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.commehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/14/90)
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-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
dschein@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
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/14/90)
No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy. Create a mailing list, and if it turns out to have wide appeal and a diversity of perspectives, then consider moving it into the group hierarchy at an appropriate place. Perhaps talk.religion.objectivism. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Every year, thousands of new Randoids join the ranks. Most tend to be either too-rich self-made tycoons or picked-on computer nerds (the romantic, heroic individualism of Rand's novels flatters the former and fuels the latter's revenge fantasies)." -- Bob Mack, SPY, July 1989
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.combill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/14/90)
In article <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: : In article <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> : >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. As expected, the "other" Objectivists have decided to campaign against me as a moderator. There is a reason for this which I'll touch on in a moment. However, I'd like to point out one immediate absurdity in Mehul Dave's posting. He asserts that he "doesn't trust [my] judgement on what constitutes flames". This would be amusing were it not merely stupid. Of *course* I can tell a flame from a non-flame. I'm well practiced at generating, and detecting, both. :-) I moderate comp.archives. I also moderate an Objectivism mailing list. I defy you to find a flame on either. (Yes, there was a flame or two in the mailing list; that was before I moderated it and, in fact, is the reason I chose to moderate it.) Now, as for the "what is related to objectivism and what is not", here is where we get into the meat of the matter. I'd like to bring to your attention the following, from a posting by one of Mehul Dave's cohorts in philosophy: In message <7314@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> rws@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (r.w.stubblefield) writes: : Objectivism is a proper name; it is a particular philosophy--the : one formulated by Ayn Rand. I would not want SPO moderated by : someone who does not grasp Objectivism's fundamentals. Clearly, I : think I do; but I cannot take the time to be a moderator and I : don't think I should expect others to take my word that I : understand it well enough to have that role. I personally would : only contribute to a moderated Objectivism group if the moderator : were sanctioned as such by Leonard Peikoff--and that's not likely ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : to happen. Why did I underscore that? This has to do with a difference of opinion among Objectivists. Since I'm not in a flaming mood right now, I won't detail the differences; suffice it to say that Mr. Stubblefield wants a moderator who will enforce the "orthodox" Objectivist viewpoint and who will engage in the moralizing that substitutes for reason that is all too common among certain kinds of Objectivists. You read that correctly. Yes, what they want is philosophical purity within the newsgroup and a platform from which to preach their version of Objectivism. Views like mine would almost certainly be edited out. Or, would be met with ridicule rather than reason. This, BTW, is not theoretical. I've seen this precise thing happen in other forums. Repeatedly. For example, I got to be revolted hearing Ayn Rand read (in a Q&A period for one of Peikoff's lectures) a question and respond with essentially "that is an evil question". Now, I want to make this clear: I vehemently disagree with these people. I think they are, at best, deluded; at worst, evil. On the other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for Objectivism would necessarily include their words. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
stevec@csri.toronto.edu (Steve Cumming) (01/15/90)
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. > >bill@twwells.com I'll vote yes, as long as it's called talk.religion.objectivism. -- stevec@theory.[toronto.edu|utoronto.ca] Death is inevitable - Steve Cumming, a.k.a. live accordingly.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/15/90)
In article <9673@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
: No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy.
Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that
moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On
all counts.
: Create a mailing list,
There are already *two* mailing lists, a fact you could have
discovered for yourself, had you bothered to look.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comemv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (01/15/90)
In article <1990Jan14.142457.19621@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
I moderate comp.archives. I also moderate an Objectivism mailing
list. I defy you to find a flame on either.
or much of anything on comp.archives in its original few months of
operation, for what that's worth.
I find objectivists objectionable, but so far they haven't intruded on
my space. The question is, whether they would be more objectionable
quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections.
--Edbill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/15/90)
In article <EMV.90Jan14141908@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: : In article <1990Jan14.142457.19621@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: : I moderate comp.archives. I also moderate an Objectivism mailing : list. I defy you to find a flame on either. : : or much of anything on comp.archives in its original few months of : operation, for what that's worth. That's true, but a little misleading. For whatever reason, people do not post that much on comp.archives. (Yes, I have to take part of the blame: I really should have promoted comp.archives better. But that is water under the bridge.) Now, Ed is scarfing up appropriate postings from other groups and reposting them on comp.archives; I wish I had the time to do things like that, but I'm always very busy. : The question is, whether they would be more objectionable : quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections. They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to not having to put up with them. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/15/90)
In article <twwells.1990Jan14.142457.19621> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes [ A lot of stuff about me which should not be discussed in this newsgroup because it is not relevant here] >Why did I underscore that? This has to do with a difference of >opinion among Objectivists. Since I'm not in a flaming mood right >now, I won't detail the differences; suffice it to say that Mr. >Stubblefield wants a moderator who will enforce the "orthodox" >Objectivist viewpoint and who will engage in the moralizing that >substitutes for reason that is all too common among certain kinds >of Objectivists. >You read that correctly. Yes, what they want is philosophical >purity within the newsgroup and a platform from which to preach >their version of Objectivism. Views like mine would almost >certainly be edited out. Or, would be met with ridicule rather >than reason. Part of all this is correct. Certainly you and I differ over what is objectivism. Which is precisely why the newsgroup should be unmoderated. Please note that it is not me, but Mr. Wells who is asking for moderation. I could say, like Mr. Wells does, that if he was the moderator, my views won't be heard because he would regard them as "inconsistent with objectivism". So, the only fair way out is to have the newsgroup unmoderated. What I think of objectivism or what Mr. Wells thinks is not the point. We'll let each reader decide who understand objectivism and who doesn't. Which is precisely why I am asking for an unmoderated newsgroup. Mr. Wells also has a legitimate point in noting that there would be flames on an unmoderated newsgroup. They have already started right now with suggestions of objectivism being a religion. But then there are always kill files whose value cannot be overemphasised. It is better to take the flames and have kill files rather than Mr. Wells (whom I do not consider an objectivist) deciding what is proper for the group and what is not. >Now, I want to make this clear: I vehemently disagree with these >people. I think they are, at best, deluded; at worst, evil. On the >other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for >Objectivism would necessarily include their words. Well, in the same breath, you say we are "evil" or "randroids" or whatever and then you say you regard us to be objectivists. And yet to expect us to believe that you will not edit off our views? That's why I said I don't trust your judgement on what is objectivism (and don't ask you to trust my judgement either). You have already started attacking me even before the newsgroup is created and then you want me to believe that you will not moderate out my postings despite your hatred of me? Jeff Daiell (if you're reading this), this is why I am asking for an unmoderated newsgroup. I (and several others) have a problem with Mr. Wells as a moderator because as I said, I don't trust his judgement. Similarly Mr. Wells (and several others) have a problem with one of us being a moderator. So, I am asking for an unmoderated newsgroup. Besides, Mr. Wells did not even post a charter for the proposed newsgroup. What is it supposed to discuss? Specifically, is it all of objectivism or only parts of it? -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (01/15/90)
me : The question is, whether they would be more objectionable : quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections. bill@twwells.com They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to not having to put up with them. so I am to be encouraged to give them a base from which to launch their nefarious, interminable, mind-poisoningly objectionable campaigns? Hardly. I think that *.objectivism should be unmoderated, to make it more easy to cross-post to talk.bizarre. --Ed
miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) (01/15/90)
I would support a moderated objectivism newsgroup. I propose a better moderation scheme. Let there be more than one moderator. If somebody gets turned down for a posting by one, he may appeal to another. If any of the moderators decides the article is OK it will be posted. Another scheme is to have alt.objectivism. Anyone denied a post to the moderated group may post to the unmoderated one. If people see that good articles get posted to the alt group and denied to the sci group, the moderator may be replaced (by vote). Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca>
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/15/90)
I have a suggestion.
There appear to be two camps here. Why don't each of the two camps, the
orthodox and the reformist, appoint a moderator? Each posting could be
sent to whichever moderator the poster chooses.
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) (01/15/90)
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. I presume that Ayn Rand is your lighthouse of wisdom. 8^)
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/15/90)
In article <BE21+H4ggpc2@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: >There appear to be two camps here. Why don't each of the two camps, the >orthodox and the reformist, appoint a moderator? Each posting could be >sent to whichever moderator the poster chooses. So far the only person who seems to clearly want a moderated group is Bill Wells. I would say he is outvoted, and a call for votes on *any* moderated objectivism group would be inappropriate. What is needed is an unmoderated objectivism group, where Stubblefield can post whatever drivel he likes. Moderating a talk.philosophy.objectivism group is almost like moderating talk.origins, with a Creation Scientist as the moderator. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Institute of Pi Research
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/15/90)
In article <9001140024.AA18363@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. Concur. --Blair "That's a preemptive no-vote, T-bill."
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/15/90)
>In article <9673@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >: No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy. > In article <1990Jan14.191035.20625@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that >moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On >all counts. Funny, this is just the kind of quasi-religious didacticism that leads me to believe that objectivism is not philosophy and that it's basically a Rand fan club. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com FROM THE FOOL FILE: "Yet another piece of evidence that it's a Communist society which is being presented as good, but which we probably would not want to live in." -- Ken Arromdee on rec.arts.startrek, on the Federation's Red Menace
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/15/90)
In article <BE21+H4ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
: I have a suggestion.
:
: There appear to be two camps here. Why don't each of the two camps, the
: orthodox and the reformist, appoint a moderator? Each posting could be
: sent to whichever moderator the poster chooses.
Fine by me.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comharris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) (01/15/90)
Sender: Joe Harris
Reply-To: harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris)
Followup-To:
Distribution: news.groups
Organization: Stanford University
Keywords:
I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci
hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. sci.philosophy.objectivism.
Under no circumstances would I vote for, or post to, an Objectivism
newsgroup which is moderated by someone who is not a recognized authority
on Objectivism. Since no such recognized authorities are available, an
unmoderated newsgroup is the only alternative.
In my judgement, there is no real reason to have a moderator; anyone
who behaves irrationally can simply be ignored--and each individual can be
his own judge as to what constitutes irrationality.
I do not need anyone to tell me what does or does not belong in
an Objectivist newsgroup--that is a decision that I can make for myself.
Joe Harris
harris@portia.stanford.edugsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/15/90)
In article <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU>, harris@portia (Joe Harris) writes: >I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci >hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. >sci.philosophy.objectivism. I was hoping this idea would die quietly over on sci.philosophy.tech. As it is, I will just say that if you want to post Objectivist philosophy to sci.aquaria, you have my blessings. If you don't know why I suggested this, you also don't know why your idea should never have been proposed. Forget it. Thou knowest not what thou dost. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahmsgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 "There are no differences but differences of degree between degrees of difference and no difference"
dveditz@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!dveditzbph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/16/90)
In article <1990Jan14.211304.21370@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <EMV.90Jan14141908@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >: The question is, whether they would be more objectionable >: quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections. > >They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of >their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to >not having to put up with them. Oh, is _that_ the reason? Well, then, save us the newgroup and just instruct Objectivists to post to alt.flame, instead, to be with the rest of the postings that nobody really wants to see. --Blair "We'll know what to do with them..."
