miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) (02/02/90)
In article <TORKEL.90Feb1123354@echnaton.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes: > >It is possible to have the votes simultaneously if a person can vote > >on one proposal independently from the other. > Yes, I didn't think of this. Still, I think we shouldn't have >simultaneous votes since some ardent "sci" enthusiasts might simply >refuse to compromise their convictions by also voting for "talk". Ok. I concede the point. The sci vote should be first since it is harder. What is the procedure for the call for votes? When can one post it? Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca>
garyt@unix386.Convergent.COM (Gary Tse) (02/02/90)
In article <TORKEL.90Feb1123354@echnaton.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes: > Still, I think we shouldn't have >simultaneous votes since some ardent "sci" enthusiasts might simply >refuse to compromise their convictions by also voting for "talk". >Those of us who want an objectivism group first and foremost would >prefer not to put the "sci" diehards in this difficult position. I find it amusing that objectivists would be willing to compromise on finding the right hierarchy in order to push through a vote on the newsgroup. Just an observation. -- Gary Tse, garyt@ios.convergent.com || ..!pyramid!ctnews!ios!garyt tse@soda.berkeley.edu || ..!ucbvax!soda!tse tse@cup.portal.com /*blecht*/ || ..!sun!cup.portal.com!tse "Sorta like Scientology without the fees." -- Evan Leibovitch
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/03/90)
In article <264@fornax.UUCP>, miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes: > The sci vote should be first since it is > harder. But talk was proposed first. Jeff -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
mjones@fenway.uucp (Mike Jones) (02/03/90)
In article <TORKEL.90Feb1123354@echnaton.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes: >In article <257@fornax.UUCP> miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes: > > >It is possible to have the votes simultaneously if a person can vote > >on one proposal independently from the other. So a person can vote > >Yes to both, or No to both, or a combination thereof. > > Yes, I didn't think of this. Still, I think we shouldn't have >simultaneous votes since some ardent "sci" enthusiasts might simply >refuse to compromise their convictions by also voting for "talk". >Those of us who want an objectivism group first and foremost would >prefer not to put the "sci" diehards in this difficult position. Hmm. Since the Objectivist types (especially the "sci diehards") are going on at length about the superiority of reason and rational responce, one would have to assume that this position shouldn't be difficult at all unless one were determined in the face of all opposition to have a sci. group, no? Mike Jones | Oh, these computers. They're so naughty. AIX Kernel Development | I could just *pinch* them. Kingston, NY | - Marvin Martian .!uunet!ibmps2!aix!mjones
garm@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Garmong) (02/03/90)
> The sci vote should be first since it is >harder. Furthermore, we should postpone a vote for any group, for the following reasons: 1) There has been little discussion on a charter for either group, and that should precede any call for votes. We need to know what we're getting into before we start counting votes. 2) The machines at ATT (at least in New Jersey) are not receiving any mail or USENET postings, and so cannot take part in any vote, call for votes, etc. This is relevant, in this case, because the one who _started_ this whole thing by his postings on sci.philosophy.tech, R.W. Stubblefield, cannot take part in the discussion, nor can he propose sci.philosophy.objectivism. I think it is proper to give him the chance to put forward his own ideas (charter, etc.) before we vote on any group, sci.* _or_ talk.* 3) The poll which Bill Wells recently posted was skewed, as at least three, and possibly more, people at Bellabs were not able to vote. 4) As Miron notes, the vote for sci.* should precede that for talk.*, as sci.* is the more controversial, and therefore the more likely to get voted down. What is the procedure for the call for votes? When can one >post it? > Anyone have any answers on this? Mr. Stubblefield seems to know the rules, but, as I have mentioned, he is currently incommunicado. So is there anyone who can inform me as to when it would be appropriate to start pushing for a vote on sci.philosophy.objectivism? I would advocate taking several more days for discussion on charters, based on Mr. Stubblefield's preliminary suggestion, and call for a vote within a week. Then, the "talk."'ers could begin discussing their charter if SPO fails. We need to be as methodical about this as possible, so that we obtain the best possible result for all concerned. --Robert Garmong --University of Chicago Undergraduate department of economics.
demodsb@iitmax.IIT.EDU (David Bombardier) (02/03/90)
In article <XOH1EUCxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <264@fornax.UUCP>, miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes: > >> The sci vote should be first since it is >> harder. > > >But talk was proposed first. Actually, sci.philosophy.objectivism was proposed first. Someone on sci.philosophy.tech suggested it to Bob Stubblefield. It wasn't until after discussion on sci.philosophy.objectivism began (although there wasn't a formal call for discussion) that talk.philosophy.objectivism was proposed. -- David Bombardier demodsb@iitmax.iit.edu
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) (02/03/90)
In article <1425@awdprime.UUCP> mjones@fenway.uucp (Mike Jones) writes: >Hmm. Since the Objectivist types (especially the "sci diehards") are >going on at length about the superiority of reason and rational >response, one would have to assume that this position shouldn't be >difficult at all unless one were determined in the face of all opposition >to have a sci. group, no? Objectivists, of course, must be expected to act on the basis of supremely rational considerations (taking into account all known facts and never turning their backs on Ayn Rand's philosophy), so no doubt it is as you say. Still, I would prefer to take even unnecessary precautions to ensure that this wonderful scheme of creating a newsgroup for objectivists doesn't fail.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/03/90)
In article <7423@tank.uchicago.edu> garm@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Garmong) writes:
: 1) There has been little discussion on a charter for either group,
: and that should precede any call for votes. We need to know what
: we're getting into before we start counting votes.
What you are looking for is neither necessary or desirable;
unmoderated newsgroups don't generally have such a thing and the
only "official" statement that anyone ever reads about them is
the single line in the checkgroups posting that goes out
periodically. Moderated groups often do have a charter but that
charter is up to the moderator.
What might be desirable is a short essay on what Objectivism is.
This could then be posted monthly. It can also be written any
time convenient. And should be the same regardless of whether the
group is talk or sci.
: 3) The poll which Bill Wells recently posted was skewed, as at least
: three, and possibly more, people at Bellabs were not able to vote.
Awwwwww. Ain't that too bad.
That's not the way things work. The poll started. And ended. That
some people had system problems is not relevant. No doubt there
were people on the talk side who were unable to respond, as well.
Let's put it this way: if I open the poll for more responses, I'll
immediately count in the several new responses I got this evening.
All for talk.
: 4) As Miron notes, the vote for sci.* should precede that for talk.*,
: as sci.* is the more controversial, and therefore the more likely
: to get voted down.
Completely irrelevant. If you guys want to run a sci vote, feel
free. I am no longer interested in the possibility of
sci.philosophy.objectivism; the net is not in favor of it and so
I shall continue with things and ignore any more advocacy of sci.
: What is the procedure for the call for votes? When can one
: >post it?
:
: Anyone have any answers on this? Mr. Stubblefield seems to know the rules,
If he does, he learned them very recently. But I know them; I've
already run a successful newsgroup vote. A vote could have been
taken as early as the 27th had a consensus been reached. But it
may be taken up to the 11th of February.
