From: EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Subject: Re: Ravers don't want techno newsgroup
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:17:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.042627.4811@bradley.bradley.edu>
pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
 
>
>In <16848140A2.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu> EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.215212.25766@javelin.sim.es.com>
>>pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown) writes:
>>>Message-ID: <16848DDE2.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu>
>>>Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Gee, I wonder who attempted to anonymously post this message?
>>I thought anonymous posting entailed some abiguity as to the sender.
>>At least something beyond playing with the From line.
>
>You botched your attempt to post anonymously by leaving around plenty
>of obvious clues who you were.  What's the point then?
 
I was trying to be cute, OK?
Look, If I really wanted to post anonymously then I would have done a
better job than simply inserting a different name in the From line.
And just to make sure you don't misinterpret me again: I was
*not* attempting an anonymous post, I *was* attempting to be cute. OK?
Now lay off it!
 
>>>techno@music.not.rave.please (EIVERSON) writes:
>>Gee I wonder who misspelled EIVERSO?
>
>You know, we could go back and forth over trivial little shits like
>this forever.  It doesn't really do anything but trivialize the
>discussion (just like "but he started it" does).
 
True...but he *did* start it. ;-)
 
>>>>OK maybe that's too much of a blanket statement, but the main
>>>>opposition for an alt.music.techno group seems to be coming from susbscribers
>>>>of alt.rave.
>>>And subscribers of rec.music.industrial, subscribers of rec.music.misc, and
>>>subscribers of various mailing lists.
>>There can be only one "main", and it is alt.rave.
>
>I think you missed his point.  Pete and I are not primarily subscribers
>of alt.rave, and to paint our opposition to alt.music.techno in that light
>is silly.  We are also subscribers of rec.music.industrial, rec.music.misc,
>rec.music.alternative, and as he said, various musical mailing lists like the
>new-music list.
 
And you especially seem to have come into this discussion late.
There have been many other anti-techno posters and many other pro-techno
posters. I really don't see the need to continue on this point. It's so
unimportant that I'll conceed just to move things along.
 
The point is, there is a significant desire in both directions.
Neither side (in my recollection) has been dominant in the discussion.
This started last week FYI.
 
>Listen closely this time:  we aren't opposed to alt.music.techno because
>you want to put it into competition with alt.rave; we are opposed to
>alt.music.techno because it would be creating another group that would have
>basically the same content as an existing group.  This is stupid.  A new
>group should have significant and clear seperation from any other groups.
>Just because this has not been the case in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't
>be the case in the present.
 
I'd appreciate it if you had listened closely to me first. But I listened,
and here's the deal...
 
1) I have *not* tried to put a.m.techno in competition with alt.rave.
   Rather I *have* cited to party-centric agenda of alt.rave and noted
   the desire for a music-centered techno group. I and others have also
   denied the assumption that techno is rave, or that techno is a
   sub-group of rave. I have cited the complimentary nature of the
   two groups when I suggested that techno fans who may otherwise
   not have known about raves might become interested in raves after
   reading about them in a techno newsgroup. Others have cited the
   a desire to discuss techno-releated but not necessarily music-related
   subjects that bear no relation at all to rave. Most importantly,
   I and others have argued that the dislike for rave inhibits participation
   in alt.rave.
 
2) Alt.music.techno would not have "basically the same content as alt.rave."
   The potential subjects could cross over into several groups, namely
   alt.rave
   rec.music.industrial
   rec.music.synth
   rec.music.makers
   alt guitar (If I have anything to do with it) ;-)
   alt.music.alternative
   rec.music.misc
   comp.music
   alt.cyberpunk
   alt.music.progressive
   and any group that discusses even non-musical aspects of techno
   just as non-party aspects of rave are discussed in alt.rave.
 
3) This is *not* stupid, but thank-you for your opinion.
 
4) A techno fan who is not a rave fan will immediately see the significant
   and clear seperation between these two groups.
 
5) Just because it could be the case in the present doesn't convince
   me that techno fans who have avoided alt.rave in the past will
   have a change of heart and commence posting to alt.rave on matters
   techno.
 
7) You're not actually *counting* these are you? ;-)
 
Now look; I've tried to be fair and have been monitoring and posting to
alt.rave. It's a bit hard to find time when I'm putting alot of effort
in to this discussion. I don't intend to post daily on techno, but why
should I? I'm not in it just for me - believe it or not. I was hoping
some of the a.m.techno supporters would follow suit, but it's probably
not going to happen. Like it or not, some people just don't want to
have anything to do with alt.rave.
 
I'll continue to post to alt.rave when I have something to say and time
to say it. And I'll continue to discuss the creation of an alt.music.techno
group as long as there is interest.
 
>>>>A.m.techno would cater to lovers of all things techno - primarily
>>>>the music which has been produced for roughly 17 years now.
>>>The same music that falls under the rec.music.industrial charter.
>>Yet receives responses of "that belongs in alt.rave"
>Which can be countered with "but it's in the charter" or simply taken
>to alt.rave, after all.
 
I'm willing to try that too.
 
>Pete Hartman                   Bradley University       pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
--Eric