Double-A wrote:
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:33:45 GMT, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
wrote:

I think I have to disagree. Koi Lo's original post clearly deals with
the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator, and that is
right up alt.atheisms ally.

No. Why do you think that should be an issue for atheists - theists
(like that jerk) and their behaviour towards atheists is very much an
issue though.

Alt.atheism was set up by atheists to discuss atheist issues, of which
there are plenty - like whether/how to come out as atheists to theist
family, friends etc. But that gets submerged because a group of
atheists is a magnet for bad-mannered theists.

Well, now I am looking through alt.atheism. If what you said was the
original purpose of this group, it has most certainly been submerged.

On the other hand, I don't see how it is possible to discuss atheism in
a non-theistic vacuum. Theism is a major force in the current world.
While Koi Lo's post might not have fit the original alt.atheism charter
(if such exists), it certainly fits with into any generic discussion of
atheism, and more than that, is completely in character with many of the
posts on alt.atheism.

On the other hand, it has absolutely nothing to do with rec.ponds.

(What do the atronomers think? Presumably they have their share of
people who don't believe man landed on the moon, so I doubt these posts
polute their environment any.)

Stephen



The group alt.astronomy has been run over roughshod by so many kooks,
anti-kooks, obnoxious trolls, and anyone else who wanted to use it as a
garbage dump, that listening to you guys complain sounds almost
humorous.

Double-A

I feel that sci.math has retained a nice mix. It is fairly high
traffic, has its range of kooks to keep things interesting if you like
that sort of thing, but also has a lot of genuine postings, whether in
debate or in seeking answers. And the questions cover the complete
range of expertise levels.

Furthermore, quite a number of the kookish posts (e.g. those about
Cantor's diagonal argument) can lead to interesting discussions about
the philosophy of mathematics. I find the kookish posts very welcome.
But I can see that you need a high traffic of genuine postings to keep
the group reasonable.

Stephen