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/16/90)
In article <BE21+H4ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >I have a suggestion. > >There appear to be two camps here. Why don't each of the two camps, the >orthodox and the reformist, appoint a moderator? Each posting could be >sent to whichever moderator the poster chooses. What then do we do with the fundamentalist, charismatic, and crypto- communistic Objectivist camps, then, eh? Maybe there should be five moderators. Or should we add one more for agnostic Objectivists (I'd like to believe there's Ayn Rand, but...) and another for those who don't fit any of the above groups... In fact, why don't we just appoint all the people who've posted articles to any group that have not yet been expired at ficc.uu.net to be the moderator, and give each one a group to moderate according to their sect? --Blair "...comp.objectivism.bondage, to be moderated by Anonymous@n7kbt.WA.COM"
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/16/90)
In article <portia.8250> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes > I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci >hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. sci.philosophy.objectivism. That's a good suggestion. I agree with this. > In my judgement, there is no real reason to have a moderator; anyone >who behaves irrationally can simply be ignored--and each individual can be >his own judge as to what constitutes irrationality. > I do not need anyone to tell me what does or does not belong in >an Objectivist newsgroup--that is a decision that I can make for myself. Agreed completely. -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/16/90)
In article <EMV.90Jan14174127@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: }me : The question is, whether they would be more objectionable } : quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections. }bill@twwells.com } They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of } their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to } not having to put up with them. }so I am to be encouraged to give them a base from which to launch }their nefarious, interminable, mind-poisoningly objectionable }campaigns? Hardly. Pay attention. They have already invaded other newsgroups. Whether a special newsgroup would serve as a "base" is hard to determine; what is a fact is that unwelcome objectivist rants have already been posted to sci.philosophy.tech. }I think that *.objectivism should be unmoderated, to make it more }easy to cross-post to talk.bizarre. Where they would be completely unwelcome. For all of you news.groups weenies, this is where the crossposting comes from -- non-readers of talk.bizarre who figure that the name of the newsgroup excuses them from crossposting to it, then are surprised when they are told that their crossposts are inappropriate to talk bizarre. If you think somebody is an idiot, then FLAME THEM, and if you like your own writing so much, crosspost to alt.flame so others can enjoy it. But crossposting your flame to talk.bizarre merely because you find the opinions you're flaming "bizarre" is a tired, tired, immature little joke, disrespectful of another newsgroup. As a general rule of thumb, if you don't read a group, don't crosspost to it. Talk.bizarre has developed its own standards about what constitutes an acceptable posting, and they deserve as much respect as those of soc.singles or comp.binaries.ibm.pc. rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "Most news readers are not UNIX sophisticates and do not have the capability of using KILL files or even know that such a thing is possible." -- Tim Maroney
lofdahl@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
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/16/90)
In article <9001152101.AA29657@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: }In article <portia.8250> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes }> I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci }>hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. sci.philosophy.objectivism. }That's a good suggestion. I agree with this. Beautiful! Sci.philosophy.meta is currently unused. It's yours! Have fun! Those of us who found objectivist postings unacceptable in sci.philosophy.tech thought that sci.philosophy.meta would be an acceptable relocation site. No objectivist has come forward with an argument as to why 'meta was less acceptable than 'tech, so presumably at least those objectivists such as Mr. Dave who felt free to post objectivist postings to 'tech would have no objection to posting them to 'meta: It's sci, it's philosophy, and the "meta" does a much better job than "tech" of covering the epistemological issues that objectivists claimed legitimized their presence in 'tech in the first place. Have fun in sci.philosophy.meta! rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ He is hardly Commander in Chief if he can't go around bombing two bit dictators whenever he feels like it. --Mike Friedman
ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis) (01/16/90)
> Steve Cumming >> T. William Wells >>This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup: >I'll vote yes, as long as it's called talk.religion.objectivism. Whether we like it or not, Ayn Rand's nonfictional work is actually placed in the philosophy section of libraries and bookstores. She may be treated as a pariah by academic philosophers, but she wrote philosophy all the same. In my experience, there have always been many Objectivist USENET contributors and there always will be. With a separate newsgroup of their own, I think there would be a lot less friction in groups like sci.philosophy.tech. I support talk.philosophy.objectivism, and if it is moderated I should hope that both Bill Wells and a representative of the Peikoff orthodoxy would have a hand in its administration. -michael
des@elberton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) (01/16/90)
In article <5285@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <1990Jan14.211304.21370@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >>In article <EMV.90Jan14141908@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >>: The question is, whether they would be more objectionable >>: quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections. >>They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of >>their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to >>not having to put up with them. >Well, then, save us the newgroup and just instruct Objectivists >to post to alt.flame, instead, to be with the rest of the postings >that nobody really wants to see. we had a mega flame war on eunet (well it was mega by eunet standards but nothing like the current high standards of news.groups flamings) over objectivism. basically there was one objectivist who seemed to spend most of his time sending often abusive follow ups to eunet.general. After about 2 months it all died down when he left to do his 2 years Swedish national service. His main line of attack was to claim that any assertion that could not be "proved" labelled you as a moral bankrupt - however he never seemed to prove anything and incessantly quote Ayn Rand and made proto-facist rantings. Giving them their own group may help to isolate them from the rest of netland but I expect they would say that saying they should be posting to talk.philosphy.objectivism is an assertion and not a fact and thus can be ignored. david shepherd INMOS ltd
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/16/90)
If anything, this should be soc.politics.objectivism. Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in nature. In any case, why doesn't someone create alt.objectivism, and if that takes off, we can discuss moving it into the main hierarchy. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Starting in a hollowed log of wood -- some thousand miles up a river, with an infinitesimal prospect of returning! I ask myself 'Why?' and the only echo is 'damned fool! ... the Devil drives!" -- Sir Richard Francis Burton in correspondence to Monckton Miles, 1863
stata@cello.HPL.HP.COM (Raymie Stata) (01/17/90)
Two points on talk.philosophy.objectivism: 1. What is the charter? Some people would like to see the newsgroup in "sci." hierarchy. But the charter of the newsgroup is what should determine where it is put. If the group is restricted to technical discussions of technical issues in philosophy, then it would belong in the "sci." hierarchy. But I would like to see the charter include discussions of current events, summaries of Objectivism events as they happen around the country, news from campus and other clubs. A group with this kind of newsgroup belongs in the "talk." hierarchy. As far as technical discussions of philosophic issues are concerned, what is needed is sci.philosophy, not sci.philosophy.objectivism. 2. I am opposed to a moderated newsgroup. In the case of Objectivism a call for a moderated newsgroup will lead to endless flaming over who will moderate it. More generally, I think that moderated newsgroups should be very rare---moderators have too much power and the potential for abuse is great. Also, moderators add uneeded delay. Bill Wells feels that a moderator will be necessary because an Objectivism newsgroup would generate an unusuall amount of flaming. I don't think that's the case. Most of the flaming that Objectivism arouses comes from non-Objectivists on newsgroups whose subject matter is not Objectivism. Most of these people will not read or post to a talk.philosophy.objectivism. As to ``flaming'' that arises among people who all claim to be Objectivists, I wouldn't want anybody---no matter who ``sanctioned'' them---to decide what was flaming and was an honest attempt at argumentation. This is a judgement each man should make for himself (I am reminded of ``Who is the Final Authority in Ethics?''). Raymie Stata raymie@athena.mit.edu
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/17/90)
In article <3635@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>, des@elberton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes: >there was one objectivist who ... > he never seemed > to prove anything and incessantly quote Ayn Rand and made proto-facist > rantings. Please define "proto-fascist" in this context. Objectivism places a high value on strict respect for Human Rights, so if you mean proto-fascist literally (as opposed to 'anyone who disagrees with David Shepherd'), the man was obviously not an Objectivist. Pro Libertas, Jeff -- A Fusser named McGee; a most amusing sight! He fusses every day, then fusses every night. TUNE: What can he mean, this Fusser named McGee, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF Who fusses first at you, then fusses next at me?
