rec.music.christian
Jeff Jackson
I, for one, welcome such a group. I have threatened to form a mailing
list myself from time to time, but don't have the time to invest in
that. So far, I've not heard one proponent of the group object to the
name. Others will not use it so why should they care and why do we
care what they think? Let's get on with the vote.
--
============================================================================
Jeffrey Glen Jackson _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
j...@ssd.csd.harris.com | bust you up tonight."
x5120 | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
mathew
>I, for one, welcome such a group. I have threatened to form a mailing
>list myself from time to time, but don't have the time to invest in
>that. So far, I've not heard one proponent of the group object to the
>name. Others will not use it so why should they care and why do we
>care what they think?
Because we'll vote against it, stoopid.
What's the most important factor which distinguishes contemporary Christian
music from any other type of music? Is it the fact that it's contemporary?
No. Is it the fact that it's to do with the Christian religion? Yup...
talk.religion.christian.music it is, then...
mathew
Ronald K. Anderson
--
Ron Anderson "It is a fearful thing to fall
ro...@videovax.tv.Tek.com into the hands of the living God." Heb 10:31
Scott Coulter
>What's the most important factor which distinguishes contemporary Christian
>music from any other type of music? Is it the fact that it's contemporary?
>No. Is it the fact that it's to do with the Christian religion? Yup...
>
>talk.religion.christian.music it is, then...
What's going to be mainly discussed in the new group?
Christian religion? No.
Christian music? Yup...
rec.music.christian it is, then...
Scott D. Coulter "Nose against the grindstone,
sc...@cc.gatech.edu it feels real good; watch out!
Georgia Tech Software Research Center it's Dog Eat Dog..." Weird Al
Gerry Swetsky
>Did I miss something? What ever happened to the Call For Votes??
Dunno! The timing on this has been mucho poor!!
Folks, you're gonna lose your audience without a CFV REAL SOON!
I've got a hymnal project to work on.......
--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky WB9EBO |
| vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet |
| Home (708)833-8122 vpnet (708)833-8126 lis...@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
Scholar and Fool
> music from any other type of music? Is it the fact that it's contemporary?
> No. Is it the fact that it's to do with the Christian religion? Yup...
>
> talk.religion.christian.music it is, then...
what? You just said "what...distinguishes contemporary Christian music from
any other type of music?" Then you determine that "it is the fact that it's
to do with the Christian religion." From this, you have shown that it is
music, separated by other music types because it's Christian-based. This
shows that it should be something.music.christian -
not something.christian.music
And why should it be talk.religion when it would be discussing music and music-
related stuff (like concerts, addresses, such)? Sounds like a rec.music
area to me. I think rec.music.christian is dandy.
--
But what do I know? I'm just a...
************************==============================================\
* l oo oo F * Terry Leifeste / Engineering Co-op Student |\
* l o o o o FFF * P.O. Box 8998 -/- College Station, TX 77844 | \
* l oo oo F *---------------/------------------------------| /
* l FFFFF * <neat quote> / TLEI...@CCFVAX.CCF.SWRI.EDU |/
************************==============================================/
Jeffrey S Tilley
>In article <63...@videovax.tv.tek.com> ro...@videovax.tv.tek.com (Ronald K. Anderson) writes:
>>Did I miss something? What ever happened to the Call For Votes??
>
> Dunno! The timing on this has been mucho poor!!
> Folks, you're gonna lose your audience without a CFV REAL SOON!
>
I believe that the CFV is awaiting conclusion of a discussion period of
the proper length. Since the "official" CFD actually ended up being
issued well after (2.5 weeks at least) the "unofficial" discussion started,
it just seems like this is taking a long time. The "official CFD" was
issued only about 3-3.5 weeks ago. I may be wrong, but I thought a
discussion period of a month was standard. If this is true, then a CFV
should be forthcoming soon, although since Caleb Cohen volunteered to run
the vote, it is up to him exactly when the CFV is issued.
JST
Gerry Swetsky
>I believe that the CFV is awaiting conclusion of a discussion period of
>the proper length.
Well, just for comparison the CFD for sci.geo.meteorology started
after this one and it's already into its second day of voting.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is I don't normally read
news.groups. I'm checking here daily now so I can vote FOR r.m.c
if and when the time comes. If there's not going to be a vote, I
can unsubscribe to news.groups. I assume there's others in the
same boat.
Caleb, where are you? Timing is critical on these issues.
Dave Gillett
>what? You just said "what...distinguishes contemporary Christian music from
>any other type of music?" Then you determine that "it is the fact that it's
>to do with the Christian religion." From this, you have shown that it is
>music, separated by other music types because it's Christian-based. This
>shows that it should be something.music.christian -
> not something.christian.music
No, you've missed the point. If its difference from other forms of music
were musical -- choice of instruments, tempo, scansion, syncopation, etc. --
then it would be a different type of music, and a candidate for a different
subgroup under rec.music.
It is precisely the fact that its difference from other contemporary music
*is not a musical difference* that it does not belong as a category of music.
Dave
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
> In article <10...@uwm.edu> js...@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Jeffrey S Tilley) writes:
>
>>I believe that the CFV is awaiting conclusion of a discussion period of
>>the proper length.
>
> Basically, what I'm trying to say is I don't normally read
> news.groups. I'm checking here daily now so I can vote FOR r.m.c
> if and when the time comes. If there's not going to be a vote, I
> can unsubscribe to news.groups. I assume there's others in the
> same boat.
By my count, the discussion of rec.music.christian has now substantially
exceeded the 30 day limit. Interested parties should now follow the guidlines
and take the discussion back into email until a more viable proposal emerges.
Perhaps that has already happened. Or, perhaps the proponents are finding that
the extant mailing list is serving their needs adequately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Miller /\ Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
#\ o O \/ /\ University of Miami
#/ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ / 4600 Rickenbacker Cwsy.
/ / o O \/ Miami, FL 33149 USA
Phone: (305) 361-4762 INTERNET: mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
Scott Coulter
>By my count, the discussion of rec.music.christian has now substantially
>exceeded the 30 day limit. Interested parties should now follow the guidlines
>and take the discussion back into email until a more viable proposal emerges.
Oh, I see. So, if a discussion starts without a proper CFD in the moderated
`announce' group, and the proponents try to hold a vote, they'll get told
that they can't, because there wasn't a CFD.
However, if they then attempt to follow the guidelines by posting an
official CFD before holding a vote, they'll be told that their 30 day limit
is up, because the 30 days started to be counted at the beginning of the
unofficial discussion period!
This newsgroup continually gives exciting new meanings to the phrase
"Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
> In article <1991Mar20.1...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu> mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes:
>>By my count, the discussion of rec.music.christian has now substantially
>>exceeded the 30 day limit. Interested parties should now follow the guidlines
>>and take the discussion back into email until a more viable proposal emerges.
>
> Oh, I see. So, if a discussion starts without a proper CFD in the moderated
> `announce' group, and the proponents try to hold a vote, they'll get told
> that they can't, because there wasn't a CFD.
> However, if they then attempt to follow the guidelines by posting an
> official CFD before holding a vote, they'll be told that their 30 day limit
> is up, because the 30 days started to be counted at the beginning of the
> unofficial discussion period!
Let me remind you of a few facts:
1) The aborted vote was properly cancelled because the guidlines were not
followed. A belated CFD was forthcoming.
2) Discussion of rec.music.christian has been going on for more than 1.5
months.
3) The number of articles posted on the subject has dropped off
substantially in the past week.
4) Several folks have posted "why aren't we voting yet?" queries to which
there has been no reply from Mr. cohen who had agreed to run the
vote.
It seems to me that the discussion has effectively been over for several days
now. That is not to say that all issues have been resolved; rather, folks
simply aren't discussing them (at least not in news.groups) anymore. IMHO,
there are still several aspects of the proposal which are troubling (I won't
go into them here, having done so already in previous articles). Since the
discussion (both "official" and unofficial) has lasted so long that it is now
dying, it's time to do something - either vote or regroup. I don't think a
vote is the right course of action at present since there are still
substantial unresolved issues about the proposed group. So, it's time to take
it to email.
A. Mattox Beckman
>I would agree. The fact is that CCM is not so much music for music's
>sake, but a form of worship unto the LORD. In this same line of
>thought, the name should reflect the fact that it is Christian music,
>any Christian music should be able to be discussed, not just CCM.
>The implication seems to be soc.religion.christian.music is appropriate.
>Bill G.
Not at all! Not all CCM is worship music! There is a distinction to
be drawn here. Most CCM is not *worshipping* the LORD, but is *about* the
LORD, or about the Christian life. Just listen to almost any CCM album. Now,
a sub-category of CCM *is* worship music. Such music is called praise music.
Also, there is Christian music that is written for music's sake--Phil Keaggy
has put out several instrumental albums, and he is not the only one to do that.
- Mattox
bec...@cs.uiuc.edu
><> IXOYE
Ps: I am not saying we should have a rec.music.christian.praise, the
proposed charter deals with both praise and non-praise music. (Praise music
Keith Drake
When are we going to have the CFV?
It seems there's a problem getting on the mailing list....8-(
--
N. Keith Drake (205) 730-5515 |House of glass,crystal cathedral,
dra...@infonode.ingr.com or |But a positive mind will just make your heart
!uunet!ingr!b25!rd3537!keith |blind,your still lost. Easy to fall when your
Opinions are mine |out on a limb. Bloodgood
Daniel Gene Sinclair
>there are still several aspects of the proposal which are troubling (I won't
>go into them here, having done so already in previous articles). Since the
>discussion (both "official" and unofficial) has lasted so long that it is now
>dying, it's time to do something - either vote or regroup. I don't think a
>vote is the right course of action at present since there are still
>substantial unresolved issues about the proposed group. So, it's time to take
>it to email.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jerry L. Miller /\ Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Ahh, Jerry, that's just your opinion (as you clearly labeled it!). Just
send in your vote like the rest of us civilians ;-}. 8-)
dan
--
<>< "Surrender the hunger to say you must know, |
<>< Have the courage to say I believe, ==+==
<>< For the power of paradox opens your eyes, |
<>< And blinds those who say they can see." -- Michael Card |
Bill Gripp
I would agree. The fact is that CCM is not so much music for music's
Art Mulder
>were musical -- choice of instruments, tempo, scansion, syncopation, etc. --
>then it would be a different type of music, and a candidate for a different
>subgroup under rec.music.
> It is precisely the fact that its difference from other contemporary music
>*is not a musical difference* that it does not belong as a category of music.
> Dave
[Please correct me if I am reading your message the wrong way.]
It appears to me that you are discounting vocals and lyrics as being
a component of the music. I believe that a lot of writers and singers
might take issue with that stance.
[By way of analogy...] Would you then also object to the creation
of a rec.music.instrumental since its only difference would be
one of lyrical/vocal content (or lack thereof) ?
[No flames intended]
--
-----------
Art Mulder, McMaster University a...@maccs.DCSS.mcmaster.ca
Hamilton, Ont, Canada ...!uunet!utai!utgpu!maccs!art
David F. Fordyce
Sorry if this is not the correct way to post. i usually only browse.
However, the tone of a couple of recent postings have gotten me incensed
enough to post.
In article <A0b3...@mwowm.mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk writes:
]In <24...@hydra.gatech.EDU>, Scott Coulter writes:
]]In article <DVR6y1...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
]]]sc...@kong.gatech.edu (Scott Coulter) writes:
]]]] What's going to be mainly discussed in the new group?
]]]] Christian religion? No. Christian music? Yup...
]]]] rec.music.christian it is, then...
]]]
]]]Spurious. The main subject of discussion in comp.sys.mac is the Mac, but that
]]]doesn't mean the newsgroup should really be called comp.mac.sys.
]]
]]Ah, but you're arguing for my side. The Mac is a kind of 'comp.sys,' hence
]]'comp.sys.mac.' Christian Music is a kind of 'rec.music,' hence
]]'rec.music.christian.' Makes perfect sense to me...
]
]But it ISN'T a kind of rec.music; Christian music isn't a musical genre, it's
]a medium of Christian expression.
]
Music is a medium of expression in general. It has the ability to convey mood
as well as meaning. Just because someone happens to be a Christian, he/she is
not allowed to make music?
