Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!usenet
From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Is soc.objectivism an acceptable compromise?
Keywords: Objectivism, Rand, newsgroup, philosophy
Message-ID: <1990Jan26.063832.7723@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 26 Jan 90 06:38:32 GMT
References: <9001162348.AA11695@apee.ogi.edu> <12987@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2M41O75xds13@ficc.uu.net> <4M410G2xds8@ficc.uu.net> <1990Jan18.082956.29673@agate.berkeley.edu> <6575@yunexus.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc.
Lines: 23
In-reply-to: gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall)

In article <6575@yunexus.UUCP>, gall@yunexus (Norm Gall) writes:

>There is nothing _scientific_ about Objectivism... it is
>philosophy.

>There might be an argument for creating a new top-level, 'phil',
>and I stress might since I cannot see one, but Objectivism would
>hardly even belong there given the content and method of inquiry.

  I was suggesting 'hum' for the humanities, but so far the
response has been ho-hum. Since *.philosophy.misc is in talk, it
would be logical to put *.philosophy.objectivism there. The
difficulty with this is that Stubblefield would probably ignore
it. One the other hand, it clearly does not belong in sci.

  A compromise between Stubblefield's proposal and Bill Wells'
proposal would be a (hopefully unmoderated) group,
soc.objectivism. Since Objectivism has some of the
characteristics of groups now in soc, this seems to me to be
reasonable.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Without NNTP, the brahms gang itself would be impossible" Erik E. Fair