HPO exists already; it's called MDOP
Paul Hsieh
James E. Prescott <jep...@nextel.net> wrote:
>There certainly should be a place for moderated no-crossposting
>discussion of Objectivism and other broad topics. And there is.
>It's called e-mail.
>
>I subscribe to the email list, Moderated Discussion of Objectivist
>Philosophy, and it (to some degree at least) fills the need that the
>proposed hpo is targeting.
I must respectfully disagree with your main argument.
A moderated e-mail mailing list cannot serve the same role with respect
to newbies as a Usenet newgroup.
Right now, any newcomer interested in learning more about Objectivism can
simply search the set of all newsgroups for the keyword "objectivism"
and find a.p.o. He can then immediately jump into any discussions he
wants to, start a thread of his own, or simply lurk to his heart's content.
(Presumably, the same would be true if h.p.o.m. comes into existence.)
This sort of access is not possible with an e-mail mailing list. Unless
he somehow learns of its existence, then initiates the subscription
request, he'll be out in the cold. I participated on a.p.o. for quite a
while before I learned of the various e-mail lists.
A Usenet newsgroup is like a (semi-)open forum held in a public place in
plain view of all passers-by, whereas a mailing list is more like a
private club that meets in someone's house.
Both have their places. But a mailing list cannot completely substitute
for a moderated or unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.
BTW, do you object to *all* moderated, no-crossposting Usenet newsgroups,
or only to some of them? And if the latter, why does a moderated
newsgroup devoted to the discussion of Objectivism fall into that
category, whereas another moderated no-crossposting newsgroup (say, on
Russian culture) be acceptable to you? What are the distinguishing
features you use to determine if you would support a moderated newsgroup
devoted to a particular topic?
==================== ~~~ *** ~~
|| || * * ~ ~~
|| Paul S. Hsieh || /\ ** ** _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || _ | | ** ** __ | |
|| || __| |__|__|__ ** ** | |___| |
==================== | | | | ** ** | | | |
Ed Matthews
On Wed, 22 May 1996, James E. Prescott wrote:
> There certainly should be a place for moderated no-crossposting
> discussion of Objectivism and other broad topics. And there is.
> It's called e-mail.
>
> I subscribe to the email list, Moderated Discussion of Objectivist
> Philosophy, and it (to some degree at least) fills the need that the
> proposed hpo is targeting.
No, MDOP is a _private_ mailing list. The differences between a private
discussion arena and a public one are siginificant.
> "Peikovians" will assert that MDOP is not "neutral ground," that it
> is over populated by "Kelleyites" and has practically no Peikovian
> representation whatsoever.
I don't know what a "Peikovian" is, unless you mean someone who doesn't
dismiss intellectual agreement with Peikoff as necessarily made on faith.
BTW, what do you mean by "neutrality"? That you haven't reached a
conclusion on the Kelley/Peikoff issue yet, or that such a conclusion
(either way) is wrong? Are agnostics "neutral" in the same sense on the
issue of God's existence?
> Peikovians who wish to subscribe to the Objectivist Study Group are
> _forbidden_ from participating in MDOP. In other words, MDOP is not
> statistically "neutral" only because Peikovians refuse to participate
> in it, under the threat of being banished, so to speak, from the
> deliberately non-neutral Peikovian forum, OSG.
Evidence?
This is false. The OSG contract states words to the effect that messages
posted to OSG are not to be copied and sent to people who have explicitly
stated their animosity/dislike towards Bob Stubblefield, the OSG owner.
If someone insulted you, would you want to aid them, or give them values
of any kind?
> My recommendation to everyone, including Betsy Speicher, Tony Donatio
> and other "orthodox" O'ists, as well as other interested persons, is
> that they drop such foolishness and participate in that available forum.
I was on MDOP for a while, about two years ago. I found it thoroughly
disappointing, full of unsubstantiated speculation, arbitrary assertions
and vindictive insults against Peikoff and ARI. Far from a model of
objective thought, it also was full of rationalism.
> But again as a neutral observer who has followed MDOP for some time now,
^^^^^^^
> I can assure them and all else that that simply is _not_ true. In fact,
> even brief acquaintance with MDOP will convince any unbiased observer
^^^^^^^^
> possessed of a lick of common sense that the moderation is fair and
> impartial and based on considerations of quality and civility alone.
>
Defined how???
> That said, there is also, quite clearly I believe, a place for a
> moderated newsgroup in addition to the email lists.
Great! vote YES!
> But, as I've said in my earlier posts, hpo fails in that regard due to
> one fatal flaw: A philosophy newsgroup should _allow_ crossposting (and
> hpo will not) or it is simple redundancy w/r/t email
You mean, you can't send e-mail to more than one place at a time?
> and it simply
> complicates the overall I'net picture unnecessarily by forcing us to
Who is forcing you to participate on h.p.o.? How?
> juggle posts (post the same things twice and read two groups discussing
> the same threads) while _continuing_ to deal with the unmoderated apo
> when we shouldn't have to.
You don't have to, if it's too hard for you to figure out. Just pick
one, or neither if you wish. But I think anyone with a reasonable
intelligence can figure out which newsgroup they are writing to and keep
them straight. Is a.p.o. the only newsgroup that you participate in, or
are there other topics worthy of discussion on other forums?
You mention MDOP. How is it any more difficult to keep it straight
whether you are posting to a.p.o. or MDOP than to a.p.o. or h.p.o.?
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
James E. Prescott
For any who have done me the honor of reading my last couple
posts on why we should vote NO on h.p.o.moderated, I'd like to
add a couple points.
There certainly should be a place for moderated no-crossposting
discussion of Objectivism and other broad topics. And there is.
It's called e-mail.
I subscribe to the email list, Moderated Discussion of Objectivist
Philosophy, and it (to some degree at least) fills the need that the
proposed hpo is targeting.
"Peikovians" will assert that MDOP is not "neutral ground," that it
is over populated by "Kelleyites" and has practically no Peikovian
representation whatsoever.
Well, as a neutral observer myself, I can attest that that does indeed
seem to be true, but also that there seems to be only reason it is true:
Peikovians who wish to subscribe to the Objectivist Study Group are
_forbidden_ from participating in MDOP. In other words, MDOP is not
statistically "neutral" only because Peikovians refuse to participate
in it, under the threat of being banished, so to speak, from the
deliberately non-neutral Peikovian forum, OSG.
My recommendation to everyone, including Betsy Speicher, Tony Donatio
and other "orthodox" O'ists, as well as other interested persons, is
that they drop such foolishness and participate in that available forum.
They may suspect that the moderation is partial, that their words
would be censored in some way, or that MDOP participants aren't worth
talking to.
But again as a neutral observer who has followed MDOP for some time now,
I can assure them and all else that that simply is _not_ true. In fact,
even brief acquaintance with MDOP will convince any unbiased observer
possessed of a lick of common sense that the moderation is fair and
impartial and based on considerations of quality and civility alone.
That said, there is also, quite clearly I believe, a place for a
moderated newsgroup in addition to the email lists.
But, as I've said in my earlier posts, hpo fails in that regard due to
one fatal flaw: A philosophy newsgroup should _allow_ crossposting (and
hpo will not) or it is simple redundancy w/r/t email and it simply
complicates the overall I'net picture unnecessarily by forcing us to
juggle posts (post the same things twice and read two groups discussing
the same threads) while _continuing_ to deal with the unmoderated apo
when we shouldn't have to.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Jim Miller
hsi...@crl.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
>James E. Prescott <jep...@nextel.net> wrote:
>
>>There certainly should be a place for moderated no-crossposting
>>discussion of Objectivism and other broad topics. And there is.
>>It's called e-mail.
>>
>>I subscribe to the email list, Moderated Discussion of Objectivist
>>Philosophy, and it (to some degree at least) fills the need that the
>>proposed hpo is targeting.
>
>
>I must respectfully disagree with your main argument.
>
>A moderated e-mail mailing list cannot serve the same role with respect
>to newbies as a Usenet newgroup.
>
>Right now, any newcomer interested in learning more about Objectivism can
>simply search the set of all newsgroups for the keyword "objectivism"
>and find a.p.o. He can then immediately jump into any discussions he
>wants to, start a thread of his own, or simply lurk to his heart's content.
With the onset of information-organizing tools for the net, such as
search engines for the World Wide Web, your argument simply doesn't
hold anymore. In fact, newbies are much more likely to be clicking
around on the much-publicized web, rather than jumping into the intricacies
of newsreaders. A search for "Objectivism" with Lycos or Webcrawler,
or taking a few logical steps down the Yahoo hierarchy, will readily
turn up the Objectivism-related mailing lists.
-Jim Miller
--
| Jim Miller | "The whole problem with the world is that|
| ji...@netcom.com |fools and fanatics are always so certain of|
| j...@umcc.umich.edu |themselves, but wiser people are so full of|
|http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jgm/ |doubts." -- Bertrand Russell |
James E. Prescott
On 21 May 1996, Paul Hsieh (hsi...@crl.com) wrote:
> A moderated e-mail mailing list cannot serve the same
> role with respect to newbies as a Usenet newsgroup.
I agree. And I think we ought to have a new, moderated
Objectivism newsgroup for the reasons you state, among
other reasons.
I just don't think we should start one that bans cross-
posting, for the reasons I stated and will mention again
briefly.
<snip of valid points regarding newcomers>
> [...D]o you object to *all* moderated, no-crossposting
> Usenet newsgroups, or only to some of them?
I believe a no-crossposting rule is inappropriate for a broad
topic such as philosophy, but perfectly acceptable for narrow
topics that don't overlap many others.
However, for any topic I think a crossposts ban _should_ be
selective if it exists at all. HPO should indeed ban crossposts,
for example, involving (most) alt.conspiracy groups (the valid
historical ones, alt.conspiracy.lincoln, for instance, excepted).
It should also ban alt.junk.neotech (if there were such a thing)
and many others.
Such a selective ban is very nearly as easy to implement as
an overall ban. You simply have a list of banned newsgroups
or a list of accepted newsgroups, just as you have a
list of keywords built into the automoderating software.
> And if the latter, why does a moderated newsgroup devoted to
> the discussion of Objectivism fall into that category, whereas
> another moderated no-crossposting newsgroup (say, on Russian
> culture) be acceptable to you?
It's an issue of relevance.
A newsgroup devoted to Russian culture should, I think, accept
crossposts from newsgroups devoted to Russian history and Russian
politics..
A newsgroup devoted to a particular philosophy should accept
crossposts from newsgroups devoted to other philosophies and
to many, many other related and relevant subjects.
The reason for this should be obvious: The people you will
be _debating_, arguing _against_, or with whom you will be
sharing your insights and understanding and from whom you
yourself will benefit greatly, are the people who do _not_
(necessarily) share your philosophy! They are people whose
primary interest newsgroup(s), the one(s) they subscribe
to, are _not_ (necessarily) a.p.o. or h.p.o.moderated.
The alternative is a relatively small (or ideologically
uniform and hence "sterile") group of people who rely
on some form of advertising to lure new participants
and new ideas, just like an email group.
By contrast, a newsgroup _with_ crossposting is much more
vibrant. People learn of it through crossposts as well as
in all the other ways you've alluded to. If they come to
regard it as a primary interest, they'll subscribe. If not,
it doesn't matter! They'll _still_ contribute to the dis-
cussions when they overlap into their own areas of primary
interest.
That is one of the greatest benefits of usenet and one of the
primary reasons it is in many ways superior to email.
Banning _all_ crossposting, however, (as opposed to a selective
ban on crossposting that is or is likely to be abusive) defeats
this particular and rather important purpose of having a usenet
newsgroup. You might just as well start a new email list and
advertise it in usenet.
Granted, there are _other_ reasons to have a newsgroup. Unfortun-
ately, however, since we _still_ need crossposting somewhere (if
you accept the need for the benefits we've talked about), Object-
ivists will _still_ need to deal with unmoderated a.p.o.!
HPO could have solved that problem quite easily by allowing cross-
posts while disallowing all _abusive_ posting, crossposted or not.
With no crossposting at all, however, (except for administrative
purposes), it just makes more work for all of us.
Except, of course, for the moderator. I understand that much abuse
is crossposted and the moderator's job will be somewhat easier
if crossposting is disallowed. But those aren't particularly good
arguments. It is as easy or easier to ban entire groups (or entire
hierarchies) than to ban individual posters the way h.p.o. will
have to function anyway, and the benefits of crossposting outweigh,
by far, the drawbacks.
