Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES - rec.humor.objectivism Summary: Slurs, distribution Message-ID: Date: 13 Feb 90 13:09:32 GMT References: <1306.9002081519@subnode.lfcs.ed.ac.uk> <2HQ1C5Aggpc2@ficc.uu.net> Organization: FICC (but opinions my own!) Lines: 30 In article <2HQ1C5Aggpc2@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <2232@castle.ed.ac.uk> hans@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) writes: > > Peter, what do you take me for ??? Read the .signature !! (Antipodeans > > obviously think UK = Britain = England...) > > Actually, mate, we think you're all a bunch of bloody poms. :-> Peter, I think we can do without the ethnic epithets, please. If I recall, this discussion dealt with distribution. The question that led to the exchange, I believe, was over whether the proposed group -- whether proposed seriously or facetiously -- should be in the alt or rec hierarchy. And the point was made that the only 'reason' for putting it in rec was distribution. Since the point has been well made that distribution is not a legitimate argument, it now behooves the proposer to defend his choice of rec against Peter's suggestion of alt. Or, if distribution was not his motive, the suggestion can legitimately be ignored. But first, the main question: was the proposal sincere or facetious? It at first struck me as tongue-in-cheek, but later postings indicated the person was negative enough on Objectivism that he was serious. So which was it, Hans? Jeff -- Pun for the day: "I'm a sucker for vampire stories." -- Chuq von Rospach