dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (01/31/84)
The proposal below is made and endorsed by the following netters:
utcsrgv!dave Dave Sherman
pyuxdd!rib Robert Block
pegasus!naiman Ephrayim Nayiman
pegasus!avi Avi Gross
masscomp!trb Andy Tannenbaum
utcsstat!rao Eli Posner
utcsrgv!avi Avi Naiman
zeppo!mmc Mark Chodrow
lzpfc!klein Nemi Klein
pegasus!lzmi!adam Adam Reed
alice!adw Aaron Wyner
umcp-cs!koved Larry Koved
hou5e!elb Ellen Bart
mhuxl!spiegel Murray Spiegel
A number of us have been discussing by private mail the possibility
of setting up a newsgroup for discussing issues relating to Judaism.
The proposed newsgroup would be a forum for:
- discussions about religious observance, ranging from
practical to philosophical questions
- discussions among Jews of various levels of observance
and affiliated with the various "movements"
(e.g., Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, unaffiliated)
- explanation of Jewish laws and customs for anyone who
inquires (whether Jewish or not)
- discussion of other aspects of Jewish life, such as
culture, traditions, language, living and working in a
non-Jewish society, etc.
Our proposal is to set up net.religion.jewish. Below we address in
advance some of the concerns which may be raised.
1. "Why put it under net.religion?"
Judaism is first and foremost a religion. Other proposals for ethnic
discussion groups have included net.nlang, which we feel is inappropriate,
since nlang would relate primarily to language (in the case of Judaism,
Hebrew, Aramaic, Yiddish and Ladino). Net.roots.jewish is another possibility,
but the topics of discussion in the proposed newsgroup would tend to be
much more centered around religion than origins.
2. "But net.religion.jewish is over 14 characters!"
Yes indeed. Somebody has to take the first step of becoming
incompatible with older versions of news. The news statistics
collected by rlgvax!ra suggest that over 85% of sites will have
no problem. We are willing to put up with this newsgroup not reaching
certain sites, and hope that this will encourage sites to upgrade
their news. For the sake of Usenet, it will have to be done sooner
or later, or more and more groups will appear with strange names
and under inappropriate groups. (Incidentally, Mark Horton agrees with
us on this point.)
Also, net.religion.jewish *will* be distinct from net.religion, even
on version 2.9, because of the '.' after "religion". The only confusion
would be between net.religion.jewish and net.religion.anythingelse.
3. "Why not use net.religion?"
Two reasons. First, net.religion is filled with many articles, and
many of the people who will read net.religion.jewish are not interested
in those articles. (E.g., the ongoing unc!tim vs. Christianity debate.)
Yes, one can hit the 'n' key, but the volume of articles in net.religion
suggests that this is not really the answer.
Second, the plethora of other topics in net.religion creates a climate
which is not conducive to discussion of practical Jewish religious
matters.
4. "You can't set up a newsgroup to exclude people!"
We're not doing that at all. Non-Jews will be welcome to contribute
to net.religion.jewish. We would hope, however, that the group would
not be used for attacks on religion or Judaism as such. Enough of
that is available in net.religion. Net.motss is a home for
discussion about gay issues (by gays and non-gays), and
criticisms of gays for being gay are not welcome. Similarly,
net.religion.jewish will be open to discussion among anyone who
is interested in Judaism, and criticism of Jews for being Jews
will not be welcome.
5. "I haven't seen the demand for it yet."
Much of the discussion which will go into the newsgroup has taken
place in net.misc, net.religion and by private mail in the past.
Quite a few of us are actively interested. We presently have about
35 on a mailing list which started only recently. There are many
other Jewish people on the net who are interested in the
religion, whether personally observant or not, and we are confident
that the group will be well used. If it is not, it can certainly
go away.
Discussion on things like kosher food have, in the past, been
spread among net.religion, net.misc, net.followup and other even
more unlikely newsgroups. Other discussion topics have included:
the reason for halachic observance; Gematria; whether there is
a halachic requirement to eat meat; holiness of G-d's name; Jewish
holidays.
