From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: alt.rock-n-roll.metal.progressive
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 22:51:59 GMT

In article <vm3mb6bf@csv.warwick.ac.uk> esuln@warwick.ac.uk (James Murray) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.160225.29861@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> thrash@virginia.edu (Scott Evans) writes:
>>Okay, everyone, here's an "official" proposal (that is, it's
>>not a reply to another one ;)  Please post any thoughts
>>comments, etc.
>>
>>
>>Why alt.rock-n-roll.metal.progressive? 
>>
>
>Why indeed.
>
>WHY CREATE ANOTHER NEWSGROUP??
>

	Yes, god forbid that anyone should _ever_ do that!  The sheer nerve
of creating a forum for people to discuss something that interests them!
Prepostorous!!  The net should immediately put a ban on all new newsgroup
creation-  and in fact, we should probably get rid of any that have been
created since 1987 or so--  let's get back to basics!!!  (Subtitle provided
for the satirically-impaired:  I am not serious, but am being sarcastic).


>There are already enough metal ones as it is.

	This is actually a valid point to raise and it was one of the 
reasons for my initial lukewarmness to the idea.  But, I think that simply
saying that there are already a respectble number of newsgroups on which
metal (perhaps 3-4) is discussed does not mean that the creation of a new 
group is unnecessary.  There are HUNDREDS of computer newsgroups--  surely, 
you don't think that one should go and combine them all into three or four
groups!  
	There are a variety of reasons why I think that the existing news-
groups do not really provide an adequate forum for a discussion of what we
are calling "progressive metal" and I will explain why after your next
comment.

>
>Why not install a threaded newsreader onto your system - then it is nice
>and easy to get rid of uninteresting articles before you read them.

	The purpose of creating a newsgroup for progressive metal is not
so that prog-metal fans can "skip over" other articles, but so that they
can engage in more detailed, in-depth, nuanced discussions of things that
are prog-metal than would be possible on alt.rock-n-roll, alt.rock-n-roll.
hard, and alt.rock-n-roll.metal.  Just look at the depth and variety of
discussion that takes place in alt.music.progressive and compare it to
the discussion of art-rock that took place in alt.rock-n-roll beforehand!
There's really no comparison between the two.
	This is why existing newsgroups do not constitute an adequate 
forum discussion of progressive metal.  Sure, discussions of bands like
Queesryche, Crimson Glory, and Dream Theatre can take place on existing
groups, but one just could not engage in discussions of these bands as 
deeply, nor would one be likely to hear discussions of smaller, and still
more obscure bands.
	And besides, the alt.rock-n-roll.metal newsgroup, the one existing
newsgroup on which discussions of prog-metal would be most appropriate is
an extremely unfruitful place for discussion or any sort.  For the entire time
I read it (I abandoned it as hopeless about two months ago), the group was 
nothing but a continual flamewar.  When 3/4 of the articles posted in a 
highly trafficked newsgroup consist of stuff like:  "That's not metal!! 
That's poser shit!!! You're a fucking poser!" "Fuck you!  Who the hell are
to tell us what to post here, asshole!  You're a chicken-shit little 
asshole and a poser yourself!!" I am extremely skeptical of the possibility
of carrying on an in-depth discussion about anything-- especially music
that is likely to be labeled by the omnipresent egotistical flamers of
alt.r-n-r.metal as "poser music."	


>Creating another newsgroup is just a waste of resources and makes the
>newsgroups even more difficult for newcomers.

	Exactly what sorts of resources are being wasted?  Storage space
on disks?  Increased traffic in existing newsgroups would do the same thing.
	Things are always difficult for newcomers, and the addition of one 
more music newsgroup in the alt. hierarchy isn't going to do anything. 
Perhaps there might be some initial confusion over which things are discussed
on which newsgroups, but that always occurs.  If they take the time to
follow the newsgroups for a couple of days, they can figure things out--
and they can always ask questions.  

>Take alt.rock-n-roll.metal.hard (or whatever its name is) GET RID OF IT !!
>its a waste of space, hardly anyone uses it.

	Its alt.rock-n-roll.hard, and it mostly deals with 70's and early
80's type hard rock.  Exactly why it was created I don't know, but
progressive metal certainly does not seem to be its focus. (BTW just because
you don't happen to like a newsgroup with moderate-low traffic, doesn't give
you the right to tell other people to "take" it over.)


>Even though I am uninterested in that kind of metal, I can easily skip it.

	 Once again, the group is not being created so as to make it easier
for people not to read music that they're not interested in.  It's being
created to allow people to discuss in greater detail the music that they
_are_ interested in.


>Read cblanc's article 'having read this shit' for his opinions.

	Who is cblanc, where is his article, and why is it relevant here?


>If you have a vote, please count a vote for me against this newsgroup's
>creation (as I probably won't receive the call for votes in time)

	As you should know, there are no votes in the alt.hierarchy.  That
only occurs in the more official usenet groups (the soc.,rec.,sci.,comp., 
etc. hierarchies).  There are no RFD's or CFV's here.  If you are unclear on 
this, you might want to peruse the articles in news.groups.newusers

>
>Please rethink your idea.

	 The proponents of this group have been thinking and rethinking it.
It initially started off with someone's proposal for an alt.music.queensryche,
but after some discussion, a lot of people, including the fellow who suggested
the q-ryche group, thought that alt.rock-n-roll.metal.progressive was a
much better idea.  And the group's proponents are asking critical questions 
about the nature of the group-to-be--  questions such how broadly we're going 
to define "progressive metal."  The general feeling among the people interested
in prog-metal still seems to be, however, that a prog-metal newsgroup is
a good idea.  So if you mean by "Please rethink your idea," that we should
continue to be thinking about the creation of this group and remain open-
minded to arguments that say that the group should be formed differently
or not at all, then you need not fear--  we are. 

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>


Newsgroups: alt.config