Hello?
Atiya Gopalani
Is anyone subscribed to this newsgroup? (I'd like to talk you know).
endothelial legibility
In article <6f363c$l6o$1...@winter.news.erols.com>,
Atiya Gopalani <dr.a...@erols.com> wrote:
>Is anyone subscribed to this newsgroup? (I'd like to talk you know).
And what exactly would you like to talk about?
rone
--
Lee, and as a new guy around here I mean this in the nicest possible way,
but your sociology sucks, your grasp of the computer industry is weak, and
you need to take econ 101. - Marty J. Fouts <fo...@null.net>
Catherine Hampton
Roy Murphy <mur...@panix.com> wrote:
: Atiya Gopalani (dr.a...@erols.com) was alledged to have written:
: : Is anyone subscribed to this newsgroup? (I'd like to talk you know).
: "Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock and
: the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and
: everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will
: be opened." Matt 7:7-8
Beautiful response. :>
This, by the way, is the Czar of the net.religion.* hierarchy. At present
we have just four groups -- this one, net.religion.flame (for impolite
interfaith discussions) :>, net.religion.announce and net.religion.policy.
It does not need to remain this way, though. Upon reasonable request,
I will create any net.religion.* newsgroup that appears wanted.
In most cases, I'll want to create groups as moderated, though, and that
means there will need to be people willing to do the job of moderating
newsgroups in what is traditionally a highly-contentious subject area.
I'm one of the moderators for soc.religion.islam, so I know what
I'm talking about. :)
I've set followups to this to net.religion.policy, if people want to
talk about this.
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
Jay Denebeim
In article <6f4rbe$gdq$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>Upon reasonable request,
>I will create any net.religion.* newsgroup that appears wanted.
How about net.religion.scientology :-)
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.ml.org *
Alistair J. R. Young
On 18 Apr 1998 04:53:55 GMT, in message <6h9bl3$rek$1...@dent.deepthot.ml.org>,
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.ml.org> (== denebeim)
praised Shub-Internet thus:
> In article <6f4rbe$gdq$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>> Upon reasonable request,
>> I will create any net.religion.* newsgroup that appears wanted.
> How about net.religion.scientology :-)
Even more controversially, how about net.religion.emacs? :)
Alistair
--
Computational Thaumaturge -- Sysimperator, dominus retis deusque machinarum.
e-mail: avata...@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
"Kill -9 them all. Let init sort them out."
-- Joe Bednorz <bed...@mail.net-connect.net>
Wednesday
In article <6hguhg$sef$4...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>IMHO if you want a place for former members of an abusive religious
>group/cult to publicize info about the group, run an ongoing support
>meeting, and/or strategise, perhaps it should go in the alt.support.*
>hierarchy.
I would be willing to host such a group in net.support.* -- and, in fact,
have considered teh possibility of a support group for those recovering from
negative religious experiences -- but am wary of encouraging fuckwits.
--
wedn...@tezcat.com ======================================================
"...by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it." -- RA
Catherine Hampton
:>> Upon reasonable request,
:>> I will create any net.religion.* newsgroup that appears wanted.
:> How about net.religion.scientology :-)
"Reasonable request", where this particular one is concerned, would be
a petition with 100,000 signatures, in blood. ;>
Seriously, while I would not outright refuse, my personal opinion of
Scientology is that it is a continuing criminal enterprise attempting
to hide behind rules which protect religions from governmental
interference. Now, I'd rather have to deal with this continuing
criminal enterprise than have a government controlling religions,
but don't ask me to treat it with the respect I will give to any
religion whose founders were (as far as I can tell) sincere in their
beliefs. (However much I may disagree with those founders.)
IMHO if you want a place for former members of an abusive religious
group/cult to publicize info about the group, run an ongoing support
meeting, and/or strategise, perhaps it should go in the alt.support.*
hierarchy.
: Even more controversially, how about net.religion.emacs? :)
Well.... I draw the line at continuing criminal enterprises. Sheer
lunacy, on the other hand, has never been much of a barrier to
religion. ;> So get some evidence that a reasonable amount of people
want this (like maybe 50 to 100), and I'll create it. ;>
--
Catherine Hampton <net-reli...@hrweb.org>
Net Religion Czar, Despot, Chief Cook and Bottlewasher ;>
(Please note that the address in the From: line exists, is valid,
and is also used as a spamtrap. Send email to the address in my
signature if you want me to see it any time soon.)
Catherine Hampton
Wednesday <wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
: In article <6hguhg$sef$4...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
: Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
:>IMHO if you want a place for former members of an abusive religious
:>group/cult to publicize info about the group, run an ongoing support
:>meeting, and/or strategise, perhaps it should go in the alt.support.*
:>hierarchy.
: I would be willing to host such a group in net.support.* -- and, in fact,
: have considered teh possibility of a support group for those recovering from
: negative religious experiences -- but am wary of encouraging fuckwits.
I'm not sure there's a way to host such a group and not have a few
problems with cult apologists. I'm a former member of the religious
movement that gave rise to the International Churches of Christ/
Boston Church of Christ, the subject of the newsgroup
<alt.religion.christian.boston-church>. There are a couple of real
nuisances in ARCBC, but most of the participants (members and former
members) seem to be able to communicate, vent, etc. without turning to
abusive behavior. I've been a participant of this newsgroup since it
was founded, back early in 1995, so I think I've got a pretty good
understanding of what goes on there.
Since what makes a particular group "abusive" is a psychological and
specifically behavioral issue, though (not a theological/ideological
issue), I believe that discussion of cults/abusive groups fits in
better to *.support.* than *.religion.*. I'd rather keep net.religion.*
for discussion of religion, at least primarily, not of other things.
carpe carpus
>Well.... I draw the line at continuing criminal enterprises. Sheer
>lunacy, on the other hand, has never been much of a barrier to
>religion. ;> So get some evidence that a reasonable amount of people
>want this (like maybe 50 to 100), and I'll create it. ;>
Hello, net.religion.kibology.
rone
--
I am ahead
I am advanced
I am the first mammal to wear pants
Wednesday
In article <rone.TueApr21105...@ennui.org>,
carpe carpus <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>Hello, net.religion.kibology.
I'm sorry, rone, but I have to throttle you now.
[followups set.]
Catherine Hampton
carpe carpus <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
: In article <6hguhg$sef$4...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
: Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
:>: Even more controversially, how about net.religion.emacs? :)
:>Well.... I draw the line at continuing criminal enterprises. Sheer
:>lunacy, on the other hand, has never been much of a barrier to
:>religion. ;> So get some evidence that a reasonable amount of people
:>want this (like maybe 50 to 100), and I'll create it. ;>
: Hello, net.religion.kibology.
Ok, the current tally is:
PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: # of Votes
====================================
net.religion.emacs: 1
net.religion.kibology: 1
David Iain Greig
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>carpe carpus <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>
>: Hello, net.religion.kibology.
>
>Ok, the current tally is:
>
>PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: # of Votes
>====================================
>net.religion.emacs: 1
>net.religion.kibology: 1
Slack!
--D.
Catherine Hampton
David Iain Greig <gr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
: Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
:>Ok, the current tally is:
:>PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: # of Votes
:>====================================
:>net.religion.emacs: 1
:>net.religion.kibology: 1
: Slack!
Is that a "yes" or a "no"? And for which group -- alt.religion.bob? ;>
Jeremy.
In net.religion.policy, Catherine Hampton (x...@hrweb.org) said...
>PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: # of Votes
>====================================
>net.religion.emacs: 1
>net.religion.kibology: 1
Do we get to cast votes against as well?
-J.
although I suppose given that you rule with an iron fist I can vote
anything I want and it won't matter.
--
No lover's ever faithful / No contract truly signed...
Never take a stranger's advice / Never let a friend fool you twice...
Never stay a minute too long / Don't forget the best will go wrong.
--"Nobody's on Nobody's Side", _Chess_
Catherine Hampton
Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
: In net.religion.policy, Catherine Hampton (x...@hrweb.org) said...
:>PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: # of Votes
:>====================================
:>net.religion.emacs: 1
:>net.religion.kibology: 1
: Do we get to cast votes against as well?
Sure -- good point.
PROPOSED NEWSGROUP (modified): # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.emacs: 1 0
net.religion.kibology: 1 0
: although I suppose given that you rule with an iron fist I can vote
: anything I want and it won't matter.
Nah -- I rule with an iron fist mostly so that I can ignore trolls
with a good conscience. Otherwise I'm easy -- speak your piece.
Wednesday
In article <6hiv7m$m0n$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>PROPOSED NEWSGROUP (modified): # of Votes for # against
>================================================================
>net.religion.emacs: 1 0
>net.religion.kibology: 1 0
One against n.r.k.
Catherine Hampton
Wednesday <wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
: One against n.r.k.
PROPOSED NEWSGROUP (modified): # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.emacs: 1 0
net.religion.kibology: 1 1
Jeremy.
>================================================================
>net.religion.emacs: 1 0
>net.religion.kibology: 1 1
I vote against both. We have net.general and various other places to
make longstanding inside jokes. They'd be funny for about the first week
then would die down. Even net.general's evidenced this phenomenon.
-J.
now if it were net.religion.vi... ;-)
Russ Allbery
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> writes:
> PROPOSED NEWSGROUP (modified): # of Votes for # against
> ================================================================
> net.religion.emacs: 1 0
> net.religion.kibology: 1 1
So when's the automated CGI voting script with the real-time table update
on the web coming?
(Oh, wait, this should be in net.religion.flame....)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Catherine Hampton
Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
: I vote against both. We have net.general and various other places to
: make longstanding inside jokes. They'd be funny for about the first week
: then would die down. Even net.general's evidenced this phenomenon.
: now if it were net.religion.vi... ;-)
PROPOSED NEWSGROUP (modified): # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.emacs: 1 1
net.religion.kibology: 1 2
net.religion.vi: 1 0
;>
Catherine Hampton
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: So when's the automated CGI voting script with the real-time table update
: on the web coming?
When you or someone else arranges to pay me a nice salary for running
net.religion.* ;>
: (Oh, wait, this should be in net.religion.flame....)
Thread hereby transferred to a new newsgroup. :>
Catherine Hampton
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
: In article <6hj58n$o1e$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
: Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
:>net.religion.emacs: 1 1
:>net.religion.kibology: 1 2
:>net.religion.vi: 1 0
: net.religion.atheism
You really =DO= want to get me in trouble with the raving hordes, don't
you, Peter? ;> Ok....
PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.atheism: 1 0
net.religion.emacs: 1 1
net.religion.kibology: 1 2
net.religion.vi: 1 0
Ed Gauci
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> writes:
>You really =DO= want to get me in trouble with the raving hordes, don't
>you, Peter? ;> Ok....
I am not a horde, but the jury is still out on raving.
One vote against net.religion.atheism and a proposal for
net.religion.none.
>PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
>================================================================
>net.religion.atheism: 1 0
>net.religion.emacs: 1 1
>net.religion.kibology: 1 2
>net.religion.vi: 1 0
Atheism is not a religion, but vi is definitely divine, and deserves
Its own net.religion newsgroup.
>--
>Catherine Hampton <net-reli...@hrweb.org>
>Net Religion Czar, Despot, Chief Cook and Bottlewasher ;>
--
Ed Gauci | http://www.good-things.org/
mailto:ga...@good-things.org | (pet pictures and atheist cookies)
Jeremy.
>
>: I vote against both. We have net.general and various other places to
>: make longstanding inside jokes. They'd be funny for about the first week
>: then would die down. Even net.general's evidenced this phenomenon.
>
>: now if it were net.religion.vi... ;-)
>
>================================================================
No, my vote it against net.religion.vi. And against net.religion.atheism
and even .none (even though I think it's a fun name). Of course, if any of
them ever get their 100 yes votes more than no votes it probably means my
objections were invalid.
-J.
Jim Kingdon
> PROPOSED NEWSGROUP (modified): # of Votes for # against
Well, I'm pretty sympathetic to net.religion.afterburner
(alt.religion.afterburner is nice, but bogged down with
propagation/moderation problems; I haven't seen a post in weeks,
including my own).
I don't think I say that as a particularly serious proposal, but that
doesn't seem to be stopping anyone else :-).
Catherine Hampton
Ed Gauci <ga...@best.com> wrote:
: Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> writes:
:>You really =DO= want to get me in trouble with the raving hordes, don't
:>you, Peter? ;> Ok....
: I am not a horde, but the jury is still out on raving.
: One vote against net.religion.atheism and a proposal for
: net.religion.none.
PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.atheism: 1 1
net.religion.emacs: 1 1
net.religion.kibology: 1 2
net.religion.none: 1 0
net.religion.vi: 1 0
: Atheism is not a religion, but vi is definitely divine, and deserves
: Its own net.religion newsgroup.
Is that a vote for net.religion.vi, then? ;>
Do remember that you'll need to get a 100 or so "yes" votes, after
subtracting the "no" votes, before I'm actually going to create any
of these groups. :) I do think that a group for atheism is a good
idea, though. Anyone who specifically disbelieves in God is taking
a position of faith (or perhaps unfaith) just as much as a believer
in any religion.
Whether that makes atheism a religion or not is something we could
easily have a religious war over, of course. And if you (or others)
try it, I'll refer you to net.religion.flame. :)
--
Catherine Hampton <net-reli...@hrweb.org>
Net Religion Czar, Despot, Chief Cook and Bottlewasher ;>
(Please note that the address in the From: line exists, is valid,
Ed Gauci
In article <6hjejd$qvi$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>Is that a vote for net.religion.vi, then? ;>
You bet. Hail Vi
>
>Do remember that you'll need to get a 100 or so "yes" votes, after
>subtracting the "no" votes, before I'm actually going to create any
>of these groups. :) I do think that a group for atheism is a good
>idea, though.
That sounds hard. Can I vote again?
> Anyone who specifically disbelieves in God is taking
>a position of faith (or perhaps unfaith) just as much as a believer
>in any religion.
Straw man alert!
Ed Gauci mailto:ga...@good-things.org
http://www.good-things.org/ <-- pet pics and atheist cookies
Catherine Hampton
Ed Gauci <ga...@good-things.org> wrote:
: In article <6hjejd$qvi$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
:>Is that a vote for net.religion.vi, then? ;>
: You bet. Hail Vi
Note taken. I'll post the update soon. ;>
:>Do remember that you'll need to get a 100 or so "yes" votes, after
:>subtracting the "no" votes, before I'm actually going to create any
:>of these groups. :) I do think that a group for atheism is a good
:>idea, though.
: That sounds hard. Can I vote again?
Sure. Vote early, vote often. ;>
Seriously, since this appears to be a real issue for a lot of atheists
and agnostics, why not give me a group name that would actually work
for you guys -- that wouldn't bring up a billion straw men. I thought
net.religion.none sounded pretty good myself. :>
:> Anyone who specifically disbelieves in God is taking
:>a position of faith (or perhaps unfaith) just as much as a believer
:>in any religion.
: Straw man alert!
:P
Catherine Hampton
Current tally....
PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.atheism: 1 2
net.religion.emacs: 1 1
net.religion.kibology: 1 2
net.religion.none: 1 1
net.religion.vi: 2 1
Now, is anyone out there interested in proposing some serious
groups, too? I haven't started net.religion.christian or
net.religion.islam yet because, IMHO, they will each need a good
moderation team. (I'm one of the moderators of soc.religion.islam,
and a look at alt.religion.islam convinces me that flawed moderation
beats none in this case.) :/
If there are groups of people out there in favor of creating these
groups, or a group for another major religion, start asking. What
I'll want from you is:
1) An indication of sufficient interest/participation. (100
more "yes" than "no" votes will do it.)
2) A proposed charter for the group.
3) A proposed moderation team, if the group is to be moderated.
Do be aware that I am =NOT= volunteering to moderate one of these
groups. I've been doing that in soc.religion.islam for three plus
years and I've done my share. :)
Ed Gauci
In article <6hjlfd$g9$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>Seriously, since this appears to be a real issue for a lot of atheists
>and agnostics, why not give me a group name that would actually work
>for you guys -- that wouldn't bring up a billion straw men. I thought
>net.religion.none sounded pretty good myself. :>
It would work for me, which is why I proposed it and voted in favor of it.
If you want a group with "atheism" in the name, I would suggest something
outside the religion heirarchy, such as net.atheism. There are precedents
for it, namely talk.atheism, soc.atheism, and alt.atheism.moderated.
Catherine Hampton
Ed Gauci <ga...@good-things.org> wrote:
Gotcha. But that's out of my purview -- I'm Czar of net.religion.*, not
of net.*. :) So, if it's ok with you and the others who would actually
participate, I'll entertain a =serious= proposal for net.religion.none. ;>
David Iain Greig
>: Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>
>:>net.religion.emacs: 1 1
>:>net.religion.kibology: 1 2
>:>net.religion.vi: 1 0
>
>: net.religion.atheism
>
>You really =DO= want to get me in trouble with the raving hordes, don't
>you, Peter? ;> Ok....
net.religion.evolutionism (c.f. net.origins)
--D.
Peter da Silva
In article <slrn6jsb0q...@darwin.ediacara.org>,>net.religion.evolutionism (c.f. net.origins)
net.origins.ultima-dragons
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
| "Open": a warning label on a product or organization to let you know that |
| it is more proprietary and restrictive than its competitors. |
Jim Kingdon
> Now, is anyone out there interested in proposing some serious
> groups, too?
<blank stare>
<blinks eyes>
<softly mutters>Huh?</softly>
But this is net.*. We don't actually have functioning newsgroups, we
just talk about them :-).
Personally, I sort of imagine that net.religion.flame will suffice
until it gets enough traffic to split. But then again, I've never had
any particular interest in religion newsgroups, so I'm not the one to
ask. The obvious question to ask about net.religion.islam (for
example) is whether it would serve any function that
soc.religion.islam (or alt.religioin.islam) does not. Lacking an
answer to that question, it won't get much traffic/votes/etc.
Catherine Hampton
Current tally....
PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.afterburner: 2 0
net.religion.atheism: 1 3
net.religion.emacs: 1 1
net.religion.kibology: 1 2
net.religion.none: 2 1
net.religion.vi: 2 1
Catherine Hampton
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
:> PROPOSED NEWSGROUP (modified): # of Votes for # against
: Well, I'm pretty sympathetic to net.religion.afterburner
: (alt.religion.afterburner is nice, but bogged down with
: propagation/moderation problems; I haven't seen a post in weeks,
: including my own).
: I don't think I say that as a particularly serious proposal, but that
: doesn't seem to be stopping anyone else :-).
:> Actually, this is one =I'd= vote for. For those who don't know,
I maintain a pretty widely used spam filter and am a big supporter of
Afterburner, the abuse guy at Erols.com. Afterburner's responses
to complaints about spammers at Erols are so entertaining that I
almost look forward to getting spam from Erols just so that I can
complain about it and get the Afterburnerism of the week.
Jim Kingdon
> I almost look forward to getting spam from Erols just so that I can
> complain about it and get the Afterburnerism of the week.
You get spam from Erols every week? Some people have all the good
luck. Er, or bad luck. Or something.
> Afterburner's responses to complaints about spammers at Erols
> are so entertaining
Yes, I was hoping that by reading alt.religion.afterburner I'd get the
benefit of seeing them without needing to be spammed. But like I say,
that group seems to have problems (at least at my site).
Did you see the item that Afterburner posted to
news.admin.net-abuse.email about how he had been distracted from spam
because he was dealing with the customer who sent a death threat to
herself? That one was a classic.
> Actually, [net.religion.afterburner] is one =I'd= vote for.
2 down, 98 to go.....
Catherine Hampton
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
:> I almost look forward to getting spam from Erols just so that I can
:> complain about it and get the Afterburnerism of the week.
: You get spam from Erols every week? Some people have all the good
: luck. Er, or bad luck. Or something.
No, more like once every couple of months. It's always from a
dial-up customer, almost always from a brand-new account opened by
a less-than-intelligent whackamole spammer, and I rarely get my
complaint in before Erols has turned the account into a flaming
crater. But I try. :)
:> Afterburner's responses to complaints about spammers at Erols
:> are so entertaining
: Yes, I was hoping that by reading alt.religion.afterburner I'd get the
: benefit of seeing them without needing to be spammed. But like I say,
: that group seems to have problems (at least at my site).
And at mine -- at least half my posts to it disappear into the ether....
: Did you see the item that Afterburner posted to
: news.admin.net-abuse.email about how he had been distracted from spam
: because he was dealing with the customer who sent a death threat to
: herself? That one was a classic.
;> I did indeed -- in fact, he also discussed it on SPAM-L, which I
read. Did you see his "Day in the life..." series?
:> Actually, [net.religion.afterburner] is one =I'd= vote for.
: 2 down, 98 to go.....
Well, probably about 102 to go, because I'm sure there will be those
who vote against it on principle. (Although I refuse to make it a
principle not to laugh.) Then, of course, maybe some spammers will
take a leaf from the Scientologists, in which case we might need to
deal with a few hundred thousand bogus votes. ;>
Jeremy.
>
>PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
>================================================================
>net.religion.afterburner: 2 0
>net.religion.atheism: 1 3
>net.religion.emacs: 1 1
>net.religion.kibology: 1 2
>net.religion.none: 2 1
>net.religion.vi: 2 1
One against n.r.afterburner (and any others I've missed).
-J.
if I can vote no and still lose by 100 votes, I'm more than prepared to
retract my no vote. I just don't think traffic warrants.
Jim Kingdon
> ;> I did indeed -- in fact, he also discussed it on SPAM-L, which I
> read. Did you see his "Day in the life..." series?
Yeah, some of the "day in the life" posts were quite good, as were the
posts about the first days for the Minions.
> : 2 down, 98 to go.....
>
> Well, probably about 102 to go, because I'm sure there will be those
> who vote against it on principle.
Sounds like we're better off just trying to persuade the czar to rig
the balloting. Much less messy that way.
Catherine Hampton
Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
: One against n.r.afterburner (and any others I've missed).
PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.afterburner: 2 1
net.religion.atheism: 1 3
net.religion.emacs: 1 2
net.religion.kibology: 1 2
net.religion.none: 2 1
net.religion.vi: 2 1
Here you go. :>
Catherine Hampton
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
:> : 2 down, 98 to go.....
:>
:> Well, probably about 102 to go, because I'm sure there will be those
:> who vote against it on principle.
: Sounds like we're better off just trying to persuade the czar to rig
: the balloting. Much less messy that way.
Yeah, but also more likely to start silly groups that won't have
enough people supporting them to stay viable. :) If net.religion.afterburner
is meant to be, I'm sure we can find 100 grateful spam recipients whose
blood pressure goes waAAAAAAAAAYYYY down when they get a response from
ab...@erols.com. :>
Jeremy.
>enough people supporting them to stay viable. :) If net.religion.afterburner
>is meant to be, I'm sure we can find 100 grateful spam recipients whose
>blood pressure goes waAAAAAAAAAYYYY down when they get a response from
>ab...@erols.com. :>
net.subculture.afterburner. Or there's always bozo and megabozo, but I
don't think they're as apt. Subculture is much closer than religion
though. And people don't gripe about "silly groups" as much there.
-J.
would vote in favour of n.s.afterburner, except that rone tends to just
create 'em without worrying about voting anyhow.
Jim Kingdon
> net.subculture.afterburner. Or there's always bozo and megabozo, but I
> don't think they're as apt. Subculture is much closer than religion
> though. And people don't gripe about "silly groups" as much there.
Sillyness has never struck me particularly as a disadvantage, but
shrug, net.subculture.afterburner works for me.
Of course, if anyone is really serious about this, there is more to
do. At a minimum, it probably would be polite to ask Afterburner what
he thinks :-).
carpe carpus
In article <6hltmv$t...@bofh.stanford.edu>,
Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>would vote in favour of n.s.afterburner, except that rone tends to just
>create 'em without worrying about voting anyhow.
I have no joke here, i just like saying "Hierarchy Czars: Divine Right".
rone
bummer, peter changed it in rules.txt
--
I am ahead
I am advanced
I am the first mammal to wear pants
Jeremy.
In net.religion.policy, Peter da Silva (pe...@taronga.com) said...
>Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>One against n.r.afterburner (and any others I've missed).
>
>that the czar model pretty much obviates NO votes. Think about
>it.
I know. There's even a post with my name on it someplace in this thread
with remarks to that effect. It's the one where I first started trying to
cast NO votes.
-J.
after the Revolution none of this will matter.
Jeremy.
In net.religion.policy, carpe carpus (rone+...@ennui.org) said...
>Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>would vote in favour of n.s.afterburner, except that rone tends to just
>>create 'em without worrying about voting anyhow.
>
>I have no joke here, i just like saying "Hierarchy Czars: Divine Right".
That's the spirit. It's even on topic for this group. My Czar is better
than your Czar. Czar Wars-- The News Admin Strikes Back? Okay, now I
probably want to wander off to net.general where I belong.
-J.
Jim Kingdon
> This is an amusing discussion but I really do have to point out that
> the czar model pretty much obviates NO votes. Think about it.
Uh, well, maybe. I mean, it is up to the czar, I would think.
Clearly, even if these "votes" are meant at all seriously (and Goddess
forbid that we ever get _too_ serious here in net.*), it isn't a
formal thing like in the Big 8. I mean, the requirement that the
votes for .scientology number 100,000 and be executed in blood, while
extremely sensible and evidence of the good judgment of Our Beloved
Czar, isn't exactly something I'd want to try to write into a periodic
posting for news.* :-).
Catherine Hampton
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
: In article <6hlof7$t...@BOFH.Stanford.EDU>,
: Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
:>One against n.r.afterburner (and any others I've missed).
: This is an amusing discussion but I really do have to point out
: that the czar model pretty much obviates NO votes. Think about
: it.
I did. I decided, since I =are= the Czar, I can allow "no" votes
if I want to. :)
Seriously, this whole conversation (taken properly) is acting as
a reality check. While the idea of alt.religion.afterburner is
pretty delightful on the face of it, and might get a lot of "yes"
votes on the face of it, I'm not sure it would stay active for
more than a few weeks. Afterburner himself is busy enough at his
job doing real work that nursemaiding a newsgroup is likely
to look less and less attractive over time. And if he doesn't
nursemaid it, it probably won't fly.
But I'm not taking any of this too seriously....
Roy Murphy
On 22 Apr 1998 20:00:34 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>
>Current tally....
>
>PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
>================================================================
>net.religion.atheism: 1 3
>net.religion.emacs: 1 1
I think we need another level in there: net.religion.cult.afterburner,
n.r.c.emacs, n.r.c.kibology, n.r.c.vi.
--
Roy Murphy \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses
mur...@panix.com \ http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html
Jim Kingdon
> Afterburner himself is busy enough at his job doing real work that
> nursemaiding a newsgroup is likely to look less and less attractive
> over time. And if he doesn't nursemaid it, it probably won't fly.
My assumption is that it would live, merely because spam is an issue
for a lot of people and that having the newsgroup focus on the
Afterburner angle is kind of a fun way of approaching it.
There is also the fact that Afterburner, as part of his "real work",
sends out missives which could be reposted and keep the group going.
Not that I can prove any of this....
Jeremy.
In net.religion.policy, Roy Murphy (mur...@panix2.panix.com) said...
>I think we need another level in there: net.religion.cult.afterburner,
>n.r.c.emacs, n.r.c.kibology, n.r.c.vi.
I'm going to have to stop voting no soon if She does that..
-J.
n.r.cult.* removes my silliness objection if not the traffic one. I'd
recant my NO vote on n.r.cult.afterburner.
Catherine Hampton
Roy Murphy <mur...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
: I think we need another level in there: net.religion.cult.afterburner,
: n.r.c.emacs, n.r.c.kibology, n.r.c.vi.
IMHO not a good idea, simply because:
1) Yours truly was in a religious cult for ten years, and tends
to wince when the word is used carelessly. :/
2) Since a cult can be religious, political (LaRouchies, Democratic
Workers Party, etc.), psychological (est/the Forum, etc.), or
other stuff, discussion of cults probably belongs in
net.subculture, or even net.cults.
I, however, am =NOT= volunteering as czar of net.cults.*. I'd rather
not get the Scienos after me any worse than they probably are anyway. :>
Roy Murphy
On 23 Apr 1998 20:52:58 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>Roy Murphy <mur...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
>: I think we need another level in there: net.religion.cult.afterburner,
>: n.r.c.emacs, n.r.c.kibology, n.r.c.vi.
>
>IMHO not a good idea, simply because:
>
> 1) Yours truly was in a religious cult for ten years, and tends
> to wince when the word is used carelessly. :/
Sorry, I didn't mean to make fun of a serious situation.
> 2) Since a cult can be religious, political (LaRouchies, Democratic
> Workers Party, etc.), psychological (est/the Forum, etc.), or
> other stuff, discussion of cults probably belongs in
> net.subculture, or even net.cults.
Discussions of emacs, vi, Mr. Afterburner and Mr. Kibo belong
elsewhere as well.
r...@greenend.org.uk
mur...@panix2.panix.com (Roy Murphy) writes:
> Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>> PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS: # of Votes for # against
>> ================================================================
>> net.religion.afterburner: 2 0
>> net.religion.atheism: 1 3
>> net.religion.emacs: 1 1
>> net.religion.kibology: 1 2
>> net.religion.none: 2 1
>> net.religion.vi: 2 1
>
> I think we need another level in there: net.religion.cult.afterburner,
> n.r.c.emacs, n.r.c.kibology, n.r.c.vi.
net.subculture.cult.* ?
More seriously I'd have thought that the Emacs/vi stuff would sit
relatively happily in net.subculture.usenet or net.general, until such
point as traffic justified additional groups. I don't think we've
actually seen any postings which would fit in such groups yet??
net.religion.none does sound like a good idea to me though. Please
count me as a vote for that and against everything else listed above
except *.atheism, on which I abstain.
B. Elijah Griffin
Ed Gauci <ga...@best.com> wrote:
> One vote against net.religion.atheism and a proposal for
> net.religion.none.
^^^^
I read that as "rone" at first. It was strange.
Elijah
------
thinks net.bizarre will suffice for that need
Catherine Hampton
r...@greenend.org.uk wrote:
: relatively happily in net.subculture.usenet or net.general, until such
: point as traffic justified additional groups. I don't think we've
: actually seen any postings which would fit in such groups yet??
Not in net.*. And, truth is, I don't really believe these groups
belong here -- I just figured people wanted to flame each other for
suggesting nutty ideas and didn't want to mess up someone's joke. :)
: net.religion.none does sound like a good idea to me though. Please
: count me as a vote for that and against everything else listed above
: except *.atheism, on which I abstain.
Gotcha. :>
PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS (serious): # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.none: 3 1
PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS (non-serious): # of Votes for # against
================================================================
net.religion.afterburner: 2 1
net.religion.atheism: 1 3
net.religion.emacs: 1 2
net.religion.kibology: 1 3
net.religion.vi: 2 2
If you want to propose a joke newsgroup, feel free. Serious
proposals also will need a proposed charter, moderation team, etc. :)
Jeremy.
>: net.religion.none does sound like a good idea to me though. Please
>: count me as a vote for that and against everything else listed above
>: except *.atheism, on which I abstain.
>
>Gotcha. :>
>
>PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS (serious): # of Votes for # against
>================================================================
>net.religion.none: 3 1
>
>
>PROPOSED NEWSGROUPS (non-serious): # of Votes for # against
>================================================================
>net.religion.afterburner: 2 1
>net.religion.atheism: 1 3
>net.religion.emacs: 1 2
>net.religion.kibology: 1 3
>net.religion.vi: 2 2
Vote Fraud! Note rjk's final line and my already cast vote against
n.r.afterburner. Also, unless you're getting votes by e-mail I'm curious
where the n.r.vi votes came from, I think I'm both one of those for and one
of those against. Oh well.
-J.
Game Theory has mean things to say about election strategies and fairness.
carpe carpus
In article <6hqn1l$7...@news1.panix.com>,
B. Elijah Griffin <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>Ed Gauci <ga...@best.com> wrote:
>> One vote against net.religion.atheism and a proposal for
>> net.religion.none.
I've thought about it. But it would involve too much violence.
rone
sounds like i would fit right in, you say; ah, my cynical children,
let me lead you to the pre-designated land
Jeremy.
In net.religion.policy, Jim Kingdon (kin...@panix3.panix.com) said...
>> Vote Fraud!
>
>It's about time! I've been wondering when we'd get around to it.
Yeah, but when she does it, it's divine right. I just like griping.
Besides, with the allegations flying fast and furious we may have something
topical for n.r.flame unlike the mislocated n.r.talk threads that seem to
have settled there thus far.
>I mean, any net.religion.policy election worth holding is worth
>rigging, right?
"You mean on top of everything else this ship is rigged?"
-J.
always seems to be the only person who's heard of Stan Freeberg.
obscurity
On 21 Apr 1998 23:13:54 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>
>
> You really =DO= want to get me in trouble with the raving hordes, don't
> you, Peter? ;> Ok....
Hrmph! Raving, maybe, but I try to stay clear of hordes ! :)
As you might expect, I'd be in favour af net.religion.atheism.
--
obscurity.
"Only the great masters of style ever succeed in being obscure." - Oscar Wilde
obscurity
On 22 Apr 1998 00:45:33 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> I do think that a group for atheism is a good
> idea, though. Anyone who specifically disbelieves in God is taking
> a position of faith (or perhaps unfaith) just as much as a believer
> in any religion.
Do you want to hear about my theory on why atheists have *much* more faith
than any believer ?
Jim Kingdon
> Vote Fraud!
It's about time! I've been wondering when we'd get around to it.
I mean, any net.religion.policy election worth holding is worth
rigging, right?
Kai Henningsen
x...@hrweb.org (Catherine Hampton) wrote on 22.04.98 in <6hl6dh$g5m$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>:
> Gotcha. But that's out of my purview -- I'm Czar of net.religion.*, not
> of net.*. :) So, if it's ok with you and the others who would actually
> participate, I'll entertain a =serious= proposal for net.religion.none. ;>
Looks good to me. "YES"
If there are really serious objections, how about n.r.unbelievers? ;-)
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote on 22.04.98 in <6hld32$9...@bonkers.taronga.com>:
> In article <slrn6jsb0q...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> David Iain Greig <gr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> >net.religion.evolutionism (c.f. net.origins)
>
> net.origins.ultima-dragons
net.religion.jammu-kashmir
net.religion.white-power
net. .... oops! That was Godwin.
Catherine Hampton
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
: On 22 Apr 1998 00:45:33 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
:> I do think that a group for atheism is a good
:> idea, though. Anyone who specifically disbelieves in God is taking
:> a position of faith (or perhaps unfaith) just as much as a believer
:> in any religion.
: Do you want to hear about my theory on why atheists have *much* more faith
: than any believer ?
Ah, =FINALLY= a topic worthy of net.religion.flame....
;>
obscurity
[xposted & followups set]
On 27 Apr 1998 00:53:24 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>
> : Do you want to hear about my theory on why atheists have *much* more faith
> : than any believer ?
>
> Ah, =FINALLY= a topic worthy of net.religion.flame....
(Yeah, that's why I didn't post it there :) )
Anyway, the theory :
If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
Therefore, it takes a *lot* more faith to proclam 'God does not exist'
than it does to proclaim 'God does exist'.
--
obscurity. God does not exi<Zzap!> NO CARRIER
Ed Gauci
In article <6i0ku4$3vi$4...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>: Do you want to hear about my theory on why atheists have *much* more faith
>: than any believer ?
>
>Ah, =FINALLY= a topic worthy of net.religion.flame....
Yawn, wake me up when net.religion.none is active.
good night.
Rachael Munns
In net.religion.policy, Roy Murphy wrote:
>Discussions of emacs, vi, Mr. Afterburner and Mr. Kibo belong
>elsewhere as well.
Sounds like a .subculture affair.
--
Rachael Munns oOo vas...@dream.org.uk oOo Fidonet 2:442/600