Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!usenet From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism Message-ID: <1990Jan15.035952.1964@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 15 Jan 90 03:59:52 GMT References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> <9001142226.AA23247@apee.ogi.edu> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44) Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc. Lines: 17 In-reply-to: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) In article , 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