gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) (12/08/86)
In article <8612080908.AA08813@jade.berkeley.edu> eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) writes: >In article <485@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes: >> I would very much like to see a *single* quote supporting your >>statement that Mr. Ellis has proposed that Objectivists should "be removed >>from the newsgroup." >The following is takes from article <424@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, one of >Mr. Ellis' recent postings to talk.philosophy.misc: >> Personally, I don't "oppose" Randroidism any more than I oppose Christian >> Science or Krishna Consciousness. I just don't think that net.philosophy >> is the place for the dissemination of propaganda for cults or ideologies. >> Get your propaganda out of here and into talk.religion or talk.politics >> where it belongs. This doesn't say that Objectivists should be removed from talk.philosophy. misc. What it says is that the kind of claptrap you write (for example) is not philosophy and does not belong there. Is making this sort of comment pro-censorship? Really, Mr. Mozes! The point is that the purpose of the group is philosophy, which requires giving philosophical arguments. Since you give us dogmatic (and false) claims such as "mathematics is the science of measurement" which you then fail to give arguments for, you clearly don't belong on that group. The fact that I think that does not in any way entail the notion that I wish to censor you or prevent you from posting there. What I would like to do is teach you how philosophical argument should be done. I find it amusing that one of the net.old-timers popped into the group, saw our harsh anti-Objectivist flames and went into a dither. It was suggested by us, between epithets, that he read Rand's "philosophy", and upon doing so he concluded that it was total garbage, one major fallacy per page, and gave up reading the book as a result. This was after telling us in e-mail what close-minded anti-fringe jerks we were. The point is that if there are flames, perhaps it is for a reason. One must be careful not to judge too quickly or superficially that "censorship" is what is intended by someone who is merely pointing out that someone else is a fool. >In article <1864.utah-gr.UUCP> donn@utah-gr.UUCP <Donn Seeley> writes: >>I note that Ellis has publicly welcomed discussion in the philosophy >>group from Objectivists who could concede that other systems of thought >>were worthy of interest. >Could Mr. Seeley produce any quote supporting THAT? I don't recall Mr. >Ellis ever making any such statement. From: ellis@peoples-park (the late Michael Ellis) Subject: Re: defining Mathematics Message-ID: <457@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> |>> Now, is this "formalist" approach to mathematics valid? I submit that |>> it isn't. It is based on wrong philosophical principles - clearly on |>> rationalism, the idea that meaningful knowledge can be gained without |>> referring to reality, and also on logical atomism and the |>> conventional view of logic. [Eyal Mozes] | | "Wrong philosophical principles" -- this is religion, and does not | belong in this newsgroup unless you are prepared to support it | without resorting to cultish doctrines and appeals to the authority | of the Holy Texts of Rand. | .... | As to Ayn Rand's philosophic notes, I think we all agree it's too | bad you folks don't have your own newsgroup where such things could be | posted. Have you considered posting requests for the creation | of "talk.rand" into news.groups? I don't think Randian thought | should NEVER appear in net.philosophy, but I do think find that the | enormous vocabulary gap between Randians and everybody else, as well | as the tendency of Randians to declare their doctrines as matters of | indisputable fact, will invariably lead to hostility (not to | discourage cross postings between talk.philosophy.misc & the proposed | talk.rand). I think this should make clear that what Michael is objecting to is not the presence of Objectivists, but the refusal by some such as Eyal Mozes to do philosophy when on the philosophy group. This sort of flame happens all the time on many different groups, and is not "pro-censorship". > Considering that no Objectivist >ever said anything that can be even REMOTELY construed as implying that >other systems of thought aren't worthy of interest, Is Rand an Objectivist? Did she not call Bertrand Russell's epistemology "gibber", did she not call Kant (of all people) "the most evil man who ever lived" or some such thing? Did she not dismiss Rawl's "Theory of Justice" (a very clear and interesting book, by the way) as "utter nonsense" WITHOUT reading it? Mechanically dismissing other systems of thought is intrinsic to Objectivism, as far as I can make out. >Anyway, even if he did say it, my point about Mr. Smith's double >standard is just as valid. This "double standard" argument is completely bogus. I don't support censorship, and you admit yourself you can find nothing whatever I have said to support the idea I do. This is like saying I have a double standard because I treat intelligent people with more respect than I do you. This is a standard, yes: but not a "double" one. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we *show*. We do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/14/86)
