From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Discussion request: Keeping soc.religion.* flat
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:26:34 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen) writes:


[....deleted....]

>In article <1992Nov10.225423.3753@muddcs.claremont.edu>
>irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:

>> [ ... ]

>>Let me give a couple of non-controversial examples of what I'm suggesting.
>>On the left side, I have groups which might be created in a non-flat
>>soc.religion hierarchy; on the right, a corresponding name in a flat
>>hierarchy:

>>soc.religion.christian.protestant       soc.religion.protestant
>>soc.religion.christian.catholic         soc.religion.catholic
>>soc.religion.christian.greek-orthodox   soc.religion.greek-orthodox

>That was a bad proposal. First I see no reason why anybody should want
>to split s.r.c, and secondly, if we were to split the group, I would
>prefer your listing on the left.


>This problem will not be solved by a flat hierarchy. If a group shall
>be created, it must be possible to indicate its contents by its name.

>Bj{\o}rn



I agree with Mr. Bjorn Larsen. Keeping the soc.religion.* heirarchy
flat would not solve the problem, which Mr. Jose Smith is refering in his
original discussion request.

Secondly, it would not define religions properly. Like the list
on the right would not make much sence as compared to the above list
on the left. 

If you think there would always be politics involved in such cases,
like in the Soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya case; well, that could not
be avoided. But keeping the soc.religion.* hierarchy flat would be
no solution at all. One can then say to keep the rec.sport.* 
hierarchy flat. Since there might be controversy whether a sport has
a sub-sport or not? For another example there two newsgroups called:

rec.sport.hockey
rec.sport.hockey.field

Now, I may suggest that the rec.sport.hockey.* heirarchy should be
kept flat. Because I personally don't consider ice hockey as hockey
at all. To me the only true hockey is field hockey and I can debate
on that for lenths. (Remember this is my persanal view).

Another example:

The same then should go for soc.culture.* heirarchy groups. Why don't you
suggest to keep it flat as well and remove the groups:

soc.culture.african.american 
and
soc.culture.asian.american

While naming groups there is always a possibility of controversy.
But we just need to be a little open minded and accept the people
of that group as to what they want there newsgroups name to be.

Just recently a group called:

rec.music.classical.guitar

passed in the presence of a newsgroup called:

rec.music.classical

Now who decides whether guitar has classical music or not? One
could say that guitar is never classical! So the problem will
always be there. Making any heirarcy flat would not solve the
problem at all.

The way newsgroups are set up, they represent a beautiful naming
scheme. By looking at the name of a newsgroup, one could tell
a lot about the newsgroup.   

So, I think Mr. Jose Smith is just blindly against the creation
of Soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya and thus wants such a law to 
be in affect. Everybody except the orthodox Muslims know that
Ahmadiyya is a sub-group of Islam. That is what the founder of
the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community taught. The Holy founder himself
invited everybody to Islam and never called Ahmadiyya as new
religion. Ahmadiyya is used just to differentiate from the rest.


Sincerely,
 
 
-- 
Nabeel A. Rana
rana@rintintin.colorado.edu
LOVE FOR ALL : HATRED FOR NONE.
________________________________________________________________