Xref: utzoo news.groups:14786 talk.religion.newage:4948
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!rex!samsung!xanth!mcnc!ecsvax.uncecs.edu!uncmed!calico!unccab
From: unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan)
Newsgroups: news.groups,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Poll results on newsgroup name
Message-ID: <52@uncmed.med.unc.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 89 15:44:12 GMT
References: <982@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <50495@oliveb.olivetti.com> <1989Nov10.023949.17957@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <20752@ut-emx.UUCP> <21086@ut-emx.UUCP> <9020@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: news@uncmed.med.unc.edu
Reply-To: unccab@uncmed.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Lines: 55

In article <9020@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>The decision to rename talk.religion.newage is probably a good one.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 What decision to rename?  I thought that there was a proposal for a NEW
 group dealing with pagan/wiccan/earth because t.r.newage was getting
 numerous postings of that sort.  I never saw anything that indicated that
 this would be to rename or replace t.r.newage.

>When the newage mailing list was created years ago, by me, "new age"
>was taken as a broader and more inclusive term.  Since then, it has
>come to mean only a single thread in the network of esoteric mystical
>systems, and as such, many potential participants have come to feel
>alienated by it.  But it would be foolish to replace this with another
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Exactly.  Which is why, from what I can tell, this was a proposal to
 create a new group in which those who are not "newage" can talk, not to
 replace the old group.

>It smacks of intolerance, a desire by one group to be
>heard at the expense of all others.
> [Stuff deleted with care] The people behind this attempted 
>act of exclusion do not
>even pretend to want a wide, eclectic group; they want to hear
>Neo-Paganism and nothing else.
 Yes, which is why they want to create a NEW GROUP.  I think you should
 follow the thread of discussion back to its original before you start
 getting worried.

>However, I do understand and respect the idea of renaming it to some
>term which more accurately reflects the originally inclusive intent of
>the group.  I suggest that any of the following would be good
>alternatives (ranked in the order of my preferences, from best to
>worst):
>
>talk.religion.magic
>talk.religion.esoteric
>talk.religion.eclectic
>talk.religion.occult
>talk.religion.ritual
>talk.religion.mystical

 I find that some of these choices are also too generic/broad or
 exclusivistic.  t.r.ritual could be Roman Catholics and t.r.magic could
 be druids or t.r.occult could be mediums....Of course, I am not against
 renaming t.r.newage, but perhaps, as founder, you should start a thread
 in t.r.newage to discuss new names (maybe you have already done that, I
 don't know).  Good luck to whatever you do.
>
>Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com



                            Charles Balan
UNCCAB@med.unc.edu   ,    UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp    ,   UNCCAB@unc.bitnet
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire  %%%%%%%%%%%%