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/17/90)
In article <9702@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: > If anything, this should be soc.politics.objectivism. > > Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few > people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in > nature. Tim, I hate to sound harsh, but this is 100% wrong. It's like saying that baseball has no physical component because, as Yogi B. put it, "90% of baseball is half mental". Yes, Objectivism has a political component ... but it has much, much, more. And even the political component it has would not have to be as prominent as it is were the world not so horrifically overgoverned. I would ask that you read some of Rand's non-political works and then rethink your assessment. Jeff Daiell -- A Fusser named McGee; a most amusing sight! He fusses every day, then fusses every night. TUNE: What can he mean, this Fusser named McGee, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF Who fusses first at you, then fusses next at me?
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
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/17/90)
In article <9001142226.AA23247@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
: In article <twwells.1990Jan14.142457.19621>
: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes
:
: [ A lot of stuff about me which should not be discussed in this
: newsgroup because it is not relevant here]
Try again. The stuff you deleted was my saying that your assertion
that I can't be trusted to recognize a flame is absurd. Since the
reason I proposed the group as moderated is to keep out flames,
discussion on that point is quite relevant.
: >Now, I want to make this clear: I vehemently disagree with these
: >people. I think they are, at best, deluded; at worst, evil. On the
: >other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for
: >Objectivism would necessarily include their words.
:
: Well, in the same breath, you say we are "evil" or "randroids" or
: whatever and then you say you regard us to be objectivists.
That is correct. An Objectivist is one that has a philosophy that
agrees with Rand's on the essential points. Randroids, though
violating the philosophy by taking Objectivism on faith,
nonetheless agree with those points. Thus, from my point of view,
Randroids are Objectivists, though bad ones.
: And yet
: to expect us to believe that you will not edit off our views?
Yes, I expect you to believe that. Why? If for no other reason
that, were I to reject them or edit them, you could post on other
newsgroups complaining about this, thus discrediting me as
moderator.
At least two people have suggested co-moderation, which is to say,
two people, presumably myself and someone acceptable to you, as
moderators. I'd accept that.
Do you need more proof?
: Besides, Mr. Wells did not even post a charter for the proposed
: newsgroup. What is it supposed to discuss? Specifically, is it all
: of objectivism or only parts of it?
From the original posting:
: This newsgroup would exist for
: discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
: related topics.
Looks like a charter to me. And, to answer your question: all of
it.
---
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_bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/17/90)
In article <9682@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: : >In article <9673@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: : >: No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy. : > : In article <1990Jan14.191035.20625@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com : (T. William Wells) writes: : >Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that : >moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On : >all counts. : : Funny, this is just the kind of quasi-religious didacticism that : leads me to believe that objectivism is not philosophy and that : it's basically a Rand fan club. One of my points of contention with my fellow Objectivists is that I advocate trying to understanding other's points of view. I've added to my understanding that you refer to calling a bullshitter a bullshitter as "quasi-religious didacticism". Oh, BTW, you really should go look up "didactic". A counter-flame hardly counts as didactic. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/17/90)
In article <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes:
: I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci
: hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. sci.philosophy.objectivism.
This is a bad idea. If for no other reason, it is impracticable:
creating a talk group is barely possible, creating a sci group is
not at all possible. But the real reason is that an Objectivism
group does not belong in sci. Let's look at the definitions (from
the news.announce.newusers monthly postings):
"sci" Discussions intended as technical in nature and relating
to the established sciences.
On the evidence, an Objectivism discussion group would not be
"technical in nature". Judging from discussions in the mailing
lists and various newsgroups, most of the discussions would be
very general. Or, worse, would mostly consist of head butting. In
any case, I don't think the word "technical" would be generally
applicable to discussions in the group.
Objectivism pretty much fails the second test, too. Like any
philosophy, it has something to say *about* science, but that is a
very small part of Objectivism. Putting it in sci would only make
sense if the discussion were mostly limited to that part of
Objectivism which has to do with the philosophy of science.
But that is not what the proposed newsgroup is for.
"talk" Groups largely debate-oriented and tending to feature long
discussions without resolution and without appreciable amounts
of generally useful information.
Whether we like it or not, an Objectivism group will be "largely
debate-oriented" and "feature long discussions without
resolution". Whether it would generate "appreciable amounts of
generally useful information" is something that Objectivists and
non-Objectivists are likely to disagree about.
: In my judgement, there is no real reason to have a moderator; anyone
: who behaves irrationally can simply be ignored--and each individual can be
: his own judge as to what constitutes irrationality.
That's true if the the group is mostly rational discussion. My
fear is that an unmoderated group would be almost entirely
composed of flames and various irrationalities. At that point,
kill files don't work and the only cure is to leave the group.
Which would mean leaving the group to the irrationalists.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comdes@elberton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) (01/17/90)
In article <PV31EADxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Please define "proto-fascist" in this context. ok, an example was along the lines of a claim that Black African economies were failing because their governments weer wasting their time trying to teach savages (sic) to read. david shepherd INMOS ltd
bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) (01/18/90)
>From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) >Date: 16 Jan 90 15:28:55 GMT >Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few >people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in >nature. The Ayn Rand Society, an organization for professional philosophers who are objectivists, is member of the American Philosophical Association. I am sure that APA would be interested in the information you apparently have, which they seem to have missed, as to why objectivism is not a philosophy. On second thought, maybe not. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gramstad bfu@ifi.uio.no -------------------------------------------------------------------
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/18/90)
In article <9702@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >> Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few >> people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in >> nature. In article <LY31GJExds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >I hate to sound harsh, but this is 100% wrong. It's like saying >that baseball has no physical component because, as Yogi B. put >it, "90% of baseball is half mental". No, it's more like saying that baseball is not a branch of physics. The fact that balls follow ballistic trajectories doesn't make it physics. >I would ask that you read some of Rand's non-political works and >then rethink your assessment. I have -- or rather, I've tried. "Crackpot" springs to mind. Rand's "philosophy" is nothing of the kind; even less is it psychology. It aspires to be both, but merely erects a nonsensical terminology utterly devoid of empirical basis and calls that "wisdom". I suggest that *you* read some philosophy before you try to gain admission to its ranks. Flame away; anything you say will likely have expired before I get back from an unfortunate sojourn to the opposite coast. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "I've been called an evil genius by cities of assholes... but I know who these people are! And they're on my list!" -- Robert Crumb
stata@hplabsb.HP.COM (Raymie Stata) (01/18/90)
Two points on talk.philosophy.objectivism: 1. What is the charter? Some people would like to see the newsgroup in "sci." hierarchy. But the charter of the newsgroup is what should determine where it is put. If the group is restricted to technical discussions of technical issues in philosophy, then it would belong in the "sci." hierarchy. But I would like to see the charter include discussions of current events, summaries of Objectivism events as they happen around the country, news from campus and other clubs. A group with this kind of charter belongs in the "talk." hierarchy. As far as technical discussions of philosophic issues are concerned, what is needed is sci.philosophy, not sci.philosophy.objectivism. 2. I am opposed to a moderated newsgroup. Moderated newsgroups should be very rare---moderators have too much power and the potential for abuse is great. Also, moderators add uneeded delay. Bill Wells feels that a moderator will be necessary because an Objectivism newsgroup would generate an unusuall amount of flaming. I don't think that's the case. Most of the flaming that Objectivism arouses comes from non-Objectivists on newsgroups whose subject matter is not Objectivism. Most of these people will not read nor post to a talk.philosophy.objectivism. As to ``flaming'' that arises among people who all claim to be Objectivists, I wouldn't want anybody---no matter who ``sanctioned'' them---to decide what was flaming and was an honest attempt at argumentation. This is a judgement each man should make for himself (I am reminded of ``Who is the Final Authority in Ethics?''). Raymie Stata raymie@athena.mit.edu
maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (01/18/90)
In the spirit of goodwill that has pervaded news.groups lately, a proposal intended to solve several conflicts: Objectivism *obviously* belongs in the sci hierarchy, and equally obviously deserves special treatment: sci.gibbering.Objectivism.wells sci.gibbering.Objectivism.peoplewhohatewells. andthinkheknowsdickaboutObjectivism and in a special move designed to take into account the exceptionally profound and interesting nature of Objectivism: sci.gibbering.Objectivism.[insert name of any other loony who needs his or her own Objectivist newsgroup for reasons of doctrinal purity or sheer megalomania or just because] Then, regarding the rec.arts.cinema controversy, I suggest the creation of an entire new branch on the Usenet tree: arts. Then we could have arts.cinema.moderated (for those who remain afraid that the unwashed will do it in the streets and frighten the horses) and arts.cinema.anythinggoes for those misguided souls who insist upon allowing the plebes to express themselves without the decent intervention of an Initiate. Finally, let us have alt.cisco, a simple enough solution, but *only* if we also have alt.pancho. Yours sincerely, Tom "the Talleyrand of news.groups" Maddox.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/18/90)
In article <5556@hplabsb.HP.COM>, stata@hplabsb (Raymie Stata) writes: >If the group is restricted to technical discussions of technical issues >in philosophy, then it would belong in the "sci." hierarchy. Why? Talk.philosophy.misc is often technical, and is certainly more technical than "sci".objectivism would likely be. Yet it's in the "talk" hierarchy. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Institute of Pi Research
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/18/90)
> "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_ If this be objectivism, I must say that the majority of folks pushing for the group are pretty poor objectivists. All they seem to come up with are assertions. Perhaps it would find a better home in "soc"? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/18/90)
Tom! So nice to see you!
How about alt.cyberpunk.objectivism?
