obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (05/20/87)
This isn't the group for any old trash. I'm posting this since I do not have time to send e-mail to each of the offenders, but I'd really like to see the irrelevant bandwagon stop. You can discuss computer literacy and the like in comp.society--they've been doing that for some months now. (This group was originally supposed to be moderated, primarily by Peter Ladkin, with backup by the Brahms Gang. I'm checking with the backbone right now as to what happened.) What is this group for? The philosophy of science, mathematics, and language. Things like quantum mechanics, mathematical epistemology and ontology, Montague grammars and what not. AI and related questions about mind should generally stick to comp.ai.* and/or talk.philosophy.misc. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Do not believe astrophysical observations until confirmed by theory."
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) (05/22/87)
In article <8705200049.AA01609@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >This isn't the group for any old trash. I'm posting this since I do not >have time to send e-mail to each of the offenders, but I'd really like to >see the irrelevant bandwagon stop. You can discuss computer literacy and >the like in comp.society--they've been doing that for some months now. Likewise, you could hold your own discussions in sci.math where they've also been doing that for some months now. I happen to find the discussions going on in this newsgroup to be quite interesting. Much more so than any of the condescending pompous nonsense that you've been writing. Who are you to tell us what belongs in this newsgroup? Do you own it? Some very invigorating discussion topics have sprung to life here, and I hope no amount of decrees by you from on high cause those discussions to disappear. I personally don't care what you keep in your .plan file, nor do I care about your overbearing critical opinions about people far more talented than yourself in your little book reviews. I happen to have an interest in some of the fields of study you cover in your articles, but I find your ridiculous babbling and opinionating to be nauseating at best. You are entitled to your opinion regarding what this newsgroup is for. Apparently that opinion can be summed up as whatever obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu has to say about the world at large. But as for the rest of us who have started reading and participating in fruitful discussions about other topics, please leave us alone. You may fancy yourself a network demigod, but you're nothing but what the header describes you as: an obnoxious math grad student. -- Rhonda
obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (05/23/87)
This is a metadiscussion. I don't consider it appropriate, so I hope that the message gets through once and for all, and that we can get beyond arguing personalities. In article <1044@chinet.UUCP>, rhonda@chinet (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >Likewise, you could hold your own discussions in sci.math where they've also >been doing that for some months now. I could, but I could also fit them in here and be well within the bounds of the group's manifesto. > I happen to find the discussions going >on in this newsgroup to be quite interesting. So what? This isn't a newsgroup for any old topics. > Much more so than any of the >condescending pompous nonsense that you've been writing. Who are you to tell >us what belongs in this newsgroup? Do you own it? Who am I to tell you all what belongs in this newsgroup? OK, then, I'll TELL you who I am. I am the person who put out the original proposal for a newsgroup to discuss the philosophies of science and mathematics and natural language. I am the person who collected the votes, and pushed the topic with the various net.gods. I am one of the people who successfully argued with the net.gods that it should be in sci.* and not talk.*. Now, I do not remember my exact words. But I can assure you, there was nothing about touch screens or computer literacy in my original list of topics, and I tried to make it clear that we were not going to be a new home for AI or intentionality or the like. It never occurred to me to make it quite clear that the forthcoming newsgroup was not supposed to be a new home for comp.{society,risks,cog-eng} style material. > Do you own it? This group was actually supposed to be moderated, and by accident in the renaming, it came through unmoderated. I am currently in communication with various backbone net.gods, and there's a good chance that it will turned back into a moderated group, with yours truly as moderator. Does that answer your question? Someone else is actually supposed to be moderator, but he is very busy at the moment, and I would be filling in for him. I will let in a wide variety of articles, including stuff on things that I have absolutely no interest in--as long as it relates to the philosophies of science, etc. I do not like the idea of being moderator--acting responsibly and censor- ing myself has never been my idea of fun. > Some very invigorating >discussion topics have sprung to life here, and I hope no amount of decrees >by you from on high cause those discussions to disappear. I'm not asking those discussions to disappear. I am asking that they appear in the appropriate newsgroups. News reading software can work wonders, but not if the posters refuse to cooperate. > I personally >don't care what you keep in your .plan file, Don't be ridiculous. I merely invited, in passing, anyone who wants to try one of the world's greatest puzzles to get a copy. I did not post a full article about my .plan file, and only by intentionally being a bozo about it did this brief comment of mine come back for further discussion. > nor do I care about your >overbearing critical opinions about people far more talented than yourself >in your little book reviews. So what? I'm NOT complaining about the *worthiness* of people's opinions or discussions, merely about their *appropriateness* for this newsgroup. > I happen to have an interest in some of the >fields of study you cover in your articles, but I find your ridiculous >babbling and opinionating to be nauseating at best. Then use the 'n' key, instead of being cloying about it. Just don't post articles about touch screens and the like, and don't followup to people who do. That's all I asked. > You are entitled to >your opinion regarding what this newsgroup is for. And you are entitled to collect votes and form *your* own newsgroup to discuss touch screens and mice and computer literacy etc. As it is, such newsgroups already exist. This ISN'T one of them, however. > Apparently that opinion >can be summed up as whatever obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu has to say about >the world at large. No, not the world at large. But it can be summed up, if such a thing is ever possible, from the original descriptions that I posted and were voted on. If this group turns into something that was never voted on, then I will implore the net.gods to simply remove it. > But as for the rest of us who have started reading and >participating in fruitful discussions about other topics, please leave us >alone. No. Until this group takes off, with its subscribers generally in the clear about its purpose, I will hound each and every offender without ceasing. I guarantee it. Do we understand each other now? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Without NNTP, the brahms gang itself would be impossible.--Erik E Fair
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) (05/26/87)
In article <8705222242.AA19131@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >> Much more so than any of the >>condescending pompous nonsense that you've been writing. Who are you to tell >>us what belongs in this newsgroup? Do you own it? > >Who am I to tell you all what belongs in this newsgroup? OK, then, I'll >TELL you who I am. Followed by some typical posturing about who this fellow thinks he is. Listen, Mr. Obnoxio, I said it once before, and I'll say it once more. I don't care about your personal versions of the "manifesto" for this newsgroup, and judging from the mail I've been getting neither does anyone else. I don't care about what position you think you hold in the grand scheme of the network, or what status of net.god you perceive yourself to be. My point was this. You declared that your opinion about this newsgroup was some gospel law that others were required to follow. Given your penchant for saying nothing but self-serving twaddle, I thought this was a bit much. To my recollection, nothing you have ever said in any newsgroup has amounted to anything worthwhile. Most of what you have written served only to attempt to prove to everyone how intelligent you are instead of conveying some relevant or useful information. So my question was who are you to tell others what to and not to say? A lot of people have begun to talk about a variety of different interesting topics. I continue not to be concerned that you regard this newsgroup with some territorial imperative by which you think you determine what belongs here. Regardless of whatever original proposal you may have come up with, and what words you included or excluded in that proposal about appropriate topics. >> Do you own it? > >This group was actually supposed to be moderated, and by accident in the >renaming, it came through unmoderated. I am currently in communication >with various backbone net.gods, and there's a good chance that it will >turned back into a moderated group, with yours truly as moderator. Does >that answer your question? Yes, and it makes me quiver thinking that network administrators would give someone like you free rein over a newsgroup like this. Especially after hearing what follows. >I do not like the idea of being moderator--acting responsibly and censor- >ing myself has never been my idea of fun. That is for sure! I would wonder whether you would be capable of either. >> I personally >>don't care what you keep in your .plan file, > >Don't be ridiculous. I merely invited, in passing, anyone who wants to >try one of the world's greatest puzzles to get a copy. I did not post a >full article about my .plan file, and only by intentionally being a bozo >about it did this brief comment of mine come back for further discussion. I was just pointing out an example of your pomposity and the self-centered boastful nature of almost everything you post. >> I happen to have an interest in some of the >>fields of study you cover in your articles, but I find your ridiculous >>babbling and opinionating to be nauseating at best. > >Then use the 'n' key, instead of being cloying about it. Just don't post >articles about touch screens and the like, and don't followup to people >who do. That's all I asked. Could someone explain why it is considered appropriate for people who disagree with Mr. Obnoxio's choice of topics to hit the 'n' key, but it is not appropriate for him to do the same when it comes to topics he doesn't like? >on. If this group turns into something that was never voted on, then I >will implore the net.gods to simply remove it. Great! So if the tone of the newsgroup as determined by readers and posters does not please Mr. Obnoxio, he will implore the net.gods to remove it. I suppose he would implore the net.gods to delete soc.singles because married people post to it and because a wider variety of topics have found a home there than was originally planned for. Does it occur to Mr. Obnoxio that it is the voice of the readership, not decrees from on high, that determine how people choose to use the net? Here was an underutilized newsgroup. The topics that Obnoxio had supposedly suggested this newsgroup for received little if any response. Suddenly, when other people began using the newsgroup for other topics, Obnoxio speaks up and attempts to shout them down. >No. Until this group takes off, with its subscribers generally in the >clear about its purpose, I will hound each and every offender without >ceasing. I guarantee it. > >Do we understand each other now? We do. You will attempt to determine who the "offenders" are (people whose ideas don't follow yours) and root them out through a process of hounding. Meanwhile, those who don't agree with you will hopefully stand up to you and ignore your egomaniacal decrees. Sounds like a large scale waste of time to me. Wouldn't we all be better off if you just crawled back into your hole? I apologize if this is appearing to become a personality issue or a flame war. My only concern is the single minded blockheaded attempt by one person to declare policy for other people, especially when in the final analysis that person has so little to say himself. I pay out of my own pocket for net service. This person gets his service for nothing as a student at a major university. I resent having someone who apparently doesn't even have administrative authority within his own local environment telling other people, many of whom pay for the privilege of using the net at a personal or corporate level, what to do. -- Rhonda
wex@milano.UUCP (05/27/87)
I hate meta-discussion and I hate multiple levels of quotes, so:
Rhonda - this group is intended to be for discussion of the scientific and
technical aspects of philosophy and related topics. As with other groups on
the net, it must be careful not to overlap the domain of other groups.
While I dislike Matt's tone of voice his basic point is correct. This
newsgroup was formed to meet a specific need and the recent dearth of
traffic should not be seen as an invite to start random discussions. Please
back off.
Matt - if you want to moderate this mess, all I can say is
"Better thee than me"
(but I do wish you'd use your own name and not Obnoxio)
--
Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex
Shit happens.robertl@killer.UUCP (Robert Lord) (05/27/87)
Mathew:
I personally find the conversations going on in this newsgroup very
interesting. Considering this newsgroup came about a while ago, and nothing
was in it untill a few people started posting about topics they though were
interesting, nothing was going on here. It was a waste of space, and the
'net-gods' would have removed it soon. I believe that the net was designed
for people to talk about what they wanted to talk about. It's called
free will. If we want to talk about a certain topic on this newsgroup
while nothing else is going on, then please let us. If you suddenly
come up with a bunch of people who want to talk about what YOU want to
talk about, then have them post and change the subjects, and if we are
bored, you will have accomplished your task. Untill then, I intend to
ignore you and your self centered comments.
Sincerly,
Robert Lord
!{seismo, ihnp4}!killer!robertlg-rh@cca.UUCP (05/27/87)
In article <1061@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
[... long article which does not need to be repeated... ]
Rhonda, I sent you some mail which didn't get through, so I am going
to repeat it here.
I should hate to have to defend the kindly grad student's style of posting
[I have taken to calling him -- I have hopes that in 30 years or so it
might soften him up a bit.]. Personally, it doesn't bother me, but it does
make for a high noise factor now and then. I will defend to the death the
right of anyone to claim that Matthew is obnoxious. Nonetheless there are
some things that should be said in his defense.
First of all, he is not just a blow hard -- he often really does know what
he is talking about at a deep level.
Secondly, despite his undiplomatic phrasing, he is right about this newsgroup.
Newsgroups are created as specialty areas -- if you post articles about
programming in soc.women, people will flame you about inappropriate postings.
This newsgroup was created for technical philosophy as a branch of science,
much as its title indicates. There are newsgroups for cognitive engineering,
miscellaneous science, etc. If I write an article about bridge I don't post
it rec.games.bridge, not to comp.os.vms. Moreover, he is right about the
history of the group -- it was a moderated group which was renamed to be
a sci. group. I didn't respond to Matthew's original survey but I did lobby
the administrators to have a sci.philosophy.tech group, and was gratified
to see that it was done.
There are people who wish to discuss hard technical philosophy, foundations
of mathematics, philosophical implications of QM and relativity, and things
like that with people who have a reasonable understanding of the issues
involved. They lobbied for the creation of a group for that purpose. The
people who lobbied for a group for discussing Indian culture would be unhappy
if somebody came in and started holding endless discussions about abortion.
Enough said.
Incidentally, I am opposed to the idea of this being a moderated group.
[Back when it was, it wasn't distributed very well, and never got off the
ground. When the group was renamed, it apparently was also given better
distribution.] My feeling is that there are many people who would contribute
to an unmoderated group than to a moderated group, whose contributions
would be of value.
--
Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]biep@klipper.UUCP (05/27/87)
In article <1061@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >In article <8705222242.AA19131@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: etc. etc. etc. Could you both please stop this net garbage and talk either elsewhere (the net is large enough, and email is a wonderful thing) or talk about things which fit into the label of this newsgroup: Technical philosophy: math, science, logic, etc. Better yet: first read news.announce.newusers! Now for both of you: What do you think is the relationship (if any) between free will (if it exists), self-reference and uncertainty (a la Heisenberg). That's barely besides the label, so you might enjoy talking about it. :-) -- Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax) When a doctor doctors a doctor, does the doctoring doctor doctor the doc- tored doctor with the doctoring doctor's doctrine, or does the doctoring doctor doctor the doctored doctor with the doctored doctor's doctrine?