>What are the distinguishing features you use to determine if
>you would support a moderated newsgroup devoted to a particular
>topic?
Again, I support a moderated newsgroup on _any_ topic that has
participants interested it in.
I oppose HPO for the single reason that it bans crossposting.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Lawrence M Sanger
Another proposal, which I made some weeks ago, is to allow
crossposting *only* to a.p.o. Then if someone wants to post
something to a.p.o and h.p.o at the same time, he can; if
it's banned on h.p.o it can still go through on a.p.o, and
if it's not banned on h.p.o the author gets the benefit of
discussion on both h.p.o and a.p.o. Oh well!
Larry Sanger
Ed Matthews
On Thu, 23 May 1996, James E. Prescott wrote:
> On 5/21/96, Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> I have reached conclusions about Dr. Peikoff.
>
> I have no opinion with regard to David Kelley other than to say
> that the Objectivists who support him seem to me to have a better
> independently thought-out grasp of the principles of Objectivism
> than do those who support Peikoff.
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 refering 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.
> > > Peikovians who wish to subscribe to the Objectivist Study
> > > Group are _forbidden_ from participating in MDOP. In other
> > > words, MDOP is not statistically "neutral" only because
> > > Peikovians refuse to participate in it, under the threat of
> > > being banished, so to speak, from the deliberately non-neutral
> > > Peikovian forum, OSG.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> Bob Stubblefield's OSG contract. Read it.
I have. I have every right to subscribe to MDOP, but choose not to do
so. Even if Bob didn't stipulate that in the contract, I wouldn't spend
my time on MDOP. However, I can't take someone else's posts to OSG and
send them to certain groups.
> Read it again. It says that OSG subscribers are forbidden from
> participating in libertarian or other allegedly "hostile" mailing
> lists, and MDOP participation is one thing that will get you
> bounced from OSG.
No.
> > If someone insulted you, would you want to aid them, or give
> > them values of any kind?
>
> Why not? Many folks have insulted me here in APO. I write it off
> as ignorance and I go right ahead offering them the benefit of my
> opinions (such as that may be), opinions of them and of other
> things. Do you think it is better to tolerate insults without
> responding at all?
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?
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 don't go around arguing with rocks, because their nature prohibts
rational thought. If someone acts like a rock (by refusing to think),
should I not treat them accordingly?
> > > My recommendation to everyone, including Betsy Speicher, Tony
> > > Donadio and other "orthodox" O'ists, as well as other
> > > interested persons, is that they drop such foolishness and
> > > participate in that available forum.
> >
> > I was on MDOP for a while, about two years ago. I found it
> > thoroughly disappointing, full of unsubstantiated speculation,
> > arbitrary assertions and vindictive insults against Peikoff and
> > ARI. Far from a model of objective thought, it also was full
> > of rationalism.
>
> What's your point? Are you agreeing with me that Peikovian
> participation in MDOP would be a good thing?
>
Good for whom? for what purpose?
> 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.
> > > juggle posts (post the same things twice and read two groups
> > > discussing the same threads) while _continuing_ to deal with
> > > the unmoderated apo when we shouldn't have to.
> >
> > You don't have to, if it's too hard for you to figure out. Just
> > pick one, or neither if you wish. But I think anyone with a
> > reasonable intelligence can figure out which newsgroup they are
> > writing to and keep them straight. Is a.p.o. the only newsgroup
> > that you participate in, or are there other topics worthy of
> > discussion on other forums?
>
> APO is the at present the only newsgroup I participate in
> regularly, with the notable exception, of course, of crossposted
> discussions on many worthy topics.
Your choice.
> But after HPO passes, as I expect it will, I'll be subscribing to
> _two_ newsgroups instead of just one and posting the exact same
> things separately to each. You may _say_ that I have the "option"
> to pick just one or the other but that's wrong for the reasons
> I've tried very hard to make clear:
>
> This isn't difficult to figure out, Ed. _If_ I want to argue with
> the Objectivists who plan to spend their time on hpo alone, and I
> _do_, then I _have_ to subscribe to hpo because it doesn't allow
> crossposting.
>
> AND, _if_ I want to discuss Objectivism's principles with experts
> in related fields who do not subscribe to either apo or hpo, and I
> _do_, then I _have_ to subscribe to an _additional_ group because
> hpo doesn't allow crossposting.
>
> Is that such a terrible burden for me? Of course not. It just
> defeats the entire purported purpose of hpo!!
No it doesn't. If 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.
If the idea was to have an "inclusive" newsgroup, then why not just have
one group?
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
irrelevent topics on a.p.o., but does want to discuss Objectivism, where
is that option?
> The purpose of hpo was purportedly a more, not less, convenient
> place for discussing Objectivism, a place both devoid of Neotech-
> style abuse and yet still having plenty of useful, relevant
> discussion from a broad range of viewpoints, the sorts of
> discussions that crossposted usenet is famous for.
Cross-posts are _in_famous for spamming, irrelevency, etc. Do you disagree?
What about the various cow newsgroups? Is there something in them that
is particularly relevent to Objectivism?
A public forum like h.p.o. would be open to posts that dealt with Objectivism
in a rational manner. Are there other "viewpoints" that you wish to include?
If you want to talk about the wonderful world of cows, why not pay a
separate visit to them? I don't see why the two groups should be brought
together, anymore than a class on literature should have several lectures
on physics. As a student, you _separate_ the areas of study so that you
can focus on them separately to deal with the issues that are relvent in
that context. Later on you can integrate that information from different
areas.
> But the ban on crossposting means that hpo will _not_ spare me (or
> anyone else who recognizes the value of crossposted discussions)
> from suffering the _continuing_ abuse associated with the cross-
> posting that takes place on apo.
Yes, unless you choose not to participate on a.p.o. anymore.
> 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????
> But in
> addition you'd get the benefits of usenet, the things that make it
> superior to mailing lists, and you'd spare everyone from any need
> to continue subscribing to the much-abused apo.
>
> Tracking MDOP and apo discussions is right now more than I have
> time for.
Hmmmm.... maybe it's time to prioritize?
Paul Hsieh
James E. Prescott wrote:
>>
>> It says that OSG subscribers are forbidden from
>> participating in libertarian or other allegedly "hostile" mailing
>> lists, and MDOP participation is one thing that will get you
>> bounced from OSG.
Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>I have every right to subscribe to MDOP, but choose not to do
>so. Even if Bob didn't stipulate that in the contract, I wouldn't spend
>my time on MDOP. However, I can't take someone else's posts to OSG and
>send them to certain groups.
A lot depends on what exactly one means by "participate".
For the record, I've been explicitly told by Bob Stubblefield (and other
long-time OSG subscribers like Betsy Speicher) that an OSG subscriber may
*subscribe* to MDOP (i.e., receive posts), but that he may not *post* to
MDOP.
(At least this was the policy as of late 1994/early 1995, when I made my
initial inquiries into OSG.)
Basically, Stubblefield has implemented a boycott on posting to MDOP, and
he makes it a condition for joining his list that all OSG subscribers agree
to it.
One may dispute the merits of his boycott. But he certainly has every
right to implement the policy that he has.
frank forman
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960522231149.13305B-100000-100000@gladstone>,
Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
[snip all but this one paragraph]
>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
>irrelevent topics on a.p.o., but does want to discuss Objectivism, where
>is that option?
But I *do* have the right to exercise my vote. Did you catch my post on
this? I asked several other questions, one of which was, "Given that my
right to vote on the CFV was unearned, is it moral for me to cast it,
either for or against hpo?"
Frank
Ed Matthews
On Thu, 23 May 1996, frank forman wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960522231149.13305B-100000-100000@gladstone>,
> Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip all but this one paragraph]
> >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
> >irrelevent topics on a.p.o., but does want to discuss Objectivism, where
> >is that option?
>
> But I *do* have the right to exercise my vote. Did you catch my post on
> this? I asked several other questions, one of which was, "Given that my
> right to vote on the CFV was unearned, is it moral for me to cast it,
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> either for or against hpo?"
Huh? How is a right earned?