I will be waiting for a few days to see if anything interesting
happens. If nothing does, I'll call for votes. Arguments about
sci no longer count as interesting.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/03/90)
In article <3320@iitmax.IIT.EDU>, demodsb@iitmax.IIT.EDU (David Bombardier) writes: > In article <XOH1EUCxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >In article <264@fornax.UUCP>, miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes: > > > >> The sci vote should be first since it is > >> harder. > > > > > >But talk was proposed first. > > Actually, sci.philosophy.objectivism was proposed first. Someone on > sci.philosophy.tech suggested it to Bob Stubblefield. It wasn't until after > discussion on sci.philosophy.objectivism began (although there wasn't a formal > call for discussion) that talk.philosophy.objectivism was proposed. > David, where was the discussion of spo placed? If I recall, Bill was the first to propose a *po group in the appropriate locations for such proposals. Still, this is a quibble. Why don't we hold *one* vote: (1) I prefer sci.philosophy.objectivism ___ (2) I prefer talk.philosophy.objectivism ___ (3) No Objectivism group; I hate Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem ___ If either (1) or (2) get at least 100 votes, and more than twice the number of (3), a group will be created ... and which one gets created will depend on which, of (1) and (2), gets more votes. Jeff Daiell -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) (02/04/90)
In article <09I13LGxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >(1) I prefer sci.philosophy.objectivism ___ >(2) I prefer talk.philosophy.objectivism ___ >(3) No Objectivism group; I hate Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem ___ > >If either (1) or (2) get at least 100 votes, and more than twice >the number of (3), a group will be created ... and which one gets >created will depend on which, of (1) and (2), gets more votes. > > >Jeff Daiell This will split YES votes and increase the possibility that no group will be created. I think it is best to have two independent questions: (1) YES/NO for an Objectivism group (2) SCI/TALK hierarchy, if the group is created The first qustion will decide the creation by the guidelines. The second will decide the hierarchy by majority. Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca>
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/05/90)
In article <270@fornax.UUCP>, miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes: >I think it is best to have two independent > questions: > > (1) YES/NO for an Objectivism group > (2) SCI/TALK hierarchy, if the group is created > > The first qustion will decide the creation by the guidelines. The > second will decide the hierarchy by majority. > > Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca> Miron is indeed correct. What's embarrassing (sp.?) is that this two-step method is one I've been advocating in just such cases as this. A thumbs-up for Miron! Jeff Daiell -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) (02/06/90)
>From: peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) >Date: 1 Feb 90 22:19:05 GMT >Instead of having two separate Yes/No votes going on, why not just >have one Sci/Talk vote? You vote one time, either for sci.phil.obj or >talk.phil.obj, thereby eliminating biases in the voting caused by >voting yes twice or no twice in an independent vote. A careless suggestion, for the following reason: As is, you have the four possibilities: (1) yes to spo, no to tpo (2) no to spo, yes to tpo (3) no to both (4) yes to both Your suggestion eliminates (4). This does not eliminate the problems posed by (1) and (2); it enhances them. I trust I need not explain why your suggestion does not eliminate (3). ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gramstad bfu@ifi.uio.no -------------------------------------------------------------------
gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (02/06/90)
In article <CMM.0.88.634245656.bfu@aurboda.uio.no> Thomas Gramstad <bfu@ifi.uio.no> writes: >>From: peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) >>Date: 1 Feb 90 22:19:05 GMT > >>Instead of having two separate Yes/No votes going on, why not just >>have one Sci/Talk vote? You vote one time, either for sci.phil.obj or >>talk.phil.obj, thereby eliminating biases in the voting caused by >>voting yes twice or no twice in an independent vote. Pardon me for asking, but what's the problem with running a Guttman- style scale and run the voting like this: No on either objectivist group Yes on talk.* Yes on sci.* and folks are free to vote once or twice? Judging by the debate on here, things seem to follow a Guttman scale which would be easy enough to use....
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (02/06/90)
In article <270@fornax.UUCP> miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman (Jones/Paul)) writes: >In article <09I13LGxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>(1) I prefer sci.philosophy.objectivism ___ >>(2) I prefer talk.philosophy.objectivism ___ >>(3) No Objectivism group; I hate Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem ___ >> >>If either (1) or (2) get at least 100 votes, and more than twice >>the number of (3), a group will be created ... and which one gets >>created will depend on which, of (1) and (2), gets more votes. >> >> >>Jeff Daiell > >This will split YES votes and increase the possibility that no >group will be created. I think it is best to have two independent >questions: > >(1) YES/NO for an Objectivism group >(2) SCI/TALK hierarchy, if the group is created > >The first qustion will decide the creation by the guidelines. The >second will decide the hierarchy by majority. > > Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca> Insufficient. I explicitly want to vote _against_ the sci.*.* proposal, simply because the recent incredibly closeminded postings by some Randites suggest that fanatical adherence to objectivism causes active brain damage. Whether they get a place in the talk heirarchy in which to rave away unnoticed to remove them as a nuisance from other sci.philosophy.* groups, as originally proposed by Greg Nowak, among others, is of relative indifference to me, and I suspect to many others. The postings saying that the * in *.philosophy.objectivism should be "sci", so that opinions that Randism is a bunko scheme at its worst may be _excluded_ from the group, condemns the Randites wholesale from their own words as a group of close minded fanatics. Those interested in and in favor of the philosophy who have managed to retain open minds in spite of this interest seem also to be the proponents of the "talk" heirarchy placement. This is unlikely to be a coincidence. I request a vote on sci.philosophy.objectivism (moderated?) be undertaken at once; the sides in this issue are obviously sufficiently polarized that further discussion will sway no one, while wasting additional bandwidth. Once that vote has failed (as I think it will), the question of a "talk" placement can be raised. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan) xanthian@ads.com - expiring soon; please use Well address for replies. Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
greg@phoenix (greg Nowak) (02/06/90)
In article <10747@saturn.ADS.COM>, xanthian@saturn (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >active brain damage. Whether they get a place in the talk heirarchy >in which to rave away unnoticed to remove them as a nuisance from >other sci.philosophy.* groups, as originally proposed by Greg Nowak, >among others, is of relative indifference to me, and I suspect to many >others. Thanks for the mention, but this is slightly inaccurate. My intent was never to banish objectivism from sci.philosophy.*. My contention was merely that it was inappropriate to sci.philosophy.tech, that if the objectivists insisted on waiting out the vote(s) in a sci.philosophy group, that 'meta was 1) more appropriate than 'tech and 2) more practical since it had no native constituency to find these postings appropriate. This suggestion, which harmed no one and would probably have allowed objectivists to have their own newsgroup in all but name (a situation which, be it noted, does not now obtain with their less-than-welcome presence in 'tech) was of course completely ignored. While I do feel that a newsgroup explicitly devoted to objectivism belongs more properly under talk, I made this judgment completely independently of my consideration that objectivist postings were inappropriate in 'tech. rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "It is the right of every person to change their mind or be inconsistent." --Matt Crawford
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/06/90)
You people are fooling yourselves. Unless I miss my guess (an educated guess drawn from a decade of netting) you don't get to decide whether it's sci or talk. You can vote for a sci group and you can issue a create message for a sci group, but there are clearly enough admins out there who would be sufficiently annoyed by this to alias the group to a talk group or refuse to forward the sci group. You could proudly proclaim your important sounding name, but it would by a phyrric victory, indeed. Ask the aquarium people. (Of course, I gave the same warning to Richard Sexton and he ignored it, too.) I could be wrong, but I suspect you're wasting your own time, and everybody else's too, in debating how to "decide" sci or talk. This is not a democracy, and I wish people would stop pretending that it is. Objectivists, if anyone, should understand that. You don't get to vote about how other people's property will be used. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/08/90)
: >I think it is best to have two independent
: > questions:
: >
: > (1) YES/NO for an Objectivism group
: > (2) SCI/TALK hierarchy, if the group is created
: >
: > The first qustion will decide the creation by the guidelines. The
: > second will decide the hierarchy by majority.
The second question has already been answered. The poll results
were 20 for sci, 35 for talk. If you want to count responses
received after the poll closed, make those 21 and 38. Damn near
2/3 (64%) of the respondents want talk.
Not only that, but since the numbers guarantee that it will be
non-Objectivists who decide the fate of the group and all but a
few of the pro-sci responses were Objectivists, based solely on
the numbers it is an easy conclusion to draw that the attempt to
create a sci group would fail.
And one can add to that that there are a number (over 10% of my
poll responses) of people who said they would vote *against* a
sci group. (No, I don't recall any "I'll vote against talk"
responses.)
There isn't any question at all which is the generally preferred
hierarchy. The only reason that this discussion has gone on so
long is that certain people don't know when it is time to shut up.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_