[net.news.group] Homeland for ?Religion? Debate

wbpesch@ihuxp.UUCP (Walt Pesch) (04/05/84)

Yes, it has happened again, the proposal for net.flame.religion.
Chuq, don't you know that this is not STRANGE enough for newsgroup
creation?  You should have proposed net.micro.ace for the development
of the programmable stapler, and then since that news.group wouldn't
see that much traffic you could propose moving the ?Religion? debate
to their.  It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer of the
net that net.micro.ace would be created long before
net.flame.religion.

But anyway, it will be a good way to get the transitory
discussion (can I describe it as an analogy to a wandering people
looking for a homeland?) to a home so people interested can read and
those not can cannot.  (flames about last sentences construction
accepted on a humorous basis.)

As to conjection that it should all be stuffed into net.religion that
have been brought up in the past, the religous do not want to read
about the inadequacies (sp) of their belief, and likewise I do not
want to read their religous postings.



                          Still waiting for the bolt from the skies,

                                          Walt Pesch
                                      AT&T Technologies
                                     ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch

alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (04/05/84)

I do not favor net.flame.religion -- moving part of a
discussion out of a group will only segment and weaken
the discussion.

Also, people will post to both anyway, just like they do
with all such groups, making them worthless.