Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site hocsj.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocsj!ecl
From: ecl@hocsj.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Proposal for net.religion subgroups
Message-ID: <231@hocsj.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 08:53:44 EST
Article-I.D.: hocsj.231
Posted: Thu Nov  8 08:53:44 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 07:21:50 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 16


Reference: <187@hocsj.UUCP> <428@uwmacc.UUCP> <342@klipper.UUCP>, <228@pyuxd.UUCP> <1448@pucc-h>, <245@pyuxd.UURe: Proposal for net.religion subgroups

Rich Rosen quotes:
>>>>But the real reason for subgrouping net.religion is, that it is fatiguing
>>>>to have to defend the basics of your creed which you just want to assume to
>>>>be able to talk about the `details'.  [LEEPER??]

Nope, not me--Biep (ihnp4!decvax!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep).  But I
support his point (as I stated in another article earlier)--discussion of
"details" is just as valid as discussion about belief and should be carried
on in a smaller arena.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl