How HPO Could Handle Cross-Posts
frank forman
I think Jim Prescott is giving some awfully good arguments against h.p.o.
I had originally thought having an Objectivist NewsGroup that disallowed
cross-posting was a good idea. But, thanks to help from Bryce Wilcox, on
working killfiles in trn, I've solved that problem. I killfile all the
teevee group cross-posts, the Rush Limbaugh cross-posts, and (right now)
soc.men, because of the thread on Ayn Rand's meanness degenerated very
quickly. I could have killfiled just the subject, but this blasted
thread keeps springing up new subject titles. (Recall that a thread can
consist of many titles and that if you change the subject title but keep
the reference line intact, you won't begin a new thread.) I append my
killfile below. It kills off at least three-quarters of the postings.
So killfiling costs *me* very little. The *cost* to me, as Jim points out
is that I'll wind up having to say the same thing in different forums.
For long pieces this is no problem, since I compose them in WordPerfect and
upload them to my disk space at Netcom. (UNIX text editors are poor, and
there is much too often line congestion at Netcom.) But for short
articles (which often turn into long ones!), it is a cost to have to say
the same thing twice (though often my choice of words improves).
The UseNet lords have given me the power to vote and I intend to use it
for my own benefit. Jim, you've made me change my mind, and I'm going to
vote no, unless I hear better arguments from others.
Side issues: should I have the vote? Did the UseNet lords act in *their*
self-interest by giving it to me. If not, is it moral for me to use this
wholly *unearned* right of voting?
Oops, I forgot what I was ostensibly writing about, how HPO could handle
cross-posts: allow them *only* if hpo is the *first* Newsgroup in the
Newsgroup line. Most of the *stupid* cross posts on APO result from someone
throwing APO in with the rest of the groups. Someone always could
deliberately put APO at the head of the Newsgroup lists, but those that
write stupid articles probably will not do this very often. But *I* could
rope in sci.econ or whatever when I wanted to get some opinions from
economists just by typing
"Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivsm,sci.econ".
Frank
Lance Neustaeter
On 22-May-96 17:03:54, frank forman for...@netcom.com wrote:
> So killfiling costs *me* very little. The *cost* to me, as Jim points out
> is that I'll wind up having to say the same thing in different forums.
Yes. Forbidding crossposting actually *encourages* spamming. Supposedly
"spamming" was what got this whole ball rolling in the first place. The
HPO advocates shoule get their modus operandi straight.
Lance
--
. . . I have found that Objectivism is its own protection against
people who might attempt to use it as a dogma. --Ayn Rand
Brad Aisa
for...@netcom.com (frank forman) wrote:
>Oops, I forgot what I was ostensibly writing about, how HPO could handle
>cross-posts: allow them *only* if hpo is the *first* Newsgroup in the
>Newsgroup line.
Like everything that exists, (proposed) newsgroup HPO has identity.
Cross-posting is not part of that identity.
This is a fact. It is a man-made fact, but it IS a fact.
--
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
Paul Szpunar
>Like everything that exists, (proposed) newsgroup HPO has identity.
>
>Cross-posting is not part of that identity.
>
>This is a fact. It is a man-made fact, but it IS a fact.
No one is disputing that it is a fact, so I don't see your point here. The
point is that a ban on cross-posting is a bad idea. I understand the motive
behind it -- to discourage off-topic postings from other newsgroups. Fine.
But I hope you realize that by banning cross-posting you are implicitly
encouraging another form of net abuse -- spamming (since if you wanted to post
an article to hpom *and* into another newsgroup(s) to spark further
discussion, you would have to post the same article at least twice. That's
the very essence of spamming). So, IOW, you're attempting to prevent one form
of net abuse by (implicitly) encouraging another form. Hardly an ideal
solution...
Paul Szpunar
roadr...@centuryinter.net
frank forman
In article <4o3cot$a...@loki.tor.hookup.net>,
Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> wrote:
>for...@netcom.com (frank forman) wrote:
>
>>Oops, I forgot what I was ostensibly writing about, how HPO could handle
>>cross-posts: allow them *only* if hpo is the *first* Newsgroup in the
>>Newsgroup line.
>
>
>Cross-posting is not part of that identity.
>
>This is a fact. It is a man-made fact, but it IS a fact.
I don't understand the concept of identity very well at all, it seems,
even though I have read most of what Ayn Rand wrote. Suppose this: that
the charter of hpo is amended in the way I have suggested, what is the
identity of the amended hpo, then? Is it hpoa (a for "amended"), then?
I'm afraid I need something in the way of an axiomatic treatment of this
concept. I'm familiar with axiomatic set theory, in which the Axiom of
Extensionality says that two sets are equal if and only if they have the
same members (or the same extensions), even if the sets were defined by
quite different methods. This means that {1,2} = {n | n is a natural
number and there is a solution in natural numbers x,y, and z such that
x^n + y^n = z^n}. This, of course, is the recently proven Fermat's Last
Theorem.
I'm just using this as an illustration of how the concept of identity can
be treated with the axiomatic method. This axiom may have little
relevance to the external world of *things*. And indeed it is false, if
we allow sets to contain things as their members. This is because,
according to other axioms of set theory, it is only the empty set that
has no members. But neither do things. And no thing (say, me) is equal to
the empty set. But the Axiom of Extensionality can be modified to handle
this sort of situation.
Anyhow, I would like to get a discussion going about the properties of
the identity relation in Objectivism.
Frank
Nicholas Rich
In article <4o5bdp$r...@news.pc.centuryinter.net>, roadr...@centuryinter.net (Paul Szpunar) wrote:
>In article <4o3cot$a...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Cross-posting is not part of that identity.
>>
>>This is a fact. It is a man-made fact, but it IS a fact.
>
>point is that a ban on cross-posting is a bad idea. I understand the motive
>behind it -- to discourage off-topic postings from other newsgroups. Fine.
>But I hope you realize that by banning cross-posting you are implicitly
>encouraging another form of net abuse -- spamming (since if you wanted to post
>an article to hpom *and* into another newsgroup(s) to spark further
>discussion, you would have to post the same article at least twice. That's
>the very essence of spamming). So, IOW, you're attempting to prevent one form
>of net abuse by (implicitly) encouraging another form. Hardly an ideal
>solution...
I've tried to stay out of this part of the debate, but this is just too silly
to pass up. My argument has been the evasive premises of the group (Neo-Tech
being unrelated to Objectivism).
Hpo does not encourage or cause anything. It is (will be) a group which simply
exists, with a certain charter. You choose to participate, or you don't. You
vote yes, or you vote no. Simple. What you do on the rest of Usenet is
irrelevent, and certainly has no bearing on whether hpo should exist.
You post almost as though Objectivists and allies are some group who has to
collectively be all things to all people on Usenet.
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
roadr...@centuryinter.net (Paul Szpunar) wrote:
>But I hope you realize that by banning cross-posting you are implicitly
>encouraging another form of net abuse -- spamming (since if you wanted to
>post an article to hpom *and* into another newsgroup(s) to spark further
>discussion, you would have to post the same article at least twice.
>That's the very essence of spamming). So, IOW, you're attempting to
>prevent one form of net abuse by (implicitly) encouraging another form.
This has been debated at length. HPO will be a place people go, to
*specifically* post on the (general) subject of Objectivism, and to the
readership of such a group.
Cross-posting is one of the worst aspects of the Internet. Threads quickly
mutate into irrelevance, to one or more of the target groups, but it is
virtually impossible to eliminate them. Some of these subthreads may still
be relevant, so you don't want to killfile the entire subject (and that
assumes the person has such capability and knows how to use it -- I am
amazed at the elitism of some people, whose attitude is basically that
no-one who isn't an advanced expert at Usenet tools has any right to
actually participate anyway, or needn't be considered.)
The easiest thing in the world is to add twenty groups to your header line
because you just know everyone in the world must be interested in your
post. It is more difficult to craft posts which are actually of interest or
relevance to every group on the line...
Limiting posts to appropriate groups will engender *responsibility* for
posts. If your wonderful post is actually relevant to 20 groups, then you
should probably be READING those twenty groups, and responding to your
post. And what is worse? -- having *one* unwanted post appear in a
newsgroup, or a never-ending thread from hell show up. The "traffic"
argument does not cut much water, because most of the Usenet traffic (by
size) is binaries anyway, so a few extra text posts is not going to matter.
And only a fraction of anyone's posts are going to be inter-posted anyway.
Of twenty original posts I write, I might cross-post one or two, and
usually only to one or two other groups.
I actually like the idea of *inviting* people to come read the follow-ups
to a post, on HPO. This is great promotion and advertising.
I think some people may be comfortable with the existing and known, and
might not have completely thought through the logic of the case for the HPO
charter.
This is an exercise in value *building*.
Daniel Smith
(frank forman) writes:
>Anyhow, I would like to get a discussion going about the properties of
>the identity relation in Objectivism.
>Frank
Hi Frank -
I'll pitch in my two cents. As I'm sure you know, the law of identity stated
simply is: A is A. A thing is what it is. Simple enough, but not quite enough
to explain the concept. I have defined identity as:
the immutably inherent actual and/or potential characteristics and
attributes of an entity.
An entity's identity determines what it is and how it functions in reality.
Rather than go on at length, why don't we start with your thoughts (or
anyone else's for that matter) on the above. I would like to have a better
understanding of this concept myself, and would appreciate any feedback.
Sincerely,
Dan Smith
Billy Beck
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>I actually like the idea of *inviting* people to come read the follow-ups
>to a post, on HPO. This is great promotion and advertising.
I've done this with a.p.o., and I know what you mean. It was neat to
watch it happen.
The thing is, the other group didn't allow cross-posting. Otherwise,
I simply would have cross-posted it (the invitation posts - a sort of
refined troll) to a.p.o., as well. And, as it went, I suspect the
whole thing might have gone better cross-posted.
>I think some people may be comfortable with the existing and known, and
>might not have completely thought through the logic of the case for the HPO
>charter.
I don't like the cross-posting thing at all, but it's not that big a
deal.
It's the utopican aspect that bugs me.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 4/16/96
George Morrone
> I have defined identity as:
> the immutably inherent actual and/or potential characteristics and
> attributes of an entity.
What are "immutably inherent characteristics and attributes?" The entity
itself? All or some of the attributes?
>
> An entity's identity determines what it is and how it functions in reality.
>
Does this mean that some of the attributes of an "entity" determine the
others, the totality of the entity? And isn't identity "what it is and how
it functions in reality?" Doesn't this come down to "an entity's identity
is its identity?"
I'd like to discuss this topic, but need to do it in the context of George
Lakoff's criticism of "Objectivism" in his book: Women, Fire, and
Dangerous Things. What Lakoff calls objectivism is not the same as, but
includes, Rand's objectivism. It seems to me Lakoff makes excellent
arguments which refute many of Rand's assertions on epistemology.
George Morrone
Daniel Smith
Hello George -
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
>(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
>alt.philosophy.objectivism)
>
>In article <dls216.29...@psu.edu>, dls...@psu.edu (Daniel Smith) wrote:
>
>
>> I have defined identity as:
>> the immutably inherent actual and/or potential characteristics and attributes of an entity.
>
>What are "immutably inherent characteristics and attributes?" The entity
>itself? All or some of the attributes?
The entity itself, which includes all of it attributes.
>>An entity's identity determines what it is
>>and how it functions in reality.
>Does this mean that some of the attributes of an "entity" determine the
>others, the totality of the entity? And isn't identity "what it is and how
>it functions in reality?" Doesn't this come down to "an entity's identity
>is its identity?
Yes, some attributes are essential to an entity and distinguish it from
other types of entities. You are absolutely right when you say that an
entity's identity is its identity. The law of identity is necessarily
circular, and as you probably know, is usually expressed as A is A.
>
>I'd like to discuss this topic, but need to do it in the context of George
>Lakoff's criticism of "Objectivism" in his book: Women, Fire, and
>Dangerous Things. What Lakoff calls objectivism is not the same as, but
>includes, Rand's objectivism. It seems to me Lakoff makes excellent
>arguments which refute many of Rand's assertions on epistemology.
>
>George Morrone
I am not familiar with the book you are referring to, but I am willing to
discuss this or any other topic with you. I originally posted on this topic
because I am trying to get a better grasp of the concept of identity, as well
as test and expand my current knowledge about epistemology in general. I hope
you are willing to continue this discussion.
Sincerely,
Dan Smith
P.S. I will also post this response to APO so that we have the benefit
of other people's input during our discussion.
Jim Klein
In <gmorrone-300...@cs4-03.pcn.ptd.net> gmor...@prolog.net
(George Morrone) writes:
>It seems to me Lakoff makes excellent arguments which refute many of
>Rand's assertions on epistemology.
I don't think I've come across a solid refutation of any important
assertions by Rand, least of all in epistemology; I for one would love
to see a solid and specific example. The best I can come up with is,
"Look at what drivel so many of her 'followers' spout," but that's not
a great basis for logical refutation!
Anyway, if you've got a really clear example of an assertion of Rand's
which is simply and completely refuted (in unambiguous language), I'd
greatly appreciate an Email, or I'll try to catch the post. Thanks.
jk