prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) (01/11/90)
In light of the fact that unmoderated religious/political newsgroups best belong in the talk hierarchy, it has been decided to change the name of the newsgroup to talk.religion.eastern. This will be the name used at the time a call for votes is issued. Please make a note of this change in name. This, I believe, fixes the newsgroup in the right hierarchy and that leaves only the charter to be discussed. Sorry about the mixup. Dinesh Prabhu (prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov)
prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) (01/11/90)
In article <355@dbase.UUCP> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: >>In article <4412@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) writes: >>> >>> 1) The word eastern in the title of the newsgroup signifies religions >>> with origins in south/south-east/far-east asia. For example, >>> Hinduism, Buddhism (all forms), Jainism, Sikhism, and Shintoism. >>> >>How much interest do you expect to get on these topics? Have you tried >>using t.religion.misc or t.r.newage? (I've seen some discussions on these >>topics in both places.) Do you have a mailing list going, or a rough >>count of how many articles in s.c.indian have dealt with these topics? Ramesh Sitaraman (rks@princeton.edu) brought this up sometime during the middle part of last year and there was sufficient interest expressed then. I brought up the idea in s.c.indian and there was sufficient interest then too. I did not bring it up in the other relevant newsgroups and I have no idea how much interest there is in those groups. I'd hoped this discussion would give me a fair idea. I have tried t.religion.newage but not t.r.misc. There is no mailing list and I don't have an estimate of the number of articles that dealt explicitly with the topics. >> >>> 2) The newsgroup will be unmoderated. It is up to the people posting >>> articles to make sure that their articles are in good taste and >>> not inflammatory. >>> >>The convention so far is that talk.religion groups are unmoderated and >>the soc.religion ones are. Note that the title of the newsgroup has been changed to t.r.eastern. That should take care of the question of fitting the newsgroup into the right hierarchy. >> >>> 5) This forum CANNOT be used for proseletyzing. >>> >>It WILL be (at some point) if it is unmoderated, but you can always put the >>proselytizer in your KILL file (it's usually just a few people). A better >>reason for moderation is to put a cap on pointless discussions. I had not planned to put this clause in the charter originally. This was more of an afterthought. There will always be that odd kook who'll try to hijack the agenda. One cannot protect an unmoderated group against such an attack. However, one cannot deny the person a right to post what he or she thinks is relevant. The 'n' key and/or KILL files help in a situation like this. I think it is better to start the group as an unmoderated one and see how things go. As and aside, most Eastern systems do not have a proseletyzing feature built into them and so, this clause is actually not necessary. >> >>> 6) Articles about western religious systems (Judaism,Christianity,Islam >>> etc.) are also welcome if the aim is make rational/objective comparisons >>> of these systems with those discussed in this newsgroup. >>> >>I'm glad to see this -- it is easier for me to understand things when I can >>compare them to a reference I know about, so this point open the possibility >>of the group being of use/interest to more than just adherants of eastern >>religions. I am glad you liked this idea. This idea should give the group a wide appeal. >> >>> 4) Articles should deal with the philosophy/theology underlying the >>> religious systems and should be devoid of any political content. >>> My vision of this newsgroup is that of a forum where people can discuss Eastern metaphysics/theology objectively and rationally without bringing in political (in the strictest sense of word) issues into the picture. >>-Dan >>uunet!ashtate!dveditz >>dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com Dinesh Prabhu prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
jchen@ms.uky.edu (Jindong Chen) (01/20/90)
Yes
barry@calmasd.Prime.COM (Barry Hynum) (01/20/90)
In article <4461@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) writes: > At this time I'm soliciting your opnions and suggestions about > the proposed newsgroup. I would subscribe and contribute periodically. I suggest a moderator, otherwise the new group would be swamped with "fundies" and "hostiles". I'm also concerned about article length; moderation might formally encourage brevity. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Hynum <So many threads -- Across an invisible universe <What fabric is this? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) (01/20/90)
Firstly, I am somewhat puzzled by the sudden change in name from
soc.religion.eastern to talk.religion.eastern over the course of a day.
The original call for soc.religion.eastern was dated 9 Jan 90. The call
for talk.religion.eastern, claiming a lack of response to the first
message, is dated 10 Jan 90. Is one day really enough to consider a
name change? If there are indeed good reasons for the name change,
shouldn't people get a chance to air them first? Lastly, if it is any
consolation, my site received both messages today, 19 Jan 90.
To address the matter at hand, I would vote against talk.religion.-
eastern as my site does not get the talk. groups.
Srinathprabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) (01/20/90)
In article <21754@unix.cis.pitt.edu> srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) writes: >> >> Firstly, I am somewhat puzzled by the sudden change in name from >>soc.religion.eastern to talk.religion.eastern over the course of a day. >>The original call for soc.religion.eastern was dated 9 Jan 90. The call >>for talk.religion.eastern, claiming a lack of response to the first >>message, is dated 10 Jan 90. Is one day really enough to consider a >>name change? If there are indeed good reasons for the name change, >>shouldn't people get a chance to air them first? Lastly, if it is any >>consolation, my site received both messages today, 19 Jan 90. >> >> To address the matter at hand, I would vote against talk.religion.- >>eastern as my site does not get the talk. groups. >> >> Srinath My site underwent some reconfiguration recently and hence the delay in getting articles posted on the bulletin board. Sorry about that. Regarding the "soc" to "talk" conversion. This conversion stems from a long correspondence I had with Greg Woods (the moderator of news. announce.newsgroups) and the opinions posted by Tim Maroney and Dan Veditz (see articles around 1/7-1/10 in this newsgroup). Apparently, net precedent has it that unmoderated religion or politics newsgroups belong in the talk hierarchy and moderated ones belong in the soc hierarchy. Since the *.religion.eastern was proposed as an unmoderated newsgroup and the volume of discussion rather low, I decided it would be best to move it to the talk hierarchy. The idea was also to prevent a net war about the choice of hierarchies (a la sci.aquaria). Let us assume (tentatively) that the proposed newsgroup will be in the talk hierarchy. Perhaps a clearer picture will emerge at the end of this discussion period (Feb. 1 is when I want to bring this to a vote). I would like to hear people's opinions about moderation (regarding the proposed newsgroup only). Some people have made compelling arguments for moderation: prevent flames, prevent "loonies", brevity, etc. But... the scope of the proposed newsgroup is too vast for a moderator. Ideally the moderator would have to be knowledgeable about the religious systems that fall within the scope of this newsgroup. This is asking for a bit too much. One possibility would be have multiple moderators (like soc.religion.islam). Right now I don't have a clue as to how one selects a moderator and I don't want a personality contest for the selection of one or more moderators. Any suggestions ? If the majority opinion indicates that moderation is absolutely necessary AND I can find one or more moderators then I would move the group into the soc hierarchy where it would form a nice sister group to soc.religion. christianity and soc.religion.islam. Opinions anyone ? If most people are ambivalent about moderation then I would keep the group as an unmoderated group in the talk hierarchy. Dinesh Prabhu (prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov) Opinions expressed above are all mine.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/20/90)
In article <4552@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, prabhu@amelia (Dinesh K. Prabhu) writes: > If the majority opinion indicates that moderation is absolutely necessary > AND I can find one or more moderators then I would move the group into > the soc hierarchy where it would form a nice sister group to soc.religion. > christianity and soc.religion.islam. Opinions anyone ? I don't think moderation will be necessary. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."
russ@unisoft.UUCP (Russ Button) (01/22/90)
I don't know that a separate newsgroup is needed for this topic. If it should arise however, I would certainly subscribe to it as eastern religions are very much in keeping with the principles taught in my own path, ECKANKAR. Russ Button russ@unisoft.UUCP <ucbvax,uunet,sun>!unisoft!russ
bandu@acsu.Buffalo.EDU (Jagath Samarabandu) (01/22/90)
In article <1990Jan20.094858.1334@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > I don't think moderation will be necessary. Me too. Jagath K. Samarabandu (716)-833-7975 bandu@cs.buffalo.edu 168 B, Kenville Rd., Buffalo,NY14215 v092r8c2@ubvms.bitnet
srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) (01/23/90)
In Article <4552@amelia.nas.nasa.gov] prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
(Dinesh K. Prabhu) writes
] Regarding the "soc" to "talk" conversion. This conversion stems from
] a long correspondence I had with Greg Woods (the moderator of news.
] announce.newsgroups) and the opinions posted by Tim Maroney and Dan
] Veditz (see articles around 1/7-1/10 in this newsgroup). Apparently,
] net precedent has it that unmoderated religion or politics newsgroups
] belong in the talk hierarchy and moderated ones belong in the soc
] hierarchy. Since the *.religion.eastern was proposed as an unmoderated
] newsgroup and the volume of discussion rather low, I decided it would
] be best to move it to the talk hierarchy. The idea was also to prevent
] a net war about the choice of hierarchies (a la sci.aquaria). Let us
] assume (tentatively) that the proposed newsgroup will be in the talk
] hierarchy. Perhaps a clearer picture will emerge at the end of this
] discussion period (Feb. 1 is when I want to bring this to a vote).
]
] I would like to hear people's opinions about moderation (regarding
] the proposed newsgroup only). Some people have made compelling arguments
] for moderation: prevent flames, prevent "loonies", brevity, etc. But...
] the scope of the proposed newsgroup is too vast for a moderator.
] Ideally the moderator would have to be knowledgeable about the religious
] systems that fall within the scope of this newsgroup. This is asking
] for a bit too much. One possibility would be have multiple moderators
] (like soc.religion.islam). Right now I don't have a clue as to
] how one selects a moderator and I don't want a personality contest
] for the selection of one or more moderators. Any suggestions ?
]
] If the majority opinion indicates that moderation is absolutely necessary
] AND I can find one or more moderators then I would move the group into
] the soc hierarchy where it would form a nice sister group to soc.religion.
] christianity and soc.religion.islam. Opinions anyone ?
]
] If most people are ambivalent about moderation then I would keep the group
] as an unmoderated group in the talk hierarchy.
While I understand the view of keeping to net precedent regarding
hierarchy vs. moderation, it seems to me that with serious discussions on
Christianity, Judaism and Islam already taken care of in the soc. hierarchy,
and with talk.religion.misc already present, it is a waste to have *.religion.-
eastern in the talk hierarchy. It also seems to me that the present guideline
is just that, a guideline, than the iron-clad rule it is being purported to
be. I also believe that moderation for *.religion.eastern would be against
the essential principles of most eastern philosophies. In the interest of
obtaining a forum for *open*, *serious* discussions on eastern philosophies
without incurring the wrath of the net, I suggest that at least some thought
be given to why an unmoderated soc.religion.eastern would not be viable. I
find it difficult to believe that the exchanges in an unmoderated
soc.religion.eastern would be any more vicious than those I have seen in
soc.culture.indian, where the idea for this group first surfaced.
] Dinesh Prabhu
] (prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov)
Srinath
srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edualoise@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jim Aloise) (01/25/90)
My vote is for an unmoderated talk.religion.eastern.
pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (01/26/90)
In article <21754@unix.cis.pitt.edu> srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) writes: > >soc.religion.eastern to talk.religion.eastern over the course of a day. >The original call for soc.religion.eastern was dated 9 Jan 90. The call >for talk.religion.eastern, claiming a lack of response to the first >message, is dated 10 Jan 90. Is one day really enough to consider a >name change? If there are indeed good reasons for the name change, >shouldn't people get a chance to air them first? Lastly, if it is any >consolation, my site received both messages today, 19 Jan 90. > Exactly - my site too received the calls late and both arrived on the same day. A large number of sites do not receive the talk. groups - mine does not. You have a large number of potential NO votes out there- including mine. So might I - for the same reason. But I don't want to prevent the creation of such a newsgroup. I would vote YES for soc. etc. -- Sridhar Pingali
kstewart@td2cad.intel.com (Kent Stewart ) (01/26/90)
In article <4458@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) writes: >In article <355@dbase.UUCP> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: >>>In article <4412@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) writes: >>>> >>>> 1) The word eastern in the title of the newsgroup signifies religions >>>> with origins in south/south-east/far-east asia. For example, >>>> Hinduism, Buddhism (all forms), Jainism, Sikhism, and Shintoism. >>>> >>>How much interest do you expect to get on these topics? Have you tried >>>using t.religion.misc or t.r.newage? (I've seen some discussions on these >>>topics in both places.) Well, I have participated in some of these discussions, and my feeling is that the inherent bias of the respective groups does not lend itself to productive, open discussion. What I mean by this is that talk.religion.misc has a largely Christian bias, with a minority element of atheists and skeptics, and .newage leans towards magic, Paganism, demonology, etc. There are a lot of folks interested in each bias, and the two groups provide forums for these folks to pursue their interests with each other. But a subject such as Advaita Vedanta or Mahayana Buddhism is rarely a good fit in either group. In the .misc group, almost any topic brought up will be responded to and (often politely) argued with from a variety of Christian viewpoints, some very thoughtful and insightful, some dogmatic, some pretty stubborn. Sometimes a conversation is maintained for a while, such as an interchange between Christians and Buddhists a few months back. But even then it starts to break down over charges of "condescension" and intolerance imagined on either side. I monitored soc.culture.indian for a few months to see if discussion might be happening there, but that was not a very good fit either. Though many folks on s.c.i. might support the new group and participate in it, extended spiritual discussions don't really seem to be the group's charter. I wholely support the new group, either unmoderated as currently proposed, or moderated if the majority of those interested wish it to be so. Kent Stewart {decwrl,hplabs,oliveb,amd,quantel}!intelca!mipos3!td2cad!kstewart kstewart%td2cad.intel.com@relay.cs.net
prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) (01/26/90)
We have entered the final week of discussion and debate about the
proposed newsgroup talk.religion.eastern.
Initially I had proposed to create the *.religion.eastern newsgroup
in the soc hierarchy. This, I felt would be a perfect complement to
s.r.christianity and s.r.islam (both moderated). I was informed of
the net precedent of not having unmoderated religious/political
newsgroups in the soc hierarchy. Because of this and the fact that
I did not have a moderator, I decided to move the group into the
talk hierarchy.
I am happy to say that Dr. Mukund Srinivasan (mukund@princeton.edu)
has been kind enough to agree to moderate the proposed newsgroup. I
now wish to move the newsgroup into the soc hierarchy (last move,
honest!) With this in mind and with the comments that I have received
over the past few days, I have reworked the charter.
CHARTER OF SOC.RELIGION.EASTERN (moderated)
1) The word eastern in the title of the newsgroup signifies religions
with origins in South/South-East/Far-East Asia. For example,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.
2) The aim of the newsgroup is to provide a forum for the discussion
of Eastern metaphysics/theology/logic.
3) All people, irrespective of their religious background, can post
articles in this newsgroup.
4) Articles about western religious systems [Judaism/Christianity/Islam
are also welcome if the aim is to make rational/objective comparisons
of these systems with those discussed in this newsgroup [s.r.eastern]
5) The newsgroup will be moderated to prevent inflammatory articles,
personal attacks, and proselytizing.
6) The moderator will not impose his/her personal agenda on the newsgroup.
7) If an article is rejected the moderator will clearly state his reason(s)
for doing so.
8) The moderator reserves the right to end a discussion if the discussion
has gone on for a while and no further light is being shed on the topic
of discussion.
Please let me know what you think of this reworked charter. I plan to bring
this to a vote on Feb. 1, 1990. Thanks once again for your time.
Dinesh K. Prabhu
(prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dinesh K. Prabhu Eloret Institute, M/S 230-2 |
| prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov NASA ARC, Moffett Field CA-94035. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- sondra@lzsc.ATT.COM (Sondra Menthers) (02/02/90)
I vote yes. As a Buddhist I would love to see this newsgroup.