gwh@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/11/89)
In article <1989Sep26.010919.29962@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > Considering what awful things are going on in sci.skeptic, I am >surprised you want to create another group already. I got >alt.weemba started, and that was enough for me. "Newsbreak: UC Berkeley Several graduate students have been found to be the same person. After undue exposure to useage of a computer system, it was discovered today that an unknown number of UCB math graduate students were actually sharing one group mind and personality. Calling themselves the 'Brahms Gang', the group had been terrorizing an international computer net with cutting and often violent commentary. An earlier outbreak of localized Brahms gang Syndrome, as UCSF med center psychologists are calling the disease, was identified in one Matthew Wiener, who had joined the group mind as an entity called Weemba. Further investigation has shown that there were at least four, possibly as many of twenty victims. As of this time nobody has found a cure, or gained any insight into the nature of the syndrome." Is perhaps Mr. Smith a victim???? **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/11/90)
Getting back to proposed groups,
(1) talk.philosophy.objectivism still sounds like a good idea.
(2) a discussion of the laws surrounding drugs might be appropriate
in alt.individualism -- it is, after all, a matter of
individual choice versus majority dictate.
(3) what was the final decision regarding the gay rights group?
Jeff
--
Thank you for not coercing.goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) (02/12/90)
In article <NMO1M+xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
)
) What was the final decision regarding the gay rights group?
)
)
)Jeff
One thing I want to make clear right away is that it was not intended to be
a 'gay rights group'. That already exists and is called soc.motss. The subject
matter of my original proposal was a newsgroup where those who feel that homo-
sexuality is immoral and those who feel that it is acceptable could clash.
This is *not* the same as gay rights, and the confusion that might be created
between the two was among the objections to the concept.
Someone suggested that the topic be broadened to include all discussions of
conflicting value systems. Shortly thereafter all discussion ceased. I think
that it's an excellent suggestion, and I intend to try to run a vote on
talk.morality as soon as the requisite 14 day period has ended -- i.e. this
Thursday. ("Try", because mail to the cluster I'm on tends to be somewhat
flaky.)
David Goldfarb goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (Insert standard disclaimer)
"I don't consider Zeus to be as plausible as Jesus." -- Scott Cattanachjeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/12/90)
In article <34245@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) writes: > In article <NMO1M+xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > ) > ) What was the final decision regarding the gay rights group? > ) > ) > )Jeff > > One thing I want to make clear right away is that it was not intended to be > a 'gay rights group'. .... > Someone suggested that the topic be broadened to include all discussions of > conflicting value systems. Shortly thereafter all discussion ceased. I think > that it's an excellent suggestion, and I intend to try to run a vote on > talk.morality as soon as the requisite 14 day period has ended (1) Sorry about the misnomer. (2) I think talk.morality would be a good idea. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (02/13/90)
In article <34245@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> goldfarb@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) writes: | Someone suggested that the topic be broadened to include all discussions of | conflicting value systems. Shortly thereafter all discussion ceased. I think | that it's an excellent suggestion, and I intend to try to run a vote on | talk.morality as soon as the requisite 14 day period has ended -- i.e. this | Thursday. ("Try", because mail to the cluster I'm on tends to be somewhat | flaky.) What you propose and what was originally proposed are two different things. The original idea was a group for the discussion for the legal AND moral issues of homosexuals. What you propose should be called "ethics" rather than "morality" I suspect. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
spenser@ficc.uu.net (Spenser Aden) (02/13/90)
In article <2125@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <34245@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> goldfarb@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) writes: > >| Someone suggested that the topic be broadened to include all discussions of >| conflicting value systems. Shortly thereafter all discussion ceased. I think >| that it's an excellent suggestion, and I intend to try to run a vote on >| talk.morality as soon as the requisite 14 day period has ended -- i.e. this >| Thursday. ("Try", because mail to the cluster I'm on tends to be somewhat >| flaky.) > > What you propose and what was originally proposed are two different >things. The original idea was a group for the discussion for the legal >AND moral issues of homosexuals. While this is an admirable idea, it is also asking for potential trouble. Frequently, regarding hotly debated topics such as homsexuality, what is legal certainly does *NOT* constitute what is ethical, moral, or right. To try and hold discussions that will incorporate BOTH, and keep it civilized, will be quite a chore. Those who don't care what the law says, but care deeply about the morality of the issue, will need to refrain from emotional flames against those who believe the law is the most important, regardless of what else they might think, in order to keep the discussion civil. And vice versa too. Worthwhile discussion, IMHO, will require even more restraint from flamage than is evident in the postings to news.groups today. My money is on that not happening, as is the tendency of the net. > What you propose should be called >"ethics" rather than "morality" I suspect. I didn't follow the original thread, but to pick a small nit, "ethics" and "morality" are essentially the same thing. The law is certainly another, though an argument could be made that that shoudln't be the case (though I would argue that it is). BTW, none of what I've said is intended to thwart or promote the creation of talk.morality, but are simply observations to be considered. -Spenser -- S. Spenser Aden | This may have been a test of the emergency Ferranti International Controls | flame-throwing system. Had this been an spenser@ficc.uu.net | actual flame, you would have been instructed Only my opinions, not Ferranti's.| where to follow-up. This was only a test.