ptgarvin@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Patrick T. Garvin) (11/11/89)
In article <1989Nov10.064622.29499@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
{ Once again, we see that interesting correlation between saying
{"Blessed Be!" and being an idiot.
This must be the dreaded Weemba, or one of his ilk.
{--
{ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
May Chaos be your friend
--
"If you juggle with knives, you're likely to get cut." -- Kieran Donegal
ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Hail Eris!
in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra
Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.rjp1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (on the jagged cliffs of Ngranek) (11/12/89)
In article (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >In article (on the jagged cliffs of Ngranek) writes: >> Even so, creating the group will not keep out the fundies, skeptics, >> or other posters whose sole purpose seems to be bent on detraction >> and/or harassment. Is moderation such a dirty word? > Yes, it is. There are people who have significant things to say, but > would be suspicious of anyone who wanted to moderate such a group, and > might not say what they really feel, or post at all; the freedom in > general to do what thou wilt, without depending on anyone else, is > central to the whole concept of paganism. A group of people with > such a focused common background should be quite capable of keeping > any outside flamage to a minimum without the restrictions of moderation; > moreover, how shall we find out, if we do not try? Thanks for your response! I am only curious as to the reader's feelings in this matter. I personally am not for moderation either, but the issue must be talked about at one time or another. Okay, on with the show.. (btw, I like t.r.earth as a name much better than t.r.pagan) -- -- rj pietkivitch att!ihlpa!rjp1
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/14/89)
In article <1989Nov10.064622.29499@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: | This whole proposal is idiotic anyway, since talk.religion.newage | already exists. I believe the difference between newage and pagan has been explained several times. Perhaps the articles are still on your system. They are not the same. Paganism would be oldage is anything, since most polytheistic religions are pre Christian. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (11/14/89)
The word "pagan" means a lot. The dictionary says one, the followers of
mainstream religions use another definition, self-pronounced pagans
mean it to use something else.
Does it matter? I say no.
The approximate meaning of the word pagan is something just about everyone
seems to agree on. Most people seem aware that Druidic rituals would fall
belong in t.r.pagan, while discussions of the healing properties of crystals
would be valid in t.r.newage.
Wicca is a specific kind of "paganism" (not to use the term in a deragatory
manner). There are others. But if you use the term pagan, most people have
an idea of what that is. And clarity is what's important.
close enough for Usenet
--
David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
The keyboard's been drinking, not me.ptgarvin@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Patrick T. Garvin) (11/14/89)
In article <344@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: > >The approximate meaning of the word pagan is something just about everyone >seems to agree on. Most people seem aware that Druidic rituals would fall >belong in t.r.pagan, while discussions of the healing properties of crystals >would be valid in t.r.newage. > > close enough for Usenet While we've not had the amount of discussion that the proposal for sci.aquaria caused, it looks like, after the results of the name poll come in, that a call for votes would not be inappropriate. >-- > David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO. > > The keyboard's been drinking, not me. -- "If you juggle with knives, you're likely to get cut." -- Kieran Donegal ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Hail Eris! in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (11/14/89)
In article <1600@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, davidsen@crdos1 (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: >In article <1989Nov10.064622.29499@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >| This whole proposal is idiotic anyway, since talk.religion.newage >| already exists. I believe the difference between newage and pagan has been explained several times. And each time it came out different. Since people don't even agree as to what "pagan" means, it would not be a good name for any group, anyway. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "*That* the world is, is the mystical." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/15/89)
In article <1989Nov14.080507.14221@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > In article <1600@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, davidsen@crdos1 (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: > >In article <1989Nov10.064622.29499@agate.berkeley.edu>, > gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > > >| This whole proposal is idiotic anyway, since talk.religion.newage > >| already exists. > > I believe the difference between newage and pagan has been > explained several times. > > > And each time it came out different. Since people don't even > agree as to what "pagan" means, it would not be a good name for > any group, anyway. > -- I get the impression from supporters of the group that they indeed can sensibly differentiate between newagery and paganism. And if different people have different definitions, they can all post. Let them have their forum. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "'Tis not too late to seek a newer world." -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson
unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (11/15/89)
In article <1600@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1989Nov10.064622.29499@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >| This whole proposal is idiotic anyway, since talk.religion.newage >| already exists. > I believe the difference between newage and pagan has been explained >several times. Perhaps the articles are still on your system. They are >not the same. Paganism would be oldage is anything, since most >polytheistic religions are pre Christian. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What on TerraFirma does this have to do with a pagan/wicca newsgroup? Does it make a difference if paganism or newage or Wicca is pre or post Christian? I doubt it! If one wants a pagan newsgroup as opposed to a newage newsgroup, fine. Anyone who knows anything about newage or Wicca or pagans know that there are definite differences between the three, as well as similarities. I think life would be much easier for pagans if they had their own newsgroup as well as Wiccans. From what I have seen, there are far more Wiccans on USENET than there are general pagans, so there should not be any problem creating this group for just Wiccans and another for pagans, should there? Regardless, whatever relationship these groups have with Christianity should have nothing to do with whether or not they are created. >-- >bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) >"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called >'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see >that the world is flat!" - anon Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%
davidli@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dave Meile) (11/16/89)
In article <3346@hydra.gatech.EDU> gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >In the referenced article davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes: >>Without some form of moderation, any newsgroup such as the one proposed is >>doomed to be a repeat of the other talk.religion.xxxxx newsgroups. > >Did you not listen? Here, I'll do it again... > >>>moreover, how shall we find out, if we do not try? We _are_ trying ... with talk.religion.newage. Do you learn nothing from your own experiences in this particular newsgroup? >Did you notice that Joe, for whatever reason, hasn't been flaming of late >since we put up a concerted, reasoned, and polite effort to put an end to it? I've noticed that Mr. Applegate hasn't been posting ANYWHERE of late, including talk.religion.misc. Without confirmation, I can only conclude that he is not _able_ to post. This is _not_ the same as stating "having listened to the rational and polite effort of talk.religion.newage posters, Joe Applegate decided to cease from posting to that group". Do no confuse synchronicity with causation in this case. >This is how things would work in the new group.... There is a lot more >diversity, and a lot less ability to work together, in t.r.newage than there >would be in t.r.pagan. ] Proposed charter of talk.religion.pagan: ] ] This newsgroup shall be unmoderated, and for the discussion ] of religious issues concerning pagans (as well as related issues ] of religious rights and religious persecution). If your own idea of religious issues concerning pagans is as broad as my own, you would not think there would be _less_ diversity in the proposed newsgroup! The issues which concern, for example, those Wiccans who follow Gardnerian craft are vastly different from the issues which concern those Wiccans who follow Dianian craft [ackward adjective there folk -- feel free to let me know of a better one...] Then, there are those of us who practice no craft, but who appear "pagan" to those in the monotheistic religions. And religious persecution falls upon many of the so-called "new age" religions -- and is not limited to Wiccans or neo-Pagans. What I expect you'd like is a forum for discussing things calmly, without invective, with the goal of proposing real solutions to real problems, without the annoyance of every fourth posting being from a net-evangelist. You're not going to get that forum without some level of moderation. > GIVE IT A CHANCE, guys. If we're still fighting >continuous flamage six months after creation, remind me. But don't just >give up. If you're still fighting cross-postings after six months, talk.religion.pagan will be as big a "flop" as you now see talk.religion.newage. Unfortunately, there won't BE a vote for a moderated group after that time ... people will look and say "Well, they couldn't make it with one newsgroup -- why should we bother to provide them with ANOTHER one?!" >There will always be negativity in the world. That doesn't mean we should >wimp out and not try to do the best we can. Since when does rational moderation imply "wimping out"? As far as I can tell, moderation wouldn't necessarily shut out the negative -- but it would keep the level of invective down _and_ serve to effectively shut out the net-evangelist from a forum where such does not belong. The "Talk" groups are _very_ loosely oriented, making it extremely difficult to focus on the topics with which most people are concerned. -- David Paschall-Zimbel
jde@everex.UUCP (Jeff Ellis) (11/21/89)
I think there is enough diffrence between "New Age" and Paganism for it to have its own topic! The stuff that Pagans go through are much diffrent then other groups. And some of the book reviews that would happen would NOT interest most non-pagans. So my vote is to have it! (BTW: Disclamer.... These views are my own and may not me the same as others...)