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/18/90)
In article <PV31EADxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: : In article <3635@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>, des@elberton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes: : >there was one objectivist who ... : > he never seemed : > to prove anything and incessantly quote Ayn Rand and made proto-facist : > rantings. : : Please define "proto-fascist" in this context. Objectivism places a high value : on strict respect for Human Rights, so if you mean proto-fascist literally : (as opposed to 'anyone who disagrees with David Shepherd'), the man was : obviously not an Objectivist. Hey Jeff, Mr. Shepherd has a valid complaint. I agree with him about the person he is referring to, except that I'd use much stronger language. Remember the guy I mentioned who is a racist and who justified it by means of pseudo-Objectivism? He's the same person. If you want, I'll send you the information I have that confirms this. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/19/90)
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >As expected, the "other" Objectivists have decided to campaign >against me as a moderator. One thing no one is answered is why a talk group should be moderated. The ongoing discussion points out some of the advantages of having a moderator, but why then a 'talk' group? The 'talk' hierarchy exists for unfettered discussion about controversial subjects (this one seems to qualify). If you want it moderated, put it somewhere else. Just put the habitual flamers in your KILL file and don't worry about it. If you really want free discussion about the subject, let it be free discussion. >On the other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for >Objectivism would necessarily include their words. > Are you proposing a group for people who *are* objectivists to talk, or a group for people to talk *about* objectivism? I would expect a Usenet newsgroup to allow (non-flame) dissenting opinions about the topic at hand, otherwise it's just not worth it to foot the bill to carry your traffic; use a mailing list. I'm not sure the proposal was clear on this, or perhaps I've been confused by M. Dave's postings. >Of *course* I can tell a flame from a non-flame. I'm well >practiced at generating, and detecting, both. :-) > Agreed :-) -Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/19/90)
In article <CMM.0.88.632596427.bfu@skakke.uio.no> Thomas Gramstad <bfu> writes: >>From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) >>Date: 16 Jan 90 15:28:55 GMT > >>Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few >>people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in >>nature. > >The Ayn Rand Society, an organization for professional philosophers >who are objectivists, is member of the American Philosophical Association. > >I am sure that APA would be interested in the information you apparently >have, which they seem to have missed, as to why objectivism is not a >philosophy. > >On second thought, maybe not. This has no bearing on the question of whether Objectivism is a "legitimate" (whatever that might mean) philosophy. To make a telling analogy, chiropracters are now admitted to the American Medical Association. This doesn't make them any more doctors, nor any less dangerous quacks. It is merely a comment on the hunger of a spineless professional organization for additional dues and the political power associated with greater membership. Admitting Randites to the APA doesn't elevate the Randites, it just degrades the APA. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) 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 <-
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) (01/19/90)
bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) writes: | >From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) | >Date: 16 Jan 90 15:28:55 GMT | >Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few | >people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in | >nature. | The Ayn Rand Society, an organization for professional philosophers | who are objectivists, is member of the American Philosophical Association. | I am sure that APA would be interested in the information you apparently | have, which they seem to have missed, as to why objectivism is not a | philosophy. Mr. Maroney's statement is still borne out given that the Ayn Rand Society is a _political_ philosophical society, by and large,--and most members of the Society are not 'professional philosophers', as you intimate, but political theorists. The term philosopher is bantered about quite loosely, but 'professional philosopher' should not. nrg -- York University | "Philosophers who make the general claim that a Department of Philosophy | rule simply 'reduces to' its formulations Toronto, Ontario, Canada | are using Occam's razor to cut the throat _________________________| of common sense.' - R. Harris
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/19/90)
In article <1990Jan17.075631.853@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes >: And yet >: to expect us to believe that you will not edit off our views? >Yes, I expect you to believe that. Why? If for no other reason >that, were I to reject them or edit them, you could post on other >newsgroups complaining about this, thus discrediting me as >moderator. I have no intention of going through all that trouble. It has been observed by other posters that moderators on USENET have very wide powers and it is not easy to get a moderator off the newsgroup. Besides, I would not want to cross post my articles to other newsgroups when there is already a newsgroup for Objectivism. >At least two people have suggested co-moderation, which is to say, >two people, presumably myself and someone acceptable to you, as >moderators. I'd accept that. I would not. Let me repeat my opposition. I am opposed primarily to the idea of *anyone* moderating the proposed objectivism newsgroup. I am also opposed to you in particular as a moderator. The reason I am opposed to any moderation has been reiterated by many posters. It is best to let each individual decide what is consistent with Objectivism and what is not. It appears as though you don't seem to think that the readers of USENET are capable of doing this. >: Besides, Mr. Wells did not even post a charter for the proposed >: newsgroup. What is it supposed to discuss? Specifically, is it all >: of objectivism or only parts of it? >From the original posting: >: This newsgroup would exist for >: discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and >: related topics. >Looks like a charter to me. And, to answer your question: all of >it. Is this your idea of a charter? I would have at least expected a summary of the key principles of Objectivism which would set the frame work for any new participant in the newsgroup. I would further expect that some qualifications be made such as whether the newsgroup is for studying Objectivism in detail from the view of a formal study or a free-wheeling discussion. I think it should be for the former i.e. discussion of technical aspects of Objectivism and which is why the newsgroup should be called sci.philosophy.objectivism. -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
des@elberton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) (01/19/90)
In article <R951S=3xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> "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_ > >If this be objectivism, I must say that the majority of folks pushing for >the group are pretty poor objectivists. All they seem to come up with are >assertions. that appeared to be the general concensus on eunet 6 months ago (-: the proof of the above is left as an exercise for the reader :-)
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (01/19/90)
In article <1990Jan14.211304.21370@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of >their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to >not having to put up with them. Only if the newsgroup is not moderated. Otherwise, whole categories of objectivists will not use it. -- Jeff
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (01/19/90)
In article <8044@unix.SRI.COM> ellis@chips.sri.com.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >>I'll vote yes, as long as it's called talk.religion.objectivism. > > Whether we like it or not, Ayn Rand's nonfictional work is > actually placed in the philosophy section of libraries and > bookstores. She may be treated as a pariah by academic > philosophers, but she wrote philosophy all the same. Haven't you noticed that the phil sections of bookstores often have all sorts of pseudo-philosophical religious junk in them or are actually a combined "Religion and Philosophy" section? I'm not inclined to let *bookstores* decide this for me. Nor libraries. They don't seem to mind scattering philosophy into all kinds of separate sections, often on different floors.
