Jason's newgroup proposal (ver. 1.0 alpha)
Matt Keys
: I have a solution to the problem of how to effectively control off-topic
: postings to a.p.o. without relying on a moderator or on the cooperation of
: certain ISP's in enforcing a newsgroup charter.
: I propose that we install a Moderator-Bot (TM).
good idea. except any moderator-bot can be easily
defeated by a simple moderator-over-ride bot which would
keep changing the subject and or poster's name until the post
made it through.
has anyone here heard of a killfile?
why can't people use them without demanding no one else
reads the people/topics they have in their killfile?
are these people dictator wanna-be's??
Betsy (and a few others) wants to "rule" and
censor a.p.o. Why? So only posters who
agree with her can post? Why would anyone
want to censor posts that explicitly deal
with Objectivism to a newsgroup called
alt.philosophy.objectvisim? Is their
judgement above any critisism?
just create a group called
"alt.philosophy.objectivism.betsy's-way.only".
Matt.
--
ZONPOWER
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/
Nicholas Rich
>
> In article <4etant$g...@noc.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>
> (big snip)
> > I think that Usenet in general has proceeded from some rather flawed
> > premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
> > basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
>
> The Objectivist retreat from open debate continues. Usenet is the
> pinnacle of truly open discussion and free speech. That is why the
> statists are now targeting it with thier guns and their lawyers. Usenet
> is a wonderful thing. I seriously question the committment to liberty of
> anyone who thinks that Usenet is bad because it is not CONTROLLED!
> Some Objectivists - I call them Objecti-statists - don't like an open
> forum where people can say what they please. They prefer a sort of
> philosophical Disneyland - a proprietary, gated community of mutual
> admiration society members all stroking each other's Objectivist dogma -
> which is of course the standard for admission to the community.
> Objectivism will become more and more irrelevent and cultic if
> Objectivists continue in their pathological fear of heresy and alternative
> points of view.
> - King of all Heretics
I'll have to exercise some objectivity and jump into KOAH's court on
this one.
And I practice what I preach. I'm pleased for his recent excursions in
shaking up and adding energy to debates--on both apo and an-t.
--
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble a...@ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants
We settle and resolve problems between businesses including lawsuits
judgments, liens, problem payables and problem receivables--through
ADR, out-of-court and always on a *results-only* basis. We quickly
resolve both Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable problems.
Earn substantial referral fees. Or, become an affiliate and learn how
to cash in on the industry of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
and earn a 6 figure income working from home.
Nicholas Rich
> Guess what assholes? There are ways around moderation. And if you
> forbid anonymous posting, you might find yourself being taught a
> SPECIAL LESSON.
> In any case, this is all evidence of what cowardly, gutless worms
> many Objectivists are, unwilling to deal in an open forum.
> Why not crawl into your private mailing lists?
> By the way, if this proposal gets to the config group in a serious
> way, I will give up my little war with Neo-Tech and devote myself to
> defeating this stupid proposal. At the very least I will help further
> diminish the already wretched reputation of orthodox Objectism among
> freedom loving people.
> - King of all Heretics
Aw, c'mon. Just when it starts to get fun. Can't you find time for both?
:)
Matt Keys
: I agree with most of Brad's remarks. There is thing that I disagree with,
: if I understand him correctly -- the idea that there should be any
: plausibility to the claim that posts on NT are related to Objectivism. As
: I wrote previously, it does not take philosophic sophistication and
: familiarity with Objectivism to recognize a wacko Sci-Fi cult for what it
: is. Also, there is the legitimate issue of deferring to experts in areas
: where you are ignorant. If most of the participants on a newsgroup send
: messages to a net provider complaining that their customers are spamming
: it with off-topic postings, that is itself should be legitimate evidence
: to them -- given their context of knowledge --that net abuse is occurring.
Quote
Objectivist Heroes
Objectivists frantically trying to flame fully integrated
honesty off the Internet anxiously flatter one another as
Objectivist Heroes defending the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
I've experienced those kind of heroes for over 30 years,
ever since encountering them as desperate hangers-on in
the Branden/Rand lectures of the 1960s in New York City.
Back then, they were characterized by their capes and
cigarette holders. They were the sycophantic defenders of
their ego facades leached from Ayn Rand's monumental
achievement: Objectivism. Throughout the years, such
Objectivists have remained the biggest impediment to
advancing Objectivist philosophy around the world.
Today, those ersatz Objectivists are panicking. And why
not? After 30 years of faking heroic Galtisms and
shrugging Atlases, they are being revealed in cyberspace
as contradictions to everything Objectivism means in
living competitively, honestly, through business-like
modes. Similarly, in cyberspace, fully integrated honesty
is exposing the fakeries and dishonesties of politicians
and many government-dependent academics. ...Eventually,
all such fakes will disappear as nothing in cyberspace.
Today, as back then, those pseudo Objectivists appear as
sad, boring people. Yet, they are basically harmless,
kind of pitiful. Today, as back then, perhaps not a
single, self-made businessperson or really successful
entrepreneur exists among them. How many are really
excited about what they do for a living? How many are
genuinely proud of their competitiveness -- of their
value-producing competence? Most have no idea of the
incredibly difficult journey required to independently
produce long-range, competitive values and jobs for
others. Ayn Rand knew. But, most of her dependent
followers never knew.
Today, on the Internet, some of her most dependent
followers seem to be on edu lines, perhaps living off
some kind of public funds with lots of idle time on their
hands. They can never acknowledge the wide-scope
Objectivist nature of fully integrated honesty. For, that
wide-scope, active use of Objectivism through the
competitive dynamics of Neo-Tech reveals stimulating
powers beyond any imagined god -- exciting powers
possible for all conscious beings. Such competitive
dynamics become illusion-collapsing threats to
ego-dependent followers of Objectivism -- especially
those living stagnant lives that are going nowhere.
What are those Objectivist Heroes harping about? What do
they do besides tear down values? What do they do
constructively? Have any of them ever made the
excruciating effort or borne the racking pain oft
required to do anything really important, to take big
risks for big payoffs, to alone face down dangerous armed
evil in the real world, or even to build and maintain a
business that creates competitive values and jobs for
others?
Many who attack fully integrated honesty are trying to
elevate their self-perceived images by making problems
where none exist. One should always ask those who tear
down values what they have done to make themselves proud
of their lives -- what they have done to produce growing,
long-term competitive values for themselves, others, and
society. Today, such people might be called wimps. Ayn
Rand had a better word: pip-squeaks.
In reality, Objectivism never needs defending. Moreover,
only commercially competitive efforts increase the
permanent, long-range value of Objectivism to
civilization. And finally, Neo-Tech has never attacked a
single tenet of Objectivism. Instead, Neo-Tech vigorously
applies and commercially advances every tenet of
Objectivism throughout the world.
By contrast, those ego-seeking pontificators of
Objectivism will unnecessarily waste their precious lives
on nothing much. Most will never discover their exciting,
glorious potential in the value-producing business
dynamics throughout cyberspace. ...Yet, the helping hand
of Neo-Tech is always extended. Still, from Neo-Tech, no
leader, guru, or authority is available for anyone to
follow, obey, or defend -- only fully integrated honesty
with wide-scope integrations is available for all to
understand, use, and produce prosperity.
The contributors to Neo-Tech integrations, not the
flamers of Neo-Tech, are Objectivists. More important,
only through Neo-Tech business modes is Objectivism
pushed forward, into the competitive market place,
bringing integrated honesty and exciting Objectivism to
the general public worldwide.
End Quote
THINK99999
"Objectivist Heroes" -- Very accurate response.
Quote
Objectivist Heroes
End Quote
ZONPOWER
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/
THINK99999
Bravo to Anon on this one. A near perfect bull's eye. Maybe he could
write for NTP. His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers to as
Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz "Objectivists". DE
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Jason's newgroup proposal (ver. 1.0 alpha)
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 15:00:50 -0800
Anonymous wrote:
>
> In article <4etant$g...@noc.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
wrote:
>
> (big snip)
> > I think that Usenet in general has proceeded from some rather flawed
> > premises, particularly issues of ownership and responsibility. It is
> > basically built on anarchic premises -- and look at the result.
>
> The Objectivist retreat from open debate continues. Usenet is the
> pinnacle of truly open discussion and free speech. That is why the
> statists are now targeting it with thier guns and their lawyers. Usenet
> is a wonderful thing. I seriously question the committment to liberty
of
> anyone who thinks that Usenet is bad because it is not CONTROLLED!
> Some Objectivists - I call them Objecti-statists - don't like an open
> forum where people can say what they please. They prefer a sort of
> philosophical Disneyland - a proprietary, gated community of mutual
> admiration society members all stroking each other's Objectivist dogma -
> which is of course the standard for admission to the community.
> Objectivism will become more and more irrelevent and cultic if
> Objectivists continue in their pathological fear of heresy and
alternative
> points of view.
> - King of all Heretics
I'll have to exercise some objectivity and jump into KOAH's court on
this one.
And I practice what I preach. I'm pleased for his recent excursions in
shaking up and adding energy to debates--on both apo and an-t.
--
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > Guess what assholes? There are ways around moderation. And if you
> > forbid anonymous posting, you might find yourself being taught a
> > SPECIAL LESSON.
> > In any case, this is all evidence of what cowardly, gutless worms
> > many Objectivists are, unwilling to deal in an open forum.
> > Why not crawl into your private mailing lists?
> > By the way, if this proposal gets to the config group in a serious
> > way, I will give up my little war with Neo-Tech and devote myself to
> > defeating this stupid proposal. At the very least I will help further
> > diminish the already wretched reputation of orthodox Objectism among
> > freedom loving people.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> Aw, c'mon. Just when it starts to get fun. Can't you find time for both?
>
> :)
I'll see if I can work it into my busy schedule.
Actually, considering that this suggestion is already sinking like a
ball of neutronium, I doubt it will even reach the point of being a real
proposal.
If it does it will be laughed right out of the config group. Remember,
as far as the rest of the net is concerned, Peikoffites are as crazy as
YOU! :)
Nicholas Rich
>
> In article <4f68hu$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, think...@aol.com
> (THINK99999) wrote:
> > His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
> > irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers
> > to as Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz
> > "Objectivists". DE
>
> But Wally, I thought I was a PIP who must be VANISHED from
> cyberspace? I've certainly recieved enough PIP TEMPLATES from you and
> your small band of followers. Today alone I got two or three of the
> things.
> Could it be that I actually do have more understanding than you
> know?
It was Drew Ellis who wrote that post, not Dr Wallace.
Yael Grauer
>Betsy (and a few others) wants to "rule" and
>censor a.p.o. Why? So only posters who
>agree with her can post?
This is ridiculous. Blocking out certain topics or words certainly
leaves room for disagreement. If "Betsy and a few others" didn't want
people to disagree or discuss, why would they be on here?
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > In article <4f68hu$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, think...@aol.com
> > (THINK99999) wrote:
>
> > > His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
> > > irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers
> > > to as Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz
> > > "Objectivists". DE
> >
> > But Wally, I thought I was a PIP who must be VANISHED from
> > cyberspace? I've certainly recieved enough PIP TEMPLATES from you and
> > your small band of followers. Today alone I got two or three of the
> > things.
> > Could it be that I actually do have more understanding than you
> > know?
>
> It was Drew Ellis who wrote that post, not Dr Wallace.
Is Drew a real person or another pen name for Wallace Ward?
If he is a separate person, I guess he hadn't got the word from Wacky
Wally that I am a Pip and a Nihilist and a Value Destroyer and that my
suicide is just around the corner!
How does Wally expect to vanish me from cyberspace if he can't keep his
own troops in line?
Steven Butler
>
> Nicholas Rich (nr...@ss-n.com) wrote:
> : Anonymous wrote:
> :
> : > By the way, if this proposal gets to the config group in a serious
> : > way, I will give up my little war with Neo-Tech and devote myself to
> : > defeating this stupid proposal.
>
Toooooo convenient for me to swallow.
I mean, KOAH has been carring on and on and now he's found a way out
of his cornering himself. Yet his words are cast in stone for all to
read. Though I doubt there's much value to them. On the other hand, I
suppose we could open the once joked about Neo-Tech zoo. Once there
KOAH could be the TRUE king of his world. That is until the big game
troglodites of irrationality enter the zoo and reduce him to the real
insignifigant mosquito that he is -- a pesty parasite.
Steven
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> T H I N K f i r s t !
>
> What is is. Perceive it. Integrate it honestly. Act on it. Idealize it.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Rich
> Is Drew a real person or another pen name for Wallace Ward?
He is an editor at NTP, a differnt person.
THINKfirst!
: In article <4f68hu$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, think...@aol.com
: (THINK99999) wrote:
: > Bravo to Anon on this one. A near perfect bull's eye. Maybe he could
: > write for NTP.
: I don't think so - my last name isn't Ward and I don't like being underpaid.
Heh! "That's a good one."
: Then again, I probably already am 'writing for NTP' in a sense if you
: actually publish your 'flame' book. Just be sure to quote my complete
: messages. We wouldn't want to lose any of my CONTEXT, now would we?
No, indeed!!!
: > His only error on this one: Objectivism can not become
: > irrelevent, no matter how much it is misused. Also, those he refers to as
: > Objectivists are not Objectivists. They are ersatz "Objectivists". DE
: But Wally, I thought I was a PIP who must be VANISHED from cyberspace?
: I've certainly recieved enough PIP TEMPLATES from you and your small band
: of followers. Today alone I got two or three of the things.
: Could it be that I actually do have more understanding than you know?
No.
Reality is what is.
Sometimes you post honest, rational posts. And
there's no reason to pretend they're not honest
and rational if they *are*.
But other times, you attempt to distort, attack
or destroy reality in your effort to further your
wayward agenda -- regardless of how erroneous it
may be. At those times, you are a Pip.
Get it?
Reality is what is. Not what you (or I) pretend
it to be.
I wonder if you ever bother to read my .sig file.
What is *is*. (not what we *pretend* it is)
Perceive it. (make sure you see it for what it is)
Integrate it honestly. (don't bullshit around it)
Act on it. (live by it, by that what really *is*)
Idealize it. (hold an earnest embrace of reality
up and cherish it for what it allows you to do)
Matt Keys
: We do have means available to protect our interests. We can appeal to
: UseNet NetAdmins and make use of existing UseNet options like CFVs and
: moderated newgroups and killfiles. We can enforce our intellectual
: property rights. We can contact the ISPs of the worst offenders (like
: writing to ab...@netcom.com) since many breaches of nettiquette are also
: breaches of ISP service contracts.
hmmm, here is a "Betsy-template" I posted
a few months ago. it hasn't been edited
too much. use this time-saving template
in reply to betsy's rants about NT/Z. she will
never fully-address the points contained in any of the templates,
just like she never repsonds in length to the 2ncd amendment
threads. this template is not as integrated, but it gets
the point across.
sour-keyboard net-abuse-fake automatic-lying Betsy
Any NT/Z post I've seen that has been cross-posted has been
relevant to the group its in. NT/Z directly relates
to politics and philosophy and physics, as can easily be seen
by reading the on-line book (which is on the net for free reading
and downloading)
Betsy doesn't care about net-abuse, she only cares about wiping
NT/Z off the net.
Consider that a few months ago, there was a raid on a.p.o by alt.evil.
Betsy never complained to news.admin.net-abuse.misc, she just
ignored them, for they were no threat to her. But, NT/Z
threatens her control over a.p.o (we are the Objectivists, she is
erstaz), so she got the idea to start a net-abuse campaign to try
and stir up trouble and get some posters to lose their accounts.
If Betsy did care about net-abuse, she would report the real cases of spamming
and trolling that occur all the time on a.p.o, even before the alt.neo-tech
group was formed. In fact, there was a 2-month long flame war
on a.p.o before alt.neo-tech was started, and no one complained about
net-abuse then. Only until after some integrated articles appeared
on a.p.o that exposed the Erstaz Objectivists, and only after the
NT/Z home page was finished, did Betsy start her campaign. Why?
Since these posts and the web page exposed her dishonesty with
regards to NT/Z, she had no choice but to try and stir up
problems where none existed by taking advantage of news admins
by trying to convince them NT/Z needs to be removed from the Net.
So she continues to waste bandwidth by complaining about every NT/Z post
she sees, regardless of how relevant it is to the
newsgroup it is posted in. Many new-admins have told
her to just shut up since objectively, no spamming
is occuring. And she continually insists that
NT/Z has nothing to do with Objectivism, which is an obvious lie,
obvious to any non-nihilist who reads the online book or the Neo-Tech
Discovery.
Matt Keys.
--
THINKfirst!
: Is Drew a real person or another pen name for Wallace Ward?
Different people.
: If he is a separate person, I guess he hadn't got the word from Wacky
: Wally that I am a Pip and a Nihilist and a Value Destroyer and that my
: suicide is just around the corner!
My guess is that he could tell from your post
what a numbskull you are. :)
: How does Wally expect to vanish me from cyberspace if he can't keep his
: own troops in line?
By watching you talk yourself into a corner.
Dan Hankins
thinking about it a bit, it occurs to me to ask:
In what way would a moderated newsgroup that satisfied your criteria
(i.e. only Objectivists are allowed to discuss Objectivism there) differ
in content from OSG? The form might be more convenient (thread-following
tools and the like being more easily available for newsgroups than for
mailing lists), but otherwise it would be a duplication of OSG.
If this is what is desired, then I suggest the following: nominate
someone to be the Keeper of the KillFile. This killfile would kill *all*
posts to a.p.o save those by persons who are hotlisted in it.
Such a killfile would function as a kind of membership list for a
noise-free alt.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup. Sure, all the spammers
and neo-kooks and nihilists could continue to post stuff to a.p.o and
even reply to Objectivist Killfile members; but none of the members would
be bothered with that noise.
The list could grow by nomination of new members by existing
members, or by an OSG-like contract. Whenever the list changed, the
update would be sent out to all the members.
What do you think?
Dan Hankins
dhan...@gate.net
The answer to the subjective is the ostensive.
Dan Hankins
: Dan Hankins (dhan...@gate.net) wrote:
[...]
: : Such a killfile would function as a kind of membership list for a
: : and neo-kooks and nihilists could continue to post stuff to a.p.o and
: : even reply to Objectivist Killfile members; but none of the members would
: : be bothered with that noise.
: : What do you think?
:
: I think you should adopt NT.
Thanks for informing me of an omission in my killfile.
*plonk*
Dan Hankins
dhan...@gate.net
The answer to the subjective is the ostensive.
Irrational posters may be killfiled without notice.