olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) (11/10/89)
In article <1026@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.CS.Miami.Edu writes: >In article <1989Nov8.172039.16246@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> ptgarvin@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Patrick T. Garvin) writes: >>The problem with talk.religion.wicca is that, although Wiccans are pagan, >>not all pagans are Wiccan. The other varieties of pagan would feel excluded. > >Now clearly Wiccans are pagan by the dictionary definition. True, but as has been stated many times, not all pagans are Wiccan. >>I think that more discussion is warranted on the name, obviously. > >>How about talk.religion.neo-pagan > >neo-pagan? What the hell is that? It's another newage bastardization. >Crowley would be proud. If it's neo-pagan you want, keep it in >t.r.newage where it belongs. The term neo-pagan refers to the modern pagan religions (i.e. Wicca, the various Druidic religions, NROGD, etc). They are not properly "new age" as they tend to be more of a harkening back to older ideas. There are other streams going on in talk.religion.newage which do not deal with pagan or neo-pagan topics, these would remain. I do, however, object to your description of the term "neo-pagan" as a "newage bastardization". It is a term used by modern pagans and modern pagan religions to refer to themselves, as such it has a proper usage (it is not, as you seem to suggest, a meaningless term, but rather one to differentiate between the newer pagan traditions, and the older (or paleo-pagan) traditions). I would also disagree with the choice of names being changed to either talk.religion.neopagan or talk.religion.wicca, because I think that both are too narrow, .neopagan for excluding other pagan traditions, and .wicca for excluding all but one religion. >aem --Dave --- Dave Weinstein "No one has ever wanted a new computer language. olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu They want an improved Fortran!" -- Chuck Moore GEnie: OLORIN Disclaimer: These are my opinions. Find your own.
cma@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (christine.m.agonis) (11/10/89)
A pagan is defined as a person who has no religion or one who
worships many gods. I define myself as pagan (atheist),
I have no religion, instead I believe in myself.
So yes, I'd vote for a "pagan" newgroup.
-- Pagan Mistressgs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) (11/11/89)
Count me in.... the name fits, there's a need for the group (the area got clobbered during the recent Applegate flame war in t.r.newage, and it took a concerted effort to restart significant discussion), and besides, after all this fishy mess, it's time we proved that the newgroup process can actually work when things are done in a calm manner. It would be especially ironic now, given the current state of affairs in USENET and the world at large.... Go for it! Glenn R. Stone <gs26@prism.gatech.edu> ..!gatech!pyr!ccastgs CCASTGS@GITNVE2 Box 30327, Atlanta, GA 30332 "Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus." -Eco, _The Name of the Rose_
gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) (11/11/89)
In article <1017@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.CS.Miami.Edu writes: >I would vote against it as proposed, because according to my American >Heritage, > pagan n. 1. A person who is not a Christian, Moslem, or Jew; > heathen. 2. One who has no religion. 3. Formerly, any > non-christian... What the American Heritage says has nothing to do with who the people who call themselves Pagan are. [suggestions for t.r.wicca or t.r.nature deleted] No, that's too restrictive. Paganism isn't just Wicca, nor is it purely nature worship. Methinks perhaps t.r.neopagan might do? But those who would want to post there would, IMHO, know what the group was about just by the "pagan" label, anyway.... PLEASE, people, let's not have another namespace war. We don't need it. It only causes negativity. What you call something is not NEARLY as important as What It Is. Call it .pagan, call it .neopagan, call it whatever gets the full point across, but DON'T SQUABBLE. Sheesh! (see and translate my .sig quote for how I feel about it.) Glenn R. Stone gs26@prism.gatech.edu, CCASTGS@GITNVE2.BITNET, ...!gatech!gitpyr!ccastgs Box 30372, Atlanta, GA 30332 "Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus." -Eco, _The Name of the Rose_
