Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje From: cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.religion.pagan (UNMODERATED) Keywords: pagan, unmoderated Message-ID: Date: 5 Feb 90 22:08:00 GMT References: <4093@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Distribution: usa Organization: Miskatonic U. Computer Operations & User Services Lines: 28 Cc: cje In article <4093@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wfink@jarthur.claremont.edu (Wonderbitch) writes: > I was sorry to hear of the NO vote on talk.religion.pagan and would like to > suggest trying again, this time as an unmoderated group. This would both > facilitate freer discussion, keep people's opinions from being squelched > (which seemed to be a cause for concern), and give those poor dips like > myself who found out about the voting after it was over another chance. > Any and all questions or comments are welcome. I voted against the moderated t.r.p. because a) in general I don't like moderated newsgroups, and b) I didn't know the proposed moderator enough to trust his judgment. I could support an *un*moderated t.r.p., but Tim Maroney brought up an interesting point regarding factionalism. I think "pagan" is a broad enough term to encompass a wide variety of magical traditions. What do others, specifically Tim, think? (Don't bother quoting definitions at me. I have a dictionary at hand, and I believe "pagan" is inclusive enough.) -- Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin, Chris Jarocha-Ernst UUCP: {ames, att, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje ARPA: JAROCHAERNST@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU CCIS, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855-0879