CFV: humanities.philosophy.objectivism (disinterested parties)
Nicholas Rich
I received the following from someone who is apparently concerned over the
implications of this with respect to the guidelines in the CFV regarding
disinterested parties.
I believe SCOC stands for Southern California Objectivist Association, and
I am informed that it is an organization that no longer exists formally.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
To: SCOA CyberNet <SC...@speicher.com>
Subject: Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Dear SCOA CyberNet members,
I would like to enlist your help in a cause that may ultimately prove
important both as a way to spread and establish Objectivism and as a
step toward defining and enforcing property rights in that fertile new
medium of ideas: the Internet.
The UseNet newsgroup called alt.philosophy.objectivism (a.p.o.) has
existed on the Internet for about 3-4 years now as one of the
thousands and thousands of such groups. It has been a popular,
wide-open, no-holds-barred battleground frequented by Objectivists and
pseudo-Objectivists and anti-Objectivists, by the honest and the
dishonest, by the knowlegeable and the clueless, by old-timers and
_especially_ by newbies.
A.p.o. has been many an Ayn Rand fan's introduction to Objectivism.
It has been there that they first find out about the Ayn Rand
Institute, Objectivist groups in their town, Objectivist conferences,
etc. It is also there that they can see a few representatives of
Objectivism at its best as well as anarchists, libertarians,
tolerationists, and modern academic critics of Objectivism in all
their ugly reality, too.
For Objectivists who want to improve their debating skills, a.p.o.
has provided an unending stream of willing adversaries for target
practice using live intellectual ammunition. A.p.o. has also been a
happy hunting ground for a "recruiter" like me as I look over the
newbies and pick the best ones for referral to other Objectivist resources.
A.p.o.'s faults have all been an object lesson in what's wrong with
anarchy. Anybody can post anything and they do. The relevance to
Objectivism, especially on the threads cross-posted to twenty other
newsgroups, is often just about zero. In flame wars and other battles
it is not the most intelligent and honest who prevail, but the most
persistent, obnoxious, and abusive. A.p.o. has no defenses against
those out to dominate and disrupt the flow of ideas and, because of
its high profile and popularity, a.p.o. has been a frequent target of
spammers and trolls.
In the past year, a.p.o. has been under attack by followers of a
loony cult called Neo-Tech who have issued a "Takeover Manifesto" in
which they say they will take over _all_ of Objectivism and oust its
current "ersatz leaders" and then "rule cyberspace." While they
haven't yet taken over, they sure have made a mess of a.p.o.
In response, several of us on a.p.o. have proposed the creation of a
_new_ UseNet newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas
which will be called humanities.philosophy.objectivism (h.p.o.).
H.p.o. will have several advantages over a.p.o. It will be in a
recognized, official UseNet hierarchy, it will be carried at all major
Internet sites, be archived, and, best of all, it can be _moderated_.
Those of us who seek to preserve the wide-open neutral battleground do
not want content-based moderation; we just want to lower the
signal/noise ratio and avoid net-abuse. The h.p.o. charter calls for
an _auto_moderator -- a robot moderator which will be programmed to
ban postings which are cross-posted, posted by a proven net-abuser, or
mention Neo-Tech in any way, shape or form.
In order to get humanities.philosophy.objectivism into the official
UseNet hierarchy, WE NEED YOUR 'YES' VOTE. A CFV (Call for Votes)
has just been posted which contains complete instructions on how to
vote. Find out if and how you can access the UseNet newsgroup called
news.groups, read the posting with the subject of "CFV:
humanities.philosophy.objectivism," and follow the instructions EXACTLY.
Votes _must_ be posted by e-mail reply or follow-up to the CFV posting
or they will not have the correct header references. Those of you who
do not have a UseNet newsreader but do have access to the World Wide
Web can read and reply to the CFV on the newsgroup news.groups by
entering this URL:
news:news.groups
For h.p.o. to pass, it requires a 2/3 YES vote with 100 more YESes
than NOs. Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy. The
Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
lot of vote fraud.
