From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor)
Subject: Re: Do We Need a New newsgroup? (was Re: Those Nasty Fundamentalists)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:16:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.221435.1764@meaddata.com> mcr@meaddata.com (Mary Ries) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.174833.20461@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
 
>|> If we were to propose a new group, how about soc.culture.christian?

>Does anyone here read the culture groups?  What do they seem to focus on?
>Do you think there would be challenges to basic christian beliefs there?

Probably the closest parallel would be soc.culture.jewish.  It deals with
all aspects of Jewish life:  religion, keeping kosher, observing Sabbath,
life in Isreal, life in Jewish communities elsewhere, books and music
(occasionally), etc.  I guess this is the one I was thinking of when I
suggested soc.culture.christian.

>I do think "being the salt", etc. is a good suggestion, but I'm
>thinking the type of new group that these r.m.c. tangents could
>flourish in would be one where we share the same basic truths and
>beliefs and where (as others have suggested) we counsel eachother on
>how to apply those truths to real life situations.

I love the idea of such a group.  Personally, I don't mind tangents here,
but I realize that some people do.  Maybe the best idea is what Andy(?)
suggested:  see how many people would *not* read a new group, or whether
most everybody would participate in both.  And putting TANGENT: in the
header would help, but isn't that admitting that the posting doesn't
conform to the charter?  Can we modify a charter to allow this, or would
we be really going against the rules?  And would that be acceptable to
our brothers and sisters who really don't want such discussions here?
So far, the only discussion I've seen is from those who would probably
read both groups, anyway.  Please, if you want non-music threads our of
here, speak up!  We've been going on about what a loving group this is;
hopefully, we will demonstrate that love by accepting one another's input,
whether or not we agree, and by doing our best to find a solution that's
agreeable to all of us.

>|> decide to call for a new group, though, let's do it "by the book" this
>|> time.  Remember all the hassles we had creating this group?  I would hope
>|> we wouldn't have to go through that again.

>I wasn't here for all that!  What was the problem?  I would have no
>problem taking on the task if there is enough interest, and I'm sure my
>administrator would help me do it "by the (UseNet) book"... unless
>someone else with experience in this volunteers? (fine by me, too, btw)

My memory of specifics is a little hazy, but I seem to recall that there
were claims that the CFD (and/or CFV) hadn't been issued properly, that
the discussion period had expired with no CFV (or was it too short?)
and a lot of debate over where this group belonged in the hierarchy.
Some people felt it should be soc.religion.christian.music;  others felt
rec.music.religious.  At one point, the CFV (of CFD?) contained a typo
calling the group rec.music.ccm, which a few people took as evidence that
we were deliberately being deceptive.  And, of course, since there had
previously been no appropriate places for this type of discussion, we
couldn't point to the volume of postings as justification for a new group.
It was pretty crazy, as I recall, though I don't know if there is ever a
rational, friendly creation of a newsgroup. :-)  Anybody remember better
than I do?  Caleb, are you out there?

---
Roberta Taylor KB2OOA  | You let me sing a song for you every now and then,
AT&T Bell Laboratories | But I'm asking you, when are you gonna listen?
Whippany, NJ           | You say I never sing about anyone but Jesus
rlt@gummo.att.com  <>< | Well, that's because Jesus is my song. ---Anne Herring