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
James E. Prescott
On 5/23/96, Paul Hsieh <hsi...@crl.com> wrote:
> James E. Prescott wrote:
> >>
> >> It says that OSG subscribers are forbidden from
> >> participating in libertarian or other allegedly "hostile" mailing
> >> lists, and MDOP participation is one thing that will get you
> >> bounced from OSG.
>
> Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> >
> >I have every right to subscribe to MDOP, but choose not to do
> >so. Even if Bob didn't stipulate that in the contract, I wouldn't spend
> >my time on MDOP. However, I can't take someone else's posts to OSG and
> >send them to certain groups.
>
> A lot depends on what exactly one means by "participate".
Paul is right.
What _I_ meant by "participate" was participate in discussions. Post one's
opinions, read and respond to the opinions of others.
> For the record, I've been explicitly told by Bob Stubblefield (and other
> long-time OSG subscribers like Betsy Speicher) that an OSG subscriber may
> *subscribe* to MDOP (i.e., receive posts), but that he may not *post* to
> MDOP.
> (At least this was the policy as of late 1994/early 1995, when I made my
> initial inquiries into OSG.)
It was true later in 1995 and, I believe, earlier this year as well.
I don't know if it has changed recently.
> Basically, Stubblefield has implemented a boycott on posting to MDOP, and
> he makes it a condition for joining his list that all OSG subscribers agree
> to it.
> One may dispute the merits of his boycott. But he certainly has every
> right to implement the policy that he has.
He has every right, of course. It's his list.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
James E. Prescott
On 5/22/96, Lawrence M Sanger <lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> Another proposal, which I made some weeks ago, is to allow
> crossposting *only* to a.p.o.
> <snip>
> Larry Sanger
I remember that. It wouldn't have satisfied my concerns fully,
but it would have been enough to win a YES vote from me.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Phil Oliver
In article <N.052296....@ppp175-20.nextel.net>, jep...@nextel.net (James E. Prescott) wrote:
>Well, as a neutral observer myself, I can attest that that does indeed
>seem to be true, but also that there seems to be only reason it is true:
>_forbidden_ from participating in MDOP. In other words, MDOP is not
>statistically "neutral" only because Peikovians refuse to participate
>in it, under the threat of being banished, so to speak, from the
>deliberately non-neutral Peikovian forum, OSG.
As an OSG subscriber, I would fail to participate in MDOP even if
Bob Stubblefield did _not_ mention it as an issue.
As part of a periodic answer to this standard tolerationist
lie-that-won't-die, prohibiting posting to MDOP is just one way to weed out
subjectivists and people hostile to Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and other high
values, from a private mailing list. People who sanction the sort of sleazy
approach as evidenced by the poster's message are not the sort that are wanted
on OSG. The poster's supposedly "neutral" (bull) plea to get the few rational
writers on a.p.o. to sanction MDOP is evidence of a desire to hijack their
value in order to give respectibility to a forum dedicated to the smearing of
Ayn Rand's philosophy (in fact.) He wants a _contradiction_. He apparently
believes that it is possible for a rational person to _want_ to sanction
sleaze. Think twice. A rational person seeks profitable interactions, not ones
that are worse than a waste of time.
Phil Oliver
Jimmy Wales
Phil Oliver <ph...@iquest.net> wrote:
>The poster's supposedly "neutral" (bull) plea to get the few rational
>writers on a.p.o. to sanction MDOP is evidence of a desire to hijack their
>value in order to give respectibility to a forum dedicated to the smearing of
>Ayn Rand's philosophy (in fact.)
If you have evidence to prove this rather bold assertion that MDOP is
"dedicated to the smearing of Ayn Rand's philosophy" then I hope you'll
post it. Quite frankly, you're lying, and you know you are lying.
Talk about sleazy!
--Jimbo
James E. Prescott
On 5/23/96 5:15PM, in message <Drvvv...@iquest.net>, Phil Oliver
<ph...@iquest.net> wrote:
> The poster's supposedly "neutral" (bull)
> plea to get the few rational writers on a.p.o. to sanction MDOP is evidence
> of a desire to hijack their value in order to give respectibility to a forum
> dedicated to the smearing of Ayn Rand's philosophy (in fact.)
Phil, I'm honestly puzzled at your motivation for writing the
above. Anyone who doesn't already know that MDOP is not as you
describe it can simply check for himself. So what have you
accomplished?
What I wrote, I meant. It was honest. It was accurate.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
--
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Brad Aisa
In article <4o0fqs$j...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
>Another proposal, which I made some weeks ago, is to allow
>something to a.p.o and h.p.o at the same time, he can; if
>it's banned on h.p.o it can still go through on a.p.o, and
>if it's not banned on h.p.o the author gets the benefit of
>discussion on both h.p.o and a.p.o. Oh well!
When you are visiting at Larry's place, I would advise not to drink the
water -- Mr. Sanger has some very interesting theories about plumbing.
--
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
Roscinante
What is the address to MDOP? I'm sure I've tried subscribing to
several lists, and have never gotten a reply from them...
TIA
Michael Huemer
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) writes:
...
>"You can't have your Objectivism and eat it too." Why in the world should
>Mr. Stubblefield care to have subscribers to an *e-mail discussion list*
>who are supporting his enemies and attacking his values?
Of course he shouldn't. But the bizarre part is thinking that posting
a message to MDOP constitutes "supporting his enemies and attacking
his values." Perhaps you could explain how that is.
--
^-----^
Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl | V |
\ /
Ed Matthews
On 7 Jun 1996, Michael Huemer wrote:
> ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) writes:
>
> ...
> >"You can't have your Objectivism and eat it too." Why in the world should
> >Mr. Stubblefield care to have subscribers to an *e-mail discussion list*
> >who are supporting his enemies and attacking his values?
>
> Of course he shouldn't. But the bizarre part is thinking that posting
> a message to MDOP constitutes "supporting his enemies and attacking
> his values." Perhaps you could explain how that is.
I'll step in here.
If I learn something on OSG about Objectivism, then were to post it to
MDOP, I would be giving a value to the people on MDOP. But the means by
which I learned it came from Bob. In this way, Bob would be partly
responsible for the knowledge given to MDOP.
An analogy would be for you to invite some friends to your house to find
a means to identify good picks on the stock market. If there were a
group of people who (at the very least) didn't get along with you, or
were openly hostile to you, would you want to help them at all? If so,
one way to avoid that would be to have your friends agree not to share
the information discussed with those people, or else you would not let
them come in.
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Henry Lustig
Please: what is HPO, MDOP? The faqs please.
TIA
Henry
Henry G. Lustig--Ophir Computing
(541)-247-4409
hlu...@harborside.com
http://www.harborside.com/home/h/hlustig/
R. Lawrence
In <31b9b26c...@news.harborside.com> hlu...@harborside.com
(Henry Lustig) writes:
>
>Please: what is HPO, MDOP? The faqs please.
>
>TIA
HPO doesn't exist just yet, it is in the process of being created.
When it does exist, which will be very soon, it will be the newsgroup
humanities.philosophy.objectivism. This will be a moderated newsgroup.
Since it doesn't exist yet, I don't believe there is a faq. There is a
charter for the newsgroup that was included in the call for votes. It
is included in the recent posting announcing the vote results; you
should be able to find it on this newsgroup.
MDOP is a mailing list: Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy.
Since I am not on this mailing list, I will leave it to someone who is
to provide more information.
There is also another mailing list called the Objectivism Study Group.
I hope that this information is helpful.
Steve Reed
Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>If I learn something on OSG about Objectivism, then were to post it to
>MDOP, I would be giving a value to the people on MDOP. But the means by
>which I learned it came from Bob. In this way, Bob would be partly
>responsible for the knowledge given to MDOP.
And so bubbles forth, once again, the inner desire of some "Objectivists"
to exercise cabalistic secrecy and exclusiveness. You don't seem to want
to allow any knowledge to spill over and possibly touch someone who isn't
"sanctioned" to know about it. Thus is an intellectual movement stifled.
Heavens forfend that the high knowledge supposedly dished up on OSG add to
anyone else's knowledge about Objectivism! As if the "knowledge" brought forth
wouldn't find its way around the Net and through other channels, eventually,
if it's at all sound.
Are you unwilling (Stubblefield apparently is, we don't see him around) to
share any such expressions or conceptions on the new h.p.o, or even here? Out
of fear that they'll go to "Kelleyite" ears, sooner or later?
Do you OSG participants not want any of that good knowledge or conceptual work
on Objectivism to be put forward openly, in order to combat what you see as
error? Are you afraid of your own "truth"? Perhaps you realize that some of it
would wither and show its weakness in uninhibited discussion.
You may choose to not participate on MDOP. But don't give this misleading idea
forth, even by implication, that OSG creates special knowledge not appropriate
for the unwashed ears of non-Shi'ites. It doesn't. I gave OSG the one-month
free trial, and it's simply another Shi'ite cloister -- but with at least
double the level of backbiting, character assassination, and sleekly expressed
ad hominems of any semi-well-behaved Usenet channel. Its sole virtue is to
filter out any spamming. That's not saying much.
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Paul Hsieh
Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>If I learn something on OSG about Objectivism, then were to post it to
>MDOP, I would be giving a value to the people on MDOP. But the means by
>which I learned it came from Bob. In this way, Bob would be partly
>responsible for the knowledge given to MDOP.
>
>An analogy would be for you to invite some friends to your house to find
>a means to identify good picks on the stock market. If there were a
>group of people who (at the very least) didn't get along with you, or
>were openly hostile to you, would you want to help them at all? If so,
>one way to avoid that would be to have your friends agree not to share
>the information discussed with those people, or else you would not let
>them come in.
The analogy is only partially complete.
For instance, OSG members are not required to refrain from posting to
a.p.o., even though many MDOP readers also read a.p.o.
Clearly, Stubblefield regards an unmoderated forum like a.p.o. as being
different from a moderated forum like MDOP, and in such a fashion that he
regards posting to MDOP as an attack on his values whereas posting to
a.p.o. isn't.
=============================== =============================
// ________ ________ ___ ___ // //
// / ___ // _____// /_/ / // Paul S. Hsieh //
// / _____//_____ // __ / // <hsi...@crl.com> //
// /__/ /_______//__/ /__/ // <hs...@mirlink.wustl.edu> //
// // //
=============================== =============================
Roscinante
OSG is just a way for some1 to make money off relatively little effort..
Can someone PLEASE post/email some other mailing list addresses to me?
I've asked a few times, never do get connected with any info...
>Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>>If I learn something on OSG about Objectivism, then were to post it to
>>MDOP, I would be giving a value to the people on MDOP. But the means by
>>which I learned it came from Bob. In this way, Bob would be partly
>>responsible for the knowledge given to MDOP.
jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) writes:
>And so bubbles forth, once again, the inner desire of some "Objectivists"
>to exercise cabalistic secrecy and exclusiveness. You don't seem to want
>to allow any knowledge to spill over and possibly touch someone who isn't
>"sanctioned" to know about it. Thus is an intellectual movement stifled.
>Heavens forfend that the high knowledge supposedly dished up on OSG add to
>anyone else's knowledge about Objectivism! As if the "knowledge" brought forth
>wouldn't find its way around the Net and through other channels, eventually,
>if it's at all sound.
>Are you unwilling (Stubblefield apparently is, we don't see him around) to
>share any such expressions or conceptions on the new h.p.o, or even here? Out
>of fear that they'll go to "Kelleyite" ears, sooner or later?
>Do you OSG participants not want any of that good knowledge or conceptual work
>on Objectivism to be put forward openly, in order to combat what you see as
>error? Are you afraid of your own "truth"? Perhaps you realize that some of it
>would wither and show its weakness in uninhibited discussion.
>You may choose to not participate on MDOP. But don't give this misleading idea
>forth, even by implication, that OSG creates special knowledge not appropriate
>for the unwashed ears of non-Shi'ites. It doesn't. I gave OSG the one-month
>free trial, and it's simply another Shi'ite cloister -- but with at least
>double the level of backbiting, character assassination, and sleekly expressed
>ad hominems of any semi-well-behaved Usenet channel. Its sole virtue is to
>filter out any spamming. That's not saying much.
Actually, considering the other mailing lists I'm on, Bob is a pretty lazy
list-admin.. He won't even send copies if you don't get one.. Strange,
all the free, volunteer listadmins I know will do that, even tho they have
THOUSANDS, not hundreds, of subscribers.. ::Shrug::