]The difference between Christian music and other sorts of music is that the
]lyrics espouse a particular opinion. That is not a musical difference. All
]of the other rec.music subdivisions are divisions based on musical
]differences.
Oftentimes the lyrics espouse several differing opinions. There is such a
thing as "political correctness" in evangelical circles as well. People whose
messages go against the mainstream are often subjected to vicious attacks by
other intolerant people.
]]]Do you listen to Christian music because it sounds good, and then say "Hey,
]]]wow, it happens to be Christian as well"? Don't make me laugh.
]]
]]Yes, I do. I certainly don't listen to Christian music that doesn't
]]sound good!
]
]Sorry, but that's not the same thing. Of _course_ you wouldn't listen to it
]if it didn't sound good. What I was asking was: Do you listen to a piece of
]music, ignoring the message in the lyrics, and decide whether you like it
]purely because of the musical style -- and then and ONLY THEN notice that
]most of the music which you like the sound of JUST SO HAPPENS to have a
]Christian message?
Sometimes that happens. The Call is an example of a Christian group played
on a local commercial radio station here whose songs have excellent melody,
etc... and it was only later that i noticed that they were Christian in orien-
tation.
]If you say you do, well, I find it hard to believe. See, I disregard the
]content of the lyrics when listening to music for the first time; in fact, I
]listen to quite a bit of music with lyrics in German, Russian, and other
]languages which I don't speak. I find that as a result, the music I am
]interested in ranges over an incredibly wide spectrum of expressed opinions.
]From New Age religion and "Activation Meditation" by Steve Hillage to
]"Religious Vomit" by Dead Kennedys; from OMD's "Joan of Arc (Maid of
]Orleans)" to Negativland's "Christianity is Stupid"; from the Beach Boys'
]"God Only Knows" to Depeche Mode's "World Full of Nothing".
]
]Now, if all the rec.music.christian proponents were _really_ interested in
]music and not dogma, I would expect them to have similarly wide-ranging
]tastes (at least with regard to lyrical content, if not musical style). My
]complaint about rec.music.misc is that it _isn't_diverse_enough_!
Mine are. i usually listen to anything from blues to classical to punk music.
i don't actually listen to much ccm because, usually, it is much too bland for
me musically (especially the "praise" music. Kinda reminds one of Tapioca
pudding :-). However, i love old hymns, especially ones written by the Wesley
brothers.
]Instead, we see that the rec.music.christian folk aren't willing to use
]rec.music.misc. They aren't interested in anything which doesn't conform to
]their narrow mindset. They resent the intrusion of differing opinions. They
]want their own private newsgroup for people who think like them but who like
]all kinds of musical styles; no musical genre -- a rec.music.misc.christian,
]in fact.
Uh, i haven't seen that at all in postings to news.groups.
]Now, I think that's wrong. If you wanted a newsgroup for discussing a
]particular musical genre then I would have no trouble with the proposal; I
]have no intention of objecting to rec.music.funky or rec.music.rap, even
]though I can't bear (c)rap music. As it is, though, you want a newsgroup
]for people of a particular _religious_ opinion. You should therefore be
]honest about your motivations, and call it talk.religion.christian.music.
It is a proposal for discussing a particular musical genre. i do listen to
various types of ccm (at least once :-). i think the problem here is that you
(and Jerry Miller) are just opposed to the creation of this newsgroup in
general, and have posted previously with that intimation. There is no problem
in letting the proponents of the group have the group created. There have been
enough postings (IMNSHO) to warrant it. There have also been enough postings
in support of "rec.music.christian" as the name to make that one the name of
the proposed newsgroup. Objections to the group on the basis of its name are
more than a little silly.
]] I'm sorry if you find this hard to believe, but the biased
]]tone of your posting leads me to believe you probably haven't listened to
]]much Christian music.
]
]I haven't listened to much which calls itself Christian Music, no; because
]by and large its purpose is devotional, and I'm not a Christian. I also tend
]to find that the Christian music I've heard which seeks to convert is far
]too heavy-handed and generally nauseating, without the musical interest to
]make it compelling.
Some of it is used to send a message (pointing out hypocracy in the church is
one example) as well as commenting on the sorry state of the world at large
(tm).
]I do, however, listen to music which has a Christian or other theistic
]or religious message. I listen to such songs because they happen to be on
]albums which I have bought for their musical merit. If I restricted myself
]to music the message of which agreed with my own beliefs, I wouldn't have
]much to listen to.
]
]]]If that were
]]]really the case, Christian music would have a non-Christian following.
It does. The Call get regular airplay around here as well as U2, the Alarm and
some others.
]]I happen to think it should. People are missing out on some really
]]good music because of their anti-Christian biases.
]
]I have a rule when selecting music: I'll listen to anything once. Anyone who
]wants to try introducing me to some Christian music which actually has musical
]merit is welcome to do so; I'll even make it easy by giving you a list of the
]artists in my CD collection so that you can match up musical styles.
]
]In fact, anyone who wants to try to introduce me to ANY sort of music is
]welcome to do so. I'll even give (c)rap another chance.
ok. try Steve Taylor, Undercover, early U2, The Call, The Alarm.
]Well, the vote has started. We'll see if anyone else agrees with me.
i do about rap music.
>mathew
df
The above opinions are mine only.
"Dylan may be fillin' the puddle they designed. Is it gonna take a miracle to
make up his mind?" -- Steve Taylor, Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
Ronald E. Graham
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes...
>In article <1991Apr4.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
> eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes:
>>If you were really giving them the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Miller, you would
>>have taken several mailing list samples, instead of just "at one point." For
>>crying out loud, the first hundred articles in a new newsgroup are sometimes
>>unfocused and outside of the original charter of the group (I have seen this
>>myself), until the group settles in.
>I "sampled" at one point in time - that sample covered quite a long time and
>consisted of dozens of articles which, BTW, were not from early in the life of
>the mailing list. Your point is simply not valid.
Yeah it is. Today is still "early in the life of the mailing list." Now,
if you wanted to say, "the mailing list should be allowed time to mature
before a new group is formed," I would go along with that. But that's not
what you've been saying here. What you've been saying is, since r.m.c folks
will not post to r.m.m, they should form a talk group, if any group at all.
This is still doublethink.
>> This is the sort of behavior you see
>> from those few folks who have posted to news.groups on the subject, the ones
>> you use as evidence. Once they understand the nature of the charter, that
>> would take care of itself, for the most part.
>This is ludicrous. The time to understand a charter is *prior* to voting for or
>against a group - not after its creation. That's why we have a discussion
>period!!! I suspect that folks who post articles which are "unfocused and
>outside of the original charter of" a new group are people who are completely
>new to the group after its creation - not those who were involved in the
>pre-vote discussion.
This is *not* ludicrous, either. Since when have the majority of voters really
allowed themselves to understand a charter for *anything* during the CfD
period? The folks I mentioned that have been doing unfocused postings have
been doing them right here, in news.groups, and you brought them up, not me.
The postings have been of the "me too" nature, and you objected to those folks
purely based on the religious content of their postings, nothing else. You
have assumed that, because they make that mistake once, they will continue
to do it into perpetuity.
>> I have also been monitoring the mailing list for some time, and I find the
>> discussions raging there to be almost exclusively limited to music issues
>> (except for a few .sig files). I *am* giving these folks the "benefit of
>> the doubt."
>I have not seen every article. I did see what I am sure is a representative
>sample. I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that the discussion is
>limited to music. Period.
If you disagree with my conclusion, than I doubt the validity of your
observation. Period.
>>Side note on this point: who was going to create talk.religion.christian,
>>to serve as the "parent" group for mr. mathew's talk.religion.christian.
>>music? Not me, man. And I'll bet not you either.
>As evidenced by creation of narrowly focussed groups in other hierarchies, it
>is not necessary for such a parent group to exist. Usual, but not necessary.
It was necessary for "sci.engr.elec.pwrtrans," even according to you, if I
remember right. You'd vote no for this r.m.c no matter where it goes, I'd
be willing to bet.
>>The Usenet Guidelines for New Group Creation, which
>>you seem to study continually, state explicitly that these basic questions
>>are to be resolved *among the proponents* prior to conducting a vote. You
>>(and mr. mathew) are not among the proponents, never have been, never even
>>pretended to be. There is nothing in the Guidelines that states that Mr.
>>Cohen and the others have to wait even a single minute for your concurrence.
>If the voices of opponents are irrelevant during the discussion period, then
>why do we even have a discussion? For that matter, why do we even have a "no"
>category in the voting process?
That's a good question (the first one, that is). Maybe you should propose
that the Guidelines be changed to allow for *all* voices to decide on group
names. That would sure-as-heck extend a lot of CfD periods, though :-(.
It's my opinion that your naming convention was chosen by a minority. A
big minority. And the CfD period justly ended anyway, without your having
been satisfied.
And, regarding a straw poll for the name,
>>You're right: it is too bad that one of these was never conducted. I'll
>>have to remember that as a future tool myself.
>At last, something we agree on.
Sigh. How soon we forget. Because I disagree with you on this group, you
sound like I have never agreed with you, and never will. Shame on you.
RG
"At Parbar westward, four at the causeway and two at Parbar." I Chronicles
26:18, King James Version %-)
Eerke Boiten
>I was going to bypass this vote, or even vote NO -- I personally
>can't stomach what passes for contemporary "Christian" music.
[Ridicule of ccm deleted]
>HOWEVER, the anti-Christian bigotry that has been made evident here --
>all under the guise of "following the USENET guidelines" (the same
>guidelines which have been bent far more for other groups without so
>much as a whimper) -- has swayed me to vote YES. Let the anti-religious
>bigots find somewhere else to flame, and let the connoisseurs of insipid
>music discuss their favorite drivel in peace.
Since I argued against the name rec.music.christian earlier on, using
arguments similar to mathew's, I must be an anti-Christian bigot as
well. If I had been invented by Hofstadter, I'd have said "POOOOFFF" by
now. See, a Christian who is also an anti-Christian bigot ...
Of course, I shouldn't get so mad. There are so many paranoiacs who
occasionally need to show their high moral standards ...
Anyway, the name "rec.music.christian" is still wrong. Like probably many of
the other "anti-Christian bigots" in this discussion, I'd have no
problem with talk.religion.christian.music or rec.music.ccm. But I don't
suppose I could get that into the heads of people like this Tim McGuire.
Of course, I shouldn't get so mad. There are so many Christians who
would like to be martyrs ...
--
Eerke ("ayrker"? Who cares?)
I hope there's no more .signatures after this!
Lazlo Nibble
> No joke! There is a new age religion. It is based on many
> ideas found in eastern religions. It is connected to newage music (as
> far as I can tell) in that newage music is good to meditate by....
> but since I do not belong to the new age religion, I don't know too
> much about that.
And Christian people wonder why so many others treat them like idiots?
Pinhead.
Lazlo (la...@triton.unm.edu)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must disengage your recreational music.
A. Mattox Beckman
>gp...@cs.vu.nl (Gerben 'P' Vos) writes:
> Why? New Age music is bit more clearly defined as
> a musical genre than Contemporary Christian music.
> Or are you implying that newage is a religion?
> In that case, I guess I am member of the Church
> of Perpetual Jazz Solos.
> Oh! It was a joke...I get it. ha.
No joke! There is a new age religion. It is based on many
ideas found in eastern religions. It is connected to newage music (as
far as I can tell) in that newage music is good to meditate by....
but since I do not belong to the new age religion, I don't know too
much about that.
- Mattox
><> IXOYE
>mike
>--
>"Big banks have more money"
> - Eddie of Eddie Idle and the Idlers, originator of the phrase
> "I'll let my music speak for me"
>...!apple!mas1!rizzi /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ mas1!ri...@apple.com
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
for...@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (David F. Fordyce) writes:
[In reference to rec.music.christian]
[...]
>
> It is a proposal for discussing a particular musical genre. i do listen to
> various types of ccm (at least once :-). i think the problem here is that you
> (and Jerry Miller) are just opposed to the creation of this newsgroup in
> general, and have posted previously with that intimation.
Not true (at least for me). I was as willing to consider this group as any
other when the discussion first started. Events since then have convinced me
otherwise.
