Keeping our newsgroup
ra...@starbase.ingress.com
We *can* keep our newsgroup. Moderation would mean that the
rational cannot win against the irrational in a free market. Here are a
few suggestions for how we can take alt.philosophy.objectivism back.
1. Stop crossposting to alt.neo-tech.
Y'all are whining that the NT people are taking over the group.
Well, I went through both a.p.o and a.n-t, and half the threads on a.p.o
are also on a.n-t. Stop crossposting there! Stop replying to NT people,
if you don't want to hear from them. I don't understand how you can stop
someone from posting by replying to them and telling them how you don't
want them posting! I personally wish to investigate Neo-Tech further, but
I have requested that replies to my messages not be crossposted here.
Change your newsgroups line to exclude alt.neo-tech, and/or set the
followups line to alt.philosophy.objectivism or some other newsgroup. I
can't do so with this newsreader, but I *can* set followups and do so
with reckless abandon.
2. Stop replying to one-line posters and people only interested
in flaming.
There are some people who just post one or two line messages
smearing Objectivism or Ayn Rand. Some of them are even multiple lines,
with a slight air of logic, but with the same effect. Stop replying.
Don't even reply to tell them to fuck off.
3. When people repeatedly post off-topic, such as Matt Keys with
the Neo-Tech advantages, just bomb his mailbox until he gets the message.
This, of course, is an extreme measure.
Jimmy Pena - ra...@ingress.com
... Woe to those who do not conform to non-conformity.
Jason Kuznicki
ra...@starbase.ingress.com wrote:
>Hello all,
>
> We *can* keep our newsgroup. Moderation would mean that the
>rational cannot win against the irrational in a free market.
Don't be fooled into thinking that a.p.o. is a free market. It is
an anarchy, and for those of you who are uncertain about the dif-
ference, pay attention: On a.p.o., actions and their consequences
are almost completely divorced. On a moderated group, this would
not be the case; the actions of posting rude or off-topic material
would have definite consequences; this would result in higher-
quality posting all around, based on clearly defined principles and
voluntary cooperation: Either you accept moderation, and post to
the moderated group, or you don't accept moderation, and post to an
unmoderated group.
>Here are a
>few suggestions for how we can take alt.philosophy.objectivism back.
I'd like to see this as well...Can it be done???
> 1. Stop crossposting to alt.neo-tech.
I agree entirely. Oddly enough, the greatest self-declared enemy of
the Neo-Techers, the King of All Heretics, frequently adds to the
traffic on this group. Just an observation...
> 2. Stop replying to one-line posters and people only interested
>in flaming.
Agreed.
> 3. When people repeatedly post off-topic, such as Matt Keys with
>the Neo-Tech advantages, just bomb his mailbox until he gets the message.
>This, of course, is an extreme measure.
Mailbombing can have serious consequences (i.e., getting your account
revoked). I don't recommend it, but perhaps Mr. Keys needs to see some
of the Bitmap pictures of myself that I just created, to remind him that
spamming affects real people, not just bandwiths.
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"Kuranes was not modern, and did not think like others who wrote.
Whilst they strove to strip from life its embroidered robes of myth
and to show in naked ugliness the foul thing that is reality,
Kuranes sought for beauty alone. When truth and experience failed
to reveal it, he sought it in fancy and illusion..."
--H. P. Lovecraft, "Celephais"
Lance Neustaeter
On 08-Feb-96 18:32:31, Jason Kuznicki jt...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
> In article <1996020101...@ingress1.ingress.com>,
> ra...@starbase.ingress.com wrote:
>> We *can* keep our newsgroup. Moderation would mean that the
>>rational cannot win against the irrational in a free market.
> Don't be fooled into thinking that a.p.o. is a free market. It is
> an anarchy,
This is Brad Attitude's sly trick: simply asserting a self-evident
dichotomy between the free market and anarchy. If you've been
reading too much of his posts, I'll understand how his style may
have rubbed off. :-)
> and for those of you who are uncertain about the dif-
> ference, pay attention: On a.p.o., actions and their consequences
> are almost completely divorced.
This is wrong. Period. What agency is intervening and "divorcing" actions
from consequences? If nothing (since it is "close to anarchy"), are you
claiming that reality is "not enough"? That there needs to be a man-made
institution to keep actions and consequences from falling apart (need more
of that new causality glue!)? If there be idiots posting and you are
reading them, what do you do? Killfiles, Emph-files, reputations, [N]ext
keypresses, are these all not examples of the ubiquitous action/reaction that
happens silently but pervasively on APO and other newsgroups?
Lance
--
Stop the violins!
Billy Beck
>In article <1996020101...@ingress1.ingress.com>,
> ra...@starbase.ingress.com wrote:
>>Hello all,
>>
>> We *can* keep our newsgroup. Moderation would mean that the
>>rational cannot win against the irrational in a free market.
>Don't be fooled into thinking that a.p.o. is a free market. It is
>an anarchy, and for those of you who are uncertain about the dif-
>ference, pay attention: On a.p.o., actions and their consequences
>are almost completely divorced.
Excuse me, but you have not demonstrated an exclusionary dichotomy
between "anarchy" and a "free market", so there is no point in patting
yourself on the back over some earth-rattling insight. Permit me to
illustrate:
When *I* post here, I always take it as given that, if I do not post
something of value, I will be ignored.
Thus, your "divorce" of action and consequence remains, to me, a very
healthy marriage. "Rational self interest", and all that, you know.
Glad to help clear that up, Jason.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 1/24/96
Anonymous
Kuznicki) wrote:
> In article <1996020101...@ingress1.ingress.com>,
> ra...@starbase.ingress.com wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >
> > We *can* keep our newsgroup. Moderation would mean that the
> >rational cannot win against the irrational in a free market.
>
> Don't be fooled into thinking that a.p.o. is a free market. It is
> an anarchy, and for those of you who are uncertain about the dif-
> ference, pay attention: On a.p.o., actions and their consequences
> are almost completely divorced.
You mean there is no way to impose PENALTIES on people who WRITE THINGS
you DON'T LIKE?
The horror... the horror...
The alt. heirarchy is the ultimate free market. It has rules. But none
of them involve the CONTENT of posts. And you don't like that apparently.
> On a moderated group, this would
> not be the case; the actions of posting rude or off-topic material
> would have definite consequences; this would result in higher-
> quality posting all around, based on clearly defined principles and
> voluntary cooperation: Either you accept moderation, and post to
> the moderated group, or you don't accept moderation, and post to an
> unmoderated group.
'Rand ROOLZ!' 'Yeah Peikoff, uh, Rand KICKS errr - wait - this is the
moderated group. Huh huh huh! Rand kicks butt! (can I say butt?)' 'I
love things that are objective!' 'Yeah Peikoff - I hate things that are
irrational!' 'Kelley SUCKS!' 'Huh huh huh - he said 'Kelley'!'
A moderated group will be one big circle jerk.
> >Here are a
> >few suggestions for how we can take alt.philosophy.objectivism back.
>
> I'd like to see this as well...Can it be done???
>
> > 1. Stop crossposting to alt.neo-tech.
>
> I agree entirely. Oddly enough, the greatest self-declared enemy of
> the Neo-Techers, the King of All Heretics, frequently adds to the
> traffic on this group. Just an observation...
I will endeavor to snip alt.neo-tech from the groups line. Tricky Nicky
seems to crosspost every thread he posts to. I have overlooked this too
much and I apologize for this error.
> > 2. Stop replying to one-line posters and people only interested
> >in flaming.
>
> Agreed.
Flaming is cool!
> > 3. When people repeatedly post off-topic, such as Matt Keys with
> >the Neo-Tech advantages, just bomb his mailbox until he gets the message.
> >This, of course, is an extreme measure.
>
> Mailbombing can have serious consequences (i.e., getting your account
> revoked). I don't recommend it, but perhaps Mr. Keys needs to see some
> of the Bitmap pictures of myself that I just created, to remind him that
> spamming affects real people, not just bandwiths.
Matt is basically posting advertisements for the Neo-Tech business.
This may violate the terms of service he agreed to abide by when he got
his account. He is actually the only Neo-Tech poster who engages in full
blown net abuse. Even Tricky Nicky seems to have given up his vertical
spam auto-reply tactics.
- King of all Heretics
Jason Kuznicki
la...@portal.ca (Lance Neustaeter) wrote:
>
>On 08-Feb-96 18:32:31, Jason Kuznicki jt...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <1996020101...@ingress1.ingress.com>,
>> ra...@starbase.ingress.com wrote:
>
>>> We *can* keep our newsgroup. Moderation would mean that the
>>>rational cannot win against the irrational in a free market.
>
>> Don't be fooled into thinking that a.p.o. is a free market. It is
>> an anarchy,
>
>dichotomy between the free market and anarchy. If you've been
>reading too much of his posts, I'll understand how his style may
>have rubbed off. :-)
Did you consider that perhaps I legitimately agree with him here?
Or did you immediately assume that I couldn't possibly have come
to the same conclusions as another intelligent individual by myself?
In a free market there exist certain guarantees, among others, those
in the realm of protection of property. I would assert that a free
market and an anarchy are exclusive of one another, but I suspect
that this belongs on another thread, one that I don't really care
to discuss. As it turns out, it is irrelevant.
Rather than make such an assertion, I will simply assert that
instead of a value-for-value exchange of ideas on a.p.o., certain
individuals add no value to the discussion, do so knowingly, and
ought to be stopped entirely. If you agree, then you agree to the
principle of a moderated group.
>> and for those of you who are uncertain about the dif-
>> ference, pay attention: On a.p.o., actions and their consequences
>> are almost completely divorced.
>
>This is wrong. Period. What agency is intervening and "divorcing" actions
>from consequences?
Here are just a few:
Anonymous remailers, spammers who ignore the intent upon which the
group was founded--and are not directly prevented from abusing the
group, persons posting under several different names in an attempt
to salvage reputations that they had previously lost... There are
quite a few agents that do exactly what I said.
>If nothing (since it is "close to anarchy"), are you
>claiming that reality is "not enough"?
I'm claiming that in any human society that is sufficiently complex,
there must be some form of governing agency. I believe that a.p.o.
has reached that point.
>That there needs to be a man-made
>institution to keep actions and consequences from falling apart (need more
>of that new causality glue!)?
When certain man-made institutions *do* divorce action and consequence,
then others should be made to prevent their action.
>If there be idiots posting and you are
>reading them, what do you do? Killfiles, Emph-files, reputations, [N]ext
>keypresses, are these all not examples of the ubiquitous action/reaction that
>happens silently but pervasively on APO and other newsgroups?
Things like this do happen, here as elsewhere, but many do not have access
to these services. My autoselect has never worked, for instance. While
these things are all good in that they do ensure that actions have
consequences, I believe that a moderated group would handle the issue much
better.
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"
Robert J. Kolker
.....
>Things like this do happen, here as elsewhere, but many do not have access
>to these services. My autoselect has never worked, for instance. While
>these things are all good in that they do ensure that actions have
>consequences, I believe that a moderated group would handle the issue much
>better.
moderators. Will non-objectivist opinion in some form
be allowed? Will anti-objectivist opinion be screened out
just because it is anti-objectivist?
What will be the the criteria of moderation, who will do
the moderating and how shall we be sure it is done
rationally and fairly?
Will rebuffed postings have a reason for rejection attached?
Und so weiter.
Bob Kolker
--
"Taxation is Theft, Jury Duty and the Draft are servitude"
"Those who *would* govern us are enemies"
"An armed society is a polite society""
Nicholas Rich
> Matt is basically posting advertisements for the Neo-Tech business.
> This may violate the terms of service he agreed to abide by when he got
> his account. He is actually the only Neo-Tech poster who engages in full
> blown net abuse. Even Tricky Nicky seems to have given up his vertical
> spam auto-reply tactics.
Not at all. The novelty wore off, and now I'll continue in a proportional
and 'measured' fashion. I am fully in agreement with the concept of
self-controled-posting, based, in part, on the sorts of reactions and mail
one gets. I posted a few 'clips' in a reply just yesterday.
And also, you'll notice that I will definitely do it when I happen to be
replying to something which is cross-posted to [a] variety/many [of]
groups.
Incidently, I almost NEVER get complaint mail. The only ones who complain
are a few of the apo'ers because they can't control their emotions, and
perhaps, for a few, constipation.
--
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
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
> Rather than make such an assertion, I will simply assert that
> instead of a value-for-value exchange of ideas on a.p.o., certain
> individuals add no value to the discussion, do so knowingly, and
> ought to be stopped entirely. If you agree, then you agree to the
> principle of a moderated group.
And of course, you get to decide what's of value to everyone.
Geez, the religious-'white' (pun intended) dynamics just keep showing up
everywhere.
Nicholas Rich
> I'm claiming that in any human society that is sufficiently complex,
> there must be some form of governing agency. I believe that a.p.o.
> has reached that point.
In other words, because you're either too stupid or undisciplined to
shut your ears, in an open forum, you wish an agency to forcibly shut
the mouths of those you disagree with, or express ideas you find
distasteful.
Yep. more religious-'white' dynamics. Similar manipulations of context
too. Notice how they wish to avoid the context of Usenet being an
association of property owners to create an open forum for the exchange
of ideas, and make it look as though somebody's property rights are
being violated.
Ok, who, *specifically* is having their property rights violated on
Usenet by so-called "off-topic" postings?
Nicholas Rich
>
> In article <1380.6613...@portal.ca>,
> la...@portal.ca (Lance Neustaeter) wrote:
>
> >That there needs to be a man-made
> >institution to keep actions and consequences from falling apart (need
> >more of that new causality glue!)?
>
> When certain man-made institutions *do* divorce action and
> consequence, then others should be made to prevent their action.
So whether there is any force being initiated or not, 'somebody' needs
to jump in an create a problem by *forcing* ("should be made")
'somebody' to *force* ("prevent") them not to do it ("their action").
Yup, the religious-'white' dynamics piling up all over the place.
THINKfirst!
: > 1. Stop crossposting to alt.neo-tech.
: I agree entirely. Oddly enough, the greatest self-declared enemy of
: the Neo-Techers, the King of All Heretics, frequently adds to the
: traffic on this group. Just an observation...
And an accurate observation it is. He
is doing more to promote Neo-Tech than
you guys are doing when you try to avoid
it by censoring yourselves.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T H I N K f i r s t !
What is is. Perceive it. Integrate it honestly. Act on it. Idealize it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THINKfirst!
: A moderated group will be one big circle jerk.
What do you think pseudo-intellectuals are
DOING this for? (Duh!)
: I will endeavor to snip alt.neo-tech from the groups line. Tricky Nicky
: seems to crosspost every thread he posts to. I have overlooked this too
: much and I apologize for this error.
If you're responding to ME, though, please
continue to crosspost (or post *only* in a.n-t).
Thanks.
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > Matt is basically posting advertisements for the Neo-Tech business.
> > This may violate the terms of service he agreed to abide by when he got
> > his account. He is actually the only Neo-Tech poster who engages in full
> > blown net abuse. Even Tricky Nicky seems to have given up his vertical
> > spam auto-reply tactics.
>
> Not at all. The novelty wore off, and now I'll continue in a proportional
> and 'measured' fashion.
It isn't vertical spam if it's done in a measured fashion.
> I am fully in agreement with the concept of
> self-controled-posting, based, in part, on the sorts of reactions and mail
> one gets. I posted a few 'clips' in a reply just yesterday.
Hell, I post quotes in my messages. But I don't use the automated
search engine. I actually read the full context and quote as much as
necessary based on my judgement. This avoids the mid-sentence cutoffs
your auto-quoting suffered from.
> And also, you'll notice that I will definitely do it when I happen to be
> replying to something which is cross-posted to [a] variety/many [of]
> groups.
>
> Incidently, I almost NEVER get complaint mail. The only ones who complain
> are a few of the apo'ers because they can't control their emotions, and
> perhaps, for a few, constipation.
So long as you refrain from full blown net abuse there is no reason to
bother your ISP.
jlan...@starnetinc.com
wrote:
>Jason Kuznicki wrote:
>
>> Rather than make such an assertion, I will simply assert that
>> instead of a value-for-value exchange of ideas on a.p.o., certain
>> individuals add no value to the discussion, do so knowingly, and
>> ought to be stopped entirely. If you agree, then you agree to the
>> principle of a moderated group.
>
>And of course, you get to decide what's of value to everyone.
>
>Geez, the religious-'white' (pun intended) dynamics just keep showing up
>everywhere.
>
I'd like to barge in a little. I've been thinking: people,
Objectivists in particular, should be aware of whatever rules may
apply to a given forum. I am aware of no particular way in existence
at this moment (though I may be mistaken) in which someone may claim
to be the sole moderator of a Usenet forum. Moreover, I don't know of
any one party that "owns" Usenet forums. Some of the consequence of
this is that A) there is often no clear court of "appeals" when some
groups are outrageously uncivilized and deliberately obnoxious to
another B) newbies to Usenet, just looking for a good place to discuss
Ayn Rand, are often chased away unwittingly from this particular forum
C) those with an extreme dispute are left with little if any
moderation to appeal to, especially when the dispute involves
important basic principles of civilized discussion.
It's possible that I may be a little off on the particulars of Usenet
and how it works. However, I'd like to point out that there are other
nets, and within the confines of the rules of those nets, many of
which are proprietary and for-profit, one could conceiveably establish
many conferences, some of which might be geared toward the discussion
of Rand and Objectivism.
Sincerely,
Josh Landess
Anonymous
(THINKfirst!) wrote:
> Anonymous (anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl) wrote:
>
> : A moderated group will be one big circle jerk.
>
> What do you think pseudo-intellectuals are
> DOING this for? (Duh!)
Yep. They want to pretend the mean old world outside Objectivism
doesn't exist.
> : I will endeavor to snip alt.neo-tech from the groups line. Tricky Nicky
> : seems to crosspost every thread he posts to. I have overlooked this too
> : much and I apologize for this error.
>
> If you're responding to ME, though, please
> continue to crosspost (or post *only* in a.n-t).
> Thanks.
Don't you read a.p.o.?
If you'd like I will move our threads over to a.n-t.
Perhaps we can consolidate them a bit.
Betsy Speicher
> It's possible that I may be a little off on the particulars of Usenet
> and how it works. However, I'd like to point out that there are other
> nets, and within the confines of the rules of those nets, many of
> which are proprietary and for-profit, one could conceiveably establish
> many conferences, some of which might be geared toward the discussion
> of Rand and Objectivism.
You're right on target, Josh. If you want a good serious, in depth,
benevolent discussion of Objectivism, I suggest OSG, the private
Objectivism Study Group e-mail list run by Bob Stubblefield who also
publishes _The_Intellectual_Activist_.
I have been a member of OSG for over five years now (time flies when
you're having fun!) and I consider it my home base. I write my best
articles for OSG because I am presenting my ideas to about 300
knowledgable Objectivists who really understand what I have to say.
The discussions go way beyond the "kindergarten Objectivism" you find on
a.p.o. into more advanced topics and applications for those who are ready
for them. Right now we have threads going on pornography, context and
integration, gold as an investment, the meaning of "value," private roads
in a free society, _Gulliver's_Travels_, etc. In addition there's the
"News" section with movie and book reviews, stories about Objectivist
political activism, upcoming books by Objectivist intellectuals (like
Andrew Bernstein's novel), Leonard Peikoff's radio show, campus club
activities, Objectivist conferences, wedding and birth announcements, etc.
For a good picture of what's going on at OSG and who the OSGers are, check
out the OSG website at:
http://www.exit109.cm/~integrity/OSG_home.HTM
You can also e-mail to:
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)
jlan...@starnetinc.com
wrote:
>> It's possible that I may be a little off on the particulars of Usenet
>> and how it works. However, I'd like to point out that there are other
>> nets, and within the confines of the rules of those nets, many of
>> which are proprietary and for-profit, one could conceiveably establish
>> many conferences, some of which might be geared toward the discussion
>> of Rand and Objectivism.
>
>You're right on target, Josh. If you want a good serious, in depth,
>benevolent discussion of Objectivism, I suggest OSG, the private
>Objectivism Study Group e-mail list run by Bob Stubblefield who also
>publishes _The_Intellectual_Activist_.
>
>I have been a member of OSG for over five years now (time flies when
>you're having fun!) and I consider it my home base. I write my best
>articles for OSG because I am presenting my ideas to about 300
>knowledgable Objectivists who really understand what I have to say.
[etc.]
Dear Betsy:
Thankyou for taking a moment to reply. I will copy the URL to my
bookmarks, and lurk for awhile.
In the meantime, I am still looking for that one net which will have
some groups I can sink my teeth into. That is, while I have
subscribed to various informative and challenging Objectivist
publications in the past (though not for a good while now), my
immediate goal is something very much different.... an electronic net
that does not have the massive proprietary and moderation problems
posed by Usenet.
I'm on a local BBS which carries Rime Net, but I haven't seen anything
interesting there yet.
If I find anything good, I'll try to report it back to this
conference.
Thanks again.
Josh
cc: e-mail, alt.philosphy.objectivism
Dan Hankins
: apply to a given forum. I am aware of no particular way in existence
: at this moment (though I may be mistaken) in which someone may claim
: to be the sole moderator of a Usenet forum. Moreover, I don't know of
: any one party that "owns" Usenet forums. Some of the consequence of
You're mistaken. Try, for example, to post to comp.risks.
Dan Hankins
dhan...@gate.net
The answer to the subjective is the ostensive.
Irrational posters may be killfiled without notice.
Nicholas Rich
That would be better. Those I respond to will be crossposted to apo When
I judge that it's relevent to Objectivism or the
topic/off-topic/net-abuse debate.
Here here on consolidating. I've had to recently bypass about 25 posts.
I simply did not have time to reply to them, and was getting farther and
farther behind.
Anonymous
Kuznicki) wrote:
> In article <1380.6613...@portal.ca>,
> la...@portal.ca (Lance Neustaeter) wrote:
(snip)
> >This is wrong. Period. What agency is intervening and "divorcing"
> >actions from consequences?
>
> Here are just a few:
>
> Anonymous remailers,
And here you reveal the jackbooted soul of the objectivist.
I once, when I was still an Objectivist of sorts, mentioned that I was
into Rand to a friend of mine. The guy had an interesting reaction. He
said that he had seen Rand speak once, and she looked like a cold blooded
killer. She scared him.
I think I now understand this reaction. While Rand's politics are
libertarian, her morals are as puritanical as those of any totalitarian
religion. And it is clear what kind of a proprietary community would be
created by orthodox Objectivists - a highly regulated social order where
any deviation from the 'rational' would be forbidden. Literally, a
totalitarian hell enforced by property rights rather than by government
regulation. Of course few real people would want anything to do with such
a ghastly place, and the Objectivists would only have each other to
control.
That I do not exaggerate is revealed by the sort of proposals that are
cooked up by Objectivists to suppress any speech they deem inappropriate.
claude jeruchim
: jlan...@starnetinc.com wrote:
: > It's possible that I may be a little off on the particulars of Usenet
: > and how it works. However, I'd like to point out that there are other
: > nets, and within the confines of the rules of those nets, many of
: > which are proprietary and for-profit, one could conceiveably establish
: > many conferences, some of which might be geared toward the discussion
: > of Rand and Objectivism.
: You're right on target, Josh. If you want a good serious, in depth,
: benevolent discussion of Objectivism, I suggest OSG, the private
: Objectivism Study Group e-mail list run by Bob Stubblefield who also
: publishes _The_Intellectual_Activist_.
: I have been a member of OSG for over five years now (time flies when
: you're having fun!) and I consider it my home base. I write my best
: articles for OSG because I am presenting my ideas to about 300
: knowledgable Objectivists who really understand what I have to say.
ah! an excellent example of "objectivists" orient themselves around
passive philosophizing and static intellectualizing. Why discuss the
meaning of value? What goal is to be accomplished from discussing
context and integration? You people are in such a limited , static
context, and aren't making the right integrations. Discuss
Irrationality and its cure.
: for them. Right now we have threads going on pornography, context and
: integration, gold as an investment, the meaning of "value," private roads
: in a free society, _Gulliver's_Travels_, etc. In addition there's the
: "News" section with movie and book reviews, stories about Objectivist
: political activism, upcoming books by Objectivist intellectuals (like
: Andrew Bernstein's novel), Leonard Peikoff's radio show, campus club
: activities, Objectivist conferences, wedding and birth announcements, etc.
: For a good picture of what's going on at OSG and who the OSGers are, check
: out the OSG website at:
: http://www.exit109.cm/~integrity/OSG_home.HTM
: You can also e-mail to:
: 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)
--
-------------------
End of network mail
claude jeruchim
: On Thu, 15 Feb 1996 10:45:38 GMT, tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
: wrote:
: >Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
: >>You're right on target, Josh. If you want a good serious, in depth,
: >>benevolent discussion of Objectivism, I suggest OSG, the private
: >>Objectivism Study Group e-mail list run by Bob Stubblefield who also
: >>publishes _The_Intellectual_Activist_.
: >>
: >>I have been a member of OSG for over five years now (time flies when
: >>you're having fun!) and I consider it my home base. I write my best
: >>articles for OSG because I am presenting my ideas to about 300
: >>knowledgable Objectivists who really understand what I have to say.
: >
: >Of course, bear in mind that this reccomendation is coming from a woman
: >who thinks that "feudalism" refers to a political system based on feuding;
: >& that the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is the National
: >Guard - among other absurdities. Consider the source.
: >
: >Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
: >
: >Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
: >The International Society for Individual Liberty,
: >1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
: >(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org
: >http://www.isil.org/
: >
: >Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
: Well, Tim, I'm not in the market right now for any kind of newsletter.
: Just wanted to exchange some ideas in an electronic public forum. But
: this isn't the first attack I've seen on Betsy. Don't know her that
: well, but, frankly, the number of unnecessary attacks I've seen on
: her, in just a couple of days, is probably a point in her favor.
: Josh
nope, she's a pseudo objectivist - rejects NT without knowledge of it.
Claude
Jimmy Pena
Hello Tony,
In article <4eta64$3...@panix2.panix.com>,
tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
> Preface: I have been and will be reading any threads on apo that I can
> find related to creating a new newsgroup, or "reclaiming" apo from the
> spammers. And I have had some luck in getting the killfile on my old
> account operational (we'll see how long it lasts!), so I you may see me
> posting in a limited fashion.
Tony, do you use the 'tcsh' shell? If so then I can help you out
with the killfile, if the only problem you have is the format/syntax.
> not allow for this). I do want to point out, however, that navigating
> around and splicing newsgroups in and out of the header and followup
> lines
> can actually take a considerable amount of time. If you are posting,
> PLEASE do not put others through the necessity of doing so if you can
> avoid it.
Even if the newsgroups line fills three lines, all you have to do
is set the followups and then people will stop posting to all the groups
to reply to your message. Simply informing them of the followup will
either cause them to join the newsgroup to follow the thread, move it to
email, or stop posting. All you have to do is set followups and tell
whoever it is that you are replying to that you have done so.
Jimmy Pena - ra...@ingress.com
... Everything is possible, but nothing of interest is easy.
Jimmy Pena
Hello Jason,
In article <4febnv$7...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) wrote:
> I agree entirely. Oddly enough, the greatest self-declared enemy of
> the Neo-Techers, the King of All Heretics, frequently adds to the
> traffic on this group. Just an observation...
You spelled "noise" wrong. He frequently adds to the noise on
this group.
Jimmy Pena - ra...@ingress.com
... To generalize is to be an idiot. - William Blake
Betsy Speicher
> jlan...@starnetinc.com wrote:
> : Well, Tim, I'm not in the market right now for any kind of newsletter.
> : Just wanted to exchange some ideas in an electronic public forum. But
> : this isn't the first attack I've seen on Betsy. Don't know her that
> : well, but, frankly, the number of unnecessary attacks I've seen on
> : her, in just a couple of days, is probably a point in her favor.
> nope, she's a pseudo objectivist - rejects NT without knowledge of it.
Allow me to introduce myself and present my qualifications as an
Objectivist and you all decide.
I have been involved with and active in Objectivism for more than 34
years. I have written articles which have appeared in _The_
_Objectivist_Forum_ and in _The_Intellectual_Activist_. For the past
8 years I was President of the Southern California Objectivist
Association.
As for how I apply Objectivism to my private life and my business
career, I invite anyone who is interested to view my website at:
http://compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/betsys.html
Jim Miller
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>You're right on target, Josh. If you want a good serious, in depth,
>benevolent discussion of Objectivism, I suggest OSG, the private
>Objectivism Study Group e-mail list run by Bob Stubblefield who also
>publishes _The_Intellectual_Activist_.
>The discussions go way beyond the "kindergarten Objectivism" you find on
>a.p.o. into more advanced topics and applications for those who are ready
>for them. Right now we have threads going on pornography, context and
>integration, gold as an investment, the meaning of "value," private roads
>in a free society, _Gulliver's_Travels_, etc. In addition there's the
>"News" section with movie and book reviews, stories about Objectivist
>political activism, upcoming books by Objectivist intellectuals (like
>Andrew Bernstein's novel), Leonard Peikoff's radio show, campus club
>activities, Objectivist conferences, wedding and birth announcements, etc.
Just for the philosophically inexperienced readers who may be out there
and who may be thinking about looking into this mailing list as a
starting point for studying philosophy, here, from the web site, is one
of the several strict rules about things you cannot write to this list:
* explicit sanction of anti-Objectivist principles after their
nature is identified. E.g., asking why "certainty" is a valid
concept is alright; but after learning the Objectivist position on
certainty, it would be inappropriate to have a thread of
discussion by people who share the skeptics' premise.
In other words, listen to the presentation, ask polite questions if you
will, but, if you disagree, keep your mouth shut after you learn what the
acceptable ideas are, and allow us to continue to parade our ideas in
front of you without check...who knows, maybe some of them will sink in.
This goes against everything academic philosophy, which respects the
individual's right to question and form his own viewpoints and discuss
those viewpoints, stands for. Rather than allowing themselves to be
challenged by new ideas, the Randians have *already* convinced themselves
of what the right ideas are, then proceed to circle the wagons, carefully
delimit boundaries, keep out intruding ideas, and keep spiralling around
on what's inside, trying to draw new people into the whirlpool. This
is not the way real philosophy goes about its business.
Note that what they are asking you to do by joining this mailing list
is different from attending a college lecture or reading a book. A
person does those things to willingly gain insight on another person's
ideas -- it is understood ahead of time that the presentation is one-
sided, and the time sacrificed is usually fairly minimal. And engagement
of ideas awaits in class discussions and in the presentation of academic
papers. With this list however, the Randians are constructing the facade
of such open discussions, where the critical participants still invest
significant time reading other people's ideas and forming their own valuable
ideas, but are not allowed to argue for them or against the accepted party
line.
The keeper of the list ironically goes on to state that there are other
places on the net where such *free* exchange about Rand's ideas is
possible (if that's what you *have* to have, the implication is). Usenet
is the major one, and yet certain Rand followers are right now trying to
impose the same kind of stifling restrictions on what is acceptable to say
here. These are all danger signs, typical of the way dogmatists and
cultists go about protecting their cherished beliefs.
The question for you as a newcomer to philosophy is which you value more:
group membership, the kind of warm, fuzzy comfort one gets from identifying
oneself as sharing certain strongly held ideas with a tight-knit group of
like-thinking people; or independence of mind, respect for intellectual
toleration, and a dose of humility and with it a better appreciation of
the way people and the world really are?
-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 |
Steve Reed
(Anonymous) writes:
>I think I now understand this reaction [to oppressiveness seen in Rand's
>face in a 1960s appearance]. While Rand's politics are libertarian, her
You're confusing her logical structure with her personal style. (As many
Objectivists do, in the institutions they create; see below.) This latter
point isn't at all true of her morality or ethical theory per se. For any
truly productive person, her identification of the efficacious reasoning mind
as the source of ethics would be knowledge that's genuinely liberating.
But that point is eminently true of the particular prescriptions for personal
-style- that she and her early followers (down to Peikoff today) have made,
mostly by example. This includes the dismissive manners with which one
approaches those who disagree with one's own conclusions. And it's also true
for the ways that many Objectivists I've known end up choosing among
alternatives in life that are ethically equivalent, or in the realm of the
optional.
