Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: SCI.philosophy.objectivism Keywords: *philosophical* discussions, not lame autobiographical ramblings Message-ID: Date: 4 Feb 90 12:13:00 GMT References: <11909@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <7434@tank.uchicago.edu> <7821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <7450@tank.uchicago.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 18 In article <7450@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: > That's one reason I support placement in the > sci hierarchy--it would enable us to point to the charter, as well as to the > general nature of the sci groups in order to establish that such postings are > inappropriate. Putting a group in SCI doesn't do anything to raise the quality of postings in the group. If you want to raise the quality of postings, then moderate the group. And put it in SOC or MISC. > (To head off one possible objection, I will point out that I > have vigorously opposed moderation for the group from the beginning and > continue to do so. Why? It works quite well. Oh, by the way. Playing silly games with followups isn't an advisable move if you are interested in convincing folks of anything. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'