olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) (11/18/89)
In article <20752@ut-emx.UUCP> olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) writes:
#
# Poll (Please send votes to olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu)
# -----------------------------------------------------
#
# The proposed newgroup for the discussion of Wiccan and other
# pagan issues:
#
# (1) Should be called talk.religion.pagan
10 votes
# (2) Should be called talk.religion.neopagan
2 votes
# (3) Should be called talk.religion.wicca
4 votes
# (4) Should be called talk.religion.earth
5 votes
# (5) Should be called talk.religion.nature
3 votes
# (6) Should be called talk.religion.newage (i.e. don't do it)
6 votes
# (7) Should be moderated
14 votes
# (8) Should be unmoderated
7 votes
So, the proposal under discussion is for a moderated newsgroup which
is to be called talk.religion.pagan, and would be for the discussion of
issues relating to the various pagan religions (with an emphasis on the
nature religions because there seem to be more of followers of those
religions on the net but with room for all). The moderation would be
minimal, being used only to keep out the off-charter proselytizing which
shows up on talk.religion.newage. It would not be there for the determination
of what was and was not "right", or for the editing of messages (for one
thing I just don't have the *time* for that). But moderation (as was mentioned
by many of the voters) is the only way to keep people from spewing unwanted
preaching all over the newsgroup.
--Dave
---
Dave Weinstein olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu GEnie: OLORIN
9036 N. Lamar #274 Home: (512) 339-4407 Work: Don't Call
Austin, TX 78753 Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway. tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (11/20/89)
It is ridiculous to call a poll decisive when, of 30 votes, no opinion came close to achieving a majority, only a weak plurality (10 votes). The decision to rename talk.religion.newage is probably a good one. When the newage mailing list was created years ago, by me, "new age" was taken as a broader and more inclusive term. Since then, it has come to mean only a single thread in the network of esoteric mystical systems, and as such, many potential participants have come to feel alienated by it. But it would be foolish to replace this with another term which has the same problem, such as "pagan", a term which hardly embraces the eclectic group of esotericists which the original group was aimed at. It smacks of intolerance, a desire by one group to be heard at the expense of all others. What is even more ridiculous is that *all* the proposed alternatives, pagan, neopagan, earth, wicca, and nature, are terms co-opted by this same group, terms which explicitly exclude the sorts of wide-ranging interests we had on the original mailing list, such as Freemasonry, Sri Aurobindo, Thelema, Buddhism, and so forth (as well as Neo-Paganism, of course). The people behind this attempted act of exclusion do not even pretend to want a wide, eclectic group; they want to hear Neo-Paganism and nothing else. So, as the founder of the talk.religion.newage group, I protest very strongly the attempt to narrow its scope to Neo-Paganism exclusively. However, I do understand and respect the idea of renaming it to some term which more accurately reflects the originally inclusive intent of the group. I suggest that any of the following would be good alternatives (ranked in the order of my preferences, from best to worst): talk.religion.magic talk.religion.esoteric talk.religion.eclectic talk.religion.occult talk.religion.ritual talk.religion.mystical But in any case, let's hear the end of this nonsense about ten votes out of tens of thousands of people on the network defining the proper direction of discussion. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "As I was walking among the fires of Hell, delighted with the enjoyments of Genius; which to Angels look like torment and insanity. I collected some of their Proverbs..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (11/20/89)
In article <9020@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >The decision to rename talk.religion.newage is probably a good one. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What decision to rename? I thought that there was a proposal for a NEW group dealing with pagan/wiccan/earth because t.r.newage was getting numerous postings of that sort. I never saw anything that indicated that this would be to rename or replace t.r.newage. >When the newage mailing list was created years ago, by me, "new age" >was taken as a broader and more inclusive term. Since then, it has >come to mean only a single thread in the network of esoteric mystical >systems, and as such, many potential participants have come to feel >alienated by it. But it would be foolish to replace this with another ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. Which is why, from what I can tell, this was a