HPO: How many disinterested parties does Betsy know?
Nicholas Rich
I received the following from someone who is apparently concerned over the
implications of this with respect to the guidelines in the CFV regarding
disinterested parties.
I believe SCOC stands for Southern California Objectivist Association, and I
am informed that it is an organization that no longer exists formally.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
To: SCOA CyberNet <SC...@speicher.com>
Subject: Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Dear SCOA CyberNet members,
I would like to enlist your help in a cause that may ultimately prove
important both as a way to spread and establish Objectivism and as a
step toward defining and enforcing property rights in that fertile new
medium of ideas: the Internet.
The UseNet newsgroup called alt.philosophy.objectivism (a.p.o.) has
existed on the Internet for about 3-4 years now as one of the
thousands and thousands of such groups. It has been a popular,
wide-open, no-holds-barred battleground frequented by Objectivists and
pseudo-Objectivists and anti-Objectivists, by the honest and the
dishonest, by the knowlegeable and the clueless, by old-timers and
_especially_ by newbies.
A.p.o. has been many an Ayn Rand fan's introduction to Objectivism.
It has been there that they first find out about the Ayn Rand
Institute, Objectivist groups in their town, Objectivist conferences,
etc. It is also there that they can see a few representatives of
Objectivism at its best as well as anarchists, libertarians,
tolerationists, and modern academic critics of Objectivism in all
their ugly reality, too.
For Objectivists who want to improve their debating skills, a.p.o.
has provided an unending stream of willing adversaries for target
practice using live intellectual ammunition. A.p.o. has also been a
happy hunting ground for a "recruiter" like me as I look over the
newbies and pick the best ones for referral to other Objectivist resources.
A.p.o.'s faults have all been an object lesson in what's wrong with
anarchy. Anybody can post anything and they do. The relevance to
Objectivism, especially on the threads cross-posted to twenty other
newsgroups, is often just about zero. In flame wars and other battles
it is not the most intelligent and honest who prevail, but the most
persistent, obnoxious, and abusive. A.p.o. has no defenses against
those out to dominate and disrupt the flow of ideas and, because of
its high profile and popularity, a.p.o. has been a frequent target of
spammers and trolls.
In the past year, a.p.o. has been under attack by followers of a
loony cult called Neo-Tech who have issued a "Takeover Manifesto" in
which they say they will take over _all_ of Objectivism and oust its
current "ersatz leaders" and then "rule cyberspace." While they
haven't yet taken over, they sure have made a mess of a.p.o.
In response, several of us on a.p.o. have proposed the creation of a
_new_ UseNet newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas
which will be called humanities.philosophy.objectivism (h.p.o.).
H.p.o. will have several advantages over a.p.o. It will be in a
recognized, official UseNet hierarchy, it will be carried at all major
Internet sites, be archived, and, best of all, it can be _moderated_.
Those of us who seek to preserve the wide-open neutral battleground do
not want content-based moderation; we just want to lower the
signal/noise ratio and avoid net-abuse. The h.p.o. charter calls for
an _auto_moderator -- a robot moderator which will be programmed to
ban postings which are cross-posted, posted by a proven net-abuser, or
mention Neo-Tech in any way, shape or form.
In order to get humanities.philosophy.objectivism into the official
UseNet hierarchy, WE NEED YOUR 'YES' VOTE. A CFV (Call for Votes)
has just been posted which contains complete instructions on how to
vote. Find out if and how you can access the UseNet newsgroup called
news.groups, read the posting with the subject of "CFV:
humanities.philosophy.objectivism," and follow the instructions EXACTLY.
Votes _must_ be posted by e-mail reply or follow-up to the CFV posting
or they will not have the correct header references. Those of you who
do not have a UseNet newsreader but do have access to the World Wide
Web can read and reply to the CFV on the newsgroup news.groups by
entering this URL:
news:news.groups
For h.p.o. to pass, it requires a 2/3 YES vote with 100 more YESes
than NOs. Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy. The
Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
lot of vote fraud.
