Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!APEE.OGI.EDU!mehuld From: mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism Summary: Unmoderated newsgroup is the only way to ensure that the reader decides what is objectivims and what is not. Message-ID: <9001142226.AA23247@apee.ogi.edu> Date: 14 Jan 90 22:26:50 GMT References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 69 In article 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