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.news.group,net.religion
Subject: Re: Proposal for net.religion subgroups
Message-ID: <217@hocsj.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 08:33:16 EST
Article-I.D.: hocsj.217
Posted: Fri Nov  2 08:33:16 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 03:27:09 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 28


Reference: <187@hocsj.UUCP> <428@uwmacc.UUCP> <342@klipper.UUCP>, <228@pyuxd.UUCP>
Rich Rosen claims that net.religion.christian will lead to "petty divisive
isolationism."  The purpose of subgroups is to allow special interest groups
to have discussions that are not of interest to everyone without cluttering
up everyone's screens.  Should we eliminate net.sport.all so that everyone
who's interesting in *some* sport has to read about *all* sports?  And let's
not leave net.women out of this discussion, or net.nlang.greek, or
net.nlang.celtic (which isn't about the Celtic language these days anyway, but
that's another story).

I would probably continue to read net.religion, but if A and B want to argue
about whether there really is transubstantiation of the bread, take it
to net.religion.christian.  Having net.religion.jewish by itself is just the
ghetto all over again--it implies that Christianity is *it* and Judaism is
somehow not quite equal.  (See yiri's posting about undercurrents of
Christianity in net.religion.jewish for a better example of this thinking.)

>                                               If we can't even create one
> community of people on a computer network, I have very dim hopes for the "real
> world" doing the same.

If the current state of net.religion is any indication, the world is in big
trouble!

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