> There is no problem
> in letting the proponents of the group have the group created. There have been
> enough postings (IMNSHO) to warrant it. There have also been enough postings
> in support of "rec.music.christian" as the name to make that one the name of
> the proposed newsgroup. Objections to the group on the basis of its name are
> more than a little silly.
I beg to differ. The name should match the content of the group. It is apparent
to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion. Therefore, the group
does not belong in the rec.music hierarchy. When I scan rec.music groups, i
expect to see music articles, not religion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Miller /\ Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
David Weinstein
#now let's take a look at the rec.music greoups:
#rec.music.afro-latin music, the most important distinction is that it is afro
# and latin. from what mathew has said, presumably he would
# prefer to see somewhere like soc.culture.latin.music
#
#rec.music.newage music, the most important distinction is that the lyrics
# express a particular point of view
#
#Well, just two examples to support my argument. we already have newage as part of
#the rec.music hierarchy. now someone suggests a christian group and mathew says it
#has to go under talk.religion.music.christian, or some such. isn't that a bit
#inconsistent? christian music is just as much a subgroup of music as afro-latin
#or newage.
Uhmmmmm... These examples hurt your case. The important distinction in both
groups is one of musical genres, not lyrical content (there is almost never
*any* lyrical content in New Age music). Both newsgroups cover types of
music based upon the musical styles and techniques, not on the lyrical
content.
--Dave
--
Dave Weinstein Internet: dwei...@isis.cs.du.edu
Disclaimer: You aren't serious, are you? dwei...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be Light."
And there was still nothing. But, you could see it.
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes:
> In article <1991Apr4.0...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu>,
> mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes...
Well, I can see that we are never going to agree on this one.... we both have
seen "evidence" relevant to rec.music.christian and have come to opposite
conclusions regarding creation of the group. I will agree to disagree if you
will (after all, the vote is underway so the matter is now largely out of our
hands).
I do want to address one point though - that of my supposedly engaging
in "doublethink". It is true that my position re rec.music.christian has
evolved over time. At first, I was ambivalent - willing to be swayed either
way. Then, as the discussion cranked up, I became skeptical and asked for
more info (history of or present evidence of posts to rec.music.misc, the
officially sanctioned place for incipient rec.music groups). The proponents
argued they were not welcome in r.m.m and created a mailing list instead. I
thought, well ok - lets see how it goes. With continued articles from
proponents being posted to news.groups and to the mailing list, i began to
develop a feel for the type of subject matter the proponents wish to discuss.
My conclusion was that it was more religion-oriented than music-oriented; thus,
my decision to oppose the group. So, at no point in time was I "double
thinking". At present, if they were to propose a talk.religion.christian.music
or some such, i would support it without reservation because i believe such a
group i would be in the right hierarchy for the dominant subject matter.
>>As evidenced by creation of narrowly focussed groups in other hierarchies, it
>>is not necessary for such a parent group to exist. Usual, but not necessary.
>
> It was necessary for "sci.engr.elec.pwrtrans," even according to you, if I
> remember right.
Is this a joke? I don't recall anything about this group. i supported sci.engr
but haven't been involved in that part of the sci.hierarchy since. BTW, i led
the sci.geo.fluids drive when there was no extant sci.geo.
>>At last, something we agree on. [= straw poll]
>
> Sigh. How soon we forget. Because I disagree with you on this group, you
> sound like I have never agreed with you, and never will. Shame on you.
Sorry, i don't keep tabs on who has agreed or disagreed with me on past issues.
Yes, I recall discussing other issues with you ( that is, I recall your name
but not your positions) and will no doubt enjoy doing so again.
Regards,
Richard Caley
Com on guys!
The dreadful americanism `get a life' comes to mind. The only
interesting questions are
a) is there traffic
b) does the name say unambiguously what it is about.
c) is it a name someone would think of when wondering
where to post/read about X.
All this semantic hair splitting is pointless.
(I think it falls down on (a), there is no traffic which does not
fit better in another group and (b) since we can guarantee
arguments about what is `christian' music, but the name
question is trivial).
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk Test cases: My God by Jethro Tull
Spanish Train by Chris De Burgh
Planned Obsolescence by 10,000 Maniacs
Any Random piece of Bach
Ron Dippold
>If you disagree with my conclusion, than I doubt the validity of your
>observation. Period.
That pretty well sums up rec.music.christian, as well as alt.religion...
Aslan
>I beg to differ. The name should match the content of the group. It is apparent
>to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
>discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion. Therefore, the group
>does not belong in the rec.music hierarchy. When I scan rec.music groups, i
>expect to see music articles, not religion.
What mailing list have you been reading...?
I have yet to see any articles that are about apologetics or the trinity, or
any other discussion along those lines.....Instead, what I have seen
is a lot of messages concerning new releases, trivia, and the like....
If you were discussing REM, and the topic of politics came up and how REM
was trying to make its point, there would be no problem.....
But now that somebody wants to talk about music that has a Christian
content, it now belongs it soc.religion......
I don't mind a rational viewpoint towards the subject, if the person has
thought it through and has come to a valid conclusion, but let's drop
the double-standard. Intellectual arguments are wonderful, but unwarranted
bias is nothing to be proud of......
tim
----
--
engi...@buhub.bradley.edu
am...@cleveland.freenet.edu
<><
Aslan
>> I don't mind a rational viewpoint towards the subject, if the person has
>> thought it through and has come to a valid conclusion, but let's drop
>> the double-standard. Intellectual arguments are wonderful, but unwarranted
>> bias is nothing to be proud of......
>Ok, so now I have an irrational viewpoint because I happen to have reached a
>different conclusion from yours. And, of course, your conclusion is the only
>valid one. Give me a break!!!! And speaking of bias....better put your own
>house in order before accusing others.
I was not saying that your viewpoint is wrong......
If you read it again it says a valid conclusion, not necessarily my conclusion..
I respect your viewpoint, I just don't agree with judging mainstream music
newsgroups with different criteria than one with "religious" content...
After all we have a new age music newsgroup, and although new age music is
only loosely related to the religion, there's no problem there.....
I apologize if I angered you, I wasn't attacking you personally. I just
wanted to ask that we all try to remove our blinders from "both" sides
of the issue....
Nobody's perspective will ever be perfect, but we should all try to see
both sides of the issue.....
I can understand why many people would be against another "Christian" group
on the net, but philosophy aside, we should be looking at this by USENET
criteria......
If you still disagree with where the newsgroup should go, that's fine.
If I'm out of line, which is entirely possible, I apologize, I just happen to
not see a difference between a music group on jazz(r.m.bluenote), country
(r.m.country&western), or others, as compared to a music group on Christian
music....
There are several publications that deal with Christian music, and they all
treat it as one genre, not divided into traditional, contemporary, alternative,
etc..., etc.... CCM magazine, IM magazine, and the WORD cd and tape club,
to name a few.
Thanks,
tim
--
engi...@buhub.bradley.edu
am...@cleveland.freenet.edu
<><
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
> mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes:
>
>>I beg to differ. The name should match the content of the group. It is apparent
>>to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
>>discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion. Therefore, the group
>>does not belong in the rec.music hierarchy. When I scan rec.music groups, i
>>expect to see music articles, not religion.
>
> What mailing list have you been reading...?
articles posted here re formation of this group.
[...]
>
> But now that somebody wants to talk about music that has a Christian
> content, it now belongs it soc.religion......
I simply feel that I have seen and heard enough evidence to the contrary that
I should oppose this group.
>
> I don't mind a rational viewpoint towards the subject, if the person has
> thought it through and has come to a valid conclusion, but let's drop
> the double-standard. Intellectual arguments are wonderful, but unwarranted
> bias is nothing to be proud of......
Ok, so now I have an irrational viewpoint because I happen to have reached a
different conclusion from yours. And, of course, your conclusion is the only
valid one. Give me a break!!!! And speaking of bias....better put your own
house in order before accusing others.
Ronald E. Graham
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes...
>In article <1991Apr5.0...@bradley.bradley.edu>,
> engi...@buhub.bradley.edu (Aslan) writes:
>> What mailing list have you been reading...?
>I have read a random sampling of the same one you refer to, plus the
>articles posted here re formation of this group.
>> But now that somebody wants to talk about music that has a Christian
>> content, it now belongs it soc.religion......
>If the focus were on *music* then I'd have no problem with the proposed group.
>I simply feel that I have seen and heard enough evidence to the contrary that
>I should oppose this group.
>> I don't mind a rational viewpoint towards the subject, if the person has
>> thought it through and has come to a valid conclusion, but let's drop
>> the double-standard. Intellectual arguments are wonderful, but unwarranted
>> bias is nothing to be proud of......
>Ok, so now I have an irrational viewpoint because I happen to have reached a
>different conclusion from yours. And, of course, your conclusion is the only
>valid one. Give me a break!!!! And speaking of bias....better put your own
>house in order before accusing others.
Now I'm on your side, Mr. Miller. (See ;-)?) Although we came to differing
conclusions on the newsgroup itself, I can't accuse you of not taking a look
at the issues involved. And I'm not certain how anyone else can, either. And
the charge of "unwarranted bias" leveled against you here is IMPO itself
unwarranted. (And, I might add, a very good way to swing votes the other way.)
Hmmm. Too many sentences starting with "and" here. Hurry up, misc.writing,
I need the help %-)!!!
RG
"Vive le sous-vetements qu'on puisse manger." The slogan adopted by our
fraternity the day after our weekly Bible study was interrupted by a visit
from an unsuspecting salesman of "edible underwear." Pardon our French ;-).
Ronald E. Graham
rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes...
If you take a single statement conveniently out of context, as you have
done here. You had a notion of r.m.c going into this discussion, and you
took two lines out of a 90-line posting, out of a discussion that consisted
of about 10-12 postings, and use that to make your case. Nice going.
RG
"You don't do your homework, you don't got a ticket to watch the show."
- Edward James Olmos, as Jaime Escalante, in "Stand and Deliver"
SUSAN HARBOUR
>>Could someone remove rec.music.newage? Thank you.
>
> Why? New Age music is bit more clearly defined as
> a musical genre than Contemporary Christian music.
>
> Or are you implying that newage is a religion?
I'm sure to get flamed for this...but, many Christians feel that
the "new age" movement, (which has a lot of links to various
occultic practices) is, in fact, a "religion".
I guess I also question the statement that newage music
is a more clearly defined musical genre.
S
Ron Dippold
>In article <1991Apr4.2...@qualcomm.com>,
> rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes...
>>In article <1991Apr4.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
> eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>>>If you disagree with my conclusion, than I doubt the validity of your
>>>observation. Period.
>
>>That pretty well sums up rec.music.christian, as well as alt.religion...
>
>If you take a single statement conveniently out of context, as you have
>done here. You had a notion of r.m.c going into this discussion, and you
>took two lines out of a 90-line posting, out of a discussion that consisted
>of about 10-12 postings, and use that to make your case. Nice going.
I checked the context before slashing. He said his observations led him to
disagree with your conclusion, and you replied with the above. What other
context is there? The rest of your arguments were perhaps valid, but none
were really related to this one stupid statement. Now I know why some people
quote the whole post instead of saving bandwidth...
Face it, your statement is a perfect summation of religion (of any sort, not
picking on Christians here), which is why I thought it worth requoting.
Oh yes, are we to infer from your post that you don't have a notion of r.m.c,
that you're completely unbiased?
David Datta
>>>Could someone remove rec.music.newage? Thank you.
PLEASE! Just another mis-named group... too late now tho.
>> Why? New Age music is bit more clearly defined as
>> a musical genre than Contemporary Christian music.
>> Or are you implying that newage is a religion?
> I'm sure to get flamed for this...but, many Christians feel that
> the "new age" movement, (which has a lot of links to various
> occultic practices) is, in fact, a "religion".
The "new age" movement IS a religion. BUT I found my copy of that
'newage' artist Kerry Livgren's "One of Several Possible Musiks' in a
Christian bookstore! {As for the () stuff, Christianity is a cult
too... [flames on this subject gleefully ignored so don't bother
posting them, you can mail me but I'll ignore that too]}
> I guess I also question the statement that newage music
> is a more clearly defined musical genre.
>S
Agreed, New Age religion is a religion, New Age Music is a marketing
term.
