Jason's newgroup proposal (ver. 1.0 alpha)
Tony Donadio
: I propose to the community of alt.philosophy.objectivism the creation
: of a moderated newsgroup to discuss Objectivist philosophy and to be
: called sci.philosophy.objectivism.
I agree with and would support the formation of a new usenet group called
sci.philosophy.objectivism. However, I disagree EMPHATICALLY with the
idea of making this a *moderated* group, and would almost certainly NOT
support this effort as long as it is proposed in this form.
Instead, I suggest drafting a faq and a charter stating clearly the
purposes of the group, and the limits on what kind of discussion is and is
not appropriate for it. With such a charter in place, internet providers
who allow spamming or other forms of inapproproate posting from accounts
at their site can be shown clear and incontrovertible evidence that these
individuals are engaged in net abuse and should be sanctioned.
I do not oppose the idea of a moderated group in principle. However, when
one forms a *moderated* group, one is giving sanction to the principles of
the moderator and the individuals who participate in it; in an open forum
like apo, this is not the case. If s.p.o. were moderated, then it would
have to be far more restrictive than anything that is likely to be
proposed or accepted here for me to agree to participate in it. I suspect
that the same would go for many of the group's other current participants.
For example, there are individuals who currently post to apo who are not
really Objectivists (such as the Tolerationists). I do not consider it
improper to post to the same forum that they do, as long as it is an open
one; but I WOULD consider this improper if the forum were *moderated*. It
requires some context of knowledge to understand why Tolerationism is
incompatible with Objectivism, and this context cannot reasonably be
assumed from anyone participating in an open forum. It can and *has* to
be assumed from someone participating in a moderated forum.
The issue of what context of knowledge can be reasonably assumed from
someone participating in an open forum like apo is the real issue. To put
it bluntly, the context necessary to understand why posts on a wacko SF
cult like Neo-Tech are NOT related to Objectivism IS something that can be
reasonably assumed from anyone participating in apo. It is nothing less
than an outrage that the NTers' net providers have ignored our complaints
and refused to discipline their NT customers -- and this is one of the
central reasons that we are here now actually having to contemplate
creating a NEW newsgroup. In reason, this should NOT have to be spelled
out in a newsgroup charter. Given the obvious stupidity and intellectual
cowardice of these providers, however, it appears that the process has to
be made idiot-proof.
: While I know that the idea is
: far from original, I believe that the time is right to consider such
: a proposal with the aim of taking action upon it. If this post gen-
: erates enough responses by e-mail or to alt.philosophy.objectivism,
: I will create a formal proposal and submit it to the Usenet public on
: the group news.announce.newgroups. Following this, I will, if nec-
: essary, initiate the voting process necessary to create a newsgroup.
: For the process to succeed, I will need as many "yes" votes as pos-
: sible from the readers of a.p.o.
I will vote 'YES' if:
- An appropriate "charter" accompanies the creation of the newsgroup
- It is NOT moderated or
- If it IS moderated, is, that it
- explicitly excludes Tolerationists, Libertarians, Anarchists, and the
like, as well as NTers, AND
- the moderator chosen (or procedure for choosing one) is acceptable
I will vote NO otherwise.
A few suggestions for the charter, in the form of principles that anyone
posting to s.p.o. agrees to abide by:
1. NOT to crosspost messages to the group.
2. Posts on NT, Extropianism, and anarchism are explicitly excluded.
3. Posts are expected to be related to the philosophy of Objectivism and
its direct applications.
: In short, I'm quite serious about it, and I believe that the work
: it entails will be worth the benefits. Without further ado, here is
: my preliminary proposal, in the standard format demanded by Usenet
: convention. Please feel free to discuss at length.
: *****
: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
<snip>
: CHARTER: sci.philosophy.objectivism
: Sci.philosophy.objectivism's discussions shall deal solely with
: Objectivism, the philosophical ideas of Ayn Rand. Discussions of
: all other topics, including, but not limited to, politics, theo-
: logy, the philosophies of other thinkers, the physical sciences,
: and commercial advertisements, shall be refused by the moderaters
: without further consideration, except in cases where these posts
: discuss said topics in the context of Objectivist philosophy.
: Posts which are critical of Objectivism shall of course be per-
: mitted, provided that said criticisms are made in a civil and
: decorous manner (ie, no flames).
: Posts which request information about a particular topic of Ob-
: jectivist philosophy are welcome, and every effort shall be made
: by the posters of sci.philosophy.objectivism to compile a thorough
: text-only FAQ on Objectivism to be posted regularly to sci.phil-
: osophy.objectivism and news.answers.
: Crossposting shall be welcomed, provided that the topic under
: discussion is relevant to the group to which the article has been
: crossposted. Thus a discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophical con-
: clusions on aesthetics which included critical reviews of various
: novels might reasonably be crossposted to rec.arts.books.
Most of this seems good as a starting point. I would lean against
welcoming crossposting, but I think there is room for discussion on this.
: 3. I also ignored the Kelley-Peikoff dispute, albeit with
: some uncertainty: I would much rather read dozens of
: well-written and thoughtful posts from both sides of
: Kelley-Peikoff than skip over all the Neo-Kook posts
: and pointless flamewars. I suspect that most people who
: are legitimately interested in the ideas of Ayn Rand
: would agree. Am I right?
I would -- on an UNMODERATED newsgroup ONLY.
: Anyone interested in taking this little intellectual exercise
: a step further? E-mail me, post, or both.
I will log on to apo to read this thread periodically, as long as this
discussion is going on here.
--
Tony * Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish
Donadio * to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for
* value. - Francisco D'Anconia, in ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand
Lawrence M Sanger
not kill the idea, though. :)
My only objection is to the name. As someone else has already
pointed out, it will be very hard to get this into the sci.*
hierarchy. For a variety of reasons, which I can explain if you
want, I think the name should be talk.philosophy.objectivism.
Regards,
Larry Sanger
Betsy Speicher
> I agree with and would support the formation of a new usenet group called
> sci.philosophy.objectivism. However, I disagree EMPHATICALLY with the
> idea of making this a *moderated* group, and would almost certainly NOT
> support this effort as long as it is proposed in this form.
I agree with Tony on this one. If I want a sane Objectivist discussion I
head for OSG, an _un_moderated group with membership requirements and
standards. The charm of a.p.o. is that it is a wild and wooly
free-for-all and, if it hadn't been for the flood of off-topic postings
from we-all-know-which-group-I'm-referring-to, this whole business about
another Objectivist newsgroup would not have come up.
> Instead, I suggest drafting a faq and a charter stating clearly the
> purposes of the group, and the limits on what kind of discussion is and is
> not appropriate for it. With such a charter in place, internet providers
> who allow spamming or other forms of inapproproate posting from accounts
> at their site can be shown clear and incontrovertible evidence that these
> individuals are engaged in net abuse and should be sanctioned.
Would this really work? Do ISP's (especially Netcom) enforce on-topic
postings in unmoderated newsgroups if they have a charter? Has this ever
worked for other newsgroups?
Betsy Speicher
Ayn Rand's Ideas On Talk Radio -- The Leonard Peikoff Show
KIEV 870AM in Los Angeles Monday thru Friday at 2:30-3:30 PM
(Callers who disagree with Dr. Peikoff given preference)
Jason Kuznicki
I propose to the community of alt.philosophy.objectivism the creation
of a moderated newsgroup to discuss Objectivist philosophy and to be
far from original, I believe that the time is right to consider such
a proposal with the aim of taking action upon it. If this post gen-
erates enough responses by e-mail or to alt.philosophy.objectivism,
I will create a formal proposal and submit it to the Usenet public on
the group news.announce.newgroups. Following this, I will, if nec-
essary, initiate the voting process necessary to create a newsgroup.
For the process to succeed, I will need as many "yes" votes as pos-
sible from the readers of a.p.o.
In short, I'm quite serious about it, and I believe that the work
it entails will be worth the benefits. Without further ado, here is
my preliminary proposal, in the standard format demanded by Usenet
convention. Please feel free to discuss at length.
*****
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
Moderated newsgroup sci.philosophy.objectivism
This is an (in)formal request for discussion for the creation of
the Usenet newsgroup sci.philosophy.objectivism.
NEWSGROUP LINE: sic.philosophy.objectivism Moderated discussion of the
ideas of Ayn Rand
RATIONALE: Alt.philosophy.objectivism, a currently existing group
for the discussion of the philosophy created by Ayn Rand and known
as Objectivism, has become nearly useless as a forum for discussion
of Objectivist philosophy because of extremely high traffic of ir-
relevant crossposts, spamming and flaming. A moderated newsgroup
upon which to discuss Objectivist philosophy would greatly enhance
the caliber of philosophic discussion on Usenet.
The problems of alt.philosophy.objectivism are particularly great
because Objectivism is in many respects an unconventional philo-
sophy and thus tends to attract posters who are extremely hostile
to it, including trolls and the perpetrators of interminable
flamewars. These problems could be avoided by the Internet Ob-
jectivist community through the creation of a moderated newsgroup.
The newsgroup's name follows standard protocol with regard to news-
group names; sci.philosophy.meta and sic.philosophy.tech already
exist in the hierarchy sci.philosophy.*.
CHARTER: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Sci.philosophy.objectivism's discussions shall deal solely with
Objectivism, the philosophical ideas of Ayn Rand. Discussions of
all other topics, including, but not limited to, politics, theo-
logy, the philosophies of other thinkers, the physical sciences,
and commercial advertisements, shall be refused by the moderaters
without further consideration, except in cases where these posts
discuss said topics in the context of Objectivist philosophy.
Posts which are critical of Objectivism shall of course be per-
mitted, provided that said criticisms are made in a civil and
decorous manner (ie, no flames).
Posts which request information about a particular topic of Ob-
jectivist philosophy are welcome, and every effort shall be made
by the posters of sci.philosophy.objectivism to compile a thorough
text-only FAQ on Objectivism to be posted regularly to sci.phil-
osophy.objectivism and news.answers.
Crossposting shall be welcomed, provided that the topic under
discussion is relevant to the group to which the article has been
crossposted. Thus a discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophical con-
clusions on aesthetics which included critical reviews of various
novels might reasonably be crossposted to rec.arts.books.
[Now the hard part: Who moderates? I admit that I'm at some-
what of a loss over it. This one could become a real hot potato.
One or more people would be required to moderate according to the
above criteria or others that we agree upon in the proposal. Any
volunteers? Nominees?]
*****
Notes:
1. Procedural mechanics for the vote will be added to the
proposal in the event that enough people are interested
in creating the group.
2. I *purposely* ignored Neo-Tech. 'Nuff said.
3. I also ignored the Kelley-Peikoff dispute, albeit with
some uncertainty: I would much rather read dozens of
well-written and thoughtful posts from both sides of
Kelley-Peikoff than skip over all the Neo-Kook posts
and pointless flamewars. I suspect that most people who
are legitimately interested in the ideas of Ayn Rand
would agree. Am I right?
Anyone interested in taking this little intellectual exercise
a step further? E-mail me, post, or both.
Soon-to-be-Founding Father of sci.philosophy.objectivism,
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"The chief faculty in a man is his reason and consequently his chief
good...consists not merely in action but reasonable action."
--Benjamin Franklin
Tom Radcliffe
1) There should be an upper limit to the number of groups
cross-posted to (say, three?)
2) The geoplanerians should be excluded by the charter.
3) Anonymous posting should be forbidden
4) I cannot imagine a moderator who would be suitable
to all a.p.o participants. However, the simple rules above
could be implemented in software, and would exclude
90% or more of the noise on a.p.o. Sort of like a group-
wide kill-file.
Paul Hsieh
Lawrence M Sanger <lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>And unless someone like Paul Hsieh (Hsieh-
>like entities being in short supply) were to volunteer to be
>moderator...
Some would say that such entities are in *very* short supply.
(All the ones I know of are working their asses off in the radiology
department at the Washington University School of Medicine...)
=============================== =============================
// ________ ________ ___ ___ // //
// / ___ // _____// /_/ / // Paul S. Hsieh, MD //
// / _____//_____ // __ / // <hsi...@crl.com> //
// /__/ /_______//__/ /__/ // <hs...@mirlink.wustl.edu> //
// // //
=============================== =============================
Jason Kuznicki
t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) wrote:
>A couple of points:
>
>1) There should be an upper limit to the number of groups
>cross-posted to (say, three?)
That sounds quite reasonable. Soc.history.moderated,
another moderated group that I frequent, demands that as a
general rule posts should increase in importance as they
are more widely crossposted. It's not really concrete,
but it's a good rule of thumb.
>2) The geoplanerians should be excluded by the charter.
Who are THEY? [*blink*] Geoplanerians??? If they talk
about Objectivism in a polite manner, then they may post.
If they don't talk about Objectivism or don't talk about
it politely, then it's curtains for them, whoever they
are...
>3) Anonymous posting should be forbidden
Also a good idea, but this should be done on a case-
by-case basis. It's not unthinkable that someone may
have a legitimate reason to hide his or her name.
Suppose that a mafia informant wanted to give an Ob-
jectivist political critique of the FBI's inner work-
ings. Such a message would not be out of place, but
it would also require anonymity. While this example
might seem farfetched, I would hate to have to exclude
such a post! I would say that anonymous messages
should be refused unless there is a demonstrable need
to keep the poster's identity secret. I can think of
no recent messages on a.p.o. where such a need has
arisen, but it may well arise in the future.
>4) I cannot imagine a moderator who would be suitable
>to all a.p.o participants. However, the simple rules above
>could be implemented in software, and would exclude
>90% or more of the noise on a.p.o. Sort of like a group-
>wide kill-file.
I believe that since the moderation is explicitly non-
ideological in nature, it would *not* be difficult to find
a moderator who is acceptable to virtually all. The group,
though moderated, would be a public forum from whom only
the uncivil would be excluded. As explicitly stated in the
charter, the moderator has only two criteria upon which to
decide the appropriateness of a post, namely whether that
post is polite and whether it is directly related to the
ideas of Ayn Rand.
The moderator would be constrained by the charter to post
even those things with which he disagreed, provided that
the post in question met the above criteria. He could, of
course, reply to the message on the group or in person to
correct the error.
The aim here, once and for all, is not ideological purity.
It is simple civility on a public forum, exactly what
should be happening (but is not) on a.p.o. already. I
think that this definitely can be attained.
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"Intellectual pride is not...a pretense at omniscience or infal-
libility. On the contrary, precisely because man must struggle for
knowledge, precisely because the pursuit of knowledge requires an
effort, the men who assume this responsibility properly feel pride."
--Nathaniel Branden, "Mental Health vs. Mysticism and Self-
Sacrifice"
Tony Donadio
: But I must also insist that it is a rather silly idea to try
: to call it sci.philosophy.objectivism. With that name it
: would never be approved, I think: who, besides Objectivists,
: thinks that Objectivism is a science (or science-like)? You
: have to remember, to get the newsgroup into the hierarchy you
: must have the approval of a lot of non-Objectivists. YOu may
: not like it, but them's the facts (as I understand them).
I originally suggested "sci" because I obviously believe that (proper)
philosophy is in a real sense a science -- and because I think it is time
for Objectivism to get out of the "alt" hierarchy and into one with a more
"serious" reputation. I am not intimately familiar with the usenet
hierarchy, though. Is there another hierarchy that is considered the
appropriate for the "serious" discussion of philosophic ideas? I am not
aware of one.
As I thought Jason pointed out, there are already two "sci.philosophy"
newsgroups in existence. I think this establishes a precedent that we can
appeal to. Especially given this precedent, I am much more optimistic
than Larry about the chances of establishing an objectivism newsgroup
there.
Tony Donadio
Brad Aisa
However I must take issue with a matter of fact he asserts. I do not
believe it is realistic to police a high-profile newsgroup on such an
abstract and contentious subject as Objectivism, through reactive means,
namely through entreaties to service providers.
Face it, service providers are just not interested in policing Usenet. They
might get involved in cases of commercial spam or egregious abuse, but
seriously, how can you expect someone unfamiliar with philosophy, the
writings of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, etc. to be able to make decisions on
what or what does not constitute abuse?
If an NT'er or an anarchist fills their post with "Objectivism"-this and
"Ayn Rand said"-that, then how are you supposed to explain to some
overworked techy at an ISP that the post really _isn't_ related to
Objectivism or Ayn Rand? This is just not realistic.
We have copious evidence of the variety of persons a public newsgroup on
Objectivism attracts, very many quite unsavory.
The other important thing to consider, is that even if one could
successfully prosecute your case before _some_ providers, you will never be
able to do so before all of them. So your newsgroup is still wide-open to
abuse from many sites around the world. It would just be a slightly less
noisy version of apo, unless you could positively exclude riff-raff.
The only way to create something of value, would be to institute the
principles of ownership and rights, whereby those who did not satisfy the
criterion of membership would be excluded.
This does not necessarily have to include what is conventionally called
"moderation" -- the system can be set up so that those who are members
simply have their posts forwarded automatically to the list. Those who are
not members, would initially have their first post reviewed, with the
criteria being the charter, and then either added to the "in" list if
acceptable, or not.
Persons who violated the charter would be excluded, presumably after a
warning of some kind, and through an objective process of dispute
settlement, which included some mechanism of appeal. (This would prevent
the arbitrary abuse of power, as well as assuage posters' concerns of
becoming beholden to the moderators.)
But of course this raises a whole new set of problems, which Mr. Donadio or
someone else will probably point out as well. WHO is going to be on the
moderation panel? WHAT will be the standard?
Mr. Kuznicki told me that this process would not be "ideological". But how
can you escape _ideas_ in a philosophical newsgroup? The Tolerationists
will likely insist that not only is it good to Tolerate Kelleyism, but also
healthy to tolerate anarchists and whomever.
So then you might say, "Well, we will only exclude things which have
nothing to do with Objectivism." Surprise, then you have to let the NTers
post too -- they _claim_ it has something to do with Objectivism. They'll
quote Rand, etc. And if you let the NT'ers in, then you will even have to
let the likes of Mr. Prescott and Mr. Wolf in too -- they use the 'O' word
sometimes.
Objectivism has an identity, and it is this fact which the Tolerationists
reject. I have noticed that the response to Dr. Sciabarra's book has
provided a most interesting exposition of this. The Objectivists have been
indifferent or hostile to the book, which given its content, is fair. The
Tolerationists, such as Barbara Branden, Gary McGrath, and others, have
been most supportive and positive. Clearly, the book is either relevant to
Objectivism, and consistent with it, or it is not. It can't both be, and
not be at the same time in the same respect. (Any Tolerationists even
remember where this idea rests in the Objectivist hierarchy? Do they even
recognize it, or know who first identified it??)
The Tolerationists have been snarling in typical wimp fashion about the
"dogmatism" and "close-mindedness" of the Objectivists, as if the only
reason one could have for disagreeing with a book was that it wasn't
written by Dr. Peikoff. They are so intellectually dishonest and deranged,
they refuse to even grant the premise that those of us who have read it may
simply have identified its nature as being a seriously flawed product, and
are now acting accordingly. Perhaps the intellectual self-esteem of those
of us in the Objectivist camp is not so fragile and second-handed, that we
require for legitimization of Objectivism and our adherence to it the
official stamp of some academic author, regardless the content of his work.
So I really can't see how I can have anything to do with such people in a
cooperative venture -- they are betraying every fundamental principle of
Objectivism, in a gruesome display which is becoming more obviously
irrational and hostile to objectivity all the time. And experience leads me
to believe that they will attempt in earnest to take over something like
what Jason has suggested. Notice that if you worship "legitimization"
without substance, of the type provided by the book I mentioned, then
you will obviously be attracted to support almost any venture with the
word "Objectivism" glued to it, regardless of how reputable or relevant.
There can't be accommodation between people who believe in objectivity and
those who have rejected in, in matters relating to Objectivism, can there?
I think that Usenet in general has proceeded from some rather flawed
premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
I wish Jason best wishes, and will myself remain very cautiously open to
further consideration of his idea, but based on the response I received
from some "feelers" I put out previously (in private) for this general
idea, as well as my growing understanding of the serious errors being made
by some of Ayn Rand's professed admirers (such as the Tolerationists), I am
rather skeptical this venture can be successfully pulled off.
--
Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ba...@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Jeff Kent
In a previous article, jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) says:
>I propose to the community of alt.philosophy.objectivism the creation
>of a moderated newsgroup to discuss Objectivist philosophy and to be
>called sci.philosophy.objectivism. While I know that the idea is
>Anyone interested in taking this little intellectual exercise
>a step further? E-mail me, post, or both.
This is both. I am interested.
--
Jeff Kent ar...@lafn.org
Jason Kuznicki
tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
>Lawrence M Sanger (lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: But I must also insist that it is a rather silly idea to try
>: to call it sci.philosophy.objectivism. With that name it
>: would never be approved, I think: who, besides Objectivists,
>: thinks that Objectivism is a science (or science-like)?
Many, many people think of philosophy as a kind of science.
Besides Objectivists, there are many schools of philosophy
that regard their work as a kind of science. Marxists, though
completely opposed to everything Objectivism stands for, at
the very least do have a scientific conception of philosophy,
as did virtually all philosophers from the times of the
ancient Greeks to the Enlightenment.
>: You
>: have to remember, to get the newsgroup into the hierarchy you
>: must have the approval of a lot of non-Objectivists. YOu may
>: not like it, but them's the facts (as I understand them).
I daresay I understand the facts much better than you credit me.
I know for a fact, for instance, that sysadmins absolutely HATE
the creation of additional group hierarchies. They vastly
prefer that any new newsgroup be established within a hierarchy
that already exists. Sci.philosophy.* is just such a hierarchy.
Since most of the people actually voting on the issue will be sys-
admins, it helps the passage of a newsgroup vote if the name is
chosen within existing hierarchies. It is not a peculiar bias of
Objectivism that caused me to select this name, but rather the es-
tablished reality of newsgroup creation.
>I originally suggested "sci" because I obviously believe that (proper)
>philosophy is in a real sense a science -- and because I think it is time
>for Objectivism to get out of the "alt" hierarchy and into one with a more
>"serious" reputation. I am not intimately familiar with the usenet
>hierarchy, though. Is there another hierarchy that is considered the
>appropriate for the "serious" discussion of philosophic ideas? I am not
>aware of one.
There is the hierarchy talk.philosophy.*, but I greatly prefer
sci.philosophy.*, for all the reasons you cite above.
>As I thought Jason pointed out, there are already two "sci.philosophy"
>newsgroups in existence. I think this establishes a precedent that we can
>appeal to. Especially given this precedent, I am much more optimistic
>than Larry about the chances of establishing an objectivism newsgroup
>there.
>
>Tony Donadio
Can I count on your vote? [Why do I suddenly feel like a politician?]
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"The Eldar wondered much at the strange fate of Men, for in all their
lore there was no account of it, and its end was hidden from them."
--J. R. R. Tolkien, _The Silmarillion_
Lawrence M Sanger
making the group unmoderated. With a charter, abuses can be
guarded against. And unless someone like Paul Hsieh (Hsieh-
like entities being in short supply) were to volunteer to be
of having tolerationist tendencies if tolerationism were tol-
erated by the moderator. (Got that?)
But I must also insist that it is a rather silly idea to try
to call it sci.philosophy.objectivism. With that name it
would never be approved, I think: who, besides Objectivists,
thinks that Objectivism is a science (or science-like)? You
have to remember, to get the newsgroup into the hierarchy you
must have the approval of a lot of non-Objectivists. YOu may
not like it, but them's the facts (as I understand them).
Larry Sanger
Kyle Haight
Jason Kuznicki <jt...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
>I believe that since the moderation is explicitly non-
>ideological in nature, it would *not* be difficult to find
>a moderator who is acceptable to virtually all. The group,
>though moderated, would be a public forum from whom only
>the uncivil would be excluded. As explicitly stated in the
>charter, the moderator has only two criteria upon which to
>decide the appropriateness of a post, namely whether that
>post is polite and whether it is directly related to the
>ideas of Ayn Rand.
I think that Tony's point was that since one of the "eternal" issues
on this group is precisely what Objectivism *is* and *is not*, that
moderation of any kind takes on an ideological character. When J.
Random User sees a moderated group called "sci.philosophy.objectivism"
he will quite naturally assume that whatever posts are found in it are
at least in an attenuated sense Objectivist. Since some people (such
as Tony) hold a narrower view of what constitutes "being Objectivist",
they would find themselves faced with a group that would place the
imprimatur of Objectivism on ideas they considered non-Objectivist,
and would thus object to the group on that basis.
Putting the point more concretely -- there are people here who think
that David Kelley's "A Question of Sanction" is a document expounding
Objectivist ideas. There are others who vehemently disagree. Would
such a document be posted in your hypothetical moderated group?
(I should note that it was precisely this kind of dispute that
scuttled the attempt to create an Objectivism Usenet group in the
Great Objectivism Flamewars of '89. _That_ attempt wound up in two
separate CFVs, one for sci.philosophy.objectivism and one for
talk.philosophy.objectivism. Many of those who voted for one voted
against the other. Neither passed. I also recall a brief attempt by
some others to create talk.religion.objectivism. Suffice it to say
that that never happened.)
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@netcom.com
"We are mice, posting to Usenet in the first stages of a complex plan
to Take Over The WORLD!"
Kyle Haight
Tony Donadio <tdon...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>I originally suggested "sci" because I obviously believe that (proper)
>philosophy is in a real sense a science -- and because I think it is time
>for Objectivism to get out of the "alt" hierarchy and into one with a more
>"serious" reputation. I am not intimately familiar with the usenet
>hierarchy, though. Is there another hierarchy that is considered the
>appropriate for the "serious" discussion of philosophic ideas? I am not
>aware of one.
>
>newsgroups in existence. I think this establishes a precedent that we can
>appeal to. Especially given this precedent, I am much more optimistic
>than Larry about the chances of establishing an objectivism newsgroup
>there.
This precise issue came up during the last attempt to create a "Big 7"
Objectivism newsgroup. The main arguments against it that I can
recall were:
1. Philosophy is not a science, therefore we should have
talk.philosophy.objectivism instead.
2. Philosophy is a science, but Objectivism is not a philosophy,
therefore we should have talk.religion.objectivism.
Ironically enough, some of the strongest supporters of the creation of
a Big 7 newsgroup were the non-Objectivist posters to
sci.philosophy.meta (I think) who just wanted Bob Stubblefield to stop
posting in their group.
Make of that what you will, but you should be aware of the issues that
were raised the last time this was tried so you can be prepared to
address them again. (I should note that it is important to address
even insulting claims like #2 above, since we would be trying to
persuade others to vote with us and this is not helped by calling them
"evil evaders" and refusing to address their claims regardless of
their lack of merit.)
Betsy Speicher
postings to a.p.o. without relying on a moderator or on the cooperation of
certain ISP's in enforcing a newsgroup charter.
I propose that we install a Moderator-Bot (TM).
This would be a computer program that functions like a moderator and is
programmed to accept all postings EXCEPT those which violate the newsgroup
charter. Rejected postings would be e-mailed back to the sender along
with information about why the posting was rejected.
Let's say an innocent newbie asks the question, "What is WingPower and
what does it have to do with Objectivism?" Let's say the charter for a.p.o.
specifically excludes postings about WingPower. We could program the
Moderator-Bot(TM) to scan for the word "WingPower" and, when it found it,
mail the posting back to the newbie explaining why discussions of
WingPower were excluded. We could have similar filters for excessive
cross-posting, extreme vulgarity, etc.
This would not involve a human moderator having to decide what is or is
not Objectivism and thereby alienating at least half of a.p.o. This
would not involve sanctioning a particular person. We would not have to
find someone with the time to read the hundreds of daily postings to a.p.o.
From what I've read on the news.admin.net-abuse.misc newsgroup, a.p.o.
isn't the only newsgroup being harmed by a flood of off-topic postings.
Who knows? If we can get a Moderator-Bot(TM) up and running, it might
have commercial possibilities.
Paul Hsieh
Tom Radcliffe <t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca> wrote:
>This makes any form of moderation based on
>*content* fraught with difficulty. I would quite frankly not
>even trust Paul Hsieh with this task, although he would be
>much better at it than most...
Plus the fact that he is not even an Objectivist would make him one
of the *least* appropriate moderators of any such hypothetical Objectivist
newsgroup.
(But at least he's a geo-spheroidian -- or more accurately, a
geo-prolate-ellipsoidian...)
==================== ~~~ *** ~~
|| || * * ~ ~~
|| Paul S. Hsieh || /\ ** ** _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || _ | | ** ** __ | |
|| || __| |__|__|__ ** ** | |___| |
==================== | | | | ** ** | | | |
Lawrence M Sanger
>>: You
>>: have to remember, to get the newsgroup into the hierarchy you
>>: must have the approval of a lot of non-Objectivists. YOu may
>>: not like it, but them's the facts (as I understand them).
>
>I know for a fact, for instance, that sysadmins absolutely HATE
>the creation of additional group hierarchies. They vastly
>prefer that any new newsgroup be established within a hierarchy
>that already exists. Sci.philosophy.* is just such a hierarchy.
So is talk.philosophy.*, as you noted yourself. You failed to
reply to my most important point, namely, that in order to get
the group into sci.philosophy.* you will have to argue that Oism
is a science, against a lot of people who will disagree with
you. (Note: not that *philosophy* is a science, but that *Obj-
ectivism* is a science.) Now, regardless of the fact about
whether or not it is a science, do you believe you can
*persuade* them (or enough of them) that it is?
If you think so (you have not said you could, one way or another),
good luck. I will be happily surprised if I am proven wrong.
Larry Sanger
Betsy Speicher
> Jason, I strongly sympathize with your desire for a higher
> signal/noise ratio around here.
> Personally I think moderation is a crock. (Um. Don't take
> that sentence out of context. I mean "discussion forum
> moderation".) Killfiles and their successors-- ratings
> systems-- are the way to go. I wish the NoCeM guys would
> hurry up and sell a cool easy-to-use product to the world.
> ("http://www.nocem.org")
What is a "ratings system?" Is it something like my proposed "Moderator-
Bot?" Could it be used by people reading a.p.o. from a variety of
newsreaders including those that don't have kill files? Are there other
systems you might recommend that work automatically to eliminate the
worst offenders from this newsgroup without actual human moderators?
A lot of us are very interested.
> P.S. Hm... I could hack a ratings system for Usenet using
> Unix scripts...
Go for it!
Betsy Speicher
follow-ups]
Matt Keys <matt...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Betsy Speicher (be...@speicher.com) wrote:
> : I have a solution to the problem of how to effectively control off-topic
> : postings to a.p.o. without relying on a moderator or on the cooperation of
> : certain ISP's in enforcing a newsgroup charter.
> : I propose that we install a Moderator-Bot (TM).
> good idea. except any moderator-bot can be easily
> defeated by a simple moderator-over-ride bot which would
> keep changing the subject and or poster's name until the post
> made it through.
This is the same strategy that failed when "Matt Keys" tried to spam
thousands of newsgroups last summer with that Neo-Tech "IRS" rant. He got
trampled by the CancelMoose(TM) and even woke up the sleeping NetAdmins
at Netcom who cancelled his account.
In _Atlas_Shrugged_ Ragnar commented on the futility of trying to use
force against those who combined force with a _mind_. The same applies
to would-be spammers vs. de-spammers with a mind.
Anybody who thinks that "Matt Keys" & Co are posting way too many off-topic
postings to a.p.o. should e-mail their opinions to ab...@netcom.com,
include this posting I just referenced, and remind them of all the ill will
"Matt Keys" generated for Netcom last summer.
Matt Keys
: I have a solution to the problem of how to effectively control off-topic
: postings to a.p.o. without relying on a moderator or on the cooperation of
: certain ISP's in enforcing a newsgroup charter.
: I propose that we install a Moderator-Bot (TM).
good idea. except any moderator-bot can be easily
defeated by a simple moderator-over-ride bot which would
keep changing the subject and or poster's name until the post
made it through.
has anyone here heard of a killfile?
why can't people use them without demanding no one else
reads the people/topics they have in their killfile?
are these people dictator wanna-be's??
Betsy (and a few others) wants to "rule" and
censor a.p.o. Why? So only posters who
agree with her can post? Why would anyone
want to censor posts that explicitly deal
with Objectivism to a newsgroup called
alt.philosophy.objectvisim? Is their
judgement above any critisism?
just create a group called
"alt.philosophy.objectivism.betsy's-way.only".
Matt.
--
ZONPOWER
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/
Bryce
Jason, I strongly sympathize with your desire for a higher
signal/noise ratio around here. I have to tell you though,
that sci.philosophy.objectivism will not fly. Not *this*
year anyway, and probably *never* as a moderated newsgroup.
I don't know about your chances of getting
talk.philosophy.objectivism, although my instinct is "No
way". The denizens of news.groups think (and rightly) that
the alt hierarcy is the perfect place place for a mos
eisley like a.p.o. [I stole that cute phrase from Erik
Olson, BTW.]. They also think (and rightly) that having a
moderated group to discuss such a controversial and partisan
subject as Objectivism is a major mistake.
But don't take my word for it. Hack up your proposal,
submit it to a.p.o. and news.groups.discussion (or wherever
one is supposed to submit such things) and see what becomes
of it. It won't be pretty.
Personally I think moderation is a crock. (Um. Don't take
that sentence out of context. I mean "discussion forum
moderation".) Killfiles and their successors-- ratings
systems-- are the way to go. I wish the NoCeM guys would
hurry up and sell a cool easy-to-use product to the world.
("http://www.nocem.org")
Probably someone else will jump ahead and do NoCeM's job.
Netscape perhaps? I would start using Netscape for
newsgroups if it had a ratings system.
But I digress... In short your only chance of having a
moderated newsgroup is alt.philosophy.objectivism.moderated.
I expect it would be a dead newsgroup though. I, for one,
would not submit my postings to a newsgroup where they could
be cancelled at the disgression of a third party.
Regards,
P.S. Hm... I could hack a ratings system for Usenet using
Unix scripts...
Bryce
"Toys, Tools and Technologies"
<a href="http://www.c2.org/~bryce/Niche.html"> the Niche </a>
New Signal Consulting -- C++, Java, HTML, Ecash
<a href="mailto:br...@c2.org"> Bryce </a>
PGP sig follows
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01
iQCVAwUBMRLZTfWZSllhfG25AQErwwQAuIsHFfCKHy5CPG45ODPcr2GugPsGQdnL
HNyEZGHWgUneK+4Fgvng2qZL89845nne+826GMyyPV9bJPPa+wTEG1IsU3OsFGq4
0q0WX5hfbVI/a2/GeJpAYLr0PKohumTIG+lLvd6MlM5ANIr7WGA6H2rlqtYtS0dD
7Uv6UIY9Lss=
=clct
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
(big snip)
> I think that Usenet in general has proceeded from some rather flawed
> premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
> basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
The Objectivist retreat from open debate continues. Usenet is the
pinnacle of truly open discussion and free speech. That is why the
statists are now targeting it with thier guns and their lawyers. Usenet
is a wonderful thing. I seriously question the committment to liberty of
anyone who thinks that Usenet is bad because it is not CONTROLLED!
Some Objectivists - I call them Objecti-statists - don't like an open
forum where people can say what they please. They prefer a sort of
philosophical Disneyland - a proprietary, gated community of mutual
admiration society members all stroking each other's Objectivist dogma -
which is of course the standard for admission to the community.
Objectivism will become more and more irrelevent and cultic if
Objectivists continue in their pathological fear of heresy and alternative
points of view.
- King of all Heretics
Anonymous
<be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> I have a solution to the problem of how to effectively control off-topic
> postings to a.p.o. without relying on a moderator or on the cooperation of
> certain ISP's in enforcing a newsgroup charter.
>
> I propose that we install a Moderator-Bot (TM).
>
> This would be a computer program that functions like a moderator and is
> programmed to accept all postings EXCEPT those which violate the newsgroup
> charter. Rejected postings would be e-mailed back to the sender along
> with information about why the posting was rejected.
>
> Let's say an innocent newbie asks the question, "What is WingPower and
> what does it have to do with Objectivism?" Let's say the charter for a.p.o.
> specifically excludes postings about WingPower. We could program the
> Moderator-Bot(TM) to scan for the word "WingPower" and, when it found it,
> mail the posting back to the newbie explaining why discussions of
> WingPower were excluded. We could have similar filters for excessive
> cross-posting, extreme vulgarity, etc.
>
> This would not involve a human moderator having to decide what is or is
> not Objectivism and thereby alienating at least half of a.p.o. This
> would not involve sanctioning a particular person. We would not have to
> find someone with the time to read the hundreds of daily postings to a.p.o.
>
> From what I've read on the news.admin.net-abuse.misc newsgroup, a.p.o.
> isn't the only newsgroup being harmed by a flood of off-topic postings.
> Who knows? If we can get a Moderator-Bot(TM) up and running, it might
> have commercial possibilities.
Anyone out there ever read Norman Spinrad's 'Agent of Chaos'? In it
citizens are called 'wards', as in wards of the state, and the Oligarchy
rules the solar system with an iron fist. They use cameras everywhere,
and computerized pattern detecting that activates an automated execution
system if anyone commits an 'unpermitted act.' Naturally all that is not
permitted is forbidden!
Betsy's proposal reminds me of the totalitarian state's maxim:
Better that a thousand innocent wards be punished than that a single
unpermitted act go unpunished!
Anonymous
Radcliffe) wrote:
> In article <4ernhh$q...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason
Kuznicki) writes:
> |> In article <4eqvvb$r...@knot.queensu.ca>,
> |> t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) wrote:
> |> >A couple of points:
> |> >
> |> >1) There should be an upper limit to the number of groups
> |> >cross-posted to (say, three?)
> |>
> |> That sounds quite reasonable. Soc.history.moderated,
> |> another moderated group that I frequent, demands that as a
> |> general rule posts should increase in importance as they
> |> are more widely crossposted. It's not really concrete,
> |> but it's a good rule of thumb.
> |>
> |> >2) The geoplanerians should be excluded by the charter.
> |>
> |> Who are THEY? [*blink*] Geoplanerians??? If they talk
> |> about Objectivism in a polite manner, then they may post.
> |> If they don't talk about Objectivism or don't talk about
> |> it politely, then it's curtains for them, whoever they
> |> are...
> |>
>
> I call N. Ritch and his two friends geoplanerians because
> they are too stupid to figure out why I do so.
This anonymous heretic who is not worthy of the proposed moderated
Objecti-statist forum will now reveal the meaning of your little joke to
all the Neo-Kook dummies:
Geoplanarian: Flat earther.
> |> >3) Anonymous posting should be forbidden
> |>
> |> Also a good idea, but this should be done on a case-
> |> by-case basis. It's not unthinkable that someone may
> |> have a legitimate reason to hide his or her name.
> |>
> |> Suppose that a mafia informant wanted to give an Ob-
> |> jectivist political critique of the FBI's inner work-
> |> ings. Such a message would not be out of place, but
> |> it would also require anonymity. While this example
> |> might seem farfetched, I would hate to have to exclude
> |> such a post! I would say that anonymous messages
> |> should be refused unless there is a demonstrable need
> |> to keep the poster's identity secret. I can think of
> |> no recent messages on a.p.o. where such a need has
> |> arisen, but it may well arise in the future.
> |>
>
> I think that this possibility is sufficiently remote that
> it can be ignored. There are other venues where such a
> person would be both welcome and of greater interest -- say
> one of the libertarian groups. Remember that a significant
> fraction of a.p.o's participants are not Americans, and an
> issue of essentially local interest is not that important to
> many of us.
Guess what assholes? There are ways around moderation. And if you
forbid anonymous posting, you might find yourself being taught a SPECIAL
LESSON.
In any case, this is all evidence of what cowardly, gutless worms many
Objectivists are, unwilling to deal in an open forum.
Why not crawl into your private mailing lists?
By the way, if this proposal gets to the config group in a serious way,
I will give up my little war with Neo-Tech and devote myself to defeating
this stupid proposal. At the very least I will help further diminish the
already wretched reputation of orthodox Objectism among freedom loving
people.
Nicholas Rich
>
> In article <4etant$g...@noc.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>
> (big snip)
> > premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
> > basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
>
> pinnacle of truly open discussion and free speech. That is why the
> statists are now targeting it with thier guns and their lawyers. Usenet
> is a wonderful thing. I seriously question the committment to liberty of
> anyone who thinks that Usenet is bad because it is not CONTROLLED!
> Some Objectivists - I call them Objecti-statists - don't like an open
> forum where people can say what they please. They prefer a sort of
> philosophical Disneyland - a proprietary, gated community of mutual
> admiration society members all stroking each other's Objectivist dogma -
> which is of course the standard for admission to the community.
> Objectivism will become more and more irrelevent and cultic if
> Objectivists continue in their pathological fear of heresy and alternative
> points of view.
I'll have to exercise some objectivity and jump into KOAH's court on
this one.
And I practice what I preach. I'm pleased for his recent excursions in
shaking up and adding energy to debates--on both apo and an-t.
--
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble a...@ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants
We settle and resolve problems between businesses including lawsuits
judgments, liens, problem payables and problem receivables--through
ADR, out-of-court and always on a *results-only* basis. We quickly
resolve both Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable problems.
Earn substantial referral fees. Or, become an affiliate and learn how
to cash in on the industry of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
and earn a 6 figure income working from home.
Nicholas Rich
> Guess what assholes? There are ways around moderation. And if you
> forbid anonymous posting, you might find yourself being taught a
> SPECIAL LESSON.
> In any case, this is all evidence of what cowardly, gutless worms
> many Objectivists are, unwilling to deal in an open forum.
> Why not crawl into your private mailing lists?
> By the way, if this proposal gets to the config group in a serious
> way, I will give up my little war with Neo-Tech and devote myself to
> defeating this stupid proposal. At the very least I will help further
> diminish the already wretched reputation of orthodox Objectism among
> freedom loving people.
Aw, c'mon. Just when it starts to get fun. Can't you find time for both?
:)
Jimmy Wales
prevent posts of certain kinds from cluttering the newsgroup. I would
oppose and vote against any of the other proposals that I have seen.
I do have one question though, and my support is contingent on the
resolution of this issue. Betsy gave the example of a prohibition in the
charter against the discussion of "WingPower". Posts containing the word
"WingPower" would be automaticaly sent back to the poster with an
explanation and direction for posting to "alt.fan.wingpower".
Now, suppose some new threat comes to light. By what process will it be
determined that posts containing that keyword will be excluded? There is
a two-fold problem -- if that process is overly difficult to implement,
we may never move forward with necessary prohibitions. If that process
is too *easy* to implement (by which I mean, by too small a minority), then
we could wind up with exclusions on keywords like "Speicher"! (Actually, the
obvious danger would be an exclusion on the keyword "Kelley".)
--Jimbo
Matt Keys
: I agree with most of Brad's remarks. There is thing that I disagree with,
: if I understand him correctly -- the idea that there should be any
: plausibility to the claim that posts on NT are related to Objectivism. As
: I wrote previously, it does not take philosophic sophistication and
: familiarity with Objectivism to recognize a wacko Sci-Fi cult for what it
: is. Also, there is the legitimate issue of deferring to experts in areas
: where you are ignorant. If most of the participants on a newsgroup send
: messages to a net provider complaining that their customers are spamming
: it with off-topic postings, that is itself should be legitimate evidence
: to them -- given their context of knowledge --that net abuse is occurring.
Quote
Objectivist Heroes
Objectivists frantically trying to flame fully integrated
honesty off the Internet anxiously flatter one another as
Objectivist Heroes defending the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
I've experienced those kind of heroes for over 30 years,
ever since encountering them as desperate hangers-on in
the Branden/Rand lectures of the 1960s in New York City.
Back then, they were characterized by their capes and
cigarette holders. They were the sycophantic defenders of
their ego facades leached from Ayn Rand's monumental
achievement: Objectivism. Throughout the years, such
Objectivists have remained the biggest impediment to
advancing Objectivist philosophy around the world.
Today, those ersatz Objectivists are panicking. And why
not? After 30 years of faking heroic Galtisms and
shrugging Atlases, they are being revealed in cyberspace
as contradictions to everything Objectivism means in
living competitively, honestly, through business-like
modes. Similarly, in cyberspace, fully integrated honesty
is exposing the fakeries and dishonesties of politicians
and many government-dependent academics. ...Eventually,
all such fakes will disappear as nothing in cyberspace.
Today, as back then, those pseudo Objectivists appear as
sad, boring people. Yet, they are basically harmless,
kind of pitiful. Today, as back then, perhaps not a
single, self-made businessperson or really successful
entrepreneur exists among them. How many are really
excited about what they do for a living? How many are
genuinely proud of their competitiveness -- of their
value-producing competence? Most have no idea of the
incredibly difficult journey required to independently
produce long-range, competitive values and jobs for
others. Ayn Rand knew. But, most of her dependent
followers never knew.
Today, on the Internet, some of her most dependent
followers seem to be on edu lines, perhaps living off
some kind of public funds with lots of idle time on their
hands. They can never acknowledge the wide-scope
Objectivist nature of fully integrated honesty. For, that
wide-scope, active use of Objectivism through the
competitive dynamics of Neo-Tech reveals stimulating
powers beyond any imagined god -- exciting powers
possible for all conscious beings. Such competitive
dynamics become illusion-collapsing threats to
ego-dependent followers of Objectivism -- especially
those living stagnant lives that are going nowhere.
What are those Objectivist Heroes harping about? What do
they do besides tear down values? What do they do
constructively? Have any of them ever made the
excruciating effort or borne the racking pain oft
required to do anything really important, to take big
risks for big payoffs, to alone face down dangerous armed
evil in the real world, or even to build and maintain a
business that creates competitive values and jobs for
others?
Many who attack fully integrated honesty are trying to
elevate their self-perceived images by making problems
where none exist. One should always ask those who tear
down values what they have done to make themselves proud
of their lives -- what they have done to produce growing,
long-term competitive values for themselves, others, and
society. Today, such people might be called wimps. Ayn
Rand had a better word: pip-squeaks.
In reality, Objectivism never needs defending. Moreover,
only commercially competitive efforts increase the
permanent, long-range value of Objectivism to
civilization. And finally, Neo-Tech has never attacked a
single tenet of Objectivism. Instead, Neo-Tech vigorously
applies and commercially advances every tenet of
Objectivism throughout the world.
By contrast, those ego-seeking pontificators of
Objectivism will unnecessarily waste their precious lives
on nothing much. Most will never discover their exciting,
glorious potential in the value-producing business
dynamics throughout cyberspace. ...Yet, the helping hand
of Neo-Tech is always extended. Still, from Neo-Tech, no
leader, guru, or authority is available for anyone to
follow, obey, or defend -- only fully integrated honesty
with wide-scope integrations is available for all to
understand, use, and produce prosperity.
The contributors to Neo-Tech integrations, not the
flamers of Neo-Tech, are Objectivists. More important,
only through Neo-Tech business modes is Objectivism
pushed forward, into the competitive market place,
bringing integrated honesty and exciting Objectivism to
the general public worldwide.
End Quote
Anonymous
Klein ) wrote:
> In <4etant$g...@noc.tor.hookup.net> ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) writes:
>
> >...they are betraying every fundamental principle of Objectivism, in a
> >gruesome display which is becoming more obviously irrational and
> >hostile to objectivity all the time.
>
> What, it wasn't enough that you stole the word "Objectivism" from its
> proper place as envisioned by Rand? Now you have to go after the word
> "objectivism" as well? You're like a f**king tyrant, never satisfied
> with the loot he's already stolen!
Jim, cast off those chains! A FUCKING MOTHERFUCKING SHITTER ASSHOLE
COCKSUCKER PISSANT TYRANT! A TIN PLATED DICTATOR WITH DELUSIONS OF
GALTHOOD!
A complete dick.
> Closed-minded??? What would you call someone who won't even allow
> himself to *see* words in opposition to his beliefs?
But bad words cause brain damage? You wouldn't want him to blow a
gasket and end up like James Taggert, would you?
> Dogmatic??? How would you describe someone who quotes Rand (even on
> issues like libertarianism which were a different concept in her time)
> like it was Jesus himself speaking from Heaven above?
>
> I'll match my objectivism, both in thought and action, against Asia's
> any time of the day or night. I've reluctantly but voluntarily agreed
> to the theft of the word "Objectivism" (at least for now); use of the
> word "objectivity" is simply too much to stomach. I have no choice but
> to declare "war" in this regard. (I'm so upset, I'm even mixing
> tenses!)
Time to kick ass and take names!
> >I think that Usenet in general has proceeded from some rather flawed
> >premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
> >basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
>
> I think this is a long winded way of saying, "Do as I say, not as I
> do." Unless Asia has published more than 20K in a venue other than
> a.p.o. today, it can be *objectively* stated that on Feb. 2, 1996, Asia
> considers a.p.o. the most proper place on the planet to offer his ideas
> (actually, they're more like "feelings"). This appears to be a fairly
> strong argument on behalf of anarchism. After all, if it can please a
> dogmatic character who dislikes anarchism so much, think what it *may*
> do for an objective person! Myself, I'm still reserving judgement.
Usenet FUCKS THE SKULL of DOGMATIC ASSHOLES of ALL KINDS! That is why
BaBaBrad QUAKES IN TERROR and PEES ALL OVER HIMSELF in the face of the
STARK TRUTH that is revealed by the LIE DETECTOR of the NET! The
incredible power of an unplanned, uncoordinated collaborative project with
everyone putting in whatever they want forming an accellerated planetary
memetic evolution system!
YeeeeHAW! The FREE NET is not for WIMPS!
Brad, go back in your playpen. Leave the real world for those of us
with the BALLS to withstand open debate!
Bryce
Again let me emphasize that we have no chance of getting
"sci.philosophy.objectivism", though I myself would vote for
it provided that it was unmoderated and the charter did not
exclude anyone who thought that they were relevant to
Objectivism. (An extreme position, I know, and I'd be happy
to discuss it if you're interested...)
But anyway, you might have a chance at
"talk.philosophy.objectivism", if only because there are a
lot of a.p.o. readers who might be convinced to vote YES.
Advantages of t.p.o. over a.p.o.:
1. As much as twice the distribution. Yes! Your
brilliant, witty and world-changing posts can now be read by
something on the order of twice as many people!
2. Less riff-raff. If people are doing "Make Money Fast",
floating flame-wars, trying for the Hook Line and Sinker
Award and forth, they are more likely to keep cross-posts
within the "alt" hierarchy. Well, in theory anyway. I did
some scouting around and "talk.philosophy.misc" has more
than enough cross-posting from alt religion groups.
So like I said, not a snowball's chance in hell of
"sci.philosophy.objectivism" appearing in the next few
years. To most participants in news.groups,
"sci.philosophy.scientology" would be just as appropriate.
I personally would vote for s.p.o., but I think no-one else
would who wasn't at least a semi-O'ist.
You O'ist evangelists have been falling down on the job, o
I guess. :-)
And to re-iterate, I will oppose and vote against any
moderation, human or automatic, and against any charter
which excludes people who think that they are Objectivists.
I will watch this with interest, because of the "twice the
distribution" angle, because of the moderation angle (did
I mentioned that oppose that?), and because it will be
interesting when the issue hits news.groups, to watch the
O'ists interacting with the Usenetters. I fully expect the
O'ists to behave badly and leave Usenetters with the same
low opinion of Objectivism that they started with.
(I'll take bets, in fact...)
Regards,
Bryce
"Toys, Tools and Technologies"
<a href="http://www.c2.org/~bryce/Niche.html"> the Niche </a>
New Signal Consulting -- C++, Java, HTML, Ecash
<a href="mailto:br...@c2.org"> Bryce </a>
PGP sig follows
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01
iQCVAwUBMRVdY/WZSllhfG25AQGJuwP/VsC1cmp3pqoaHbN+eq6l87nxzWifY7Wg
HaKszdH6zxWPGDRgthxSMpXIJ3ORQ4YJVBnIxklHHROgd63QnovJY7NcG8k23+Gb
ZTzOBbIS9d/pH+cQb0K+AeyjzJLaa88uxx4rBrdhtIm16AVxB5K88TRNuDFzm01J
0L/wytZ9AjE=
=RSWp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tony Donadio
: On 03-Feb-96 16:18:21, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
: > I think this is basically correct. When reasonable, well-mannered
: > discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily,
: It must become involuntary?
: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you chose your
: words poorly. If this is *not* the case and your (and Brad's) slippery
: slope is asserting itself again, then:
<Irrelevant Rand quote deleted>
I chose my words carefully enough. When a burglar does not "voluntarily"
refrain from entering your house and stealing your money, you stop him by
force -- "involuntarily," as far as he is concerned. When you create
property, you have the right to protect it -- by force, if necessary.
Tom Radcliffe
|>
|> Tom Radcliffe <t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca> wrote:
|>
|> >This makes any form of moderation based on
|> >*content* fraught with difficulty. I would quite frankly not
|> >even trust Paul Hsieh with this task, although he would be
|> >much better at it than most...
|>
|>
|> Plus the fact that he is not even an Objectivist would make him one
|> of the *least* appropriate moderators of any such hypothetical Objectivist
|> newsgroup.
|>
Actually, I disagree with this. It is easier for non-believers to
be objective on disputes involving issues of faith, so if one is looking
for an ideologically-neutral moderator a non-Objectivist is probably
the most appropriate type of person to have.
|> (But at least he's a geo-spheroidian -- or more accurately, a
|> geo-prolate-ellipsoidian...)
|>
|>
Geo-*prolate*-ellipsoidian?
You're working to hard, Paul.
Betsy Speicher
> I support Betsy's proposal for a newsgroup with a "moderator-bot" to
> prevent posts of certain kinds from cluttering the newsgroup. I would
> oppose and vote against any of the other proposals that I have seen.
> Now, suppose some new threat comes to light. By what process will it be
> determined that posts containing that keyword will be excluded?
I think this should be done by the same process by which the moderated
newsgroup was established in the first place: a standard Request for Votes
(RFV) with a requisite majority and the usual (cannot have more than 100
votes against, I believe) protection for minority interests.
Billy Beck
>And if the culture has deteriorated to the
>point where an unmoderated forum is not feasable as an alternative, then
>it's time for us to get out the razor-wire and start building those
>fences.
Swell.
So much for "the power of ideas".
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 1/24/96
Tom Radcliffe
|> In article <4etl7a$d...@knot.queensu.ca>, t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom
|> Radcliffe) wrote:
|>
|> >
|> > I call N. Ritch and his two friends geoplanerians because
|> > they are too stupid to figure out why I do so.
|>
|> This anonymous heretic who is not worthy of the proposed moderated
|> Objecti-statist forum will now reveal the meaning of your little joke to
|> all the Neo-Kook dummies:
|> Geoplanarian: Flat earther.
|>
They already know *that*. I called them stupid, not ignorant.
THINK99999
"Objectivist Heroes" -- Very accurate response.
Quote
Objectivist Heroes
End Quote
ZONPOWER
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/
Lance Neustaeter
On 03-Feb-96 16:18:21, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
> I agree with most of Brad's remarks.
>[...]
>: I think that Usenet in general has proceeded from some rather flawed
>: premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
>: basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
> I think this is basically correct. When reasonable, well-mannered
> discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily,
It must become involuntary?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you chose your
words poorly. If this is *not* the case and your (and Brad's) slippery
slope is asserting itself again, then:
The next time you encounter one of those "public-spirited" dreamers
who tells you rancorously that "some very desirable goals cannot be
achieved without *everybody's* participation," tell him that if he
cannot obtain everybody's *voluntary* participation, his goals had
jolly well better remain unachieved--and that men's lives are not
his to dispose of. --"Collectivized Ethics", VOS
Lance
--
AMIGA - Multimedia, Preemptive Multitasking, Plug'n'Play since 1985.
THINK99999
Bravo to Anon on this one. A near perfect bull's eye. Maybe he could
write for NTP. His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers to as
Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz "Objectivists". DE
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Jason's newgroup proposal (ver. 1.0 alpha)
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 15:00:50 -0800
Anonymous wrote:
>
> In article <4etant$g...@noc.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
wrote:
>
> (big snip)
> > I think that Usenet in general has proceeded from some rather flawed
> > premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
> > basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
>
> The Objectivist retreat from open debate continues. Usenet is the
> pinnacle of truly open discussion and free speech. That is why the
> statists are now targeting it with thier guns and their lawyers. Usenet
> is a wonderful thing. I seriously question the committment to liberty
of
> anyone who thinks that Usenet is bad because it is not CONTROLLED!
> Some Objectivists - I call them Objecti-statists - don't like an open
> forum where people can say what they please. They prefer a sort of
> philosophical Disneyland - a proprietary, gated community of mutual
> admiration society members all stroking each other's Objectivist dogma -
> which is of course the standard for admission to the community.
> Objectivism will become more and more irrelevent and cultic if
> Objectivists continue in their pathological fear of heresy and
alternative
> points of view.
> - King of all Heretics
I'll have to exercise some objectivity and jump into KOAH's court on
this one.
And I practice what I preach. I'm pleased for his recent excursions in
shaking up and adding energy to debates--on both apo and an-t.
--
Bryce
Lawrence M Sanger <lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>So is talk.philosophy.*, as you noted yourself. You failed to
>reply to my most important point, namely, that in order to get
>the group into sci.philosophy.* you will have to argue that Oism
>is a science, against a lot of people who will disagree with
>you. (Note: not that *philosophy* is a science, but that *Obj-
>ectivism* is a science.) Now, regardless of the fact about
>whether or not it is a science, do you believe you can
>*persuade* them (or enough of them) that it is?
>
>If you think so (you have not said you could, one way or another),
>good luck. I will be happily surprised if I am proven wrong.
Larry, you are exactly right re: why sci.phil.o'ism won't
fly, but if I may take the opportunity to put you on the
spot, would *you* argue for s.p.o'ism's existence? Would
you put your academic reputation up for criticism by
standing alongside the likes of Brad Aisa and Betsy Speicher
(whom I name here for being outspoken non-academic (or
anti-academic?) philosophers) and arguing that the
philosophy of Objectivism deserved to be named alongside
meta-philosophy and logic in the sci.phil.* hierarchy?
I can't decide if I would, myself. I think it would be good
for the a.p.o.'ers to rub elbows with the credentialed
philosophers, but I'm not sure if the resulting friction
would lead to positive changes (from both sides) or just
(even further) entrenched mutual disgust.
Hm.
Of course, this is all academic (whoops! heh heh) since
s.phil.o'ism can't win the necessary supermajority. (Or is
it a simple majority? I forget.) It would be really
interesting to see aforementioned non-academicians trying to
convince aforementioned academicians to vote for their
newsgroup though. Would they tone down on the "academia is
morally culpable for our societies ills" line during the
campaign? :-) If they *did* I would be curious how they
justified this apparent inconsistency. If they *didn't*...
"Let's see now. You would like for me to vote for your
inclusion in the sci hierarchy next to my newsgroup so that
you can more effectively propagate the notion that I am a
dishonest traitor to humanity whose malicious lies have lead
generations into moral ruin? Did I get that right?"
Heh heh heh...
Okay I'll put some more factual (that is: less speculative)
and less inflammatory material in a parallel post re: the
current structure of sci.philosophy.*.
Bryce
"Toys, Tools and Technologies"
<a href="http://www.c2.org/~bryce/Niche.html"> the Niche </a>
New Signal Consulting -- C++, Java, HTML, Ecash
<a href="mailto:br...@c2.org"> Bryce </a>
PGP sig follows
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01
iQCVAwUBMRZuevWZSllhfG25AQHK8QP7BqSe2yPRGyG2jW1y/cYmtQbvmcUZvJXO
QFTbLJ8O1cyM4AvgAImExMZTUbTOzDyhM21r6tJ8medz66Kcm1sBdHkGIYzIOa74
0NL2XeZ9E96XB+zVtEOy+4u+fKqrtahNXeBnfJMqzvh0PAomWLEpTGbOQgQvTwJC
6gtkUA3tQaI=
=RhR2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
Donadio) wrote:
> I agree with most of Brad's remarks. There is thing that I disagree with,
> if I understand him correctly -- the idea that there should be any
> plausibility to the claim that posts on NT are related to Objectivism. As
> I wrote previously, it does not take philosophic sophistication and
> familiarity with Objectivism to recognize a wacko Sci-Fi cult for what it
> is.
We agree on one thing at least. It is also obvious that the Neo-Kooks
know very little about Objectivism. They almost never discuss any
specifics of Rand's work, rather they use some jargon picked up from the
Neo-Crap 'literature' and spew what amounts to commercial crap about the
cult.
> Also, there is the legitimate issue of deferring to experts in areas
> where you are ignorant. If most of the participants on a newsgroup send
> messages to a net provider complaining that their customers are spamming
> it with off-topic postings, that is itself should be legitimate evidence
> to them -- given their context of knowledge --that net abuse is occurring.
ISPs cannot discipine every person who generates complaints. They
cannot possibly evaluate whether the people complaining are legit or not -
especially when an obscure topic like Objectivism is the issue. Spamming
is at least definable. 'on topic' is not.
For example, Tricky Nicky's automated replies to me and others are
definitely on the edge of net abuse. But his inane custom written replies
are not.
> However, the basic issue is this: can internet users and providers today,
> in our current culture, be counted on to exercise rationality in these
> matters? As things are developing, I do not think so -- and the attacks
> on apo are evidence to that effect. Any attmept to maintain an "open
> forum," however, HAS to count on the basic rationality of the forum's
> participants and those who provide access to it.
Is a.p.o. really under attack? I think the Neo-Scum are lying, no good
jerks, and they are promoting a pathetic cult started by a despicable con
man, but their posts hardly constitute an _attack_. You wanna see
attacks, go on over to alt.religion.scientology and watch personal
information from confessional folders of ex-cult members being posted,
people being threatened with litigation, people's home phone numbers and
true names being posted by their mortal enemies, the most vicious and
psychotic personal attacks by actual scientology employees and indentured
servants (Sea Org) against anyone who dares speak against the cult, and
actual armed raids being conducted against critics by scientology thugs.
Or go back to the days of purely spam and flame attacks by
alt.syntax.tactical against rec.pets.cats.
You don't know what an attack is...
> : I think that Usenet in general has proceeded from some rather flawed
> : premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
> : basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
>
> I think this is basically correct. When reasonable, well-mannered
> discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily, you
> have no choice but to "put up fences" -- that is, create a forum,
> establish property rights to your creation, and implement methods to
> defend it against incursion. This is, for example, what OSG and #Aynrand
> have done. The more I think about it, the more I am being led to the
> conclusion that apo -- in its current form, as an "open forum" -- is dead.
> And I am equally pessimistic about the chances for ANY kind of "open"
> forum in today's culture.
But the net is not your property. No one thinks that your particular
sect of Objectivism deserves its own newsgroup. At best you might get an
unmoderated talk. group.
> Cooperation with the Tolerationists on setting up a moderated newsgroup
> would necessarily make it Tolerationist by that fact, and would thereby
> sanction and concede their entire viewpoint. That is not an option for
> and advocate of Objectivism. And if the culture has deteriorated to the
> point where an unmoderated forum is not feasable as an alternative, then
> it's time for us to get out the razor-wire and start building those
> fences.
What an apt analogy - put up the razor wire. But is that prison keeping
the tolerationists OUT or is it keeping you IN?
Anonymous
Donadio) wrote:
> Jim Miller (ji...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
>
> : >I think this is basically correct. When reasonable, well-mannered
> : >discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily, you
> : >have no choice but to "put up fences" -- that is, create a forum,
> : >establish property rights to your creation, and implement methods to
> : >defend it against incursion.
>
> : Then if you believe all these things, I suggest you keep to your safe,
> : moderated mailing lists and insular discussion groups. It's a little
> : too late to castigate Usenet now, for these reasons, when you've been
> : enjoying the wide dissemination and free speech fruits of this medium
> : to spread your message for quite some time.
>
> Why? This is a non-sequitur. I'm not the one who has been spamming
> newsgroups with off-topic posts. Do you think that the fact that I've
> been trying to use the medium in spite of its obvious problems obligates
> me to pretend that they don't exist, and are getting worse? Give me a
> break!
Your error comes from thinking that the people who run the myriad
systems that make up usenet have the slightest interest in doing anything
to protect you from your many enemies, real and imagined. You don't just
want to be rid of the Neo-Kooks, you want to be rid of the Kelleyites, the
anarchists, the libertarians and everyone else on the planet who deviates
one nanometer from the pure Objectivist way as defined by you.
No one is going to want to waste directory space to add
alt.objectivist.orthodox.jihad or alt.kelley.die.die.die.moderated.
Anonymous
Donadio) wrote:
> Lance Neustaeter (la...@portal.ca) wrote:
>
> : On 03-Feb-96 16:18:21, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
>
> : > I think this is basically correct. When reasonable, well-mannered
> : > discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily,
>
> : It must become involuntary?
>
> : I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you chose your
> : words poorly. If this is *not* the case and your (and Brad's) slippery
> : slope is asserting itself again, then:
>
> <Irrelevant Rand quote deleted>
>
> I chose my words carefully enough. When a burglar does not "voluntarily"
> refrain from entering your house and stealing your money, you stop him by
> force -- "involuntarily," as far as he is concerned. When you create
> property, you have the right to protect it -- by force, if necessary.
When you have constructed your own usenet from the bottom up, come back
and lecture us some more about your property rights to control it.
Jason Kuznicki
>I support Betsy's proposal for a newsgroup with a "moderator-bot" to
>prevent posts of certain kinds from cluttering the newsgroup. I would
>oppose and vote against any of the other proposals that I have seen.
Why is it that a "moderator-bot" is so much better for the job than a
human? After all, SOMEONE must tell the 'bot what to accept and what
to kill. Rather than being a guarantee of impartiality, it will be-
come a mask for personal bias.
Further, it would be far better to have a human moderator, simply be-
cause a post may be rude without employing any four-letter words, and
may not be about Objectivism, while employing the name and ideas of
Ayn Rand. Both the criteria for acceptance as currently stated are
completely contextual; only a human could sort them out.
>I do have one question though, and my support is contingent on the
>resolution of this issue. Betsy gave the example of a prohibition in the
>charter against the discussion of "WingPower". Posts containing the word
>"WingPower" would be automaticaly sent back to the poster with an
>explanation and direction for posting to "alt.fan.wingpower".
I see nothing wrong with this; the case of "WingPower" could even be
handled by a 'bot if necessary. Not so the other items to weed out...
>Now, suppose some new threat comes to light. By what process will it be
>determined that posts containing that keyword will be excluded? There is
>a two-fold problem -- if that process is overly difficult to implement,
>we may never move forward with necessary prohibitions. If that process
>is too *easy* to implement (by which I mean, by too small a minority), then
>we could wind up with exclusions on keywords like "Speicher"! (Actually, the
>obvious danger would be an exclusion on the keyword "Kelley".)
Not true. The way the charter is written, all that a post must have to
be included in sci.philosophy.objectivism is 1) polite language and 2)
something having to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy. To my knowledge,
this means that most posts having to do with David Kelley would also
qualify, since he draws on many of her ideas. Theoretically, any human
being with some knowledge of Objectivism could moderate to the satis-
faction of all, provided that posts were held only to the standard
given in the charter.
This standard by no means implies sanction--S.p.o.'s posting requirements
are explicitly non-ideological, not in deference to "tolerationism" (the
meaning of which I am still struggling to understand), but because in
this way, s.p.o. will preserve its public character and allow for dis-
cussions between Objectivists and non-Objectivists, one of the best ways
to learn about Objectivism that I know of. Wouldn't we all like to have
a public forum where Objectivists and non-Objectivists can discuss the
ideas of Ayn Rand together in a polite manner? That is exactly what
s.p.o. is designed to do, and it *can* work.
Even our tired old friend, the academic Marxist, could moderate s.p.o.;
all that is required is knowledge of what constitutes politeness and
knowledge of Ayn Rand's philosophy, both of which are matters of public
record. It requires no great moral virtue to moderate according to the
charter, nor should it necessarily.
I find it very disheartening that the posters on this thread, most of
whom identify themselves as Objectivists, have so little trust in one
another that they dare not even suggest a moderator. This isn't about
Kelley-Peikoff; it's not about any of the personal feuds that have
splattered across a.p.o. over the years. It's a simple matter of
trust, trust over a relatively simple matter itself. If you are so
untrusting of each other, I suggest you ask yourselves exactly what
you hope to gain by discussing with one another. Further, ask your-
self what kind of person would bother wasting his time on moderating
the discussions of such people. I, for one, would not.
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"The Eldar wondered much at the strange fate of Men, for in all their
lore there was no account of it, and its end was hidden from them."
--J. R. R. Tolkien, _The Silmarillion_
Lance Neustaeter
On 05-Feb-96 20:24:12, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
> Lance Neustaeter (la...@portal.ca) wrote:
>: On 03-Feb-96 16:18:21, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
>: > I think this is basically correct. When reasonable, well-mannered
>: > discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily,
>: It must become involuntary?
>: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you chose your
>: words poorly. If this is *not* the case and your (and Brad's) slippery
>: slope is asserting itself again, then:
> <Irrelevant Rand quote deleted>
> I chose my words carefully enough. When a burglar does not "voluntarily"
> refrain from entering your house and stealing your money, you stop him by
> force -- "involuntarily," as far as he is concerned. When you create
> property, you have the right to protect it -- by force, if necessary.
So people who refuse to participate in reasonable and well-mannered
discussion on usenet have violated your rights, just like a burglar,
and warrant "retaliatory" force?
Hello?
Lance
--
If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the
secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. --Ed Abbey
Betsy Speicher
> In article <4f3ioc$k...@Venus.mcs.com>, jwa...@MCS.COM (Jimmy Wales) wrote:
> >I support Betsy's proposal for a newsgroup with a "moderator-bot" to
> >prevent posts of certain kinds from cluttering the newsgroup. I would
> >oppose and vote against any of the other proposals that I have seen.
