Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: talk, not sci, for *.philosophy.objectivism (was Re: SPO
Message-ID: <2843841202@lewis.crd.ge.com>
Date: 12 Feb 90 19:53:22 GMT
References: <1990Jan27.003806.4520@twwells.com> <9001280011.AA28097@apee.ogi.edu> <1990Jan28.111136.6077@twwells.com> <2023@osc.COM>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Lines: 21

In article <2023@osc.COM>, Tim Atkins writes: 
*  I vote for talk.philosophy.objectivism for now.  At a later date the
*fight for moving under the sci hierarchy may be tried again.  Doing so now
*merely increases the likelihood of no Objectivist group at all.

i don't think it necessarily does that; many of those of
us opposed to sci.philosophy.objectivism won't vote against
talk.philosophy.objectivism (hell, i might even vote for it
even though objectivism holds little interest for me.)
i don't have anything against objectivists having a corner
of the net to themselves; i just don't like putting it in
sci.*

of course, if the sci.philosophy.objectivist diehards torpedo
the talk group by voting against it, then that's their problem.

richard
-- 
richard welty    518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com            ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty            
   ``gee, you can hardly tell where the cat slept on the cake''