Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!sco!davidbe
From: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: SCI.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM
Keywords: Objectivism, SPO, flames
Message-ID: <2008@scorn.sco.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 90 18:19:00 GMT
References: <7393@tank.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Reply-To: dave@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Organization: The Society for Creative Obscurantism
Lines: 67


She said that he said that she said that rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) said:
-As if to prove my point, the discussion about sci vs. talk has gotten even 
-sillier, to the point where people are arguing that it should be talk on the 
-basis of volume alone (??!).  I guarantee that the volume of SPO won't exceed 
-that of several sci groups (SPT, for example).  

Does this mean that if it ever approaches that volume that you'll stop 
posting (to SPO)?  It's about the only guarentee you can make.

Volume is a very good reason to put a group someplace.  The fact that this
discussion is generating all this volume may not reflect the volume in
the final newsgroup, but it does show that people are willing to let
themselves get worked up over this topic.  And that means there'll be
volume, flames and ideology bashing.

-That is one reason (though by no means the main reason) that the sci group 
-will be better; that sort of thing [flaming for it's own sake] is less 
-common on sci than on talk.

Only because the majority of talk groups are about politics and religion.
Just *try* and hold a quiet discussion on those topics, even with someone 
you agree with.  You're doomed to failure.

-Just to put some meat into this assertion, and also to start some discussion of
-the charter, I'll give a list of guidelines which should help to keep the 
-overall quality of discussion on SPO high.  Something like this should be 
-included in the charter for SPO.

Remember that unless a group is moderated, the charter doesn't mean a thing.
Oh, and I'll make a point now that you seem to have overlooked; some places
don't have rn, and so don't have kill files.  

-3) To help with (1) and (2), either develop epic self-restraint or use a kill
-file  Believe me, it will make your life easier.

Thank you for trying to dictate my behaviour.  What right do *you* have to
decide who's articles I should read?

-4) Never post unless you have a point that is worth making.  

Pardon the polite flame: "Then why do you keep posting?"  You've been
making the same argument based on the same fallacy (that people won't 
post flames in a sci.* group) for some time now.  Why do I keep following
up your articles?  Because there are people out there who may agree with
you, and I feel it necessary to state my opinions on the topic.

Also because I think I'm one of the few people who is following most of
this discussion who doesn't care about philosophy, objective or otherwise.
Someone should be commenting on this from the viewpoint of the uninvolved
net.person.

Let me restate my beliefs, in case you think I'm biased:  Philosophy in
general is a topic that can be discussed in a scientific manner.  For such
a thing, a sci group is appropriate.  Specific philosophies; philosophies 
that will generate much discussion because people have a personal investment 
in them, belong in talk, unless moderated.  I look forward to a mail 
response (less so to more bandwith usage).

-- 
      David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
     Email: dave@sco.COM -or- ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,attctc}!sco!dave 
   Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.  

		        A newsgroup for posting lists?
    Good idea?  					   Bad idea? 
mail yesvote@sco.COM       last day to vote is 2/5    mail novote@sco.COM