From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative,alt.config,alt.rave
Subject: Re: Ravers don't want techno newsgroup
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:49:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1684990AD.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu> EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>>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.

How can you lump me as an "anti techno" poster?  I'm not against techno.
I'm against a redundant newsgroup, a point that has nothing to do with
the actual content of the group.

>The point is, there is a significant desire in both directions.
>Neither side (in my recollection) has been dominant in the discussion.

So you are saying you want to create it anyway, even though there is not
significantly more positive reaction than negative, right?  I don't see
why that should be the case.

>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.

alt.rave has the same basic topic.  The name puts a *slight* spin on
discussions of raves, but it's JUST A NAME, and there is no one I can
think of who would tell you that postings strictly about techno music
were inappropriate there.  You are duplicating a newsgroup to talk about
basically the same thing.  That sounds like competition to me.

>   Rather I *have* cited to party-centric agenda of alt.rave and noted

This is ridiculous.  I have seen no "agendas" in alt.rave.  The only
conclusion I can draw is that you have some kind of chip on your shoulder
or something.

>   the desire for a music-centered techno group. I and others have also
>   denied the assumption that techno is rave,

No one has assumed or asserted that techno and rave are identical.
Quite the contrary, many would say that "rave" contains all the various
elements of a rave.  However, ONE of those elements, and a quite
significant one, is techno music.  Why does that need to be divorced
from another group?  (yes, I know you've said it a million times, but
I still can't see why it's Necessary).  All aspects of techno are of
interest--just look at tsines@wherever.indiana who was posting about
gigging and making music and got a huge response.

>                                                  Most importantly,
>   I and others have argued that the dislike for rave inhibits participation
>   in alt.rave.

Ack.  So because these people are inhibited, the Net should move to accomodate
them?  I say not.  I'm sorry, but if we formed a new group for every person
who felt inhibited an a newsgroup for any reason (like newbies asking "dumb
questions" in public on some of the comp.* groups wanting a
comp.*.dumb.questions) there would be no room left on my disk for
articles--it would all be taken up by the directory structure.

>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

All the more reason to discuss the appropriate things in the appropriate
groups and avoid yet ANOTHER needless overlapping group.

>3) This is *not* stupid, but thank-you for your opinion.

Not stupid in itself, but stupid that you seem unable to see any
point of view that allows that maybe this isn't a good idea.  I could
see how alt.music.techno would be a good idea.  IF THERE WEREN'T ALREADY
A GROUP CALLED alt.rave.

>4) A techno fan who is not a rave fan will immediately see the significant
>   and clear seperation between these two groups.

I think that species is so small as to be insignificant compared to the
size of the net as a whole.

>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.

Plenty of people post to alt.rave on matters techno.  Are we reading the
same newsgroup?

>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.

That's their problem, and not sufficient reason for a new newsgroup.
Haven't I said that enough?  You keep repeating it like it will convince
me of something, but I *know* what you've said, I just can't see how you
seriously think that it's a real argument for a newsgroup.  It boils down
to "I want this newsgroup", rather than "there are concrete and good reasons
why USENET needs this newsgroup".  That's just not sufficient.

>>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.

Great.  So you don't need alt.rave, right? :-)
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
       There are three things that smell like fish.  One of them is fish.
                       The other two are growing on YOU!
Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative