wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/02/83)
I must take exception to whuxk!reg 's blanket characterizations of net.religion and net.philosophy. I am a reader and heavy contributor to both groups, and I would like to point out that the characterizations made are simply not accurate. The two groups are totally different: net.religion tends to be a "hellfire and brimstone" arena, where the atheists snipe at the fundamentalists, and back and forth, with others chiming in as they see fit. Generally, a free-for-all. Net.philosphy, on the other hand, is very different (Even though many of the same people exist there as well as in net.religion). There are several discussions going back and forth, with almost no venom. That's right, *discussions*. Like the one Paul Torek and I are carrying on about Kant. Or the debate over altruism and selfishness. Totally opposing viewpoints are discussed in a calm, non-insulting manner. Sometimes it's not as much fun as net.religion, but sometimes it's more fun. Well, if this sounds like a commercial, it is. I think both newsgroups are worthwhile, and I don't like to see them being put down, especially inaccurately. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex