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 (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.religion Subject: Re: Proposal for net.religion subgroups Message-ID: <244@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 13:59:30 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.244 Posted: Tue Nov 6 13:59:30 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:28:06 EST References: <217@hocsj.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 55 > 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. [EVELYN LEEPER] The difference between subgroups based on topics (like different sports) and subgroups based on tastes (in music, religious persuasion, etc.) is that the former doesn't isolate people. The purpose of religious subgroups would seem to be to keep people of like minds together in one spot, where they wouldn't have to listen to other people who either have an alternative/antipodal point of view or a broader message that doesn't fit into the individual taste categories (assuming the isolationists stick to their subgroup to talk only with "their own kind" and ignore other subgroups or even the mainstream high-level group itself because it contains messages from un-like thinkers). > 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. On the contrary, it would seem that some see the purpose of a subgroup under net.religion as twofold: 1) net.religion.xxxx would end xxxx proseltyzing in net.religion, and 2) xxxx's could discuss xxxx-ism without having to defend what they say. Personally, I'd rather have xxxx's out in the open saying their piece, answering questions posed to them (hmmm...), instead of isolated in their little cubbyhole avoiding questions. > 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.) AGREED 100%!!!!!! Which is why I opposed net.religion.jewish just as strongly. Precisely because I felt it was important that Christians (excuse me, xxxx's) not get the idea that a newsgroup about religion was somehow THEIRS, I had hoped that Jewish issues/questions could be raised in net.religion by those who wanted a separate subgroup. (Just as I had hoped that classical music lovers would do the same in net.music!!) Alas, this was not to be. Of course, this would also mean that any questioning of Judaeo/Christian beliefs in general (as opposed to specifically Christian beliefs) would be directed at (and hopefully answered by) both Christians (I'll give up the "xxxx" stuff) and Jews. (Thus Christians would no longer be able to claim that those who sought answers about ALL religions were somehow "attacking" them!) >> 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. [RLR] > If the current state of net.religion is any indication, the world is in big > trouble! Agreed again (unfortunately)... -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr