Re: Lone Star Lionhearts

[Karen Silkwood's car <jondr@sco.COM>]

Pat Crumhorn, posting for Kevin Hendryx, writes:
>     When the electronic net is able to provide the level of news
>coverage, musical analysis, artwork, and serious discussion provided
>by the better Katezines, only then can their members claim to be the
>"wave of the future."

We already are the wave of the future.  Wake up and smell the writing
on the wall.

-Coverage: near-instantaneous transmission of data around the entire
world.  Someone hears it on Radio 1, types it in, and bang, I'm
reading it the next morning.  How can a monthly magazine even *hope*
to compete with that?

-Musical analysis: I've learned more stuff from reading the net than
all the magazines I've ever read put together.

-Artwork: not a prime concern of mine, but there are always GIFs and
JPEGs.

-Serious Discussion: see Musical Analysis.

The future is now, pal.  You do a disservice to the global village by
claiming it's not here.

>Too much of the space in the nets is taken up with rumors, gossip,
>flames and ad hominem attacks that would not be tolerated in the
>mainstream press or a serious musicological publication (which, by
>and large, _LSL_ attempts to be, behind our breezy facade--we do not
>take ourselves _that_ seriously, after all).

The real-time nature of the net leads to the ``rumors, gossip, flames
and ad hominem attack.''  It's more of a discussion forum than a
newspaper.  As for them not being tolerated in the ``mainstream
press'', you have only to witness the recent round of flame-baiting on
love-hounds to see several possible options.  There are moderated
newsgroups and digests for those who wish strictly regulated flow of
information.  Personally, I can live with the real-time foibles (hell,
I love 'em!) since it means I also get the important information
faster.  Some people do an extremely good job of producing electronic
fanzines with the support of the people they write about.  The KLF/ORB
list is a good example.

>     I am often disturbed by the elitist attitude exhibited by
>certain of the electronic "haves" of the world.  They are too quick
>to regard themselves as creatures apart from and superior to the
>majority of people without the resources or desire to participate.
>Many people are unable (or find it unnecessary) to invest in
>expensive computer/communications equipment, and those who can have
>no right to force their lifestyles or attitudes on others.

What on earth are you driveling about?  By your VERY OWN argument, you
have nothing to worry about.  I may indeed dismiss the electronic have
nots, but they have their options available to them and we are not
going to put anyone out of business if there is indeed a legitimate
market for their product.

With the burgeoning amount of free and cheap public access unix
systems and bulletin boards, and the plummeting prices of terminals
and modems, I find it hard to believe that anyone who REALLY wants net
access can't find a way to afford it.

>     This is especially hypocritical on the part of those who do
>indeed "pirate" their computer time from their school or their place
>of work (a subject you finesse).

Driveling again.  If our schools and companies don't want us using
their computrons to read `fun' news, why do they provide these
services in the first place?  I do my forty hours, and this is a nice
perk.  You sound jealous to me.

>People who are not paying for their information should be careful of
>criticizing those who do, e.g.  fanzine subscribers, who are very
>happy with the product they receive.

Far be it from me to rain on someone's parade.  If someone is "happy
with the product they receive" then more power to 'em.  I'm not happy
with fanzines - they are too slow and very few of them are well edited
or designed, so I don't buy them.  I do buy the good ones.  Don't like
your market share?  Improve your product.

>     I suspect the authors and publishers of the KB collector's guide
>would hold similar opinions.  People who invest their money in making
>a product available are entitled to a fair return, and disseminating
>information _gratis_ is theft from Godwin and his publishing
>company--they lose sales, and if people can't sell Kate books, we
>cannot complain if, eventually, there are none made available to us.

I wouldn't moan, if the information was still available on the
network.

Your complaint is that people want to redistribute your articles on
the net.  Fine, you've got a case there.  But, what about the people
who don't know of your publication and find out about it by reading
selections from it on the net?  What if they later subscribe?  You've
just got the equivalent of thousands of dollars worth of free
advertising, and you're COMPLAINING!  I can't believe it.

Jon Drukman (finely honed machine)              uunet!sco!jondr   jondr@sco.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.