Xref: utzoo news.groups:17430 talk.religion.newage:5652
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!athena1!williamt
From: williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow)
Newsgroups: news.groups,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.religion.pagan (UNMODERATED)
Message-ID: <131366@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 7 Feb 90 16:21:14 GMT
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow)
Lines: 29

In article <24170@ut-emx.UUCP> olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) writes:
>
> Inclusiveness is *not* the be all and end
>all you are making it out to be.
>There is room for both, Tim. By
>your logic, we should only have one newsgroup, stuff.all, because anything
>else would be factionalism.
-----------

    To support Tim & Dave, YES, I wanted a narrower focus than t.r.na.

    Computers were created to help us make more efficient use of our
time -- not to make us their slaves via larger time consumption.

    The majority of topics in t.r.na are things I am uninterested in.
More often than not, I have to scan through all the titles, then press
the 'c' key to ignore everything there.  Occasionally there are things
that the titles are not very descriptive of, which  means I either miss
'pearls', or I have to sort through lots of 'junk' that I am not interested
in.  I would much prefer a narrow topic or scope that would weed out
more things I am uninterested in to make better use of my time.

    As Dave mentioned, the logical end to those who don't want narrow,
focused newgroups, would be to create stuff.all and let us all spend full
time looking for what we really wanted to read.

-wat-

   --- An it harm none, do what you will.