What is being termed "new age" music is SOMETIMES related to the
religious "new age" beliefs. About 90% of the musicians that are being
stuck into this vague category have publically stated the equivelent of
"I am not a newage musician" (I happen to listen to many musicians who
have had the bad fortune to fit into the "it isn't rock, it isn't
vocal, it isn't *, so let's put it in the NEWAGE bin") THAT is what
so-called 'new-age-music' is. "mostly instrumental music that doesn't
fit anywhere else."
I HATE 'newage' music. I hate 'pop' music, I hate 'industrial'... I
hate categorizations of music. I don't CARE what you label "your"
music, I like some songs/pieces & not others.
Is 'The Sisters of Mercy' Christian? I dunno, sounds good to me!
Is 'Kansas' Christian? NAH!
(buckets of water on hand...)
--
-Dave da...@vacs.uwp.edu [....uwm!uwpvacs!datta] The moon goes around in
orbit. It's the only place the moon does go. The moon only makes left
turns. To get anywhere else you have to get off. WANT TO GET OFF?
mathew
> [...In response to a prior posting...]
> In article <8...@saxony.pa.reuter.COM> dg...@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) write
> >then it would be a different type of music, and a candidate for a different
> >subgroup under rec.music.
>
> It appears to me that you are discounting vocals and lyrics as being
> a component of the music. I believe that a lot of writers and singers
> might take issue with that stance.
No, you're still missing the point. The presence or absence of vocals is a
musical difference. Whether those vocals espouse a particular opinion is NOT
a musical difference.
Rec.music.christian is wrong because the thing which distinguishes "Christian
music" from other forms of music is that the vocals express a particular
religious viewpoint. That is not a musical distinction.
Rec.music.democrat or rec.music.feminist would be wrong for exactly the same
reason.
mathew
--
"These kinds of remarks are wholly inappropriate and are the mark of a
bigot." -- Theodore A. Kaldis <kal...@remus.rutgers.edu>
Steve Sanford
>In article <17...@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>,
> for...@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (David F. Fordyce) writes:
>[In reference to rec.music.christian]
>>
>
>I beg to differ. The name should match the content of the group. It is apparent
>to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
>discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion.
When the CFV was posted, a list of the discussion topics of the proposed newsgroup
was given. (I've included that list below.) That list makes it clear that
religion should only be a topic when in conjunction with Christian music and/or
artists. If it isn't the primary focus of a discussion thread, I wouldn't call
it the fault of the newsgroup name.
>When I scan rec.music groups, i expect to see music articles, not religion.
I'd hope you WOULD... I haven't had the opportunity to listen in on mailing
lists like some of you, but if their primary focus of discussion wasn't
Christian music, then I'd HOPE they wouldn't post their discussions in a group
about Christian music.
If the group is created, I am pretty sure that some articles with a "religious"
bent will show up; it is CHRISTIAN music we're talking about. However, if people
start posting whole threads along that line, they will be directed to
soc.religion.christian.
it, because I am interested in discussing contemporary Christian music as listed
in the CFV posting; If the name were, say, "talk.religion.christian.music", which
implies talking about religion with an emphasis on music, I wouldn't even
subscribe. I'm sure the majority of proponents have the same intention for this
group (don't they?).
[FROM ORIGINAL CALL FOR VOTE POSTING:]
* Subject matter:
* 1. primarily contemporary christian music, and its
* a. artists
* b. concerts
* c. books, magazines, TV and radio shows and other mass media which
* cover ccm including its music videos and the shows they are
* carried on
* d. affect on secular music, media, and worship
* 2. and not excluding any christian music not considered contemporary,such as:
* a. traditional christian music such as hymns, etc.
* b. heavy metal, rock, pop, inspirational, etc.
* c. Hosanna-type worship, etc.
* 3. but excluding subjects such as
* a. politics
* b. abortion
* c. discussions about christian doctrine
* except as they relate to specific artists and songs. All
* threads that diverge to these subjects should be cross-posted
* to the appropriate group (talk.abortion,
* soc.religion.christian, etc.).
>Jerry L. Miller
Jerry, would you agree to the group if it actually acted as described above?
That's the group I voted for (and expect to help populate) if it starts up.
--------------------
Steve Sanford Jr.
stesan%auto...@sunpeaks.Central.Sun.COM
Ronald E. Graham
rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes...
>In article <1991Apr5.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>>If you take a single statement conveniently out of context, as you have
>>done here. You had a notion of r.m.c going into this discussion, and you
>>took two lines out of a 90-line posting, out of a discussion that consisted
>>of about 10-12 postings, and use that to make your case. Nice going.
>I checked the context before slashing. He said his observations led him to
>disagree with your conclusion, and you replied with the above. What other
>context is there? The rest of your arguments were perhaps valid, but none
>were really related to this one stupid statement. Now I know why some people
>quote the whole post instead of saving bandwidth...
The rest of my arguments were perhaps valid? Hmph. This tells me you did
not look at the context in the least. You have decided one statement was
stupid. Let me tell you something: I was responding in kind. That's all.
Kind of like what I'm doing now. If you are willing to concede that any of
my previous arguments may have had validity, then you have no reason to
blow up at one statement. Unless, of course, you have been waiting for an
excuse to grind an axe at religion, as you do here:
>Face it, your statement is a perfect summation of religion (of any sort, not
>picking on Christians here), which is why I thought it worth requoting.
>Oh yes, are we to infer from your post that you don't have a notion of r.m.c,
>that you're completely unbiased?
I don't lump the world's masses into two lines, so I must be a half-game or
so ahead of *you* in the un-bias standings. But I digress. I think the
notion of r.m.c is valid, and I think its potential readership has been
adequately represented here, and in its mailing list. If you dispute this,
bring your evidence to the table, and leave your accusations at home.
RG
Danny Breidenbach
>vocal, it isn't *, so let's put it in the NEWAGE bin") THAT is what
>so-called 'new-age-music' is. "mostly instrumental music that doesn't
>fit anywhere else."
>I HATE 'newage' music. I hate 'pop' music, I hate 'industrial'... I
>hate categorizations of music. I don't CARE what you label "your"
>music, I like some songs/pieces & not others.
I am of this view as well -- I almost evy those who aren't -- they should
have no trouble finding the music they like. Those of us who may
actually be eclectics don't know what to look for.
Serching through the new-age bin, there is a wide variety of styles and sounds,
all I can go by is hearing recordings by an artist and reading the
cover. The former is little help as more and more info is being put inside
the package and less and less on the box/cover.
This is not something I lose sleep over -- just a mild annoyance.
Perfume of a Critic's Burning Flesh
> is a more clearly defined musical genre.
When I go to the record store, I can pick out a new age
record just by the cover art. Betcha can't do that with
Contemporary Christian Music. Hence, newage is more
clearly defined. QED.
:-) for the humor impaired.
mike
--
"The FCC does not prohibit humor on public radio (although sometimes you
wouldn't know it)."
- The Public Radio Legal Handbook, pp. III-14
...!apple!mas1!rizzi /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ mas1!ri...@apple.com
Tony Chung
> a) is there traffic
I'm almost positive there would be, from my personal correspondence
with others on the net. While I do not profess to be a Christian,
I do like some groups that play "contemporary Christian" music, and
have noticed that I am not alone. The only reason why you won't
see any articles on Petra, Crumbacher, Amy Grant, or Michael W. Smith
in rec.music.misc is because the people who listen to that stuff have
better things to do than dispute the integrity of Rush.
> b) does the name say unambiguously what it is about.
Well, you've to your rec.music, so my guess is it's about music of
some sort. Then it's followed by this "ambiguous" word, "Christian".
Hmmm... Maybe it's a group to discuss different brands of coffee. :-)
> c) is it a name someone would think of when wondering
> where to post/read about X.
In this group I think people would know what to expect. You won't
read a posting about Depeche Mode, then have the next article discuss
the last Megadeth concert.
>All this semantic hair splitting is pointless.
>
>(I think it falls down on (a), there is no traffic which does not
> fit better in another group and (b) since we can guarantee
> arguments about what is `christian' music, but the name
> question is trivial).
I was confused at the slant of this post. It sounds pretty positive
to me. Oh, know! My follow-up shares the "NO" heading! Aggggh.
l8r
-Tony
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
"If you drive, don't drink." -- Tony Chung
quay...@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca quay...@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca
Peter da Silva
> a) is there traffic
> (I think it falls down on (a), there is no traffic which does not
> fit better in another group
Traffic in mailing lists count. In fact it's the cost of mailing lists
that led to the "100 vote minimum" rule in the first place.
--
(pe...@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
`-_-'
'U`
Steve Elliott
>to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
>discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion. Therefore, the group
>does not belong in the rec.music hierarchy. When I scan rec.music groups, i
>expect to see music articles, not religion.
So, what have you read in this discussion, Jerry? I support the creation of the group.
I wnat to be able to ask things like when a group's next release is due, when a certain
band are going to be touring, who was doing the backing vocals on a track. Is that musical
enough for you?
Steve Elliott
s...@uk.ac.lancs.comp
Department of Computing, Engineering Building,
University of Lancaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK
PHONE: +44 524 65201 ext 3783.
--
s...@uk.ac.lancs.comp
Department of Computing, Engineering Building,
University of Lancaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK
PHONE: +44 524 65201 ext 3783.
dac...@prl.philips.nl
>mat...@mwowm.mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
[about rec.music.christian]
>>It is no more sensible than rec.music.objectivist, rec.music.vegetarian or
>>rec.music.left-handed. Christianity is not a musical genre, it's a religion.
>
>Could someone remove rec.music.newage? Thank you.
"New age" music is a perfectly good musical genre, comprising anything that is
instrumental, soft, tedious and repetitive :-). I doubt that you could define
"christian" music (with a small c) in the same way.
The label "new age" was initially used as a promotional device, and IMHO it had
a most devastating effect on the musicians to whom it was applied (some of whom
I even liked :-( ). But now it's history, anyway.
Paulo da Costa
dac...@prl.philips.nl
Leo Wierzbowski
vocals express a particular religious viewpoint. That is not a musical distinction."
The BMG compact disc catalog acknowleges a musical distinction with the
"sacred/inspirational" category. So do the local record/tape/cd stores.
Seems Mathew needs to educate the music retailing industry and the buying
public about the absolute truth he's discovered in musical distinctions.
I say let the usenet serve the needs of the users, in the way they are
used to finding info. Rec.music.christian is a user-friendly name and
categorization. It maps quite naturally to where sacred/inspirational
music buyers find their music in the real world.
Sincerely,
Leo
Janne Olavi Salmi
The "new age" movement IS a religion. BUT I found my copy of that
'newage' artist Kerry Livgren's "One of Several Possible Musiks' in a
Christian bookstore! {As for the () stuff, Christianity is a cult
Kerry Livgren is a Christian nowadays, that's probably why. His new
group AD has some real good songs.
Is 'Kansas' Christian? NAH!
No, but Livgren says that "Dust In The Wind" has probably made more
people think about godly things than most of his Christian songs.
--
**************************************************************************
* Janne Salmi / "Money, I need more money, just a *
* / little more money, yeah, I need more *
* Email:jan...@niksula.hut.fi / money" -Extreme *
**************************************************************************
Richard Caley
tc> In this group I think people would know what to expect. You won't
tc> read a posting about Depeche Mode, then have the next article discuss
tc> the last Megadeth concert.
Sad.
tc> I was confused at the slant of this post. It sounds pretty positive
tc> to me. Oh, know! My follow-up shares the "NO" heading! Aggggh.
So did mine. Paint me abstaining, with a slight hint of no just
because I think music belongs in rec.music.misc.
Also 'cos it will be a hell of a flame fest every time anyone posts
something which others think gets the doctrine wrong.
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk All you've got to do is pray,
And furnish his house with silver.
- Danielle Dax `Big Hollow Man'.
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
[...]
> [FROM ORIGINAL CALL FOR VOTE POSTING:]
> * Subject matter:
> * 1. primarily contemporary christian music, and its
> * a. artists
> * b. concerts
> * c. books, magazines, TV and radio shows and other mass media which
> * cover ccm including its music videos and the shows they are
> * carried on
> * d. affect on secular music, media, and worship
> * 2. and not excluding any christian music not considered contemporary,such as:
> * a. traditional christian music such as hymns, etc.
> * b. heavy metal, rock, pop, inspirational, etc.
> * c. Hosanna-type worship, etc.
> * 3. but excluding subjects such as
> * a. politics
> * b. abortion
> * c. discussions about christian doctrine
> * except as they relate to specific artists and songs. All
> * threads that diverge to these subjects should be cross-posted
> * to the appropriate group (talk.abortion,
> * soc.religion.christian, etc.).
>
>
> That's the group I voted for (and expect to help populate) if it starts up.
After following this thread and seeing some of the mailing list articles, I
have concluded that the restrictions indicated in number 3 above are not and
most likely will not be adhered to. Thus, I oppose creation of the group as
proposed. If I thought there was a good chance that the above charter would
work as advertised, then I would not oppose the group. As it stands though,
the group should be in a different hierarchy.
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
[...]
> All this semantic hair splitting is pointless.
>
> (I think it falls down on (a), there is no traffic which does not
> fit better in another group and (b) since we can guarantee
> arguments about what is `christian' music, but the name
> question is trivial).
Yes, perhaps there has been too much talk about the name per se. The important
thing is that the group be properly placed in the hierarchy according to the
*content* of the group. Secondarily, the specific name chosen should reflect
that content. The problem as I see it is that the content (of the extant
mailing list) does not and most likely (if or when the newsgroup is created)
will not conform to the stated charter. The content which I believe will emerge
is more appropriate to the talk or soc hierarchies so the group should be
called soc.something or talk.something - and that's where the question of name
comes in.
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
> In article <1991Apr4.1...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu> mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes:
>>I beg to differ. The name should match the content of the group. It is apparent
>>to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
>>discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion. Therefore, the group
>>does not belong in the rec.music hierarchy. When I scan rec.music groups, i
>>expect to see music articles, not religion.
>
> So, what have you read in this discussion, Jerry? I support the creation of the group.
> I wnat to be able to ask things like when a group's next release is due, when a certain
> band are going to be touring, who was doing the backing vocals on a track. Is that musical
> enough for you?
It certainly is.... sounds like exactly what the rec.music hierarchy is
intended for. However, from what I have seen in articles posted here by
proponents (mostly early in the discussion period) and on the mailing list, I
have concluded that most proponents want a place to talk about "how to save
more souls via the ministry of music" or some such rather than the sort of
music topics you are apparently interested in.
If the group passes, i hope folks like yourself dominate.
Ron Dippold
>In article <1991Apr5.2...@qualcomm.com>,
> rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes...
>
>>disagree with your conclusion, and you replied with the above. What other
>>context is there? The rest of your arguments were perhaps valid, but none
>>were really related to this one stupid statement. Now I know why some people
>>quote the whole post instead of saving bandwidth...
>
>The rest of my arguments were perhaps valid? Hmph. This tells me you did
>not look at the context in the least. You have decided one statement was
Yes, I just jumped to those lines without reading the rest of the message...
Get a clue.
>Kind of like what I'm doing now. If you are willing to concede that any of
>my previous arguments may have had validity, then you have no reason to
>blow up at one statement. Unless, of course, you have been waiting for an
This is not true at all. It is entirely possible to have valid arguments and
then make one really stupid statement, which is what I singled out. In fact,
it's a lot like the statement you just made. You set up a straw man, then
knock it down, then claim that something "must" be true. "If your dispute
my conclusions then your observations must be wrong" and "If the rest of my
statements had some validity then all of them had some validity" are similarly
illogical.
>so ahead of *you* in the un-bias standings. But I digress. I think the
>notion of r.m.c is valid, and I think its potential readership has been
>adequately represented here, and in its mailing list. If you dispute this,
>bring your evidence to the table, and leave your accusations at home.
Coming from an accusation-monger, that's a bit hypocritical. I accuse, but
I'll admit it and not pretend that I'm just being "objective."
David F. Fordyce
][...]
]]
]] It is a proposal for discussing a particular musical genre. i do listen to
]] various types of ccm (at least once :-). i think the problem here is that you
]] (and Jerry Miller) are just opposed to the creation of this newsgroup in
]] general, and have posted previously with that intimation.
]
]Not true (at least for me). I was as willing to consider this group as any
]other when the discussion first started. Events since then have convinced me
]otherwise.
]
]] There is no problem
]] in letting the proponents of the group have the group created. There have been
]] enough postings (IMNSHO) to warrant it. There have also been enough postings
]] in support of "rec.music.christian" as the name to make that one the name of
]] the proposed newsgroup. Objections to the group on the basis of its name are
]I beg to differ. The name should match the content of the group. It is apparent
]to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
]discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion. Therefore, the group
]does not belong in the rec.music hierarchy. When I scan rec.music groups, i
]expect to see music articles, not religion.
I think that (at least as far as news.groups is concerned) the subject is
music, not Christianity. One needs to examine why he would use the group. In
my own case, it would be to find out about ccm performed to a particular sub-
style, (e.g. rock, new wave, classical, etc...) i think this list would serve
that purpose. i do not think that r.m.c. should be used for discussing Christ-
ian issues as its main point (however i'm sure that will enter into at least
some of the discussions). In general, i'm not terribly interested in deep
theological discussions about whatever ** IN THIS FORUM **. Other forums are
more appropriate for those types of discussions. On this point i think
Mr. Miller and myself are agreed.
On another note: for a purely selfish reason, i would prefer this to
be created as a rec group, not as a soc or a talk group. Here, we do not get
those groups that begin with soc, talk, alt, or misc. If the group is created
as a rec group, at least we have some chance of receiving articles posted
to it.
To Mr. Miller, You mentioned a mailing list. to what do you refer?
(that is how do you get on it?) Please e-mail me about it.
Regards,
df
mathew
> >talk.religion.christian.music.
> [...]
> >It is no more sensible than rec.music.objectivist, rec.music.vegetarian or
> >rec.music.left-handed. Christianity is not a musical genre, it's a religion.
>
> Could someone remove rec.music.newage? Thank you.
I'll second that. "Newage" is a truly obnoxious term for the music which is
discussed there. Music which, by and large, has nothing to do with New Age
religion.
mathew
--
If you're a John Foxx fan, please mail me!
mathew
> I wrote:
> > There. You admit it. It is the fact that the lyrics EXPRESS A PARTICULAR
> > POINT OF VIEW which is the most important difference. That is NOT a musical
> > difference, so rec.music.christian would not fit in with the rest of the
> > rec.music hierarchy.
> > It is no more sensible than rec.music.objectivist, rec.music.vegetarian or
> > rec.music.left-handed.
>
Is "Beatles" a particular point of view? Nope.
> rec.music.dylan
Did Bob Dylan only write songs expressing a particular point of view? Maybe,
but he's no more guilty of that than any other solo artist.
Compact discs are a particular point of view?
> rec.music.gdead
Possibly a loosely-defined set of philosophies there, but not a single point
of view.
> rec.music.makers...
Nope, still nothing to compare.
> ...rec.music seems to have been given the broader area
> of discussing things related with music/specific musicians/people who play
> or produce or whatever music.
Yes, but the key difference is that the subdivision is on musical grounds --
either categorized by the sound of the music, or by the specific group of
artists involved -- and NOT by the specific set of religious or political
opinions which said artists happen to share.
"beatles", "dylan" and "gdead" are subdivisions by the name of the performing
artists. "cd" is a subdivision by the acoustic quality of the recording.
"makers" is perhaps the closest to what you are proposing; it's a subdivision
according to whether those posting have an interest in creating music rather
than simply listening to it. However, that's a subdivision by interest in a
particular musical difference, not a subdivision by interest in a particular
religious viewpoint.
I really can't understand why the Christian Music fans are finding this so
hard to comprehend.
mathew
> Get real. Exactly how can you guys say the Christian music subject matter
> belongs in talk.religion.etc.etc. on the one hand, while accusing the
> proponents of neglecting rec.music.misc on the other? This is doublethink.
> If Christian music postings belong in rec.music.misc, then a new Christian
> music group (if voted in) belongs in the rec.music hierarchy as well.
We are saying:
(1) The discussion belongs in talk.religion.*
(2) If you disagree and insist on placing it under rec.music.*, then post it
to rec.music.misc with a suitable Subject: field.
No doublethink. Just covering all the possibilities.
> If he should have conducted a straw poll regarding the name
> prior to the CfV, that's another thing. Your opinion would have been in the
> minority in such a straw poll, however, IMPO.
That doesn't excuse not carrying out a straw poll.
mathew
> In article <A0b3...@mwowm.mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk writes:
> >It is no more sensible than rec.music.objectivist, rec.music.vegetarian or
> >rec.music.left-handed.
>
Three possible responses:
(1) I don't see any Christian radio stations around.
(2) I do see lots of 24-hour news stations around. Shall we have a
rec.music.24-hour-news?
(3) The existence of a radio station dedicated to the expression of a
particular set of opinions within pieces of music does not make the
presence of those opinions a musical difference.
> As far as I know there is a consensus: r.m.christian.
As far as I know, that is only the concensus amongst Christians who are in
favour of the group, and they are hardly likely to be unbiased on the matter.
mathew
> In article <A0b3...@mwowm.mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk writes:
> >POINT OF VIEW which is the most important difference. That is NOT a musical
> >difference, so rec.music.christian would not fit in with the rest of the
> >rec.music hierarchy.
>
> rec.music.afro-latin music, the most important distinction is that it is
> and latin. from what mathew has said, presumably he would
> prefer to see somewhere like soc.culture.latin.music
Yes. Spot on. Assuming, that is, that your assertion is correct; I've not
actually read that group.
I have a sneaking suspicion that discussion of music in an Afro-Latin style
by, say, David Byrne, would be quite welcome in the newsgroup; and that
"Afro-Latin" is therefore really a musical-style-based distinction rather
than a racial one, in spite of first appearances.
> rec.music.newage music, the most important distinction is that the ly
> express a particular point of view
WHAT?!?!?!
Have you ever actually read any of rec.music.newage? What the hell point of
view does "Tangerine Dream" express? What's the religious opinion behind a
group like "Startled Insects"? Is Brian Eno secretly into crystal healing?
For Eris' sakes, most "new age" music doesn't even have vocals, let alone
express a particular point of view!
> Well, just two examples to support my argument. we already have newage as par
> the rec.music hierarchy. now someone suggests a christian group and mathew sa
> has to go under talk.religion.music.christian, or some such. isn't that a bit
> inconsistent?
Not if you have the essential clue that "new age" in a religious context is
almost completely unrelated to "new age" in a musical context.
Please obtain a clue, then try again.
mathew
> to serve as the "parent" group for mr. mathew's talk.religion.christian.music
> Not me, man. And I'll bet not you either.
Make it soc.religion.christian.music, then.
mathew
[ Not "Mr" ]
Jay Maynard
>because I think music belongs in rec.music.misc.
You just convinced me to vote YES.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Religious flames over judgement calls are contraindicated."
-- Peter da Silva
mathew
> In article <RJC.91Ap...@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard
>
> I'm almost positive there would be, from my personal correspondence
> with others on the net.
So D E M O N S T R A T E that there would be traffic. Post to
rec.music.misc. That's what it's there for. If it doesn't belong in
rec.music.misc, it doesn't belong in rec.music.*.
> The only reason why you won't
> see any articles on Petra, Crumbacher, Amy Grant, or Michael W. Smith
> in rec.music.misc is because the people who listen to that stuff have
> better things to do than dispute the integrity of Rush.
I've never found myself forced to talk about Rush, or even read about them,
in spite of posting to rec.music.misc. And I don't even have a killfile.
> > c) is it a name someone would think of when wondering
> > where to post/read about X.
>
> In this group I think people would know what to expect. You won't
> read a posting about Depeche Mode, then have the next article discuss
> the last Megadeth concert.
If you're saying that Depeche Mode doesn't belong in a discussion of
Christianity in music, then there speaks the person who hasn't listened to
much Depeche Mode, I suspect. Try "Sacred" on "Music for the Masses", and
then try telling me it doesn't belong. Try "Blasphemous Rumours" on "Some
Great Reward" -- that's pretty relevant to discussion of Christianity. Or
even "Personal Jesus" from "Violator".
