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