Xref: utzoo news.groups:17526 talk.philosophy.misc:3551
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!flink
From: flink@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul V Torek)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: SCI.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM
Summary: Whether or not it's sci, it's definitely talk
Message-ID: <22396@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 90 20:32:04 GMT
References: <2018@cjsa.WA.COM>
Reply-To: flink@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul V Torek)
Followup-To: news.groups
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 14

Although Jeff Small may be right that philosophy is a science, that fact
alone is a woefully inadequate argument for classifying an objectivism
newsgroup under "sci".  Such a group would be dominated by "extensive
discussions" as Gene Spafford points out; thus it clearly qualifies for
classification under "talk" -- there is no reason to suppose that
qualification for "talk" and for "sci" need be mutually exclusive.
The question is which classification would be MORE appropriate.  And
the answer is that pragmatic reasons clearly favor "talk".

Since others have eloquently stated those reasons, I won't bother to
repeat them.
-- 
Wait! ... There's no oat bran in FROOT LOOPS!
Paul Torek					flink@mimsy.umd.edu