Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!greg
From: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Keywords: Objectivism, Rand, newsgroup, philosophy
Message-ID: <13004@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 17 Jan 90 17:49:01 GMT
References: <9001162348.AA11695@apee.ogi.edu> <12987@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <9001170357.AA13773@apee.ogi.edu>
Reply-To: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 96

In article <9001170357.AA13773@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
}In article <12987@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Greg Nowak writes:
}>THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings
}>don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. Please explain this to R.W.
}>Stubblefield; perhaps he will accept this coming from a fellow
}>objectivist. As of now he has refused to discuss the issue, and has
}>decided for himself that his postings are appropriate there.

}Now, wait a minute.  The chronology of events is like this.  Mr.
}Stubblefield posted to sci.philosophy.tech judging it to be the most
}appropriate newsgroup for his postings relating to Objectivism because
}he could not find any other newsgroup appropriate for it.  Then there
}was the suggestion to start a new newsgroup for postings related to
}Objectivism in sci.philosophy.tech.  The call for discussion was for

Welcome to usenet. Your chronology is faulty. It lacks a front end.
Mr. Stubblefield began posting to sci.philosopy.tech MONTHS ago. He
was informed that his postings were inappropriate there by several
people who were around for the newsgroup's creation, and knew that it
was for discussion of "technical applications of philosophy to
science". (Eg, metalogic, formal languages) It was suggested that
objectivist discussions, being philosophical, and not otherwise having
their own newsgroup, belonged in talk.philosophy.misc, or the
objectivist mailing lists. It later developed that Stubblefield had
been on these lists and departed due to some squabble. At any rate, he
continued to post his inappropriate articles to sci.philosophy.tech.

}talk.philosophy.objectivism and I suggested that it should be
}sci.philosophy.objectivism and then you suggested that objectivists
}should post to sci.philosophy.meta and hence my post quoted above.  I
}didn't say anything about where Mr. Stubblefield's postings should go
}and that is not the issue being discussed.  The issue is creating SPO.

The issue is where objectivist postings belong. If they don't belong
in sci.philosophy.meta, fine, I'll agree to that the minute they're
rooted out of sci.philosophy.tech. Until there is an explicitly
objectivist newsgroup, such articles belong in talk.philosophy.misc,
not sci.philosophy.tech. (Note that the newsgroup we're discussing
this in is news.groups, ie for any articles relating to newsgroups,
not just to ones discussing their creation.)

}We are asking for SPO because there seems to be some support from it
}even from people who oppose objectivism.  That has little to do with
}whether Mr. Stubblefield should post on SPT right now or not.

Mucxh of the support of non-objectivists for your group would
evaporate if it did not also guarantee the disappearance of
objectivist postings from sci.philosophy.tech. 


}>There is almost no activity there; the only articles I found in its
}>spool directory were those in the widely-crossposted "proving programs
}>correct" thread. Of course, the story you tell is exactly the case
}>with sci.philosophy.tech, an active newsgroup which has been invaded
}>by inappropriate objectivist postings, mainly coming from RW Stubblefield.

}I have been reading that newsgroup for a while and there was a big
}discussion about "I do not exist" (!!!???).  Then, suddenly, it
}subsided and there were some postings off and on till the subject you
}mention.  In any event, that is not relevant.  The discussion going on

Sci.philosophy.meta is effectively empty; it has no regular discussion
and no native constituency. Its only content is articles crossposted
to it from other newsgroups. It is highly relevant to the newsgroups
issue of where objectivist postings belong. They certainly do not
belong in sci.philosophy.tech -- and objectivists desirous of their
own newsgroup could do well to signal their good faith by immediately
ceasing their unwarranted invasion of sci.philosophy.tech.

}here was about creating a new newsgroup called
}sci.philosophy.objectivism.  Posting to sci.philosophy.meta is just a
}temporary solution.  We would like a newsgroup to discuss Objectivism.

Fine. Please adopt the temporary solution until we can put the
permanent one into place. That's what being "temporary" means, isn't
it? Posting to sci.philosophy.tech isn't  even a temporary solution,
since it clearly bothers the native population, and doesn't serve any
good that sci.philosophy.meta doesn't serve. Please explain why a
_temporary_ move of objectivist discussions to sci.philosophy.meta is
worse than leaving them in 'tech.

}You also mentioned in your reply to Joe Harris that it would take six
}weeks to establish sci.philosophy.objectivism.  Quite true.  But it
}would establish a newsgroup for Objectivism and it would be a permanent
}solution.  (BTW, Objectivism would prefer this latter solution because
}it is long range as opposed to the pragmatic version of it :-) 

Again, why don't you demonstrate your good faith, and perhaps earn
some support, by implementing the _temporary_ solution as a
_temporary_ measure until the permanent solution can be implememented?
It seems better to do that than to spend at least six weeks having no
solution at all.

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

                           Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540