Ad-Hoc Religion Forum Committee Discussion - Thread 3

3/27/02 | angelo

[monkeyshine]

Bump, I vote yes with reservations. Happy pesach (don't forget to slouch) and gut shabbos.

[malakhi]

Isn't it amazing? We have "freedom in Christ" and yet we want to pidgeon-hole everyone into little groups. Forget it. Let's keep the discussion wide open and not broken down into an anal-retentive nightmare.

This is not about "pideon-holing people". It is about classifying articles. No person is being labelled as one group or another. When you post a new article, you can select the topic or topics you think it pertains to, and then people interested in those topics can easily search out and find your article. That's all.

[malakhi]

I am just waiting till the first crybaby says" OHHH you can not post here this is a XYZ thread"

Nope, that is not the purpose of topics. Anyone can post on any thread. No one has the right to exclude anyone from any thread. Its just a way to classify and sort articles. Libraries classify books so that they are easier to find. But anyone can check out and read any book. That is the same thing we are doing here.

[malakhi]

My vote is no for the Ghetto Part

In what way do you see Denominational Topics being a ghetto?

[monkeyshine]

I presume that the poster of a thread can select as many or as few of the above categories as he/she deems applicable?

In that case it's not pigeonholing, but rather designed easy archival and retreival...

[RnMomof7]

Unitarians are not Christians..and the other Catagory should read other..not other Christian..

[RnMomof7]

In what way do you see Denominational Topics being a ghetto?

Yes..

[Khepera]

I have a question first. Would these become folders that you would have to go to to view these topics or are they just sorts you can use to isolate by subject matter. I would support the latter more vigorously then the former.

[ksen]

Yes. Good job.

-ksen

[RnMomof7]

Nope, that is not the purpose of topics. Anyone can post on any thread.

Trust me on this Ang...Mac accused some of Highjacking a thread yesterday...It is a given that it will happen.......and happen alot..

[Matchett-PI]

I vote no as it stands. I appreciate your selfless work in this thankless effort, however.

[OLD REGGIE]

I'll vote "yes" on the assumption it may be modified in the future.

FYI. Unitarian is not now or ever has been Mainline Protestant.

[ksen]

In what way do you see Denominational Topics being a ghetto?

Shouldn't that be pronounced ghet-toe? ;^)

-ksen

[Jim Robinson]

Looks great! Thanks, Jim

[history_matters]

I vote yes. Although I would like to see Unitarians moved to Skeptics/Seekers.

[ksen]

I have a question first. Would these become folders that you would have to go to to view these topics or are they just sorts you can use to isolate by subject matter. I would support the latter more vigorously then the former.

They are the latter.

-ksen

[Wordsmith]

Yes. And it sounds like we may need to explain that this is just a categorization scheme, and that all posted threads will still show up on the "Religion Forum" page.

[malakhi]

I presume that the poster of a thread can select as many or as few of the above categories as he/she deems applicable? In that case it's not pigeonholing, but rather designed easy archival and retreival...

Exactly. The person posting the article can select one or as many topics as he wants. If you want to see what articles have that topic included in their header, you can click on "Topics" and select the topic you want to search.

[malakhi]

Me: In what way do you see Denominational Topics being a ghetto?

You: Yes..

Me: Ummm, huh?

[history_matters]

Thank you for all of your hard work on this.

A link to my favorite silly Seder songs.... gut shabbos!