RFD: humanities.philosophy.objectivism moderated
Steve Reed
jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) writes:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>[...] Due to their harassment and abuse of Internet Objectivists in
>the past, humanities.philosophy.objectivism specifically excludes the
>discussion of Neo-Tech and Zon Power, the publications and activities
>of the Neo-Tech Publishing Company, or any participation by its owners
>and employees. The Automoderator will be programmed and re-programmed
>as necessary to return the excluded postings to the sender.
Any participation? Whether it deals with Neo-Tech or not? However civil
and non-spamming, or not? More proof, if any were needed, that the Shi'ite
Objectivists don't respect -how- someone acts, but concentrate on the degree
of conformity of their thoughts.
I don't know why Kuznicki didn't go ahead, since this RFD doesn't have a
snowball's chance in hell for approval anyway, and ban the Institute for
Objectivist Studies (and its supporters) from his proposed enclave of purity.
Or just didn't decide that the posters' addresses would be compared to the
current contributors' list of the Ayn Rand Institute before messages were
allowed on the newsgroup. Why this pretense is being maintained that the main
desired target is Neo-Tech is beyond me.
This will be resoundingly defeated anyway, but I'm sure many of us here --
including a host of people who dislike Neo-Tech, as I do, but detest the
censorial mindset far more -- will want to vote it down. So frequent and
complete copies of information on how to vote it down will be posted here once
the Call for Votes formally opens.
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Jason Kuznicki
moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
This is a formal request for discussion for the creation of
the Usenet newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism.
Newsgroups line:
humanities.philosophy.objectivism The ideas of Ayn Rand. (Moderated)
RATIONALE: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Alt.philosophy.objectivism, a currently existing group for the discus-
sion of the philosophy created by Ayn Rand and known as Objectivism,
has become nearly useless as a forum for discussion of philosophy be-
cause of extremely high traffic of irrelevant crossposts, spaming and
flaming. Though they have been repeatedly asked to leave, the perpe-
trators of these abuses continue to disturb
alt.philosophy.objectivism.
The problems of alt.philosophy.objectivism are particularly great
because Objectivism is in many respects an unconventional philosophy
and thus tends to attract posters who are extremely hostile to it,
including trolls and the perpetrators of interminable flamewars.
These problems can be avoided by those interested in Objectivism
through the creation of a moderated newsgroup.
Traffic on humanities.philosophy.objectivism will be significant;
previous unofficial proposals to a.p.o. were met with numerous e-mail
and posted messages of support.
The newsgroup's name follows established protocol with regard to
newsgroup creation. Objectivism is a philosophy; philosophy is a part
of the studies commonly called the humanities. Finally, the
humanities.* hierarchy is a legitimate and previously recognized
first-level hierarchy.
CHARTER: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Humanities.philosophy.objectivism shall exist for the purpose of fur-
thering discussion by Objectivists and those who admire Ayn Rand's
ideas. Those who disagree with these ideas may of course also post to
humanities.philosophy.objectivism for the purposes of civilized debate
and discussion of Objectivism. Any posters who persistently abuse
their posting privileges are subject to revocation of these privileges
at the discretion of the administrator (qv).
Posts which request information about a particular topic of Object-
ivist philosophy are welcome, and every effort shall be made by the
posters of humanities.philosophy.objectivism to compile a thorough
text-only FAQ on Objectivism to be posted regularly to
humanities.phil- osophy.objectivism and news.answers.
Crossposting shall not be permitted. Because a philosophy such as
Objectivism has applications in numerous areas of human action, the
actors in many of which are not themselves directly concerned with
Objectivism, discussions that are crossposted often become irrele-
vant to one or the other of the groups. This has been a major problem
with alt.philosophy.objectivism in the past.
Moderation Policy:
The newsgroup shall be automoderated; the automoderator shall be
overseen by a nonparticipant net administrator.
The automoderator shall automatically reject all articles that fall
into the following categories:
A) Articles that contain more than 80 characters per line;
B) Articles that are crossposted;
C) Articles authored by those that the moderator has
expelled from the group because of net abuse (see below).
The submitters of rejected articles shall be sent a copy of the
charter to inform them of the reason why their submissions were
rejected.
The moderation shall take place from a site to be designated by
proponent Jason Kuznicki <jt...@po.cwru.edu>, who will also conduct
interviews for potential moderators and select a moderator and an
alternate to oversee the operation of the automoderator. The moder-
ator shall not post to humanities.philosophy.objectivism except as
administrative duties require.
Commercial postings shall not be permitted; repeated posting of a
commercial nature shall be grounds for the banning of the submitter
from humanities.philosophy.objectivism at the discretion of the mod-
erator. The moderator is further authorized to cancel said postings
if and when they appear, forwarding a copy of this charter to the
poster.
Postings commonly acknowledged by the Usenet community to be "spam"
shall not be permitted; the moderator is authorized to cancel all
such posts, inform the submitter of his decision, and, if the
spamming persists after an initial warning, ban the submitter of the
spam from the newsgroup.
Due to their harassment and abuse of Internet Objectivists in the
past, humanities.philosophy.objectivism specifically excludes the
discussion of Neo-Tech and Zon Power, the publications and activities
of the Neo-Tech Publishing Company, or any participation by its owners
and employees. The Automoderator will be programmed and re-programmed
as necessary to return the excluded postings to the sender.
The alternate shall succeed the moderator upon retirement. Should
the alternate be unwilling to do so, the moderator may choose an-
other impartial individual to fill his place.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Moderator: To be determined during the discussion.
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a
minimum of 21 days (starting from from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups). All discussion should
be posted to news.groups.
At the end of the discussion period, a Call for Votes (CFV) will be
posted by a neutral vote taker.
This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD". Please refer to these documents if you have
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.philosophy.objectivism
--
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
Matt Keys
: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
: This is a formal request for discussion for the creation of
: the Usenet newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism.
: Newsgroups line:
: humanities.philosophy.objectivism The ideas of Ayn Rand. (Moderated)
: RATIONALE: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
: Alt.philosophy.objectivism, a currently existing group for the discus-
: sion of the philosophy created by Ayn Rand and known as Objectivism,
: has become nearly useless as a forum for discussion of philosophy be-
: cause of extremely high traffic of irrelevant crossposts, spaming and
: flaming. Though they have been repeatedly asked to leave, the perpe-
: trators of these abuses continue to disturb
: alt.philosophy.objectivism.
Yes! please create this group. it will underscore
the fact that some people on a.p.o cannot handle free discussion
and open debate, they are so inept they need their own moderated
newsgroup to try and quiet their critics.
Thanks!
: and discussion of Objectivism. Any posters who persistently abuse
: their posting privileges are subject to revocation of these privileges
: at the discretion of the administrator (qv).
hhhmmm, I wonder what that means?
: The automoderator shall automatically reject all articles that fall
: into the following categories:
: A) Articles that contain more than 80 characters per line;
: B) Articles that are crossposted;
: C) Articles authored by those that the moderator has
: expelled from the group because of net abuse (see below).
maybe you should define net abuse. oops, I see you did that below
by saying no neo-tech or zonpower posts are allowed.
hmmm, can you say "censorship" boys and girls?
: The submitters of rejected articles shall be sent a copy of the
: charter to inform them of the reason why their submissions were
: rejected.
: The moderation shall take place from a site to be designated by
: proponent Jason Kuznicki <jt...@po.cwru.edu>, who will also conduct
: interviews for potential moderators and select a moderator and an
: alternate to oversee the operation of the automoderator. The moder-
: ator shall not post to humanities.philosophy.objectivism except as
: administrative duties require.
: commercial nature shall be grounds for the banning of the submitter
: from humanities.philosophy.objectivism at the discretion of the mod-
: erator. The moderator is further authorized to cancel said postings
: if and when they appear, forwarding a copy of this charter to the
: poster.
yes! we cannot have any commercial applications of Objectivism
on our newsgroup, since we are all philosophising do-nothing
academics!
: Due to their harassment and abuse of Internet Objectivists in the
: past, humanities.philosophy.objectivism specifically excludes the
: discussion of Neo-Tech and Zon Power, the publications and activities
: of the Neo-Tech Publishing Company, or any participation by its owners
: and employees. The Automoderator will be programmed and re-programmed
: as necessary to return the excluded postings to the sender.
yes! this is great. all people who cannot handle free and open debate
will have to go take cover and hide in this new group! great idea!
Thanks again.
Matt.
--
Zonpower Rules Cyberspace http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
Golden Helmet vs IRS http://irs.class-action.com/book/intro.html
Templates that Vanish Pips http://www.neo-tech.com/vanish-pips/
Betsy Speicher
> jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) wrote:
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >
> [ ... ]
> >CHARTER: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >
> >Humanities.philosophy.objectivism shall exist for the purpose of fur-
> >thering discussion by Objectivists and those who admire Ayn Rand's
> >ideas. Those who disagree with these ideas may of course also post to
> >humanities.philosophy.objectivism for the purposes of civilized debate
> >and discussion of Objectivism. Any posters who persistently abuse
> >their posting privileges are subject to revocation of these privileges
> >at the discretion of the administrator (qv).
> There is good reason to believe that the RFD author's desired type
> of moderator will have a highly rarefied definition of "civilized",
> and "abuse" will extend to any persistent critical examination of
> Rand.
Read the RFD.
There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
one way or another.
> >Moderation Policy:
> >
> >The newsgroup shall be automoderated; the automoderator shall be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >overseen by a nonparticipant net administrator.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As far as I am concerned, the human who oversees the "bot" can be any
reliable, serious NetAdmin with common sense -- preferably one who
has never heard of Objectivism one way or another.
Betsy Speicher
Ayn Rand's Ideas On Talk Radio -- The Leonard Peikoff Show
KIEV 870AM in Los Angeles Monday thru Friday at 2:30-3:30 PM
(Callers who disagree with Dr. Peikoff given preference)
Lawrence M Sanger
>There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
>excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
>maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
>one way or another.
But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
to put my address in the universal kill-file?
If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
This needs to be clear.
Larry Sanger
Lawrence M Sanger
>Any participation? Whether it deals with Neo-Tech or not? However civil
>and non-spamming, or not? More proof, if any were needed, that the Shi'ite
>Objectivists don't respect -how- someone acts, but concentrate on the degree
>of conformity of their thoughts.
>
>I don't know why Kuznicki didn't go ahead, since this RFD doesn't have a
>snowball's chance in hell for approval anyway, and ban the Institute for
>Objectivist Studies (and its supporters) from his proposed enclave of purity.
>Or just didn't decide that the posters' addresses would be compared to the
>current contributors' list of the Ayn Rand Institute before messages were
>allowed on the newsgroup. Why this pretense is being maintained that the main
>desired target is Neo-Tech is beyond me.
Steve,
Are you claiming that Jason is being disingenuous in implying that
the supporters of the IOS would be welcome on the group? That he
is just lying?
Jason,
I seem to recall you saying that the supporters of the IOS would
be welcome on the group. Can you say definitively whether or not
this is the case?
Everyone else -- especially assorted Peikoffians,
Suppose supporters of the IOS were *not* excluded (and could
participate very actively if they wished); would *you* participate
in that case? I seem to recall someone saying that he would not.
Curiously,
Larry Sanger
Jim Klein
writes:
>Due to their harassment and abuse of Internet Objectivists in the
>past, humanities.philosophy.objectivism specifically excludes the
>discussion of Neo-Tech and Zon Power, the publications and activities
>of the Neo-Tech Publishing Company, or any participation by its owners
>and employees. The Automoderator will be programmed and re-programmed
>as necessary to return the excluded postings to the sender.
As one who doesn't presently use a automated mail reader, I can assure
you that I would be pleased if the NT and associated verbiage would
simply disappear; it IS a pain in the ass, with little relevancy or
originality. However, to propose a newsgroup which pre-censors folks
based on their religion, beliefs or membership in an organization
should be unacceptable to any true objectivist, unless one seeks a
group to "preach to the choir". If you're really convinced that
they've stepped beyond acceptable actions, why not just "reply in
kind"? Are you admitting that their ability to use computers is that
far beyond your own?
Frankly, I think that to propose pre-censorship in an otherwise public
"Objectivist" newsgroup is shameful...I would urge you to reconsider.
I've posted this only to apo because I really don't care that much
about the outcome, and only seek to comment on the relevancy as it may
be to objectivism.
jk
Steve Reed
>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>I don't know why Kuznicki didn't go ahead, since this RFD doesn't have a
>>snowball's chance in hell for approval anyway, and ban the Institute for
>>Objectivist Studies (and its supporters) from his proposed enclave of purity.
>>Or didn't just decide that the posters' addresses would be compared to the
>>current contributors' list of the Ayn Rand Institute before messages were
>>allowed on the newsgroup. Why this pretense is being maintained that the main
>>desired target is Neo-Tech is beyond me.
>Are you claiming that Jason is being disingenuous in implying that
>the supporters of the IOS would be welcome on the group? That he
>is just lying?
He is -not- saying, affirmatively, that such would be welcome. And with all
of the public supporters of this that I've seen -both- screaming constantly at
the Neo-Techers and, in Aisa's phrase, smearing Kelley as leading the "rabble"
... well, it's not hard to discern additional motives.
Although Kuznicki isn't directly citing IOSians, the proposal is nonetheless
disingenuous. I see the impulse as one of craving control, not of creating
quality. To cite Neo-Techers as being excluded is merely to publicize this
with the most convenient nemesis at hand. What is being sought is the control
mechanism. Or a stab at one, for it doesn't work in this context.
Why isn't Kuznicki calling for a mailing list, wherein a moderator can serve
more focused functions? And since mailing lists oriented to ARIers, IOSians,
and more "neutral" tacks all exist now, what does he want that isn't already
available?
Moderating a newsgroup doesn't fit with Usenet's decentralized structure, that
of the thousands of independent news server sites. As many have pointed out,
the flexible linked structure and response of the Internet discourages
shunting such traffic, in amounts of hundreds of messages per day, through one
central point. It invites even more delay in letting posts appear. It puts the
selection onus (however "automated") on one user's shoulders.
Structures such as mailing lists didn't arise out of nowhere. They respond to
several limitations of the broader Internet, such as the unsynchronized news
transfers among Usenet sites.
More directly, lists can use a spectrum of shaping methods. They can control
all postings for using approved content quite honestly and unabashedly, as
Stubblefield's OSG list does. They can shape selections of content to follow
clearly stated discussion topics, as Wales and Register's MDOP list does. They
can simply cull out the clearly ungermane and impolite, as Vixie's VIX list
does. They can strip the endless headers and .sigs to create concise digests,
as a host of listservers have long done on every topic.
What is common to all of these lists is that participants must make the effort
to at least state, directly, that they want to receive this material. One has
made a commitment to receive all of what comes along, until that commitment is
rescinded. List traffic also typically has to be directed to a particular
e-mail address. All of this presupposes personal involvement in the topic, and
a willingness to be clearly identified. You don't see people subscribing to a
list through a remailer service.
As we know well, these qualities aren't at all true for newsgroups. Dozens of
ways exist to modify the address one shows in a Usenet posting, and not just
by using a remailer. Anyone determined enough to put something through to the
newsgroup will find a way to bypass even the most voluminous killfile of a
moderator. (Unless the moderator tries to be censorious with text filters, as
AOL and others keep attempting.)
The next group, after the Neo-Techers, that's determined enough will overwhelm
any putative moderator. What will be done then? That kind of effort makes such
a charter, and such a moderator, superfluous.
What's being pretended here is that a new moderated newsgroup can have the
quick coverage and availability of a Usenet category ... and yet avoid the
constant bottlenecks of a group overwhelmed by waves of those not committed to
what the subject's all about. It promises a type of central planning without
admitting to how it can cut off responsiveness and creativity ... hmmm, where
have we heard that one before?
In the honored sense of not multiplying entities beyond necessity, I see the
remaining impulse as being one of wanting ideological control. Well, Jason,
there are private vehicles for doing that. Create your own mailing list.
David Friedman
lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
> But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
> the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
> E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
> views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
> in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
> to put my address in the universal kill-file?
>
> If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
> This needs to be clear.
I think the RFD is ambiguous on this. It says:
> Humanities.philosophy.objectivism shall exist for the purpose of fur-
> thering discussion by Objectivists and those who admire Ayn Rand's
> ideas.
That sounds as though those who disagree are not welcome, but ...
> Those who disagree with these ideas may of course also post to
> humanities.philosophy.objectivism for the purposes of civilized debate
> and discussion of Objectivism. Any posters who persistently abuse
> their posting privileges are subject to revocation of these privileges
> at the discretion of the administrator (qv)
So there is some unstated definition of civilized debate and discussion,
and violating it is grounds for being banned from the list. It is unclear
whether the definition is limited to not flaming, or whether it also bans
posts that are too critical of Rand, fail to accept fundamental ideas on
which Objectivists believe the discussion should be based, are
"anti-life," "anti-reason," etc.
