Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Moderation (Re: SCI.philosophy.objectivism)
Message-ID: <1990Feb7.072513.4270@twwells.com>
Date: 7 Feb 90 07:25:13 GMT
References: <7450@tank.uchicago.edu> <9002040025.AA12193@apee.ogi.edu> <.1J1O5Cxds13@ficc.uu.net> <9002042318.AA15297@apee.ogi.edu>
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 48

: In article <.1J1O5Cxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
: >Of course you need the *right* moderator. From evidence in this group I'd
: >suggest T. William Wells. He seems the only objectivist with a truly open
: >mind.

That won't go over with the Randroids at all. They *hate* open
minds.

In article <9002042318.AA15297@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
: Ah, but I have seen the messages by him here where he has already said
: explicitly, to some sci proponents that they are ignorant or don't use
: their faculty of reason etc.  I don't think he understands Objectivism
: but if he is the moderator, he is the one who will decide what is proper
: to the future newsgroup and what is not.  I can be certain that under
: those circumstances, my views and views of several others would be simply
: edited off as "flames" or "inappropriate".

You can be "certain", you say. And in doing so, you debase the
very word. On what evidence do you base your "certainty"? We are
all waiting with bated breath for such evidence. You have adduced
no such evidence since the last time you made this accusation.

That I'm willing to call ignorance ignorance and irrationality
irrationality has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.

You have, based entirely on your prejudices, said that I'd edit
you out were I the moderator. This is in spite of:

	1) I'm willing to have a co-moderator. Even you.
	2) Such editing out would discredit me as moderator.
	3) No such editing has occured on the Objectivism list I run.

Of course, you will, as you did the last time I challenged you on
this, say that dealing with all that is too much effort. You
"know" that I will edit you out and so considering evidence is a
waste of effort.

You have called me a liar. On no evidnce whatsoever.

That is contemptible.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com

	"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
	crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
	do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_