zvs@bby.oz (Zev Sero) (11/13/89)
I know etymology is not the only basis for deciding the meaning of a word, but it pays to bear in mind that the word `Pagan' comes from the Latin for `civilian', and means anyone who is not a soldier in Christ's Army. Thus, the definition quoted as `non-christian' is the correct one, and is *not* a reflection of cultural bias, as was suggested. Jews and Muslims *are* Pagans, and should feel insulted to be called anything else (at least Jews; perhaps Muslims don't mind). Proud to be Pagan -- Zev Sero - zvs@bby.oz.au Australia, n. A country lying in the South Sea, whose industrial and commercial development has been unspeakably retarded by an unfortunate dispute among geographers as to whether it is a continent or an island. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
rjp1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (on the jagged cliffs of Ngranek) (11/17/89)
In article (a.e.mossberg) writes: >In article (Patrick T. Garvin) writes: >> By Definition 1, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and the like are pagan. >> Definition number 2 is greatly annoying. Pagan is to no religion as >> homosexuality is to no sex. Both are alternative life{styles, choices}. >> Definition 3 was probably in vogue when Christianity was a majority religion. > Okay, you threw out the dictionary definition of pagan, but you've not > offered one of your own. >> The problem with talk.religion.wicca is that, although Wiccans are pagan, >> not all pagans are Wiccan. The other varieties of pagan would feel >> excluded. >> >> I think that more discussion is warranted on the name, obviously. >> >> How about talk.religion.neo-pagan > neo-pagan? What the hell is that? It's another newage bastardization. > Crowley would be proud. If it's neo-pagan you want, keep it in > t.r.newage where it belongs. Why are you so angry with Patrick's response? Nevermind... I think talk.religion.earth would make a better name. Then, pagans, wiccans, neo-pagans, and other "earth" centered peoples would have a forum. As it stands now, talk.religion.newage does not satisfy that need. The 'newage' is great for those into channeling, crystals, and other spiritual mediumship. Nowhere does it imply an "earth" based philosophy or religious point of view. Newage is too broad a term. I'd vote yes for talk.religion.earth. As for moderation, well, it would be a task. But I don't think it is absolutely warranted. -- -- rj pietkivitch att!ihlpa!rjp1
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (11/17/89)
In article <4834@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> rjp1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (on the jagged cliffs of Ngranek) writes: >I'd vote yes for talk.religion.earth. As for moderation, well, it >would be a task. But I don't think it is absolutely warranted. Yea, that would be okay. t.r.earth or t.r.nature I would probably vote for, moderation or no. aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion I can see the future, and it's a place... about 70 miles east of here. - Laurie Anderson
jde@everex.UUCP (-Jeff Ellis) (02/02/90)
I think we DO need a group for pagans. New Age is not the lable most pagans would like to be stuck to. I think that a pagan group will have a better chance for pagans to share ideas and grow. I voted for the moderated pagan group and would vote for a unmoderated group also to get it! -- Jeff Ellis ESIX SYSTEM/V A Division Everex Systems Inc. US Mail: 1923 St. Andrew Place, Santa Ana, CA 92705 UUCP: uunet!zardoz!everex!jde
burch@quik07.enet.dec.com (Ben Burch) (02/03/90)
I agree that we need a newsgroup, and although I earlier (this morning) brought up the subject of an alt.religion.pagan group, I am appalled at the connectivity of the altnet. Many times messages are confined to some small provice of sites, but (a paradox) replies to them spread far and wide. The question (for the net.gods) is; Can we propose an unmoderated newsgroup so close on the heels of the defeat of a moderated one of similar description? If so, I am all for it, and wonder who would be willing to do the work (and take the abuse of Certain People) of collecting the votes and publishing the results? (For a variety of reasons, I cannot, now, do this.)
ptgarvin@uokmax.uucp (Patrick T. Garvin) (02/03/90)
In article <8053@shlump.nac.dec.com> burch@quik07.enet.dec.com (Ben Burch) writes: > >If so, I am all for it, and wonder who would be willing to do the work >(and take the abuse of Certain People) of collecting the votes and >publishing the results? (For a variety of reasons, I cannot, now, >do this.) Whoever it is should be fairly well connected, if not on the backbone. I wonder how close aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu is? (Another site that I login from). It's on the Internet, Bitnet, and folks on uucp can reach it from uunet.uu.net. What are the other major networks, and their gateways? - Ted -- "Sometimes, even a blind pig finds an acorn." -- stolen from STella ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Eris loves you. in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (02/03/90)
In <8053@shlump.nac.dec.com> burch@quik07.enet.dec.com (Ben Burch) writes: > I agree that we need a newsgroup, and although I earlier (this morning) > brought up the subject of an alt.religion.pagan group, I am appalled > at the connectivity of the altnet. Fine. Be "appalled". Here, let me (mis-)use some statistics so we can see how justified that is. This is from the most recent readership report posted by Brian Reid to news.lists. Average propagation of alt groups is in the 75-80% for generally accepted groups; alt.religion.pagan could be one of those groups. Average propagation of talk groups is about 85%, but there are a couple of cases of alt groups enjoying wider distribution than talk groups. alt.sex is the second most highly read group on the net. Three alt groups have higher popularity than even the first ranked talk group, talk.bizarre. The most highly ranked religion group, talk.religion.misc, is less read than fifteen alt groups. I don't think that there is much cause to be appalled, nor do I think that making it an alt group would make any significant difference concerning the readership of the group. > Many times messages are confined to some small provice of sites, but > (a paradox) replies to them spread far and wide. This is a general problem on USENET. If an article made it to a site, a reply to it with the same disrtibution should theoretically go all of the same places that it went. Batches get lost, people change distribution, and other random events can screw this up. Say an article arrived at site moby from site foo; foo is also feeding bar and baz. That article should go on to bar and baz if they should get the group/distribution that it was posted to. A follow-up that had the same group/distribution would have to pass the same criteria to move on to them. > The question (for the net.gods) is; Can we propose an unmoderated > newsgroup so close on the heels of the defeat of a moderated one of > similar description? It is not generally accepted; it seems to me that "How to Create a New Newsgroup" used to say that a six month wait was required after a failed proposal, but that isn't present in there any more. At any rate, there will certainly be some people who would cry "Foul!" if you tried it again so soon. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet")) "Nice plant. Looks like a table cloth."
ptgarvin@uokmax.uucp (Patrick T. Garvin) (02/03/90)
In article <M&3`T|@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >In <8053@shlump.nac.dec.com> burch@quik07.enet.dec.com (Ben Burch) writes: [ [distribution than talk groups. alt.sex is the second most highly read [group on the net. Three alt groups have higher popularity than even the [first ranked talk group, talk.bizarre. The most highly ranked religion [group, talk.religion.misc, is less read than fifteen alt groups. I don't Sounds like alt.pagan is the way to go. I'm directing followups to the alt.config. [...] [It is not generally accepted; it seems to me that "How to Create a New [Newsgroup" used to say that a six month wait was required after a failed [proposal, but that isn't present in there any more. At any rate, there [will certainly be some people who would cry "Foul!" if you tried it again [so soon. [Dave [-- -- "Sometimes, even a blind pig finds an acorn." -- stolen from STella ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Eris loves you. in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.
davidg@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (David Guntner) (02/04/90)
From article <4093@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>, by wfink@jarthur.claremont.edu (Wonderbitch):
> [Speaks of the no vote on talk.religion.pagan]
I didn't even realize that the vote had turned up that way. Were the final
results posted (like they're supposed to be)? I don't remember seing it....
