Xref: utzoo news.groups:16420 alt.flame:14153 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bu.edu!bu-cs!buengc!bph From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism Summary: Daffy Ideas R Us Message-ID: <5286@buengc.BU.EDU> Date: 15 Jan 90 18:48:30 GMT References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> <9001142226.AA23247@apee.ogi.edu> Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng. Lines: 21 In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >I have a suggestion. > >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. What then do we do with the fundamentalist, charismatic, and crypto- communistic Objectivist camps, then, eh? Maybe there should be five moderators. Or should we add one more for agnostic Objectivists (I'd like to believe there's Ayn Rand, but...) and another for those who don't fit any of the above groups... In fact, why don't we just appoint all the people who've posted articles to any group that have not yet been expired at ficc.uu.net to be the moderator, and give each one a group to moderate according to their sect? --Blair "...comp.objectivism.bondage, to be moderated by Anonymous@n7kbt.WA.COM"