hutch@shark.UUCP (02/23/85)
[bugeater line] It appears the lineater consumed portions of my reply to Rich Rosen on the topic of what belongs in this newsgroup. I reproduce it below. If this doesn't make it past the bug, nothing will. Hutch (\_____/) \*\ /*/ |\_=_/| \`_'/ Message-ID: <1257@shark.UUCP> Date: 18 Feb 85 06:14:58 GMT Date-Received: 18 Feb 85 06:14:58 GMT References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h> <457@pyuxd.UUCP> <1247@shark.UUCP> <518@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 89 Summary: In article <518@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: >>> From Pesmard Flurrmn (pyuxd!rlr) [what's he doing in this group, anyway? >>> This is where we all went to avoid him]: [SARGENT] > >> One might indeed ask. This newsgroup was created to provide a forum in which >> we Christians could discuss issues relevant to Christianity without the >> continual carping ...<more griping at Rich>... continually spew out upon us. >> When net.religion.jewish was created it was >> created to provide a similar forum for Jews to discuss their common religious >> and cultural heritage. [HUTCH] > >I quote: >> I think we have a difference of opinion here. Some of the readers & >> posters to net.religion.christian think that net.religion.christian >> should be a nice warm place where Christians can talk about Christianity >> and maybe argue a bit among themselves and not have to defend anything >> they say from ... non-Christians. >> The problem is that when net.religion.christian was created, a lot of the >> folks that *wanted* it particularily wanted <to get rid of all Christian >> and anti-Christian arguments>... >> [LAURA CREIGHTON] > >I *have* indeed used net.religion for discussions of religions in general, >and have crossposted to net.religion.christian (or followed up there) where >appropriate. My argument is not with Christians, but with particular notions >of religion in general. It is certain Christians who seem to have an argument >with me. Go ahead, Rich. Appeal to authority. :-) Actually, I think we need a net.religion.holywars for the general hate-mail of all types. However, I am willing to take a poll and see what the general concensus is about the contents of net.religion.christian. 1) It should be an open forum for all debate which concerns Christianity in any way. This includes postings by people who want to abolish Christianity. 2) It should be an open forum for friendly discussion of Christianity and its doctrines, where any questions and replies are accepted as being the honestly held beliefs of the posters. Opposing points of view are encouraged but personal attacks and flaming are discouraged. 3) It should be a closed forum for the discussion of Christianity by Christians and no postings by non-Christians are really welcome. This would be similar to the current state of net.religion.jewish, where any intrusion is not welcome. (This is not an anti-Jewish statement. I respect the desire of the folks in n.r.j to have a forum where they can be unpestered by us goyim.) 4) None of the above (detail please). I will summarize the results of this poll in a few weeks, after the input has died down. Note that this cannot be considered binding, unless everyone who is currently active in the group agrees to abide by the majority voice. If there is no clear majority voice, we may be stuck with what we have now. >> Of the approximately 20 articles which you have put out to this forum, >> maybe three or four (generously speaking) have been polite, not presuming >> that we were all a bunch of loonies for the Enlightened Rosen to administer >> the balm of his superior wisdom upon. Well, Rich, the three or four articles >> were welcome. The rest of your postings have been less than worthless. > >Thank you. Your analysis should be given the consideration it is due. Yes, I admit it, I don't keep copies of everything Rich writes. Sorry, Rich, about the exaggeration. I agree that it makes your postings seem worse than they are. I made a guesstimate of how many articles you had posted and I should have indicated that it was in fact a guess. >Why doesn't Mr. Hutch offer the complete list of my 20 or so articles >accompanied by *his* personal rating of each one? Perhaps because he doesn't >have the list to back up his own assertion? Count this among the "impolite" >articles, if you will, when I'm maligned publicly I feel no obligation to be >polite. May I ask, does "polite" mean "agreeing with your point of view" >while "impolite" means "disagreeing with your point of view"? As I said, I don't keep copies of all Rich's postings. We expire things out here on a weekly basis. The majority of them have evaporated into the ether. I do not count your reply as "impolite" per se. It is as polite as most of what I have ever posted. >RULE #1: >People asking to continue a conversation only under the terms of rational >discussion are actually asking to continue only if you agree with them. >Anything else would not be rational discussion... > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Snide, sir, snide. I said nothing about rationality, merely politeness. I do not EXPECT rationality from ANYONE on this net, yourself included. My response to your next article may explain what I found to be impolite, IF I can find enough of the originals to quote them.