We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
Establish Objectivism in the official UseNet hierarchy and strike a
blow for property rights in cyberspace.
Betsy Speicher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble http://www.ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants a...@ss-n.com
We settle and resolve problems between businesses including lawsuits
judgments, liens, payables receivables--through Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), out-of-court and always on a *results-only* basis.
Earn substantial referral fees. Or, become an affiliate and learn
how to cash in on ADR and earn a 6 figure income working from home.
http://www.ss-n.com/referral.html http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.html
Nicholas Rich
>For h.p.o. to pass, it requires a 2/3 YES vote with 100 more YESes
>than NOs. Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
>are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
>standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy. The
>Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
>more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
>variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
>lot of vote fraud.
Oh, incidently, I voted YES, and will certainly, above all, not change my
vote in light of this.
Vote yes. More now than ever. Claim your stake in the creation of HPO...the
creation which will be fully detailed in the FAQ to be regularly published
to apo.
Billy Beck
nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
>>For h.p.o. to pass, it requires a 2/3 YES vote with 100 more YESes
>>than NOs. Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
>>are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
>>standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy. The
>>Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
>>more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
>>variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
>>lot of vote fraud.
>Oh, incidently, I voted YES, and will certainly, above all, not change my
>vote in light of this.
>Vote yes. More now than ever.
Sold, Nick.
My "yes" vote will go out in this upload.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 4/16/96
Brad Aisa
>implications of this with respect to the guidelines in the CFV regarding
>disinterested parties.
As can be seen in the header, the message was sent to individuals with
Internet access who are interested enough in Objectivism to belong to an
Objectivist organization and subscribe to a Objectivist Internet mailing
list. Such persons form a natural constituency for the proposed group. The
guidelines are being respected.
>I believe SCOC stands for Southern California Objectivist Association, and
>I am informed that it is an organization that no longer exists formally.
If so, this is news to me -- SCOA is (as far as I know) the largest and
oldest adult Objectivist organization. I am sure Mrs. Betsy Speicher, Past
President and long-standing member (she was a founder I believe) would be
able to dispute the idea that this organization no longer exists.
[message to SCOA Cybernet subscribers omitted]
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
Visit the Capitalism FAQ!: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~shadab/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Bruce Baugh
>>For h.p.o. to pass, it requires a 2/3 YES vote with 100 more YESes
>>than NOs. Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
>>are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
>>standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy.
Many of us libertarians are absolutely delighted to see people using the
net for serious purposes as well as fun, and are fascinated by the
variety of experiments now going on in organizing a newsgroup. I am a
whole-hearted support of any proposal that doesn't have grotesquely bad
name space or some other basic flaw; in particular I urge my fellow
libertarians support humanities.philosophy.objectivism, since the net
badly needs more good places to discuss ideas.
I'd say "any libertarian who'd oppose h.p.o is an old poopy-head", but
somehow that's not quite the right tone. :-)
I will note, however, that gratuitous collective ad hominem seldom
generates support from people wavering on the sidelines of an issue.
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
Daedalus Games, makers of Shadowfist and Feng Shui
Nicholas Rich
In article <4ngsvq$s...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>In article <4nfupm$e...@nntp1.best.com>,
> nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>I received the following from someone who is apparently concerned over the
>>implications of this with respect to the guidelines in the CFV regarding
>>disinterested parties.
>
>Internet access who are interested enough in Objectivism to belong to an
>Objectivist organization and subscribe to a Objectivist Internet mailing
>list. Such persons form a natural constituency for the proposed group. The
>guidelines are being respected.
The following excepts from the letter demonstrate quite the contrary:
The UseNet newsgroup called alt.philosophy.objectivism (a.p.o.) has
existed on the Internet for about 3-4 years now as one of the
thousands and thousands of such groups. It has been a popular,
wide-open, no-holds-barred battleground frequented by Objectivists and
pseudo-Objectivists and anti-Objectivists, by the honest and the
dishonest, by the knowlegeable and the clueless, by old-timers and
_especially_ by newbies.
..
In order to get humanities.philosophy.objectivism into the official
UseNet hierarchy, WE NEED YOUR 'YES' VOTE. A CFV (Call for Votes)
has just been posted which contains complete instructions on how to
vote. Find out if and how you can access the UseNet newsgroup called
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
news.groups, read the posting with the subject of "CFV:
humanities.philosophy.objectivism," and follow the instructions EXACTLY.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Votes _must_ be posted by e-mail reply or follow-up to the CFV posting
or they will not have the correct header references. Those of you who
do not have a UseNet newsreader but do have access to the World Wide
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Web can read and reply to the CFV on the newsgroup news.groups by
entering this URL:
news:news.groups
For h.p.o. to pass, it requires a 2/3 YES vote with 100 more YESes
than NOs. Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy. The
Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
lot of vote fraud.
[Translation: Since we think the NTers will commit voter fraud, we need you
to call everyone you know and get them to vote.]
[And here's the most obvious piece about what her intensions are:]
We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Frankly Brad, in spite of all the bad feelings and wars, etc., I expect more
integrity from you.
Nicholas
Bruce Baugh
In article <4nh7jt$s...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich)
wrote:
>>As can be seen in the header, the message was sent to individuals with
>>Internet access who are interested enough in Objectivism to belong to an
>>Objectivist organization and subscribe to a Objectivist Internet mailing
>>list. Such persons form a natural constituency for the proposed group. The
>>guidelines are being respected.
>
>The following excepts from the letter demonstrate quite the contrary:
You would be demonstrating the contrary only if Usenet and the Internet
were synonymous, but they're not. There are thriving cultures that rely
on mail protocols, never (or at least seldom) crossing the path of the
cultures propagated via NNTP.
While it's less common these days, there was a time when e-mail access
without news access was completely unsurprising.
piranha
[newsgroups trimmed, originator of campaign message emailed.]
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
>To: SCOA CyberNet <SC...@speicher.com>
>Subject: Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>
[perfectly reasonable campaign message to a mailing list for which
the creation of this newsgroup is of interest zapped, because i
don't have any beef with that part.]
this, however, i _do_ have some beef with:
>Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
>more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
>variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
>lot of vote fraud.
so you have decided to try and combat it by doing a little
fraudulent campaiging of your own? see below:
>We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
>the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
i have no interest in your proposed newsgroup. but i think
what you're doing here goes beyond the level of campaigning
i find reasonable. "friends and people you know" have no
business voting on a usenet newsgroup in whose topic they
have no personal interest, and which they would likely not
participate in.
*bleagh*.
the more i see of this (i just saw something similar for
the proposed air-cargo group too), the more opposed i become
to the current system. it encourages this type of campaign-
ing, and that annoys me considerably.
currently i don't vote on groups in which i have no personal
interest. if i find fraudulent campaign material in my
mailbox, you might just have bought yourself a vote contrary
to your wishes.
stop fraudulent campaigning.
-alix
Betsy Speicher
piranha <pir...@excalibur.net5c.io.org> wrote:
> [newsgroups trimmed, originator of campaign message emailed.]
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
> >To: SCOA CyberNet <SC...@speicher.com>
> >Subject: Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >
> [perfectly reasonable campaign message to a mailing list for which
> the creation of this newsgroup is of interest zapped, because i
> don't have any beef with that part.]
> this, however, i _do_ have some beef with:
> >Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
> >more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
> >variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
> >lot of vote fraud.
>
> so you have decided to try and combat it by doing a little
> fraudulent campaiging of your own? see below:
> >We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
> >the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
> i have no interest in your proposed newsgroup. but i think
> what you're doing here goes beyond the level of campaigning
> i find reasonable. "friends and people you know" have no
> business voting on a usenet newsgroup in whose topic they
> have no personal interest, and which they would likely not
> participate in.
> *bleagh*.
Ooops! This was a misstatement on my part.
I meant to say (and have since corrected this message) to say that
Objectivists should contact their _Objectivist_ friends who have _UseNet_
_access_ and urge them to read the CFV.
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)
Jim Miller
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>> >Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
>> >more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
>> >variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
>> >lot of vote fraud.
>>
>> so you have decided to try and combat it by doing a little
>> fraudulent campaiging of your own? see below:
>
>> >We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
>> >the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
>
>> i have no interest in your proposed newsgroup. but i think
>> what you're doing here goes beyond the level of campaigning
>> i find reasonable. "friends and people you know" have no
>> business voting on a usenet newsgroup in whose topic they
>> have no personal interest, and which they would likely not
>> participate in.
>
>> *bleagh*.
>
>Ooops! This was a misstatement on my part.
>
>I meant to say (and have since corrected this message) to say that
>Objectivists should contact their _Objectivist_ friends who have _UseNet_
>_access_ and urge them to read the CFV.
...and vote YES!, whether or not they now use Usenet, or will use Usenet.
In her unabridged campaign letter to an off-Usenet Objectivism mailing
list, Speicher takes great pains to describe exactly what is a Usenet
vote, the history of this particular vote, the history of the Usenet
Rand newsgroups -- all in a tutorial style, clearly aimed at people
unfamiliar with Usenet and with Rand on Usenet, who are exactly the
type of people who should NOT be voting on a Usenet group. Speicher's
purpose is to use establish Rand mailing lists populated by like-thinking
people to recruit bodies in order to push this vote through. A pointer
to the CFV is given, with its own pro-newgroup language, which she
supplements with her own pro-newgroup propagandizing. She is happy
for the "con" side of the argument never to be seen by these bodies;
and this would only come to light by having a pre-existing interest
in Rand discussion on Usenet, previously being subscribed to the Rand
newsgroup which is engendering the newgroup, and having followed the
newgroup discussion on that group with interest. Speicher doesn't
care whether or not her recruits will be active participants in Usenet,
or even whether or not they ever use a newsreader again after going
through the mechanics of placing the "yes" vote -- she makes no
exhortations to this effect in her campaign letter, which, again, is
a streamlined piece of writing whose sole purpose is to extract
expected "yes" votes from people with closely matching ideology from
the Rand mailing list -- a rich mother lode of votes.
Speicher obligingly "oops!"es for us, but the character of her letter
already makes her intentions plain. The "misstatement" line is the
excuse after being discovered with the hand in the cookie jar, and
it doesn't excuse the basic dishonesty of the intentions of the person
committing the act.
I'll be submitting her original letter, along with my comments, to the
appropriate person or body in charge of investigating Usenet voting
fraud. Not only does this push the limits of accepted standards, as
it was intended, but it crosses over.
-Jim Miller
--
| 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 |
Brad Aisa
ji...@netcom.com (Jim Miller) wrote:
>In her unabridged campaign letter to an off-Usenet Objectivism mailing
>list, [Betsy] Speicher takes great pains to describe exactly what is a
Usenet
>vote, the history of this particular vote, the history of the Usenet
>Rand newsgroups -- all in a tutorial style, clearly aimed at people
>unfamiliar with Usenet and with Rand on Usenet, who are exactly the
>type of people who should NOT be voting on a Usenet group. Speicher's
>purpose is to use establish Rand mailing lists populated by like-thinking
>people to recruit bodies in order to push this vote through. A pointer
>to the CFV is given, with its own pro-newgroup language, which she
>supplements with her own pro-newgroup propagandizing.
I participated in earnest in the discussions which led to the original RFD,
and also in the public discussions.
One of the primary purposes of this entire endeavor, is to form a
newsgroup, on the legit "eight", for the discussion of Objectivism --
most particularly, one which will have a dramatically (repeat DRAMATICALLY)
higher signal-to-noise ratio than the current alt group:
alt.philosophy.objectivism. The purpose of this exercise is twofold: 1) to
attract back to Usenet, the very many good, intellectual participants who
once posted to apo (but have one-by-one given up in disgust over its
near-zero s/n ratio); and 2) to provide a high quality Usenet forum for
discussion of Objectivism for those with Internet access who are interested
in Objectivism.
Mr. Miller's argument is utterly specious -- since no reputable, moderated
Usenet forum currently exists in the "big eight" for the discussion of
Objectivism, just who in the hell are "interested parties" supposed to be?
Only the enemies of Objectivism and freedom of association maybe? Neat
trick.
For the creation of a new group, the intention of the vote is to determine
if there is sufficient support to warrant its creation. It is not an
exercise in mobocracy, so that busy-body enemies of freedom-of-association
like Mr. Miller can act as petty little power lusting dictators denying the
right of others to associate. The intention of 'no' votes is for cases
where existing hierarchies, charters, or methods of moderation are proposed
to be changed, and will affect an *existing* constituency of certain
newsgroups. It is also for cases where some form of fraud or dishonesty
were being perpetrated in the group charter -- but there is nothing of this
kind in the present group, which has received wide support from many
disparate "factions" of those interested in Objectivism.
If Mr. Miller were really interested in fairness, maybe he could provide an
objective definition of "interested", and explain to us just exactly how we
are supposed to verify that votes received (whether yes or no) were from
so-called "interested" parties (which in the case of creation of an
entirely new group, is a contradiction in terms anyway, as I noted).
However I doubt that Mr. Miller is interested in addressing the
contradictions and ambiguities in the Usenet newsgroup creation process,
since such rubber-concepts and slippery non-objective rules are so much to
the benefit of enemies of association and cabalistic power-lusters...
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
Please vote YES on newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
Chuck Kincy
In a great exhibition of intellectual prostitution, ba...@hookup.net
(Brad Aisa) wrote:
>For the creation of a new group, the intention of the vote is to determine
>if there is sufficient support to warrant its creation.
^^^^^^^
Convenient context-drop by Our Young Brad. The key is "support among
interested USENET READERS." This means that [1] you're already
reading Usenet, and [2] you're interested in seeing a group created on
this topic. If you do not read Usenet, you SHOULD NOT VOTE in
newsgroup creation. Did Betsy inform the mailing-list readers she
solicited of this? Most likely, no.
Note that you do not have to read a.p.o to qualify as an interested
Usenet reader. But if you never read any Usenet groups at all, you
definitely shouldn't vote on new groups. [A case could be made that
you should not vote if you are not a regular reader of Usenet, but
this case is weaker.] This is why vote-advocacy on mailing lists is
strongly discouraged, and may also be grounds for invalidation of a
vote.
> It is not an
>exercise in mobocracy, so that busy-body enemies of freedom-of-association
>like Mr. Miller can act as petty little power lusting dictators denying the
>right of others to associate. The intention of 'no' votes is for cases
>where existing hierarchies, charters, or methods of moderation are proposed
>to be changed, and will affect an *existing* constituency of certain
>newsgroups. It is also for cases where some form of fraud or dishonesty
>were being perpetrated in the group charter -- but there is nothing of this
>kind in the present group, which has received wide support from many
>disparate "factions" of those interested in Objectivism.
The other purpose of the "no" vote is if you do not think there is
sufficient cause to expend Usenet resources on a topic. Reasons do
not have to be approved as "objective" by Our Young Brad or other
slobbering Ayn-Rand wannabes. However, like "yes" votes, "no" votes
should be cast only by readers of Usenet.
>However I doubt that Mr. Miller is interested in addressing the
>contradictions and ambiguities in the Usenet newsgroup creation process,
>since such rubber-concepts and slippery non-objective rules are so much to
>the benefit of enemies of association and cabalistic power-lusters...
Ah, and now true intellectual bankruptcy rears its ugly head. Our
Young Brad is thoroughly dissatisfied with the way Usenet works, yet
he begs and pleads people to unselfishly give him a space on Usenet
where he may "freely associate" with slavish, sheepy followers of
Aisa-approved Objectivism. Pathetic. Moral urination on Rand's
grave, it is.
/cpk