Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!udel!princeton!phoenix From: greg@phoenix (greg Nowak) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: SCI.philosophy.objectivism Keywords: Objectivism, Sci.philosophy.objectivism Message-ID: <13530@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 3 Feb 90 02:08:35 GMT References: <11909@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <7434@tank.uchicago.edu> Sender: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Reply-To: greg@phoenix (greg Nowak) Organization: Cabal of Fools; Phoenix Gang Lines: 49 In-reply-to: rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) In article <7434@tank.uchicago.edu>, rwt1@tank (Robert Tracinski) writes: >In article <11909@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >>I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism, because as an ex- >>Objectivist, I would welcome the opportunity to air out the reasons why >>I abandoned it. >This is precisely the sort of thing that is entirely *in*appropriate for any >Objectivism newsgroup.Sci.philosophy.objectivism is not being proposed because >some people think it might be "fun" to talk about "what's wrong with >Objectivism". It is being proposed to provide a place for serious discussion >about technical aspects of the philosophy of Objectivism. Maybe, then, we should have talk.philosophy.objectivism and talk.philosophy.objectivism.wizards, following previous example. It is accepted net.practice to have the general group created first, and only afterwards, when the general group has _demonstrably_ failed to contain flamage, is a 'wizards group created for technical discussion. >To repeat:*This is not being proposed as a dumping ground for anyone who wants >to talk about what he doesn't like about Objectivism.* Oh, it never is. But newsgroups are seldom created if they announce upfront that they will not tolerate polite dissenting opinion. >The sci title indicates that the >group is for serious and in-depth discussion, and people tend to think their >postings out more thoroughly on such a group. You keep saying this like it's obvious, when it's clear to most that you're confusing cause and effect. The postings in sci.math are serious and in-depth not because of the hierarchy, but because of the subject matter. If you don't believe me, try aliasing talk.abortion to sci.abortion, or soc.singles to sci.singles, and see if the discussion elevates. For people who believe in the power of reason and the scientific method, you sure don't know a lot about controlled experiments. >Whereas the talk title all too >often signals that people will feel free to post *whatever* happens to come to >mind, whether it is intelligent and thoughtful or not. Sorry. I hate to break it to you, but posting to a talk group doesn't make one less thoughtful, nor, sadly, does posting to a sci.group make one smarter. Caveat lexor. rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "In addition I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its efforts. Namely, the physical universe." --Ken Jenkins