Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: On anti-Objectivist postings in *.p.o
Summary: Lighten up...
Message-ID: <YZJ1HT5xds8@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 5 Feb 90 12:01:08 GMT
References: <T8I1KIGxds8@ficc.uu.net> <51700@bbn.COM>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Lines: 35

In article <51700@bbn.COM>, djoslin@bbn.com (David Joslin) writes:
> In article <T8I1KIGxds8@ficc.uu.net> (jeff daiell) writes:
> >If a non-O or anti-O posts to *.p.o, it might cause us to
> >recheck our premises, thus (a) spurring the extension of
> >Objectivist thought to new ground, and/or (b) strengthen
> >our understanding of, and support for, Objectivism. 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> When I read this I wondered why you didn't include
> (c) cause some O'ists to realize that they have been in error.
> It made it sound like you didn't think there was any 
> possibility of O'ism being incorrect.

Well, if it is, they have each other to point it out! {|8^)]

> 
> Then in another article you wrote:
> 
> >Still, this is a quibble.  Why don't we hold *one* vote:
> >(1) I prefer sci.philosophy.objectivism ___
> >(2) I prefer talk.philosophy.objectivism ___
> >(3) No Objectivism group; I hate Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem ___
> 
> Do you mean to imply anyone who rejects O'ism lacks (or even hates?)
> Self-Esteem?  That only O'ists appreciate Reason?  

{|8^)] for the humor impaired.




Jeff Daiell


-- 
            "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of 
            course, that's no reason for getting married."

                            --  C. E. "Billie" Daiell