jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/15/90)
Aside from the predictable flames, there seems to be a consensus that the Objectivism group should be unmoderated. Let me therefore suggest that an unmoderated group be created, and, if it is indeed flooded with either fratri/sororicidality on the part of Objectivists, or venom from those opposed to Reason, a second, moderated group can be created. Para un Tejas Libre, 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?
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/17/90)
In article <HV21XQ2xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
: Aside from the predictable flames, there seems to be a consensus
: that the Objectivism group should be unmoderated. Let me therefore
: suggest that an unmoderated group be created, and, if it is indeed
: flooded with either fratri/sororicidality on the part of Objectivists,
: or venom from those opposed to Reason, a second, moderated group can
: be created.
OK, here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to take a poll. Reply
to this article, or send your comments to poll@twwells.com.
Let me know what you think about the various moderation proposals
on the table. They are:
1) Moderation by myself.
2) Co-moderation by myself and someone of the "other" Objectivists.
3) No moderation.
(No one has suggested moderation by some other person, but if
you know of a prospective victim, you could suggest him.)
I'll collect the responses; when I run the vote, I'll do it for
whichever way gets the greatest support.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com