Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!des From: des@elberton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism Message-ID: <3635@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> Date: 16 Jan 90 11:50:49 GMT References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> <1990Jan14.142457.19621@twwells.com> <1990Jan14.211304.21370@twwells.com> <5285@buengc.BU.EDU> Sender: news@inmos.co.uk Reply-To: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK. Lines: 31 In article <5285@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <1990Jan14.211304.21370@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >>In article emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >>: The question is, whether they would be more objectionable >>: quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections. >>They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of >>their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to >>not having to put up with them. >Well, then, save us the newgroup and just instruct Objectivists >to post to alt.flame, instead, to be with the rest of the postings >that nobody really wants to see. we had a mega flame war on eunet (well it was mega by eunet standards but nothing like the current high standards of news.groups flamings) over objectivism. basically there was one objectivist who seemed to spend most of his time sending often abusive follow ups to eunet.general. After about 2 months it all died down when he left to do his 2 years Swedish national service. His main line of attack was to claim that any assertion that could not be "proved" labelled you as a moral bankrupt - however he never seemed to prove anything and incessantly quote Ayn Rand and made proto-facist rantings. Giving them their own group may help to isolate them from the rest of netland but I expect they would say that saying they should be posting to talk.philosphy.objectivism is an assertion and not a fact and thus can be ignored. david shepherd INMOS ltd