I feel I ought to respond to this description of a recent exchange by Gene Ward Smith: > I find it amusing that one of the net.old-timers popped into the group, > saw our harsh anti-Objectivist flames and went into a dither. First, thanks for acknowledging my seniority; I was beginning to doubt my own identity after tens of people on sf-lovers acted as if I had suddenly appeared from nowhere in October 1986.... > It was suggested by us, between epithets, that he read Rand's "philosophy", > and upon doing so he concluded that it was total garbage, one major fallacy > per page, and gave up reading the book as a result. True enough. > This was after telling us in e-mail what close-minded anti-fringe jerks we > were. I feel that this sentence is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. I did not initiatre electronic mail contact with you; your version seems to state that I spontaneously wrote you insulting letters. In fact, the three of you wrote me several insulting messages, to which I responded with calm and equanimity. I was called a "moron" more than once, but at no time did I respond with similar insults via mail. > The point is that if there are flames, perhaps it is for a reason. I am a long-time supporter of this idea. I also support as an equal principle that the reason for the flame must always be made clear, and rationally supported, within the same message. I have at times failed to obey this myself, being human, but such incidents are usually several months apart. On the other hand, the discussion of Objectivism when I entered the group was composed entirely on your side of flames (and flames more insulting in any one instance than my entire output for a year) with no rational support given. That has since changed back to reasoned discussion, which I applaud; but note that even the "Brahms Mafia" have admitted that they deliberately changed their style in response to requests. That I agree with the conclusions of your argument does not imply that I support its form. > One must be careful not to judge too quickly or superficially that > "censorship" is what is intended by someone who is merely pointing out that > someone else is a fool. Also true enough. Calling someone a gibbering moron is not in the same league as trying to get someone banished from the net. However, I do think Eyal has a point about the flames against Objectivists participating in talk.philosophy.misc . I don't agree with anyone who would try to define a philosophical work as "not *really* philosophy" just because it happens to be fallacious, any more than I agree with Christians who would say that sects with which they disagree are "not *really* Christianity". I feel such statements are intolerant and have an aim not fundamentally different from censorship. Still, wishful thinking tending toward censorship is not in the same league as actual attempts to apply the power of censorship. -- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) (12/14/86)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <1484@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >I feel I ought to respond to this description of a recent exchange by >Gene Ward Smith: >> I find it amusing that one of the net.old-timers popped into the group, >> saw our harsh anti-Objectivist flames and went into a dither. >First, thanks for acknowledging my seniority; I was beginning to doubt >my own identity after tens of people on sf-lovers acted as if I had >suddenly appeared from nowhere in October 1986.... Tim is here referring to a well-known exchange of viewpoints one of whose high points was Tim's stentorian "YOU LIE!!!" to a person who in fact was telling the truth. >> It was suggested by us, between epithets, that he read Rand's "philosophy", >> and upon doing so he concluded that it was total garbage, one major >> fallacy per page, and gave up reading the book as a result. >True enough. >> This was after telling us in e-mail what close-minded anti-fringe >> jerks we were. >I feel that this sentence is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. >I did not initiatre electronic mail contact with you; your version seems >to state that I spontaneously wrote you insulting letters. In fact, >the three of you wrote me several insulting messages, to which I responded >with calm and equanimity. I was called a "moron" more than once, but >at no time did I respond with similar insults via mail. My "version" implies nothing beyond what it says. Your "version" implies that I am a liar. Whose "version" is right? This is a good example of why enforcing a politeness standard is an idea whose time should never come. People's ideas about it are just too different. I think Steven Harnad was very impolite indeed; Steven presumably thinks that he was merely serving as the Voice of Reason. Tim Maroney apparently thinks that in the light of all that has gone before, implying I am a liar is perfectly polite and acceptable. I think this is so hilarious as to hardly even be insulting, and (as you will see should you care to read further) I have my reasons also. >> The point is that if there are flames, perhaps it is for a reason. >I am a long-time supporter of this idea. I also support as an equal >principle that the reason for the flame must always be made clear, and >rationally supported, within the same message. Well, let us see if you have succeeded this time. Did I call