Examples of articles which don't fit nicely anywhere else: inquiries
for a minyan for daily prayer; request for info on kosher hotels
(net.travel is much less likely to be read by the desired audience);
discussion of the current conflict between Lubavitch and Satmar;
discussion of problems relating to being observant at work (e.g. food,
Sabbath observance, wearing a yarmulke). These topics are
sufficiently different from normal net.religion fare, and of
interest to such a different population, that we feel that it is not
appropriate to start them in net.religion.
6. "Why not groups for Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Hindus too?"
We see no problem with this. If enough members of other faiths are
interested in forming newsgroups, that is fine. We will have no
objections to net.religion.islam or anything else.
If you are in favour of this newsgroup, please post a short message
to net.news.group or send mail to ihnp4!utcsrgv!dave (Dave Sherman).
If you have any objections which have not been dealt with above, please
send mail to Dave Sherman or post them.
If we do not get a significant negative response by February 15, 1984,
we will create the newsgroup.
Signed (paths relative to ihnp4):
utcsrgv!dave Dave Sherman
pyuxdd!rib Robert Block
pegasus!naiman Ephrayim Naiman
pegasus!avi Avi Gross
masscomp!trb Andy Tannenbaum
utzoo!utcsstat!rao Eli Posner
utcsrgv!avi Avi Naiman
zeppo!mmc Mark Chodrow
lzpfc!klein Nemi Klein
pegasus!lzmi!adam Adam Reed
alice!adw Aaron Wyner
seismo!umcp-cs!koved Larry Koved
hou5e!elb Ellen Bart
mhuxl!spiegel Murray Spiegel
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davejgb@linus.UUCP (Jonathan G. Bressel) (01/31/84)
A hearty yes!
--
Jonathan G. Bressel
ARPA: linus!jgb@mitre-bedford
UUCP: ...{decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!jgbkeesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan) (02/01/84)
-------------------------------
YES! but
I think net.religion.judaism would be a better name (trivial quibble)
--
Morris M. Keesan
{decvax,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!keesan
keesan @ BBN-UNIX.ARPAscott@yale-com.UUCP (Walter Scott) (02/02/84)
I vote YES!!! to net.religion.jewish. Walter Scott decvax!yale-comix!scott
gngladstone@watrose.UUCP (Gary Gladstone) (02/03/84)
Sounds like a great idea to me.
--
Gary Gladstone
...watmath!watrose!gngladstoneariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (02/03/84)
YES Ariel Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/05/84)
I vote YES. I think Jews deserve better than net.religion. Paul Dubuc
jhall@ihuxu.UUCP (John R. Hall) (02/06/84)
And while you're at it, why not create some more groups: net.religion.jewish.only net.religion.jewish.expert -- --John R. Hall, ihuxu!jhall
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (GREEN) (02/06/84)
YES. David S. Green
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/06/84)
For god's sake, no!!!!! ["Did he really just say that?" -ED.] I feel just as strongly about this as I do about net.music.jewsharp ["Just ignore him when he does that." -ED.] Seriously, here we go again with the same arguments for subgroups, all of which rarely hold water. ---The current parent newsgroup doesn't seem to have the type of articles on the subjects we're interested in Do they fit the intended charter of the newsgroup?? THEN SUBMIT SOME ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECTS!!!! The fact that the current state of the newsgroup consists of Larry flaming at Laura flaming at David flaming at me flaming at Gary flaming at Tim flaming at Byron flaming at Ubizmo foaming at the mouth shouldn't matter. A newsgroup is exactly what YOU make of it---nothing more, nothing less. If you want to see articles on a given subject that belongs in a given newsgroup, then post some! ---The topics we would be talking about are not of general interest, and/or we are not interested in the bulk of the articles in the parent group In the second case, you've got an 'n' key, and of course the percentage of articles on subjects that you are interested in is your own fault: if it is 0% it is because YOU didn't submit any. In the first case, we are dealing again with the same type