> Why is it that a "moderator-bot" is so much better for the job than a
> human? After all, SOMEONE must tell the 'bot what to accept and what
> to kill. Rather than being a guarantee of impartiality, it will be-
> come a mask for personal bias.
It can be set up to reject ONLY those postings which violate the
newsgroup charter in the specific ways those setting up the newsgroup
have voted for in a standard UseNet CFV. The bot instructions can be
modified only by a similar CFV. The reason a bot would be better than a
human is that it can read through thousands of postings rather quickly and
impartially, it won't hold up acceptable postings, it doesn't have kids,
it doesn't have to go to work or class the next day, its isn't an
advocate of WingPower, etc.
> Further, it would be far better to have a human moderator, simply be-
> cause a post may be rude without employing any four-letter words, and
> may not be about Objectivism, while employing the name and ideas of
> Ayn Rand. Both the criteria for acceptance as currently stated are
> completely contextual; only a human could sort them out.
This is the kind of content and judgement calls that I wouldn't want any
moderator, human or bot, to be making. We might, for instance, set up a bot
to automatically reject any postings that (1) are cross-posted to more
than 5 newsgroups, (2) contain more than 10 swear words from a list of
same, and (3) mention words that the majority have voted in a CFV are off-
topic here (Dave Rhoades, Arthra, Wing Power, etc). Just this move alone
would remove 99% of the junk on a.p.o.
BTW, several other newsgroups have problems similar to ours. Right now
they are considering a "robomoderator" on soc.religion.quaker. They have
been flooded by off-topic postings coming from just one guy. Quakerism
forbids setting any man above any other man, so they don't want a
moderator. They just want to take their newsgroup back.
You can read about this and other issues on news.admin.net-abuse.misc.
Tony Donadio
: So people who refuse to participate in reasonable and well-mannered
: discussion on usenet have violated your rights, just like a burglar,
: and warrant "retaliatory" force?
Only in a forum where you have established valid property rights.
I went out of my way to make myself clear on this. I have better things
to do that waste my time responding to gratuitous insinuations, so I won't
comment further on this thread.
DEFanyo
In article <4f6l5c$d...@panix2.panix.com>, Tony Donadio (tdon...@panix.com) writes:
>Lance Neustaeter (la...@portal.ca) wrote:
>
>: On 03-Feb-96 16:18:21, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
>
>: > I think this is basically correct. When reasonable, well-mannered
>: > discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily,
>
>: It must become involuntary?
>
>: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you chose your
>: words poorly. If this is *not* the case and your (and Brad's) slippery
>: slope is asserting itself again, then:
>
><Irrelevant Rand quote deleted>
>
>I chose my words carefully enough. When a burglar does not "voluntarily"
>refrain from entering your house and stealing your money, you stop him by
>force -- "involuntarily," as far as he is concerned. When you create
>property, you have the right to protect it -- by force, if necessary.
A burglar is analogous to a post that intrudes on your sense of
correct action? My word... that's stretching it just a bit, isn't
it? What are you asking for here -- that other posters
"voluntarily" censor themselves by limiting their remarks to those
of which you may approve? Get real!
And, by the way, you have my permission to set up any kind of a
moderated (controlled) group your little hearts may desire :-) --
just a long as you keep your sticky fingers off apo!
--Dorothy Fanyo
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFanyo Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor
defy@teekay,win,net of life, take *big* bites. Moderation is
for monks. RAH [emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Neustaeter
On 07-Feb-96 08:35:36, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
> Lance Neustaeter (la...@portal.ca) wrote:
>: So people who refuse to participate in reasonable and well-mannered
>: discussion on usenet have violated your rights, just like a burglar,
>: and warrant "retaliatory" force?
> Only in a forum where you have established valid property rights.
> I went out of my way to make myself clear on this. I have better things
> to do that waste my time responding to gratuitous insinuations, so I won't
> comment further on this thread.
My my. You share alot more than just substantive issues with Brad
(excepting of course that you can still see my posts--a condition I assume
will not continue much longer). If you can't be right, at least you can be
righteously indignant.
How convenient of you to have removed the quotes which give lie to your
statement. Make note that you are now pretending that we were talking
about "a forum where you have established valid property rights". Your
original quotes were NOT about said beast. Let me fetch them for you:
On 05-Feb-96 20:24:12, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
> Lance Neustaeter (la...@portal.ca) wrote:
>: On 03-Feb-96 16:18:21, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
>: > I think this is basically correct. When reasonable, well-mannered
>: > discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily,
>: It must become involuntary?
You were agreeing (with Brad) that the fact that "reasonable, well-mannered
discussion and rationality can no longer be counted on voluntarily" was
really annoying (Power mongers shaking in rage that they cannot have
control over the posters in UseNet). Both of you continued on in your
posts with militaristic metaphors and talk of retaliation. I gave you the
benefit of the doubt that this was merely poor phrasing, but you refused to
take it--instead switching the topic to one of rights-violations which
warrant the use of force (which has nothing to do with what you were
talking about in the first place). You may have "went out of [your] way to
make [yourself] clear on this" but the price you paid was too high (you
were "clearly" wrong, but at least you didn't have to admit the sin of
"poor choice of words"!). Is there *nothing* more valuable to you than
saving face? Righteousness is never having to say "I was wrong"?
Lance (newest addition to Donadio's blankout-file)
--
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Ludwig Wittgenstein: The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the objects
"chicken" and "road", and circumstances came into being which caused the
actualization of this potential occurrence.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >This is the kind of content and judgement calls that I wouldn't want any
> >moderator, human or bot, to be making. We might, for instance, set up a bot
> >to automatically reject any postings that (1) are cross-posted to more
> >than 5 newsgroups, (2) contain more than 10 swear words from a list of
> >same, and (3) mention words that the majority have voted in a CFV are off-
> >topic here (Dave Rhoades, Arthra, Wing Power, etc). Just this move alone
> >would remove 99% of the junk on a.p.o.
> And we all know that X swear words is the magic limit between civility
> and rudeness, and that mentioning certain things, even parenthetically,
> for whatever reason (like David Kelley (like this)), is completely
> unwarranted and threatening to Peikoffians everywhere.
This is silly. I have nothing against mentioning David Kelley here or
elsewhere. One of the virtues of a no-man's land like a.p.o. is
precisely that it IS a no-man's land that belongs to neither side.
That's why I like to participate. (I would not participate in MDOP
because that is Kelleyite turf, unlike a.p.o..)
My goal -- and that of many big-O's and small-o's alike -- is to cut the
noise level here on a.p.o. down to a more reasonable level. I want to
only filter out the kind of junk that 99% of the readers of this
newsgroup object to but which has managed to take up such an enormous
percentage of the bandwidth.
> Your proposal is unworkable. People, especially on the net, adapt around
> censorship, create their own variant ways to type words and express ideas.
> For it to be at all effective, you'd invest a large amount of energy into
> pattern-matching algorithms that would keep being defeated again and again.
Like I said, a simple filter approved by a standard UseNet CFV will deal
with most of the grossest abuses.
Lawrence M Sanger
>I went out of my way to make myself clear on this.
That's completely false.
Larry Sanger
Jim Miller
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>I submit we must check our premises. If a system isn't working IN A BIG
>WAY, the answer is not band-aids, but identification of the *fundamental*
>error.
>
>There is no way to make Usenet work in the long run. It is based on
>essentially anarchic premises, which must needs have a certain set of
>consequences and no other.
Usenet seems to work fine for the millions of people who use it every
day. It doesn't work well for protectors of orthodoxy, I'll grant you
that.
>Further: I submit that the failures of Usenet will be used as a
>justification for a massive censorial intervention by government.
Usenet isn't the bogeyman, because you say so, suddenly; the large
popularity of more user-friendly and eye-catching tools like the Web,
and the increasing incorporation of these elements into K12 and mainstream
society, is what's getting the government's attention, to a large extent.
This increase in visibility is in turn largely due to entrepreneurs
and big business wanting a piece of the buck -- everybody is a web page
designer now, or hiring one, which creates ancillary markets, new media,
advertising, which in turn creates even more visibility, worried parents,
hand-wringing, and phone calls to Congressmen...the whole sickening spiral
of hype, greed, and cashing in, perpetuating itself and in the process
ruining a good thing for everyone.
>Usenet is even a failure at a technological level. It is so flaky that
>posts get dropped everywhere. And the thing which even allowed the creation
>of this monster, was inappropriate government funding in the first place.
Um, the same government funding allowed the creation and sustenance of mailing
lists, IRC, and the hardware and infrastructure upon which they and all other
aspects of the net depend. A largely historically government-funded net
was the springboard for Randians to set up their little talk circles and
fancy themselves Rand revitalizers and cyber-crusaders. So I guess you'll
be disappearing off the net entirely soon? No? Why do I get the feeling
that you'll take your pick of either the righteous "we can't have *anything*
to do with the collectivists" mantra, or the pathetico-rebellious "use 'em
and fuck 'em, we didn't choose to have our country/social system/computer
network run like this and we don't owe 'em *nuthin*" stance (such as in the
PhD leaving Canada thread), whichever is advantageous in a given case?
You're a raving kook.
-jim
--
Jim Miller______515 Arbor Drive #6______San Diego______California_____92103
ji...@netcom.com.....jgm@umcc.umich.edu.....http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jgm/
(619) AWL-SWAP * San Diego County's Premiere Dealer in Used Leatherworking
Equipment * Buy-Sell-Trade * Since 1994 *
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > Guess what assholes? There are ways around moderation. And if you
> > forbid anonymous posting, you might find yourself being taught a
> > SPECIAL LESSON.
> > In any case, this is all evidence of what cowardly, gutless worms
> > many Objectivists are, unwilling to deal in an open forum.
> > Why not crawl into your private mailing lists?
> > By the way, if this proposal gets to the config group in a serious
> > way, I will give up my little war with Neo-Tech and devote myself to
> > defeating this stupid proposal. At the very least I will help further
> > diminish the already wretched reputation of orthodox Objectism among
> > freedom loving people.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> Aw, c'mon. Just when it starts to get fun. Can't you find time for both?
>
> :)
I'll see if I can work it into my busy schedule.
Actually, considering that this suggestion is already sinking like a
ball of neutronium, I doubt it will even reach the point of being a real
proposal.
If it does it will be laughed right out of the config group. Remember,
as far as the rest of the net is concerned, Peikoffites are as crazy as
YOU! :)
Jim Klein
>There is no way to make Usenet work in the long run. It is based on
>essentially anarchic premises, which must needs have a certain set of
>consequences and no other.
Yet you pick Usenet as a primary choice to handle YOUR communication.
>Further: I submit that the failures of Usenet will be used as a
>justification for a massive censorial intervention by government.
Of course, the success of Usenet would be used for the same thing. In
fact, whatever happens in any field, will always be used as
justification of governmental intervention. It's the nature of the
beast.
>Usenet is even a failure at a technological level.
Now here's an Objective comment. 30 years ago, there wasn't even a
single "personal computer" in existence. Today, millions of people
communicate worldwide on thousands of subjects, with pretty solid
reliability. This is failure? What would success have looked like?
>It is so flaky that posts get dropped everywhere.
Is this another Objective declaration? Does reality support the claim?
>And the thing which even allowed the creation of this monster, was
>inappropriate government funding in the first place.
If you want to be really technical, you'd have a hard time finding
ANYTHING which doesn't trace to government funding, directly or
indirectly, at least in part. But I do agree that the word
"inappropriate" applies in all cases, by virtue of the nature of
government funding. So what? Are you going to stay off the roads
today? Do you ride the subway? Would you call the fire department in
an emergency? DID YOU GO TO SCHOOL?
jk
Nicholas Rich
>
> In article <4f68hu$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, think...@aol.com
> (THINK99999) wrote:
> > His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
> > irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers
> > to as Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz
> > "Objectivists". DE
>
> But Wally, I thought I was a PIP who must be VANISHED from
> cyberspace? I've certainly recieved enough PIP TEMPLATES from you and
> your small band of followers. Today alone I got two or three of the
> things.
> Could it be that I actually do have more understanding than you
> know?
It was Drew Ellis who wrote that post, not Dr Wallace.
Yael Grauer
>Betsy (and a few others) wants to "rule" and
>censor a.p.o. Why? So only posters who
>agree with her can post?
This is ridiculous. Blocking out certain topics or words certainly
leaves room for disagreement. If "Betsy and a few others" didn't want
people to disagree or discuss, why would they be on here?
Jason Kuznicki
A few observations:
A. I am not a "Peikoffite," nor am I a "Kelleyite." I am an Objectivist,
and I have not yet made any kind of decision on this controversy.
Why this should make a difference is beyond me.
B. The proposal is doing quite well, thank you. Every person who has
privately e-mailed me about it has said that they are very much
in favor of some kind of a moderated group.
C. Config groups have approved newgrouping satanist groups, scientology
groups, and many other things far kookier than Objectivism. But
perhaps this will work against my idea; they might even be tempted
to listen to a kook who spouts such things as above, all from
behind the mask of an anonymous remailer.
A couple of suggestions:
First, read the charter if you want to criticize the proposal. Clearly,
you have not read it or understood it. Second, if you wish to oppose the
proposal or prevent it from passing, namecalling will not help you; after
all, it is just this kind of behavior that drives people to *want* a mod-
erated group.
Sincerely,
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of
physical force from social relationships--thus establishing the
principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they must do so
only by means of *reason*."--Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government"
Brad Aisa
>[ModeratorBot(TM) proposal]
>Your proposal is unworkable. People, especially on the net, adapt around
>censorship, create their own variant ways to type words and express ideas.
>For it to be at all effective, you'd invest a large amount of energy into
>pattern-matching algorithms that would keep being defeated again and
again.
I agree. The technical problems would be legion, both leakage and false
rejections. The system must eventually be supplanted by human intervention,
which would need to be controlled by someone -- who? Then the whole issue
gets back to sanction and ownership.
We must check our premises.
"Public property" is a contradiction in terms. The idea of a place which is
owned by no one, but open to everyone is a contradiction in terms.
There is a dangerous inversion here, with disastrous consequences. In
Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that light and power poles were "public
places", and that cities could not restrict "the freedom of speech rights"
of those posting bills on them. Thus, the owners of the poles (the
municipality or utility) could exercise no right of property over them,
because a contextless "freedom of speech" was declared more primary.
The fundamental contradiction with Usenet is lack of property rights. The
proper approach would have been for the originators to establish right of
property in the system, its software, method of propagation, membership,
etc. Then, every individual makes the decision whether to join or not,
based on the system, and there is a clear expression of rights involved in
every decision.
It need not be a commercial undertaking, but could equally be a cooperative
or association. There are very many undertakings which are not commercial,
such as unions, churches, sports clubs, intellectual associations, etc.,
which are perfectly legitimate. Usenet (or a successor) could be as well.
The most important thing about this association, is that it could exercise
its rights, especially as regards harrassment and abuse.
A system based on rights would lead to great benefits. But one based on
anarchy, can only (eventually) benefit the evil (of whatever variant),
which receives the benefit of the good's efforts, but which cannot be
thwarted by them.
So, all the good people, the engineers, programmers, volunteers, etc. who
have created Usenet, are now witnessing its abuse by all manner of creeps
and intellectual thugs etc. There is no way to prevent this, based on its
premises. What is worse, is that the whole thing is in danger of being
declared a "fundamental right", just like the power poles, which ISP's will
be compelled to maintain, so that people can exercise their "right to free
speech".
Sanction of the victims.
>Your newsgroup, the people who use it, and your beliefs in general would
>be viewed even more, for good reason, as insular, cowardly, unable to
>withstand critical examination, kooky, and cultish. Attempting to censor
>Kelley right out of the picture would be especially damaging for you, as
>you would be seen as unable to tolerate even respectable, serious
>challenge and modification of your ideas, something which is the basis of
>all academic or scientific fields, *including* philosophy. In other
>words, I fully expect the lot of you to sanction this proposal.
One can properly participate in forums which express views with which one
disagrees, provided one accepts the premises of the forum itself. An
example, is the Ford Hall Forum, which Ayn Rand spoke annually before. She
didn't agree with many or even any of the other speakers to this forum, but
she respected the intellectual standards of its sponsors.
I write letters to editors all the time, some of them in disagreement with
the editorial position of the paper. Papers publish these and other
dissenting views. Their standard is based on a number of things, but
primarily these are reason, intellectual honesty, civility, etc. They would
publish religious views as well, but this is based on the fact that many
people believe these things (apparently sincerely), and part of journalism
is expressing that which is, not necessarily that which is ideal. One
reports a murder, without assuming the premise murder is ok. Likewise, one
can report a variety of views in a newspaper, without sanctioning the views
themselves.
One of the things Kelleyites and their apologists seem ever desparate for,
is Objectivists to engage them in debate. Well, this is not surprising. The
mere existence of _debate_ legitimizes your opponent to a degree. If I were
to _debate_ someone like holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, that would be
tantamount to saying, "I agree that you are a rational person, who is open
to reason, but who has reached a wrong conclusion." But the evidence of my
senses (I trust my senses and my mind) is that he is intellectually
_dishonest_, does not respect reason, and in fact, is a figurehead to
violent and throughly contemptible, evil anti-semites. I am under no
intellectual obligation to debate Mr. Zundel, nor even to acknowledge his
views. When one has demonstrated the truth of a matter, one is under no
intellectual obligation to address those who attack you in dishonest, or
irrational ways. If that were the case, every significant intellectual
would have to spend 50 lifetimes addressing the specious protests of every
pitiful or envious entrenched mediocrity of the day.
So in answer to your comments, WHY should I want to, say, participate in
MDOP, which is run and moderated by Kelleyites? It is not like a newspaper,
or wide forum for various intellectual issues, but purports to be a forum
about Objectivism, which it most certainly is not.
There is a private forum for discussing Objectivism, called OSG. There are
several leading Objectivist scholars who subscribe and sometimes post. If a
person were _really_ interested in discussing and challenging or attempting
to refute Objectivism, that would be the appropriate place. It is
explicitly part of the charter that one of the proper subjects of postings
to the forum be attempts to refute Objectivism. And where better to have
such attempts analyzed and addressed than in a forum with leading
Objectivist scholars?
The thing that attracts people to places like MDOP is the *lack* of
objectivity implied in the group's charter. What is alleged to be
"toleration" of dissenting views, is actually a petulant insistence that
OBJECTIVITY be banished. OSG embodies objectivity in its charter, by
specifying that it is inappropriate to _continue_ promulgating views that
are inconsistent with Objectivism and have been demonstrated to be false.
The owner of the list, and the vast majority of the posting members, happen
to believe Objectivism is true, and from all accounts, have every rational
reason for doing so (i.e., they did their homework, and have considered all
reasonable challenges.) Permitting the continued promulgation of views with
which they disagreed, and knew to be false, would be a profound abdication
of integrity on their part. WHY should any man sanction his enemies? Such a
view may be a virtue in some philosophy, it sure as hell isn't in
Objectivism.
Why should a reputable chemist contribute to The Journal of Alchemy, or a
reputable physician debate a mystic in The Journal of Spiritual Healing?
Kelley and Company have set up this false canard, "toleration", which, as I
pointed out, is just a cover for rejection of objectivity. Legitimate and
reputable Objectivists are entirely willing to defend their views, and to
address civilized, rational attempts to refute their views. But only in a
context which is either relatively neutral as regards Objectivism as such,
or in Objectivist contexts which actually are.
>The Quakers, while generally very good people, perhaps shouldn't be looked
>to as especially experienced role models for Usenet.
"Good", by what standard??? It has been my experience that the timid and
humble are often the most vicious and dangerous. Thomas Paine sure had a
thing or two to say of the Quakers who opposed the revolutionary war by
positing that government (i.e., King) was metaphysical, not man-made.
--
Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ba...@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Ernest Brown
"Sanction of the victims"
If this is so, then the Objectivist ethic demands you leave this newsgroup
immediately. Don't take this as an attempt on my part to run you off, Brad,
but if you honestly believe this to be the case, the logic of your position
demands you quit posting here at the cost of trying to live a contradiction.
E. Brown
--
"Wisdom is justified of her children"
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > In article <4f68hu$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, think...@aol.com
> > (THINK99999) wrote:
>
> > > His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
> > > irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers
> > > to as Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz
> > > "Objectivists". DE
> >
> > But Wally, I thought I was a PIP who must be VANISHED from
> > cyberspace? I've certainly recieved enough PIP TEMPLATES from you and
> > your small band of followers. Today alone I got two or three of the
> > things.
> > Could it be that I actually do have more understanding than you
> > know?
>
> It was Drew Ellis who wrote that post, not Dr Wallace.
Is Drew a real person or another pen name for Wallace Ward?
If he is a separate person, I guess he hadn't got the word from Wacky
Wally that I am a Pip and a Nihilist and a Value Destroyer and that my
suicide is just around the corner!
How does Wally expect to vanish me from cyberspace if he can't keep his
own troops in line?
Betsy Speicher
> >BTW, several other newsgroups have problems similar to ours. Right now
> >they are considering a "robomoderator" on soc.religion.quaker. They have
> >been flooded by off-topic postings coming from just one guy. Quakerism
> >forbids setting any man above any other man, so they don't want a
> >moderator. They just want to take their newsgroup back.
> I submit we must check our premises. If a system isn't working IN A BIG
> WAY, the answer is not band-aids, but identification of the *fundamental*
> error.
> There is no way to make Usenet work in the long run. It is based on
> essentially anarchic premises, which must needs have a certain set of
> consequences and no other.
I disagree. UseNet is based on acknowledged, enforceable property
rights: the rights of the ISPs and the rights of the participants in
these forums. Contractual agreements and intellectual property rights
exist and are enforceable.
While the medium is new and the exact application of existing common law
has to be worked out in greater detail, it will be done as the need arises.
We do have means available to protect our interests. We can appeal to
UseNet NetAdmins and make use of existing UseNet options like CFVs and
moderated newgroups and killfiles. We can enforce our intellectual
property rights. We can contact the ISPs of the worst offenders (like
writing to ab...@netcom.com) since many breaches of nettiquette are also
breaches of ISP service contracts.
Nicholas Rich
> Is Drew a real person or another pen name for Wallace Ward?
He is an editor at NTP, a differnt person.
THINKfirst!
: In article <4f68hu$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, think...@aol.com
: (THINK99999) wrote:
: > Bravo to Anon on this one. A near perfect bull's eye. Maybe he could
: > write for NTP.
: I don't think so - my last name isn't Ward and I don't like being underpaid.
Heh! "That's a good one."
: Then again, I probably already am 'writing for NTP' in a sense if you
: actually publish your 'flame' book. Just be sure to quote my complete
: messages. We wouldn't want to lose any of my CONTEXT, now would we?
No, indeed!!!
: > His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
: > irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers to as
: > Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz "Objectivists". DE
: But Wally, I thought I was a PIP who must be VANISHED from cyberspace?
: I've certainly recieved enough PIP TEMPLATES from you and your small band
: of followers. Today alone I got two or three of the things.
: Could it be that I actually do have more understanding than you know?
No.
Reality is what is.
Sometimes you post honest, rational posts. And
there's no reason to pretend they're not honest
and rational if they *are*.
But other times, you attempt to distort, attack
or destroy reality in your effort to further your
wayward agenda -- regardless of how erroneous it
may be. At those times, you are a Pip.
Get it?
Reality is what is. Not what you (or I) pretend
it to be.
I wonder if you ever bother to read my .sig file.
What is *is*. (not what we *pretend* it is)
Perceive it. (make sure you see it for what it is)
Integrate it honestly. (don't bullshit around it)
Act on it. (live by it, by that what really *is*)
Idealize it. (hold an earnest embrace of reality
up and cherish it for what it allows you to do)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T H I N K f i r s t !
What is is. Perceive it. Integrate it honestly. Act on it. Idealize it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Keys
: We do have means available to protect our interests. We can appeal to
: UseNet NetAdmins and make use of existing UseNet options like CFVs and
: moderated newgroups and killfiles. We can enforce our intellectual
: property rights. We can contact the ISPs of the worst offenders (like
: writing to ab...@netcom.com) since many breaches of nettiquette are also
: breaches of ISP service contracts.
hmmm, here is a "Betsy-template" I posted
a few months ago. it hasn't been edited
too much. use this time-saving template
in reply to betsy's rants about NT/Z. she will
never fully-address the points contained in any of the templates,
just like she never repsonds in length to the 2ncd amendment
threads. this template is not as integrated, but it gets
the point across.
sour-keyboard net-abuse-fake automatic-lying Betsy
Any NT/Z post I've seen that has been cross-posted has been
relevant to the group its in. NT/Z directly relates
to politics and philosophy and physics, as can easily be seen
by reading the on-line book (which is on the net for free reading
and downloading)
Betsy doesn't care about net-abuse, she only cares about wiping
NT/Z off the net.
Consider that a few months ago, there was a raid on a.p.o by alt.evil.
Betsy never complained to news.admin.net-abuse.misc, she just
ignored them, for they were no threat to her. But, NT/Z
threatens her control over a.p.o (we are the Objectivists, she is
erstaz), so she got the idea to start a net-abuse campaign to try
and stir up trouble and get some posters to lose their accounts.
If Betsy did care about net-abuse, she would report the real cases of spamming
and trolling that occur all the time on a.p.o, even before the alt.neo-tech
group was formed. In fact, there was a 2-month long flame war
on a.p.o before alt.neo-tech was started, and no one complained about
net-abuse then. Only until after some integrated articles appeared
on a.p.o that exposed the Erstaz Objectivists, and only after the
NT/Z home page was finished, did Betsy start her campaign. Why?
Since these posts and the web page exposed her dishonesty with
regards to NT/Z, she had no choice but to try and stir up
problems where none existed by taking advantage of news admins
by trying to convince them NT/Z needs to be removed from the Net.
So she continues to waste bandwidth by complaining about every NT/Z post
she sees, regardless of how relevant it is to the
newsgroup it is posted in. Many new-admins have told
her to just shut up since objectively, no spamming
is occuring. And she continually insists that
NT/Z has nothing to do with Objectivism, which is an obvious lie,
obvious to any non-nihilist who reads the online book or the Neo-Tech
Discovery.
Matt Keys.
--
ZONPOWER
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/
Jason Kuznicki
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
>[In favor of a moderator-bot]
>
I think I'm starting to understand the wisdom of the moderator-bot idea.
The volume of traffic makes it a very good idea, and there seems to be
a broad consensus about the things we want to eliminate. Further, it
seems that this proposal will be the best way to get all sides to agree
with creating a group.
So now my question: Does anyone here have the practical knowledge of
how to operate said moderator-bot? If so, let me know; I can have a
formal Request For Discussion posted within the hour.
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu jt...@po.cwru.edu
"As your body floats down Third Street/ With the burn-smell factory closing
up/ Yes it's sad to say you will romanticize/ All the things you've known
before/... And as you take a bath in that beaten path/ There's a pounding
at the door."--They Might Be Giants
Lawrence M Sanger
>So now my question: Does anyone here have the practical knowledge of
>how to operate said moderator-bot? If so, let me know; I can have a
>formal Request For Discussion posted within the hour.
Jason, I can't help you with the moderator-bot, but I do think you
should respond (you really didn't do so sufficiently before) to the
point, raised by myself and a few others I believe, that the name
"sci.philosophy.objectivism" just wouldn't fly. The issue is not
whether Objectivism, or philosophy, *really is* a science; it has
to do with the fact (it really is a fact, as far as I am concerned)
that you *couldn't convince* the people voting on this proposal that
Objectivism should be in the sci.philosophy.* hierarchy. I think
you are being a tad irresponsible in not sufficiently responding to
this, *before* you set out to post a RFD.
The name that would probably be best and also *successful* in
getting the necessary votes is: "talk.philosophy.objectivism".
Sincerely,
Larry Sanger
Betsy Speicher
> In article <4f3l9h$8...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >
> >[In favor of a moderator-bot]
> So now my question: Does anyone here have the practical knowledge of
> how to operate said moderator-bot?
I don't, but the NetAdmins on news.admin.net-abuse.misc and the other news.*
hierarchy groups do. Some even volunteered to set up the bot for other
newsgroups.
> If so, let me know; I can have a
> formal Request For Discussion posted within the hour.
Right now there's a survey and an informal CFV about "robo-moderation"
going on in soc.religion.quaker and it might give you some ideas.
Yael Grauer
>way. What if my HONEST OPINION is that Ayn Rand was a FUCKING BITCH?
>What if I believe that Immanual Kant ROOL3Z and Rand DR00LZ?
Then why would you want to be on this channel?
Anonymous
Kuznicki) wrote:
> In article <4fcbf3$6...@utopia.hacktic.nl>,
> anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous) wrote:
> >In article <31153B...@ss-n.com>, Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anonymous wrote:
> >>
> >> > Guess what assholes? There are ways around moderation. And if you
> >> > forbid anonymous posting, you might find yourself being taught a
> >> > SPECIAL LESSON.
> >> > In any case, this is all evidence of what cowardly, gutless worms
> >> > many Objectivists are, unwilling to deal in an open forum.
> >> > Why not crawl into your private mailing lists?
> >> > By the way, if this proposal gets to the config group in a serious
> >> > way, I will give up my little war with Neo-Tech and devote myself to
> >> > defeating this stupid proposal. At the very least I will help further
> >> > diminish the already wretched reputation of orthodox Objectism among
> >> > freedom loving people.
> >> > - King of all Heretics
> >>
> >> Aw, c'mon. Just when it starts to get fun. Can't you find time for both?
> >>
> >> :)
> >
> > I'll see if I can work it into my busy schedule.
> > Actually, considering that this suggestion is already sinking like a
> >ball of neutronium, I doubt it will even reach the point of being a real
> >proposal.
> > If it does it will be laughed right out of the config group. Remember,
> >as far as the rest of the net is concerned, Peikoffites are as crazy as
> >YOU! :)
>
> A few observations:
>
> A. I am not a "Peikoffite," nor am I a "Kelleyite." I am an Objectivist,
> and I have not yet made any kind of decision on this controversy.
> Why this should make a difference is beyond me.
I apologize if I lumped you in with the Peikoffites or Kelleyites. I
was reading the thread and the subject of whether Kelleyites should be
given 'sanction' by being allowed to post to a moderated group came up.
> B. The proposal is doing quite well, thank you. Every person who has
> privately e-mailed me about it has said that they are very much
> in favor of some kind of a moderated group.
The only people who've seen it so far are Objectivists or those with an
interest in Objectivism. Once this gets into the great big world you'll
have to convince people with different views, some quite hostile to
Objectivism and perhaps a lot who think that Objectivism and Neo-Kook
deserve each other.
> C. Config groups have approved newgrouping satanist groups, scientology
> groups, and many other things far kookier than Objectivism. But
> perhaps this will work against my idea; they might even be tempted
> to listen to a kook who spouts such things as above, all from
> behind the mask of an anonymous remailer.
You miss the vast distinction between moderated and unmoderated groups,
and alt groups vs. 'mainstream' groups. You want to create a moderated
group in a major heirarchy, just so Objectivists can avoid the nastier
critics that they find annoying (and are apparently unwilling or unable to
killfile...)
This will sink like the Titanic.
> A couple of suggestions:
>
> First, read the charter if you want to criticize the proposal. Clearly,
> you have not read it or understood it. Second, if you wish to oppose the
> proposal or prevent it from passing, namecalling will not help you; after
> all, it is just this kind of behavior that drives people to *want* a mod-
> erated group.
Only if they are authoritarian dickweeds.
Brad Aisa
>Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> wrote:
>> There is no way to make Usenet work in the long run. It is based on
>> essentially anarchic premises, which must needs have a certain set of
>> consequences and no other.
>
>I disagree. UseNet is based on acknowledged, enforceable property
>rights: the rights of the ISPs and the rights of the participants in
>these forums. Contractual agreements and intellectual property rights
>exist and are enforceable.
It is true that ISPs have property rights, and have the right to carry
Usenet. I don't think anyone has attempted to secure any particular rights
in Usenet itself (as contrasted to something like the Clarinet news feeds),
so the rights are vested in the ISPs. But there is no real covenant of
property amongst the ISPs regarding Usenet.
I will repeat, that there is almost no way now for civilized users of
Usenet to protect themselves against harrassment by the malicious or
crazed. Such miscreants have an almost unlimited lattitude to harass, while
their victims have little recourse. This is because there is virtually no
concept of membership to Usenet.
Usenet is based on anarchic premises within a wider context of property
rights, in the exact same way that a hippie commune might be on private
property in a wider context of a society that protects rights. The fact
that the principle of rights exist in some form, is not the same as the
fact of their being employed in a manner conducive to achieving a
particular end.
Those who created this medium should have recognized that the technology
could easily be abused by miscreants, and should have established clear
rights of participation enforced by ISP's as a condition of carrying
Usenet. Now, we have a series of ad hoc band-aids to control spamming,
using technology also available to miscreants who can and do cancel
legitimate posts and harrass some Usenet denizens. And what those who have
created things like CancelMoose(TM) have done, can be usurped by special
interests for their own purposes. Then, we have a net.war, which is the end
to which all anarchy must lead.
>While the medium is new and the exact application of existing common law
>has to be worked out in greater detail, it will be done as the need
arises.
I don't think the right of people to engage in folly is in dispute.
>We do have means available to protect our interests. We can appeal to
>UseNet NetAdmins and make use of existing UseNet options like CFVs and
>moderated newgroups and killfiles. We can enforce our intellectual
>property rights. We can contact the ISPs of the worst offenders (like
>writing to ab...@netcom.com) since many breaches of nettiquette are also
>breaches of ISP service contracts.
A better system would be one in which there was a direct connection between
Usenet policies, and the right to carry Usenet. ISPs would _have_ to
enforce Usenet policies, or their feeds would be dropped. Now, things are
in reverse. Why should an ISP potentially lose a customer by trying to
discipline him? The current system puts the rewards and penalties in
exactly all the wrong places, which is why abuse is so difficult to deal
with.
I should make clear that I don't have any problem with discussion forums
which I am either not interested in, or in disagreement with. My concern is
not with the fact that persons wish to associate to discuss certain topics.
My primary concern is the right of people to NOT be subjected to
harrassment, spamming, libel, etc. A system with a proper hierarchy of
ownership and rights, would have safeguards built in to check such abuses.
A good real world example is a shopping mall, which is a public place, but
is nevertheless privately owned. There is a clear hierarchy of ownership,
and when you enter, you must obey the rules of civilized conduct
established by the proprietors, or you will be asked to leave. You will be
MADE to leave.
Imagine a shopping mall. Some creep walks in with a massive ghetto blaster,
and starts playing noise at 120 db. In a normal mall, the mall cops tell
him to turn it off. If he refuses, they tell him to leave. According to the
logic I see in favor of Usenet, there should be no mall cops. The answer,
is for the store owners to buy expensive noise cancelling systems, to
counteract the creep. Nor, will any attempt be made to expell the creep.