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (01/19/90)
In article <LY31GJExds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <9702@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >> If anything, this should be soc.politics.objectivism. >> Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few >> people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in >> nature. >Yes, Objectivism has a political component ... but it has much, >much, more. New! Improved! Whiter whites! More colorful colors! >I would ask that you read some of Rand's non-political works and >then rethink your assessment. I've read some, and I'm inclined to agree with Tim. Perhaps it's just that Tim just has a broader notion of "political" than you do.
peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) (01/20/90)
In article <1745@novavax.UUCP>, maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: | | Objectivism *obviously* belongs in the sci hierarchy, and | equally obviously deserves special treatment: | | sci.gibbering.Objectivism.wells | | sci.gibbering.Objectivism.peoplewhohatewells. | andthinkheknowsdickaboutObjectivism | | and in a special move designed to take into account the exceptionally | profound and interesting nature of Objectivism: | | sci.gibbering.Objectivism.[insert name of any other loony who needs | his or her own Objectivist newsgroup for reasons of doctrinal purity or sheer | megalomania or just because] Instead of sci.gibbering.objectivism, how about alt.flame.objectivism? From the postings to this newsgroup, it seems like the Objectivists are better at disagreeing with each other about just what Objectivism is. Anyone care for misc.test.objectivism? | Finally, let us have alt.cisco, a simple enough solution, but | *only* if we also have alt.pancho. I was waiting for someone to notice that! | Tom "the Talleyrand of news.groups" Maddox. Eric -- Eric Peterson <> peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu <> uunet!nu.cs.fsu.edu!peterson Florida State Univ CS Dept Technician, Room 011 Love Bldg, Phone 904/644-2296 echo "This is not a pipe." | lpr -P laserjet2
rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (the saint) (01/20/90)
In article <6682@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP writes: >bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) writes: >| The Ayn Rand Society, an organization for professional philosophers >| who are objectivists, is member of the American Philosophical Association. > >| I am sure that APA would be interested in the information you apparently >| have, which they seem to have missed, as to why objectivism is not a >| philosophy. > >Mr. Maroney's statement is still borne out given that the Ayn Rand >Society is a _political_ philosophical society, by and large,--and >most members of the Society are not 'professional philosophers', as >you intimate, but political theorists. The first paper presented at the ARS was on the nature of sense-perception. The second was on the nature of goal-directed action. You are no doubt aware that these topics are not simply political theory. Also, both papers were presented by professional philosophers whose main field is not politics. There are a number of people who are going to have to get used to the fact that Objectivism is a serious philosophy that is here to stay, whether they like it or not. -Robert Tracinski -rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/20/90)
In article <R951S=3xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
: > "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_
:
: If this be objectivism,
It is a quote from a book by Ayn Rand. Akston is one of her heroes.
: I must say that the majority of folks pushing for
: the group are pretty poor objectivists. All they seem to come up with are
: assertions.
As it happens, I first started using this signature when I got
totally disguested with certain Objectivists who simply assert
their ideas rather than demonstrate them and who continue to
assert them in the face of evidence that they are full of shit.
Nowadays, while I still occasionally use it as a slap in the face,
I generally intend it merely as a reminder.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.combrucet@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bruce Thompson) (01/20/90)
Having just recently read some of Ayn Rand's work for the first time, I would
certainly be interested in seeing a newsgroup on objectivism. Without getting
into problems with particular people, I have to ask why is it desirable for
the group to be moderated?
BTW, the comment that Objectivism is not a philosophy leads to the interesting
question of what then IS a philosophy? By any definition I have heard, it
certainly qualifies.
Cheers,
Bruce Thompson
==============================================================================
Bruce Thompson | "I've got this terrible pain in all the
NovAtel Communications Ltd. | diodes down my left side" - Marvin the
| Paranoid Android
The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of
NovAtel Communications Ltd. nor those of The University of Calgary.bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/20/90)
In article <9702@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
: Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
: people who don't read philosophy.
Rand's work has almost always been philosophy, despite the claims
of a few people who don't read philosophy. Apparently, like
yourself. Continually asserting a falsehood as fact merely makes
you look stupid.
: It has always been political in
: nature.
This is only half true. Which is to say: Rand's work is roughly
half political, either philosophy or political commentary. The
remainder deals with a large number of subjects which have nothing
directly to do with politics. Later Objectivists have dealt far
less with politics than other areas.
You know, you'd make a better case if you didn't make stupid
statements that anyone with half a brain could verify as being
false. Anyone who cares can go look up Rand in a library and
discover that she had lots to say about many other subjects than
politics. And that her works, whatever the flaws, are philosophy.
Your saying otherwise does not change the facts.
At this point, I've concluded that you are either essentially
ignorant of Objectivism or you are a liar and a stupid one at
that.
In any case, you clearly have nothing worthwhile to say on the
subject.
---
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_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).allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (01/21/90)
In article <B041_49xds36@ficc.uu.net> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >A moderated group assures no flame will be suppressed. ^^^^^^^^^ Didn't you mean "unmoderated" here? -- Allen Gwinn sulaco!allen DISCLAIMER: So SUE me... see if I care. "Of *course* I can tell a flame from a non-flame. I'm well practiced at generating, and detecting, both." - T. Willy Wells (bill@twwells.com)
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/21/90)
In article <9673@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >: >: No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy. >: In article <1990Jan14.191035.20625@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com >: (T. William Wells) writes: >: >Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that >: >moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On >: >all counts. >In article <9682@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >: Funny, this is just the kind of quasi-religious didacticism that >: leads me to believe that objectivism is not philosophy and that >: it's basically a Rand fan club. In article <1990Jan17.081149.1051@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >One of my points of contention with my fellow Objectivists is >that I advocate trying to understanding other's points of view. It's certainly not in evidence in this posting, or in the one quoted above. >I've added to my understanding that you refer to calling a >bullshitter a bullshitter as "quasi-religious didacticism". Such unbounded magnificence of perception and judgment can only draw our awed appreciation, nay, envy. >Oh, BTW, you really should go look up "didactic". A counter-flame >hardly counts as didactic. Read the message you flamed; it quoted nearly in full above. It was not in any sense a flame, unless expressing any viewpoint that conflicts with yours is a flame. There is neither personal attack nor inflammatory language in it. A counter-flame only follows another flame; therefore, yours was not a counter-flame. And as for didacticism, I am curious what dictionary has a definition that excludes statements such as "you are simply wrong. On all counts." The OED's embraces such statements fully, as they "have the character or manner of a teacher or instructor". The very essence of the pejorative use of "diacticism" is that the didactician is assuming a superior stance and the ability to pronounce judgment without providing any supporting statements to establish the truth of their judgments. What did *you* think it meant? -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" - The Censored Hacker
" Maynard) (01/21/90)
In article <381@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: >Just put the habitual flamers in your KILL file and don't worry about >it. If you really want free discussion about the subject, let it be >free discussion. This is the third or fourth message from Dan touting KILL files as the solution to all net.problems. There's only one problem with that; rn is not universally used on the net. Neither is any other reader with kill file capability. Until every site running news - on any OS, not just Unix - has kill files, we should not make net policy based on their existence. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered." - Richard Sexton
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.comtma@osc.COM (Tim Atkins) (01/22/90)
Some of the postings on the creation of this group have tried to claim Objectivism is not a philosophy. Pray tell on what grounds do you make this claim? I have seen few generally agreed philosophies with the depth and breadth of Objectivism. - Tim
tma@osc.COM (Tim Atkins) (01/23/90)
In article <9001190353.AA01540@apee.ogi.edu. mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
.
