From: EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: proposal for alt.music.techno
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:57:05 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

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.
 
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.
 
And do you expect me to be the main poster to alt.music.techno? 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. Many have supported that view. No one has offered a
convicing argument to the contrary.
 
>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
 
>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,
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?
 
>>Is this an example of the spirit of brotherhood and unity behind rave?
>
>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. Does this sound like fun to you?
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.
 
>>Not my problem, dude!
 
>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. And I can't help it if you
can't handle the problems inherent in your job.
Whether or not you get pissed really can't be a concern when it comes to
common interests of techno fans.
 
>>Precisely. You listed alt.MUSIC.* groups. All these and much more
>>could fall under the alt.music.techno banner.
>>The alt.rave group can handle the demand for various partying sub-groups
>>(like there's no need for an alt.rave.smart-drinks, for instance)
>>because it's party-centric, but not so for music.
>
>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.
 
No need to warn me, I can spot BS when I see it.:)
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.
 
>>Yes, that would be:"If you make your *own* sandbox, I'm gonna ruin it!"
>
>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. Maybe they are hoping that certain high-frequency posters
leave them and their pending group alone. Isn't life hard enough dealing
with all those pesky sub-groups than be such a frequent poster anyway?
 
>>With all due respect, I'd say the same applies to you if you can't handle
>>a second newsgroup with a related interest. The success of usenet is in
>>the capacity to address different interests and encourage new ones.
>
>It's downfall is the overload of specific newsgroups.
 
That's as "anti" as anything I've read so far.
 
Wake up pal! It isn't just me who wants 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.
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.
 
>                          I'm not wearing any pants.
 
You gotta love this guy! ;-)
 
--Eric