Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Objectivism group
Summary: moderation/no moderation? lets have a poll
Message-ID: <1990Jan17.084721.1322@twwells.com>
Date: 17 Jan 90 08:47:21 GMT
References: <HV21XQ2xds8@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: poll@twwells.com
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 27

In article <HV21XQ2xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
: Aside from the predictable flames, there seems to be a consensus
: that the Objectivism group should be unmoderated.  Let me therefore
: suggest that an unmoderated group be created, and, if it is indeed
: flooded with either fratri/sororicidality on the part of Objectivists,
: or venom from those opposed to Reason, a second, moderated group can
: be created.

OK, here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to take a poll. Reply
to this article, or send your comments to poll@twwells.com.

Let me know what you think about the various moderation proposals
on the table. They are:

    1) Moderation by myself.
    2) Co-moderation by myself and someone of the "other" Objectivists.
    3) No moderation.

    (No one has suggested moderation by some other person, but if
    you know of a prospective victim, you could suggest him.)

I'll collect the responses; when I run the vote, I'll do it for
whichever way gets the greatest support.

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