wfink@jarthur.claremont.edu (Wonderbitch) (02/02/90)
[USENET lore holds that there should be some grace period before
another attempt at creating a newsgroup, but this only half fits
into that category.-eliot]
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.
Blessed be!
--the Wonderbitchtim@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.
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