Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix
From: greg@phoenix (greg Nowak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk.
Keywords: voting
Message-ID: <13611@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 6 Feb 90 01:19:48 GMT
References: <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> <13437@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3320@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <09I13LGxds8@ficc.uu.net> <270@fornax.UUCP> <10747@saturn.ADS.COM>
Sender: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
Reply-To: greg@phoenix (greg Nowak)
Organization: Cabal of Fools; Phoenix Gang
Lines: 28
In-reply-to: xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account)

In article <10747@saturn.ADS.COM>, xanthian@saturn (Metafont Consultant Account) writes:

>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.

Thanks for the mention, but this is slightly inaccurate. My intent was
never to banish objectivism from sci.philosophy.*. My contention was
merely that it was inappropriate to sci.philosophy.tech, that if the
objectivists insisted on waiting out the vote(s) in a sci.philosophy
group, that 'meta was 1) more appropriate than 'tech and 2) more
practical since it had no native constituency to find these postings
appropriate. This suggestion, which harmed no one and would probably
have allowed objectivists to have their own newsgroup in all but name
(a situation which, be it noted, does not now obtain with their
less-than-welcome presence in 'tech) was of course completely ignored.
While I do feel that a newsgroup explicitly devoted to objectivism
belongs more properly under talk, I  made this judgment completely
independently of my consideration that objectivist postings were
inappropriate in 'tech.



rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg   Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 
"It is the right of every person to change their mind or be inconsistent."
						--Matt Crawford