James Bazza  wrote: 
  
 >The suggestion of establishing the newsgroup within the talk.* 
 >hierarchy was reviewed and evaluated. This is not acceptable. The 
 >talk.* hierarchy is more of a greater lair for current issues and 
 >debate. The soc.* hierarchy is regarded as the appropriate place for 
 >culture and social issues. If you read the newsgroup line for 
 >soc.religion.satanism, you will observe that the focus will be on 
 >Satanism and the Satanic lifestyle. Culture will be the primary theme, 
 >therefore, the newsgroup is appropriately named. 
  
 The issue isn't really "what is the group intended for", rather 
 "what will the group end up being used for".  If you have no way 
 of dealing with off-topic postings (e.g. non-cultural postings 
 regarding satanism), and there is an expectation that these 
 postings will be of significant volume, you really ought to 
 consider either (lightly) moderating the group or move it to 
 where the name reflects the usage.  No matter what you write in 
 the CHARTER, there's no way to dictate what actually gets posted 
 once the unmoderated group is created.  It is highly possible 
 that the undesirable postings a talk group would get would still 
 end up being posted in the soc group if you already expect a talk 
 version to get the undesirable postings.  Let me rephrase that: 
 you expect a talk version of the satanism group to get a bunch 
 of undesired postings; that means a soc version will most likely 
 also get them.  You shouldn't expect the "soc" prefix or the 
 CHARTER to protect the proposed group. 
  
 ru 
  
 -- 
 My standard proposals rant: 
 Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
 is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. 
 Usenet popularity is the primary consideration. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)