--Dave
--
David Guntner UUCP: {ames, mit-eddie}!attctc!davidg
INET: davidg@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (killer)
"...New ship, but she's got the right name. ...Treat --Admiral L. McCoy
her like a lady, and she'll always bring you home." "Encounter at Farpoint"cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) (02/06/90)
In article <4093@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wfink@jarthur.claremont.edu (Wonderbitch) writes: > I was sorry to hear of the NO vote on talk.religion.pagan and would like to > suggest trying again, this time as an unmoderated group. This would both > facilitate freer discussion, keep people's opinions from being squelched > (which seemed to be a cause for concern), and give those poor dips like > myself who found out about the voting after it was over another chance. > Any and all questions or comments are welcome. I voted against the moderated t.r.p. because a) in general I don't like moderated newsgroups, and b) I didn't know the proposed moderator enough to trust his judgment. I could support an *un*moderated t.r.p., but Tim Maroney brought up an interesting point regarding factionalism. I think "pagan" is a broad enough term to encompass a wide variety of magical traditions. What do others, specifically Tim, think? (Don't bother quoting definitions at me. I have a dictionary at hand, and I believe "pagan" is inclusive enough.) -- Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin, Chris Jarocha-Ernst UUCP: {ames, att, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje ARPA: JAROCHAERNST@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU CCIS, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855-0879
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (02/06/90)
In article <Feb.5.17.07.59.1990.27480@elbereth.rutgers.edu> cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) writes: >I voted against the moderated t.r.p. because a) in general I don't like >moderated newsgroups, and b) I didn't know the proposed moderator enough to >trust his judgment. All I know about him is that he never tried to address the inclusiveness issues I raised, made a ridiculous claim that ten votes out of thirty showed a strong consensus for his position, and acted in an underhanded manner when he posted his call for votes a day or two before my informal poll ran out. Not exactly the behavior one would hope for from a would-be moderator. >I could support an *un*moderated t.r.p., but Tim Maroney brought up an >interesting point regarding factionalism. I think "pagan" is a broad enough >term to encompass a wide variety of magical traditions. What do others, >specifically Tim, think? > >(Don't bother quoting definitions at me. I have a dictionary at hand, and >I believe "pagan" is inclusive enough.) Sure, but words don't exist in a vacuum. The fact is that, like "New Age", "pagan" has been co-opted by a particular faction and so in pragmatic terms isn't considered inclusive; if you say you're a pagan, people in contact with the traditions will assume you're not a reader of Ken Wilber, or a Thelemite, or a Theosophist, or a Ramthaist, etc. If we're going to go strictly on dictionary definitions, then "Catholic" is the most inclusive term in the world and we should use it as a synonym for "eclectic". Now, maybe in another three years, the Church Enlightened and Esoteric will be formed and become tremendously popular and spoil the term "esoteric" for the rest of us, but for now, it or something like it would be the best bet. Unfortunately, the Neo-Pagans here obviously are never going to address the inclusiveness issues. They don't want inclusiveness -- they want exclusivity, which is ever so much more emotionally satisfying to a certain kind of person -- but they are unwilling to come right out and say so. Sorry if this seems a little harsh, but over the last three months I've gotten pretty damn sick and tired of having my points on inclusiveness completely ignored by that faction. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com FROM THE FOOL FILE: "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- George Bush in FREE INQUIRY magazine, Fall 1988
olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) (02/07/90)
(Sigh). I'd hoped this whole barrage from Tim was over but...
In article <10081@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
#All I know about him is that he never tried to address the
#inclusiveness issues I raised, made a ridiculous claim that ten votes
#out of thirty showed a strong consensus for his position, and acted in
#an underhanded manner when he posted his call for votes a day or two
#before my informal poll ran out. Not exactly the behavior one would
#hope for from a would-be moderator.
I've already addressed these issues, but the posts long ago
scrolled into the dustbin so...
1) I still find it incredibly amusing that you will in the
same breath condemn me for actually using a poll which
was conducted to resolve the name/moderation issue *and*
then condemn me for not following your precious poll.
2) There was nothing sneaky about the call for votes. It was
sent out exactly one month after the call for discussion (as
the call for discussion had said it would be), there had been
no arguments over the proposed name or charter or moderation
status in over two weeks, and your bloody poll was still
ostensibly about renaming talk.religion.newage. But then,
considering your initial flames about the newsgroup, I'm not
sure if you ever *read* the initial call for discussion.
[Quotes Deleted: Topic is inclusiveness and names]
#Sure, but words don't exist in a vacuum. The fact is that, like "New
#Age", "pagan" has been co-opted by a particular faction and so in
#pragmatic terms isn't considered inclusive; if you say you're a pagan,
#people in contact with the traditions will assume you're not a reader
#of Ken Wilber, or a Thelemite, or a Theosophist, or a Ramthaist, etc.
#If we're going to go strictly on dictionary definitions, then
#"Catholic" is the most inclusive term in the world and we should use it
#as a synonym for "eclectic". Now, maybe in another three years, the
#Church Enlightened and Esoteric will be formed and become tremendously
#popular and spoil the term "esoteric" for the rest of us, but for now,
#it or something like it would be the best bet.
#
#Unfortunately, the Neo-Pagans here obviously are never going to address
#the inclusiveness issues. They don't want inclusiveness -- they want
#exclusivity, which is ever so much more emotionally satisfying to a
#certain kind of person -- but they are unwilling to come right out and
#say so. Sorry if this seems a little harsh, but over the last three
#months I've gotten pretty damn sick and tired of having my points on
#inclusiveness completely ignored by that faction.
Actually, it still comes across to me as "I led the fight to have
talk.religion.newage created and I don't want to let any similar newsgroups
get created"... the same theme which has been (at least to my mind) underlying
all of your posts on this subject. Inclusiveness is *not* the be all and end
all you are making it out to be. The fact that there is a newsgroup with
a narrower focus than you'd like does not mean that groups already in
existence (like talk.religion.misc and talk.religion.newage) which do have
wider scopes will wither away and die. There is room for both, Tim. By
your logic, we should only have one newsgroup, stuff.all, because anything
else would be factionalism. Your points on inclusiveness haven't been ignored,
they've just been irrelevent. But then, you first flamed me for trying
to rename talk.religion.newage (something which was never even under
consideration), so I don't know why I expect you to actually address the
issues of what was *specifically intended* to be a newsgroup with a
narrower focus than talk.religion.newage.
--Dave
---
Dave Weinstein GEnie: OLORIN
Internet: olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Old address: olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu
Disclaimer: My employer has opinions. I have opinions. Let's keep it that way.davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (02/07/90)
In article <24170@ut-emx.UUCP> olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) writes: | | (Sigh). I'd hoped this whole barrage from Tim was over but... | | In article <10081@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: | > All of the usual stuff | | All of the usual stuff back Guys, why don't you take this offline. Tim hates pagans, or the name, or something, and is criticising the name, content, idea, purpose, etc constantly. Tim encourages him by trying to use reason. Could you both just send hate mail a few times a day and post the synopsys in the year 2000? This is not discussion, it's rehashing. Let's just vote on this group, and maybe you guys can find something real to think about. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
burch@slab.enet.dec.com (Ben Burch) (02/07/90)
FYI. Somebody has created "alt.pagan", and I see no reason not to use it until a soc.* or talk.* group is eventually created. - Ben Burch
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (02/08/90)
In article <24170@ut-emx.UUCP> olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) writes: > > Inclusiveness is *not* the be all and end >all you are making it out to be. >There is room for both, Tim. By >your logic, we should only have one newsgroup, stuff.all, because anything >else would be factionalism. ----------- To support Tim & Dave, YES, I wanted a narrower focus than t.r.na. Computers were created to help us make more efficient use of our time -- not to make us their slaves via larger time consumption. The majority of topics in t.r.na are things I am uninterested in. More often than not, I have to scan through all the titles, then press the 'c' key to ignore everything there. Occasionally there are things that the titles are not very descriptive of, which means I either miss 'pearls', or I have to sort through lots of 'junk' that I am not interested in. I would much prefer a narrow topic or scope that would weed out more things I am uninterested in to make better use of my time. As Dave mentioned, the logical end to those who don't want narrow, focused newgroups, would be to create stuff.all and let us all spend full time looking for what we really wanted to read. -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
ptgarvin@uokmax.uucp (Patrick T. Garvin) (02/08/90)
