From: pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown)
Subject: Re: proposal for alt.music.techno
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:23:30 GMT

EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:

>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.

So what you're telling me is that if it was in a different group with poorer
distribution, someone would have posted a response to it in the previous eight
hours?  It hasn't even made it to the UK yet.  I attempted to get people to
contribute to an Orbital discography a while back, and got zero response.
Somehow, I didn't see the solution as "Proposal for alt.music.techno.orbital".

>>I think I'm fairly justified in stating that I review more
>>techno for the net than anyone else.

>Good for you! Here's your cookie --> o

Is this your attempt at being humourous?  Maybe I should just post a message
that states, "EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu sees no value in my reviews, I'm
quitting, mail all complaints to him."  After all, as he has so well
demonstrated in the past, he is the true god of techno.

>Tell it to malouin@engin.umich.edu who doesn't feel welcome in alt.rave,
>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?

Five against thirteen.  See my previous message for the list.  I guess this
means you won't support it now?

>Well, if I am to discuss techno in "your" free and open newsgroup,
>you better be prepared for more of the same. Does this sound like fun to you?

Yes.

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

Who keeps stoking the fires?  In case you haven't guessed yet, you're in the
minority.

>But it's not just me who wants a techno group. And I can't help it if you
>can't handle the problems inherent in your job.

Problems like you and useless newsgroups?  It appears that this is what I'm
attempting to handle at this moment.  Whether you and your four friends
realize it or not will be the judge.

>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 one posting from you about 777.  People who bitch about content but never
contribute are my biggest peeve about usenet.  Let's see what other topics in
alt.rave you failed to mention:
	ORB/Blue Room "CD SET" plus other orb stuff
	"Ask Alice...", anyone?
	miscellaneous Arthur Brown info
	Q: The Orb = Orbital?
	New 808 State!!!
	Songs with samples of car alarms
	European Comps.
	Speaking of Orbital
	ROZALLA on TV (in the US)
	Techno aesthetics
	Exclusive Moby interview
	S/O/R
	About messiah..
	Orb -- Rave remix?!
	What's that Orb?
	I have seen God and his name is The Aphex Twin
	Das Boot
	CHART: Dance 15 (June 27 1992)
	Orb: Patterns & Textures video
	orb <opus III>
	BASE, was: Re: Orbital comments
	New Moby releases
	Orbital comments
	techno albums out?

And just for curiosity's sake, here's EIVERSO's contributions:
	proposal for ALT.MUSIC.TECHNO - YESSS!!!
	proposal for ALT.MUSIC.TECHNO - no
	proposal for ALT.MUSIC.TECHNO - no
	REC.MUSIC TECHNO - yes (R<>for ALT.MUSIC.TECHNO - no)
	REC.MUSIC TECHNO - yes (R<>for ALT.MUSIC.TECHNO - no)
	Ravers don't want techno newsgroup
	777 (with Derrick May!)

>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.

Again, you and your own little army.  Five against thirteen.

>Maybe they are hoping that certain high-frequency posters
>leave them and their pending group alone.

We're so damn evil.  Us high-frequency posters just ruin everything for our
valued lurkers.  I say us evil high-frequency posters should just leave UseNet
alone, and let the wind blow through the newsgroups.

>Isn't life hard enough dealing
>with all those pesky sub-groups than be such a frequent poster anyway?

I'm glad you finally see my point.

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

Wake up pal!  There are more people who DON'T want alt.music.techno!

>There are people who don't want to have anything to do with alt.rave, but
>would gladly subscribe to an alt.music.techno.

Uh huh.  I suppose that there's too much discussion of can banging,
motorcycles, and leather jackets in rec.music.industrial for these mousey
people bloodying their knees praying for the creation of alt.music.techno so
they can finally make their voices heard.

>Call them anti-social, seperatists, jerks, what-have-you,

How about imaginary and non-existant?

>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.

Would they post if I sent them money?
-- 
			  I'm not wearing any pants.

DISCLAIMER: My writings have NOTHING to do with my employer.  Keep it that way.
Pete Ashdown    pashdown@slack.sim.es.com    ...uunet!slack.sim.es.com!pashdown
Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.rave