CALL FOR VOTES - rec.humor.objectivism
Hans Huttel
This is the first CALL FOR VOTES for the rec.humor.objectivism
newsgroup, which is to be unmoderated.
If you are in favour of this group and charter (as defined below),
send me mail with the single line of text:
YES for rec.humor.objectivism as proposed.
If you are opposed to the existence of this group with this charter,
send me mail with the single line of text:
NO for rec.humor.objectivism as proposed.
I receive mail addressed to ha...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
(see also my .signature file)
The vote will run for 21 days. Votes received after March 1, 90 will not
be counted. The result will be posted to news.groups,
news.announce.newsgroups and rec.humor on March 2, 90.
====================================================================
1. The Name--RHO
Rec--because of the approach participants should use when contributing
to this newsgroup. What is recreational about it is that postings
should be Objectivist-style parodies, i.e. stuff that pretends to be
serious reasoning based on observations of reality. "Ayn Rand says
so", "My parents always told me that...", and "I have a headache" are
good examples that can be used as premises for a `conclusion'.
Humor--because humour, at the base of all other rec.humor.*
newsgroups, will be the content. All kinds of jokes will be discussed.
Objectivism--because most participants will be people who have already
grasped the fact that Ayn Rand has identified a set of fundamental
principles that integrate to make a special approach to humour.
Contributors should have actually read an Objectivist article from
another newsgroup before making any lengthy comments on a topic, since
this will improve the quality of the humour dramatically. Posters who
question Ayn Rand's conclusions are NOT excluded, since the mere act
of questioning means that you actually cannot treat this stuff
seriously. Irrational, tongue-in-cheek opponents making broad
generalizations or asking what seem to be specific questions are
especially welcome.
2. Charter
sci.philosophy.objectivism for those who grasp that Objectivists
are funny and are interested in poking fun at Ayn Rand's
Objectivism. The primary content is intended to be
pseudo-analyses of philosophic principles (and their
applications) based on Objectivist postings.
This current posting (in total) comprises a longer explanation of the
charter. Note that the word "primarily" allows the contributions of
ANY kind as long as they are interesting to people writing Objectivist
humour. It also allows the derivative use of Objectivist postings from
other newsgroups by not too serious folks who are not that interested
in it but may want to laugh at Objectivism from time to time.
3. Quality
Several things will help RHO achieve the quality its founder desires.
a) The precise wording of the charter above should be used in your
evening prayers.
b) This notice will be posted once (NOW).
c) Guidelines that people with a sense of humour should follow to
contribute with truly irrational posters will be posted every now and
then.
d) Style guidelines that _I_ dream up will be posted whenever I've
got nothing better to do.
e) Guidelines for expressing disagreement should not be necessary,
since everybody I know agrees that Objectivism is funny.
f) The only action needed by system administrators should be to
prevent the only way someone can initiate (indirect) force; i.e.,
they need to remove USENET privileges of those who fraudently
associate their words with the signatures of others.
DISCLAIMER: the intent of this group is not to represent Objectivism
but to provide a forum for showing people how funny it is.
HH March 8, 90
| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: ha...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.e...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
Peter da Silva
such as a hypothetical rec.humor.philosophy, is still too narrow and would
have too restricted a readership. The appropriate place for this group is
in "alt". The only justification for "rec" over "alt" is that "rec" has a
broader distribution... something the proposer (being in England) is likely
to be quite aware of. In the likely case that the group fails, and if the
proposer still wishes to pursue the matter, I'll be happy to bring it up in
alt.config for him.
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ This message is close-captioned for the humor impaired.
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
--
PS: <-:
--
--
Hans Huttel
Silva) writes:
>The subject nature of this group is far too narrow. Even a broader charter,
>such as a hypothetical rec.humor.philosophy, is still too narrow and would
>have too restricted a readership. The appropriate place for this group is
>in "alt". The only justification for "rec" over "alt" is that "rec" has a
>broader distribution... something the proposer (being in England) is likely
Peter, what do you take me for ??? Read the .signature !! (Antipodeans
obviously think UK = Britain = England...)
Let me use the opportunity to all thank everyone who has voted on
rec.humor.objectivism so far. I will repeat the call for votes twice
during the voting period, next time being Thursday the 15th. So, if
you haven't voted on rec.humor.objectivism yet, don`t despair.
- Keep the votes coming in !!
Hans
Peter da Silva
> Peter, what do you take me for ??? Read the .signature !! (Antipodeans
> obviously think UK = Britain = England...)
Actually, mate, we think you're all a bunch of bloody poms. :->
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Close captioned for the humor impaired.
Jeff Daiell
> In article <22...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ha...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) writes:
> > Peter, what do you take me for ??? Read the .signature !! (Antipodeans
> > obviously think UK = Britain = England...)
>
> Actually, mate, we think you're all a bunch of bloody poms. :->
Peter, I think we can do without the ethnic epithets, please.
If I recall, this discussion dealt with distribution. The question
that led to the exchange, I believe, was over whether the proposed
group -- whether proposed seriously or facetiously -- should
be in the alt or rec hierarchy. And the point was made
that the only 'reason' for putting it in rec was distribution.
Since the point has been well made that distribution is not
a legitimate argument, it now behooves the proposer to
defend his choice of rec against Peter's suggestion of
alt. Or, if distribution was not his motive, the suggestion can
legitimately be ignored.
But first, the main question: was the proposal sincere or facetious?
It at first struck me as tongue-in-cheek, but later postings indicated
the person was negative enough on Objectivism that he was serious.
So which was it, Hans?
Jeff
--
Pun for the day:
"I'm a sucker for vampire stories."
-- Chuq von Rospach
Hans Huttel
[some stuff deleted]
>If I recall, this discussion dealt with distribution. The question
>that led to the exchange, I believe, was over whether the proposed
>group -- whether proposed seriously or facetiously -- should
>be in the alt or rec hierarchy. And the point was made
>that the only 'reason' for putting it in rec was distribution.
>Since the point has been well made that distribution is not
>a legitimate argument, it now behooves the proposer to
>defend his choice of rec against Peter's suggestion of
>alt. Or, if distribution was not his motive, the suggestion can
>legitimately be ignored.
My motive for suggesting rec.humor.objectivism was not one of distribution.
If rec.humor.objectivism does not pass I would certainly not be opposed to
an alt.humor.objectivism.
>But first, the main question: was the proposal sincere or facetious?
>It at first struck me as tongue-in-cheek, but later postings indicated
>the person was negative enough on Objectivism that he was serious.
>So which was it, Hans?
My first posting on rec.humor.objectivism was entirely tongue-in-cheek,
but I got mails from people who indicated that they felt such a group
would be a good idea. So when I read Bob Stubblefield's pompous call for
votes, I rewrote it a a call for votes for rec.humor.objectivism. So far
about 100 people have voted.
I am not negative about Objectivism; not really. Objectivist postings are
often very amusing to read since the people behind them come across as
incredibly self-important; this is my main reason for suggesting
rec.humor.objectivism.
As for the claims of this fringe pseudo-philosophy itself, the idea of the
importance of statements such as "A is A" and "Existence exists", are right
out of Ionesco, Beckett (pbuh) et al.
I don't expect rec.humor.objectivism to pass, but it is interesting for me to
see which participants in the "talk vs. sci" (etc.) discussion vote YES and
which ones vote NO !!
Regards
Bill Wisner
>But first, the main question: was the proposal sincere or facetious?
>It at first struck me as tongue-in-cheek, but later postings indicated
>the person was negative enough on Objectivism that he was serious.
>So which was it, Hans?
Does it really matter? If the vote passes, it passes. Since there's
no longer a backbone, I doubt we'll see a repeat of
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac if it does pass...
Bill Wisner <wis...@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> Gryphon Gang Fairbanks AK 99775
jeff daiell
> In article <UHQ1U...@ficc.uu.net> je...@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes:
>
> [some stuff deleted]
>
> >If I recall, this discussion dealt with distribution.
Nor did I say it was. It was Peter who suggested alt, suggesting that
the only reason to prefer rec was distribution.
Jeff
--
Thank you for not coercing.
Aran Guy
I, too, thought this proposal was a joke; I sent some
objectvist type jokes to Hans, and he emailed right back
with a request for my formal vote, which I sent along with some more
jokes.
So, whatever it is, the howls of outrage this is going to cause
is more than worth the effort of tracking the debate through
the various groups.
Only on USENET.......
--
Aran Guy g...@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov LBL
Knobtwister and Buttonpusher And me be me
SuperHeavy Ion Linear Accelerator Our opinions
Accelerator and Fusion Research Division Rarely agree.