>And it is clear what kind of a proprietary community would be created by
>orthodox Objectivists - a highly regulated social order where any deviation
>from the 'rational' would be forbidden.
If anyone wants a concrete experience of this, just "/join" the channel
#AynRand on the Undernet IRC servers. I was banned six months ago from it for
hazarding the notion that truth vs. falsehood, an epistemological judgment,
took logical precedence before good vs. bad, an ethical judgment. As is
typical, four others concentrated on the heretic in their midst, demanding
simultaneous answers to hypothetical questions. Without once mentioning his
name, I was afterwards locked out for being "A hopeless Kelleyite evader."
But too many logical people and good discussants (both IRC rarities) had been
part of this channel to give it up that easily. So I sat in on it weekly (or
more often) after the ban expired, seeing what went on, contributing little.
Still, after a while I felt a physical constriction in my chest when I went
on the channel. Why? Because, as I soon realized, I had to be a careful
self-censor to avoid having any statement be construed as not close enough to
the Shi'ite Objectivist norm.
In time I was fed up from hiding. A few nights ago I brought up the issue
provoking the ban again, this time phrased in terms of how far one pursues the
effort involved in moral judgment. Quite quickly, the issue shifted to the
transparent instant judgments that Peikoff called for in many cases, based on
the (undefined) list of "inherently dishonest ideas." I ended up pursuing this
issue with one of the channel ops, in private "/query" mode, to avoid the
gang-mugging I'd seen and felt before.
Needless to say, although this op was solicitous enough to offer URL clues to
further Peikoff/Kelley disputation texts, he was more interested in showing,
at the end, that the main concern was for keeping heterodox views out of the
discussion space, not one of genuine intellectual exchange.
From the query log, I offer some of this attempt at an exchange, along with
the op's naked-power trump card. You may find this interesting. Locutions that
would make this op less than anonymous here have been altered slightly, and
two-entry responses have been joined together.
* * *
SR: You're judging "Marxist academics" as a group. I hold that
individuals are to be judged. Some may have failed links [in a
long chain leading to ethical concepts]. Some may evade. But to
say that the nature of ideas makes failed links impossible? That
presumes a reasoning chain that never fails. We don't have that.
Op: You have a person that is thoroughly schooled for years in
systematic philosophy and logic...and yet they *persist* in
subscribing to a philosophy that is at variance with reality
in *every* essential way.
SR: How many years? Against what earlier background? With what
choices of other influences? With what amounts of attention? It's
a set of indeterminate epistemological equations, to use a rocky
analogy. Some can be solved on objective evidence. Others, you'd
have to get inside someone's head, which one can't.
Op: You know the academic process as well as I do...thesis,
dissertation, promotion, tenure. :-/
SR: Is it the same at Claremont College and the New School of
Social Research? No. Marxists can come from both places. I've
met them.
Op: *Any* institution of higher learning is sufficient.
SR: They're not all homogenous in their influence. You know this
as well as I do. And where they take doctorates is only one factor.
Op: You're focusing on inessentials.
SR: Not at all. I'm focusing on *individuals* and their contexts.
Your process discards too many facts to make moral judgments.
Op: The essentials are that they have supposedly been rigorously
schooled in how to think logically, systematically, and connected
to concretes. So you can't tell me that they don't know how to
think. And when their philosophy is at variance *in every way*
with reality, I only have one conclusion.
SR: Academics are not turned out within the narrow range of
variances found on a Ford Taurus assembly line.
Op: Oh? Why don't you address my reasons instead of making
an inept analogy?
SR: What reasons, I have to ask? You've posited a common set of
influences and schooling, adherence to an (undefined) set of
beliefs, that five minutes in any academic institution would
show has no referent in reality.
Op: And one more thing...I want Gardner [Mark Gardner, the channel
registrant of #AynRand with the Undernet IRC servers] to hear your
reasons too, on the [IRC] channel.
SR: May I ask why?
Op: So that he can JUDGE you too.
SR: I prefer such a direct exchange [to group attacks, mentioned
earlier], one reason I stuck around [in /query] despite my cold.
Op: It's just as direct on the channel. :|
SR: I won't waste your time. We do have differences in fundamentals.
I see the caveat to Rand's "Judge, and be prepared to be judged"
as being the same as any other exhortation to action: "...within the
appropriate context of one's life." And that [group gang-"judgment"
on the IRC channel] isn't in mine.
Op: Oh, you'll "waste" my time eventually, if you want to hang
around much longer.
SR: I was probing to find discussion. I had hoped to find more,
not prefabricated judgments, really.
Op: Probe away...on the channel. Are you planning on coming on
here again?
SR: I haven't decided. My own take on moral judgment is that
you're not transparently good or evil yourself :) ... many facts
one must integrate. If you'd prefer (or Gardner would, in your
judgment) that I not, tell me now, I'll stay away. I respect
property rights. You won't have to bother with the ban list.
Op: If you're planning on coming on #GeekSpeak [another orthodox
Objectivist IRC channel on Undernet] or #AynRand, you're just
gonna have to "waste" my time, that's all.
SR: Well, you're consistent, at least, assuming that :) from
what I've said.
* * *
Despite my interlocutor having professed an interest in my coming back, both
to discuss this further and to present my head to be chopped off in a group
judgment, I was banned from the #AynRand channel anyway the following day. I
had noted earlier in the evening that I had read (sample) copies of the "IOS
Journal." They apparently reasoned from this to a rationalization for the ban,
noted thus: "IOS contributor."
Well, I can ill afford at the moment to do so, but now I'm damn well going to
send off a check to David Kelley at IOS, as soon as possible.
"King of All Heretics" went on in his message to write:
>Of course few real people would want anything to do with such
>a ghastly place, and the Objectivists would only have each other
>to control. That I do not exaggerate is revealed by the sort of
>proposals that are cooked up by Objectivists to suppress any speech
>they deem inappropriate.
True perceptions, indeed, especially relating to the "new newsgroup" proposal.
What is transparent in the proposals is that one or another group is to be
excluded by the supposedly "impartial" moderation. And for the Shi'ite
Objectivists proposing this, I doubt that the main target is Neo-Tech. It's
the IOS supporters, or anyone who thinks that Peikoff the militia-basher has
built an ivory tower out of his cassette tapes, or both.
* * *
IRC NOTE: A new #AynRand channel, with subchannels for specialized discussion,
is in the planning stages on the DALnet IRC network (for general access, use
/server irc.dal.net). All who are interested in Objectivism are invited to
take part. Individuals will never be kicked or banned for their views, nor for
any reason other than gross disruption of an orderly discussion.
I have registered this channel with DALnet, and am seeking ops who think that
"tolerance," in intellectual matters, is not a dirty word. Anyone interested
is welcome to e-mail me. (DALnet, for those who don't know, is a newer IRC net
with far better stability, and it allows for registering nicknames and channel
names without a bureaucracy. For details, browse http://www.dal.net.)
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Brad Aisa
is a true philosophy. Many people have validated and agree. They like to
associate. OSG is just such a forum of association. The identity of an
association will determine its nature (see: a.p.o.). OSG has a nature which
recognizes all the facts above.
If I were running a list on Object Oriented programming, I would welcome
questions of the value of the OO approach. But would I care to have as a
subscriber someone who was an avowed enemy of the OO approach? Someone who
was promoting some whacked out alternative that was invalid and had no
commercial or practical application? Of course not. If such a person wanted
to promote THEIR ideas, then they can start their own bloody list and
attract a membership with their views. This is exactly how OSG is premised.
(And Mr. Miller conveniently forgot to mention the point in the OSG charter
which specifies that one proper type of post to the list is attempts to
refute Objectivism.)
Here is why the likes of Mr. Miller are called ANTI-Objectivists. Mr.
Miller has in my memory offered ZERO intellectual value to apo. He attacks
my values, but offers me nothing of value in return. Now, exactly why is it
that he is even able to be in my face? Because people like ME (and others),
who do have intellectual values to offer of interest to Objectivists,
create the value of this forum and the purpose for its readership. You will
note there is not a Usenet forum devoted to the OPPONENTS of Objectivism.
They are parasites, requiring for the existence that the positive exists
first, which they then latch onto and attack.
Mr. Miller wants to spit in your face and demands the right to do it in
your home besides. That the OSG contract is quite effective at screening
his ilk from the list's membership is its principle genius IMHO.
ji...@netcom.com (Jim Miller) wrote:
>
>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
>>You're right on target, Josh. If you want a good serious, in depth,
>>benevolent discussion of Objectivism, I suggest OSG, the private
>>Objectivism Study Group e-mail list run by Bob Stubblefield who also
>>publishes _The_Intellectual_Activist_. [...]
--
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
thin...@netcom.com
Betsy Speicher
endorsement of the OSG e-mail list (info...@osg.com):
> Just for the philosophically inexperienced readers who may be out there
> and who may be thinking about looking into this mailing list as a
> starting point for studying philosophy ...
> [ quote from OSG contract and commentary deleted ]
> This goes against everything academic philosophy, which respects the
> individual's right to question and form his own viewpoints and discuss
> those viewpoints, stands for. [ ... ]
> This
> is not the way real philosophy goes about its business.
> Note that what they are asking you to do by joining this mailing list
> is different from attending a college lecture or reading a book.
This much is true -- thank goodness! OSG is a private selective (actually
self-selective) list of people who accept basic Objectivist principles,
want to understand them better, and want to apply them to their lives,
studies, and careers. It's also a warm and chummy "club" where I have
met some wonderful people some of whom have become dear friends.
> The keeper of the list ironically goes on to state that there are other
> places on the net where such *free* exchange about Rand's ideas is
> possible (if that's what you *have* to have, the implication is). Usenet
> is the major one, and yet certain Rand followers are right now trying to
> impose the same kind of stifling restrictions on what is acceptable to say
> here.
Certain "Rand followers" aren't. I am a staunch supporter of the Ayn
Rand Institute who thinks that Leonard Peikoff is a neat guy. Sometimes I
like to retreat to OSG for a serious discussion among friends and
sometimes I like a wild and wooly no-man's land like a.p.o. The only
objection I have to the current state of affairs here is that the
intellectual free-for-all would be decidedly improved with a limit on
cross-posting from unrelated groups and by keeping the Neo-Tech
discussions on alt.neo-tech. I think most people reading a.p.o. agree
and I'm willing to put it to a CFV.
> The question for you as a newcomer to philosophy is which you value more:
> group membership, the kind of warm, fuzzy comfort one gets from identifying
> oneself as sharing certain strongly held ideas with a tight-knit group of
> like-thinking people; or independence of mind,
Both seem nice to me.
> respect for intellectual
> toleration,
I tolerate intellect. Stupidity is harder to swallow.
> and a dose of humility
Not my style. Sorry.
Billy Beck
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>Here is why the likes of Mr. Miller are called ANTI-Objectivists. Mr.
>Miller has in my memory offered ZERO intellectual value to apo. He attacks
>my values, but offers me nothing of value in return. Now, exactly why is it
>that he is even able to be in my face? Because people like ME...
...(jesus)...I just wandered in from the relatively cultured
atmosphere of <gulp> alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater...to find
*Brat* on a roll like any common Southern preacher-man.
"Lawd, he'p us all!!"
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/protest.html
Telecom Bill Protest BlackPage
Jason Kuznicki
r...@laraby.tiac.net (Robert J. Kolker) wrote:
>jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) writes:
>......
>>Things like this do happen, here as elsewhere, but many do not have access
>>to these services. My autoselect has never worked, for instance. While
>>these things are all good in that they do ensure that actions have
>>consequences, I believe that a moderated group would handle the issue much
>>better.
> Quid custodiet ad ipso custodii. Who will moderate the
> moderators. Will non-objectivist opinion in some form
> be allowed?
Absolutely. I stated this in my earlier draft charter. Anything would
be allowed, provided that it was in some way about Objectivism and it
was posted in a civil manner (no flames, trolls, spamming, etc).
>Will anti-objectivist opinion be screened out
> just because it is anti-objectivist?
Certainly not--As long as they can refrain from saying things like
"Objectivism is full of shit and all Objectivists are assholes," then
they would be welcome to air their disagreements, as should all in a
free society.
> What will be the the criteria of moderation, who will do
> the moderating and how shall we be sure it is done
> rationally and fairly?
The idea that seems to be most popular is a robomoderator. It would
kill posts that were from certain known abusers, and more would be
added to the list according to votes by the newsgroup readers (said
persons would get warnings from the human operator before incurring a
vote on being permanently killfiled). The robomoderator would also
killfile posts that were sent to large numbers of newsgroups and
those that were crossposted to alt.neo-tech.
> Will rebuffed postings have a reason for rejection attached?
Yes, it would be the only fair thing to do.
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"
Jason Kuznicki
anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous) wrote:
>> > there must be some form of governing agency. I believe that a.p.o.
>> > has reached that point.
>>
>> In other words, because you're either too stupid or undisciplined to
>> shut your ears, in an open forum, you wish an agency to forcibly shut
>> the mouths of those you disagree with, or express ideas you find
>> distasteful.
Because I am both intelligent and principled, I choose to create a
moderated forum where I can be free of those who contribute nothing to
the discussion. What I hope to achieve is something akin to a moder-
ated public meeting, whereas a.p.o. right now is a an unmoderated
argument among thousands of people screaming at one another.
By the way, I'm not forcibly shutting anyone's mouth. You can scream
all you want--but you will not do it on my time.
> I missed that lovely gem from Jason's post. It is IDENTICAL to the
>arguments of the WELFARE STATISTS and SOCIALISTS who say that, while
>capitalism was OK in the SIMPLE WORLD of the past, it cannot deal with the
>COMPLEXITY of the MODERN WORLD.
It has absolutely nothing to do with this. Socialists et al use the
above argument out of context. By controlling agency, I refer to some-
thing which prevents as much as possible the infringement of rights.
In a moderated newsgroup, there would be certain actions that are
allowed and not allowed; these I spelled out very clearly. For the
benefit of all involved, I plan on posting my formal RFD within the
next several days.
> If Jason had read his Mises, or Spinrad, he would know that as social
>systems become more complex they must have less, not more, regulation and
>bureaucracy if they are to survive and grow.
As societies become more complex, they require a more sophisticated
definition of property and other personal rights. That is what a mod-
erated group would do: It would provide the control necessary to carry
on a calm, civilized discussion, much like the rules of order used in
public meetings of the non-electronic sort.
> Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos!
We will just have to wait and see.
Carson Powell
>Existence exists.
[ Validated.]
>Facts imply values.
[ Life implies values. Ones Life is the standard by which one values
something. Facts imply existants within existance( reality).
Existants are only values based on ones standard of value. The
standard of value in Objectivism is that standard (by which one judges
what is good or evil ) is "man's life", or: that which is required for
survival as oneself. ]
>Philosophy is a science.
[ Validated.]
[ Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of
the nature of existence. The task of philosophy is to provide man
with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a
frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical,
psychological or existential. ]
>Objectivism is a true philosophy.
[ Validated. Objectivism is a philosophy. Truth is the product of
the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. ]
>Many people have validated and agree.
[ A subset of the people have validated and agree with the philosophy
of Objectivism. ]
[ I have validated Objectivism and have made its concepts a part of my
personal philosophy. ]
>They like to associate.
[ I like to associate. I like to choose who I associate with. ]
[ I can not assert for others what they like. One can of course
relate ( tell) information told to them by others concerning what they
like. ]
>OSG is just such a forum of association.
[ The sentance above refers to previous sentances that were not in
this copy of the post. The link between the fact that OSG is a forum
and the fact that people like to associate has not been made. ]
[ A forum is not required for association. ]
[ People associate where ever they meet, including special places
such as forums. ]
>The identity of an association will determine its nature (see: a.p.o.).
[ Cooperation is the free association of men who work together by
voluntary agreement, each deriving from it his own personal benefit.
A proper association is united by ideas, not by men, and its members
are loyal to the ideas, not to the group. ]
[ The identity of a type of association will determine the nature of
the ideas that give rise to that association. ]
>OSG has a nature which recognizes all the facts above.
[ OSG is a forum of ideas which recognizes all the facts replied to
above. ]
[ So whats the point. ]
>
>
>If I were running a list on Object Oriented programming, I would welcome
>questions of the value of the OO approach.
[ OK.]
>But would I care to have as a subscriber someone who was an avowed
>enemy of the OO approach?
[ Would you?]
>Someone who was promoting some whacked out alternative that was
>invalid and had no commercial or practical application?
[ If you are running the list, thats your judgement call.]
[ If you personally think that it was invalid, then you just discard
or return their email.]
[ Just because you do not value something does not mean that others
will not value it.]
>Of course not.
[ Its self evident that you would not value something you think
invalid for whatever reason.]
>If such a person wanted to promote THEIR ideas, then they can start
>their own bloody list and attract a membership with their views.
[ If they want to, they can choose to do so.]
[ Or they can promote their ideas on a USENET NEWSGROUP about computer
programming.]
>This is exactly how OSG is premised.
[ So what.]
>(And Mr. Miller conveniently forgot to mention the point in the OSG charter
>which specifies that one proper type of post to the list is attempts to
>refute Objectivism.)
[ So what.]
>
>Here is why the likes of Mr. Miller are called ANTI-Objectivists.
[ OK, why?]
>Mr. Miller has in my memory offered ZERO intellectual value to apo.
[ Speak for yourself!]
[ Mr. Miller has not offered you anything that you valued.]
>He attacks my values, but offers me nothing of value in return.
[ And you, HIS!]
>Now, exactly why is it that he is even able to be in my face?
[ Why are you in his face? A victim creates his/her own
oppressor(s).]
>Because people like ME (and others), who do have intellectual values to
>offer of interest to Objectivists, create the value of this forum and the
>purpose for its readership.
[ You think that you have values to offer others in this media of
association ( a.p.o) that are relivant to philosophy and Objectivism
specifically.]
[ You think that those values( ideas) contribute to the purpose
(value) that people associate here( a.p.o) for.]
>You will note there is not a Usenet forum devoted to the OPPONENTS of Objectivism.
[ The Usenet forum(media) is devoted to the public association of
those people who wish to discuss ideas(philosophy).]
[ Discussion of the pro's and con's of ideas(philosophy(objectivism))
in the forum(media) is the nature of Usenet public forums(media).]
[ Therefore, alt.philosophy.objectivism is for the pro and con
discussion of Objectivism.]
>They are parasites, requiring for the existence that the positive exists
>first, which they then latch onto and attack.
[ Your saying that those readers of a Usenet public forum(media), who
are in the opposition, lach onto and attack that Internet media
space?]
[ I disagree with you.]
>
>Mr. Miller wants to spit in your face and demands the right to do it in
>your home besides.
[ How do you know what Mr. Miller wants? Did he tell you?]
[ Do you have ESP?]
[ Has he ever been a guest in your home phisically?]
>That the OSG contract is quite effective at screening
>his ilk from the list's membership is its principle genius IMHO.
[ I seriously doubt that he ever attempted to participate in your
little list tribe.]
[ TRIBALISM: Any group which claims the ability to lead members and
to provide protection for their level of awareness, their mental
passivity, their obedience to the tribe, and their desire to ignore
the existence of outsiders who will challenge them. The people of
self-arrested, perceptual mentality are unable to survive without
tribal leadership and "protection" against reality.]
[ So, those of you who need the protection and leadership of OSG,
feel free to stick your tail between your legs and go hide out there!]
>
>
>
>ji...@netcom.com (Jim Miller) wrote:
>>
>>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You're right on target, Josh. If you want a good serious, in depth,
>>>benevolent discussion of Objectivism, I suggest OSG, the private
>>>Objectivism Study Group e-mail list run by Bob Stubblefield who also
>>>publishes _The_Intellectual_Activist_. [...]
[ OSG - The Tribal List.]
>>Just for the philosophically inexperienced readers who may be out there
>>and who may be thinking about looking into this mailing list as a
>>starting point for studying philosophy, here, from the web site, is one
>>of the several strict rules about things you cannot write to this list:
[ NOTICE: TRIBAL TABU BELOW!]
>> * explicit sanction of anti-Objectivist principles after their
>> nature is identified. E.g., asking why "certainty" is a valid
>> concept is alright; but after learning the Objectivist position on
>> certainty, it would be inappropriate to have a thread of
>> discussion by people who share the skeptics' premise.
>>
>>In other words, listen to the presentation, ask polite questions if you
>>will, but, if you disagree, keep your mouth shut after you learn what the
>>acceptable ideas are, and allow us to continue to parade our ideas in
>>front of you without check...who knows, maybe some of them will sink in.
>>
>>This goes against everything academic philosophy, which respects the
>>individual's right to question and form his own viewpoints and discuss
>>those viewpoints, stands for. Rather than allowing themselves to be
>>challenged by new ideas, the Randians have *already* convinced themselves
>>of what the right ideas are, then proceed to circle the wagons, carefully
>>delimit boundaries, keep out intruding ideas, and keep spiralling around
>>on what's inside, trying to draw new people into the whirlpool. This
>>is not the way real philosophy goes about its business.
[ And the tribalist Randians do so in contradiction of certain
concepts of the Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand that are beyond
their awarness.]
>>Note that what they are asking you to do by joining this mailing list
>>is different from attending a college lecture or reading a book. A
>>person does those things to willingly gain insight on another person's
>>ideas -- it is understood ahead of time that the presentation is one-
>>sided, and the time sacrificed is usually fairly minimal. And engagement
>>of ideas awaits in class discussions and in the presentation of academic
>>papers. With this list however, the Randians are constructing the facade
>>of such open discussions, where the critical participants still invest
>>significant time reading other people's ideas and forming their own
>valuable
>>ideas, but are not allowed to argue for them or against the accepted party
>>line.
[ In other words, TRIBALISM!]
>>The keeper of the list ironically goes on to state that there are other
>>places on the net where such *free* exchange about Rand's ideas is
>>possible (if that's what you *have* to have, the implication is). Usenet
>>is the major one, and yet certain Rand followers are right now trying to
>>impose the same kind of stifling restrictions on what is acceptable to say
>>here. These are all danger signs, typical of the way dogmatists and
>>cultists go about protecting their cherished beliefs.
>>
>>The question for you as a newcomer to philosophy is which you value more:
>>group membership, the kind of warm, fuzzy comfort one gets from
>identifying
>>oneself as sharing certain strongly held ideas with a tight-knit group of
>>like-thinking people; or independence of mind, respect for intellectual
>>toleration, and a dose of humility and with it a better appreciation of
>>the way people and the world really are?
[ Decision time!]
[ Tribalism or Individualism?]
>>-Jim
>>
>
>
>--
>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
__________________________________________________________________________________
Carson Powell <cnpo...@aone.com> The Self Guided Individual
USENET NEWSGROUPS READ!
* ALT.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM * ALT.NEO-TECH
* ALT.INDIVIDUALISM * ( ANY FORSALE GROUP )
My philosophy is my own! Even if it coresponds in areas to yours!
Language Vocabulary: The variable containers of conceptual
thought and integrated knowledge puzzle pieces. Have you integrated
a new thought today?
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
.
Greg Shoom
$>
$>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
$>
$>>You're right on target, Josh. If you want a good serious, in depth,
$>>benevolent discussion of Objectivism, I suggest OSG, the private
$>>Objectivism Study Group e-mail list run by Bob Stubblefield who also
$>>publishes _The_Intellectual_Activist_. [...]
$
$>Just for the philosophically inexperienced readers who may be out there
$>and who may be thinking about looking into this mailing list as a
$>starting point for studying philosophy, here, from the web site, is one
$>of the several strict rules about things you cannot write to this list:
$>
$> * explicit sanction of anti-Objectivist principles after their
$> nature is identified. E.g., asking why "certainty" is a valid
$> concept is alright; but after learning the Objectivist position on
$> certainty, it would be inappropriate to have a thread of
$> discussion by people who share the skeptics' premise.
$>
$>In other words, listen to the presentation, ask polite questions if you
$>will, but, if you disagree, keep your mouth shut after you learn what the
$>acceptable ideas are, and allow us to continue to parade our ideas in
$>front of you without check...who knows, maybe some of them will sink in.
$>
$>This goes against everything academic philosophy, which respects the
$>individual's right to question and form his own viewpoints and discuss
$>those viewpoints, stands for. Rather than allowing themselves to be
$>challenged by new ideas, the Randians have *already* convinced themselves
$>of what the right ideas are, then proceed to circle the wagons, carefully
$>delimit boundaries, keep out intruding ideas, and keep spiralling around
$>on what's inside, trying to draw new people into the whirlpool. This
$>is not the way real philosophy goes about its business.
$>
$>Note that what they are asking you to do by joining this mailing list
$>is different from attending a college lecture or reading a book. A
$>person does those things to willingly gain insight on another person's
$>ideas -- it is understood ahead of time that the presentation is one-
$>sided, and the time sacrificed is usually fairly minimal. And engagement
$>of ideas awaits in class discussions and in the presentation of academic
$>papers. With this list however, the Randians are constructing the facade
$>of such open discussions, where the critical participants still invest
$>significant time reading other people's ideas and forming their own
$valuable
$>ideas, but are not allowed to argue for them or against the accepted party
$>line.
$>
$>The keeper of the list ironically goes on to state that there are other
$>places on the net where such *free* exchange about Rand's ideas is
$>possible (if that's what you *have* to have, the implication is). Usenet
$>is the major one, and yet certain Rand followers are right now trying to
$>impose the same kind of stifling restrictions on what is acceptable to say
$>here. These are all danger signs, typical of the way dogmatists and
$>cultists go about protecting their cherished beliefs.
$>
$>The question for you as a newcomer to philosophy is which you value more:
$>group membership, the kind of warm, fuzzy comfort one gets from
$identifying
$>oneself as sharing certain strongly held ideas with a tight-knit group of
$>like-thinking people; or independence of mind, respect for intellectual
$>toleration, and a dose of humility and with it a better appreciation of
$>the way people and the world really are?
$>
$>-Jim
$>
I have been a subscriber to OSG for over a year and I can say that Mr.
Miller's characterization of OSG is utterly and entirely wrong.
OSG is a forum for the study of Objectivism. It presupposes that participants
already recognize that Objectivism has something of value to offer them and
wish to learn more. It does not demand that participants accept Ayn Rand's
ideas on faith. Participants are free to challenge Rand's ideas as long as
they accept reason and reality as their base. But there are certain kinds of
ideas that are not welcome on OSG. For example a fundamentalist Christian
appearing on OSG to argue in favor of mysticism and self-sacrifice.
This is exactly analogous to a study group formed by engineering students to
learn about the design and fabrication of microprocessors. In such a group
people would be welcome to ask any questions relevant to this purpose. But if
a student started to argue that we should use mystical incantations to design
mircroprocessors or that microprocessors are evil then the study group should
quite properly eject him. This kind of "contribution" offers nothing of value
to the serious participants and it destroys the value of the study group (if
the participants are arguing over mysticism or morality then they're no longer
studying engineering).
Mr. Stubblefield's policy is absolutely necessary to protect the purpose of
OSG: a forum for people who want to deepen their grasp of Objectivism. If he
made it "wide open" it would end up becoming nothing more than a more
expensive version of A.P.O. It would cease to be of value to people like me
who already have decided that Objectivism is true and who want to improve
their grasp of it. Why then would I, or anyone else, pay to join OSG when I
can already get that kind of wide open discussion for free on A.P.O?
Mr. Miller, by the way, is not a subscriber to OSG and, a far as I know, never
has been. He's basing his attacks on what he's read from its charter. To be
blunt, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
$
$ Greg Shoom - sh...@astral.magic.ca, http://www.magic.ca/~shoom
$ Toronto, Ontario, Canada
$
Nicholas Rich
> The idea that seems to be most popular is a robomoderator. It would
> kill posts that were from certain known abusers, and more would be
> added to the list according to votes by the newsgroup readers (said
> persons would get warnings from the human operator before incurring a
> vote on being permanently killfiled). The robomoderator would also
> killfile posts that were sent to large numbers of newsgroups and
> those that were crossposted to alt.neo-tech.
Such transparent motivations. Stick that bit about NT in at the very
last, almost as an aside--when in fact, everyone knows the underlying
reason for this whole charade.
Why not just come out and say it--be upfront about it?
For those not in the know, here's a clue as to what's going on:
General Excitements
Cyberspace Vaporizes Irrationality
Fully integrated honesty rules cyberspace because no one rules
cyberspace. A paradoxical statement? Consider the following: The
individual reigns supreme in cyberspace. Indeed, in cyberspace,
harmful politicians, armed bureaucrats, ego judges, religious
charlatans, dishonest journalists, and stagnant big-business
executives have no control or power over individuals. Consider
professional politicians like Senators Exon and Coats who promote
gun-backed laws to impose their whims in trying to control
others. In cyberspace, as Internet explorers are discovering, such
self-aggrandizing politicians are impotent. They are simply flamed
out of existence.
What will happen as individuals by the millions move into
cyberspace? In cyberspace, individuals function freely, voluntarily
among
themselves. No space, time, or cost boundaries exist in cyberspace.
No legal, political, or religious boundaries exist. Thus, a
natural dynamic develops in which the honest, the exciting, the
valuable eventually drive out the dishonest, the boring, the
destructive.
By contrast, in the noncyberspace world ruled by political agendas,
the honest and rational are often condemned or suppressed as
politically incorrect or subjectively illegal. Also, in the
noncyberspace world, the dishonest and irrational are often politically
promoted while backed by armed bureaucrats who ultimately function
as unpunished criminals. In the noncyberspace world, armed
bureaucrats become dehumanized destroyers of innocent people's
lives, values, and property.
In cyberspace, contextual facts eventually vanish myths. Likewise,
rationality eventually vanishes irrationality: value vanishes
disvalue, honesty vanishes dishonesty. The good drives out the bad,
reality drives out mysticism, excitement drives out stagnation.
Why? Because fully integrated honesty rules in the freely
competitive atmosphere of cyberspace. Thus, through cyberspace, a
powerfully exciting, value-filled civilization will replace the
dishonest, nihilistic anticivilization choking planet Earth today.
In cyberspace, each individual can freely communicate with any other
individual, free of media dishonesty and morbidity, free of
destructive gun-backed political agendas, free of the noncyberspace
world. Today, the noncyberspace civilization is ruled by
self-serving parasitical elites through their armed bureaucrats,
sycophantic journalists, and neurotic entertainers hypocritically
promoting various politically correct agendas. By contrast, the new
cyberspace civilization spreading across the globe is free of
such corruption and dishonesty. Thus, any cyberspace civilization is
ultimately ruled by honest, value-producing individuals -- just
as are all advanced civilizations throughout the Universe.
The corrupt establishment media are irrelevant in cyberspace. No
matter how articulately mendacious are Washington Post or
Newsweek-type journalists, their dishonesties have no power in
cyberspace. The corrupt, deeply dishonest print-media and
network news simply cannot compete in cyberspace. By contrast, any
honest, articulate individual has limitless competitive power
and relevance in cyberspace. For example, consider the most powerful
person in the noncyberspace world: The articulate but
pervasively dishonest President Clinton would have no chance in
cyberspace against the articulate, honest individuals roaming the
Internet. President Clinton would be mercilessly flamed, skewered,
and then laughed off the Internet. That is why he and other
harmful politicians dare not personally enter in the dynamics of
cyberspace.
Those proclaiming authority by revelation, deception, or force have
no power or influence in cyberspace. By contrast, in
cyberspace, any individual can become powerful and influential by
applying the dynamics of wide-scope, fully integrated honesty.
Below are examples of the philosophical and physical dynamics that
operate together throughout cyberspace.
Philosophical Dynamics
Consider the following example: Two Newsgroups on the Internet
embrace the identical philosophy with essentially no intellectual
points of disagreement between them. Yet, profound spiritual
differences exist: Newsgroup A is oriented around fully integrated
honesty and the limitless power of conscious beings. Newsgroup B is
oriented around a closed-system authority and the power of
dead heroes and fictional characters. As a result, Newsgroup A
expresses itself through active, forward-moving, competitive
business modes. Newsgroup B expresses itself through passive,
philosophizing, uncompetitive academic modes. What are the
consequences?
Spiritual passions of Newsgroup A evolve around exciting,
competitive value production. Spiritual passions of Newsgroup B
evolve around stagnant, collective intellectualizing. Newsgroup A
welcomes and profitably utilizes competitive encounters.
Newsgroup B resents and dishonestly attacks competitive encounters.
...Newsgroup A represents open-ended growth.
Newsgroup B represents close-ended stagnation.
Newsgroups A and B both uncompromisingly hold Objectivism as the
proper philosophy for conscious beings. But, most in Group
A are philosophically alive, while many in Group B are
philosophically dead. Newsgroup A holds, for example, dishonestly
besmirched, unpopular mega value producers like Jay Gould and
Michael Milken as real-life, heroic benefactors to all conscious
beings. Newsgroup B holds popular but unreal, fictional characters
like Howard Roark and John Galt as heroic idols. Newsgroup
A actively sails forth into uncharted territories of future
discovery. Newsgroup B passively remains anchored in the safe harbor of
the previously established.
Both Newsgroups are intellectually in debt to philosopher Ayn Rand.
Group A gratefully utilizes her achievements while moving
forward. Group B desperately idolizes her importance while clinging
to the past. Group A also utilizes the outstanding yet grossly
under-recognized values constantly being produced by Ayn Rand's
intellectual heir, Dr. Leonard Peikoff [ 0 ]. Group B chains Dr.
Peikoff within the shadow of Ayn Rand by minimizing or ignoring his
continuous, mega value production unmatched by all other
"Objectivist leaders" combined. Group A orients around
time-efficient aggressive objectivism that will spread across cyberspace
through real-life business dynamics. Group B orients around
time-consuming passive intellectualizing that will stagnate into ever
shrinking, closed circles. Group A works in the future; Group B
dwells in the past.
The following quote is an Internet posting on both Newsgroups that
reveals how the essence of Newsgroup A is attuned with
cyberspace while the essence of Newsgroup B is ultimately
incompatible with cyberspace:
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
Maturing into an Objectivist
Some supporters and detractors of Objectivism are like
Moliére's Tartuffe with his hypocritical piety. Or,
perhaps they are more like Moliére's Alceste in The
Misanthrope who rants and rails, neither delivering much
of value to anyone nor improving much of anything. Such
people ignorantly bluster about things, situations, and
people they do not understand. Such people deliver only the
nothingness of an ego-tripping Alceste. ...But,
many could mature into the everythingness of a Defoe's
Robinson Crusoe.
Not to be an Alceste takes some brain, mouth, and keyboard
responsibility. Discipline is required to deal
contextually with reality from the widest perspectives.
Indeed, learning to work tolerantly, efficiently, profitably
with problems, situations, and people while remaining
uncompromising on principles is hard work. To produce
competitive values for the world takes constant discipline,
thought, and control combined with fully integrated
honesty.
The previous example shows why fully integrated honesty rules
cyberspace from the philosophical perspective. The following
example illustrates how fully integrated honesty rules cyberspace
from the physical perspective.
Nicholas Rich
because you had been replying to a post by Brad, and the context was the
general anarchy of Usenet, and how to regulate it in general. The
context was clearly much broader that simply deciding to go out and
start a little insignificant tea-&-crumpets Newsgroup--which I have no
problem with.
It'll be interesting to watch you evolve into increasing, fraqgmented
irrelevance as Neo-Tech marches forward in its in-the-trenches role to
cure irrationality.
What a bunch of papa's-boy whimps and sissys.
--
Nicholas Rich
Well *I* was a subscriber to OSG and was removed for the stated reason that I
advocated ideas which were contrary to Objectivism.
I never mentioned a word about NT on OSG. Betsy, busybody that she is, emailed
Bob S, and suddenly there was a post by Bob S to the list stating that I was
evidently an NT advocate, and to please post a short desriptive.
I responded specifically that I had joined OSG to study Oism, not debate NT,
but that I would post a descriptive. I posted (This was in '92, and my knowledge
of both Oism and NT was much less than today, and my post contained numerous,
albeit innocent errors on both counts).
Then the deluge from the mob. I posted some replies, but reiterrated that I
wanted to discuss Oism, not debate NT. But the mob wouldn't hear of it. Bob S
posted that he disagrees with my views, thought they were inconsistent with
Oism, but that I was welcome to stay on.
Within a week or so, someone had mailed or emailed Bob S a brochure from NTP.
Bob S took the entire thing out of context, said it advocated power lust (which
NT emphatically does not), and said that I would have to either renounce
allegiance to NT (fully integrated honesty) or that my subscription would be
cancelled.
So, I posted ideas on request only and stated that I had no problem with not
discussing NT on OSG, but was removed anyway because I was a heretic.
Draw your own conclusions. I believe I have most of the file stored
electronically if anyone would like proof. I can email it.
Jim Miller
Responding to snippets of Brad Aisa via an intermediate post; Netcom is
dropping posts:
>>Objectivism is a true philosophy.
>>Many people have validated and agree.
>>They like to associate.
>>OSG is just such a forum of association.
If OSG were only characterized as a social meeting place for people who
like Ayn Rand, there would be no cause for concern. The situation is
rather more slippery than that. It pretends to a philosophical discussion
forum where ideas are valued, but as you demonstrate again just now, many
of its members proceed about philosophy in a way that is unlike the way
conventional, open-minded, academic philosophy is conducted. The member
is expected to assimilate the Rand approach to philosophy, which will be
confusing and dishonest to neophyte philosophy students (or any philosophy
student, for that matter).
>>If I were running a list on Object Oriented programming, I would welcome
>>questions of the value of the OO approach.
>>But would I care to have as a subscriber someone who was an avowed
>>enemy of the OO approach?
>>Someone who was promoting some whacked out alternative that was
>>invalid and had no commercial or practical application?
>>Of course not.
>>If such a person wanted to promote THEIR ideas, then they can start
>>their own bloody list and attract a membership with their views.
>>This is exactly how OSG is premised.
The question is, would you care to have as a subscriber someone who was
skeptical of the OO approach, asked pertinent questions and made
pertinent critiques as opportunities in the discussion arose? Or would
you snowball a student of programming who was expressly invited to
join and discover more, but who may not be as sympathetic to OO as
many of the list organizers and members? Do OO proponents evangelize?
Do they claim to know the absolute truth in the realm of programming?
Do they build up a whole systematic framework for studying programming
which *seems* similar to normal methods for learning programming and uses
much of the same language, but which is actually based on dogmatic
assertions about the nature of computers, algorithms, and so forth?
Are OO programmers constantly at odds with the programming establishment?
Your analogy isn't tenable because professional areas of interest, like
programming, aren't usually so much about values and positions, and
lay claim to only small, specialized areas of interest. Philosophy
is precisely about values, which are emotion-laden, nebulous, and all-
encompassing. Randians lay claim to absolute truth, and moreover make
many assertions about aspects of philosophy outside their own sphere,
and as one interested in philosophy that does concern me despite my
not buying into Randians' beliefs.
>>(And Mr. Miller conveniently forgot to mention the point in the OSG charter
>>which specifies that one proper type of post to the list is attempts to
>>refute Objectivism.)
Oh, you mean this?
* attempts to validate (or invalidate) Objectivist principles with
polite well-reasoned arguments grounded in the evidence of the
senses.
Well, you have to keep in mind that that is constantly being balanced
against this whopper:
* explicit sanction of anti-Objectivist principles after their
nature is identified. E.g., asking why "certainty" is a valid
concept is alright; but after learning the Objectivist position on
certainty, it would be inappropriate to have a thread of
discussion by people who share the skeptics' premise.
and against all the evidence one gains from reading this newsgroup, about
how Randians go about judging "polite", "well-reasoned", "grounded in
the evidence of the senses", and so forth. How long are such attempts
to invalidate suffered to go on before they are drowned out by orthodoxy?
Not long, and not fairly, I'm absolutely sure.
>>Here is why the likes of Mr. Miller are called ANTI-Objectivists.
>>Mr. Miller has in my memory offered ZERO intellectual value to apo.
>>He attacks my values, but offers me nothing of value in return.
>>Now, exactly why is it that he is even able to be in my face?
>>Because people like ME (and others), who do have intellectual values to
>>offer of interest to Objectivists, create the value of this forum and the
>>purpose for its readership.
>>You will note there is not a Usenet forum devoted to the OPPONENTS of Objectivism.
>>They are parasites, requiring for the existence that the positive exists
>>first, which they then latch onto and attack.
>>Mr. Miller wants to spit in your face and demands the right to do it in
>>your home besides.
>>That the OSG contract is quite effective at screening
>>his ilk from the list's membership is its principle genius IMHO.
I offer quite a bit; you can't see it. Skepticism and counterpoint are
sorely needed in a group like this. Fret away about my ability to
provide it and to influence other open minds in front of you.
I would not attempt to join OSG myself because I have limited time and I
recognize a dead horse.
Steve Reed
>Mr. Stubblefield's policy is absolutely necessary to protect the purpose of
>OSG: a forum for people who want to deepen their grasp of Objectivism. If he
>made it "wide open" it would end up becoming nothing more than a more
>expensive version of A.P.O. It would cease to be of value to people like me
>who already have decided that Objectivism is true and who want to improve
>their grasp of it. Why then would I, or anyone else, pay to join OSG when I
>can already get that kind of wide open discussion for free on A.P.O?
I'd be grateful if Greg would tell us just what the OSG subscribers get that
they are so willing to *pay* for, at the rate of $4 per month.
A moderated group? No, from several reports, it's not moderated, apart from
terminating some persons' accounts entirely and giving them prorated refunds.
Storage of biographies and archives? Well, yes, they get that, but if that's
costing anywhere near $600-800 a month (going on reports of 150 to 200
subscribers), Stubblefield definitely needs a new ISP :)
Advertising? It's mostly publicized on a.p.o and a few Web pages.
The privilege of paying for Stubblefield's computer and his rent? That's
probably closer to the truth.
Well, just what DO you get for that annual $48? Anything other than the
comfortable cocoon of an electronic wall against outsiders?
Jim Miller
sh...@astral.magic.ca (Greg Shoom) of Magic Online Services International Inc.
wrote:
>I have been a subscriber to OSG for over a year and I can say that Mr.
>Miller's characterization of OSG is utterly and entirely wrong.
>
>OSG is a forum for the study of Objectivism. It presupposes that participants
>already recognize that Objectivism has something of value to offer them and
>wish to learn more. It does not demand that participants accept Ayn Rand's
>ideas on faith. Participants are free to challenge Rand's ideas as long as
>they accept reason and reality as their base. But there are certain kinds of
>ideas that are not welcome on OSG. For example a fundamentalist Christian
>appearing on OSG to argue in favor of mysticism and self-sacrifice.
From all evidence, apparently NT and Kelley, the closest intellectual kin of
and challengers to Peikoffians, are also pariah. Participants are free to
challenge as long as "reason and reality" makes them come around fairly
quickly, and they don't rock the boat with their consistent, explicitly
expressed objections to Peikoff principles. A certain amount of prudent
silence seems to endear one to the powers-that-be.
>This is exactly analogous to a study group formed by engineering students to
>learn about the design and fabrication of microprocessors. In such a group
>people would be welcome to ask any questions relevant to this purpose. But if
>a student started to argue that we should use mystical incantations to design
>mircroprocessors or that microprocessors are evil then the study group should
>quite properly eject him. This kind of "contribution" offers nothing of value
>to the serious participants and it destroys the value of the study group (if
>the participants are arguing over mysticism or morality then they're no longer
>studying engineering).
Again, because of the type of subject matter, it's unlikely that anyone
in an engineering study group would hold unscientific or wildly off-base
notions about the nature of their field. Philosophy isn't as cut-and-dry.
Randians lay claim to truth in wide-ranging areas, address and make false
claims about the views of various philosophers which which the student
of philosophy may have already had contact, and actively evangelize. All
this is conducive to wide overlap, and combined with the fact that
philosophy is a classical academic field which honors argumentation
and consistently applied critical examination, all philosophy is therefore
intertwined to some degree.
>Mr. Stubblefield's policy is absolutely necessary to protect the purpose of
>OSG: a forum for people who want to deepen their grasp of Objectivism. If he
>made it "wide open" it would end up becoming nothing more than a more
>expensive version of A.P.O. It would cease to be of value to people like me
>who already have decided that Objectivism is true and who want to improve
>their grasp of it. Why then would I, or anyone else, pay to join OSG when I
>can already get that kind of wide open discussion for free on A.P.O?
It's funny how other philosophical forums don't need "protecting". That's
the pertinent fact -- the participants have already decided on their
dogma, so protection is needed against critical intellectual examination
by outsiders and by the philosophical community.
>Mr. Miller, by the way, is not a subscriber to OSG and, a far as I know, never
>has been. He's basing his attacks on what he's read from its charter. To be
>blunt, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
I'm basing my criticism not only on the charter, but also on my year-long
experience with the methodology of orthodox Randians on this newsgroup.
I've also read testimony from people who *have* had direct experience
with OSG and other Rand venues. I believe I have identified some
consistent patterns in Randian thinking that would extend to anything
these people control; really, the evidence is overwhelming.
Jimmy Pena
On 14 Feb 1996, Betsy Speicher wrote:
> For a good picture of what's going on at OSG and who the OSGers are, check
> out the OSG website at:
>
> http://www.exit109.cm/~integrity/OSG_home.HTM
This thread is starting to get hypocritical. If I recall
correctly, I started the thread by telling everyone that one way to
reclaim alt.philosophy.objectivism is to stop crossposting to
alt.neo-tech. Yet here we are, discussing the separation, by crossposting
to the very group that we're trying to separate from ours! Hilarious.
Good job everyone, for keeping the goal in focus.
Snort.
Jimmy Pena - ra...@ingress.com
Anonymous
> Jason Kuznicki wrote:
>
> > The idea that seems to be most popular is a robomoderator. It would
> > kill posts that were from certain known abusers, and more would be
> > added to the list according to votes by the newsgroup readers (said
> > persons would get warnings from the human operator before incurring a
> > vote on being permanently killfiled). The robomoderator would also
> > killfile posts that were sent to large numbers of newsgroups and
> > those that were crossposted to alt.neo-tech.
>
> Such transparent motivations. Stick that bit about NT in at the very
> last, almost as an aside--when in fact, everyone knows the underlying
> reason for this whole charade.
My experiment in alt.neo-tech to determine the number of posts that
originate there showed that it is pathetically easy to eliminate
crossposts with any good killfile.
By the way, for those not reading alt.neo-tech (and that would be most
of you), once you eliminate posts that have 'libertarian', 'objectivism'
or 'limbaugh' in the newsgroups header from a.n-t, which had 600 posts
pre-filtering, you end up with 100.
And I didn't even filter out spammed ads for MLM and pyrimid schemes.
> Why not just come out and say it--be upfront about it?
The intent of the Objecti-pussies is crystal clear to all sentient beings:
They can't take the heat, so they're gonna scamper out of the kitchen.
(giant template with screwed up linefeeds snipped)
Anonymous
(snip linefeed-hosed mess that's not that relevent anyway)
> Well *I* was a subscriber to OSG and was removed for the stated reason that
> I advocated ideas which were contrary to Objectivism.
>
> I never mentioned a word about NT on OSG. Betsy, busybody that she is,
> emailed Bob S, and suddenly there was a post by Bob S to the list stating
> that I was evidently an NT advocate, and to please post a short desriptive.
>
> I responded specifically that I had joined OSG to study Oism, not debate
> NT, but that I would post a descriptive. I posted (This was in '92, and my
> knowledge of both Oism and NT was much less than today, and my post
> contained numerous,albeit innocent errors on both counts).
>
> Then the deluge from the mob. I posted some replies, but reiterrated that I
> wanted to discuss Oism, not debate NT. But the mob wouldn't hear of it. Bob
> S posted that he disagrees with my views, thought they were inconsistent
> with Oism, but that I was welcome to stay on.
>
> Within a week or so, someone had mailed or emailed Bob S a brochure from
> NTP. Bob S took the entire thing out of context, said it advocated power
> lust (which NT emphatically does not), and said that I would have to either
> renounce allegiance to NT (fully integrated honesty) or that my
> subscription would be cancelled.
>
> So, I posted ideas on request only and stated that I had no problem with
> not discussing NT on OSG, but was removed anyway because I was a heretic.
>
> Draw your own conclusions. I believe I have most of the file stored
> electronically if anyone would like proof. I can email it.
If the above is an accurate description of what happened, I can only say
that the OSG is a pathetic and cowardly mob of bootlickers. You were
removed for THOUGHTCRIME! How rational! How liberating! How
despicable...
If I were you, I would get a telnet account on a freenet somewhere and
join OSG under a new name. Just to fuck them.
By the way, because I post anonymously, they have NO FUCKIN' WAY of
preventing me from joining their little mutual masturbation society. In
fact I MIGHT ALREADY BE A MEMBER, SPREADING MY COVERT IRRATIONAL MEMES AND
CONTAMINATING THEIR SKULLS!
Oh, and of course in any moderated newsgroup created in the alt.*
heirarchy, I might just be there, SKULLFUCKING RAND and all her EVIL
MINIONS with my special low level metamemetic programming techniques.
THE EVIL IS EVERYWHERE AND IT CANNOT BE ESCAPED!!!!!!!!!!!
Hee hee hee hee hee!
claude jeruchim
: Jim Miller <ji...@netcom.com> wrote, in response to my ringing
: > Just for the philosophically inexperienced readers who may be out there
: > and who may be thinking about looking into this mailing list as a
: > starting point for studying philosophy ...
: > [ quote from OSG contract and commentary deleted ]
: > This goes against everything academic philosophy, which respects the
: > individual's right to question and form his own viewpoints and discuss
: > those viewpoints, stands for. [ ... ]
: > This
: > is not the way real philosophy goes about its business.
: > Note that what they are asking you to do by joining this mailing list
: > is different from attending a college lecture or reading a book.
: This much is true -- thank goodness! OSG is a private selective (actually
: self-selective) list of people who accept basic Objectivist principles,
: want to understand them better, and want to apply them to their lives,
: studies, and careers. It's also a warm and chummy "club" where I have
: met some wonderful people some of whom have become dear friends.
: > The keeper of the list ironically goes on to state that there are other
: > places on the net where such *free* exchange about Rand's ideas is
: > possible (if that's what you *have* to have, the implication is). Usenet
: > is the major one, and yet certain Rand followers are right now trying to
: > impose the same kind of stifling restrictions on what is acceptable to say
: > here.
: Certain "Rand followers" aren't. I am a staunch supporter of the Ayn
: Rand Institute who thinks that Leonard Peikoff is a neat guy. Sometimes I
: like to retreat to OSG for a serious discussion among friends and
: sometimes I like a wild and wooly no-man's land like a.p.o. The only
: objection I have to the current state of affairs here is that the
: intellectual free-for-all would be decidedly improved with a limit on
: cross-posting from unrelated groups and by keeping the Neo-Tech
don't you get it? Don't you see how Neo-Tech IS the application of
Objectivism to lives, studies, and careers?
Claude
: discussions on alt.neo-tech. I think most people reading a.p.o. agree
: and I'm willing to put it to a CFV.
: > The question for you as a newcomer to philosophy is which you value more:
: > group membership, the kind of warm, fuzzy comfort one gets from identifying
: > oneself as sharing certain strongly held ideas with a tight-knit group of
: > like-thinking people; or independence of mind,
: Both seem nice to me.
: > respect for intellectual
: > toleration,
: I tolerate intellect. Stupidity is harder to swallow.
: > and a dose of humility
: Not my style. Sorry.
: 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)
--
Nicholas Rich
> despicable...
> If I were you, I would get a telnet account on a freenet somewhere and
> join OSG under a new name. Just to fuck them.
Let me be clear that I fully support the right of a private list owner
to exclude anyone for any reason he chooses, be it rational or
irrational.
If I think I was excluded irrationally, then my most powerful tool is to
simply state my experience. I have no interest going against the
property owner's wishes with respect to his own property.
Nicholas Rich
>
> In article <3129EB...@ss-n.com>, Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
> > Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > > despicable...
> > > If I were you, I would get a telnet account on a freenet somewhere and
> > > join OSG under a new name. Just to fuck them.
> >
> > Let me be clear that I fully support the right of a private list owner
> > to exclude anyone for any reason he chooses, be it rational or
> > irrational.
> >
> > If I think I was excluded irrationally, then my most powerful tool is to
> > simply state my experience. I have no interest going against the
> > property owner's wishes with respect to his own property.
>
> in the OSG for a few months, prove that you are capable of discussing
> Objectivism without bringing Neo-Kook into it (if indeed you are capable
> of doing so), and then make them all look like fools by decloaking and
> pointing out what dicks they were for excluding you in the first place.
> - King of all Heretics
How do you know I'm not doing that on a.p.o. now?
And yes. I am quite capable and adept at discussing any aspect of
Objectivism without using NT words. It requires significantly narrowing my
view of existence, and its consequent integrations, but it can be done.
Betsy Speicher
> On 14 Feb 1996, Betsy Speicher wrote:
> > For a good picture of what's going on at OSG and who the OSGers are, check
> > out the OSG website at:
> >
> > http://www.exit109.cm/~integrity/OSG_home.HTM
> This thread is starting to get hypocritical. If I recall
> correctly, I started the thread by telling everyone that one way to
> reclaim alt.philosophy.objectivism is to stop crossposting to
> alt.neo-tech. Yet here we are, discussing the separation, by crossposting
> to the very group that we're trying to separate from ours! Hilarious.
Oops. Sorry, Jimmy.
If I'm going to give a plug to OSG I certainly don't want to do it on
alt.neo-tech. I guess the NT buggers snuck it into the "Newsgroups:"
and "Followup-To:" lines and I didn't notice.
They do that a lot, you know.
Anonymous
Anonymous
> How do you know I'm not doing that on a.p.o. now?
You can't really do that because the Objectivists tend not to reply to
you. By adopting a new identity you would get past their killfiles and
actually have some dialogue.
> And yes. I am quite capable and adept at discussing any aspect of
> Objectivism without using NT words. It requires significantly narrowing my
> view of existence, and its consequent integrations, but it can be done.
Yes, you'd have to stick to discussing the real world.
thin...@netcom.com
Tony Donadio
: > The keeper of the list ironically goes on to state that there are other
: > places on the net where such *free* exchange about Rand's ideas is
: > possible (if that's what you *have* to have, the implication is). Usenet
: > is the major one, and yet certain Rand followers are right now trying to
: > impose the same kind of stifling restrictions on what is acceptable to say
: > here.
Is that a fact? Like who? I haven't seen anyone endorsing this position.
Who does the poster have in mind? Or is he just bashing another straw
man?
Some of us are trying to get *topically inappropriate* postings off of apo
-- such as Neo-Tech spamming. This is PRECISELY the kind of thing one
finds today in a college classroom. (For example, one should not be free
to launch into a discussion on baking in the middle of a classics course.)
--
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
Nicholas Rich
> Is that a fact? Like who? I haven't seen anyone endorsing this position.
> Who does the poster have in mind? Or is he just bashing another straw
> man?
>
> Some of us are trying to get *topically inappropriate* postings off of apo
> -- such as Neo-Tech spamming. This is PRECISELY the kind of thing one
> finds today in a college classroom. (For example, one should not be free
> to launch into a discussion on baking in the middle of a classics course.)
Here's why we post, and why acedemic-mode Objectivism will eventually be
encompassed and superceded by business-mode Objectivism embodied in Neo-Tech
socially, and Zonpower Universally.
Better try and stop us while you *think* you still can. Soon, you'll realize
the futility of trying to hinder the advance of fully integrated honesty and
conscious control of existence.
AYN RAND: SABOTEUR SUPREME
Literature Creates Conscious Civilizations
(revised)
The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, The Canterbury Tales,
Paradise Lost, The Pilgrim's Progress, Gulliver's Travels, and Faust
were journeys that created Western civilization. Homer, Plato,
Virgil, Dante, Boccaccio, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Bunyan, Swift, Kant,
Goethe, Balzac, all took journeys that advanced Earth's
Anticivilization. In the context of this Anticivilization,
regardless of philosophical errors, those travelers did their work
right -- exactly right, powerfully right. That fact must be
understood to advance beyond the Anticivilization.
(Note: The modern and existential writers of the 20th century such as
Proust, Joyce, Faulkner, Sartre (Kafka being an exception) do not hold
the civilization-determining power of the classicists.)
The lone saboteur was Ayn Rand with her epic Atlas Shrugged. Yet,
she and her great work were trapped in purgatory -- trapped in the
unbridgeable gulf between this Anticivilization and the Civilization
of the Universe.
By contrast, an evolving primary epic called Quantum Crossings
reveals a mind-blowing journey for conscious beings. A journey from
this Anticivilization into the Civilization of the Universe. In
Quantum Crossings, the protagonist, Iu, in a life-and-death race
crafts twelve keys to open twelve gates that allow conscious beings to
jump with spectacular results across the twelve unbridgeable gulfs
leading to the Civilization of the Universe.
Who is Sabotaging this Anticivilization?
(rewritten and revised)
Saboteur supreme
Ayn Rand's anger hid her exquisite victory
Rejected by the intelligentsia, the academe, the media
Ignored by the establishment rulers and big-business leaders
Minimized, ridiculed, ignored by the high and mighty
Without exception
No establishment elite acknowledges her supreme accomplishment
Not yesterday, not today, never
No establishment figure has ever risen to proclaim
Ayn Rand's Objectivism as civilization's most valuable product
As in Henrik Ibsen's themes of fearing the light
All establishment elites must fear the most brilliant light
The light of fully integrated honesty
Objectivism: the universal philosophy of facts and reason
Based upon the universal needs of conscious beings
Objectivism: eternally benefiting conscious beings
Through fully integrated honesty
Under any conditions, throughout time and space
II
Trapped in cultural narrowness and literature naiveness,
Ayn Rand lived in a world of precise but narrow-scope accuracies
She lived in a world of blind naiveness
Naive to the wide-scope context of philosophers from Plato to Kant
Naive to the wide-scope power behind the classics of literature
Naive to the anticivilization in which she invested
She never understood why the classics were classics
Or how such classics deliver to the establishment its power
Or why those classics deliver awesome values that advance civilization
In this anticivilization, mighty authors craft their works correctly
Despite their philosophical errors
For this is the anticivilization
In which their classics create and control all subjects
With an iron grip
And that is why the classicists did their work correctly
In her innocence, Ayn Rand never understood their accomplishments
Thus, she never perceived the establishment's deep secret
The secret of why establishment intellectuals must always keep
separate
Separate from the honest value producers, especially her
In her innocence
She could never belong
Ayn Rand the saboteur
III
Never belonging made Ayn Rand angry and discouraged
Never belonging made her coworkers frustrated and baffled
Never belonging made her followers shut their minds
None could see beyond this anticivilization
Objectivism will never be proclaimed by establishment elite
Or by anyone whose self-esteem is invested in this anticivilization
Objectivism is never going to be accepted by establishment rulers
So look beyond
IV
But wait! Why look beyond?
Today arises an upward attention sweep
For Ayn Rand and her work
An upward sweep among the establishment
The influence of "Atlas Shrugged" topped only by the Bible
Both read by the Pope today
Victory at last?
No. No victory. No victory ever in this anticivilization
That upward sweep is a fashion surge
A fashion surge captured by the dynamics of profitable business
A fashion surge driven by establishment egos
In the past, "The Fountainhead", then its movie, and finally "Atlas
Shrugged"
Also brought fashion surges from the establishment elites
But, each such surge was emasculated with political correctness
Emasculated with mixes of distortion and equivocation
Emasculated with ridicule or scorn by strutting nihilists
No establishment authority, no establishment powerhouse
No establishment star ever recognized Objectivism as Earth's greatest
value
Not then, not now, not ever
V
Consider those few who break their establishment dependencies
Those who end their investments in this anticivilization
They are the few who can look far, far ahead -- toward eternity
They are the few who can see new-color dimensions
In which corrupt establishments and their authorities vanish forever
Consider those free souls who look across the abyss
Into wide-scope reality
Through fully integrated honesty, they hear a symphony
The Symphony of the Universe
They see an approaching civilization
The Civilization of the Universe
VI
Today, an engine of fully integrated honesty is planted deep
Deep into the veins of this moribund anticivilization
That engine is Neo-Tech
Neo-Tech is fully integrated honesty in action
An engine that injects Objectivism into every act
Neo-Tech opens the gates to quantum crossings
Opens the gates for journeys into wide-scope reality
Into the Civilization of the Universe
Into fully integrated honesty
VII
Allegory reveals the first Quantum Crossing:
Theism is never proclaimed by Hell's elite
Satanism is never hailed by Heaven's elite
Objectivism is never celebrated in by the Anticivilization's elite
Non-Objectivist philosophies are never even known
In the immortal Civilization of the Universe
Can Hell be Heaven? Can Heaven be Hell?
Can the Anticivilization be the Civilization of the Universe?
Can the Civilization of the Universe be the Anticivilization?
Can A be Z? Or Z be A?
Can death be life? Can life be death?
VIII
Victory is now available for everyone, everywhere, forever.
The gate swings open to the first of twelve crossings
Crossings into wide-scope reality
Crossings into the Civilization of the Universe
Untouched and untouchable by this unreal, mystical anticivilization
Untouched by hecklers, nihilists, and parasitical elites
Untouched by professional value destroyers
Untouched and untouchable by non-Objectivist philosophies
The Anticivilization's common destination for all
Is eternal death from nihilistic nothingness
The Civilization of the Universe's common destination for all
Is eternal life from productive prosperity
Ayn Rand saboteur supreme
Her exquisite victory is total and sublime
Now rising toward the Civilization of the Universe
Nihilists vanish in non competitiveness
Unable to exist in an Objectivist civilization
Stand up
A toast to Ayn Rand
Fully integrated honesty is here forever
Nicholas Rich
> > > But the marvelous thing about my proposal is that you could participate
> > > in the OSG for a few months, prove that you are capable of discussing
> > > Objectivism without bringing Neo-Kook into it (if indeed you are capable
> > > of doing so), and then make them all look like fools by decloaking and
> > > pointing out what dicks they were for excluding you in the first place.
> > > - King of all Heretics
> >
> > How do you know I'm not doing that on a.p.o. now?
>
> You can't really do that because the Objectivists tend not to reply to
> you. By adopting a new identity you would get past their killfiles and
> actually have some dialogue.
You missunderstood (surprise!). Like I said, how do you know I'm not already
doing this?
claude jeruchim
: Anonymous wrote:
: > despicable...
: > If I were you, I would get a telnet account on a freenet somewhere and
: > join OSG under a new name. Just to fuck them.
So, just to be sure, you are against Equal Opportunity laws which
force business not to discriminate?
Claude
: Let me be clear that I fully support the right of a private list owner
: to exclude anyone for any reason he chooses, be it rational or
: irrational.
: If I think I was excluded irrationally, then my most powerful tool is to
: simply state my experience. I have no interest going against the
: property owner's wishes with respect to his own property.
: --
: =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
: 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.
claude jeruchim
reposted to skidmore.talk
: > man?
: --
Matt Keys
: Some of us are trying to get *topically inappropriate* postings off of apo
: -- such as Neo-Tech spamming. This is PRECISELY the kind of thing one
: finds today in a college classroom. (For example, one should not be free
: to launch into a discussion on baking in the middle of a classics course.)
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.
--
ZONPOWER
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/
claude jeruchim
Anonymous (anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl) wrote:
: > Anonymous wrote:
: >
: > > despicable...
: > > If I were you, I would get a telnet account on a freenet somewhere and
: > > join OSG under a new name. Just to fuck them.
: >
: > Let me be clear that I fully support the right of a private list owner
: > to exclude anyone for any reason he chooses, be it rational or
: > irrational.
: >
: > If I think I was excluded irrationally, then my most powerful tool is to
: > simply state my experience. I have no interest going against the
: > property owner's wishes with respect to his own property.
: But the marvelous thing about my proposal is that you could participate
: in the OSG for a few months, prove that you are capable of discussing
: Objectivism without bringing Neo-Kook into it (if indeed you are capable
: of doing so), and then make them all look like fools by decloaking and
: pointing out what dicks they were for excluding you in the first place.
: - King of all Heretics
Its tough keeping quiet about ideas you have concerning irrationality,
man's only conscious disease.
Claude
Tony Donadio
: If I'm going to give a plug to OSG I certainly don't want to do it on
: alt.neo-tech. I guess the NT buggers snuck it into the "Newsgroups:"
: and "Followup-To:" lines and I didn't notice.
: They do that a lot, you know.
Yes, they do. And it is a damn time-consuming *nuisance* to have to keep
splicing them out.
claude jeruchim
Nicholas Rich
>
> Betsy Speicher (be...@speicher.com) wrote:
>
> : If I'm going to give a plug to OSG I certainly don't want to do it on
> : alt.neo-tech. I guess the NT buggers snuck it into the "Newsgroups:"
> : and "Followup-To:" lines and I didn't notice.
>
> : They do that a lot, you know.
>
> Yes, they do. And it is a damn time-consuming *nuisance* to have to keep
> splicing them out.
Pooor wittow Tony is such an unfortunate victim. Here's what underlies his
self-righteous, emotionally-immature pontificating:
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.
--
Jim Klein
writes:
>Some of us are trying to get *topically inappropriate* postings off of
>apo-- such as Neo-Tech spamming.
Could you please expand on this a bit? I'm surely no fan of the NT
verbiage (yes, I do consider it virtually completely wasteful and
useless), but I really haven't seen that much harm from it. And I've
seen that several reasonable folks seem to enjoy turning 10K of
worthlessness into even larger messages. But so what? Even with no
automated reader, I don't have much trouble ignoring it, and when I see
something short by an NTer whom I know to be semi-rational, I can read
it if I want. I'm sure after some period of time, the endless zonning
will go away.
The point is, what do you mean by "off of apo"? By whom? On what
basis? TO WHAT END?
Thanks in advance.
jk
Billy Beck
anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous) wrote:
>P.S. I wonder what other authoritarian social settings Objecti-statists
>will be trotting out as examples of what newsgroups _ought_ to be like.
>So far we have the shopping mall and the college classroom. How about a
>boot camp? The Gulag Archipelago? Sunday School? Gym class?
"Massa Aisa in the Tea Room with a Crumpet."
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 2/19/96
claude jeruchim
: claude jeruchim <cjer...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
: > jlan...@starnetinc.com wrote:
: > : Well, Tim, I'm not in the market right now for any kind of newsletter.
: > : Just wanted to exchange some ideas in an electronic public forum. But
: > : this isn't the first attack I've seen on Betsy. Don't know her that
: > : well, but, frankly, the number of unnecessary attacks I've seen on
: > : her, in just a couple of days, is probably a point in her favor.
: > nope, she's a pseudo objectivist - rejects NT without knowledge of it.
: Allow me to introduce myself and present my qualifications as an
: Objectivist and you all decide.
: I have been involved with and active in Objectivism for more than 34
: years. I have written articles which have appeared in _The_
: _Objectivist_Forum_ and in _The_Intellectual_Activist_. For the past
: 8 years I was President of the Southern California Objectivist
: Association.
such things do not an objectivist make.
: As for how I apply Objectivism to my private life and my business
: career, I invite anyone who is interested to view my website at:
: http://compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/betsys.html
impressive. maybe you could hire me, I'll graduate this May with a
B.A. in Computer Science. Anyway, its puzzling how someone so
integrated with objectivism would reject NT. Rejecting fully
integrated honesty doesn't sound very objective. I think that you
revere Ayn Rand and possibly feel threatened by Neo-Tech. Could be
wrong, but thats just my perception. :)
Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed your web page. You will realize, sooner
or later, that Neo-Tech is the dynamic that will spread Objectivism to
the masses and will eliminate irrationality.
Claude
: 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 Klein
writes:
>There is a reason why spamming is considered a form of net abuse. I
>suggest thinking about it.
Is the endless NT stuff "spamming"? I really don't know the technical
definition of this...I thought spamming was kind of like "flaming".
While you're at it, and if you care to add facts to the brew, what's
"trolling"?
In any event, I'm sure you don't mean to appeal to "is considered" as
justification of your point, right? How is it abusive? I guess I see
how it makes the expense and trouble a bit more, but so would
legitimate argument...pretty tough to "pre-sort" the two, I'd say.
The "I suggest thinking about it" crack...is that an implication? Is
this an example of Objective ad hominem, or is there a point here?
Thanks in advance.
jk
Anonymous
Donadio) wrote:
> : Jim Miller <ji...@netcom.com> wrote
>
> : > The keeper of the list ironically goes on to state that there are other
> : > places on the net where such *free* exchange about Rand's ideas is
> : > possible (if that's what you *have* to have, the implication is). Usenet
> : > is the major one, and yet certain Rand followers are right now trying to
> : > impose the same kind of stifling restrictions on what is acceptable to say
> : > here.
>
> Is that a fact? Like who? I haven't seen anyone endorsing this position.
> Who does the poster have in mind? Or is he just bashing another straw
> man?
>
> Some of us are trying to get *topically inappropriate* postings off of apo
> -- such as Neo-Tech spamming. This is PRECISELY the kind of thing one
> finds today in a college classroom. (For example, one should not be free
> to launch into a discussion on baking in the middle of a classics course.)
Why do you consider a newsgroup to be analogous to a college classroom?
This is a new one on me.
- King of all Heretics
P.S. I wonder what other authoritarian social settings Objecti-statists
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > In article <312A85...@ss-n.com>, Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Anonymous wrote:
>
> > > > But the marvelous thing about my proposal is that you could
> > > > participate in the OSG for a few months, prove that you are capable
> > > > of discussing Objectivism without bringing Neo-Kook into it (if
> > > > indeed you are capable of doing so), and then make them all look like
> > > > fools by decloaking and pointing out what dicks they were for
> > > > excluding you in the first place.
> > > > - King of all Heretics
> > >
> > > How do you know I'm not doing that on a.p.o. now?
> >
> > You can't really do that because the Objectivists tend not to reply to
> > you. By adopting a new identity you would get past their killfiles and
> > actually have some dialogue.
>
> You missunderstood (surprise!). Like I said, how do you know I'm not
> already doing this?
Oh - you don't think it would be ethical to sneak into OSG with a secret
identity, but it would be ethical to do so in a.p.o.?
I see your point.
There is no way to know whether or not any of the entities posting here
are actually you in disguise. That's assuming you have enough skill to
hide your style. I've encountered entities that try to return under new
identities who fail utterly due to their obvious personality quirks,
vocabulary, jargon and style.
Tony Donadio
: Could you please expand on this a bit? I'm surely no fan of the NT
: verbiage (yes, I do consider it virtually completely wasteful and
: useless), but I really haven't seen that much harm from it...
: Even with no automated reader, I don't have much trouble ignoring it...
This certainly was not MY experience. While I was using the offline
newsreader (without a killfile), I was throwing away on the order of four
fifths of the posts I was downloading -- a substantial portion of which
were NT related. This cost me connect time and phone charges -- for the
privilige of getting piles of useless NT garbage, from a newsgroup
alleged to be for discussion of Objectivism. Now, instead, I cull the
threads online by hand -- and my killfile, while leaky, at least makes
the process bearable again.
There is a reason why spamming is considered a form of net abuse. I
suggest thinking about it.
THINKfirst!
: If I were running a list on Object Oriented programming, I would welcome
: questions of the value of the OO approach. But would I care to have as a
: subscriber someone who was an avowed enemy of the OO approach? Someone who
: was promoting some whacked out alternative that was invalid and had no
: commercial or practical application?
Hold on a sec...
Did you come to this conclusion (that something
is a "whacked out alternative" and is "invalid"
and "without commercial or practical application")
through OBJECTIVE reasoning and TESTING of the
"alternative"?
Or would it simply be your opinion based on a
superficial glance at something that SEEMS to
be all these things? Or something that someone
SAID was all these things?
How consistent would you be?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T H I N K f i r s t !
What is is. Perceive it. Integrate it honestly. Act on it. Idealize it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THINKfirst!
: : > The keeper of the list ironically goes on to state that there are other
: : > places on the net where such *free* exchange about Rand's ideas is
: : > possible (if that's what you *have* to have, the implication is). Usenet
: : > is the major one, and yet certain Rand followers are right now trying to
: : > impose the same kind of stifling restrictions on what is acceptable to say
: : > here.
: Is that a fact? Like who? I haven't seen anyone endorsing this position.
: Who does the poster have in mind? Or is he just bashing another straw
: man?
: Some of us are trying to get *topically inappropriate* postings off of apo
: -- such as Neo-Tech spamming. This is PRECISELY the kind of thing one
: finds today in a college classroom. (For example, one should not be free
: to launch into a discussion on baking in the middle of a classics course.)
Would you mind TESTING your hypothesis?
Or do you prefer to PRETEND that it's
accurate, just because you *think* it is.
My claim is that Neo-Tech is NOT off-topic
on a.p.o. It never has been and it never
will be. The two go hand-in-hand, and,
in fact, neither is complete without the
other.
But don't take my assertion. And I won't
take YOUR assertion.
Let's TEST them both! Wouldn't that be
the most OBJECTIVE thing to do?
Billy Beck
>There is a reason why spamming is considered a form of net abuse. I
>suggest thinking about it.
There is a reason why the term ("spam") exists, and I suggest that you
discover what it is.
Lance Neustaeter
repeated displays of ignorance.
On 22-Feb-96 13:27:00, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
> There is a reason why spamming is considered a form of net abuse. I
> suggest thinking about it.
Spamming is net abuse. Cross-posting is not spamming.
Lance
--
Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, bacon and spam.
Matt Keys
: : >Some of us are trying to get *topically inappropriate* postings off of
: : >apo-- such as Neo-Tech spamming.
: : Could you please expand on this a bit? I'm surely no fan of the NT
: : verbiage (yes, I do consider it virtually completely wasteful and
: : useless), but I really haven't seen that much harm from it...
: : Even with no automated reader, I don't have much trouble ignoring it...
: This certainly was not MY experience. While I was using the offline
: newsreader (without a killfile), I was throwing away on the order of four
: fifths of the posts I was downloading -- a substantial portion of which
: were NT related. This cost me connect time and phone charges -- for the
: privilige of getting piles of useless NT garbage, from a newsgroup
: alleged to be for discussion of Objectivism. Now, instead, I cull the
: threads online by hand -- and my killfile, while leaky, at least makes
: the process bearable again.
Wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competition for Ersatz Objectivists
The ersatz Objectivists are going bonkers. They can't stand the
competition from Neo-Tech Objectivism. Neo-Tech is eventually going
to capture all their markets, and they sense that fact.
Competition lies beneath all the bitter complaining by a few apo
"leaders": Actively growing business-mode Objectivism simply
outcompetes static academe-mode Objectivism. Neo-Tech Objectivists
are essentially 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 the apo newsgroup are now desperately, vainly appealing to the
Internet "government" to stop the competition. ...Notice, they
never complain about the countless examples of genuine off-topic
spamming occurring daily on apo. Besides being uncompetitive and
impotent, the ersatz Objectivists are dishonest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Miller
tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) of PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX,
NYC wrote:
>: >Some of us are trying to get *topically inappropriate* postings off of
>: >apo-- such as Neo-Tech spamming.
>
>: Could you please expand on this a bit? I'm surely no fan of the NT
>: verbiage (yes, I do consider it virtually completely wasteful and
>: useless), but I really haven't seen that much harm from it...
>: Even with no automated reader, I don't have much trouble ignoring it...
>
>This certainly was not MY experience. While I was using the offline
>newsreader (without a killfile), I was throwing away on the order of four
>fifths of the posts I was downloading -- a substantial portion of which
>were NT related. This cost me connect time and phone charges -- for the
>privilige of getting piles of useless NT garbage, from a newsgroup
>alleged to be for discussion of Objectivism. Now, instead, I cull the
>threads online by hand -- and my killfile, while leaky, at least makes
>the process bearable again.
I don't think your situation is all that unusual, Tony. I read
talk.philosophy.misc and throw away ž of it. I ignore most of
sci.math. The chat newsgroups local to my provider seem mostly
like blather to me. I'm simply not interested in the entire range
of offerings in these groups. That's part and parcel of Usenet.
Unless you restrict yourself to groups with very low volume, you're
going to *need* that good newsreader with killfiles or threading.
>There is a reason why spamming is considered a form of net abuse. I
>suggest thinking about it.
Like Aisa posting his personal manifesto to every politics group on
the planet? When people complained about that, his response was
simply asserting that he was on-topic. I guess we all have our
different notions of relevance.
-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 |
David Friedman
Klein ) wrote:
> In <4gin34$o...@panix2.panix.com> tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio)
> writes:
>
> >There is a reason why spamming is considered a form of net abuse. I
> >suggest thinking about it.
>
> Is the endless NT stuff "spamming"? I really don't know the technical
> definition of this...I thought spamming was kind of like "flaming".
> While you're at it, and if you care to add facts to the brew, what's
> "trolling"?
Spamming is the practice of sending one post to a large number of
unrelated newsgroups. To troll is to post a message designed to elicit
outraged responses. So far as I know, the NT people are doing neither.
On the other hand, I have some sympathy with those who think that
crossposting, even if well intended, is at least as great a threat to the
usability of newsgroups as spamming. I would guess that a sizable majority
of the threads on talk.politics.libertarian are echoes of threads mainly
occurring somewhere else--i.e. most of the posters are reading the
discussion from a different newsgroup. And things get messy if you try to
solve the problem by pruning irrelevant groups from your header, because
that means that some participants in the argument may be unable to see
what other participants are saying.
David Friedman
Billy Beck
rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein ) wrote:
>Even with no automated reader, I don't have much trouble ignoring it,
>and when I see something short by an NTer whom I know to be
>semi-rational...
(which really *does* happen)
>...I can read it if I want. I'm sure after some period of time, the endless
>zonning will go away.
Pay attention, folx. This is a major clue.
Did anyone here ever let go a rope in a tug-of-war...and watch the
opposing team fall on its ass?
Just wondering.
THINKfirst!
I would, but I think I'm killfiled, too. :)
Lance Neustaeter (la...@portal.ca) wrote:
: Would somebody forward this to Tony for me. I hate
: repeated displays of ignorance.
: On 22-Feb-96 13:27:00, Tony Donadio tdon...@panix.com wrote:
: > There is a reason why spamming is considered a form of net abuse. I
: > suggest thinking about it.
: Spamming is net abuse. Cross-posting is not spamming.
: Lance
: --
: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, bacon and spam.
--
Brad Aisa
>tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
>>There is a reason why spamming is considered a form of net abuse. I
>>suggest thinking about it.
>Like Aisa posting his personal manifesto to every politics group on
>the planet?
Is this the same Jim Miller who is a member of the Libertarian Party?
Let's see -- I post an unequivocal manifesto of individual sovereignty and
liberty to a number of national political groups. The purpose of the
manifesto was to *clearly* communicate to any who may value liberty that it
is necessary to assert it as an absolute right, which obtains from their
nature, which knows no political boundaries and depends on no collective's
or government's sanctification, and for which they should probably consider
make such manifestos of freedom to those within their own contexts.
> When people complained about that, his response was
>simply asserting that he was on-topic. I guess we all have our
>different notions of relevance.
I guess. Have I EVER, in nearly two years of being on the net,
cross-posted articles with a political theme to all other national
newsgroups? No. This ONE particular article happened to be HIGHLY
relevant to ANY national political group.
Sometimes I am just amazed at the way people can allow their bizarre
festering hatreds for specific individuals to completely overwhelm all
capacity at reasoning, or acting in a fair manner, or of keeping hold onto
some thread of a semblance of context. For example, just observe Mr. Beck's
appalling support for the NT'ers, whom I am absolutely sure he despises,
but who it seems it would be better to support than to allow an admirer of
Ayn Rand such as myself to actually make a claim that a newsgroup called
alt.philosophy.objectivism should actually be for discussing Objectivism.
Talk about the lowest form of second-handedness: basing your actions not on
truth or justice, but what would bring harm to your enemies, even if it is
at the expense of your own self-sacrifice.
For God's sake read The Fountainhead, discover individualism, get a clue.
[And BTW, it is "Mr. Aisa" to you.]
--
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
Billy Beck
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>Sometimes I am just amazed at the way people can allow their bizarre
>festering hatreds for specific individuals to completely overwhelm all
>capacity at reasoning, or acting in a fair manner, or of keeping hold onto
>some thread of a semblance of context. For example, just observe Mr. Beck's
>appalling support for the NT'ers, whom I am absolutely sure he despises...
You are wrong.
I am vastly more indifferent than that.
Further, the issue is *not* them. The issue is the sheer presumption
exhibited by you and the President of The New York Obejctivist Club.
>...but who it seems it would be better to support than to allow an admirer of
>Ayn Rand such as myself to actually make a claim that a newsgroup called
>alt.philosophy.objectivism should actually be for discussing Objectivism.
>Talk about the lowest form of second-handedness: basing your actions not on
>truth or justice, but what would bring harm to your enemies, even if it is
>at the expense of your own self-sacrifice.
>For God's sake read The Fountainhead, discover individualism, get a clue.
I have, several times, and in this case I have nothing to learn from
you or your suggestions.
jlan...@starnetinc.com
>
>Pooor wittow Tony is such an unfortunate victim. Here's what underlies his
>self-righteous, emotionally-immature pontificating:
>
> Unstoppable Competition
>Competition lies beneath all the complaining commotion stirred by a
>few apo strutters: Actively growing, business-mode Objectivism totally
>are putting Ersatz Objectivists out of business in Usenet's openly
>competitive atmosphere. That is why those complainers who had enjoyed
>vainly appealing to the Internet "government" to stop the competition.
>...Notice, they never complain about the countless examples of genuine
>dishonest.
>=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
> Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble a...@ss-n.com
> nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants
IMO, this is just crap. I have seen it written and rewritten, posted and
reposted. Doesn't make it any less twisted to use apo as some sort of
playground for one group's theory that usenet is a sport or business.
Josh
...
Nicholas Rich
>On Thu, 22 Feb 1996 10:24:11 -0800, Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>>
>>Pooor wittow Tony is such an unfortunate victim. Here's what underlies his
>>self-righteous, emotionally-immature pontificating:
>>
>> 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.
>
>reposted. Doesn't make it any less twisted to use apo as some sort of
>playground for one group's theory that usenet is a sport or business.
Existence is: business, universally.
Business is: the production of values.
Values are: required for survival and happiness.
Happiness is: the purpose of conscious life.
Attained: though operating in disciplined business modes--not stagnant, lazy,
pure, disconnected-from-values academic modes.
Academic modes which operate in the context of
universally-value-delivering-business (Neo-Tech Objectivism) are valid.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble a...@ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants
Jim Klein
writes:
>Because I am both intelligent and principled, I choose to create a
>moderated forum where I can be free of those who contribute nothing to
>the discussion.
I, for one, would encourage you to do just that if you so desire...go
for it! Though I think you'll find that you're left with "nothing"
contributed...much of what there was which truly contributed (as
opposed to joining the choir) will have stayed behind.
>What I hope to achieve is something akin to a moder-
>ated public meeting, whereas a.p.o. right now is a an unmoderated
>argument among thousands of people screaming at one another.
Is it? Your points seem to be getting through, somehow.
>By the way, I'm not forcibly shutting anyone's mouth. You can scream
>all you want--but you will not do it on my time.
Actually, it appears he does. But of course what you're doing or
proposing is far, far away from physically shutting someone's mouth.
This seems brutally obvious. But I believe that on your moderated
group, you'd find meg after meg discussing the truth of that statement.
>As societies become more complex, they require a more sophisticated
>definition of property and other personal rights.
As others have mentioned to you, this is perhaps your most critical
error of fact. Quite the opposite is true. Complexity precludes
detailed definitions.
jk
Matt Keys
: Sometimes I am just amazed at the way people can allow their bizarre
: festering hatreds for specific individuals to completely overwhelm all
: capacity at reasoning, or acting in a fair manner, or of keeping hold onto
: some thread of a semblance of context. For example, just observe Mr. Beck's
sounds like you're describing the
E-Team's treatment of the NT posters.
just observe.
Matt.
Nicholas Rich
>"Existence is: business, universally."
>
>Nick: so what? You know, this sort of thought might have some place
>somewhere. In fact, it might be a useful thought here in apo. Does it, in
>even the slightest way, justify the vapid, unintelligent assault on apo by
>this one other group? No, of course not.
Vapid and unintelligent? By what standard, and according to whose/what
authority?
Assault against whom?
>Why have you formed another group at all? Why are you and "matt keys" and
>the others doing this asssine,
>accomplishes-nothing-except-distracting-newbies, nonsense?
I have formed no group.
Matt Keys and the others speak for themselves.
Assinine? By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
Accomplishes nothing? By what standard, and according to whose/what
authority?
Distracting? By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
Nonsense? By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
>I can only assume: to win a couple of hapless converts and to get off, in
>some sophisticated way, on some "battle won" on the net. The first is
>irrelevant (it could be accomplished with an occassional cross-post), and
>the second is the act of an unthinking bully.
Assume? On what basis in fact, and in what context?
Battle won? Against whom?
Then you go on to draw conclusions from false premises.
>I have few negative comments to make about NT because I don't think about
>it at all. I have a very specific comment to make about NT _behaviour_ on
>the net which is that it is the behaviour of a bully (an intellectual
>bully) who has no thought other than to get in the face of others.
Behavior of a bully? By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
Get in the face of others? By what standard, and according to whose/what
authority?
I understand that you and some others don't like our postings. Usenet is
rarely a popularity contest. At least it's not for anyone of principle.
jlan...@starnetinc.com
>>> 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.
>>
>>IMO, this is just crap. I have seen it written and rewritten, posted and
>>reposted. Doesn't make it any less twisted to use apo as some sort of
>>playground for one group's theory that usenet is a sport or business.
>
>Existence is: business, universally.
>
>Business is: the production of values.
>
>Values are: required for survival and happiness.
>
>Happiness is: the purpose of conscious life.
>
>Attained: though operating in disciplined business modes--not stagnant, lazy,
>pure, disconnected-from-values academic modes.
>
>Academic modes which operate in the context of
>universally-value-delivering-business (Neo-Tech Objectivism) are valid.
>
>=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
> Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble a...@ss-n.com
> nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants
"Existence is: business, universally."
Nick: so what? You know, this sort of thought might have some place
somewhere. In fact, it might be a useful thought here in apo. Does it, in
even the slightest way, justify the vapid, unintelligent assault on apo by
this one other group? No, of course not.
Why have you formed another group at all? Why are you and "matt keys" and
the others doing this asssine,
accomplishes-nothing-except-distracting-newbies, nonsense?
I can only assume: to win a couple of hapless converts and to get off, in
some sophisticated way, on some "battle won" on the net. The first is
irrelevant (it could be accomplished with an occassional cross-post), and
the second is the act of an unthinking bully.
I have few negative comments to make about NT because I don't think about
it at all. I have a very specific comment to make about NT _behaviour_ on
the net which is that it is the behaviour of a bully (an intellectual
bully) who has no thought other than to get in the face of others.
Josh
Tomm Carr
> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what
> authority?
> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what
> authority?
> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
> ... On what basis in fact, and in what context?
> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what
> authority?
>
> ...
I quit reading anything posted by the so-called Neo-Techs when,
after a dozen or so postings, I realized that they only engaged
in argument-by-assertion. The above list from just *one* posting
shows how they answer any charges. There seems to be some unstated
principle of theirs that prevents them from beginning any sentence
with "As Neo-Techs, we believe..."
To anyone that is at all familiar with modern religious cults, the
pattern is familiar:
1: Claim that your group is (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever).
2: Make vague, nebulous claims about the benefits that members of
your group enjoys over the "main" group.
3: When questioned about the validity of your groups beliefs, repeatedly
state, "Oh, no. We absolutely adhere to the tenents of (Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, etc.)"
4: Never, ever make firm statements of fact or debate the issues. Instead,
countercharge that anyone questioning your groups orthodoxy is "uninformed",
"intolerent", or "members of the power structure that fear for their
positions of power."
You get the idea. I have just one question for the NTs: why Objectivism?
When Objectivist thought and Neo-Tech thought (what I am able to gleen)
seem so diametrically opposed, why attach yourself to Objectivism? And why,
when such questions are asked of you, don't you answer in clear, straight-
forward statements? (OK, so it was two questions.)
BTW, don't bother answering if all the "answer" consists of is more of
your infamous templates.
--
Tomm Carr \ I may disagree with what you shove...
tomm...@aol.com \ ...but I will defend to the death your right to shove it!
Nicholas Rich
>Nicholas Rich wrote (repeatedly):
>
>> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what
>> authority?
>> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
>> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what
>> authority?
>> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
>> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
>> ... On what basis in fact, and in what context?
>> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what authority?
>> ... By what standard, and according to whose/what
>> authority?
>I quit reading anything posted by the so-called Neo-Techs when,
>after a dozen or so postings, I realized that they only engaged
>in argument-by-assertion.
Who's "they?"
I could immediately post megabytes which easily demostrate that I offer
reasoned argument almost always.
>The above list from just *one* posting
>shows how they answer any charges.
Who's "they?"
And, what is it you're trying to hide, when, by quoting my series of questions
above, you conveniently snip the interrelated context? Removing all meaning to
set up a strawman to knock over and make make yourself look intelligent and
grand?
In my posting those questions meant something--above all, demonstrating that
the poster had made all sorts of sweeping generalizations about "all people on
apo." My post pointed out most clearly that the poster should have limited
himself to speaking *for* himself.
>There seems to be some unstated
>principle of theirs that prevents them from beginning any sentence
>with "As Neo-Techs, we believe..."
Who are "they?"
And, what it is that gives rise to these *feelings* in you such that things
"seem" this way and that? Tell me, because I don't know. And without knowling,
nobody has any basis whatsoever that what it "seems" to you is actually
representative of anything real.
As far as representing what *I* believe, one only has to ask. Usually though,
I never get to that. I'm too busy responding to people wanting to make
themselves look big and important by tearing down the values of others. There
are very few questions ever asked. People are too busy ad homineming and
finding analogies to set up as guilty-by-association strawmen.
As we see...
>To anyone that is at all familiar with modern religious cults, the
>pattern is familiar:
>
>1: Claim that your group is (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever).
>2: Make vague, nebulous claims about the benefits that members of
> your group enjoys over the "main" group.
>3: When questioned about the validity of your groups beliefs, repeatedly
> state, "Oh, no. We absolutely adhere to the tenents of (Christianity,
> Judaism, Islam, etc.)"
>4: Never, ever make firm statements of fact or debate the issues. Instead,
> countercharge that anyone questioning your groups orthodoxy is "uninformed",
> "intolerent", or "members of the power structure that fear for their
> positions of power."
>
>You get the idea.
No, frankly, I don't. The above is simply a guilt-by-association ploy, a
dishonest and manipulative journalistic manuever used every day by the likes
of Sayer, Wallace, Rather, and Koppel.
And you're not very good at it. The above has no relation to reality--no
application to Neo-Tech.
..And you're ignorance shines as bright as the sun.
Who are you trying to fool anyway. Can't be us--we actually *know* something
about Neo-Tech. So, who are you trying to fool? We know at whose expense
you're trying to build your pseudo self-esteem off of.
> I have just one question for the NTs: why Objectivism?
>When Objectivist thought and Neo-Tech thought (what I am able to gleen)
>seem so diametrically opposed, why attach yourself to Objectivism? And why,
>when such questions are asked of you, don't you answer in clear, straight-
>forward statements? (OK, so it was two questions.)
The answer to the first question is that Neo-Tech means: fully integrated
honesty. Why else?
For the second: ask me to send you my copy.self file.
Search results for: objectivism
Zonpower Book
Chapter 26, Page 229
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter26.html#page229
Houghton Mifflin, New York, 1976), and Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn
Rand by Leonard Peikoff (493 pages, Dutton,
New York, 1991). Julian Jaynes, an academe at Princeton University, avidly
avoids recognizing the titanic significance of his
discovery that human consciousness is man-discovered, not nature-evolved.[
67 ] For, to protect his own ...
Chapter 26, Page 233
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter26.html#page233
Rand's philosophy of Objectivism into 180,000 words. Those words link the
Civilization of the Universe to existence, throughout
time. ...Dr. Peikoff provides an unmovable position that philosophically
exposes the entire parasitical-elite class and its
anticivilization. In philosophically exposing the anticivilization,
Peikoff provides a ...
Chapter 29, Page 264
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter29.html#page264
Consider those who brought functional Objectivism to the general public.
Of course, Ayn Rand was the prime contributor. But
major contributors also included: 1) Dr. Leonard Peikoff as the continuing
producer of exciting, profitable Objectivist values; 2)
Dr. Nathaniel Branden as the highly successful, NBI business-entrepreneur
director who profitably marketed ...
Chapter 29, Footnote 69a
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter29.html#note69a
and strength when applying the principles of Objectivism. Problems with
the Peikoffians arise when they generalize their
intolerances inaccurately or emotionally to non-applicable areas of people
and situations. Such misapplied intolerances are invalid,
self-limiting, and eventually lead to intellectual isolation, even
personal defeat...especially now as every area of ...
Neo-Tech Stimulants Book
Part 0, Page 4
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part0.html#page4
subjectivism from objectivism. Conscious beings today stand upon the shore
awash with dishonesty, irrationality, subjectivism.
Many are productive people, a few are parasites. Some advance liberty, a
few advance tyranny. All stand with their backs to the
gulf. At first, none are aware of the approaching new paradigm for an
exciting, prosperous life. ...
Part 1, Page 10
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page10
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 ...
Part 1, Page 11
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page11
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. ...
Part 1, Page 12
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page12
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. ...
Part 1, Page 8
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page8
Newsgroups A and B both uncompromisingly hold Objectivism as the proper
philosophy for conscious beings. But, most in
Group A are philosophically alive, while many in Group B are
philosophically dead. Newsgroup A holds, ...
Part 1, Page 9
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page9
Group A orients around time-efficient aggressive objectivism that will
spread across cyberspace through real-life business
dynamics. Group B orients around time-consuming passive intellectualizing
that will stagnate into ever shrinking, closed circles.
Group A works in the future; Group B dwells in the past. ...
Part 7, Page 46
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part7.html#page46
who brilliantly developed Objectivism into an array of specific values and
products. Menger, Rand, and Peikoff never fully
generalized their work. Therefore, they never confidently sensed the
ultimate triumph of their work as did Lenin for evil and
Einstein for good. ...
Part 7, Page 50
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part7.html#page50
have you put forth? What are you doing to really bring Objectivism to this
world besides philosophizing and whining in closed
circles of boring intellectualizers? Through relentless efforts, year
after year, the ...
Testimonials
Nick R. C-1905
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/letters/l/Nick_R._C-1905.html
Rand ever published. For example, I personally have over 200 pages of
painstakingly detailed notes I took from Peikoff's 1976
tape lecture series on Objectivism. This provided me with the
philosophical foundations for the real-world, *dynamic*
applications I had already begun to practice from Neo-Tech. Can you
imagine the value of a book like that? Some have
complained about its $70 price. I actually paid $100. Complaining about
$70 for this book seems to me like complaining about
$24 for some useless island the Indians called Manhattan. Let's see. I
paid $100 for this book, ...
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble a...@ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants
Pyotr J. Zolowolobovoskizhev
>In article <4gitgq$1...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim
>> >suggest thinking about it.
>> definition of this...I thought spamming was kind of like "flaming".
>> While you're at it, and if you care to add facts to the brew, what's
>> "trolling"?
>Spamming is the practice of sending one post to a large number of
>unrelated newsgroups.
Actually, I have heard it defined differently. "Spam is the same
thing, lots of times." To spam is to post the same text in different
articles, in multiple, separate newsgroups. Very close to this is the
term "spew", the act of posting the same article several times in the
same newsgroup or in others.
"Velveeta spreads better than cheddar." To velveet is to crosspost.
Massively. Usually the person accused of this act has added in
irrelevant groups to the Newsgroups: line, or has perpetuated the
existence of an already-massively-crossposted thread.
Hope this helps.