RFD: talk.philosophy.objectivism

[Adam M. Costello]

I propose the unmoderated group

talk.philosophy.objectivism

as a more appropriate forum for the discussions of Objectivism currently
going on in alt.politics.libertarian. I understand that Objectivism has
also been discussed in the past in alt.individualism.

I am only just learning about Objectivism, and have a lot of questions.
There doesn't currently seem to be any appropriate newsgroup in which
to ask them.

AMC

[jimmy donal wales]

In article <Bx9w7...@uunet.uu.net> a...@cics.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello) writes:
>I propose the unmoderated group
>
>talk.philosophy.objectivism
>
>as a more appropriate forum for the discussions of Objectivism currently
>going on in alt.politics.libertarian. I understand that Objectivism has
>also been discussed in the past in alt.individualism.
>

There exist (at least) three active mailing lists devoted to the
topic. 2 are moderated, including my 'Moderated Discussion of
Objectivist Philosophy'. For a subscription, just drop me a line
at: jwa...@iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu.

Given the level of ad hominem that Rand's ideas tend to attract from
immature supporters/detractors, an unmoderated newsgroup would almost
surely be a hopelessly unproductive endeavor. Count me as strenuously
opposed to the idea.

--Jimbo

[Steve Rogers]

In article <Bx9w7...@uunet.uu.net> a...@cics.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello) writes:

>I propose the unmoderated group
>
>talk.philosophy.objectivism
>
>as a more appropriate forum for the discussions of Objectivism currently
>going on in alt.politics.libertarian.

I'll second that.

| Steven Rogers MCC/ESL 3500 West Balcones Drive
| Austin, Texas 78759-6509 (512) 338-3691 sro...@mcc.com
| Everything is disclaimed -
| Contents have spontaneously generated and posted themselves

[Richard H. Miller]

In article <Bx9w7...@uunet.uu.net>, a...@cics.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello) writes:
> I propose the unmoderated group
>
> talk.philosophy.objectivism
>

[text deleted]

>
> I am only just learning about Objectivism, and have a lot of questions.
> There doesn't currently seem to be any appropriate newsgroup in which
> to ask them.

What is wrong with using the existing talk.philosophy.misc. It does not seem
to be a high volume group so rather than creating a new news group, use an
existing one until your topic justifies its own group by the amount of volume.
Unless you can demonstrate that there already is substantial traffic on
objectivism in the misc group, I will oppose your proposed group.

--
Richard H. Miller Email: ri...@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
Houston, Texas 77030

[Torkel Franzen]

In article <Bx9w7...@uunet.uu.net> a...@cics.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello)
writes:

>I propose the unmoderated group
>talk.philosophy.objectivism

This is an old topic. Some time ago a proposal to create sci.philosophy.
objectivism was voted down, whereas a proposal for talk.philosophy.
objectivism apparently passed, although the group was never created for
(partly) obscure reasons.