of isolationism and elitism as one finds in the proponents of net.music.themes-from-tv-game-shows. ---What's wrong with having net.religion.jewish, net.religion.christian, net.religion.islam, net.religion.ubizmo, ... And how about net.religion.christian.protestant? net.religion.christian.pro- testant.fundamentalist? net.religion.judaism.orthodox.lubavitcher? net.religion.islam.shiite? This is extremely divisive and unproductive. It will eventually bring us to the point where all newsgroups will be of the form net.site-id.user-id, where the contents of a newsgroup are those things of interest only to a given user, where he/she can post articles, reply to him/herself, and flame at him/herself. There have indeed already been articles on some of the subjects suggested. So what is the problem? -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/06/84)
I hope others out there who feel as I do that subgroup propagation has reached (or soon will reach) ridiculous proportions do not feel that they would be labelled anti-Semitic or what-have-you for voting against net.religion.jewish. I don't believe that there are people who would pin that label on anyone for doing so (I might be wrong), but I think that some people might not come forward because of that fear. -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
yudelson@aecom.UUCP (02/07/84)
Yes!
mbr@fortune.UUCP (02/07/84)
#R:utcsrgv:-321500:fortune:7700004:000:152
fortune!mbr Feb 6 17:53:00 1984
Yes!
{allegra,amd70,cbosgd,dsd,dual,
harpo,hpda,ihnp4,megatest,nsc,
oliveb,sri-unix,twg,varian,VisiA,wdl1}!fortune!mbr
a.k.a. Mark Rosenthalbarb@cca.UUCP (Barbara Blaustein) (02/07/84)
Yes! --Barbara Blaustein
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (02/08/84)
I would certainly support a newgroup devoted to the discussion of judaism and other topics related to judaism. My only question is whether or not net.religion.jewish is the proper place to create that newsgroup. The subdivision of net.religion was proposed some time ago by Tim Maroney with a generally cold reception, and I'm not sure the reasons for that cold reception aren't still valid. I suspect we may be in need of another major group, with possible subdi- visions. Net.culture occurs immediately but that may be inappropriate. Such a major division might contain net.culture.jewish, net.culture.celts (net.nlang was definitely the wrong place to put the celt group.) One good side effect of this would be the disinclusion of a few fundamen- talist christians who might be given to making inappropriate comments, thus keeping some of the flaming out of the newsgroup. So, put me on record as favoring such a newsgroup, but not favoring net.religion.jewish specifically. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/08/84)
Byron's idea sounds like a good one. The notion of having groups for individual cultures was discussed earlier, and somehow the subgroups got planted under net.nlang . (What would net.nlang.swiss be like?) The net.roots group would seem like a better parent group than net.nlang or net.religion. The notion of separate groups for separate religions is appalling to me, but under net.roots one could discuss other things related to Jewishness (or other ethnic-nesses) like origins of names, acceptance or non-acceptance of a particular nationality in American/???? society, etc. Who says I don't like subgroups? Only when they're not warranted. -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (02/09/84)
I must confess that I don't subscribe to either net.religion or
net.music . Therefore, my opinions on splitting these Newsgroups
may not hold much weight. However, I am concerned by the more
general problem of newsgroup propgation.
Temporazing somewhat - Why not hold off on this for a while.
When News B 2.11 comes out, its supposed to have code that sorts
topics by discussion. Hopefully, it will also enable one to
unsubscribe to a discussion. This may satisfy those who don't
wish to hit 'n' so often.
Cheers,
--
Binayak Banerjee
{allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerjealex@aecom.UUCP (Alex S. Fuss) (02/09/84)
I agree on both points. Yes we should create one, but it should
be called net.religion.judaism.