Or, if so, it is only out of one door, where maybe someone will try to keep
him out, but there are 200 other doors he can enter. Worse: the expensive
sound cancelling equipment is only good for that creep. Other creeps come
in and start menacing customers. So now, the stores hire people to escort
the customers from store to store. Then, creeps come in with spray paint.
So now, the stores make investments in hard to paint surfaces, and
automated paint stripping. Then, creeps...
Insanity. I'm not buying it.
Anonymous
You are so clueless. ISPs are private property. They can and do screen
their users through terms of service. What drives Objecti-statists like
you to distraction is the fact that these ISPs do not see themselves as
defenders of Objecti-statism, and will not punish their users on the basis
of any whining complaint they get from the self-appointed guardians of
Objecti-statism.
I believe that the 'Licalzi entity' you complained about earlier was
eventually gotten rid of by contacting ISPs about his genuine net abuse.
The standards for net abuse have to do with keeping it operational as a
forum for free discussion. Not necessarily 'rational' discussion by YOUR
standards, but discussion nonetheless.
Those who attempt to flood the net with spam are essentially trying to
destroy the structure of usenet itself as a medium for discussion.
The existing property rights of ISPs can deal with such threats.
They CHOOSE, as PROPERTY OWNERS, to dismiss your pathetic whining.
If you don't like it, BUILD YOUR OWN FUCKING USENET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- King of all Heretics
(tons more of the same sort of jackbooted authoritarian drivel deleted to
save everyone from the fucking boredom of seeing it again)
Anonymous
gene...@iguana.microserve.com (Yael Grauer) wrote:
But only the RIGHT KIND of disagreement expressed in the oh-so-polite
way. What if my HONEST OPINION is that Ayn Rand was a FUCKING BITCH?
What if I believe that Immanual Kant ROOL3Z and Rand DR00LZ?
If the range of debate is limited sufficiently you end up with a bunch
of pathetic losers discussing the relative virtues of Kirk and Picard (or
Roark and Galt).
That is what private mailing lists were designed for, and that's where
puritanical Objecti-statism belongs if its adherents cannot stomach a
little HARSH LANGUAGE and a few TOPICS they DEEM innappropriate.
John Galt
Objectivism, the philosophical ideas of Ayn Rand. Discussions of
all other topics, including, but not limited to, politics, theo-
logy, the philosophies of other thinkers, the physical sciences,
and commercial advertisements, shall be refused by the moderaters
without further consideration, except in cases where these posts
discuss said topics in the context of Objectivist philosophy.
^What would you have left to talk about?^
THINKfirst!
: Is Drew a real person or another pen name for Wallace Ward?
Different people.
: If he is a separate person, I guess he hadn't got the word from Wacky
: Wally that I am a Pip and a Nihilist and a Value Destroyer and that my
: suicide is just around the corner!
My guess is that he could tell from your post
what a numbskull you are. :)
: How does Wally expect to vanish me from cyberspace if he can't keep his
: own troops in line?
By watching you talk yourself into a corner.
David Friedman
> The fundamental contradiction with Usenet is lack of property rights. The
> proper approach would have been for the originators to establish right of
> property in the system, its software, method of propagation, membership,
> etc. Then, every individual makes the decision whether to join or not,
> based on the system, and there is a clear expression of rights involved in
> every decision.
I am curious whether you have the same view with regard to other
conversations. Consider, for example, the economics profession. Individual
journals are private property, but the profession belongs to nobody. I can
publish an article in the JPE, someone can answer it in the AER--and there
is no single owner who can shut anyone out of the conversation. Add to the
journals the mailing of preprints of articles, economists giving talks at
other universities, meetings ... .
Similarly here. You can have a proprietary conversation by using a
listserve. You can refuse to listen to someone by filtering your news and
EMail. But you cannot prevent the people you are talking with from talking
with others. That strikes me as a feature, not a bug.
David Friedman
Anonymous
(THINKfirst!) wrote:
> Anonymous (anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl) wrote:
> : In article <4f68hu$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, think...@aol.com
> : (THINK99999) wrote:
>
> : > Bravo to Anon on this one. A near perfect bull's eye. Maybe he could
> : > write for NTP.
>
> : I don't think so - my last name isn't Ward and I don't like being
> : underpaid.
>
> Heh! "That's a good one."
The best humor is based on reality.
> : Then again, I probably already am 'writing for NTP' in a sense if you
> : actually publish your 'flame' book. Just be sure to quote my complete
> : messages. We wouldn't want to lose any of my CONTEXT, now would we?
>
> No, indeed!!!
So, when is the 'Flame' book gonna be up?
> : > His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
> : > irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers to
> : > as Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz "Objectivists".
> : > DE
>
> : But Wally, I thought I was a PIP who must be VANISHED from cyberspace?
> : I've certainly recieved enough PIP TEMPLATES from you and your small band
> : of followers. Today alone I got two or three of the things.
> : Could it be that I actually do have more understanding than you know?
>
> No.
>
> Reality is what is.
And in reality I do understand a great deal more than you do. For one
thing I am immune from cultic belief systems. The nearest I ever came to
accepting one was with Ayn Rand, and 'Bob' snapped me out of that!
> Sometimes you post honest, rational posts. And
> there's no reason to pretend they're not honest
> and rational if they *are*.
>
> But other times, you attempt to distort, attack
> or destroy reality in your effort to further your
> wayward agenda -- regardless of how erroneous it
> may be. At those times, you are a Pip.
I am not trying to destroy reality, which would be impossible. I am
demonstrating the absurdity of the Neo-Tech cult.
You are helping me in my efforts by demonstrating the blinders that
cultist thinking places on otherwise intelligent people.
> Get it?
>
> Reality is what is. Not what you (or I) pretend
> it to be.
Yes, that's why your consciousness is limited! :)
> I wonder if you ever bother to read my .sig file.
I have done so.
> What is *is*. (not what we *pretend* it is)
Yes. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go
away. Philip K. Dick said that.
> Perceive it. (make sure you see it for what it is)
Yep. Human beings are limited in the real world.
> Integrate it honestly. (don't bullshit around it)
> Act on it. (live by it, by that what really *is*)
I avoid cults that promise unlimited power, and I act on reality as I
see it and understand it.
> Idealize it. (hold an earnest embrace of reality
> up and cherish it for what it allows you to do)
Hmmmm. I wonder about that last one. I do have dreams of the future,
based on an appraisal of what is possible in the real world. Is that
something like what you mean?
Nicholas Rich
Oh God. I can't count how many times I've fallen asleep at my kEEboard
reading endless threads about the meaning of some tucked away phrase
UTTERED by a character in one of the novels.
On and on and on.
I prefer a little ENERGY myself.
Olaf Weber
> I think I'm starting to understand the wisdom of the moderator-bot
> idea. The volume of traffic makes it a very good idea, and there
> seems to be a broad consensus about the things we want to eliminate.
> Further, it seems that this proposal will be the best way to get all
> sides to agree with creating a group.
There is something that I'd like to see from the people who are
serious proponents of a moderated group: given a day's crop of posts,
which ones would be refused. A report on this should contain
catergories like:
(i) Total number of posts arrived versus number that would
be refused.
(ii) For every criterion, how many posts would be refused
because of it. (Note that posts may be counted more
than once here.)
(iii) For threads in which posts were censored, how many
arrived on that thread, versus how many would be
refused.
(iv) For each poster of whom a post would be refused, how
many were posted by him/her, and how many of those would
have been refused.
Ideally, you'd also post the raw data, giving the message-id of each
post that would have been refused together with _why_ it had been
refused. (That is, the numbers of the criteria violated.)
The reason I'm asking is twofold: it will help you find out just how
much work moderation by hand is going to be, and it will give an
indication of the extent to which moderation will make a difference.
If you favour robo-moderation, this would still be a good exercise, as
it will help to determine whether (proposed) criteria do indeed have
the desired effect of removing the obnoxious without affecting the
legitimate.
I'd be loath to vote for a moderated group without an idea of what the
effects of the moderation policy would be like.
--
Olaf Weber
Dan Hankins
thinking about it a bit, it occurs to me to ask:
In what way would a moderated newsgroup that satisfied your criteria
(i.e. only Objectivists are allowed to discuss Objectivism there) differ
in content from OSG? The form might be more convenient (thread-following
tools and the like being more easily available for newsgroups than for
mailing lists), but otherwise it would be a duplication of OSG.
If this is what is desired, then I suggest the following: nominate
someone to be the Keeper of the KillFile. This killfile would kill *all*
posts to a.p.o save those by persons who are hotlisted in it.
Such a killfile would function as a kind of membership list for a
noise-free alt.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup. Sure, all the spammers
and neo-kooks and nihilists could continue to post stuff to a.p.o and
even reply to Objectivist Killfile members; but none of the members would
be bothered with that noise.
The list could grow by nomination of new members by existing
members, or by an OSG-like contract. Whenever the list changed, the
update would be sent out to all the members.
What do you think?
Dan Hankins
dhan...@gate.net
The answer to the subjective is the ostensive.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> wrote:
> >> There is no way to make Usenet work in the long run. It is based on
> >> essentially anarchic premises, which must needs have a certain set of
> >> consequences and no other.
> >
> >I disagree. UseNet is based on acknowledged, enforceable property
> >rights: the rights of the ISPs and the rights of the participants in
> >these forums. Contractual agreements and intellectual property rights
> >exist and are enforceable.
> A better system would be one in which there was a direct connection between
> Usenet policies, and the right to carry Usenet. ISPs would _have_ to
> enforce Usenet policies, or their feeds would be dropped.
That happens now. If an ISP permits its customers to spam, send
unsoliticited e-mail, etc. it can be declared a "rogue site." Then the
other ISP NetAdmins can actually disconnect the offending ISP from the
Internet by refusing to propagate and forward their postings, e-mail, etc.
Individual postings can also be cancelled by the NetAdmins throughout the
Internet as "Matt Keys" discovered when he met up with the
CancelMoose(TM) last summer.
Just read news.admin.net-abuse.misc for the continuing drama of the
NetAbusers vs. the NetAdmins. The NetAdmins are winning.
Brad Aisa
[suggestion for a trial of RoboModerator(TM)
>I'd be loath to vote for a moderated group without an idea of what the
>effects of the moderation policy would be like.
Hear hear! Kudos to Mr. Weber for bringing REALITY into this debate.
Please, demonstrate RoboModerator(TM) for us...
Lawrence M Sanger
>To tell the truth, I have no great preference one way or another
>as to the name of the group; this is definitely an issue open to
>compromise.
I don't have a great preference, either, except for the fact that
it would be *possible* (I think) to get talk.phil.obj through,
while sci.phil.obj is *much* less likely. What is the harm in
trying? Good question; perhaps none, perhaps it would be harder
to get t.p.o through after s.p.o is rejected. As for myself, I
think t.p.o is wisest.
Larry Sanger
Brad Aisa
Ernest Brown <73072...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Mr. Aisa,
>
>"Sanction of the victims"
>
>If this is so, then the Objectivist ethic demands you leave this newsgroup
>immediately. Don't take this as an attempt on my part to run you off,
>Brad, but if you honestly believe this to be the case, the logic of your
>position demands you quit posting here at the cost of trying to live a
>contradiction.
Not so fast buddy. The Objectivist ethics does not recognize martyrdom as a
virtue. Nor do I consider Usenet to be evil. It is a mixed bag, but is
predominantly an achievment of man's mind, and flourishes due to the
importance which its members place on ideas and conceptual communication.
I believe there are serious errors in its founding premises. I am trying to
explain those. There is no rational reason why I should completely abdicate
just on the basis of disagreeing with some of its premises.
Now, as to whether I should be posting on apo at all, is another question,
which I have been recently pondering.
Jason Kuznicki
lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
>Jason Kuznicki <jt...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Jason, I can't help you with the moderator-bot, but I do think you
>should respond (you really didn't do so sufficiently before) to the
>point, raised by myself and a few others I believe, that the name
>"sci.philosophy.objectivism" just wouldn't fly. The issue is not
>whether Objectivism, or philosophy, *really is* a science; it has
>to do with the fact (it really is a fact, as far as I am concerned)
>that you *couldn't convince* the people voting on this proposal that
>Objectivism should be in the sci.philosophy.* hierarchy. I think
>you are being a tad irresponsible in not sufficiently responding to
>this, *before* you set out to post a RFD.
I apologize for seeming as if I'm rushing into this; my fear has
been that the interest in a moderated newsgroup would fade if I
did not act quickly and that it would seem like just another
careless suggestion instead of a completely serious proposal.
To tell the truth, I have no great preference one way or another
as to the name of the group; this is definitely an issue open to
compromise. Most people whose responses I have seen have said
that sci.* would be the most appropriate, but talk.* would also
be appropriate, as it also has an established talk.philosophy.*
hierarchy. Unless there are any great and pressing reasons to
use the sci.* hierarchy, I will gladly write the formal proposal
for talk.philosophy.objectivism instead...once I do some reading
up on moderator-bots.
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"Intellectual pride is not...a pretense at omniscience or infal-
libility. On the contrary, precisely because man must struggle for
knowledge, precisely because the pursuit of knowledge requires an
effort, the men who assume this responsibility properly feel pride."
--Nathaniel Branden, "Mental Health vs. Mysticism and Self-
Sacrifice"
Jim Klein
>I believe there are serious errors in its founding premises.
Yet without its founding premises, in reality, it wouldn't exist...at
least not in its present form. Considering that the Internet is
absolutely the leading edge of modern advancements, it is plausible to
assume that without its "founding premises", whatever they were, it
wouldn't be here at all at this point in time.
I do realize that you're saying that with sufficient consideration,
along with "proper conceptualization" and "appropriate contexts", we
could design a much better system. This is a bit too reminiscent of
other politicians for me to accept. But hey...that's me. Maybe your
average guy on the street today will go for it!
jk
Dan Hankins
: Dan Hankins (dhan...@gate.net) wrote:
[...]
: : Such a killfile would function as a kind of membership list for a
: : and neo-kooks and nihilists could continue to post stuff to a.p.o and
: : even reply to Objectivist Killfile members; but none of the members would
: : be bothered with that noise.
: : What do you think?
:
: I think you should adopt NT.
Thanks for informing me of an omission in my killfile.
*plonk*
Dan Hankins
dhan...@gate.net
The answer to the subjective is the ostensive.
Irrational posters may be killfiled without notice.
GOD
Thankgod...uhh poor choice of words...anyhow thank you for finally starting
this move, it's hard enough as it is for me to get to alt Newsgroups from
my University. Then like everyone else we have to wade through hundreds of
completely irrelevant posts.
I'm all for it...either sci.philosophy.objectivism....or talk.*
Alex
--
[]----Georgia Tech-----------------------------------------------------[]
| Alexander Shkirenko |"...If men are to be ruled then the |
| gt0...@prism.gatech.edu | enemy is reason." |
| www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt0160a | --Ayn Rand |
| Students of Objectivism, College Republicans, Swimming, etc... |
[]---------------------------------------------------------------------[]
Olaf Weber
> In article <4fj38a$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
>> The name that would probably be best and also *successful* in
>> getting the necessary votes is: "talk.philosophy.objectivism".
> But only if it were proposed as an unmoderated group.
> Jason should investigate what happened to Ted Holden's proposed
> moderated catastrophism group ...
From what I've heard, the main problem was that many people who didn't
care about "catastrophism" one way or another thought that the idea of
a moderated `talk' group was self-contradictory. Thus the proposal
got a lot of NO votes from people who would not have voted at all
otherwise.
So it seems that there are three possibilities:
sci.philosophy.objectivism (moderated)
sci.philosophy.objectivism (unmoderated)
talk.philosophy.objectivism (unmoderated)
I favour t.p.o. over s.p.o. if the group is to be unmoderated. With
respect to a moderated group, I have a few questions:
(1) What is the proposed moderation policy? (*)
(2) What would a.p.o. look like under that policy?
(3) Who moderates, or on whose machine will RoboMod run?
(4) Are there backups?
(*) The proposal contains some hints for a human moderator, but says
nothing at all about the criteria RoboMod would use.
Note that even an unmoderated group may be a worthy target. The
`talk' and `sci' hierarchies have a better propagation than `alt', so
the potential public would be larger. And with a charter, it will be
easier to convince a sysadmin that a poster is flouting the rules set
for the group. (Like it or not, that is the primary enforcement
mechanism on usenet.)
--
Olaf Weber
Anonymous
lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
> Jason Kuznicki <jt...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >So now my question: Does anyone here have the practical knowledge of
> >how to operate said moderator-bot? If so, let me know; I can have a
> >formal Request For Discussion posted within the hour.
>
> Jason, I can't help you with the moderator-bot, but I do think you
> should respond (you really didn't do so sufficiently before) to the
> point, raised by myself and a few others I believe, that the name
> "sci.philosophy.objectivism" just wouldn't fly. The issue is not
> whether Objectivism, or philosophy, *really is* a science; it has
> to do with the fact (it really is a fact, as far as I am concerned)
> that you *couldn't convince* the people voting on this proposal that
> Objectivism should be in the sci.philosophy.* hierarchy. I think
> you are being a tad irresponsible in not sufficiently responding to
> this, *before* you set out to post a RFD.
>
> The name that would probably be best and also *successful* in
> getting the necessary votes is: "talk.philosophy.objectivism".
But only if it were proposed as an unmoderated group.
Jason should investigate what happened to Ted Holden's proposed
moderated catastrophism group, which was inspired by motives very similar
to those of the orthodox Objectivists who want a moderated group for
themselves.
People take a dim view of proposals designed to create special
newsgroups for cultists to promulgate their views without any harsh
criticism.
Brad Aisa
[outpouring of venomous effluvium]
Mr. Miller is exactly the kind of person I have no interest in reading or
discussing ideas with. He is precisely the kind of creep that private
forums exclude, and his hostility to such kind of associations is obvious:
he wouldn't be permitted into any.
Anyone who sincerely believes I wouldn't consider them to be creep of Mr.
Miller's order, but who read his post and has any questions for me as a
consequence, is invited to write me privately to discuss them.
Jim Miller
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>A good real world example is a shopping mall, which is a public place, but
>is nevertheless privately owned. There is a clear hierarchy of ownership,
>and when you enter, you must obey the rules of civilized conduct
>established by the proprietors, or you will be asked to leave. You will be
>MADE to leave.
>
>Imagine a shopping mall. Some creep walks in with a massive ghetto blaster,
>and starts playing noise at 120 db. In a normal mall, the mall cops tell
>him to turn it off. If he refuses, they tell him to leave. According to the
>logic I see in favor of Usenet, there should be no mall cops. The answer,
>is for the store owners to buy expensive noise cancelling systems, to
>counteract the creep. Nor, will any attempt be made to expell the creep.
>Or, if so, it is only out of one door, where maybe someone will try to keep
>him out, but there are 200 other doors he can enter. Worse: the expensive
>sound cancelling equipment is only good for that creep. Other creeps come
>in and start menacing customers. So now, the stores hire people to escort
>the customers from store to store. Then, creeps come in with spray paint.
>So now, the stores make investments in hard to paint surfaces, and
>automated paint stripping. Then, creeps...
A faulty, overblown analogy, meant to appeal to righteous indignation and
to bourgeois fear of disorder and of the lower elements. Aisa continues
to buck for the Noble, Crusading Speechwriter position for the Peikoffians
on the net.
The faults with this are glaring and cumulative. The basic problem for
Brad is that not all aspects of life should be like a capitalist storefront...
the basic misled idealism of the Randians getting in the way again. There
are no Usenet cops because its users recognize the value of a system of
free exchange of ideas with voluntary moderation and peer pressure, with
resort to external, legal force only in cases of extreme harm -- not as
a pervasive, rigid structure imposed on it from the get-go. *Many* of its
users also recognize that they are freely choosing to enter such a system.
Brad and some others have been bruised down on the trading floor, and now
they want controls imposed, only with their own special flavor and in
accordance with their sense of what is correct (which makes them alright, of
course)...how utterly unoriginal.
Ideas are grey, fluid, iffy things; it's often difficult to categorize
them or decide where they "appropriately" belong; obviously, a large
number of the Neo-Tech people and the Kelleyites and whoever else feel
that what they say has a lot of bearing on "objectivism", as in the
name of the newsgroup. This isn't even anything like two completely
dissimilar things, such as rock collecting and pictures of supermodels,
spilling over onto each other. You have a schism, more than one, and
still a large field of common interest is still claimed. You cannot
legislate this away. It isn't clear-cut, like the fact that loud music
that is annoying to the average customer will push them away. Nor
are the consequences of Usenet disagreement or even downright "misbehavior"
anything like the financial costs of a shopkeeper losing customers, or,
as in your ridiculous image, scrambling around like a Sisyphus protecting
his shop. Well-crafted kill files cost a couple minutes; the occasional
unwanted, stray post costs a couple seconds, and the worst damage that
is done is minor irritation to the reader...an exceedingly small cost.
Finally, a reader interested in philosophy is most likely discerning
enough to sort out different takes on issues, and after a short while
to learn that there might be separate "camps", and to identify them...
all of philosophy is like this. Your problem is in even viewing yourselves,
the tried and true Peikoffians, as vendors of certain orthodox philosophical
ideas which must be "sold" in pure, unruffled form to the philosophy-buying
public, or else another vendor will capture them. People are smarter
than you think, they synthesize their ideas, and no one has a monopoly on
the truth.
-Jim
--
| Jim Miller | "The whole problem with the world is that|
| ji...@netcom.com |fools and fanatics are always so certain of|
| j...@umcc.umich.edu |themselves, but wiser people are so full of|
|http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jgm/ |doubts." -- Bertrand Russell |
Anonymous
> In article <DMnqJ...@cwi.nl>, Olaf Weber <Olaf....@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> [suggestion for a trial of RoboModerator(TM)
> >I'd be loath to vote for a moderated group without an idea of what the
> >effects of the moderation policy would be like.
>
>
> Hear hear! Kudos to Mr. Weber for bringing REALITY into this debate.
>
> Please, demonstrate RoboModerator(TM) for us...
Brad: 'OCP's Robomoderator is the latest in thought-enforcement design.'
Olaf: 'How about a demonstration?'
Brad: 'OK - Betsy, post a message containing the words 'David Kelley' to
the newsgroup simulation'
Betsy: 'Yes sir.'
The ROBOMODERATOR's main guns swivel into place.
Robomoderator: 'DROP YOUR KEYBOARD!!!'
Betsy: 'What should I do?'
Brad: 'Drop it! Drop it!'
Robomoderator: 'YOU HAVE FIVE SECONDS TO COMPLY!!!'
The guns lock and load.
Betsy tosses the keyboard away.
Robomoderator: 'FOUR SECONDS! DROP YOUR KEYBOARD OR YOU WILL BE MODERATED!
Betsy: 'I've dropped it! I've dropped it!'
Robomoderator: 'THREE SECONDS!'
Betsy: 'Shut it down!'
Olaf: 'Zed plural alpha command override shutdown sequence!'
Robomoderator: 'TWO SECONDS! COMPLY NOW!'
Betsy: 'Noooooooo!'
Robomoderator: 'ONE.... ZERO...'
The main guns fire a furious volley of explosive ammo,
blowing Betsy to pieces.
Robomoderator: 'MODERATION SUCCESSFUL. A IS A. EXISTENCE EXISTS.'
Brad: 'Excellent. I want it installed and operational as
soon as possible. We should consider having them implemented net-wide -
soon irrationality will be eliminated from a.p.o, and then... the world.'
jlan...@starnetinc.com
Actually, I disagree with Mr. Aisa for the opposite reason. I've
recently been having the identical debate with someone in
chi.internet. I do think that there is some storefront analogy to be
made in internet, say, for example with the web and pornography, and
also with usenet and moderation and debate.
But I think people who use the net, many of them, are so excited, and
so unecessarily afraid that there are no other nets, that they wish
to forget that it's not really clear, at this time, who owns what.
There are, of course, other nets where this is made EXREMELY clear.
It is extremely important to get clear, in any discussion forum, what
the rules are, who owns what (if anyone or anything), and who
moderates (if anyone). There are probably some a decent number in apo
who would agree with me on this. But I don't think some of them have
tied that in yet with what the nature of Usenet is (so far as I can
tell, it is, by nature, pretty close to complete anarchy, though there
are apparently some courts of appeal on some basic matters).
>are no Usenet cops because its users recognize the value of a system of
>free exchange of ideas with voluntary moderation and peer pressure, with
>resort to external, legal force only in cases of extreme harm -- not as
>a pervasive, rigid structure imposed on it from the get-go.
Yes, down the road, I think Usenet will continue to have its value in
this way. But it's really going to be a battle, I think, to get
things clear.
Josh
DEFanyo
So it's against basic netiquite to repost a post and add only one
line. In order not to be impolite, I'm typing lots of words in
order to fill up at least two or three -- or perhaps even more --
lines so that I can say:
More power to The King -- a beautiful job! You-ns who are soooo
unhappy with APO, please go somewhere else with your MODERATION,
and leave us happy unregenerates alone!
--Dorothy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFanyo Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor
defy@teekay,win,net of life, take *big* bites. Moderation is
for monks. RAH [emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
Thank you. Thank you very much. You're too kind.
> You-ns who are soooo
> unhappy with APO, please go somewhere else with your MODERATION,
> and leave us happy unregenerates alone!
Oh, they plan to go away into their moderated little cesspool. There is
no way to retro-moderate an existing newsgroup so a.p.o. will continue to
pollute the precious bodily fluids of the net. But if or when they do
engage the Galtian cloaking device, it will not be to a talk.* or sci.*
group.
If they go the Tom Servo route they could create an alt.* group, but it
would get very little propagation.
Moderated groups have a history of losing in config.
These losers will learn that soon enough.
Anonymous
> Anonymous writes:
> > In article <4fj38a$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
>
> >> The name that would probably be best and also *successful* in
> >> getting the necessary votes is: "talk.philosophy.objectivism".
>
> > But only if it were proposed as an unmoderated group.
>
> > Jason should investigate what happened to Ted Holden's proposed
> > moderated catastrophism group ...
>
> From what I've heard, the main problem was that many people who didn't
> care about "catastrophism" one way or another thought that the idea of
> a moderated `talk' group was self-contradictory.
And the same objections will exist to a moderated
talk.philosophy.objectivism group.
> Thus the proposal
> got a lot of NO votes from people who would not have voted at all
> otherwise.
>
> So it seems that there are three possibilities:
>
> sci.philosophy.objectivism (moderated)
> sci.philosophy.objectivism (unmoderated)
> talk.philosophy.objectivism (unmoderated)
>
> I favour t.p.o. over s.p.o. if the group is to be unmoderated.
I would vote in favor of t.p.o. unmoderated. I would love more
propagation for my dissing of Rand! :)
> With respect to a moderated group, I have a few questions:
>
> (1) What is the proposed moderation policy? (*)
> (2) What would a.p.o. look like under that policy?
> (3) Who moderates, or on whose machine will RoboMod run?
> (4) Are there backups?
>
> (*) The proposal contains some hints for a human moderator, but says
> nothing at all about the criteria RoboMod would use.
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that a moderated group will pass.
> Note that even an unmoderated group may be a worthy target. The
> `talk' and `sci' hierarchies have a better propagation than `alt', so
> the potential public would be larger. And with a charter, it will be
> easier to convince a sysadmin that a poster is flouting the rules set
> for the group. (Like it or not, that is the primary enforcement
> mechanism on usenet.)
If the rules included a ban on anonymous posting I would, naturally,
consider it as bad as a moderated group and act to prevent the vote from
succeeding.
Anonymous
> In article <jimgmDM...@netcom.com>,
> ji...@netcom.com (Jim Miller) wrote:
>
> [outpouring of venomous effluvium]
>
> Mr. Miller is exactly the kind of person I have no interest in reading or
> discussing ideas with. He is precisely the kind of creep that private
> forums exclude, and his hostility to such kind of associations is obvious:
> he wouldn't be permitted into any.
>
> Anyone who sincerely believes I wouldn't consider them to be creep of Mr.
> Miller's order, but who read his post and has any questions for me as a
> consequence, is invited to write me privately to discuss them.
You amaze me. You respond to posts that are _tame_ and _innocuous_ as
if they were STARK RAVING HATE RANTS directed at you!
You want some HATE? I'll give you some HATE!
You make me puke you sanctimonious bag of steaming shit! I vomit on
your grave! May your mother be gang-raped by Gigeresue alien monsters
with 5 TRILLION GIANT PENISES! May your skull explode upon seeing an
irrational thought posted to a moderated discussion group. May you rot in
a charnel house built by the police state you constucted for militia
members, your head tattooed with a security code, your family killed in
front of you, all in the name of keeping the retaliatory force under
'rational objective control'!!! Ayn Rand is sucking on Satan's cock in
HELL! Leonard Peikoff secretly worships CAPTAIN KANGAROO! Objectivism is
nothing but Calvinism misspelled!
FUCK YOU BA-BA-BRADLEY AND THE AXIOM YOU RODE IN ON!
thin...@netcom.com
Competition lies beneath all the complaining commotion stirred by a few apo
strutters: Actively growing, business-mode Objectivism totally outcompetes
static, academe-mode Objectivism. Neo-Tech Objectivists are putting Ersatz
Objectivists out of business in Usenet's openly competitive atmosphere. That is
why those complainers who had enjoyed fake positions of power and authority on
apo are now desperately, vainly appealing to the Internet "government" to stop
the competition. ...Notice, they never complain about the countless examples of
genuine spamming occurring daily on apo. Besides being impotent, they are
dishonest.
In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>,
matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:
>Betsy Speicher (be...@speicher.com) wrote:
>
>: That happens now. If an ISP permits its customers to spam, send
>: unsoliticited e-mail, etc. it can be declared a "rogue site." Then the
>: other ISP NetAdmins can actually disconnect the offending ISP from the
>: Internet by refusing to propagate and forward their postings, e-mail, etc.
>
>I guess netcom.com is a "rogue site" ?
>
>
>: Individual postings can also be cancelled by the NetAdmins throughout the
>: Internet as "Matt Keys" discovered when he met up with the
>: CancelMoose(TM) last summer.
>
>and after that incident, netcom has never said a word to
>me about posting to a.p.o, despite tons of email from
>Betsy, Tony, Brad Ais!A and other "Objectivist Heroes".
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Objectivist Heroes
>
> Objectivists frantically trying to flame fully integrated honesty
> off the Internet anxiously flatter one another as Objectivist
> Heroes defending the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
>
> I've experienced those kind of heroes for over 30 years, ever
> since encountering them as desperate hangers-on in the
> Branden/Rand lectures of the 1960s in New York City. Back then,
> they were characterized by their capes and cigarette holders. They
> were the sycophantic defenders of their ego facades leached from
> Ayn Rand's monumental achievement: Objectivism. Throughout the
> years, such Objectivists have remained the biggest impediment to
> advancing Objectivist philosophy around the world.
>
> Today, those ersatz Objectivists are panicking. And why not? After
> 30 years of faking heroic Galtisms and shrugging Atlases, they are
> being revealed in cyberspace as contradictions to everything
> Objectivism means in living competitively, honestly, through
> business-like modes. Similarly, in cyberspace, fully integrated
> honesty is exposing the fakeries and dishonesties of politicians
> and many government-dependent academics. Eventually, all such
> fakes will disappear as nothing in cyberspace.
>
> Today, as back then, those pseudo Objectivists appear as sad,
> boring people. Yet, they are basically harmless, kind of pitiful.
> Today, as back then, perhaps not a single, self-made
> businessperson or really successful entrepreneur exists among
> them. How many are really excited about what they do for a living?
> How many are genuinely proud of their competitiveness -- of their
> value-producing competence? Most have no idea of the incredibly
> difficult journey required to independently produce long-range,
> competitive values and jobs for others. Ayn Rand knew. But, most
> of her dependent followers never knew.
>
> Today, on the Internet, some of her most dependent followers seem
> to be on edu lines, perhaps living off some kind of public funds
> with lots of idle time on their hands. They can never acknowledge
> the wide-scope Objectivist nature of fully integrated honesty.
> For, that wide-scope, active use of Objectivism through the
> competitive dynamics of Neo-Tech reveals stimulating powers beyond
> any imagined god -- exciting powers possible for all conscious
> beings. Such competitive dynamics become illusion-collapsing
> threats to ego-dependent followers of Objectivism -- especially
> those living stagnant lives that are going nowhere.
>
> What are those Objectivist Heroes harping about? What do they do
> besides tear down values? What do they do constructively? Have any
> of them ever made the excruciating effort or borne the racking
> pain oft required to do anything really important, to take big
> risks for big payoffs, to alone face down dangerous armed evil in
> the real world, or even to build and maintain a business that
> creates competitive values and jobs for others?
>
> Many who attack fully integrated honesty are trying to elevate
> their self-perceived images by making problems where none exist.
> One should always ask those who tear down values what they have
> done to make themselves proud of their lives -- what they have
> done to produce growing, long-term competitive values for
Matt Keys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectivist Heroes
themselves, others, and society. Today, such people might be
called wimps. Ayn Rand had a better word: pip-squeaks.
In reality, Objectivism never needs defending. Moreover, only
commercially competitive efforts increase the permanent,
long-range value of Objectivism to civilization. And finally,
Neo-Tech has never attacked a single tenet of Objectivism.
Instead, Neo-Tech vigorously applies and commercially advances
every tenet of Objectivism throughout the world.
By contrast, those ego-seeking pontificators of Objectivism will
unnecessarily waste their precious lives on nothing much. Most
will never discover their exciting, glorious potential in the
value-producing business dynamics throughout cyberspace. Yet, the
helping hand of Neo-Tech is always extended. Still, from Neo-Tech,
no leader, guru, or authority is available for anyone to follow,
obey, or defend -- only fully integrated honesty with wide-scope
integrations is available for all to understand, use, and produce
prosperity.
The contributors to Neo-Tech integrations, not the flamers of
Neo-Tech, are Objectivists. More important, only through Neo-Tech
business modes is Objectivism pushed forward, into the competitive
market place, bringing integrated honesty and exciting Objectivism
to the general public worldwide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
ZONPOWER
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/
Nicholas Rich
>
> Unstoppable Competition
> Competition lies beneath all the complaining commotion stirred by a few apo
> strutters: Actively growing, business-mode Objectivism totally outcompetes
> static, academe-mode Objectivism. Neo-Tech Objectivists are putting Ersatz
> Objectivists out of business in Usenet's openly competitive atmosphere. That is
> why those complainers who had enjoyed fake positions of power and authority on
> apo are now desperately, vainly appealing to the Internet "government" to stop
> the competition. ...Notice, they never complain about the countless examples of
> genuine spamming occurring daily on apo. Besides being impotent, they are
> dishonest.
Indeed. A simple reading of apo confirms this identification as irrefutable.
Notice particularly Aisa and philosophical butt-buddy Donadio giving each other
cyber-blowjobs on the "Brad Aisa complains to ISP..." thread.
I received a threatening email from Donadio this morning after he read my
response to his latest and became emotionally infuriated. Of course, he
dishonestly hid behind the lame, high-school tactic of "I tore it up without even
reading it."