Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <1990Jan14.142457.19621@twwells.com>
Date: 14 Jan 90 14:24:57 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu>
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 70

In article <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
: In article <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com>
: >My purpose as moderator would be to filter out flames and
: >postings that are completely unrelated to Objectivism.
:
: I will vote against this newsgroup with the proposed moderator.  An
: unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable.  I do not trust Mr. Wells's
: judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism
: and what is not.

As expected, the "other" Objectivists have decided to campaign
against me as a moderator. There is a reason for this which I'll
touch on in a moment. However, I'd like to point out one
immediate absurdity in Mehul Dave's posting.

He asserts that he "doesn't trust [my] judgement on what
constitutes flames". This would be amusing were it not merely
stupid. Of *course* I can tell a flame from a non-flame. I'm well
practiced at generating, and detecting, both. :-)

I moderate comp.archives. I also moderate an Objectivism mailing
list. I defy you to find a flame on either. (Yes, there was a
flame or two in the mailing list; that was before I moderated it
and, in fact, is the reason I chose to moderate it.)

Now, as for the "what is related to objectivism and what is not",
here is where we get into the meat of the matter. I'd like to
bring to your attention the following, from a posting by one of
Mehul Dave's cohorts in philosophy:

In message <7314@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> rws@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (r.w.stubblefield) writes:
: Objectivism is a proper name; it is a particular philosophy--the
: one formulated by Ayn Rand.  I would not want SPO moderated by
: someone who does not grasp Objectivism's fundamentals.  Clearly, I
: think I do; but I cannot take the time to be a moderator and I
: don't think I should expect others to take my word that I
: understand it well enough to have that role.  I personally would
: only contribute to a moderated Objectivism group if the moderator
: were sanctioned as such by Leonard Peikoff--and that's not likely
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: to happen.

Why did I underscore that? This has to do with a difference of
opinion among Objectivists. Since I'm not in a flaming mood right
now, I won't detail the differences; suffice it to say that Mr.
Stubblefield wants a moderator who will enforce the "orthodox"
Objectivist viewpoint and who will engage in the moralizing that
substitutes for reason that is all too common among certain kinds
of Objectivists.

You read that correctly. Yes, what they want is philosophical
purity within the newsgroup and a platform from which to preach
their version of Objectivism. Views like mine would almost
certainly be edited out. Or, would be met with ridicule rather
than reason.

This, BTW, is not theoretical. I've seen this precise thing
happen in other forums. Repeatedly. For example, I got to be
revolted hearing Ayn Rand read (in a Q&A period for one of
Peikoff's lectures) a question and respond with essentially "that
is an evil question".

Now, I want to make this clear: I vehemently disagree with these
people. I think they are, at best, deluded; at worst, evil. On the
other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for
Objectivism would necessarily include their words.

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