gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/26/90)
In article <6575@yunexus.UUCP>, gall@yunexus (Norm Gall) writes: >There is nothing _scientific_ about Objectivism... it is >philosophy. >There might be an argument for creating a new top-level, 'phil', >and I stress might since I cannot see one, but Objectivism would >hardly even belong there given the content and method of inquiry. I was suggesting 'hum' for the humanities, but so far the response has been ho-hum. Since *.philosophy.misc is in talk, it would be logical to put *.philosophy.objectivism there. The difficulty with this is that Stubblefield would probably ignore it. One the other hand, it clearly does not belong in sci. A compromise between Stubblefield's proposal and Bill Wells' proposal would be a (hopefully unmoderated) group, soc.objectivism. Since Objectivism has some of the characteristics of groups now in soc, this seems to me to be reasonable. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Without NNTP, the brahms gang itself would be impossible" Erik E. Fair