Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: SCI.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM
Keywords: sci.philosophy.objectivism, Objectivism, science
Message-ID: <1990Feb8.220159.17158@twwells.com>
Date: 8 Feb 90 22:01:59 GMT
References: <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> <906@athen.sinix.UUCP>
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 26

In article <906@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes:
: I don't think that the recent mass invasion of news.groups by objectivists
: stating "we made the convincing arguments, all others are stupid or evil"
: doesn't help to make your issue convincing. Nobody of the objectivists
: dismantled the real background - that sci is the widest distributed group,
: whereas talk and soc are often absent especially on company sites.
: Though I can understand that motivation, I guess everybody knows that it
: is no valid argument for placement of spo, but I feel it shining through
: a pretty big part of this discussion (maybe I'm wrong here).

I believe that you are wrong here. Knowing the psychology of
Randroidism, I can tell you that the mere idea of Objectivism
being called a science is sufficient. Other sci proponents may,
of course, have different motivations.

Most of the sci proponents are so ignorant of the net that they
probably don't even *know* that talk is less well distributed than
sci.

---
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_