Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!lfcs!hans From: hans@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES - rec.humor.objectivism Message-ID: <2278@castle.ed.ac.uk> Date: 14 Feb 90 11:17:43 GMT References: <1306.9002081519@subnode.lfcs.ed.ac.uk> <2HQ1C5Aggpc2@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: hans@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U Lines: 51 In article jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: [some stuff deleted] >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. My motive for suggesting rec.humor.objectivism was not one of distribution. If rec.humor.objectivism does not pass I would certainly not be opposed to an alt.humor.objectivism. >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? My first posting on rec.humor.objectivism was entirely tongue-in-cheek, but I got mails from people who indicated that they felt such a group would be a good idea. So when I read Bob Stubblefield's pompous call for votes, I rewrote it a a call for votes for rec.humor.objectivism. So far about 100 people have voted. I am not negative about Objectivism; not really. Objectivist postings are often very amusing to read since the people behind them come across as incredibly self-important; this is my main reason for suggesting rec.humor.objectivism. As for the claims of this fringe pseudo-philosophy itself, the idea of the importance of statements such as "A is A" and "Existence exists", are right out of Ionesco, Beckett (pbuh) et al. I don't expect rec.humor.objectivism to pass, but it is interesting for me to see which participants in the "talk vs. sci" (etc.) discussion vote YES and which ones vote NO !! Regards Hans | Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: hans@uk.ac.ed.lfcs | LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans | University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!