--
Alex S. Fuss
{philabs, esquire, cucard}!aecom!alexchuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/09/84)
As a firm believer in getting rid of unused sub-groups, let me please take
the stand for a moment in support of creating them (ack! what's happening
now? -ED)
There are a number of reasons to create sub-groups. First, if there is a
discussion that is simply overflowing the group and it seems to be a
permanent one, then we should consider moving it elsewhere (Examples:
net.lang.c and net.tv.drwho).
Second, there are certain groups where a group of users who would like to
discuss a topic are unable to because they are simply overwhelmed by the
number of messages of absolutely no interest to them in the topic that they
should be using. The result of this is that the topic never gets discussed
because the discussers have unsubscribed, preferring silence to the total
mayhem that would otherwise be forced upon them. A small subgroup of this
is the users who get thrown off of a topic every time they open their
mouths on a subject the vociferous users don't particularly like.
I think that net.music.classical qualifies under the second reason.
There seem to be a LARGE number of classical listeners out there, but
you never find them on net.music. They're all on net.audio talking
about equiptment and getting in sly remarks about classical music on
the side. Why? because they got overwhelmed in net.music by Michael
Jackson, acid rock, and the Plasmatics. Because they couldn't (weren't
willing to? -ED) compete for topic space, they simply shut up and went
elsewhere. If you look at net.music, there is also very little
discussion of jazz, soul, disco, soundtrack, or any other kind of
music, because the people who would be interested in this aren't willing to
wade through the morass to locate things they're interested in. This tells
me that the topic has gotten too large to use easily and should be split
up. net.music.classical would give the people who want to discuss this a
place to do without significant interruption. I think net.music.rock is a
good idea, because it then leaves net.music as a place for discussions of
other forms of music that would otherwise be overwhelmed.
I think net.religion.jewish also qualifies under 2). I'm proud to say that
I don't read net.religion, but the few times I have looked in it seemed to
me that the hyper-christians spent most of the time browbeating anyone who
wasn't quite as radical about Jesus as they were. My experience on other
networks (may they rest in peace) and religious discussions showed me that
any attempt to discuss non-christian topics quickly denigrated into a 'your
God isn't my God and therefore isn't a real God' fight. The few times a
discussion on Judaism or Budhism got started, it invariably turned into a
Jihad by the Christians. Since I am sure that the Jews on the net have
better things to do than defend their religion from overzealous believers,
I think giving them a place where they can talk in relative quite is a good
thing to do.
I think that keeping control on topic creation is a good thing, but simply
saying 'Thou shalt not create topics' is not the way of doing it. The way
to get the network under control is to get the obsolete topics off of it.
(Has anyone noticed that net.tv.da hasn't gone away yet??? *nudge*) I could
give you a list of suggestions, but being recently released from the local
burn ward, I'm not that crazy... (I am... 'Nuke Wobegon! Nuke Wobegon!' -ED)
chuq
--
From the house at Pooh Corner: Chuq 'Nuke Wobegon' Von Rospach
{fortune,menlo70}!nsc!chuqui Have you hugged your Pooh today?
Go, Lemmings, Go!
<I'll give up my quote of the week when YOU give up those pretty pictures!>
A good magician should always subscribe to the highest purposes, and
nothing should disuade him from these lofty goals, except, perhaps, that he
has to eat, and it is nice to put a little away for retirement.