If you're saying that Depeche Mode does belong, but you don't want to find
yourself reading Megadeth postings -- well, don't you know how to get a
listing of the Subject: lines?
mathew
Ronald E. Graham
Do they really need an excuse? A straw poll (which I agree would have been
A Good Thing [tm]) is not explicitly required by the Usenet Guidelines for
New Group Creation. Once again, we get back to the fact that the *proponents*
agreed about where their new group belonged, or at least, they felt they did.
And what the *proponents* want is all that the Guidelines require.
RG
PS - what style of music is John Foxx? I feel so underinformed... :-(
Ronald E. Graham
>"makers" is perhaps the closest to what you are proposing; it's a subdivision
>according to whether those posting have an interest in creating music rather
>than simply listening to it. However, that's a subdivision by interest in a
>particular musical difference, not a subdivision by interest in a particular
>religious viewpoint.
>I really can't understand why the Christian Music fans are finding this so
>hard to comprehend.
I have an idea for this one: the rec.music hierarchy does not explicitly state
that it must be divided according to musical differences alone.
Here is a second idea: most listeners of Christian music (and I freely admit,
they are likely to share a religious viewpoint) are listening to it for - now
get this - recreation! What a novel concept! They are not IMPO trying to
proselytize (sp?) the world by listening to the music. Hmph. Probably A
Good Thing [tm], too. Because if they were, they'd fail.
RG
Ronald E. Graham
rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes...
>In article <1991Apr6.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>Get a clue.
Well, since you insist. With you, I do have to look for clues.
>>Kind of like what I'm doing now. If you are willing to concede that any of
>>my previous arguments may have had validity, then you have no reason to
>>blow up at one statement.
>This is not true at all. It is entirely possible to have valid arguments and
>then make one really stupid statement, which is what I singled out. In fact,
>it's a lot like the statement you just made. You set up a straw man, then
>knock it down, then claim that something "must" be true. "If your dispute
>my conclusions then your observations must be wrong" and "If the rest of my
>statements had some validity then all of them had some validity" are similarly
>illogical.
Let's go back to that one single statement just for a moment.
***************************************************************************
In article <1991Apr4.0...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu>,
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes...
>In article <1991Apr4.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
> eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes:
>I have not seen every article. I did see what I am sure is a representative
>sample. I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that the discussion is
>limited to music. Period.
If you disagree with my conclusion, than I doubt the validity of your
observation. Period.
***************************************************************************
Questions:
(1) Why do you not flame Jerry Miller for his original statement? Isn't
his constructed the same as mine? Or could it be that you agree with
him, and therefore, he can stick in a "Period." where he wants?
(2) You follow this up with
In article <1991Apr4.2...@qualcomm.com>, you write...
>That pretty well sums up rec.music.christian, as well as alt.religion...
Does that mean I am using religious arguments to justify r.m.c? If
this is what you think (and think carefully about this one), could you
please show me where these religious arguments took place?
(3) You ultimately said
>Coming from an accusation-monger, that's a bit hypocritical. I accuse, but
>I'll admit it and not pretend that I'm just being "objective."
Does this mean I am using accusations to justify r.m.c? If this is what
you think (and think carefully about this one, too), could you please
show me where these accusations took place? Before you start, let me
repeat what I accused you of, so you won't start there. I doubt the
validity of Jerry Miller's observation of the r.m.c mailing list. This
does not mean I think he lied. I think his sample size was too small,
and was taken over too short a period, to be used as evidence that r.m.c
proponents will not talk about music. You said (a) this statement was
stupid, and (b) that all religion is pretty much this way.
Statement (b) simply does not "belong" in news.groups. They have "talk.
religion.misc" for that. Statement (a) is your interpretation. Funny,
though, that Jerry didn't get a jab, too.
"Accusation-monger." Hmph. As Bugs Bunny sez, "He don't know me vewy well,
do he?"
RG
"You don't do your homework, you don't got a ticket to watch the show."
- Edward James Olmos, as Jaime Escalante, in "Stand and Deliver"
Gerben 'P' Vos
>I really can't understand why the Christian Music fans are finding this so
>hard to comprehend.
I (think i) understand you, but still i don't agree.
Actually, i wonder where the law has been written down that groups in the
rec.music hierarchy must be subdivided by musical differences and may not be
characterized by differences in religious opinion, the medium on which the
music is carried (r.m.cd), music making instead of only listening (r.m.makers)?
OK, r.m.newage was a bad example of mine, since i now know that new age music
has only marginally to do with the religion/philosophy/whatever of the same
name; but nowhere as far as i know is there a hard and fast rule as to how
groups in the rec.music (or any other) hierarchy should be subdivided.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G e r b e n V o s <><
Aconet: BIGBEN!Gerben Vos Internet: gp...@cs.vu.nl
00bwan...@bsu-ucs.uucp
> I was going to bypass this vote, or even vote NO -- I personally
> can't stomach what passes for contemporary "Christian" music. (The
> music is pedestrian, the lyrics elevate the experiential far above
> sound doctrine -- I could go on, but I'm trying to keep my blood
> pressure down. A simple comparison of the content of any hymn by
> Charles Wesley with any "contempory Christian" work will suffice to
> convince most people of the shallowness of the latter.)
I beg your pardon, but not all Christian artists pander to the material world,
writing "shallow" music. I will admit that these people are usually swept
under the rug, so to speak, because they "come on too strong." Petra once
refused a deal with A&M, because they (A&M) wanted Petra to water down the
message.
One stigma that many Christians face is the idea that all music has to be of
a set type, soft, mellow, and with a lot of buzzwords, to keep the so-called
religous leaders happy. So, what we're stuck with is a lot of music that
doesn't really sound so different from song to song. And I think that these
are the only ones you've ever heard. I suggest that you go to your local
Christian bookstore, and find some old DeGarmo and Key, Ressurrection Band (aka
Rez Band and Rez), Tourniquet, Seventh Angel, and Believer. The last four are
heavy metal/thrash bands...not for the faint-hearted. You might also want to
check into Steve Taylor (everything's good!), and his new band, Chagall
Guevara. But please, PLEASE don't try to stereotype Christian bands as all
bland, faceless clones...Steve would NOT be pleased! 8^)
>
> HOWEVER, the anti-Christian bigotry that has been made evident here --
> all under the guise of "following the USENET guidelines" (the same
> guidelines which have been bent far more for other groups without so
> much as a whimper) -- has swayed me to vote YES. Let the anti-religious
> bigots find somewhere else to flame, and let the connoisseurs of insipid
> music discuss their favorite drivel in peace.
Thanks. It would be very nice to be able to post and not have to duck
10,000,000 flames about how stupid all Christian music is. Except, you've
sort-of flamed even while giving us your support. Oh, well, a YES vote is a
YES vote. 8^)
>
> Tim McGuire
> mcg...@cs.tamu.edu
Bruce Anderson
(sorry if this seems like a waste of bandwidth...VOTE YES, AND HELP CLEAN THIS
PLACE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8^)
R o d Johnson
>> Could someone remove rec.music.newage? Thank you.
>
>I'll second that. "Newage" is a truly obnoxious term for the music which is
>discussed there. Music which, by and large, has nothing to do with New Age
>religion.
Both a music and a spiritual culture can be called "new age" without
necessarily implying that they're connected by anything more than a
vague sense of style, if that. Country music doesn't necessarily have
anything to do with "the country", nor folk music with folk culture.
New age is a recognized term for a recognized genre, just like
Christian music is. Both seem OK to me.
--
Rod Johnson * rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 650 2315
"Poetry ends like a rope" --Jack Spicer
R o d Johnson
>(1) I don't see any Christian radio stations around.
There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your
philosophy, Horatio. Over Here, Christian stations abound, though
generally not as major commercial successes.
>> As far as I know there is a consensus: r.m.christian.
>
>As far as I know, that is only the concensus amongst Christians who are in
>favour of the group, and they are hardly likely to be unbiased on the matter.
I'm a data point. I'm not a Christian, don't even lean that way, but
I think it's a good idea. "Christian music" is a known genre (at
least in the US)--it doesn't mean just music with Christian content,
by the Christian "parallel market" to commercial pop and rock music.
I say let'em have their group.
C J Silverio
|In article <49i4Z2...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|>favour of the group, and they are hardly likely to be unbiased on the matter.
|I'm a data point. I'm not a Christian, don't even lean that way, but
|I think it's a good idea. "Christian music" is a known genre (at
|least in the US) [...] I say let'em have their group.
Indeed. Why is this controversial at all? It's a
well-defined genre (mathew's ignorance aside),
it's non-offensive, it's not likely to be high
volume, and discussion about it already exists.
Prime candidate for a newsgroup, I say. (Though I
confess that I'm predisposed to splitting off genres
from rec.music.misc, like rap & xtian music.)
---
c...@modernlvr.wpd.sgi.com C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The absence of any corrective action year after year can only be explained
by bureaucratic rigidities and the abject worship of that bitch-goddess,
cost reduction." --Ralph Nader, in Unsafe at Any Speed
Just another theatre geek.....
>In article <57...@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, R o d Johnson writes:
>|I'm a data point. I'm not a Christian, don't even lean that way, but
>|I think it's a good idea.
> well-defined genre (mathew's ignorance aside),
> it's non-offensive,
Except for the rabidly bigoted anti-Christian elements on the net
(Doncha know that it's Politically Incorrect to be Christian or even tolerant
of Christianity these days).
--
-----
Roger Tang, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu
Middle-class weenie and art nerd
Bill Gripp
>
>Three possible responses:
>
>(1) I don't see any Christian radio stations around.
Well maybe you didn't look hard enough. In the New York Metro area we
have FOUR (4) Christian radio stations.
>
>(2) I do see lots of 24-hour news stations around. Shall we have a
> rec.music.24-hour-news?
>
>(3) The existence of a radio station dedicated to the expression of a
> particular set of opinions within pieces of music does not make the
> presence of those opinions a musical difference.
>
>> As far as I know there is a consensus: r.m.christian.
>
>As far as I know, that is only the concensus amongst Christians who are in
>favour of the group, and they are hardly likely to be unbiased on the matter.
>
Not quite true. I am a Christian, and have previously posted that
Christian music IS NOT MUSICALLY DIFFERENT. It is the message of the
music that makes it Christian.
I am in favor of the group, but previously suggested the name
SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN.MUSIC as being more appropriate.
>
>mathew
Stefan R. Wosilius
>In article <12...@dcl-vitus.comp.lancs.ac.uk>,
> s...@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Steve Elliott) writes:
>> I wnat to be able to ask things like when a group's next release is due, when a certain
>> band are going to be touring, who was doing the backing vocals on a track. Is that musical
>> enough for you?
>
>It certainly is.... sounds like exactly what the rec.music hierarchy is
>intended for. However, from what I have seen in articles posted here by
>proponents (mostly early in the discussion period) and on the mailing list, I
>have concluded that most proponents want a place to talk about "how to save
>more souls via the ministry of music" or some such rather than the sort of
>music topics you are apparently interested in.
>
>If the group passes, i hope folks like yourself dominate.
>
Jerry,
Are you on the mailing list?
I am and I don't remember seeing that kind of stuff.
We agree that discussion on "how to save more souls via the ministry of
music" is not discussion on Christian music; any such stuff should, and I
think will, be politely flamed.
The mailing list is proof that those sorts of posts would be anomalous.
---Stefan.
Scholar and Fool
>> > There. You admit it. It is the fact that the lyrics EXPRESS A PARTICULAR
>> > POINT OF VIEW which is the most important difference. That is NOT a musical
>> > difference, so rec.music.christian would not fit in with the rest of the
>> > rec.music hierarchy.
> Is "Beatles" a particular point of view? Nope.
> Did Bob Dylan only write songs expressing a particular point of view? Maybe,
> but he's no more guilty of that than any other solo artist.
> Compact discs are a particular point of view?
> Possibly a loosely-defined set of philosophies there, but not a single point
> of view.
I was using your definition that rec.music should only be split on cases of
musical difference. None of the ones I listed are based on musical difference -
thus failing your requirements. I feel that this means your requirement that
it be "a musical difference" doesn't apply because of several cases otherwise.
Particular point of view "don't enter into it."