proposal to create a new group in which those who are not "newage" can talk, not to replace the old group. >It smacks of intolerance, a desire by one group to be >heard at the expense of all others. > [Stuff deleted with care] The people behind this attempted >act of exclusion do not >even pretend to want a wide, eclectic group; they want to hear >Neo-Paganism and nothing else. Yes, which is why they want to create a NEW GROUP. I think you should follow the thread of discussion back to its original before you start getting worried. >However, I do understand and respect the idea of renaming it to some >term which more accurately reflects the originally inclusive intent of >the group. I suggest that any of the following would be good >alternatives (ranked in the order of my preferences, from best to >worst): > >talk.religion.magic >talk.religion.esoteric >talk.religion.eclectic >talk.religion.occult >talk.religion.ritual >talk.religion.mystical I find that some of these choices are also too generic/broad or exclusivistic. t.r.ritual could be Roman Catholics and t.r.magic could be druids or t.r.occult could be mediums....Of course, I am not against renaming t.r.newage, but perhaps, as founder, you should start a thread in t.r.newage to discuss new names (maybe you have already done that, I don't know). Good luck to whatever you do. > >Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%
olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) (11/21/89)
In article <9020@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
#It is ridiculous to call a poll decisive when, of 30 votes, no opinion
#came close to achieving a majority, only a weak plurality (10 votes).
I can only count the opinions of those people who chose to vote
in the poll. This is no more ridiculous than a few hundred people deciding
whether or not a group should be created, when the vast majority of the
people on the net didn't even care enough to vote (and that is not a criticism
of the voting mechanism...just a comparison).
#The decision to rename talk.religion.newage is probably a good one.
That may or may not be so. This is not a proposal to *rename* the
group talk.religion.newage, this is a proposal for the creation of a more
specific group in addition to talk.religion.newage.
#When the newage mailing list was created years ago, by me, "new age"
#was taken as a broader and more inclusive term. Since then, it has
#come to mean only a single thread in the network of esoteric mystical
#systems, and as such, many potential participants have come to feel
#alienated by it. But it would be foolish to replace this with another
#term which has the same problem, such as "pagan", a term which hardly
#embraces the eclectic group of esotericists which the original group
#was aimed at. It smacks of intolerance, a desire by one group to be
#heard at the expense of all others.
Not at the expense of anything. Talk.religion.newage will continue
to exist. However, there does seem to be enough interest to merit a moderated
newsgroup for the discussion of the pagan issues. Whether or not the new
newsgroup "embraces the eclectic group of esotericists which the original
group was aimed at" is _irrelevent_, this is a seperate newsgroup. The
reason for moderation (as has been said before) is to keep the preaching
out of the newsgroup.
#What is even more ridiculous is that *all* the proposed alternatives,
#pagan, neopagan, earth, wicca, and nature, are terms co-opted by this
#same group, terms which explicitly exclude the sorts of wide-ranging
#interests we had on the original mailing list, such as Freemasonry, Sri
#Aurobindo, Thelema, Buddhism, and so forth (as well as Neo-Paganism, of
#course). The people behind this attempted act of exclusion do not
#even pretend to want a wide, eclectic group; they want to hear
#Neo-Paganism and nothing else.
Amazing. We have a case where a large portion of the discussion of
a newsgroup is being carried out by people with a set of interests which
are a subset of the charter of the group. They decide to create an additional
newsgroup to carry that discussion, and that is a problem?? Or has the
idea that sufficient traffic in an existing newsgroup is viable grounds for
a new newsgroup been washed away?
#So, as the founder of the talk.religion.newage group, I protest very
#strongly the attempt to narrow its scope to Neo-Paganism exclusively.
#However, I do understand and respect the idea of renaming it to some
#term which more accurately reflects the originally inclusive intent of
#the group. I suggest that any of the following would be good
#alternatives (ranked in the order of my preferences, from best to
#worst):
#
#talk.religion.magic
#talk.religion.esoteric
#talk.religion.eclectic
#talk.religion.occult
#talk.religion.ritual
#talk.religion.mystical
One more time... this is not ANY SORT OF AN ATTEMPT to rename the
newsgroup talk.religion.newage. It is not any sort of an attempt to in any
way restrict its charter. It is an attempt to create a new newsgroup with
a more specific charter.
