Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!wisdom.BITNET!eyal
From: eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Abuses of the net
Message-ID: <8612080908.AA08813@jade.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 8-Dec-86 04:09:06 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.8612080908.AA08813
Posted: Mon Dec  8 04:09:06 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Dec-86 05:41:19 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 57

In article <485@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes:
> I would very much like to see a *single* quote supporting your
>statement that Mr. Ellis has proposed that Objectivists should "be removed
>from the newsgroup."

The following is takes from article <424@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, one of
Mr. Ellis' recent postings to talk.philosophy.misc:

>    Personally, I don't "oppose" Randroidism any more than I oppose Christian
>    Science or Krishna Consciousness. I just don't think that net.philosophy
>    is the place for the dissemination of propaganda for cults or ideologies.
>
>    Note how you guys insist on seeing philosophy in strictly "us-versus-them"
>    terms -- that's why you are unable to discuss philosophical issues
>    in a rational, objective way -- your minds are clouded by "volitional
>    commitment" that your puerile beliefs be true -- and that's why you
>    people do not belong here.
>
>    Get your propaganda out of here and into talk.religion or talk.politics
>    where it belongs.

Now, I have a question for Mr. desJardins: you could have just asked me
for that quote; why did you also find it necessary, in the rest of your
message, to attack me personally, accusing me of inability to tell the
difference between censorship and disagreement, and calling me a liar?
That's exactly the sort of thing that upset Mr. Harnad, and he
certainly has my sympathy.

In article <1864.utah-gr.UUCP> donn@utah-gr.UUCP <Donn Seeley> writes:

>Eyal Mozes complains that the Berkeley Mafia

Please note that I never used the phrase "the Berkeley Mafia"; that's
not my style.

>I note that Ellis has publicly welcomed discussion in the philosophy
>group from Objectivists who could concede that other systems of thought
>were worthy of interest.

Could Mr. Seeley produce any quote supporting THAT? I don't recall Mr.
Ellis ever making any such statement. Considering that no Objectivist
ever said anything that can be even REMOTELY construed as implying that
other systems of thought aren't worthy of interest, while Mr.  Ellis
did explicitly say it about Objectivism several times; and considering
that the few people on talk.philosophy.misc who post serious arguments
against Objectivism in a civilised manner are always answered; I don't
quite see how Mr. Ellis could have made any such statement without
looking even more foolish than he does already.

Anyway, even if he did say it, my point about Mr. Smith's double
standard is just as valid.

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                 eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:         eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
        UUCP:                   ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal