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 (Arthur Pewtey) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Old Ways - final comments Message-ID: <989@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-May-85 13:01:18 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.989 Posted: Wed May 22 13:01:18 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 04:36:33 EDT References: <715@decwrl.UUCP> <587@pyuxd.UUCP> <150@unc.UUCP> <168@unc.UUCP> <256@unc.UUCP> Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 39 Xref: watmath net.religion:6942 net.religion.jewish:1997 net.religion.christian:734 >>We've been through this before. A public forum is a public forum. It doesn't >>"belong" to anyone or any group. There is a private mailing list in existence >>which is a private forum. I post general topics to net.religion, otherwise >>I post to specific group(s) (and possibly the general group as well). [ROSEN] > Nonsense. We must obey certain conventions to keep the network feasible. > One of the conventions is keeping our postings in the appropriate newsgroups. > For instance, if I want to find a long-lost friend, I might wish to post > to net.general, to ensure that EVERYBODY sees my posting. But that would > be a net-etiquette violation. Such postings must go to net.people, > EVEN THOUGH SOME PEOPLE I MIGHT WISH TO READ MY POSTING DON'T SUBSCRIBE. > I must respect the right of people to choose not to see what I want them > to read. > In specific, net.religion.christian is for Christians to discuss Christianity > and their religious experiences. Non-Christians like me may use this group to > request information, or to participate (if they can do so) from a Christian > point of view. Analogously for net.religion.jewish. As I said, we've been through this before. The reason for the creation of the newsgroup net.religion.christian was (at least in part) to get the arguments over specific points on the "validity" of Christianity out of the main group. If not that place for them, then what? > Discussions about whether Christianity is a good idea in the first place > is a (higher level) meta-discussion, which belongs in a meta-newsgroup. > We have such a newgroup. It is called net.religion. This is the group > for inter-religion debates. This is where your anti-Bible postings belong. Anti-Bible? As I said above, your knowledge of the history of the groups is apparently limited. > Please respect the net-etiquette. Too many people disreguarding the > the newsgroup definitions will drive the net to moderated newsgroups. What's wrong with moderated newsgroups? It'll cut down on redundancy, inanity, and a lot of the other garbage portions of net communication. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr