Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsb!stata
From: stata@hplabsb.HP.COM (Raymie Stata)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Summary: The proposed NG needs a charter and should be unmoderated.
Keywords: Objectivism, Ayn Rand, talk.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <5556@hplabsb.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 90 20:22:31 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com>
Reply-To: raymie@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Raymie Stata)
Organization: Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto
Lines: 36

Two points on talk.philosophy.objectivism:

1.  What is the charter?

Some people would like to see the newsgroup in "sci." hierarchy.  But 
the charter of the newsgroup is what should determine where it is put.
If the group is restricted to technical discussions of technical issues
in philosophy, then it would belong in the "sci." hierarchy.  But I
would like to see the charter include discussions of current events,
summaries of Objectivism events as they happen around the country, news
from campus and other clubs.  A group with this kind of charter belongs
in the "talk." hierarchy.

As far as technical discussions of philosophic issues are concerned,
what is needed is sci.philosophy, not sci.philosophy.objectivism.


2.  I am opposed to a moderated newsgroup.

Moderated newsgroups should be very rare---moderators have too much power
and the potential for abuse is great.  Also, moderators add uneeded delay.

Bill Wells feels that a moderator will be necessary because an Objectivism
newsgroup would generate an unusuall amount of flaming.  I don't think 
that's the case.  Most of the flaming that Objectivism arouses comes from
non-Objectivists on newsgroups whose subject matter is not Objectivism.  Most
of these people will not read nor post to a talk.philosophy.objectivism.  As
to ``flaming'' that arises among people who all claim to be Objectivists, I
wouldn't want anybody---no matter who ``sanctioned'' them---to decide what
was flaming and was an honest attempt at argumentation.  This is a judgement
each man should make for himself (I am reminded of ``Who is the Final
Authority in Ethics?'').


Raymie Stata
   raymie@athena.mit.edu