We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
Establish Objectivism in the official UseNet hierarchy and strike a
blow for property rights in cyberspace.
Betsy Speicher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble http://www.ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants a...@ss-n.com
We settle and resolve problems between businesses including lawsuits
judgments, liens, payables receivables--through Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), out-of-court and always on a *results-only* basis.
Earn substantial referral fees. Or, become an affiliate and learn
how to cash in on ADR and earn a 6 figure income working from home.
http://www.ss-n.com/referral.html http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.html
Steve Reed
nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>I received the following from someone who is apparently concerned over the
>implications of this with respect to the guidelines in the CFV regarding
>disinterested parties.
The answer to the subject-line query: She knows several hundred. This letter
apparently is being sent to the SCOA mailing list, all that remains of an
Objectivist group in the L.A. area that held meetings until recently.
Several newsgroup votes have been thrown out in recent months, or nearly so,
due to large amounts of such evangelism about getting votes from outside
parties ... many of whom don't use Usenet regularly. The biggest donnybrook
was over a group dealing with Kashmir culture and politics, which vote had
23,000 people (!) in favor, but most coming from irregular spam exhortations,
like this one.
The meta-debate behind this is whether those who are brought in as ringers
for a vote, on one side or another, ought to matter to how Usenet is set up
and run. Betsy apparently thinks so -- the disinterested (and, for many,
*un*interested) parties she disdains for, in some cases, their message
pollution are now being courted for their votes. This often backfires. I doubt
Betsy has grasped this. Maybe she shouldn't. :)
* * *
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes in her letter to the members of the
SCOA CyberNet mailing list:
>I would like to enlist your help in a cause that may ultimately prove
>important both as a way to spread and establish Objectivism and as a
>step toward defining and enforcing property rights in that fertile new
>medium of ideas: the Internet.
Noting 200 times that this doesn't involve property rights won't yet bore
through your skull, apparently. So the 201st short play of this golden oldie,
to help newcomers: The property rights already exist, in the owners of the
Usenet servers. You're establishing an elaborate and overwrought set of
controls, not defining any sort of rights.
>A.p.o. has been many an Ayn Rand fan's introduction to Objectivism.
>It has been there that they first find out about the Ayn Rand
>Institute, Objectivist groups in their town, Objectivist conferences,
>etc. It is also there that they can see a few representatives of
>Objectivism at its best as well as anarchists, libertarians,
>tolerationists, and modern academic critics of Objectivism in all
>their ugly reality, too.
We "ugly" bastards will be pursuing your logic and illogic right into any new
h.p.o.m, Betsy. You won't get rid of us, unless you seize the controls and
turn it the cloister you transparently prefer. Think about that if this thing
passes, while you endure its burned-out content-viewing human moderators (read
the damn CFV!), the long lag times, and the new flame wars over whom to ban.
You might have had the courage to confess the truth about whom you despise
to us in person. But, at least, I thank you for confining your ad-hominem
dumping to your private mailing list, and for not posting it here yourself, to
the 90 percent of us who uglify a.p.o (and h.p.o.m, if any) for you.
All of this being erected, as she admits, to stomp on the Neo-Techers is an
elephant gun aimed at a flea ... but, of course, getting the controls set
up is the issue, not any professed current target. I have a mail slot
waiting for my ban notice.
>While [the more spam-happy Neo-Techers] haven't yet taken over,
>they sure have made a mess of a.p.o.
Not in the last six weeks. Isn't it amazing how children will stop their
misbehaving and whining when *you* stop ladling out attention? You people
won't apply the lessons learned with your own kids to other adults.
>Those of us who seek to preserve the wide-open neutral battleground do
>not want content-based moderation [...]
You merely set this up with a moderator who is fully empowered to judge what's
germane, in *both* the second discussion request and first call for votes. Do
you think your SCOA friends will appreciate being blatantly lied to?
>Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
>are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
>standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy.
I'll waste one penultimate breath, since we all have said more than enough
about this in the past weeks: This isn't about limits as such. It's about
setting up controls that are available to enforce *bad* limits.
The last breath will be a concise primer of ten reasons to vote "no," soon to
appear, when the CFV has propagated to all North American Usenet sites. It
hasn't yet, and that's why some of this message traffic is bewildering.
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Matt Keys
h.p.o creator Betsy wrote:
: We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
: the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
: We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
: the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
: We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
: the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
: For h.p.o. to pass, it requires a 2/3 YES vote with 100 more YESes
: than NOs. Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
: are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
: standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy. The
: Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
: more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
: variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
: lot of vote fraud.
hey Betsy, your email to the people who never read USENET
begging them to vote yes *IS* vote fraud!
you accuse us of vote fraud and we haven't done
anything yet! amazing objectivity! all hail to
the "honest, benevolent" Betsy!
but, you don't understand, we
WANT the new group to be formed, so you can revel in all of
your bogus power and glory on h.p.o.m.
but now that you have pulled this stunt, it
looks like the group should be disqualified.
you better get help from your moderator friend Tim Skirvin,
he can help you talk your way out of this mess.
: We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
: the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
: We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
: the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
: We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
: the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
--
The New-World Song http://www.neo-tech.com/prosperity/
Neo-Tech: Get Rich By 2001 http://www.neo-tech.com/world/
Jani Patokallio
Matt Keys (matt...@netcom.com) wrote:
: h.p.o creator Betsy wrote:
: : We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
: : the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
: hey Betsy, your email to the people who never read USENET
: begging them to vote yes *IS* vote fraud!
:
: you accuse us of vote fraud and we haven't done
: anything yet! amazing objectivity! all hail to
: the "honest, benevolent" Betsy!
: but now that you have pulled this stunt, it
: looks like the group should be disqualified.
The only person who will decide whether anything gets disqualified is
moi, your friendly humanities.philosophy.objectivism votetaker, who is
starting to get mildly annoyed at the level of non-stop flamage regarding
the vote. Ms. Speicher's vote solicitation attempts, while admittedly
a bit too much, weren't much worse than the virtual spamming of news.groups
by the Neo-Tech side (what did that 150K document have to do with the vote?);
but neither of these will get the vote disqualified. I would advise
both sides to stop shooting themselves in the foot, all you have succeeded
in doing so far is making yourselves look silly and generating sympathy
votes for the other side.
Cheers,
--
Jani Patokallio | Elämä ei ole henkeä eikä ainetta, vaan liikettä.
jpat...@alpha.hut.fi | Entropy: http://www.hut.fi/~jpatokal/entropy.html
Matt Keys
Jani Patokallio (jpat...@cc.hut.fi) wrote:
: starting to get mildly annoyed at the level of non-stop flamage regarding
: the vote. Ms. Speicher's vote solicitation attempts, while admittedly
: a bit too much, weren't much worse than the virtual spamming of news.groups
: by the Neo-Tech side (what did that 150K document have to do with the vote?);
: but neither of these will get the vote disqualified. I would advise
: both sides to stop shooting themselves in the foot, all you have succeeded
: in doing so far is making yourselves look silly and generating sympathy
: votes for the other side.
another problem I had was the E-Team accused myself and other
neo-tech posters of vote fraud with ZERO evidence. In fact, Nick
has already voted yes and I'm not going to vote.
I guess bogus accusations of vote fraud is also a
"but too much" perhaps? is there anything else they
can get away with, including Ms. Speicher's vote
solicitation attempts?
Matt.
Brad Aisa
matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:
>another problem I had was the E-Team accused myself and other
>neo-tech posters of vote fraud with ZERO evidence.
>
>I guess bogus accusations of vote fraud is also a
>"but too much" perhaps? is there anything else they
>can get away with, including Ms. Speicher's vote
>solicitation attempts?
The NT'ers abuse and spamming of irrelevant material onto apo is well
documented. Their bizarre pronouncements and apocalyptic threats are also
well documented. The downright loony recent pronouncement about having
created "King of All Heretics" and engineering their own flame war (which
claim is dubious at best) is further evidence of their willingness to
defraud and lie. They don't respect rights, they lie, and they twist
language past the point even Orwell could have conceived. So of course, it
is perfectly rational and natural to expect vote fraud from such persons,
in this issue. Also to be kept in mind is the propensity of NT'ers to
manufacture aliases (THinkXXX) and testimonials (has anyone EVER met one of
their alleged testamonial givers?)
And to my knowledge, no-one has made allegations *of* vote fraud, only
warned of the strong possibility. So Mr. Key's charge is inaccurate.
I have explained that Mrs. Speicher's activities have been legitimate --
people with Internet access who are interested in Objectivism are a
proper target market for the group.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
Please vote YES on newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Nicholas Rich
For the "who-are-YOU-trying-to-fool" file:
In article <4o5s86$p...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
wrote:
>I have explained that Mrs. Speicher's activities have been legitimate --
>people with Internet access who are interested in Objectivism are a
>proper target market for the group.
We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
[Quote from Ms. Speicher's letter.]
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
Brad Aisa
In article <4o60gc$8...@nntp1.best.com>,
nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>For the "who-are-YOU-trying-to-fool" file:
>
>In article <4o5s86$p...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
>wrote:
>
>>I have explained that Mrs. Speicher's activities have been legitimate --
>>people with Internet access who are interested in Objectivism are a
>>proper target market for the group.
>
>the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
>
The individuals in question have free will. They can read the CFV and
decide whether they agree or not.
Someone else here has pointed out the appalling (implicit) "cabalism" of
many 'netters: "interested" is defined as anyone currently posting to a
specific newsgroup -- *potential* subscribers are, (by this definition)
*dis-interested*. So in other words, all matters are to be decided by the
existing readers.
So if all the rational readers have been disgusted by the spam and
irrational nonsense from NT'ers, then only the NT'ers are left to decide
the fate of internet newsgroups. Neat trick.
Another important point to keep in mind, is that the voting guidelines for
Usenet newsgroups are quite non-objective, and not governed by any kind of
contract. No-one had to sign a contract to get Usenet. The voting procedure
is *a* method of bringing order to the process of newsgroup creation, and
establishing a certain level of support needed to form one. The alternative
-- no mechanism -- can be seen in IRC, and just look at the wasteland of
irrationality, sleaze, profanity, hostile takeovers, etc. that IRC is.
The purpose of CFV's is to determine if there is sufficient interest to
warrant the formation of a new group. It is not a subscription contract. In
addition, the ability to vote 'no' is intended for those who would be
affected by the change -- it is primarily intended for re-orginizations, or
the addition of moderation to existing groups. For new groups, the rights
of existing Usenet participants to associate are not affected.
I am not a great fan of the entire Usenet system, as I have stated before
-- I think it is seriously deficient, and based on anarchist premises,
combined with some looney dollops of arbitrary "democracy" thrown in. But,
it is also grounded in the rights of individuals to subscribe to internet
service, and the rights of those services to carry and propogate news
articles, so in that sense, it is legitimate. But because there is no
direct contractual/legal relation of ownership between the propogation of
news articles and the procedures of groups formation, posting guidelines,
etc., then one cannot view such things as the voting procedures in the same
way as for things like government officials, or directors of organizations.
So I would repeat, that solicitation of votes among Objectivists and
admirers of Ayn Rand, and even their friends, is completely within the
legitimate, given the context of the meaning of this vote, and the
ambiguous legal/moral standing of the vote-taking process.
And I must continue to emphasize: it is precisely the ambiguous,
non-objective nature of this kind of vote, that gives unlimited license to
the *immoral* and *dishonest*, and would punish those were moral and
honest. THIS is one of the things I find most appalling about this process.
Nicholas Rich
In article <4o7gf3$u...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
>In article <4o60gc$8...@nntp1.best.com>,
> nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>For the "who-are-YOU-trying-to-fool" file:
>>
>>In article <4o5s86$p...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I have explained that Mrs. Speicher's activities have been legitimate --
>>>people with Internet access who are interested in Objectivism are a
>>>proper target market for the group.
>>
>>the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
>>
>
>
>The individuals in question have free will. They can read the CFV and
>decide whether they agree or not.
If the CFV was totally rational, you wouldn't have any problem, or even any
need of going outside of apo for YES votes.
I could write a CFV for talk.philosophy.objectivism tomorrow which would get
100% of the pro-objectivism/pro-reason vote.
Why are you guys having such a problem? We all claim to respect reason, yet,
this whole things seems to be divided along roughly the same lines that
divides apo most of the time.
Why do you think that is?
Could it be the evasion and irrationality contained within the CFV, making it
a difficult pill to swallow even for those who don't care in the slightest for
Neo-Tech?
>Someone else here has pointed out the appalling (implicit) "cabalism" of
>many 'netters: "interested" is defined as anyone currently posting to a
>specific newsgroup -- *potential* subscribers are, (by this definition)
>*dis-interested*. So in other words, all matters are to be decided by the
>existing readers.
For the purposes of a CFV, and not a subscriber marketing campaign, interested
parties would be all those who currently read/post to apo, all those on other
philosophy NG's, and those who've read/participated in cross-threads with
objectivists.
I could be leaving out other interested parties. The point is, everyone who's
an interested party whould be able to say exactly why they're an interested
party, and it would be readily recognized as reasonable.
"I dunno, my friend Joe at work (he has some funny ideas, Joe does) emailed me
these instructions and asked me to send an email to this guy in Fiji."
Betsy's letter again:
>>We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
>>the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.
>So if all the rational readers have been disgusted by the spam and
>irrational nonsense from NT'ers, then only the NT'ers are left to decide
>the fate of internet newsgroups. Neat trick.
Oh, so anyone who votes NO on the irrational and evasive CFV is an NTer. Neat
trick.
As everyone knows, NTers are the minorty on apo. What's more, I have voted
YES, and the other NTers I know have voted YES.
So how do you interpret that?
Brad, direct question: why do you suppose we would vote YES, given how my/our
position on the CFV is that it is fine, save the irrationality and evasiveness
of excluding posts which mention NT (or derivative words) on the basis of
their being "off topic?"
>Another important point to keep in mind, is that the voting guidelines for
>Usenet newsgroups are quite non-objective, and not governed by any kind of
>contract. No-one had to sign a contract to get Usenet. The voting procedure
>is *a* method of bringing order to the process of newsgroup creation, and
>establishing a certain level of support needed to form one. The alternative
>-- no mechanism -- can be seen in IRC, and just look at the wasteland of
>irrationality, sleaze, profanity, hostile takeovers, etc. that IRC is.
I don't do chat.
But I'm basically in agreement with your facts, just not your slant on them.
What you're saying is that in a system you compare with an anarchy, with no
established "contract" regarding group establishment/voting, that the key is
then to bite and scratch your way in, 'just like everyone else,' eh?
I would say that in a system with no contract that any of us have signed, that
as objectivists and/or advocates of reason, that reasonableness should
prevail.
And, everyone has been entirely reasonable throughout this whole process, with
three exceptions:
1. Irrational and evasive clause in the CFV banning NT on basis of topicality.
2. Irrational email by Betsy to hundreds of people "suggesting" that NTers
would commit vote fraud, and then committing it herself by asking her readers
to "e-mail this to your friends and get the people you know at school or at
work to vote YES too." Not, 'tell your objectivists friends,' or 'tell people
who are interested in objectivism.' Nope, it was essentially an admonishment
to tell everyone in the world, cause NT is going to defeat this thing
otherwise.
3. Your irrational defense of the indefensible, as well as your own
suggestions of NTer vote fraud without a shred of evidence--and in plain face
of the fact that many of us have said we've voted yes, and even include 'Vote
YES on hpo' endorsements in our posts from time-to-time.
>The purpose of CFV's is to determine if there is sufficient interest to
>warrant the formation of a new group. It is not a subscription contract. In
>addition, the ability to vote 'no' is intended for those who would be
>affected by the change -- it is primarily intended for re-orginizations, or
>the addition of moderation to existing groups. For new groups, the rights
>of existing Usenet participants to associate are not affected.
Oh, I see. Voting 'yes' is "exercising one's 'right' to freedom of
association," while a 'no' vote, you are implying by your slick argument,
amounts to an initiation of force--denying you you're "right."
Well, what you don't realize, or refuse to acknowledge, is that Usenet is an
association of private entities (the owners of the servers). Any server-owner
can shut down at any time. These owners have themselves established (or agreed
to) guidelines concerning how groups will be created and administered.
You, Brad, have no "right" to anything beyond what your ISP has contracted
with you to provide. Your "right" as concerns Usenet is to read and post to
it, and to vote yes/no in response to CFV's, and whatever else may go along
with it. You have no "right" to associate beyond the means of association
which exist on Usenet. Your "right" to associate does not extend to denying
access by others.
To use the voting process in such a manner as to exclude opponents in a
debate, in a way that really does not catch the attention of the association
of server-owners which comprise Usenet (they have better things to do) is
simply a slick maneouver. It is dishonest, irrational, and evasive.
HPO is simply one great big evasion. That's what it is. That's its *identity.*
>I am not a great fan of the entire Usenet system, as I have stated before
>-- I think it is seriously deficient, and based on anarchist premises,
>combined with some looney dollops of arbitrary "democracy" thrown in. But,
>it is also grounded in the rights of individuals to subscribe to internet
>service, and the rights of those services to carry and propogate news
>articles, so in that sense, it is legitimate. But because there is no
>direct contractual/legal relation of ownership between the propogation of
>news articles and the procedures of groups formation, posting guidelines,
>etc., then one cannot view such things as the voting procedures in the same
>way as for things like government officials, or directors of organizations.
What a word-salad. Frankly, try as I might, I've never quite been able to
grasp what in the world you are referring to when you say "anarchist premises"
in relation to Usenet. Frank*er,* I think you're just throwing that word in as
a perjorative so that you don't have to construct a real argument as to what
*real* problems may exist with Usenet, if any.
Brad, it's simple. You go out, you buy a server. Then, you buy a connection.
Then, you decide whether to take newsfeed, carry certain newsgroups, etc. You
are a server-owner, and you are part of the association of server-owners which
make up Usenet. No individual server-owner is constrained to be there. They
can pull out any time they like. Being a server-owner gives you some influence
on how Usenet is administered. If you decide you don't like how it's
administered, and you can't change it, then you can pull the plug on your
server. Those are your options.
As a consumer, you accept the service your ISP provides, for the price you
pay, or you go elsewhere, go nowhere, or become your own ISP (see above). As a
Usenet participant, you can attempt to inflence owners and administrators by
posting to the appropriate groups.
It sure is a damn good thing that this whole process happens naturally. When
even someone of Brad Aisa'a knowledge of the free market can't seem to grasp
what's going on, I can't imagine a better justification for "anarchist"
free-markets.
>So I would repeat, that solicitation of votes among Objectivists and
>admirers of Ayn Rand, and even their friends, is completely within the
>legitimate, given the context of the meaning of this vote, and the
>ambiguous legal/moral standing of the vote-taking process.
But that's not what was asked. Betsy sent her email to "Objectivists and
admirers of Ayn Rand." She also sent it to "[her] friends." She asked them to
vote YES, which was resonable. She also asked them to step way outside of that
circle.
To make it clear, I want the group to pass. So what is my interest? My
interest is in exposing the dishonesty, irrationality, and evasiveness being
practiced in an effort to escape rather than confront those with ideas about
Objectivism which you find disagreeable.
--
Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com>
Take the legal system away from the lawyers - http://www.ss-n.com
(and make money doing it - http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.htm)
"We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need
you." --Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED