bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/13/90)
This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup:
talk.philosophy.objectivism. This newsgroup would exist for
discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
related topics. It would be moderated by me.
My purpose as moderator would be to filter out flames and
postings that are completely unrelated to Objectivism.
I will issue a call for votes on January 27, provided the flames
have died down by then.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comdschein@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Dinah B. Schein) (01/14/90)
In article <9001132357.AA18208@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: >In article <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> >bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes > >>This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup: >>talk.philosophy.objectivism. This newsgroup would exist for >>discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and >>related topics. It would be moderated by me. >> >>My purpose as moderator would be to filter out flames and >>postings that are completely unrelated to Objectivism. > >I will vote against this newsgroup with the proposed moderator. An >unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's >judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism >and what is not. >-- >--Mehul Dave-- I have been a reader of sci.philosophy.tech for some time now, but have never posted. The recent proposal to create a moderated newsgroup for Objectivism made me decide to post. I will most emphatically vote against the _moderated_ newsgroup for the same reasons as Mehul Dave. An unmoderated newsgroup is what is needed. Dinah Schein dschein@neon.stanford.edu
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/14/90)
In article <1990Jan14.074050.18580@Neon.Stanford.EDU> dschein@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Dinah B. Schein) writes:
: I have been a reader of sci.philosophy.tech for some time now, but
: have never posted. The recent proposal to create a moderated newsgroup for
: Objectivism made me decide to post. I will most emphatically vote against
: the _moderated_ newsgroup for the same reasons as Mehul Dave. An unmoderated
: newsgroup is what is needed.
Followups to my original message were directed to news.groups,
since that is where these kinds of discussions are supposed to be
held. So have followups to this one.
I'll answer objections there, not here.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comdveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/16/90)
A "talk" group should NEVER be moderated.
If you want a moderated group create a soc.philosophy.whatever or use
soc.{ religion | politics }.whatever
Let 'talk' remain a bastion of unfettered speech.
-Dan
uunet!ashtate!dveditzlofdahl@lola.uucp (Corey Lofdahl) (01/16/90)
>>I will vote against this newsgroup with the proposed moderator. An >>unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's >>judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism >>and what is not. >>--Mehul Dave-- > [I agree] Dinah Schein I'm behind you Mr Wells. I think the newsgroup should be moderated. Really, here's a guy that's going out of his way to provide a forum and these two people "don't trust him". I really hate to see this. If Mr. Dave and Ms. Schein don't like the moderation method, there are plenty of unmoderated newsgroups they can slog through. Just don't turn into a little Caesar Mr. Wells and make me regret my support. ----------------------------------------------corey------------------------ lofdahl@ide.com
jeffc@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com ( Jeff Cook) (01/17/90)
In article <278@ide.UUCP> lofdahl@lola.uucp (Corey Lofdahl) writes: >>>I will vote against this newsgroup with the proposed moderator. An >>>unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's >>>judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism >>>and what is not. > >>>--Mehul Dave-- > >> [I agree] Dinah Schein I would vote in favor of an Objectivist newsgroup only if it was unmoderated. I would vote against it otherwise. Trust has nothing to do with it--I don't know Mr. Wells, so I am entirely unable to evaluate his "trustworthiness", one way or the other. However, I think that each person has to judge for themselves the value of the articles posted. Each person's arguments must stand on their own merits, and their value must be determined individually by the people reading them. I would not want to read articles through a filter provided by Mr. Wells. He would be free to give his opinions as to the value of the articles or their relevance to Objectivism, and I would be very much interested in his comments. But I don't want him standing between me and the opinions expressed by others. Mr. Lofdahl wrote: >I'm behind you Mr Wells. I think the newsgroup should be moderated. >Really, here's a guy that's going out of his way to provide a forum >and these two people "don't trust him". I really hate to see this. I would hope that Mr. Wells' efforts to create an Objectivist newsgroup are a result of the potential benefit to his own self- interest that he sees in the outcome. I don't think he would demand moderator status as "payment" for those efforts--he will benefit by creating the newsgroup regardless of his own status within that group. I doubt that he is only willing to create the group if he is the moderator. In the unlikely event that this is his prerequisite for creating the newsgroup, then should the vote for a moderated group fail, I would be willing to push for an unmoderated one. This is not my intention--I would prefer to give my support and "yes" vote to the efforts already being made by Mr. Wells. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey L. Cook jeffc%ncr-fc@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.com NCR Microelectronics uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!ncr-fc!jeffc 2001 Danfield Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 These views are entirely mine, etc... "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain ---------------------------------------------------------------------
karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (01/17/90)
It should be a talk group, and it should not be moderated. Talk groups exist, in practice, so committed people of opposing viewpoints can endlessly flame the living sh!t out of each other. (cf. talk.politics.*, talk.religion.*, talk.origins, &c &c) A group for Objectivism should be a crucible for a hearty bonfire indeed. A moderated group assures no flame will be suppressed. So let's get the group created and let the flames pour forth. That's what the net is for, right? -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "...as long as there is a Legion of super-Heroes, uunet!sugar!karl all else can surely be made right." -- Sensor Girl
ROSS_DAVID_HARTSHORN@cup.portal.com (01/21/90)
In regards to whether a proposed discussion group on Objectivism should
be moderated or not:
I pick almost any forum I choose to discuss Objectivism, and get all the
flame I want, albeit in non-electronic form. Church, work, wherever. I've
been in a group of Objectivists (oops, make that "students of Objectivism",
the proper term according to Leonard Peikoff and company) which was presided
over by someone who tried to prevent anyone from disagreeing with him. My
solution to the problem was simple: walk out. What I don't want is to spend
time defending the basics of Objectivism to people who are irrationally and
emotionally opposed to it already. I'd rather have a chance to discuss some
aspects of it with people who already know what I'm talking about and who
agree with the basics. Then we can discuss (even argue about) the
applications, and I'd have a chance of learning something I didn't already
know, or having someone point out to me something implied by Objectivist
philosophy which I hadn't realized before. (and do my best to do the same
for others in the group as well, of course) I would rather see someone
act as moderator for the group, if he lets in all opinions that are relevant
and not overtly irrational (even criticisms of Rand's basic ideas, if it's
done intelligently).bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/22/90)
In article <26157@cup.portal.com> ROSS_DAVID_HARTSHORN@cup.portal.com writes:
: [reasons for moderation of the proposed group.]
Very few people want moderation. I believe that this is a
mistake, but I'll go with it.
BTW, discussion of this should be in news.groups, to which I've
directed followups.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com