Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!saturn!xanthian From: xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk. Keywords: voting Message-ID: <10747@saturn.ADS.COM> Date: 5 Feb 90 23:04:17 GMT References: <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> <13437@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3320@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <09I13LGxds8@ficc.uu.net> <270@fornax.UUCP> Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 960-7300 Lines: 57 In article <270@fornax.UUCP> miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman (Jones/Paul)) writes: >In article <09I13LGxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>(1) I prefer sci.philosophy.objectivism ___ >>(2) I prefer talk.philosophy.objectivism ___ >>(3) No Objectivism group; I hate Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem ___ >> >>If either (1) or (2) get at least 100 votes, and more than twice >>the number of (3), a group will be created ... and which one gets >>created will depend on which, of (1) and (2), gets more votes. >> >> >>Jeff Daiell > >This will split YES votes and increase the possibility that no >group will be created. I think it is best to have two independent >questions: > >(1) YES/NO for an Objectivism group >(2) SCI/TALK hierarchy, if the group is created > >The first qustion will decide the creation by the guidelines. The >second will decide the hierarchy by majority. > > Miron Cuperman Insufficient. I explicitly want to vote _against_ the sci.*.* proposal, simply because the recent incredibly closeminded postings by some Randites suggest that fanatical adherence to objectivism causes active brain damage. Whether they get a place in the talk heirarchy in which to rave away unnoticed to remove them as a nuisance from other sci.philosophy.* groups, as originally proposed by Greg Nowak, among others, is of relative indifference to me, and I suspect to many others. The postings saying that the * in *.philosophy.objectivism should be "sci", so that opinions that Randism is a bunko scheme at its worst may be _excluded_ from the group, condemns the Randites wholesale from their own words as a group of close minded fanatics. Those interested in and in favor of the philosophy who have managed to retain open minds in spite of this interest seem also to be the proponents of the "talk" heirarchy placement. This is unlikely to be a coincidence. I request a vote on sci.philosophy.objectivism (moderated?) be undertaken at once; the sides in this issue are obviously sufficiently polarized that further discussion will sway no one, while wasting additional bandwidth. Once that vote has failed (as I think it will), the question of a "talk" placement can be raised. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan) xanthian@ads.com - expiring soon; please use Well address for replies. Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-