* are the one who has said "but just as many people support
it as don't, so we should create it".  (not having seen all the contrary
postings, I hadn't kept enough track to realize you were exaggerrating
your support)

By the way:  "but there already *is* an alt.rave" is functionally equivalent
to "it's redundant, why bother", which is my major argument.

>I been trying to explain how a segment of usenet population (certainly not the
>majority, but neither are alt.rave subscribers) really would want to post
>if there only was a techno-exclusive group. To which they say "well, if they
>want to post, where are they?"

Certainly a relevant question.  They aren't discussing it ANYWHERE that
I can see.  I mean, if nothing else, there's always rec.music.misc.

>> The dissenters say alt.rave is sufficient.
>> I and others say they want a music-specific techno group.
>> Some (myself included) don't like rave and don't want to
>> associate with the rave group.
>I can certainly see that. So much of what I've seen of alt.rave (I took a
>look a week or so ago then unsubscribed) seems to be centring around where
>the rave is on, smart drinks and the various drugs associated with the
>scene. While I'm not anti-drug, I don't really want anything to do with
>them and can see how you'd get annoyed that people were spending a lot of
>time discussing the "experience" and not the music itself.

Think hard:  if you don't contribute, you wont' have any impact on the
content.  If you DO contribute, you DON'T have to talk about anything 
YOU don't want to talk about like rave culture, drugs, whatnot.  How
is this an argument that you shouldn't post to alt.rave?

>What it shows me is a person who is interested in techno and a major poster,

DID YOU READ THE LETTER?  He said he "wouldn't read the group" if it WERE
created.  That he doesn't like "techno" in the sense that it is being
used here, modern hard electronic dance music that lacks what he considers
"industrial".  HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN TECHNO.

>but he is turned off by the kind of techno and other subjects discussed in
>alt rave.  He is so turned off by alt.rave, that he will forego his interest
>in classic techno and not even bother to debate the matter.

No he seems to think that he can meet any need he has to discuss "classic
techno" in groups that already exist like r.m.i.  I hope he does post
calling you on what seems pretty clearly a twisting of his words to your
purpose.  Without his permission in advance no less.

>*THIS* is precisely the kind of person who would have a home in
>alt.music.techno.

HE SAID HE WOULDN'T SUBSCRIBE IF IT *WERE* CREATED.  "I don't really care
one way or the other" I believe the quote was.  Too bad I'm impetuous and
deleted the rest of your quote.

>I cannot see engaing in a newgroup-rmgroup war with a couple of irate
>news admins.

And as a newsadmin, I'd have to be pretty irresponsible to engage in such
a war myself.  I am highly offended that you would suggest that I would do
such a stupid thing.  I have never sent an rmgroup, and I'm not about to
start now, unless it was a clearly necessary thing (like deleting a bogus
group created by a local user--note that a local user was responsible for
alt.music.rush, which I also was highly against, and I didn't send out any
rmgroups for that either because it was not "bogus"--he followed the
guidelines).

>I guess I have to wait until techno is no longer popular at raves, or until
>rave goes out of fashion, whichever comes first.

You really don't pay any attention to what we've said do you?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
               It is said that the Devil has all the best tunes.
                             This is broadly true.
                    But Heaven has the best choreographers.
Xref: sparky alt.config:5217 alt.good.news:834