> Yes, but the key difference is that the subdivision is on musical grounds --
> either categorized by the sound of the music, or by the specific group of
> artists involved -- and NOT by the specific set of religious or political
> opinions which said artists happen to share.
>
> "beatles", "dylan" and "gdead" are subdivisions by the name of the performing
> artists. "cd" is a subdivision by the acoustic quality of the recording.
>
> "makers" is perhaps the closest to what you are proposing; it's a subdivision
> according to whether those posting have an interest in creating music rather
> than simply listening to it. However, that's a subdivision by interest in a
> particular musical difference, not a subdivision by interest in a particular
> religious viewpoint.
So rec.music can be split for all of the many various cases above, but not
the case of lyrical content or artists personal beliefs? I don't know, this
sounds like a "pick and choose" operation you're trying to steer.
> I really can't understand why the Christian Music fans are finding this so
> hard to comprehend.
I am because it seems you are making a double standard on what can go into
rec.music and what can't, defined by your own personal opinions. Christian
music is a defined area of music - it is accepted by musicians and listeners
as a category of music. Christian music *is* defined by the fact that the
writers hold a particular religious view, but it *is* defined, and it *is*
accepted. Why is that not as just a cause for rec.music.christian as for
the others that I mentioned.
Also, if I came in looking for an area discussing Christian music (which
I did, BTW), the first place I (and most other people I believe) would
look would be under the rec.music area. Why? Because it's music. The fact
that the lyrics are written with a Christian viewpoint doesn't make it
suddenly not music - but it does make a subcategory in music.
And what about "dementia"? I think the major idea behind that is the
fact that the lyrics are "funny" or "humorous" - I don't think it is
based on musical differences (at least not much). I think this could
successfully be used to show that categories can be made by lyrical
distinctions.
--
But what do I know? I'm just a...
*======================*===============================================*
# l oo oo F # Terry Leifeste / Engineering Co-op Student #
# l o o o o FFF # P.O. Box 8998 --/-- College Station, TX 77844 #
# l oo oo F #--------------- / -----------------------------#
# l FFFFF # <neat quote> / TLEI...@CTCVAX.CCF.SWRI.EDU #
*======================*===============================================*
C J Silverio
[followups to news.groups only, please]
gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
|In article <1991Apr9.2...@odin.corp.sgi.com> c...@modernlvr.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|>In article <57...@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, R o d Johnson writes:
|>|I'm a data point. I'm not a Christian, don't even lean that way, but
|>|I think it's a good idea.
|> Indeed. Why is this controversial at all? It's a
|> well-defined genre (mathew's ignorance aside),
|> it's non-offensive,
|
|Except for the rabidly bigoted anti-Christian elements on the net
|(Doncha know that it's Politically Incorrect to be Christian or even tolerant
|of Christianity these days).
There are people in news.groups who'll fight anything,
just for the sake of the fight.
I should point out that I'm rather rabidly anti-Christian
in some senses-- I want them out of gov't, and out of my
private life (where they seem to keep trying to force
themselves). I'm also scornful of the New Age movement
(which is only slightly related to the musical genre, BTW).[*]
My opinion of xtianity (or new agers), however, has
nothing to do with the question of whether xtian music
deserves a newsgroup. As I mentioned before, the proposed
group seems to fit the criteria for new groups. Go for
it and call for votes.
I'll vote yes just to counteract mathew, since he's being
so difficult.
* Poor Brian Eno, to be lumped in with such fuzzy-headedness!
---
cj%modern...@sgi.com C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Bruce Geerdes
>> In article <A0b3...@mwowm.mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk writes:
>> >It is no more sensible than rec.music.objectivist, rec.music.vegetarian or
>> >rec.music.left-handed.
>>
>> I don't see any vegetarian or left-handed radio stations around, either.
>
>Three possible responses:
>
>(1) I don't see any Christian radio stations around.
Well, guess you're deprived. :) There are quite a few in the US.
>(2) I do see lots of 24-hour news stations around. Shall we have a
> rec.music.24-hour-news?
If the support was there, why not? Unfortunately, I don't think there are
many news-music fans out there. :)
>(3) The existence of a radio station dedicated to the expression of a
> particular set of opinions within pieces of music does not make the
> presence of those opinions a musical difference.
Well, obviously a lot of people here disagree on the meaning of "musical
difference". We all have preconceived notions of whether or not there
should be a r.m.christian so we all go to extremes to get our arguments
across. Thus we have people saying lyrics contribute *nothing* to music.
True, instrumentally Christian music may not be that different. But the
point we're trying to make is the *musically*, *to us*, it is different.
My only point in bringing up radio programming is that there seems to be
enough of a difference to warrent different formats. I know it does not
prove anything, but I think it should show those who are totally in the
dark as far as Christian music goes is that it does exist, it has been
separated from other types of music, and there is a following. In the
same vein, a secular record chain (Tower Records) has a totally different
section for Christian records. Now why couldn't they have just included
them in the regular 'rock' section?
>> As far as I know there is a consensus: r.m.christian.
>
>As far as I know, that is only the concensus amongst Christians who are in
>favour of the group, and they are hardly likely to be unbiased on the matter.
I didn't know we had to get the consensus of the whole world. :) I thought
the idea was to get a consensus amongst the supporters of the group.
herr...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
>
> After following this thread and seeing some of the mailing list articles, I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> have concluded ...
You keep saying this. Do you subscribe to the list so you can read it?
If so you probably wouldn't say "...some..." every time you say this.
Did someone forward to you a few articles that appeared in the list
so you could read them? If so, how were they chosen? Or are you
talking about the list of subject lines from the mailing list that
someone posted here soon after the mailing list was formed? If so,
your claim to have seen "...articles" is less than candid. And, again,
the sample is highly skewed.
Is there some possibility I have omitted?
dan herrick
herr...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
logan shaw
>heavy metal/thrash bands...not for the faint-hearted. You might also want to
>check into Steve Taylor (everything's good!), and his new band, Chagall
^^^^^^^
Where can I get a copy of this CD? Is it available only in Christian
stores, or even possibly in 'normal' record stores?
Gee, wouldn't it have been nice to have a newsgroup to discuss this
in, so I wouldn't have to clog up news.groups with it? But NOOOOOOO,
somebody out there doesn't WANT us to have one...
- Logan
--
Logan # "He said that He had your number; you cut the telephone line
Shaw # You said you needed a reason; He said 'there ain't much time'
// # You kept trying to avoid it; He kept knocking on the door
\X/ # In a flash it was over; you were a prisoner of war." -Rez Band
R o d Johnson
> I'll vote yes just to counteract mathew, since he's being
> so difficult.
Aw, *I* wanted to be the anti-mathew. <pout>
Stefan R. Wosilius
>tlei...@ctcvax.ccf.swri.edu (Scholar and Fool) writes:
>
>> ...rec.music seems to have been given the broader area
>> of discussing things related with music/specific musicians/people who play
>> or produce or whatever music.
>
>Yes, but the key difference is that the subdivision is on musical grounds --
>either categorized by the sound of the music, or by the specific group of
>artists involved -- and NOT by the specific set of religious or political
>opinions which said artists happen to share.
>
>"beatles", "dylan" and "gdead" are subdivisions by the name of the performing
>artists. "cd" is a subdivision by the acoustic quality of the recording.
Note: "cd" is a subdivision based on the medium of storage of the music.
(like "cassette", "lp", or "memory").
What distinguishes "cd" is not the medium but that there is a significant amount of *musical* discussion about cds.
Otherwise we could justify r.m.cassette on these grounds.
>
>I really can't understand why the Christian Music fans are finding this so
>hard to comprehend.
>
>mathew
>
What I really can't understand is:
i) why the opponents are sticking rigidly to an arbitrary classification, namely, their opinion of what constitutes a "musical difference".
ii) if discussion of the form of recreational music well known as "Christian music" does NOT belong in rec.music.christianity, then where does it belong?!
Since,
a) discussion on christian music belongs in rec.music.*, as it is like the discussion in the rest of rec.music,
and since
b) this restriction of "musical difference" (as interpreted) doesn't fit r.m.c (and isn't too helpful either),
then the conclusion that must be drawn is that the restriction must be dropped if a discussion group on Christian music is to be added.
This shouldn't cause havoc in rec.music.* as long as we realise that rec.music.* is about the recreational aspects of music broken up into subgroups which are defined precisely and unified in discussion.
---Stefan.
mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
> In article <1991Apr8.1...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu>, mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes:
>> After following this thread and seeing some of the mailing list articles, I
> You keep saying this. Do you subscribe to the list so you can read it?
No, I don't subscribe - never have.
> If so you probably wouldn't say "...some..." every time you say this.
True. I have always referred to a "sample" of articles from the mailing list.
> Did someone forward to you a few articles that appeared in the list
> so you could read them?
Precisely.
> If so, how were they chosen?
Beats me. They were emailed to me by a *proponent* of the group. He selected
them. They appeared to be the most recent n days of the list at that time.
> Or are you
> talking about the list of subject lines from the mailing list that
> someone posted here soon after the mailing list was formed?
It was in reply to an article that I posted about the topics in the "subject
lines" article that I was sent some actual articles from the mailing list. Some
time had elapsed between these two events so, at the claimed rate of 20+
articles per day, I doubt there was any overlap between what I was sent and the
subject lines posted here.
> If so,
> your claim to have seen "...articles" is less than candid. And, again,
> the sample is highly skewed.
I saw no substantial difference between the topics in the subject lines article
and the content of the articles I was sent. Two "samples" which are mutually
consistent indicate uniformity, not skewness.
>
> Is there some possibility I have omitted?
I don't think so.
>
> dan herrick
> herr...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com --
Dan, I take it that you subscribe to the list.... could you email me the last 2
or 3 days worth? Plus, maybe, the subject lines for the past couple of weeks?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Miller /\ Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
#\ o O \/ /\ University of Miami
#/ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ / 4600 Rickenbacker Cwsy.
/ / o O \/ Miami, FL 33149 USA Phone:
(305) 361-4762 INTERNET: mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
Jack Campin
> c...@modernlvr.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>> R o d Johnson writes:
>>> I'm a data point. I'm not a Christian, don't even lean that way, but I
>>> think it's a good idea.
>> Indeed. Why is this controversial at all? It's a well-defined genre
>> (mathew's ignorance aside), it's non-offensive,
> Except for the rabidly bigoted anti-Christian elements on the net (Doncha
> know that it's Politically Incorrect to be Christian or even tolerant of
> Christianity these days).
I hereby suggest "All-American" as the counterpart to this "Politically
Correct" shite. I'm an atheist and on the extreme left, and I voted for
this group.
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Michael R Miller
everything else.
I've tried to read through most of this discussion and am slightly
overwhelmed. Here are a few questions...
Where can I vote YES for this group?
Why is are there so many articles on this subject?
(Have other topics received this much controversy)
Who will be affected if this group passes?
Who will be affected if this group fails?
I read the charter and the previous notes (not all, for sure) and this
is my opinoin...
* There seems to be enough people to warrant a group
* There's a lot of opposition to the group, but would they use the group
if it followed the charter? If so, then let's have a trial period.
(Ignorance showing maybe)
If they wouldn't use it then either, then maybe they shouldn't be so
vocal (maybe some flames about this!)
* I belong to a Christian record club, have many cd's of Christian music
am very curious of concert dates, person's reviews of albums
etc, etc. This sounds great!
* Where do I direct my comments about such music in the event it fails.
I would imagine other users would like to get rid of this stuff off
of music.misc...
... I have more, (none of this is original), but have to go...
mike
flames to be sent to....
mik...@uiuc.edu
Mattox Beckman
>Intro: I'm new at this group, so excuse me if I'm naive, ignorant, and
>everything else.
>I've tried to read through most of this discussion and am slightly
>overwhelmed. Here are a few questions...
>Where can I vote YES for this group?
I am reposting the call for votes.
>Why is are there so many articles on this subject?
> (Have other topics received this much controversy)
Beats me.
>Who will be affected if this group passes?
>Who will be affected if this group fails?
I would assume that in either event, the proponents would be effected.
Those opposed to the group would probably not read it anyway, as far as I can
tell.
>* Where do I direct my comments about such music in the event it fails.
> I would imagine other users would like to get rid of this stuff off
> of music.misc...
