Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01378)

At 02:28 AM 5/25/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>I haven't looked at the rules for alt groups for several years,
>and am not sure how they work. If a group is defined, is it
>given a charter by the people that initiate it? Is its contents
>restricted to that charter? I remember reading something a few
>days back about the list, but am not sure at the moment what
>you and/or Chuck wrote...

Eldon: One of my Tech Gurus got a long listing of "rules" etc. for forming a
news group, and Chuck took it from there. He is the one that got this going,
I only stood cheering on the sidelines. You'll have to talk to him about
"Charters etc".
>
>The nature of a newsgroup is unmoderated, and I'm not sure
>how its content can be controlled or kept on topic or in accord
>with a specific charter.

I know that his "uncontrolled" nature is one o the things we discussed in
our discussions that led to the creation of the group.
>
>It would seem like a top-level news group like "alt.theosophy"
>would be generic in nature, with "anything goes", and then under
>it would be specialized subtopics like "alt.theosophy.hpbonly"
>or "alt.theosophy.whatever" ...

I don't know if that is technically feasible but I see no objections to the
idea and many good points.
>
>My thinking is that the alt group could subdivide over time along
>the lines of the "factions" or different lines of thought we've
>found in our thinking on theos-l.

My question here is would not that result in a kind of "segregation", and be
something that prevents cross-pollination? When segregated, "factions" such
as those you describe become incestuous and end up "preaching to the choir".
Is this not so? "Cross-pollination", I believe, helps keeps groups vital and
healthy and growing. What's wrong IMO with groups like the T.S> is that
they've spent decades "preaching to the choir". If you only talk with, and
associate with, those who agree with you, it's such a surprise to find that
not everyone does.
>
>-----
>
>Now I have a suggestion to theos-l readers in general:
>
>Why don't we shift the bulk of our general interest discussions
>to alt.theosophy, and just leave behind the lower-volume
>specialized discussions on Theosophy on the mailing list?

I have absolutely no objections to this. Would it, in your opinion, leave
room for the "Personal Memories" thread that Alan and I are so interested
in? Or do you mean to say that the list would become a venue only for
discussions like JHE's and Kim's?
>
>The writings to people in general would go on the news group,
>and the writings for non-public discussion, for study among
>other students of Theosophy, could stay behind??????

Major question here: Does "discussion among students of theosophy" leave
space for those of us whose ideas are unorthodox?
>
>The public exposure of Theosophy would be enhanced, and the
>remaining traffic on theos-l would be of interest to those
>with a more specialized interest.

Another major question: Does "a more specialized interest" mean or imply
that the "specialized interest" be orthodox? And, if so, which "Orthodoxy"
There are certainly differences between the various schismatic groups.
>
>-- Eldon
>
Alexis