- The Teachings of Ebenezum, V. IIItower@inmet.UUCP (02/09/84)
#R:utcsrgv:-321500:inmet:7000038:000:441 inmet!tower Feb 8 11:28:00 1984 1) net.religion.j is 14 characters. Could one of you proponents suggest a name that is more informative in 14 characters. 2) I have yet to see significatly discussion on Jewish issue in any newsgroup. Please conduct some in net.misc, to prove your need for the group. I am tired of hearing clamoring for a group on which there has been no significant need shown except the clamor. -len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/09/84)
#R:utcsrgv:-321500:inmet:7000039:000:1636 inmet!nrh Feb 8 14:59:00 1984 This reauest for a newsgroup is amply documented -- how many other people went to the trouble of forming such a private mailing list? On the other hand, what's wrong with keeping it a mailing list? 35 people is not so many when there are 1300-odd sites on uucpnet. Perhaps a few weeks of discussion of these issues in net.misc or net.religion are in order, just to show the skeptics that it is desirable. Like Len Tower, I'm not impressed by the notion that N people want a newsgroup (N is small) and therefore it should be created. (remember net.wobegon?). Why should net.religion.jewish be exempt from this (to my mind quite reasonable) requirement that the discussion be significant enough in volume and content to warrant separation from other newsgroups? (Not that it would be the first exempt group, by any means). --> PINHEADS PLEASE NOTE: PINHEADS PLEASE NOTE: PINHEADS PLEASE NOTE: <-- I am opposed to merely creating this newsgroup by acclamation -- not on any sort of consideration of the merits of the IDEA of net.religion.jewish, merely on the basis of a particular idea of how newgroups should prove themselves worthy of existence. I think that if net.religion.jewish is as needed as people suggest, it will have no problem "paying its dues" by demonstrating its traffic in some existing newsgroup. If it can't, though, it shouldn't exist. Also I'd prefer a shorter name: I think that it would be unfortunate to put system administrators who prefer notes or A news or whatever in the position of seeming anti-Semitic, or, given the likelihood of other such groups forming, anti-religious in general.
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/09/84)
I support the proposal for net.religion.jewish. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
jaap@haring.UUCP (02/10/84)
<If you know about this line, I don't need to tell you> Let's stop these type of discussions. I think the discussions about creating net.religion.jewish is a duplicate of the "let's create net.celts" discussion. I don't remember what the outcome was, but if a special group for jewish culture will be created, I will suggest, to follow the same pattern. If you only want to discuss jewish religion, net.religion.jewish is the obvious name if the discussion in net.religion about jewish religion is getting to be too much for readers of net.religion. Of course this will then lead in the end from net.religion.catholic up to net.religion.protestant.<more to be inserted>.reformed.art33. I don't mind which group is going to be created, as long as the subscribers to it think it's useful. I only want to warn about creating a group, which purpose is quite unclear. If you think there is need for any group, don't discuss about the group but the subject where you want to talk about. If that's clear, the group will be created because of the demand, not because it might be a nice subject. Jaap Akkerhuis
bts@unc.UUCP (Bruce Smith) (02/11/84)
I like Byron's idea, too. Isn't the celtic newsgroup the same sort of thing? If so, that would give us a major group with two subgroups-- so far. (Hm... maybe net.culture.southern?)
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (02/11/84)
I vote No. I don't see any need to fragment net.religion (to those who say
that net.religion is merely a specialization of net.flame, I would say that
creating a subgroup to net.religion wouldn't stop the flames from spreading
- a better idea might be to spawn net.flame.religion).
--
Saumya Debray
Dept. of Computer Science
SUNY at Stony Brook
uucp:
{floyd, cbosgd, ihnp4, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs \
!allegra > !sbcs!debray
{teklabs, hp-pcd, metheus}!ogcvax /
CSNet: debray@suny-sbcs@CSNet-Relaydave@qtlon.UUCP (02/16/84)
HO YUS: me too (how about net.food.kosher or net.cooks.kosher or whatever while we're at it ??), Dave (not actually an RSP) Lukes
burton@fortune.UUCP (02/16/84)
#R:linus:-66200:fortune:7700005:000:332
fortune!burton Feb 15 13:27:00 1984
Seems nice, but can you read the notes/news on Shabbos??
From a nice Jewish boy from Brooklyn who happens to live in California,
Philip Burton 101 Twin Dolphin Drive
Fortune Systems Redwood City, CA 94065 (415) 595-8444 x 526
- - -
{allegra decvax!decwrl!amd70 cbosgd harpo hpda ihnp4 sri-unix}!fortune!burton