NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/rec/scouting/2795

Text File | 1992-09-03 | 3.7 KB | 85 lines

Newsgroups: rec.scouting
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!hubcap!opusc!usceast!jce
From: [e-mail] (James C. Evans)
Subject: Re: Okay, rec.scouting take two...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date:  3 Sep 92 20:52:45 GMT
Lines: 73

[e-mail] (Stan Krieger) writes:

>There is no reason to split rec.scouting; the only problem is that
>people, such as Chris Evans, Carl Kadie, and others, have abused
>rec.scouting is order to promote their own atheist and/or gay
>rights agenda.   Part of this abuse is the cross-posting of articles
>to groups totally unrelated to Scouting, of which Mr. Kadie is probably
>the most flagrant violater.  The end result is that the same
>generic gay rights discussions and arguments get posted on rec.scouting,
>and thus clutter up the group for those of us who expected to be able
>to use it for legitimate Scouting discussions, questions, issues,
>and concerns.

Dear Stan:

CROSS POSTING:

First of all, I have never cross-posted a thread I originated.
In fact, someone from the gay-rights bulletin board chastised
me for cross-posting a response in which I argued that the poster
was ignoring BSA's right of free association.
I didn't know I could remove the cross-postings of the
person I was replying to.  Well, I've been
straightened out on that.  Please note that you responded to
my posting, which only appeared on rec.scouting, whereas I responded
to a posting that was cross-posted.
While I should have been removing the cross-postings all along
in my replies, so should you!  So much for your cross-posting
charge.

ARTICLES RELATED TO SCOUTING:

Now if scout policy on admissions is not "legitimate Scouting
discussions," I don't know what is.  Danny Schwendener, who
FOUNDED and WROTE THE CHARTER for this group, said that the
charter would need to be changed if policy discussions were moved
off.  Read the charter, Stan.

ATHEIST/GAY RIGHTS AGENDA:

You disagree with me on substance, and many of the people from
the atheist and gay communities have disagreed with me, too.  That's because,
if I have an "agenda" for how I'd like scouting to change, it is
oriented toward the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights in
general.  What kind of example are you setting when you (1) don't
tolerate people who disagree with you, and (2) discourage people
from trying to, in their opinion if not in yours, improve things?

>Look, repeating the same thing over and over does not change anything
>or prove anything.   It is NOT homophobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,
>anti-Christian, or anti-whatever for parents to require that, depending
>on exactly what kind of group is involved, their children's youth group
>leaders adhere to certain standards of religion and/or morality.

I have no problem with that; I just disagree with yours, so I'd
like to see things change.

>Yes, Chris Evans and others; we all have our right to "free speech".
>But there is a little matter of "netiquette" too, and one of the rules
>of netiquette is that you don't post articles unrelated to the newsgroup,
>and you don't cross-post to unrelated newsgroups, which is what you've
>done with impunity in order to get your agenda across.

Again, read the charter, Stan.

>Keep rec.scouting the way it is, and let's all obey the rules of
>netiquette (and to Evans and Kadie- this means you too, and don't try
>to rationalize your way out of it; you know you are in violation).

READ THE CHARTER, STAN.

Chris Evans
[e-mail]