Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Response to Laura on appropriateness of newsgroups
Message-ID: <566@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 09:49:50 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.566
Posted: Wed Feb 20 09:49:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 20:34:23 EST
References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h> <457@pyuxd.UUCP> <1247@shark.UUCP>, <519@pyuxd.UUCP> <5054@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 119

> From my perspective, what happens is *this* --
> you post a followup to some article. In it you slam certain exoteric
> beliefs, practices, or (sometimes) believers. There are a lot of
> Christians out there. They don't like having their beliefs slammed. They
> send a reply. You followup that reply...and so on, and so on, and so on...
> [LAURA CREIGHTON]

When my beliefs get "slammed", unjustifiably, I counter with an offering of
the reasons why the argument slamming my beliefs was flawed (if I can
formulate such an offering).  When *I* write an article "slamming" beliefs, I
try to ensure that I have backed up what I have said with evidence.  The
responses to such articles are not of the form "This is the flaw in your
reasoning, Rich."  or "You haven't taken *this* into account." (Exceptions have
occurred when the "this" in the previous sentence is something that the group
as a whole has already addressed and found flaws with.)  Rather, the responses
are of the form "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY BELIEFS?  WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE,
SHOWING FLAWS IN A BELIEF SYSTEM HELD BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR THOUSANDS OF
YEARS?  YOU MUST BE AN ASSHOLE!"  If responses like *that* wouldn't get you
irate, and prompt you to get a little annoyed, frustrated, and perhaps nasty,
well, ...   (Another RULE #1 I've learned to live with:  When you show people a
flaw in their logic, they have every right to punch you in the face.  Or so it
seems on the net...)

> I think that this is a problem. There seem to be people who think that
> arguing sides of the Christianity/Humanist debate (flame?) is a lot of
> fun. You claim to be enjoying it.

*Enjoying* it?  When did I claim that?  I found some aspects of it very
*interesting*, like the short-lived (why?) absolute good/evil discussion.
I've found that interacting with people of opposing points of view on a
rational basis helps improve understanding on both sides.  I've grown to
understand to some extent where the concerns of people with opposite
viewpoints lie, and I would hope that the same holds true for them regarding
my concerns.  What's more, taking the time to discuss these things has better
helped me to understand clearly (and hopefully to state clearly) my point of
view.  If you don't believe this, read article <509@pyuxd.UUCP> on "Logic
based on different sets of assumptions".  It codifies the concepts I've been
trying to put forth in this group since day one (or two), to me, better and
more clearly than anything I've written before.  Is that why no one has
offered any response to it?  Because only my vindictive (because of what?)
articles get responded to, providing an opportunity for people to say "See? 
Rosen is an asshole."???

> The problem is that there are 2 groups of people that I know about who are
> not enjoying it. The first group are the Christians who want a nice forum to
> discuss Christianity with the implicit assumption that Christianity is true.

Anybody who thinks that they can control and determine what gets said (and by
whom) in a particular newsgroup is in for a surprise.  Look at net.singles!
How many people who contribute are actually single?  How many of the articles
contain anything related to "being single"?  Face it, net.singles is the REAL
net.social (AND net.love/sex AND net.personal_affairs), with "net.social"
practically starving by comparison.  People choose the newsgroup(s) in which
they post their articles based on whom they want to address, whom they wish to
read the articles, which audience the article is intended for.  If I have a
question to ask of people who own Volkswagens, I'm going to ask it in
net.auto.vw (if such a thing still exists).  If it doesn't, I'll post it to
net.auto proper.  If I have a question to ask of religious believers, that's
what net.religion WAS for.  If I have a point to make and a further question to
ask on something Jeff Sargent (or Sragnet, as I noticed that I've been spelling
it) has said in net.religion.christian, I'm liable to follow it up in that same
newsgroup.  Whether Steve Hutchison calls it impolite or not...

> The second group is comprised of people who think that both sides of
> the argument are seriously flawed. This includes the believers of
> primarily esoteric religious practice, but may not be confined to them.
> I am in this category, and so is Tim Maroney ...

If you consider both sides to be seriously flawed, you're just as welcome to
respond to the same article I referred to above (and others).  Though the
thrust of my articles is often directed at problems with what you call
exoteric religions and their "implementation", many of my points apply to
esoteric religions as well.

> It has been my experience that it is possible to have long mail discussions
> with Christians such as Gary Samuelson without having an argument/debate.

To a degree, it's been mine as well.

> It has also been my experience that it is impossible to do this in
> net.religion. I used to believe that this was because posters to
> net.religion were in part interested in grandstanding on their soapbox
> for the amusement of their friends and fellow believers/unbelievers.
> Now, however, I think that this is not the case. I think that the problem is
> that net.religion is viewed as a battleground. Nobody shows up there
> unless they are gunning for bear, since they expect to get an argument
> fought tooth and nail. This means that otherwise calm and reasoned people
> resort to unreasoned ad hominem attacks and flaming (all's fair in love,
> war, and net.religion) and people who will not resort to these tactics
> either never post or stop posting.

I think that the problem is that RELIGION, not NET.religion, is viewed as a
battleground.  Some trying to persuade others of their rightness, others
resenting the efforts, still others seeking to persuade by stronger means,
still more others resisting that.  Yes, even the gentle little footprints
article had swipes taken at it.  And maybe that's the point.  People who want
to air their beliefs in a public forum but don't want to hear contrary points
of view in that same forum are living in a dream world.  And if they wish to
control what other people have to say, well, Gary Samuelson knows the word
that describes that.  As Charlie Wingate had already mentioned, there is a
*private* forum, a mailing list, for private discussions amongst Christians.
But net.religion.christian is a *public* forum.  Like net.women.only turned out
to be.  (That's one of the reasons there's a feminist mailing list as well.)

> I would like to try to do something about this. Since you tend to provoke
> (maintain?) such arguments, moving you is a simple way to test the theory
> that it is the presence of arguments which continues the arguments. The
> theory may be wrong, but if it *isn't* it would be nice to do something.

I wasn't "put" on earth to be the subject of your scientific experiments,
Laura, and I resent being the "guinea pig" to formulate some sort of netnews
litmus test.  *I* wasn't the one who replied to the Footprints poem.  The
series of articles countering each other that followed it (no less abrasive
than my own) had nothing to do with my participation in either newsgroup.
I'm not the only one who responds to articles in either newsgroup, "impolitely"
(as Hutch would call it) or otherwise.
-- 
Otology recapitulates phonology.
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr