Lazlo (lazlo@xmission.com) writes:
quoted 12 lines Jamie Hodge writes:
> Jamie Hodge writes:
> > I'm hardly advocating discourse on WWS Pussy, or any such gabber
> > nonsense.. I am however asking that the discussion of IDM include less
> > predictable artists.
>
> Once again -- unless I missed a memo, nobody here is being paid to keep
> the list filled with Things Jamie Wants To Read About. If you want more
> discussion of <X>, then start talking about <X>, and if anyone else is
> interested they'll start talking about it too. If that doesn't work, well,
> you'll just have to start the "Records-That-Came-Out-Within-The-Past-Week-
> And-I'm-Ever-So-Much-More-Hip-Than-You-Because-I-Heard-About-Them-Before-
> You-Did" list.
Lazlo, I think you *did* miss a memo.
The discussion started when cspot@netcom.com wrote:
quoted 5 lines Here's a hint - quit talking about trance on this list. This isn't directed
> Here's a hint - quit talking about trance on this list. This isn't directed
> specifically at you, Jason, so don't take it personally. I have no problem
> with you discussing your favorite trance hits till the cows come home, just
> don't do it here. Trance, as a whole, is not IDM. You may dispute this, but
> you'll have to be very persuasive to convince me otherwise.
To which Jamie replied:
quoted 2 lines I really don't think that members
> I really don't think that members
> of this group are in any position to get snotty about limits of discussion.
I don't think he was demanding that others talk about the
kind of music he likes. I think he was asking others not to
be closed-minded about what constitutes IDM.
-Sho
--
sho@physics.purdue.edu <<-- finger this account to find out what I'm
having for lunch!
<A HREF="
http://physics.purdue.edu/~sho/homepage.html>Sho Kuwamoto</A>.