Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!dveditz
From: dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <381@dbase.A-T.COM>
Date: 18 Jan 90 22:37:09 GMT
References: <1990Jan14.142457.19621@twwells.com>
Reply-To: dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz)
Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale, Calif.
Lines: 36

bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
>As expected, the "other" Objectivists have decided to campaign
>against me as a moderator.

One thing no one is answered is why a talk group should be moderated.

The ongoing discussion points out some of the advantages of having a
moderator, but why then a 'talk' group?  The 'talk' hierarchy exists
for unfettered discussion about controversial subjects (this one seems
to qualify).  If you want it moderated, put it somewhere else.

Just put the habitual flamers in your KILL file and don't worry about 
it.  If you really want free discussion about the subject, let it be
free discussion.


>On the other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for
>Objectivism would necessarily include their words.
>
Are you proposing a group for people who *are* objectivists to talk, or
a group for people to talk *about* objectivism?  

I would expect a Usenet newsgroup to allow (non-flame) dissenting opinions 
about the topic at hand, otherwise it's just not worth it to foot the 
bill to carry your traffic; use a mailing list. I'm not sure the proposal 
was clear on this, or perhaps I've been confused by M. Dave's postings.


>Of *course* I can tell a flame from a non-flame. I'm well
>practiced at generating, and detecting, both. :-)
>
Agreed :-)


-Dan                                              |  uunet!ashtate!dveditz
Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups.               |  dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com