IDM Mailing Archive

1997-08-05 10:15Marie KacmarekI didn't mean to insinuate that the original poster is sexist. That is absurd. But referri

From:: Marie Kacmarek <marie@floatingcode.com>
To:: idm <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Tue, 5 Aug 97 10:15:13 -0000
Subject:: (idm) (re) women in IDM

I didn't mean to insinuate that the original poster is sexist. That is absurd. But referring to the "women in IDM" in the following terms, well, could be opening yourself up for something (?) Brian Tang writes:

quoted 3 lines We haven't seemed to had then women-in-idm thread in

>We haven't seemed to had then women-in-idm thread in >awhile, maybe someone would like to bring that beast out of the >closet again.),

Fred Guy writes: >>and then it usually flares into some tangent socioeconomic philosophy chatter Chatter? Why not just call it mindless prattle, while you roll your eyes? William S. Burroughs was discussed at some length here. So was Intellectual Property Rights. Why are these topics not considered "chatter?" Easy, Marie www.floatingcode.com P.S. My vote is for "chicas in IDM" (yeah, right)

1997-08-05 16:29brian j tang> I didn't mean to insinuate that the original poster is sexist. That is > absurd. But ref

From:: brian j tang <fafol@royalblueny.com>
To:: <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:29:29 -0400
Subject:: Re: (idm) (re) women in IDM
Reply to:: (idm) (re) women in IDM

quoted 17 lines I didn't mean to insinuate that the original poster is sexist. That is

> I didn't mean to insinuate that the original poster is sexist. That is > absurd. But referring to the "women in IDM" in the following terms, well, > could be opening yourself up for something (?) > > Brian Tang writes: > >We haven't seemed to had then women-in-idm thread in > >awhile, maybe someone would like to bring that beast out of the > >closet again.), > > Fred Guy writes: > >>and then it usually flares into some tangent socioeconomic philosophy > chatter > > Chatter? Why not just call it mindless prattle, while you roll your eyes? > William S. Burroughs was discussed at some length here. So was > Intellectual Property Rights. Why are these topics not considered > "chatter?"

yes they are in my opinion. The "Women-in-IDM" thread really inspires some ultra-brainlessness though. don't know why that is. But anyway it seems that they there are two camps in this mailing list. People who are busy and would like to keep the posts about music. And People who would like to discuss whatever comes up. I'm in the former camp. There are plenty of outlets to discuss sexism in our culture and intellectual property rights. It's not the focus of this group, and it sometimes annoys me to have to wade throught these posts. Although it was equally annoying wading throught the "is chem bros. and/or prodigy appropiate to discuss here." If someone wants to post a review of an albumn I'm fine with that. It's just the ensuing reply's that really bother me. (I know I'm shooting myself in the foot, with this reply). Please forgive me for bringing up the "women-in-idm" thread. It's spawned a meta-thread. Do youse peeps have it in your heart to forgive me?? ObIdm:: _Cold Krush Cuts_. Love this compilation. Pulled it out after being shelved for a couple monthes. The DJ Krush side is so phat! freshie Paranoia: The choice of a Tech Generation http://silly.com/~tang

(idm) (re) women in IDM