Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <1990Jan17.083725.1215@twwells.com>
Date: 17 Jan 90 08:37:25 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> <8P1157Gxds8@ficc.uu.net> <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 51

In article <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes:
:      I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci
: hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. sci.philosophy.objectivism.

This is a bad idea. If for no other reason, it is impracticable:
creating a talk group is barely possible, creating a sci group is
not at all possible. But the real reason is that an Objectivism
group does not belong in sci. Let's look at the definitions (from
the news.announce.newusers monthly postings):

"sci"   Discussions intended as technical in nature and relating
	to the established sciences.

On the evidence, an Objectivism discussion group would not be
"technical in nature". Judging from discussions in the mailing
lists and various newsgroups, most of the discussions would be
very general. Or, worse, would mostly consist of head butting. In
any case, I don't think the word "technical" would be generally
applicable to discussions in the group.

Objectivism pretty much fails the second test, too. Like any
philosophy, it has something to say *about* science, but that is a
very small part of Objectivism. Putting it in sci would only make
sense if the discussion were mostly limited to that part of
Objectivism which has to do with the philosophy of science.

But that is not what the proposed newsgroup is for.

"talk"  Groups largely debate-oriented and tending to feature long
	discussions without resolution and without appreciable amounts
	of generally useful information.

Whether we like it or not, an Objectivism group will be "largely
debate-oriented" and "feature long discussions without
resolution". Whether it would generate "appreciable amounts of
generally useful information" is something that Objectivists and
non-Objectivists are likely to disagree about.

:      In my judgement, there is no real reason to have a moderator; anyone
: who behaves irrationally can simply be ignored--and each individual can be
: his own judge as to what constitutes irrationality.

That's true if the the group is mostly rational discussion. My
fear is that an unmoderated group would be almost entirely
composed of flames and various irrationalities. At that point,
kill files don't work and the only cure is to leave the group.
Which would mean leaving the group to the irrationalists.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com