#But in any case, let's hear the end of this nonsense about ten votes
#out of tens of thousands of people on the network defining the proper
#direction of discussion.
And so should we also end the nonsense of hundreds of votes out
of tens of thousands of people on the network defining the proper creation
of newsgroups? Please be consistent.
#--
#Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com
--Dave
(Side note: I will be out of contact from tomorrow morning until sometime
Sunday evening...so responses will be delayed)
---
Dave Weinstein olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu GEnie: OLORIN
9036 N. Lamar #274 Home: (512) 339-4407 Work: Don't Call
Austin, TX 78753 Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway. rjp1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (on the jagged cliffs of Ngranek) (11/21/89)
In article (Tim Maroney) writes: > It is ridiculous to call a poll decisive when, of 30 votes, no opinion > came close to achieving a majority, only a weak plurality (10 votes). > So, as the founder of the talk.religion.newage group, I protest very > strongly the attempt to narrow its scope to Neo-Paganism exclusively. > However, I do understand and respect the idea of renaming it to some > term which more accurately reflects the originally inclusive intent of > the group. I suggest that any of the following would be good > alternatives (ranked in the order of my preferences, from best to > worst): [really nice list deleted] > But in any case, let's hear the end of this nonsense about ten votes > out of tens of thousands of people on the network defining the proper > direction of discussion. As the t.r.newage founder, I haven't seen many postings from you!? But, be that as it may, I agree with what you're saying. 10 votes do not make a consensus. I guess we were just pissin' in the wind... :^) -- -- rj pietkivitch att!ihlpa!rjp1
jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley) (11/21/89)
How about talk.religion.alt, meaning alternate religions. -- ------- Jeff Beardsley at UNT ----------- <jbeard@dept.csci.unt.edu> -------- altrec.fishy.flamescience: Alternate Rec Group for the scientific study of fishy flamage.
cordelia@athena.mit.edu (Graywing) (11/26/89)
A couple of questions for the more knowledgeable: a> Does anyone have anything specific about the A.A., founded by Crowley? b> ditto for the OTO? <beats me who founded it> c> ditto for the Secret Hermetical Order of the Golden Dawn? d> know of the truth of the former existance of _Al Azif_? Andy Ellis respond via e-mail to: cordelia@athena.mit.edu
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (11/27/89)
try reading The Golden Dawn or The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic (same book - two different versions), by Israel Regardie. In my attempts to bring the books up from my distant past, I seem to recall that he claims that the Golden Dawn was founded by S. Gregor Mathers (of England) sometime in the late 1800's ( i believe, forgive me if I am mistaken). Anyway, it was theoretically an offspring of a secret society that had been in hiding for many years. They claim some sort of descendance from Roscrucianism. I believe that they are now based in California, Regardie is still a member, and they offer a correspondance course for those interested. The Ordo Templis Oreintis (OTO) was around before the GD, I think. I don't know much about them, but I believe they are the ones referred to as "The Great White Brotherhood." Anyway, I'm not REAL sure on this stuff, check it out yourself if you can... try reading Regardie, and Crowley. Also check out Mathers... any biography on these guys should mention the GD, OTO and the AA. Anyway, good luck....
johnob@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (John Obendorfer) (11/28/89)
In article <1989Nov25.225355.11761@athena.mit.edu> cordelia@athena.mit.edu (Graywing) writes: >A couple of questions for the more knowledgeable: >a> Does anyone have anything specific about the A.A. ... Yeah, it's an organization that was formed for the benefit of recovering Thelemites: Aleisters Anonymous. John { insert liberal :-)s }
by08+@andrew.cmu.edu (Boris Yazlovitsky) (11/28/89)
>>a> Does anyone have anything specific about the A.A. ... > Yeah, it's an organization that was formed for the benefit of >recovering Thelemites: Aleisters Anonymous. Precise information can be found in "Gems From The Equinox" by Aliester Crowley.