you a moron, gibbering or otherwise? Did you carefully refrain from insulting remarks? Is it possible that we have here a case history wherein it can be clearly seen that one person or group was gratuitously rude, and should perhaps pay the penalty of their misdeeds? Inquiring minds want to know! Let us turn now to the "flames more insulting in any one instance than my entire output for a year". First, let us look at the cool and temperate remarks with which Tim begans: In article <1351@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Personally, I don't oppose Michael Ellis. I just feel that errant fuckheads >should jump off high buildings rather than inflict their puerile spewings >on the network. >Is this some kind of sick joke? This is stupid even for Ellis. >Shouting insults and nothing else is not about to convince anyone of >anything, except your own cretinism. Now we see my violent and savage response (I can't give Michael Ellis' brutal and deranged attack since apparently he didn't even reply!) In article <445@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >Under the circumstances, I question the validity of your observation; >it seems bombastic insult is what draws their attention. (Another thing >which seems to work is to post something with obvious flaws, but this >is self defeating). > Considering *your* "analysis" of Robert Heinlein a while back, which >achieved new heights of blind obduracy and general silliness, this complaint >is a little much to take coming from YOU, boyo! Stung by these terrible insults which Tim hadn't yet seen, but had heard about, Tim fires back another calm and reasoned reply: In article <1365@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Oddly, I haven't received Gene Smith's flame yet. Normally, the propagation >delay from Berkeley would be almost negligible. >I think it may be interesting to examine how it is that people can post >such inane flames as those of the anti-objectivists, obviously content- >free and purely insult, and then insist that they are irrefutable reasoning. >They have no idea that to someone outside the clique, their constant >slurs appear not as well-deserved denunciations of incredibly foolish >people, but as a group of over-inflated geeks inflating themselves at >the expense of others, though only in their own eyes. >Observation of these people in other conversations shows that they employ >insult routinely, in fact whenever possible. The whole reason for their >participation in public discussions seems to be to show their superior >intelligence by putting others down, not to communicate or to learn. >Obviously there is nothing to be learned from such a person. I think it is clear that Tim has a good point here: obviously anyone whose last name is not "Maroney" must be an over-inflated geek to insist on flaming. Only Tim Maroney should be allowed to flame anyone ever. A consistent application of this useful and logical principle would go a long way to ending this whole "censorship" discussion and would make life easier for Tim Maroney besides. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!weyl!gsmith "Slime is the agony of water" -- Jean-Paul Sartre
jj@alice.UUCP (12/15/86)
In article <555@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.UUCP writes: > In article <1484@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > This is a good example of why enforcing a politeness standard is > an idea whose time should never come. People's ideas about it are just > too different. I think Steven Harnad was very impolite indeed; Steven > presumably thinks that he was merely serving as the Voice of Reason. This is a remarkably ridiculous statement! Saying that Harnad was impolite, BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH YOU, is only self serving. I guess that in your polite world, everyone would agree with you? On the other hand, I think that a politeness standard (enforced by protest, shunning, and voiciferous mail complaints) is essential to the fabric of society. Since society exists only because of the cooperation of the people, at least in small things like civil behavior, perhaps what's being said here is that gsmith really wants to destroy society. Wonder what he'd like to replace it with? (Wonder if he even thought about it?) > >Observation of these people in other conversations shows that they employ > >insult routinely, in fact whenever possible. The whole reason for their > >participation in public discussions seems to be to show their superior > >intelligence by putting others down, not to communicate or to learn. > >Obviously there is nothing to be learned from such a person. > > I think it is clear that Tim has a good point here: obviously anyone > whose last name is not "Maroney" must be an over-inflated geek to insist > on flaming. Only Tim Maroney should be allowed to flame anyone ever. A > consistent application of this useful and logical principle would go a > long way to ending this whole "censorship" discussion and would make > life easier for Tim Maroney besides. The above two paragraphs point out which is the straw man... Obligitory complaint: GET THIS OUT OF NEWS.MISC, I DON'T THINK NEWS ADMINISTRATORS CARE, EXCEPT ABOUT THE THEIR TIME THAT YOU'RE WASTING! -- TEDDYBEARS ARE FOR ALL YEAR. "Kiss me, Kate, and cursed' be he who first cries 'Enough!' " (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj