Why vote NO on hpo? One good reason is enough.
David Friedman
In article <N.052196....@ppp175-32.nextel.net>, jep...@nextel.net
(James E. Prescott) wrote:
> Do they _really_ want wide-open, intelligent, _expert_ discussion
> of the many contentious issues surrounding Ayn Rand's philosophy?
> The crossposts ban suggests that they want nothing of the kind --
> or at least that it is not, for them, a priority.
But if, as I think you are suggesting, hpo is intended as a place for true
believers to talk with each other, why should the rest of us object?
Aren't we better off without the presence here of those people who really
aren't interested in talking to us? Why not let the group be established,
on the theory that if it works out as you expect (quite possible) it will
do no harm, and if it works out as its proponents claim, it will do some
good?
David Friedman
James E. Prescott
Philosophy is (in part) epistemology. So to be a useful forum for
critique and defense of Objectivism, hpo should, one would think,
permit and even encourage crossposted discussion with persons whose
primary interest newsgroup is, for example, sci.logic.
Philosophy is metaphysics. So hpo should permit and encourage
discussion with experts in, for example, sci.bio.evolution and
sci.physics, to say nothing of the many serious groups devoted to
religious theory and to atheism.
Philosophy is ethics. So hpo should permit and encourage discussion
with persons in alt.soc.ethics and in the dozens of other relevant
areas.
Philosophy is politics. So hpo should permit/encourage discussion
with experts in the many political discussion newsgroups.
And philosophy is aesthetics. Ditto for those.
But the proponents of hpo have instead decided to _forbid_
crossposting in order, they say, to keep the discussions _focused_
on Objectivism. Well, what is Objectivism if it is not a
philosophy? What is a philosophy if it is somehow considered
_not_relevant_ to the ongoing discussions in the topic areas listed
above?
Certainly, they aver, anyone wishing crossposted discussion of the
many topics relevant to Objectivism can _still_ carry on these
discussions in apo. Hpo changes _nothing_ in that regard, they
insist.
Well, then, just what _is_ the purpose of hpo if apo is expected to
_remain_ the forum for discussing Objectivism with non-Objectivists
and experts in other fields? Just what sorts of things will be
discussed there (and by whom) that would not be discussed more
effectively back in crossposted APO?
And, don't be misled, hpo _does_ change things. It _adds_ a
non-crossposting newsgroup!
To discuss Objectivism with Objectivism's opponents and with
persons who may be only mildly (if at all) interested in
Objectivism but who have expertise in vital, related fields, we
will need apo. But to discuss Objectivism with (some) dedicated
Objectivists and with persons like myself who are _primarily_
interested in Objectivism, we will need to turn to hpo.
We can all count. That's _two_ groups instead of just _one_. So, in
fact, no abuse has been eliminated. No convenience has been added.
No purpose at all has been served.
If hpo were an automoderated newsgroup that restricted net abuse
while _permitting_ relevant crossposting, then this doubling-of-
inconvenience would not be any problem at all. We could all
subscribe to hpo and _only_ hpo, and we'd lose virtually nothing
(since we'd _continue_ to see posts from other groups).
As it stands, however, the crossposts ban is such an incredibly bad
flaw that it calls into question -- in my own mind at least -- the
intent of the proponents of this newsgroup.
Do they _really_ want wide-open, intelligent, _expert_ discussion
of the many contentious issues surrounding Ayn Rand's philosophy?
The crossposts ban suggests that they want nothing of the kind --
or at least that it is not, for them, a priority.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Josh Landess
On Mon, 20 May 1996 14:38:37 -0800, dd...@best.com (David Friedman) wrote:
>In article <N.052196....@ppp175-32.nextel.net>, jep...@nextel.net
>(James E. Prescott) wrote:
>
>> Do they _really_ want wide-open, intelligent, _expert_ discussion
>> of the many contentious issues surrounding Ayn Rand's philosophy?
>> The crossposts ban suggests that they want nothing of the kind --
>> or at least that it is not, for them, a priority.
>
>But if, as I think you are suggesting, hpo is intended as a place for true
>believers to talk with each other, why should the rest of us object?
>Aren't we better off without the presence here of those people who really
>aren't interested in talking to us? Why not let the group be established,
>on the theory that if it works out as you expect (quite possible) it will
>do no harm, and if it works out as its proponents claim, it will do some
>good?
>
I must admit, I find both of these posts a little worth thinking about. I've
tried to stay away from the bickering for a variety of reasons, and I think that
even semi-rational participants in apo were pushed into something because of the
net abuse of certain parties.
Well, Rand says check your premises, so awhile back I quieted down and tried to
view this thing from even a more basic viewpoint than Usenet rules. I tried to
ask myself, what is the nature of a discussion forum per se, and what do I
personally want in a forum or forums for my own selfish use?
When I asked myself these questions, things became quite a bit clearer for me.
For example, I'm happy to admit that I really haven't the foggiest as to how
h.p.o. will work out and I'm not sure it's of crucial importance to me. It's
somewhat understandable that it's been put together because of the anarchistic
nature of apo. This anarchistic nature has tended to be destructive to some of
the conversations (and Objectivism is a particularly rational philosophy, so
this was only natural) and has tended also to attract those with a deliberately
destructive and hurtful nature. On the positive side, it definitely has
encouraged some wide-open, honest and open debate.... perhaps quite a bit more
robust and good and human than one _might_ find in a stricter forum.
Well, fortunately for me, I did some years ago have the pleasure of
participating in some very well-moderated wide-open "issues" type conferences
(nothing to do with objectivism per se) and this has helped me to realize that a
forum is a forum is a forum. I.e.: h.p.o. is not the be-all, end-all of the
situation, nor is usenet the end of the situation. For example, what if I am in
a cafe in order to meet and exchange ideas with interesting people? If the
rules of discussion are not to my liking (people blindly barging into
conversations with silly comments, irrelevancies, etc., confusing side-tracks
that waste my time and seem attractive but then turn out to be the nonsense of
destructive time-wasters, etc.) then I am certainly free to try another cafe or
appeal to the owner, or try another means of discussion altogether.
I think the value(s) in participating in a discussion forum are worth thinking
about. Every single one of us has his or her own individual discussion needs
and desires. And even though most of us here in a.p.o. or in h.p.o. are united
by some common knowledge and interest in Rand, it is worth noting, I think, that
each of us is STILL an individual with pet issues, interests, etc. We may be
somewhat distinguished from others in a particular disdain against ad homenim
argumentation (i.e. Objectivism and Rand explicitly call for respecting
rationality and addressing issues) and hopefully this will influence the rules
of h.p.o.
Well, anyway, my two cents. It isn't crucial to me that h.p.o. works out, but I
sort of hope it does. I have had a couple of heavy-time-investment
conversations hurt by less-than-thoughtful objections here in a.p.o., but
overall it's been worth it. I think h.p.o. is important to its starters and I
hope it works out. In the bickering, I've seen many intelligent comments on
both sides of the argument, and I have to admit, I'm quite skeptical of the
relevant to Rand aspect of the moderation (if I recall the charter
approximately) and it's possible that the forum may become more constrictive
than its well-intentioned originators intend. I can't stand the whole "I'm a
true Objectivist and you're not" scene, and I shudder to think that, yes, some
of the conversations might devolve into that kind of senseless hurtful
bickering. But the whole forum sounds like it might be worth trying,
particularly for those seeking a stricter level of discipliine toward Rand, or
those seeking feedback from more knowledgeable Objectivists. They might have
done better to call it humanities.philosophy.Randian.discussion or something,
but whatever.
My personal opinion is that the whole thing is because of the explosion of the
Internet in particular. After all, there are plenty of Objectivism discussion
forums around, of a wide variety of moderation, but only one or two on Usenet.
My last comment, while it may seem bizarre, I'll just throw on the table: I
suspect that someone may devise a way to carry out discussions through web-pages
(not e-mail lists per se, but a more usenet-like structure) and that, eventually
this may be an alternative for some.
Sincerely,
Josh
Nicholas Rich
>My last comment, while it may seem bizarre, I'll just throw on the table: I
>suspect that someone may devise a way to carry out discussions through
> web-pages
>(not e-mail lists per se, but a more usenet-like structure) and that,
> eventually
>this may be an alternative for some.
I just saw such software right on the shelf the other day. It will turn your
website into a complete discussion area with various groups, etc. I forget
the publisher, but the price, as I recall, was somewhere around $100.
BTW, I liked your post quite a lot. Well thought out, and valueable.
Nicholas Rich
http://www.ss-n.com
Justice, when it comes, is often mistaken for the enemy.
This is the root of all dishonesty. -me
James E. Prescott
On 5/20/96, David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
> [..I]f, as I think you are suggesting, hpo is intended as
> a place for true believers to talk with each other, why
> should the rest of us object? Aren't we better off without
> the presence here of those people who really aren't interested
> in talking to us?
You are right, David. But that's not my real concern.
The question posed by the CFV, of course, is not whether I
should prevent anyone from doing anything but simply whether I, as
one voter, believe hpo should be created as proposed in the RFDs
and the CFV itself.
I believe it should not because it heaps the inconvenience of
subscribing to _two_ Objectivism newsgroups on _top_ of the
inconvenience of the Neotech and other abuse I already put up
with in apo.
And this is true _only_because_of_the_crossposts_ban_.
The ban on crossposting, well intentioned though it may be,
forces me and others to _continue_ subscribing to apo in
order to be assured of seeing your posts on political and
economic theory, David, as well as to see many other useful
crossposted discussions.
Were it not for the crossposts ban one could forego apo
altogether and subscribe _only_ to hpo and _still_ see all
the useful, relevant discussions related to Objectivism
taking place on many parts of the net.
Were such the case I would gladly vote YES on moderated
hpo regardless of whether I questioned the "real" intentions
of some proponents.
And the proponents by and large aren't bad people. Jason has
done a fine job designing a practical moderation system, putting
it all together and presenting it for a vote; Tim seems like an
excellent choice for a moderator and will, I'm sure, do a great
job keeping abuse to a minimum. And I of course take folks like
Betsy Speicher, Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger and Paul Hseih at their
word when they explain why they support Jason's proposal.
In fact, HPO will surely turn out to be a useful and convenient
place in its own right. More useful than apo in many ways. But
unfortunately it will be less useful in regard to crossposting
and therefore, on balance, will be an added inconvenience and no
solution at all to the abuse annoyance that these very folks
are concerned about.
If we still subscribe to apo, as even Betsy has said she would
do, then we _still_ suffer the abuse. If we _instead_ ignore apo
then we cut ourselves _off_ from the benefits of usenet!
And when I say that I question their intentions I don't mean I
suspect any of them secretly and deliberately _want_ nothing more
than a cloistered sanctuary for talking among themselves (though
that may be the result). They are a very diverse group, and much
smarter than that.
I mean simply that they all appear to be more concerned with
obliterating Neotech-style abuse than they are concerned with
maintaining the requirements of wide-open, intelligent debate
on Objectivism.
Crossposting invites a lot of abuse no doubt. And free speech
invites a lot of abuse. And the Internet invites a lot of abuse.
This doesn't mean we should ban the Internet or ban free speech
or ban crossposted discussion.
It means we should take reasonable measures (such as killfiles or
the delete key or even a moderated newsgroup) to insolate ourselves
from the abuse that we know will always exist while at the same time
protecting and even extending the reach of the free flow of ideas,
which _ought_ to be the number one priority but which _seems_ to
have been forgotten or relegated to a position of insignificance in
the hysteria of the ban-Neotech campaign.
The concept of a moderated newsgroup is fine. I support it. I'd vote
yes if only _abusive_ posts/posters were banned.
But auto-banning a entire category of very productive discussions
(crossposted debate is nearly the reason-d'etre of newsgroups and
is certainly the cross-pollination that keeps things lively, robust,
non-sterile) is such an absurdly counterproductive _overkill_ that
it calls into serious question the focus of the intentions of its
proponents. And it even makes me worry what comes next.
What are these folks _thinking_ about? What are they _focused_ on?
Are they so annoyed, nearly blinded, by bad speech that they will
ultimately try to ban _any_ speech in order to be rid of it?
That is what the ban on crossposting suggests to me about their
intentions. The choice is between wide-open discussion that is
plagued by abuse and an automoderated ban on _all_ discussions
with outsiders. Faced with that choice, these people have,
bewilderingly, opted for the latter.
Get a grip, folks! Neotech is waste. But you don't throw the baby
out with the bathwater -- much less the urine.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Josh Landess
On Tue, 21 May 96 19:48:53 GMT, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <31a1e394...@news.enteract.com>, jlan...@enteract.com wrote:
>
>>My last comment, while it may seem bizarre, I'll just throw on the table: I
>>suspect that someone may devise a way to carry out discussions through
>> web-pages (not e-mail lists per se, but a more usenet-like structure) and that,
>> eventually this may be an alternative for some.
>
>I just saw such software right on the shelf the other day. It will turn your
>website into a complete discussion area with various groups, etc. I forget
>the publisher, but the price, as I recall, was somewhere around $100.
I have been looking forward to this for many months, and it is good to
hear. For one thing among many, it means that one can own one's own
web page and thus moderate and control one's own discussion forums.
I'm tempted to say "this is the future", but such a grandiose
prediction would be foolhardy. I'm well-nigh-baffled by the
complexity and enormity of current telecommunications issues, and it's
very difficult to know where any one development will lead, and to
what extent.
I did have an interesting conversation with a news-admin in
chi.internet, and also one with my isp. If I am not mistaken, usenet
is a separate beast requiring separate equipment and communications
and the history of news.admins is that it's basically a thankless
volunteer effort (pre-net-explosion). Frankly, that's tough on them,
as far as I'm concerned, but that sentiment doesn't solve anything.
I've been thinking for awhile that Web-Discussion-Forums would really
clobber usenet usage, so now we'll get a chance to see, over the
coming few years. It's been interesting to note the absolutely
MASSIVE (and in my view, baseless) animosity I've received from some
netters when I've made suggestions along the lines of owning forums.
If not on Usenet, with its established policies, then elsewhere.
When I did go to look at the FAQ on starting a group when this issue
came up six months ago or so, I stopped reading round about the time I
got to the part of submitting one's proposal to a committee (I think
it was) for "approval". That's part of why I keep harping on my pet
issue of owning a conference or forum or forum "area". How many
people would be having a blast setting up their web pages if it were
necessary to make a proposal to a committee for each page and each
html code change?
It just cuts through a lot of senseless issues (just as Roark did his
best not to waste his time submitting proposals to committees.) And
that's why I like the idea of doing it on the web. To hell with the
approvals of committees on one's ideas and project goals.
>BTW, I liked your post quite a lot. Well thought out, and valueable.
Good to hear, as I've been absolutely pummeled lately in many of the
conversations I've been having. I read an article today by a
journalist who tried one of those zillion-channel satellite tv's.
"Overwhelmed and undernourished" was a phrase he used about his
experience. Unfortunately, that describes my current slump in forum
discussions.
Sincerely,
Josh
Brad S Williams
James E. Prescott <jep...@nextel.net> wrote:
>The question posed by the CFV, of course, is not whether I
>should prevent anyone from doing anything but simply whether I, as
>one voter, believe hpo should be created as proposed in the RFDs
>and the CFV itself.
>
>I believe it should not because it heaps the inconvenience of
>subscribing to _two_ Objectivism newsgroups on _top_ of the
>inconvenience of the Neotech and other abuse I already put up
>with in apo.
I don't understand this. How painful is it to subscribe to two newsgroups
instead of one? By the very nature of hpo there won't be any crossposts
between hpo and apo -- so there shouldn't even be a net increase of posts
between the two. So where is the inconvenience? Honest question.
Brad Williams
Lance Neustaeter
You don't understand crossposting. Crossposting does NOT increase the net
usage of internet resources, nor number of posts. Spamming, however,
*does* (that's why spamming is net abuse, while crossposting isn't).
The HPO no-X-post policy implicitly encourages spamming.
Suppose that HPO did not have that policy. A person who wanted to reach
the HPO readership as well as, say talk.politics.something, could post one
message flagged for two newsgroups (crossposted).
In the proposed scenario, that person will still want to be heard by
both groups of people, but will now have to physically post that same
message twice, each time flagged for a different, single newsgroup. This
doubles the required HD space for each ISP, and double the bandwidth
in transit.
(People who read newsgroups offline with less sophisticated readers, such
as myself, will not notice the difference between the two methods
personally, but the the net itself--the ISPs and their unix-to-unix
protocols etc.--will notice it, as will the online and more robust offline
readers.)
Lance
--
. . . I have found that Objectivism is its own protection against
people who might attempt to use it as a dogma. --Ayn Rand
Ed Matthews
On Fri, 24 May 1996, James E. Prescott wrote:
> On 23 May 1996, Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >What do you mean by "independently thought-out"? Are you
> >implying that someone else did my thinking for me? If so,
> >that was _exactly_ what I meant by referring to the claims
> >of Kelley supporters that Peikoff supporters are "intrinsicists"
> >who treat Objectivism as "revealed truth" - they either
> >imply or state directly that people who support Peikoff don't
> >do so on the basis of reason, but out of faith, in the same
> >spirit as those who deride Objectivism as a cult.
>
> I'm an Objectivist and yet I see a great deal of merit in the arguments
> of those who deride the Objectivist movement or one or more of its
> factions as a cult. There are many cult-like aspects, including angry
> denunciations of (and refusal to speak with) any who criticize its
> leaders.
I wouldn't support the idea of turning Objectivism into a cult (even if
possible), nor support anyone who tried to do so. I've heard stories of
some people wearing capes, smoking in a certain way, etc., emulating Rand
in superficial ways, but I don't think that they are essential to
Objectivism or to any movement to advance Rand's influence on the culture
at large. But also, I have _never_ met anyone like that. I therefore
cannot take any charge of "cultish" behvior seriously; the facts very
clearly show that this is a _very_ insignificant phenomenon. More than
likely, the charge is pejorative and intentionally vague, in the attempt
of the accuser to gain some value by faking reality and/or _destroying_ a
value for someone else.
But what qualifies as "cult-like"? Well, any large group of people who
agree with some idea have that much in common with cults. Like my
school's physics department, for instance. Nobody there (except for one
nutball, but that's a separate issue) denies the existence of, say,
electrons. To that extent they are "true believers". You can't define
something by non-essentials, or by analogies.
> When I say I don't dismiss support for Peikoff as based on faith I mean
> that it is perfectly possible to think through his arguments for oneself
> and come to agree with him. (At least I think it is.) So I begin by giving
> everyone the benefit of the doubt and treating each as if he were an
> independent thinker open to rational argument.
>
> When I say that I have observed in the Peikoff supporters I am familiar
> with a definite (as it seems to me) reluctance or inability to independently
> argue in defense of contentious aspects of Objectivism and, instead, simple
> referrals to published works coupled often with angry denunciations of
> those who dispute Peikoff, I mean just that.
>
> Kelley supporters seem more willing to state their own case and have it
> subjected to criticism. I disagree with them as strongly and on as many
> issues, perhaps, but I respect them more.
>
> >One can't simultaneously ask questions in a sincere desire to gain
> >knowledge _and_ launch a pre-emptive strike in the form of insults. If
> >someone is deserving of insult, how can it also be worth your time to
> >carefully consider their ideas, to ask questions of them, to _learn_ from
> >them. Or do you seek out the ignorant, stupid or evil for guidance?
>
> I, too, am reluctant to argue with such people as you describe. But we
> were discussing the hundreds of subscribers to MDOP.
Actually, I had people on a.p.o. in mind, but it ought to apply to both,
in the cases in which they appear.
> To write _them_ off
> as ignorant, stupid or evil because they have on occassion resorted
> to gratuitous insult (I don't dispute that that happens; it's happened
> to me!) would in my judgment be ignorant, stupid or evil.
>
And injust, but that wasn't what I said. _When_ someone acts immorally,
one ought to treat them appropriately, correct?
> >So are you going to spend hours trying to persuade someone who
> >clearly demonstrates that they are unwilling to be persuaded? There's a
> >thing called freewill, ya know. People _can_ choose to close their eyes,
> >even when you wave the evidence right in front of their faces. Is that
> >not a fact to consider? Or is it that merely presenting your case is
> >enough to force their mind to work, regardless of their will?
>
> But even when I suspect a person is not willing to think, it remains
> perfectly _reasonable_ for me (though not required, of course) to continue
> giving that person the benefit of the doubt. Treat a person with respect
> I have found and -- not always but often enough -- that person will _become_
> worthy, will rise to level he is being afforded.
If someone _starts_ a conversation with words to the effect: "You are an
idiot, your values are worthless and evil", then I act accordingly.
Should I ignore that, and pretend that that is _not_ what they mean? If
they do not respect your judgement, then they would not honestly ask for
your help. If they are honestly inquisitive, then they won't launch
insults. Period. If they change, then let them show it, and I'll
reconsider helping them out.
I want to be clear on this. I have no intention of aiding an enemy in
working for my destruction. Part of that aid includes the sanction of
the victim. Objectivity is not value-neutral or value-free. I refuse to
treat my values as trivial, to pretend that an insult to them is
meaningless or acceptable. A is A: my values are _valuable_ to me.
> And remember, we are talking about open forums here where your arguments
> can be seen and assessed by many other folks. I will challenge even the
> views of people I despise (and there are NONE in apo that I know of;
> my enemies are made of sterner stuff than the few Peikovians who profess,
> falsely I hope, a passionate dislike for me), and I'll debate the devil
> himself should he come to the light of an open arena.
What for? If the devil is the incarnation of evil, then he is not
rational (that would be a virtue, and he has none, by definition). The
_attempt_ to debate him implies that he is open to reason, that he is
deserving of being treated as if he lived by the mind and not by the
gun. Would that be an act of justice?
> >[...I]f you want to discuss physics, you go to newsgroup A.
> >If you want to speculate on conspiracies, illuminati, etc.,
> >you go to different groups. If you want to talk about recipes,
> >you go somewhere else.
>
> That's not quite how it works. Usenet allows you to focus on your
> particular interests by subscribing to a few particular newsgroups and
> yet at the same time allows you to discuss your interests as they
> _relate_ to _other_ relevant areas of knowledge by simple crossposting.
Having the ability to do so doesn't make it appropriate.
> Saves time.
If you have to explain
> Saves bandwidth.
In the long run, I don't think so. You would have to include a number of
follow-up, explanatory posts to provide enough context to realy discuss
the essence of a particular topic when it gets cross-posted, if it is not
apparent to everyone what is being discussed. And if it _is_ already
clear, why cross-post? You don't gain anything new from the additional
group(s).
In practice, one sees far more _irrelevent_ cross-posts that eat bandwidth.
> Facilitates discussion and sheds new
> light on our ideas by giving us the perspective and insights of
> people with interests and beliefs quite different from our own.
I disagree.
Can you cite an example, and explain why you gain more by posting
simultaneously to different groups (whose members have different
contexts, which means that you need to explain enough to create a context
in which your question can be answered, when necessary) rather than
breaking up your question into parts, and asking for information on the
_relevent_ newsgroups separately?
> >If the idea was to have an "inclusive" newsgroup, then why not just
> >have one group?
>
> Overall usenet _is_ one group but must be divided into different interest
> sub-groups for the sake of being a practical discussion forum.
That's exactly my point. You can't jump into a discussion midstream,
without first building sufficient context. Each newsgroup represents a
different context, built around an essential topic from which the group
is named.
That is, the "cow" groups talk mainly about, well, cows. Would you go
there to discuss cars?
> >The whole point of having separate groups is to _discriminate_ and to
> >_exclude_. You choose with whom you associate and about which ideas you
> >discuss. But you _don't_ have the right to prevent other people from
> >making the same choice. If someone doesn't want to deal with the
> >irrelevant topics on a.p.o., but does want to discuss Objectivism, where
> >is that option?
>
> That's why there are titles on posts and threaded newsreaders. You don't
> have to deal with the irrelevant topics. There is also MDOP and OSG.
Yup.
> >Cross-posts are _in_famous for spamming, irrelevency, etc. Do you
> >disagree?
>
> No, I don't disagree. The U.S. is famous for liberty and infamous for
> irrational self-indulgence. We tolerate - when we must - the abuse of
> the Internet (including usenet crossposting) for the sake of the great
> benefits we derive from it, just as we tolerate those whose abuse of
> liberty often annoys us, for the sake of our own liberty.
It's not a matter of a necessary evil that requires toleration, since
that's a contradiction. How do you "abuse" liberty, by the way? You
either act within the limits of your rights or not. Do you mean acting
immorally within the limit of not violating another's rights? That sort
of behavior deserves _political_ toleration, not _moral_ toleration; that
is, one does not have the right to outlaw such behavior, but one does
have the right to condemn it morally.
Moral toleration literally means moral agnosticism, the refusal to pass
judgement. The best statement of political toleration was given by Voltaire.
In any case, spam is a detriment to discourse, and should be fought.
> >I don't see why the two groups should be brought together, anymore
> >than a class on literature should have several lectures on physics.
>
> Nobody is suggesting merging groups. I'm only suggesting that the
> literature professor and the physics professor be permitted to talk
> to each other.
They are. The physicist who wonders about some issue in literature
visits the classroom (or newsgroup) in which it is discussed. What I
oppose is placing the laboratory and reading group in the same place,
since their interests differ and cognition requires _selective_ focus.
> If they want to discuss literature they should do it in a literature
> classroom. If they want to discuss physics they should do it in a
> physics class. But if they want to discuss how literature _relates_
> to physics (great physics, BTW, _is_ great literature; and there is
> much in Atlas Shrugged that is of vital importance to physicists)
> then they should do it in _both_ classrooms. That's exactly what
> "crossposting" permits them to do.
>
What in the world would they talk about? I am talking about literature,
not philosophy. Atlas, qua philosophy, is relevent to physics; qua
literature, it is utterly insignificant to that context. Physics can be
relevent to keeping the details of a story within the bounds of reality,
but the level on which professional physicists operate is utterly
incomprehensible to the layman, because the context is so different. A
physicist like Hawking, who talks to general audiences, can't get into
technical details.
As for physics as literature, I disagree. The purposes are utterly
different. Only in the most vague sense can that be true, in which case
it is only a metaphor of sorts.
> Alt.neo-tech crossposts should not be accepted. Sci.logic
> crossposts should.
As I understand it, sci.logic is a bunch of rationalists discussing the
technical details of formal logic, in the worst sense of the term. What
does a bunch of nonsensical scribblings have to do with Objectivism?
Have you looked at the nonsense bandied about in technical journals that
focus on this stuff?
Anyway, if I want to talk about an issue, I go to the particular group
that deals with it. In 2+ years, I have never had a question that could
not be sufficiently answered by a single newsgroup. What I have found is
multiple copies of identical posts on different newsgroups. I could
visit, say, sci.physics and sci.math and a huge number of the posts are
identical. Why is it done? Can't people figure out which newsgroup is
the most relevent to their topic and discuss it there?
What often happens is that the entire discussion in one place is copied
to another forum, which is a _huge_ waste of bandwidth if the only
response from the other group is a request not to cross-post.
There may be a case in which one wants to cross-post. Suppose I wrote a
book on politics. I could advertise by sending a post to book,
philosophy, literature, and political newsgroups. However, advertising
is usually frowned upon on the net.
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
James E. Prescott
On 5/23/96, Brad S Williams <bw...@teleport.com> wrote:
>James E. Prescott <jep...@nextel.net> wrote:
>>The question posed by the CFV, of course, is not whether I
>>should prevent anyone from doing anything but simply
>>whether I, as one voter, believe hpo should be created as
>>proposed in the RFDs and the CFV itself.
>>I believe it should not because it heaps the inconvenience
>>of subscribing to _two_ Objectivism newsgroups on _top_ of
>>the inconvenience of the Neotech and other abuse I already
>>put up with in apo.
>I don't understand this. How painful is it to subscribe to
>two newsgroups instead of one?
No pain at all. That isn't the point.
>By the very nature of hpo there won't be any crossposts between
>hpo and apo --
That is the problem I was describing. That _is_ the point.
>so there shouldn't even be a net increase of posts between the two.
A crosspost is a _single_ post that allows you to carry on discussions
with folks in multiple groups. Saves bandwidth. Facilitates discussion.
Let's everyone do _conveniently_ something they couldn't possibly do
even with _hours_ of work in email.
Imagine trying to gather into one group a dozen highly competent experts
from widely _divergent_ specialties for an ad hoc discussion of a single
issue on which they all can contribute. You might spends days or weeks
trying to set up those discussions if you do it in email or try to somehow
"lure" these experts into HPO. It's unnecessary! A _single_ crosspost
does the trick!
A post to HPO and a post to APO are _two_ posts. That's a net _increase_
of one. A post to hpo and a separate post each of a dozen other groups
is an impractical increase that accomplishes nothing! You wouldn't see
any replies to your posts unless you yourself subscribed to _each_ of the
dozen other groups!
Only by restricting _discussion_ (making it more inconvenient and so
less likely we'll carry on those discussions with experts in widely
divergent specialties) would hpo actually _succeed_ in reducing the
number of posts.
But that, of course!, defeats the whole purpose of eliminating net abuse
in the first place, which was to _facilitate_ discussion, to make it
_more_ convenient, not less.
>So where is the inconvenience? Honest question.
Honest question. Straight answer:
HPO will disallow crossposts, even to APO (which I use as an example,
though this applies equally to other groups on the net.)
_Therefore_ you will have to subscribe to and post separately to _both_
in order to enjoy the benefits of _each_.
Therefore, you'll _still_ suffer the abuse on APO; you are _no_better_off,
plus you have the added inconvenience of yet another newsgroup.
BUT, on the other hand, _if_ hpo simply _allowed_ crossposting then
separate posting would _not_ be necessary. You could subscribe to
_only_ hpo and _still_ have single threads on single topics spanning
_multiple_ newsgroups, _including_ apo.
As I said above, banning crossposts in an attempt to ban abuse only
_defeats_the_purpose_ of banning abuse!
To stretch the analogy I've used before: One throws out urine-
soiled bathwater instead of allowing the baby to play it in all
day _in_order_ to keep the baby _healthy_.
So if you throw out the baby with the bathwater you have defeated
the purpose of throwing out the bathwater! If you throw out cross-
posts along with Neotech you have defeated the purpose of throwing
out Neotech!
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
James E. Prescott
>What do you mean by "independently thought-out"? Are you
>implying that someone else did my thinking for me? If so,
>that was _exactly_ what I meant by referring to the claims
>of Kelley supporters that Peikoff supporters are "intrinsicists"
>who treat Objectivism as "revealed truth" - they either
>imply or state directly that people who support Peikoff don't
>do so on the basis of reason, but out of faith, in the same
>spirit as those who deride Objectivism as a cult.
I'm an Objectivist and yet I see a great deal of merit in the arguments
of those who deride the Objectivist movement or one or more of its
factions as a cult. There are many cult-like aspects, including angry
denunciations of (and refusal to speak with) any who criticize its
leaders.
When I say I don't dismiss support for Peikoff as based on faith I mean
that it is perfectly possible to think through his arguments for oneself
and come to agree with him. (At least I think it is.) So I begin by giving
everyone the benefit of the doubt and treating each as if he were an
independent thinker open to rational argument.
When I say that I have observed in the Peikoff supporters I am familiar
with a definite (as it seems to me) reluctance or inability to independently
argue in defense of contentious aspects of Objectivism and, instead, simple
referrals to published works coupled often with angry denunciations of
those who dispute Peikoff, I mean just that.
Kelley supporters seem more willing to state their own case and have it
subjected to criticism. I disagree with them as strongly and on as many
issues, perhaps, but I respect them more.
<snip of disagreement over the content of Bob Stubblefield's OSG contract;
someone please post it and refresh our memories!)
>One can't simultaneously ask questions in a sincere desire to gain
>knowledge _and_ launch a pre-emptive strike in the form of insults. If
>someone is deserving of insult, how can it also be worth your time to
>carefully consider their ideas, to ask questions of them, to _learn_ from
>them. Or do you seek out the ignorant, stupid or evil for guidance?
I, too, am reluctant to argue with such people as you describe. But we
were discussing the hundreds of subscribers to MDOP. To write _them_ off
as ignorant, stupid or evil because they have on occassion resorted
to gratuitous insult (I don't dispute that that happens; it's happened
to me!) would in my judgment be ignorant, stupid or evil.
>So are you going to spend hours trying to persuade someone who
>clearly demonstrates that they are unwilling to be persuaded? There's a
>thing called freewill, ya know. People _can_ choose to close their eyes,
>even when you wave the evidence right in front of their faces. Is that
>not a fact to consider? Or is it that merely presenting your case is
>enough to force their mind to work, regardless of their will?
I'm more concerned with improving my own understanding than with convincing
anyone of anything.
But even when I suspect a person is not willing to think, it remains
perfectly _reasonable_ for me (though not required, of course) to continue
giving that person the benefit of the doubt. Treat a person with respect
I have found and -- not always but often enough -- that person will _become_
worthy, will rise to level he is being afforded.
And remember, we are talking about open forums here where your arguments
can be seen and assessed by many other folks. I will challenge even the
views of people I despise (and there are NONE in apo that I know of;
my enemies are made of sterner stuff than the few Peikovians who profess,
falsely I hope, a passionate dislike for me), and I'll debate the devil
himself should he come to the light of an open arena.
<snip>
>> A mailing list or a newsgroup is a place for _answering_ (if you
>> have the courage and the intellectual self-confidence) any and all
>> "unsubstantiated speculation, arbitrary assertions and vindictive
>> insults."
>How? If it is arbitrary, no evidence is given. Without evidence, one
>can't evaluate the truth or falsity of the claim.
Again, if we are discussing MDOP's participants your criticisms are
unfounded and inappropriate. They are not as you describe them.
<snip>
>[...I]f you want to discuss physics, you go to newsgroup A.
>If you want to speculate on conspiracies, illuminati, etc.,
>you go to different groups. If you want to talk about recipes,
>you go somewhere else.
That's not quite how it works. Usenet allows you to focus on your
particular interests by subscribing to a few particular newsgroups and
yet at the same time allows you to discuss your interests as they
_relate_ to _other_ relevant areas of knowledge by simple crossposting.
Saves time. Saves bandwidth. Facilitates discussion and sheds new
light on our ideas by giving us the perspective and insights of
people with interests and beliefs quite different from our own.
>If the idea was to have an "inclusive" newsgroup, then why not just
>have one group?
Overall usenet _is_ one group but must be divided into different interest
sub-groups for the sake of being a practical discussion forum.
>The whole point of having separate groups is to _discriminate_ and to
>_exclude_. You choose with whom you associate and about which ideas you
>discuss. But you _don't_ have the right to prevent other people from
>making the same choice. If someone doesn't want to deal with the
>irrelevant topics on a.p.o., but does want to discuss Objectivism, where
>is that option?
That's why there are titles on posts and threaded newsreaders. You don't
have to deal with the irrelevant topics. There is also MDOP and OSG.
>Cross-posts are _in_famous for spamming, irrelevency, etc. Do you
>disagree?
No, I don't disagree. The U.S. is famous for liberty and infamous for
irrational self-indulgence. We tolerate - when we must - the abuse of
the Internet (including usenet crossposting) for the sake of the great
benefits we derive from it, just as we tolerate those whose abuse of
liberty often annoys us, for the sake of our own liberty.
>I don't see why the two groups should be brought together, anymore
>than a class on literature should have several lectures on physics.
Nobody is suggesting merging groups. I'm only suggesting that the
literature professor and the physics professor be permitted to talk
to each other.
If they want to discuss literature they should do it in a literature
classroom. If they want to discuss physics they should do it in a
physics class. But if they want to discuss how literature _relates_
to physics (great physics, BTW, _is_ great literature; and there is
much in Atlas Shrugged that is of vital importance to physicists)
then they should do it in _both_ classrooms. That's exactly what
"crossposting" permits them to do.
>> Remove the crossposts ban and you remove that inconvenience. You'd
>> still have a moderated newsgroup without the Neotechers.
> But what if it is cross-posted to alt.neo-tech????
Alt.neo-tech crossposts should not be accepted. Sci.logic
crossposts should.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Josh Landess
I said something inaccurate here, so it's been bothering me a little
and I wanted to respond to my own post and hopefully correct it in
case anyone follows the thread.
It's been about 6 months since I tried to check out the FAQ on
starting a group. I think, in retrospect, what bugged me was having
to go through an approval process to prove a "_need_" for a group.
This, to my distant recollection, was the language of the FAQ. To be
honest, I can see how a net might consider requiring this, but at the
time, it turned me off entirely. The USENET FAQ on this sounded like
the process would be particularly bureaucratic, with little efficiency
or justice. A privately run Net, for example, might have a
drastically better get-it-done philosophy about such a matter.
Josh
Josh
On Wed, 22 May 1996 06:29:36 GMT, jlan...@enteract.com (Josh Landess)
wrote:
Stephen Grossman
In article <4o13tf$s...@julie.teleport.com>, bw...@teleport.com (Brad S
Williams) wrote:
James E. Prescott <jep...@nextel.net> wrote:
>The question posed by the CFV, of course, is not whether I
>should prevent anyone from doing anything but simply whether I, as
>one voter, believe hpo should be created as proposed in the RFDs
>and the CFV itself.
>
>I believe it should not because it heaps the inconvenience of
>subscribing to _two_ Objectivism newsgroups on _top_ of the
>inconvenience of the Neotech and other abuse I already put up
>with in apo.
I don't understand this. How painful is it to subscribe to two newsgroups
instead of one? By the very nature of hpo there won't be any crossposts
between hpo and apo -- so there shouldn't even be a net increase of posts
between the two. So where is the inconvenience? Honest question.
Brad Williams
Ive posted for 4 yrs w/no problems. The non-, semi, and anti-Objectivists
in apo are no barrier to serious, technical philosophy here. Ive had very
good discussions here with, eg, European universiity professors, etc. Its
as simple as ignoring posts one doesnt like. What is the fucking problem?!
I cannot imagine why some think there's a problem. And I want to know (and
be amused by) the enemy. On his LA radio show, Peikoff gives preference to
hostile queries. And what is CFV and RFD?! Im not even necessarily opposed
to hpo provided the moderator agrees with me.........................
***********************************************************
Stephen Grossman
Fairhaven, MA, USA
sgr...@pictac.com
Wisdom spoken here.
***********************************************************
Lisa Aaronson
>Ive posted for 4 yrs w/no problems.
Actually, I'd say that the fact that you've posted for 4 years is itself a
problem. Pity there's no way to get your particular brand of irrationalism
off of a.p.o. and on to something more appropriate. Say alt.prozac.
Lisa
-------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- from the TV show "Fame"
Ed Matthews
On Wed, 29 May 1996, James E. Prescott wrote:
> On 5/23/96, in message, Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 May 1996, James E. Prescott wrote:
> Remember, we are talking about open forums here where your arguments can be
> seen and assessed by many other folks. Debating an evil person does not imply
> you think he is open to reason. It implies you think he is wrong and are
> willing to state that for the record, for your own benefit and for the benefit
> of anyone else who may be open to reason.
Last time I checked, "debate" involved a lot more than that.
> > Having the ability to do cross-post doesn't make it appropriate.
>
> What is inappropriate here?
Spam.
> Sufficient context for worthwhile discussion just isn't a problem.
So people on alt.slack, alt.postmodern, or the other groups have just as
much knowledge about Objectivism as you do? In order to discuss
technical details, as opposed to surface topics, all involved have to
have a sufficiently developed understanding of Objectivism in order to
integrate and grasp the meaning of the more difficult ideas.
> And if _you_
> don't gain anything new from crossposting then don't do it.
Gee. Wish I had thought of that.
> But if you have a
> topic to discuss that is clearly relevant to multiple groups, you can crosspost
> or you can post separately to each group. The former saves times and bandwidth.
> The latter is called spamming and gains you nothing because you won't see
> replies to your post unless you read multiple groups.
If it is relevent, why is it spam?
> Crossposts don't eat bandwidth compared to the alternatives and compared to net
> abuse. As for irrelevant, to whom and for what?
To people interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, how about Neo-Tech and the
latest fads in post-modern philosophy?
> You don't have to read them.
No, but I do have to sift through them.
> Except for deliberate abuse and for some neglect, someone out there thought his
> own posts were relevant.
That's pretty subjective, isn't it?
> > Can you cite an example, and explain why you gain more by posting
> > simultaneously to different groups (whose members have different
> > contexts, which means that you need to explain enough to create a context
> > in which your question can be answered, when necessary) rather than
> > breaking up your question into parts, and asking for information on the
> > _relevent_ newsgroups separately?
>
> I shouldn't have to explain it again. Topics overlap. Dividing a discussion
> into disconnected parts defeats the purpose. Crossposting is a gathering of
> persons with divergent specialties, perspectives, and knowledge about an issue
> into a _single_ discussion from which every one of them can benefit. If you
> claim to be unable to see how this happens I have to suspect you are being
> deliberately obtuse or otherwise not entirely forthright in _this_ discussion.
> You want examples? Subscribe to a couple related newsgroups and read the
> crossposts.
I have. The facts led me to my conclusion.
> > > >If the idea was to have an "inclusive" newsgroup, then why not just
> > > >have one group?
> > >
> > > Overall usenet _is_ one group but must be divided into different interest
> > > sub-groups for the sake of being a practical discussion forum.
> >
> > That's exactly my point. You can't jump into a discussion midstream,
> > without first building sufficient context. Each newsgroup represents a
> > different context, built around an essential topic from which the group
> > is named.
>
> It isn't a matter of jumping into discussions devoid of context. A crosspost is
> nothing more than a single post (or, often, an entire single thread) that can
> be viewed and commented upon by the subscribers to more than one Usenet group.
> As often as not it is the very first post in a thread. But in any case,
> crossposted discussion _always_ provides _greater_ context to all participants
> than can possibly be provided by separate, disconnected posts to separate
> groups.
Whose context are you talking about? I know A,B and C, while someone
else knows X, Y and Z. Until and unless that knowledge gap is filled (by
one of us explaining things) communication of ideas is literally impossible.
I see this is a sticky issue, so here's an example.
How does one reconcile parity violation in beta decay with Einstein's
postulate that all inertial frames are equivalent?
If you don't know what I am talking about, I can go through a detailed
explanation, spending a couple hours in the process. Then I can ask
again, and if you have a few ideas, we can discuss them. But if your
context of knowledge on this issue is limited to what I told you, then I
end up just speaking to myself.
If I wanted to find the answer, should I proceed to an automotive
newsgroup? Or a supermodel fan group? Or would I go to a physics group?
The fact that such a combination could appear as crossposts points to the
real problem: indiscriminant cross-posting.
>
> > > [...] The U.S. is famous for liberty and infamous for
> > > irrational self-indulgence. We tolerate - when we must - the abuse of
> > > the Internet (including usenet crossposting) for the sake of the great
> > > benefits we derive from it, just as we tolerate those whose abuse of
> > > liberty often annoys us, for the sake of our own liberty.
> >
> > It's not a matter of a necessary evil that requires toleration, since
> > that's a contradiction. How do you "abuse" liberty, by the way? You
> > either act within the limits of your rights or not. Do you mean acting
> > immorally within the limit of not violating another's rights? That sort
> > of behavior deserves _political_ toleration, not _moral_ toleration; that
> > is, one does not have the right to outlaw such behavior, but one does
> > have the right to condemn it morally.
>
> This is not a discussion of whether we have the moral right to ban
> crossposting. Service providers can ban whatever they want. The question is
> whether it is better to permit crossposting and put up with those who may abuse
> it or to ban crossposting and lose the obvious benefits that it affords.
>
In this case, it is whether a group of people who wish to associate
without such cross-posts can have permission to do so.
> > In any case, spam is a detriment to discourse, and should be fought.
>
> Crossposting is the _alternative_ to spam. Spam is posting multiple copies of
> the same thing over and over again, to many groups, eating bandwidth and
> wasting everybody's time.
How is it any less a waste of time to individually send each post? If
anything, the hassle of doing so would be a pretty good deterent. Most
of the stuff that gets on a.p.o. would likely disappear.
> > > If [professors] they want to discuss literature they should do it
> > > in a literature classroom. If they want to discuss physics they
> > > should do it in a physics class. But if they want to discuss how
> > > literature _relates_ to physics (great physics, BTW, _is_ great
> > > literature; and there is much in Atlas Shrugged that is of vital
> > > importance to physicists) then they should do it in _both_ class-
> > > rooms. That's exactly what "crossposting" permits them to do.
> > >
> >
> > What in the world would they talk about? I am talking about literature,
> > not philosophy. Atlas, qua philosophy, is relevent to physics; qua
> > literature, it is utterly insignificant to that context.
>
> Not true, but what does it matter? Physicists have important literary concerns
> (they are writers) and can learn a great deal about presenting their ideas to
> others through the study of great literature, including _AS_. But if you want
> to disallow discussions between physicists and literary scholars for some
> reason, fine. How about discussions between philosophers and physicists?
>
> > Physics can be
> > relevent to keeping the details of a story within the bounds of reality,
> > but the level on which professional physicists operate is utterly
> > incomprehensible to the layman, because the context is so different. A
> > physicist like Hawking, who talks to general audiences, can't get into
> > technical details.
>
> What are you talking about? How is that generality (quite untrue, BTW) even
> remotely relevant to the merits of crossposted discussion!?
The issue, again, is context: one can only talk on one level at a time.
Like bad money driving out the good, discussions of advanced topics
invariably slow down to accomodate people with insufficient contexts
posting trivial ideas.
They certainly have the right to rant on about whatever they want, but
that obviously slows down advanced discussions. This is true in
classroom bull sessions as well as private mailing lists and on Usenet.
> > What often happens is that the entire discussion in one place is copied
> > to another forum, which is a _huge_ waste of bandwidth if the only
> > response from the other group is a request not to cross-post.
>
> That's not what happens. Both forums simply make the discussion visible to
> their participants. It is not copied from one forum to another. The bandwidth
> savings is tremendous. The benefits are incalculable.
I've seen identical posts in several newsgroups, such as sci.physics,
sci.math, etc. Not just a few, mind you, but an entire _thread_! How
does it reduce traffic to have such a situation? If a thread takes X
amount of time to travel through the net, slowing down traffic as it
does, then repeating the thread 3 times only serves to increase the gridlock.
> > There may be a case in which one wants to cross-post. Suppose I wrote a
> > book on politics. I could advertise by sending a post to book,
> > philosophy, literature, and political newsgroups. However, advertising
> > is usually frowned upon on the net.
>
> Suppose you wrote a _post_ on politics. You'd post it simultaneously to
> philosophy newsgroups and to relevant politics/economics/social science
> newsgroups and see the reactions of all their participants by subscribing to
> just a single one of them. Everybody benefits. Bandwidth is conserved. If it
> has relevance to all those groups and you post it to only one you are wasting
> your time. If you post it to each separately you are wasting everyone's time
> and squandering bandwidth.
Again, if it does apply to that many topics, it must be fairly general.
If it is abstract, then I must connect it to reality with enough context
to be understood by what I take to be the average person on each
newsgroup.
In terms of principles, cross-posting is anti-intellectual - literally.
Look at the principled involved in cognition, and how the opposite is
true (in many cases, at least) of cross-posting.
Unit economy, for instance. If you spend all of your time explaining and
re-explaining the concepts you start with, then you never leave square
one. Progression requires _building_ on knowledge. To constantly stay
on the same level defeats the whole purpose of unit economy.
The free market of ideas doesn't function under anarchy. A mind seeking
knowledge without structure, direction or method acquires nothing.
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
James E. Prescott
On 5/23/96, in message, Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 1996, James E. Prescott wrote:
>
> > And remember, we are talking about open forums here where your arguments
> > can be seen and assessed by many other folks. I will challenge even the
> > views of people I despise (and there are NONE in apo that I know of;
> > my enemies are made of sterner stuff than the few Peikovians who profess,
> > falsely I hope, a passionate dislike for me), and I'll debate the devil
> > himself should he come to the light of an open arena.
>
> What for? If the devil is the incarnation of evil, then he is not
> rational (that would be a virtue, and he has none, by definition). The
> _attempt_ to debate him implies that he is open to reason, that he is
> deserving of being treated as if he lived by the mind and not by the
> gun. Would that be an act of justice?
Remember, we are talking about open forums here where your arguments can be
seen and assessed by many other folks. Debating an evil person does not imply
you think he is open to reason. It implies you think he is wrong and are
willing to state that for the record, for your own benefit and for the benefit
of anyone else who may be open to reason.
> > [...] Usenet allows you to focus on your
> > particular interests by subscribing to a few particular newsgroups and
> > yet at the same time allows you to discuss your interests as they
> > _relate_ to _other_ relevant areas of knowledge by simple crossposting.
>
> Having the ability to do so doesn't make it appropriate.
What is inappropriate here?
>
> > Saves time.
>
> If you have to explain
>
> > Saves bandwidth.
>
> In the long run, I don't think so. You would have to include a number of
> follow-up, explanatory posts to provide enough context to realy discuss
> the essence of a particular topic when it gets cross-posted, if it is not
> apparent to everyone what is being discussed. And if it _is_ already
> clear, why cross-post? You don't gain anything new from the additional
> group(s).
You're not making a lot of sense here, Ed. Crossposting happens all the time.
Sufficient context for worthwhile discussion just isn't a problem. And if _you_
don't gain anything new from crossposting then don't do it. But if you have a
topic to discuss that is clearly relevant to multiple groups, you can crosspost
or you can post separately to each group. The former saves times and bandwidth.
The latter is called spamming and gains you nothing because you won't see
replies to your post unless you read multiple groups.
> In practice, one sees far more _irrelevent_ cross-posts that eat bandwidth.
Crossposts don't eat bandwidth compared to the alternatives and compared to net
abuse. As for irrelevant, to whom and for what? You don't have to read them.
Except for deliberate abuse and for some neglect, someone out there thought his
own posts were relevant. Again, you don't have to read them.
> > Facilitates discussion and sheds new
> > light on our ideas by giving us the perspective and insights of
> > people with interests and beliefs quite different from our own.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Can you cite an example, and explain why you gain more by posting
> simultaneously to different groups (whose members have different
> contexts, which means that you need to explain enough to create a context
> in which your question can be answered, when necessary) rather than
> breaking up your question into parts, and asking for information on the
> _relevent_ newsgroups separately?
I shouldn't have to explain it again. Topics overlap. Dividing a discussion
into disconnected parts defeats the purpose. Crossposting is a gathering of
persons with divergent specialties, perspectives, and knowledge about an issue
into a _single_ discussion from which every one of them can benefit. If you
claim to be unable to see how this happens I have to suspect you are being
deliberately obtuse or otherwise not entirely forthright in _this_ discussion.
You want examples? Subscribe to a couple related newsgroups and read the
crossposts.
> > >If the idea was to have an "inclusive" newsgroup, then why not just
> > >have one group?
> >
> > Overall usenet _is_ one group but must be divided into different interest
> > sub-groups for the sake of being a practical discussion forum.
>
> That's exactly my point. You can't jump into a discussion midstream,
> without first building sufficient context. Each newsgroup represents a
> different context, built around an essential topic from which the group
> is named.
It isn't a matter of jumping into discussions devoid of context. A crosspost is
nothing more than a single post (or, often, an entire single thread) that can
be viewed and commented upon by the subscribers to more than one Usenet group.
As often as not it is the very first post in a thread. But in any case,
crossposted discussion _always_ provides _greater_ context to all participants
than can possibly be provided by separate, disconnected posts to separate
groups. So if crossposting is really what you have in mind when you level this
criticism it just doesn't make any sense!
> > [...] The U.S. is famous for liberty and infamous for
> > irrational self-indulgence. We tolerate - when we must - the abuse of
> > the Internet (including usenet crossposting) for the sake of the great
> > benefits we derive from it, just as we tolerate those whose abuse of
> > liberty often annoys us, for the sake of our own liberty.
>
> It's not a matter of a necessary evil that requires toleration, since
> that's a contradiction. How do you "abuse" liberty, by the way? You
> either act within the limits of your rights or not. Do you mean acting
> immorally within the limit of not violating another's rights? That sort
> of behavior deserves _political_ toleration, not _moral_ toleration; that
> is, one does not have the right to outlaw such behavior, but one does
> have the right to condemn it morally.
This is not a discussion of whether we have the moral right to ban
crossposting. Service providers can ban whatever they want. The question is
whether it is better to permit crossposting and put up with those who may abuse
it or to ban crossposting and lose the obvious benefits that it affords.
> Moral toleration literally means moral agnosticism, the refusal to pass
> judgement. The best statement of political toleration was given by Voltaire.
Fine.
> In any case, spam is a detriment to discourse, and should be fought.
Crossposting is the _alternative_ to spam. Spam is posting multiple copies of
the same thing over and over again, to many groups, eating bandwidth and
wasting everybody's time. Crossposting is the posting of a single message that
is made visible to the subscribers of multiple groups.
> > If [professors] they want to discuss literature they should do it
> > in a literature classroom. If they want to discuss physics they
> > should do it in a physics class. But if they want to discuss how
> > literature _relates_ to physics (great physics, BTW, _is_ great
> > literature; and there is much in Atlas Shrugged that is of vital
> > importance to physicists) then they should do it in _both_ class-
> > rooms. That's exactly what "crossposting" permits them to do.
> >
>
> What in the world would they talk about? I am talking about literature,
> not philosophy. Atlas, qua philosophy, is relevent to physics; qua
> literature, it is utterly insignificant to that context.
Not true, but what does it matter? Physicists have important literary concerns
(they are writers) and can learn a great deal about presenting their ideas to
others through the study of great literature, including _AS_. But if you want
to disallow discussions between physicists and literary scholars for some
reason, fine. How about discussions between philosophers and physicists?
> Physics can be
> relevent to keeping the details of a story within the bounds of reality,
> but the level on which professional physicists operate is utterly
> incomprehensible to the layman, because the context is so different. A
> physicist like Hawking, who talks to general audiences, can't get into
> technical details.
What are you talking about? How is that generality (quite untrue, BTW) even
remotely relevant to the merits of crossposted discussion!?
> [..I]f I want to talk about an issue, I go to the particular group
> that deals with it. In 2+ years, I have never had a question that could
> not be sufficiently answered by a single newsgroup. What I have found is
> multiple copies of identical posts on different newsgroups. I could
> visit, say, sci.physics and sci.math and a huge number of the posts are
> identical. Why is it done? Can't people figure out which newsgroup is
> the most relevent to their topic and discuss it there?
It is done to save bandwidth and provide convenience to all participants.
Nobody has to subscribe to more than their primary interest newsgroups and the
discussions remain in single threads, all posted only once instead of multiple
times to multiple relevant newsgroups.
> What often happens is that the entire discussion in one place is copied
> to another forum, which is a _huge_ waste of bandwidth if the only
> response from the other group is a request not to cross-post.
That's not what happens. Both forums simply make the discussion visible to
their participants. It is not copied from one forum to another. The bandwidth
savings is tremendous. The benefits are incalculable.
> There may be a case in which one wants to cross-post. Suppose I wrote a
> book on politics. I could advertise by sending a post to book,
> philosophy, literature, and political newsgroups. However, advertising
> is usually frowned upon on the net.
Suppose you wrote a _post_ on politics. You'd post it simultaneously to
philosophy newsgroups and to relevant politics/economics/social science
newsgroups and see the reactions of all their participants by subscribing to
just a single one of them. Everybody benefits. Bandwidth is conserved. If it
has relevance to all those groups and you post it to only one you are wasting
your time. If you post it to each separately you are wasting everyone's time
and squandering bandwidth.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Tim Starr
In article <N.052996....@ppp175-20.nextel.net>,
>
>> On Fri, 24 May 1996, James E. Prescott wrote:
>>
>> > And remember, we are talking about open forums here where your arguments
>> > can be seen and assessed by many other folks. I will challenge even the
>> > views of people I despise (and there are NONE in apo that I know of;
>> > my enemies are made of sterner stuff than the few Peikovians who profess,
>> > falsely I hope, a passionate dislike for me), and I'll debate the devil
>> > himself should he come to the light of an open arena.
>>
>> What for? If the devil is the incarnation of evil, then he is not
>> rational (that would be a virtue, and he has none, by definition). The
>> _attempt_ to debate him implies that he is open to reason, that he is
>> deserving of being treated as if he lived by the mind and not by the
>> gun. Would that be an act of justice?
>
>Remember, we are talking about open forums here where your arguments can be
>seen and assessed by many other folks. Debating an evil person does not imply
>you think he is open to reason. It implies you think he is wrong and are
>willing to state that for the record, for your own benefit and for the benefit
>of anyone else who may be open to reason.
Indeed. And debating an evil person can help you improve your own understand-
ing of an issue. Funny how even the Catholic Church recognizes this. Even
institutionalizes it in the position of the Devil's Advocate. Guess I'll have
to stop making fun of Police-State Peikoff's followers by using the metaphors
of Catholicism. They're not tolerant enough.
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