In article <8186@shlump.nac.dec.com> burch@slab.enet.dec.com (Ben Burch) writes: > >FYI. Somebody has created "alt.pagan", and I see no reason not to use >it until a soc.* or talk.* group is eventually created. > >- Ben Burch Unfortunately, it either isn't distributed to most sites or the name was clumsily chosen (One or two discussion messages in alt.config, and some sysadmin creates alt.pagan.) I think alt.religion.pagan might have been more descriptive. As it is, about half the posts are about atheism (apparently the posters are interpreting pagan as atheist). -- "Sometimes, even a blind pig finds an acorn." -- stolen from STella ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Eris loves you. in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (02/10/90)
In article <10081@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >#All I know about him is that he never tried to address the >#inclusiveness issues I raised, made a ridiculous claim that ten votes >#out of thirty showed a strong consensus for his position, and acted in >#an underhanded manner when he posted his call for votes a day or two >#before my informal poll ran out. Not exactly the behavior one would >#hope for from a would-be moderator. In article <24170@ut-emx.UUCP> olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) writes: > 1) I still find it incredibly amusing that you will in the > same breath condemn me for actually using a poll which > was conducted to resolve the name/moderation issue *and* > then condemn me for not following your precious poll. You and your little friend Billy need to go back to remedial reading class. I condemned the fact that you took a weak plurality (ten out of thirty) as establishing consensus. Read the above quote, read the other things I've written on the subject, and then tell me with a straight face I wrote anything else. I didn't condemn using a poll; I condemned interpreting its results in a plainly fallacious manner. > 2) There was nothing sneaky about the call for votes. It was > sent out exactly one month after the call for discussion (as > the call for discussion had said it would be), there had been > no arguments over the proposed name or charter or moderation > status in over two weeks, and your bloody poll was still > ostensibly about renaming talk.religion.newage. But then, > considering your initial flames about the newsgroup, I'm not > sure if you ever *read* the initial call for discussion. It was not a poll about renaming; it asked as one of several questions whether the group should be renamed or a new group established, as well as whether a new or renamed group should be moderated and what its name should be. Your statement that it was only about renaming is another bloody great lie. As is the claim that torpedoing my poll before consensus was reached was in no way underhanded. Suuure it wasn't. If you really have any doubts that consensus had not been reached, look at the way the votes came out, you blithering idiot! And no, I never saw a call for discussion on the issue. If you sent one, it seems not to have reached this site. >#Unfortunately, the Neo-Pagans here obviously are never going to address >#the inclusiveness issues. They don't want inclusiveness -- they want >#exclusivity, which is ever so much more emotionally satisfying to a >#certain kind of person -- but they are unwilling to come right out and >#say so. > Actually, it still comes across to me as "I led the fight to have >talk.religion.newage created and I don't want to let any similar newsgroups >get created"... the same theme which has been (at least to my mind) underlying >all of your posts on this subject. We've already seen how accurate your little interpretations are. Perhaps you should consider simply responding to my points rather than to what you seem to see scrawled on the inside of my skull. >Inclusiveness is *not* the be all and end >all you are making it out to be. The fact that there is a newsgroup with >a narrower focus than you'd like does not mean that groups already in >existence (like talk.religion.misc and talk.religion.newage) which do have >wider scopes will wither away and die. There is room for both, Tim. By >your logic, we should only have one newsgroup, stuff.all, because anything >else would be factionalism. Your points on inclusiveness haven't been ignored, >they've just been irrelevent. But then, you first flamed me for trying >to rename talk.religion.newage (something which was never even under >consideration), so I don't know why I expect you to actually address the >issues of what was *specifically intended* to be a newsgroup with a >narrower focus than talk.religion.newage. Yes, it was specifically intended to be narrow-minded. Does that mean I have to respect your narrow-mindedness, or that you don't have to give even a slight approximation to a *reason* for preferring narrow-mindedness? There is not the merest attempt at a justification for this narrow focus in your message. I never again want to hear from anyone about the supposed eclecticism and tolerance of Neo-Pagan religion. Lip service is trash. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address