Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!haven!udel!princeton!phoenix!greg
From: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <12986@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 17 Jan 90 02:02:22 GMT
References: <8284@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 58

In article <8284@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes:

}     It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that a suitable alternative
}to creating a separate Objectivist newsgroup would be to have Objectivists
}post to sci.philosophy.meta.  In my judgement, this could only mitigate
}the situation temporarily; it is not a solution at all.

Please explain to all of us, especially to Mr. Stubblefield, why
sci.philosophy.meta is less appropriate than sci.philosophy.tech for
objectivist postings. Over 90% of the objectivist postings to 'tech
have been his. Those of us who are only interested in getting
objectivist postings out of 'tech can't see why they are less
appropriate in 'meta than in 'tech.

}What is needed
}is sci.philosophy.objectivism, a newsgroup where individuals interested
}in Objectivism can discuss the philosophy.

I have no problem with this. Until it appears, could the objectivist
discussion move to 'meta, and respect the topic of 'tech by not
posting objectivsit messages to it?

}This is why sci.philosophy.objectivism is justified--because the central
}problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is the relationship of
}perceptual data to abstract ideas.

This is much more of a philosophical question than a scientific one,
but that's irrelevant right now.  All of your arguments that
objectivism needs its own newsgroup can also be interpreted as
arguments that objectivist postings are inappropriate in 'tech.

}     If it is true that sci.philosophy.meta is unused, why not dismantle
}it?  The resulting unused newsgroup could become
}sci.philosophy.objectivism.

This is not how the net works. 

}Of course, sci.philosophy.meta would have to be completely gone--the
}name would be sci.philosophy.objectivism and the charter would be completely
}different.  Those who have suggested that Objectivists post to sci.philosophy.
}meta, is this acceptable?  If not, why not?

Because it would take six weeks to create sci.philosophy.objectivism.
If the objectivists are in such dire need of a newsgroup, why don't
they move into 'meta, and then work on renaming it? Surely so rational
person as Ayn Rand would not refuse to move into an otherwise
acceptable house merely because there was a defect in the sign giving
its street number. The rest of the net is creaking and straining under
the weight of countless objectivist postings yearning for a newsgroup
of their own. Sci.philosophy.meta could _be_ that newsgroup, STARTING
TOMORROW, and then you'd just have to change the name. This route to
your goal has a much higher likelihood of success than an attempt to
create sci.philosophy.objectivism from scratch.


...!rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg

                           Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540