.Is this your idea of a charter? I would have at least expected a
.summary of the key principles of Objectivism which would set the frame
.work for any new participant in the newsgroup. I would further expect
.that some qualifications be made such as whether the newsgroup is for
.studying Objectivism in detail from the view of a formal study or a
.free-wheeling discussion. I think it should be for the former i.e.
.discussion of technical aspects of Objectivism and which is why the
.newsgroup should be called sci.philosophy.objectivism.
.
.--
.--Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu)
.
."To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
I disagree with limiting the newsgroup to the technical aspects of Objectivism.
I think the cross-fertilization between theory and practice is invaluable. Also
Objectivists have often been guilty IMHO of not paying enough attention to
real world events and trends or at least of not stating their position on those
events when they and their readers would have benefitted greatly from a
rational approach to same. Application to the real world is a great aid in
clarifying what the theory is leading to and how it may be applied. If we
are to be whole Objectivists discussions of application are an absolute
necessity.
- Tim Atkinslynne@Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM (Lynne Ragazzini) (01/25/90)
> I would prefer that the group be unmoderated, but, if it is to be > moderated, Bill Wells is a good choice. What's your problem > (with Bill, that is), Mehul? > Since I'm new to News, I'm not familiar with Bill Wells or anyone else but it's clear that if this were to be an unmoderated news group, the anti-Objectivists would take over. I really don't even understand why they want to waste so much energy trying to disqualify the premises of Rand's philosophy. Why don't they start their own anti-Objectivist newsgroup instead. I would like the Objectivist newsgroup to be a positive discussion of Rand's ideas and not a bunch of people trying to tell me that they're wrong, stupid, etc. The opponents of Objectivism _as a whole_ can have their own discussions. I want to deal with the Galts, Reardens, Wyatts, Hugh Axtons and Dagny Taggarts of the net, not the Mouches, Boyles and Jim Taggarts. Yes to a moderated group.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/26/90)
In article <9001190353.AA01540@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
: >: Besides, Mr. Wells did not even post a charter for the proposed
: >: newsgroup. What is it supposed to discuss? Specifically, is it all
: >: of objectivism or only parts of it?
:
: >From the original posting:
:
: >: This newsgroup would exist for
: >: discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
: >: related topics.
:
: >Looks like a charter to me. And, to answer your question: all of
: >it.
:
: Is this your idea of a charter? I would have at least expected a
: summary of the key principles of Objectivism which would set the frame
: work for any new participant in the newsgroup.
That's a completely different thing. A charter, in this context,
indicates the purpose of the group, it is not an educational tool.
On the other hand, a monthly posting describing Objectivism and
its principles would not be a bad thing for the newsgroup.
: I would further expect
: that some qualifications be made such as whether the newsgroup is for
: studying Objectivism in detail from the view of a formal study or a
: free-wheeling discussion.
Except that I *deliberately* left out any qualification, since I
didn't want any restrictions.
Generally, one creates the general newsgroup first and then, if
the traffic warrants it, goes for the specific newsgroup.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comgsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/26/90)
In article <469@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>, lynne@Stars (Lynne Ragazzini) writes: >The opponents of Objectivism _as a whole_ can have their own >discussions. I want to deal with the Galts, Reardens, Wyatts, >Hugh Axtons and Dagny Taggarts of the net, not the Mouches, >Boyles and Jim Taggarts. It seems to me that what you want is a mailing list. Putting stuff on the net with attitudes like the above will insure that people will want to flame you. With a mailing list, you can continue to live in your dream world, where you are a super-creative, super-intelligent Wonder Woman out of 'Atlas Shrugged'. In a newsgroup, if it is moderated in the usual way (which allows for opposing opinions to be voiced) you will have to deal with the real world--and in the real world, the Objectivists generally lose the argument, because on average (with a few exceptions) they tend to be less educated, less intelligent, and less capable of rational thought than their opponents. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/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
gcf@panix.UUCP (J. S. B'ach) (01/28/90)
may@28182.dec.com (Patrick May) writes:
)In almost every argument I have seen between an Objectivist and an anti-
)Objectivist the Objectivist demonstrated the higher intelligence and
)rationality. Their opponents, however, always claim victory by virtue of
)refusing to apply rationality to their arguments. Often these discussions,
)especially on the net, degenerate to the anti-Objectivist repeating refuted
)assertions like a broken record and the Objectivist resigning in disgust.
)
)Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the appropriate name/place for the proposed
)newsgroup because Objectivism is based on the scientific method. ....
The first paragraph demonstrates reason enough for Objectivists
to have their own newsgroup -- for their benefit, and ours. As
for the "sci" prefix: well, if we have to see "Objectivism" now
and then (as part of the newsgroup list) we might as well have
some humor with it.