The dist list is at +dist+/afs/andrew/usr20/cc59/ccm...@andrew.cmu.edu.
Mail there and everyone on it gets a copy. You might want to put the line
alias CCM +dist+/afs/andrew/usr20/cc59/ccm...@andrew.cmu.edu.
in your .mailrc file (assuming you use unix) so you can say "mail CCM" instead.
To get on the dist list mail Caleb Cohen at cc...@andrew.cmu.edu.
Below is a copy of the charter and voting instructions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: rec.music.christian
Moderation status: unmoderated
Subject matter:
1. primarily contemporary christian music, and its
a. artists
b. concerts
c. books, magazines, TV and radio shows and other mass media which
cover ccm including its music videos and the shows they are
carried on
d. affect on secular music, media, and worship
2. and not excluding any christian music not considered contemporary,such as:
a. traditional christian music such as hymns, etc.
b. heavy metal, rock, pop, inspirational, etc.
c. Hosanna-type worship, etc.
3. but excluding subjects such as
a. politics
b. abortion
c. discussions about christian doctrine
except as they relate to specific artists and songs. All
threads that diverge to these subjects should be cross-posted
to the appropriate group (talk.abortion,
soc.religion.christian, etc.).
How to Vote
-----------
1. Votes must be mailed to cc...@andrew.cmu.edu
2. Votes must arrive before 23:59 ET Wednesday, April 17
3. Votes should contain one of the following two strings:
"I vote FOR rec.music.christian as proposed."
"I vote AGAINST rec.music.christian as proposed."
4. Votes should contain, as the subject line, one of the following:
"YES: rec.music.christian"
"NO: rec.music.christian"
The exact string is not critical - I will tally votes manually, but
complience would be greatly appreciated.
Timetable
---------
March 21, 1991 - Call for votes.
April 17, 1991 - Deadline to vote
Notes: 1) The newsgroup creation guidelines state that votes POSTED
to a newsgroup do not count. Votes must be sent to me!
2) You must either vote for the group as proposed or not at
all. A vote such as, "I vote yes for
rec.music.christian if we add moderator" is a maybe
vote and is not counted at all. The only way the
charter may be changed would also require a new call
for votes, and will not happen unless the vote fails.
3) Comments are welcome, but the vote charter is set and cannot
be changed as I said above, please place comments in seperate
4) Please feel free to cross-post this to any revelant newsgroup, if
you do, please also tell me what you did so. thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Mattox
><> IXOYE
Ron Dippold
>In article <1991Apr4.0...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu>,
> mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes...
>
>>In article <1991Apr4.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>> eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes:
>
>>I have not seen every article. I did see what I am sure is a representative
>>sample. I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that the discussion is
>>limited to music. Period.
>
>If you disagree with my conclusion, than I doubt the validity of your
>observation. Period.
>
> his constructed the same as mine? Or could it be that you agree with
> him, and therefore, he can stick in a "Period." where he wants?
No, it's not the same. This seems to be the problem, you don't comprehend
the subtleties, even when they aren't very subtle. He used the same
observations as you did and arrived at a different conclusion, and disputed
your conclusion. This is fair game, and you are free to dispute his conclusion
as is often the case. What is _not_ a valid argument is to decide that since
his conclusions differ from yours that his observations must be incorrect.
>(2) You follow this up with
>
>In article <1991Apr4.2...@qualcomm.com>, you write...
>
>>That pretty well sums up rec.music.christian, as well as alt.religion...
>
> Does that mean I am using religious arguments to justify r.m.c? If
> this is what you think (and think carefully about this one), could you
> please show me where these religious arguments took place?
No, no, no, I'll try to type slowly so you can understand... I said that the
argument you used was the same argument used by most religions. It is _not_
a religious argument and can be easily applied to almost anything.
>>Coming from an accusation-monger, that's a bit hypocritical. I accuse, but
>>I'll admit it and not pretend that I'm just being "objective."
>
> Does this mean I am using accusations to justify r.m.c? If this is what
> you think (and think carefully about this one, too), could you please
> show me where these accusations took place? Before you start, let me
> repeat what I accused you of, so you won't start there. I doubt the
> validity of Jerry Miller's observation of the r.m.c mailing list. This
> does not mean I think he lied. I think his sample size was too small,
> and was taken over too short a period, to be used as evidence that r.m.c
> proponents will not talk about music. You said (a) this statement was
> stupid, and (b) that all religion is pretty much this way.
How big a sample does he need to decide that a lot of the talk on the mailing
list has to do with religious rather than music-related subjects? It's not a
case where he is attempting to prove a theory and must gather much evidence
in support of it. He is attempting to disprove the theory (yours) that the
mailing list does not deal with religious subjects but concentrates on the
musical ones. It does not take much negative data to disprove a theory.
Your explaination above is very different from your initial statement. The
initial statement was stupid, the way you state it now is not. The label
of accusation-monger comes from other sections of text which you did not care
to quote, which included attacks on those opposed to r.m.c but supportive
of a.r.c.m. Nothing serious, just in the nature of questioning the motives
and intellectual honesty of these people.
>Statement (b) simply does not "belong" in news.groups. They have "talk.
>religion.misc" for that. Statement (a) is your interpretation. Funny,
>though, that Jerry didn't get a jab, too.
(b) does. If you use stupid arguments to slap down discussion on a group
then you can expect to have unflattering comparisons made. Jerry didn't get
a jabe because Jerry comprehends different forms of argument.
MARLATT STUART WARREN
>[...]
>> * 3. but excluding subjects such as
>> * a. politics
>> * b. abortion
>> * c. discussions about christian doctrine
>> * except as they relate to specific artists and songs. All
>> * threads that diverge to these subjects should be cross-posted
>> * to the appropriate group (talk.abortion,
>> * soc.religion.christian, etc.).
>
[...]
>After following this thread and seeing some of the mailing list articles, I
>most likely will not be adhered to. Thus, I oppose creation of the group as
>proposed. If I thought there was a good chance that the above charter would
>work as advertised, then I would not oppose the group. As it stands though,
>the group should be in a different hierarchy.
Jerry - are you reading the same material I am?! I've been getting the
mailing list for a couple of months, and by far, far, far and away the
majority of the postings have been on the order of "what's the address
of the XYZ catalog co.", or "ABC band is also good dance music",
along with various reviews of new albums. Granted, you may see (gasp!)
some non-music related topics in the signatures - please name a group
that this doesn't occur continually in. Name someone who cares. (I
will grant that a couple of postings were tangential to the character
of the dist list - but certainly no more than the discussion of
M*A*S*H in rec.music.misc some time ago.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jerry L. Miller /\ Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
>#\ o O \/ /\ University of Miami
>#/ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ / 4600 Rickenbacker Cwsy.
>/ / o O \/ Miami, FL 33149 USA
>Phone: (305) 361-4762 INTERNET: mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
(is that a train, a wave-train, or other? See you in sci.geo.fluids...)
--
s.w. marlatt <>< and *(:-)
Ronald E. Graham
rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes...
>In article <1991Apr9.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>>In article <1991Apr4.0...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu>,
>> mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes...
>>>In article <1991Apr4.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>>> eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes:
>>>I have not seen every article. I did see what I am sure is a representative
>>>sample. I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that the discussion is
>>>limited to music. Period.
>>If you disagree with my conclusion, than I doubt the validity of your
>>observation. Period.
>>(1) Why do you not flame Jerry Miller for his original statement? Isn't
>> his constructed the same as mine? Or could it be that you agree with
>> him, and therefore, he can stick in a "Period." where he wants?
>
>No, it's not the same. This seems to be the problem, you don't comprehend
>the subtleties, even when they aren't very subtle. He used the same
>observations as you did and arrived at a different conclusion, and disputed
>your conclusion. This is fair game, and you are free to dispute his conclusion
>as is often the case. What is _not_ a valid argument is to decide that since
>his conclusions differ from yours that his observations must be incorrect.
He didn't dispute my conclusion, I disputed his. And I am free to do so,
even in your eyes. I did not say his observations were incorrect. For the
third time now, what I said was that I believe his observations to be
invalid due to the sample size. What he did see may have been entirely
correct. It was not, however, valid, IMPO. I stand by my statement.
>How big a sample does he need to decide that a lot of the talk on the mailing
>list has to do with religious rather than music-related subjects? It's not a
>case where he is attempting to prove a theory and must gather much evidence
>in support of it. He is attempting to disprove the theory (yours) that the
>mailing list does not deal with religious subjects but concentrates on the
>musical ones. It does not take much negative data to disprove a theory.
It is not the existence of negative data that disproves a theory in this case.
It is the prevalence of negative data. We are talking about persons, not
scientific measurements. He has disproved nothing. I have seen each and
every article posted to the mailing list since its inception (he has not,
nor have you), and I have determined that the mailing list by-and-large
concentrates on music. His data is insufficient to overthrow mine.
Now, *interpretations* are something else, altogether. He (and you) may
*interpret* your observations quite differently than I might. I do not
consider a religious .sig file evidence of negative data. I do not consider
a comment about "the Spirit moving" at some-odd concert to be negative data.
He apparently does. I am looking at the main subject of each posting, which
is (now get this) albums, concerts, tours, warehouse outlets, and trivia.
That sounds an awful lot like recreation to me. You got a different idea?
>Your explanation above is very different from your initial statement. The
>initial statement was stupid, the way you state it now is not. The label
>of accusation-monger comes from other sections of text which you did not care
>to quote, which included attacks on those opposed to r.m.c but supportive
>of a.r.c.m. Nothing serious, just in the nature of questioning the motives
>and intellectual honesty of these people.
What is a.r.c.m? Are you shunting r.m.c off to alt now? Make up yer mind.
The concept of my initial statement being stupid is still your interpretation.
I still stand by it. If it is so stupid, when will we see Jerry rise to your
defense? The only person I attacked was Jerry, and the sole basis of my
attack was what I felt was misinterpretation and misapplication of data. Had
you paid attention, you might also have noticed that I gave him an "attaboy"
for doing as much homework as he did. Not many others would. You sure didn't.
>>Statement (b) simply does not "belong" in news.groups. They have "talk.
>>religion.misc" for that. Statement (a) is your interpretation. Funny,
>>though, that Jerry didn't get a jab, too.
>(b) does. If you use stupid arguments to slap down discussion on a group
>then you can expect to have unflattering comparisons made. Jerry didn't get
>a jab because Jerry comprehends different forms of argument.
You keep using that word "stupid." I do not think it means what you think
it means. (Apologies to Inigo Montoya.)
RG
STella
In article <57...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (R o d Johnson) writes:
>In article <49i4Z2...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>(1) I don't see any Christian radio stations around.
You _obviously_ do not live in the USofA, mathew.
>>As far as I know, that is only the concensus amongst Christians who are in
>>favour of the group, and they are hardly likely to be unbiased on the matter.
Mathew, I am not an xian. I do not consider my opinion OF xians
especially relevant to this thread (if you want to know, and my recent
email to another post doesn't clue you, ask in mail, OK?), but I have
sent a vote FOR the group, because it is unmoderated and I always
attempt to vote for unmoderated groups, and because _I_ don't have to
read ANYthing I don't want to. I don't have to give a fuck about an
area of discussion to allow others, who DO, to go somewhere else and
discuss it.
>I'm a data point. I'm not a Christian, don't even lean that way, but
>I think it's a good idea. "Christian music" is a known genre (at
>least in the US)--it doesn't mean just music with Christian content,
>by the Christian "parallel market" to commercial pop and rock music.
>I say let'em have their group.
Exactly, and thank you, Rod. I have absolutely NO interest in xian
music, very little in xians as long as they're not trying to harass
ME, but if people want a group to discuss their interests, LET them.
A bad choice of name will mean that I have, occasionally, to point
someone TO that group, but that's no big deal. I peacefully read the
groups _I_ find interesting (mostly alt groups, these days, since the
old.net doesn't have fora for most of my interests), and see no reason
the xians can't do the same.
I vote yes for unmoderated newsgroups even (and sometimes especially)
if I don't want to read them. Lightning rods are useful....
STe...@xanadu.com 1016 E. El Camino Real, #302, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
(thelema.uucp seems to work for some, thelema.com has no business working)
David Allen Markley
let me know where to send my vote?
David Markley
Carnegie Mellon