From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: proposal for alt.music.techno
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 04:18:54 GMT

In <16848134BB.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu> EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.211536.25151@javelin.sim.es.com>
>pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown) writes:
>>So far, the only "non-rave techno postings" I've seen from you are calls for
>>alt.music.techno.
>You must not be looking hard enuf. This morning I decided to give alt.rave
>the benefit of the doubt and posted a post about 777. So far there has been
>no response.  True to their word, none of the alt.rave subscribers have
>flamed me for it yet.

In fact, I filed it away for future reference, when I have money to look into
it.  It sure SOUNDS excellent.

>And why so many requests from me for a.m.t in alt.rave? Becuz davison@bnr.ca
>and others have foiled a direct request from me to discuss it only in
>alt.config. After enough postings, I gave up trying.

You don't seem to understand the newgroup process very well--you are SUPPOSED
to crosspost discussion to related and affected groups.  Perhaps you should
find the relevant FAQ in news.announce.newusers or some similar group.

>And do you expect me to be the main poster to alt.music.techno?

Since you seem to be the main poster in favor of alt.music.techno, yes.

>								How much
>I post is not a concern of mine. I do believe that there is an interest
>in posting and reading techno info that is hindered by the lack of a techno
>proper newsgroup.

Your belief in such a hindrance does not make it so.  Do you have any kind
of concrete data to support this belief?

>		Many have supported that view.

I may have missed the beginning of all this, but I sure don't recall
anything approaching "many".

>						No one has offered a
>convicing argument to the contrary.

Let's rephrase that--no one has offered an argument that you'll listen
to.

>>I haven't seen any complaints in posting
>>my reviews to both alt.rave and rec.music.industrial.  If an alt.music.techno
>>is created by some bozo outside of everyone's desire, I will not support it in
>>the least.
>Where have you been?
>Tell it to malouin@engin.umich.edu who doesn't feel welcome in alt.rave,

Why doesn't this person feel welcome?  You spout off with this stuff, but
there's no substance behind it....

>tell it to mjbrown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, arthur@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu,
>or aresenic@fubar.cs.montana.edu. These are just a few of the persons
>who have posted their support for alt.music.techno. I guess this means
>you will support it now?

Three people.  Big list.  Just because I am the loudest objector doesn't
mean I'm the only one.  Or that Pete Ashdown and I are the only two.  I
can think of as many people off the top of my head who are contributing
net.citizens in a number of music groups who are likely to agree with
our side more than yours.  So?

>>Yes.  We like unified discussions in single groups.  We don't need to break up
>>our unity with comments like, "I will *NEVER* attend a rave."
>Well, if I am to discuss techno in "your" free and open newsgroup,
>you better be prepared for more of the same.

More of what same?

>					Does this sound like fun to you?

I haven't yet seen anything so offensive I couldn't hit "n" to avoid in
ANY newsgroup.

>Don't you get it that there is a reason why persons want to isolate
>themselves from rave so as to avoid offending or being offended?

"Cover my eye's mommy!  I shouldn't be allowed to see that *evil*
offensive posting!"

>Or maybe you'd love a constant flame war to unify "your" group.

The only reason we're arguing is because you want to create a whole seperate
group, which as news admins we feel is *stupid*.  Not because it's techno.
I've argued just as vehemently against other stupid group splinterings.

You seem clueless about the newsgroup creation process, and I would say by
inference you are kind of unaware of the logic that would be nice to have
behind newsgroup creation (not that there is usually a lot of logic, but we
can try).

>>Well, as a news administrator, it IS MY PROBLEM.  Breakup of musical groups
>>into alt.music.enya, alt.music.alternative, and
>>alt.music.metal.[heavy|thrash|ambient] pisses me off no end.  If you have such
>>a high desire for a specified music group, form a mailing list.
>But it's not just me who wants a techno group.

You can propose a new group every day for the rest of your life, and
sure enough USENET is huge enough that there will be people who will
support its creation.  That doesn't mean it's a Good Thing [tm].

>Whether or not you get pissed really can't be a concern when it comes to
>common interests of techno fans.

But whether or not other news admins (who are really the ones with the
power to make or break your group) get pissed off IS a concern--one of
the joys of USENET is that I don't have to carry or forward a group I
don't want on my machines.  If enough admins agree with me, that group
will have 0 propagation and will be next to useless.

>>BULL SHIT.  I've seen more music content in alt.rave than anything else.  You
>>insist that you don't have any interest in alt.rave, yet you seem to qualify
>>yourself as the only judge of its content.
>Ever since the first person suggested that alt.rave is sufficient for me,
>I've been following alt.rave intently to make sure there is a legit reason
>for a techno group. The majority of postings center around upcoming
>raves, planetariums, what to wear to the rave, etc. Yes there is a significant
>amount of music-related postings. Including plenty of "what they played at
>the rave", "what should I play at the rave", and "what they should play
>at the rave" postings.

And if you would contribute strictly techno discussions, it would be welcome,
and voila! you would have the traffic you crave that doesn't use the word rave.

>>No, we just won't support it.  When you have the largest contributors of
>>alt.rave and r.m.i telling you that it is a bad idea, and only yourself
>>whining that it is a good idea, then you've got to wonder what kind of success
>>you'll have with it.
>Yes, but that isn't happening. Instead those big contributors have decided
>to be big nay sayers, but less frequent posters who have legitimate opinions
>support the idea.

So let's see that support.  Every one of those "less frequent posters" can
post their own opinions.  I haven't seen but one or two agreeing with you.

>Wake up pal! It isn't just me who wants alt.music.techno.

Oh yeah, a handful along for the ride, who won't go out on a limb to
argue for the group.  I'm awake.  Where are the masses?

>There are people who don't want to have anything to do with alt.rave, but
>would gladly subscribe to an alt.music.techno.
>Call them anti-social, seperatists, jerks, what-have-you,
>but saying "just discuss it in alt.rave" won't make them go away, and it
>won't make them post to alt.rave either.

That's their loss, and their inability to deal with "rave" doesn't
mean a new group is a good idea.  USENET is *not* about "volume, volume,
volume".  It isn't a case of everyone should have their own pet newsgroup
where they can hide from the world.  The whole idea behind it is transfer
of information, and it's usually nice to try to make that work in logical
ways.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
             Admittedly he was listening to a _Best of Queen_ tape,
  but no conclusions should be drawn from this because all tapes left in a car
    for more than about a fortnight metamorphose into _Best of Queen_ albums