From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Crossposting articles with rec.scouting (was Re: BofA and UW ...)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:35:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Aug28.171629.11680@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kell@lark.jsc.nasa.gov (TED KELL) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.193624.19749@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes...

|> > 
|> >Maybe rec.scouting should be split into several unmoderated
|> >newsgroups. The challenge is creating names and charters that the
|> >people who post will go along with. As a practical matter, it is
|> >impossible to limit an unmoderated newsgroup to a particular viewpoint
|> >(say, pro-BSA administration.) If a split is possible, it must be made
|> >along the lines of topics, rather than viewpoints.  Moreover, the
|> >names and charters that define topics must be clear and seem fair to
|> >all viewpoints.
|> > 
|> >Here is a possible split:
|> > 
|> >  rec.scouting.policy - discussion of policy of scouting groups worldwide
|> >                       (e.g. BSA membership policy)
|> >  rec.scouting.local - discussion of ideas and programs for local scout
|> >                       troops/groups.
|> >                       (e.g. winter camping equipment)
|> >  rec.scouting.misc - discussion of scouting topics not covered by more
|> >                      specific rec.scouting newsgroups.
|> >                        (e.g. what is the scout law in other countries?)

|> Perhaps not a bad idea.  Here is another possible split:
|> 
|>   rec.scouting - a MODERATED group that takes the place of the current 
|>                  rec.scouting 
|> 
|>   rec.scouting.free-for-all - an UNmoderated group that would take about 95% 
|>                 of the current trafic on this group.
|> 

I'd be opposed to Ted's idea.  Carl Kadie made a constructive suggestion based upon
subject matter.  Ted's countersuggestion makes no recommendations
as to subject matter.  It sounds too much like "we want one newsgroup
for postings that the moderators like and a wastebasket group
for all the rest."  

Personally, I have no problem with the existing newsgroup.
As a father of two scouts and one ex-scout, I think that issues
regarding prejudice within scout troops and the problems
involved in changing this from within and from without
are very important and relevant for discussion here.  I don't agree that
the flaming level is high compared to other controversial
newsgroups.  Quite frankly, I don't think the objections
to the discussion of discrimination in scouting arise
from flames or offensive language in these discussions;
I think that some individuals have their minds made up
and would prefer not to hear anything to the contrary.

The fact is that BSA policy is controversial.  Some
believe that the policy reinforces bigotry, while
others believe that it is necessary to uphold
proper "family values".  I think controversial
topics should be discussed, not suppressed.



-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: rec.scouting,soc.motss