The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
(sufficiently) disagree with.
On the other hand ... . From the standpoint of critics of the proposal,
what harm does it do? If the new group ends up as a few people from one
camp agreeing with each other and locking everyone else out, how are the
rest of us worse off? And if it ends up as an open discussion of
Objectivism with cross posts and the like eliminated it, isn't that a
useful thing?
One suggestion ... . If the group passes, someone should put in a post
every month or so describing a.p.o., the various newsgroups, and the web
sites, neo-tech included, so that people will not think that the sanitized
version is all there is out there. Or does that violate the ban on
Neo-tech?
David Friedman
Jim Miller
jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>
>This is a formal request for discussion for the creation of
>the Usenet newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism.
>The problems of alt.philosophy.objectivism are particularly great
>because Objectivism is in many respects an unconventional philosophy
>and thus tends to attract posters who are extremely hostile to it,
>including trolls and the perpetrators of interminable flamewars.
>These problems can be avoided by those interested in Objectivism
>through the creation of a moderated newsgroup.
It's also a problem because it attracts some people who are extremely
loyal to it, can not brook naysayers or thoroughgoing academic
criticism of it, and create a widely acknowledged atmosphere of
contemptuous authority -- trolls are a way of life from all sides
in this newsgroup. Welcome to Usenet! But this might all be reason
enough to welcome their exit, but: they don't want to leave Usenet,
they want to stay here, enjoy its advantages, keep the "philosophy"
in the title, but not have to behave like a Usenet philosophy group.
>Traffic on humanities.philosophy.objectivism will be significant;
>previous unofficial proposals to a.p.o. were met with numerous e-mail
>and posted messages of support.
I saw a lot of criticism of your idea, too. Let's not just throw
out-of-context numbers around now that we're trying to be official
and people are watching. *Percentage* of a.p.o. readership support
for your plan? It looks pretty low.
>CHARTER: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>
>Humanities.philosophy.objectivism shall exist for the purpose of fur-
>thering discussion by Objectivists and those who admire Ayn Rand's
>ideas. Those who disagree with these ideas may of course also post to
>humanities.philosophy.objectivism for the purposes of civilized debate
>and discussion of Objectivism. Any posters who persistently abuse
>their posting privileges are subject to revocation of these privileges
>at the discretion of the administrator (qv).
There is good reason to believe that the RFD author's desired type
of moderator will have a highly rarefied definition of "civilized",
and "abuse" will extend to any persistent critical examination of
Rand. We are dealing with some highly dogmatic people who have not
been afraid to write about to what extent they should not have to
be exposed to ideas they don't like. We also have some first-hand
testimony about the iron control the orthodox Randians strive to
maintain over dissent in their other net forums, such as their guarded
IRC discussion channel. The only way to keep these people true to the
spirit of Usenet is to not allow them the same level of control here.
>Crossposting shall not be permitted. Because a philosophy such as
>Objectivism has applications in numerous areas of human action, the
>actors in many of which are not themselves directly concerned with
>Objectivism, discussions that are crossposted often become irrele-
>vant to one or the other of the groups. This has been a major problem
>with alt.philosophy.objectivism in the past.
Or are you more concerned about cross-posted material getting *in*
to a.p.o.? I don't often see indignant complaints about "Objectivist
crap" from other groups; I *do* see almost daily tirades from Brad
Aisa or a few other frequent posters on the topic of the irrelevance of
this and that to Objectivism, and the shame of the continuing decline
of "value" of a.p.o. and the horrible infusion of "anti-concepts".
>Moderation Policy:
>
>The newsgroup shall be automoderated; the automoderator shall be
>overseen by a nonparticipant net administrator.
>
>The automoderator shall automatically reject all articles that fall
>into the following categories:
>
> A) Articles that contain more than 80 characters per line;
> B) Articles that are crossposted;
> C) Articles authored by those that the moderator has
> expelled from the group because of net abuse (see below).
>The moderation shall take place from a site to be designated by
>proponent Jason Kuznicki <jt...@po.cwru.edu>, who will also conduct
>interviews for potential moderators and select a moderator and an
>alternate to oversee the operation of the automoderator. The moder-
>ator shall not post to humanities.philosophy.objectivism except as
>administrative duties require.
If this is an assertion as to the impartiality of the moderation, it is a
poor one. Not only is the RFD author and moderation proponent proffering
himself as the indirect top link in the chain that will lead to the
actual human "overseer"/moderator; the apparently limiting "nonparticipation"
requirement for the actual moderator is, in the realm of Rand on the net,
not actually very limiting. There are several other arenas for biased Randians
already disgruntled with Usenet; one of these stepping in to fill a light-work
moderator role would place an extremely biased individual in control of
moderation, without costing that person much individually (he still has other
Rand arenas to participate in), and still fulfilling the letter of the policy.
>Postings commonly acknowledged by the Usenet community to be "spam"
>shall not be permitted; the moderator is authorized to cancel all
>such posts, inform the submitter of his decision, and, if the
>spamming persists after an initial warning, ban the submitter of the
>spam from the newsgroup.
>
>Due to their harassment and abuse of Internet Objectivists in the
>past, humanities.philosophy.objectivism specifically excludes the
>discussion of Neo-Tech and Zon Power, the publications and activities
>of the Neo-Tech Publishing Company, or any participation by its owners
>and employees. The Automoderator will be programmed and re-programmed
>as necessary to return the excluded postings to the sender.
And finally the point of the whole thing. Group participants and Usenet
powers-that-be should constantly keep in mind throughout these
shenanigans that the "Internet Objectivists", just like Rand's
following off the net, are a fractured, squabbling, messy mix, fueled
as much by conflicting internal politics as by scholarship or
philosophical study. This notion that the RFD author is trying to
slip past you here, that there is a unified group of Internet Objectivists,
and that they uniformly consider Neo-Tech postings abuse of the
newsgroup or of Rand, is false. To be accurate, the RFD author should
state that his particular group of Randian net buddies, the ones
who consider themselves the keepers of the faith, really really REALLY
don't like Neo-Tech because they consider it a perversion of Rand's
thought, and given said group of buddies' unusual and restrictive
orthodoxy as far as Rand is concerned, it is "abuse" to consistently
present and argue different interpretations, or different points of
view. For these people, it is a sin to be an academic! Rand is the
fountainhead herself! You're not going to get much of a handle, from
these people, on the spirit of free debate that Usenet is all about.
That is *the* central problem in this particular newsgroup controversy.
I'll state again, as I have argued in the past, that as a 7-year veteran
of Usenet, I have not seen evidence of the Neo-Tech posters spamming,
in the technical, bottom-line sense of the word, or abusing the readership
of a.p.o. in any way, except the egos and the sensibilities of their
counterparts way on the other side of the fence. Annoying? Yes.
Repetitive? Often. Out to make a buck off the net? That's definitely
part of their purpose. Cult-like? Definitely. I don't like them.
But they know some Rand, and they feel that what they have to say
is ideologically related to Rand.
I know how to use a killfile, and I know how to hit 'n'. It's *easy*
to get rid of Neo-Tech related material from a.p.o. so that I don't
have to read it if I don't want. When group creation is considered,
it must be assumed that the average reader is capable, and *willing*,
to use these ground-rule filtering techniques, in deciding whether
content and volume merit the creation of a new group. I'm quite sure
most Rand admirers are capable, but I'm quite a bit more doubtful about
willing.
An extremely important point that the RFD author and his sympathizers
ignore is that studying philosophy requires a certain amount of
sophistication, and part of that sophistication is the ability to
discern and separate a myriad of viewpoints, many times quite similar
viewpoints. The distinction between Neo-Tech and the author's more
orthodox view of Rand, however, is so obviously disparate that
I would be amazed that anyone, even someone completely philosophically
naive, could confuse them! No one who reads a.p.o. for very long is
not going to realize that, a.) different views of Rand exist, and
even (most) people who agree with Rand to a large degree usually
still find some problems with her, b.) a large number of Rand admirers
have allied themselves with certain "camps", the differences between
which are argued endlessly, and c.) Neo-Tech is one of the more oddball
and recent of these groups. What are the orthodox Randians worried
about, that some kind of ideological cross-contamination is going
to occur from sharing the same newsgroup? Or are they worried that,
without a thoroughgoing, insulating program of exposure to only select,
desirable ideas, individuals are going to exercise their ability to
choose the ideas that seem most reasonable to them, ideas that may
likely come from a variety of sources?
That's what philosophy is all about!
-Jim
--
| 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 |
Nicholas Rich
>Jason Kuznicki (jt...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
>: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>: moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>
>: Due to their harassment and abuse of Internet Objectivists in the
>: past, humanities.philosophy.objectivism specifically excludes the
>: discussion of Neo-Tech and Zon Power, the publications and activities
>: of the Neo-Tech Publishing Company, or any participation by its owners
>: and employees. The Automoderator will be programmed and re-programmed
>: as necessary to return the excluded postings to the sender.
>
>of the Zonnies, I think it is extremely important that this NOT be stated
>as the reason why NT posts should not be allowed on h.p.o. The reason is
>that these posts are irrelevant to the topic of the newsgroup. Their
>persistent spamming and irrelevant crossposting is the reason why the
>charter is making specific mention of them, but in principle the same
>prohibition should extend to any other form of irrelevant posting -- from
>Scientology to VLSI design to how to stir-fry Chinese vegetables.
I support the NG creation, and will vote YES. But, what Donadio states about
NT being irrelevant to Objectivism is clearly, clearly not the case. Now, I
understand that he desperately, deeply, clingingly, agonizingly wishes that
his assertion reflected the underlying reality. Alas, it's simply not the
case, as demonstrated below.
Search results for: ayn rand
Zonpower Book
Chapter 3, Page 22
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter3.html#page22
John Locke, Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff. Consider their struggle against the
irrationality of an anticivilization. They all sensed
increasing frustration at their inevitable failures because they too were
an integrated part of irrationality -- of anticivilization.
They never knew how to leave or even knew that leaving an anticivilization
was possible. They never considered ...
Chapter 7, Page 90
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter7.html#page90
time.[ 44 ] As philosopher Ayn Rand recognized, "Existence is identity."
Thus, Gravity Units are identity: the fundamental
identity of existence -- as is consciousness. ...The melded symmetry of
consciousness and Gravity Units points the way to
unifying consciousness with physics -- points the way to unifying all
existence. ...
Chapter 20, Page 202
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter20.html#page202
The lone saboteur was Ayn Rand with her epic Atlas Shrugged. Yet, she and
her great works were trapped in purgatory --
trapped in the unbridgeable gulf between this anticivilization and the
Civilization of the Universe. ...
Chapter 26, Page 229
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter26.html#page229
1992), The Origins of Consciousness by Julian Jaynes (467 pages, Houghton
Mifflin, New York, 1976), and Objectivism: the
Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff (493 pages, Dutton, New York,
1991). Julian Jaynes, an academe at Princeton
University, avidly avoids recognizing the titanic significance of his
discovery that human consciousness is ...
Chapter 26, Page 232
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter26.html#page232
The Role of Rand and Peikoff Amidst the pending demise of the
parasitical-elite class and its anticivilization, Earth's first valid
philosophy arises. That philosophy arises from two people in history who
applied fully integrated honesty in developing a
comprehensive philosophy: Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. Ayn Rand ...
Chapter 29, Page 263
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter29.html#page263
producer as Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff. Whatever the root of his
irrationality, Dr. Peikoff's persona shrinks with his
advocating force-backed intolerance as he expressed during his 1995 Ford
Hall Forum lecture. Recall how Ayn Rand's life
was tragically diminished by ...
Chapter 29, Page 264
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter29.html#page264
course, Ayn Rand was the prime contributor. But major contributors also
included: 1) Dr. Leonard Peikoff as the continuing
producer of exciting, profitable Objectivist values; 2) Dr. Nathaniel
Branden as the highly successful, NBI
business-entrepreneur director who profitably marketed Objectivism to the
public as well as being a major contributor to its ...
Chapter 29, Footnote 69a
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/chapters/chapter29.html#note69a
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dutton, 1991, is a supreme
accomplishment that forever locks Objectivism into
our civilization. Generally, those who carp about that masterpiece do not
see the book in its unique, wide-scope value and
power that will eventually drive all bogus philosophies from this planet.
..
Neo-Tech Stimulants Book
Part 0, Page 3
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part0.html#page3
Everyone from Ayn Rand to the Pope can and does rationalize
criminal-minded acts. Such acts, including murder, are
rationalized given particular combinations of threats to that person's
livelihood, ego, and survival in this irrational anticivilization.
Some Nazi death-camp killers, for example, were refined
university-educated scholars of Schiller and Goethe. Indeed, ...
Part 1, Page 10
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page10
encountering them as desperate hangers-on in the Branden/Rand lectures of
the 1960s in New York City. Back then, they
were characterized by their capes and cigarette holders. They were the
sycophantic defenders of their ego facades leached
from Ayn Rand's monumental achievement: Objectivism. Throughout the years,
such Objectivists have remained the biggest
impediment ...
Part 1, Page 11
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page11
might be called wimps. Ayn Rand had a better word: pip-squeaks. ...
Part 1, Page 20
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page20
Ayn Rand are the two major exceptions who were free from that profound
error. Approach A evolves from wide-scope,
multidimensional integrations. Approach B evolves from narrow-scope,
mainly vertical integrations. ...
Part 1, Page 9
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part1.html#page9
Both Newsgroups are intellectually in debt to philosopher Ayn Rand. Group
A gratefully utilizes her achievements while
moving forward. Group B desperately idolizes her importance while clinging
to the past. Group A also utilizes the outstanding
yet grossly under-recognized values constantly being produced by Ayn
Rand's intellectual heir, Dr. Leonard ...
Part 4, Page 31
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part4.html#page31
for either sex in this century is Ayn Rand who arose to become one of the
most exciting, influential value producers in history.
Ms. Beauvoir also declared in her book that of the giants in human history
who took the responsibility to change the course of
civilization, none were ...
Part 7, Page 46
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part7.html#page46
Austrian Economics, worked with increasing pessimism...as later did Ayn
Rand who founded Objectivist philosophy, and as
more recently did Leonard Peikoff who brilliantly developed Objectivism
into an array of specific values and products.
Menger, Rand, and Peikoff never fully generalized their work. Therefore,
they never confidently sensed the ultimate triumph of
their work ...
Part 7, Page 50
http://www.zonpower.com/cyberule/part7.html#page50
percentage of those nonphilosophizers had ever heard of Ayn Rand much less
Objectivism until they were reached by
down-to-earth Neo-Tech dynamics. ...Neo-Tech workers, no one else, are the
ones reaching the salt-of-the-earth, non-elite
value producers throughout the world in fifteen languages. How? ...
Testimonials
Craig C. 2921-6
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/letters/l/Craig_C._2921-6.html
Neo-Tech Discovery. I could not get enough of Ayn Rand, logic and any
business related literature. I finally feel clean with my
every thought and action. I have now embarked upon a business venture,
that I know will be very successful and earn me great
wealth. I can add thanks to Neo Think for that. My knowledge is ever
increasing and at a rate that even I am impressed with.
...
D. B. C-210
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/letters/l/D._B._C-210.html
the most important thing I've read since (and here it comes again) the
works of Ayn Rand. ...
Darryl L., 4903-C3
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/letters/l/Darryl_L.,_4903-C3.html
While Ayn Rand identified the malignancy, you have identified the
modalities and cure of the mystic diseased mind. I wish to
order Twelve (12) copies of Zonpower to spread amongst my associates who
can appreciate it. No Neocheaters invited,
thank you very much. I also would like to order Two (2) copies of the
Reference Encyclopedia. I would like to thank Dr.
Wallace for his courage in presenting his ideas to ...
George C. R-6254
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/letters/l/George_C._R-6254.html
using many Neo-Tech concepts to guide me, having read several Ayn Rand
books at an early age and taken them to heart.
For Dr. Wallace to do what he has done with the research/books is very
much appreciated, to say the least. I owned my own
business and businesses for most of my adult life and was successful in
them. But, as has happened to others and as Neo-Tech
explains, I ...
R.P.W. C-1000, SOUTH AFRICA
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/letters/l/R.P.W._C-1000,__SOUTH_AFRICA.html
I have for many years been an ardent admirer of Ayn Rand and in fact, have
a complete set of all her writings, but until
receiving the Neo-Tech Discovery had begun to despair that anything would
ever come of her philosophy. I can only thank Dr.
Wallace for his magnificent manuscript. I now feel confident that a better
world will develop in the near future and offer my help
in whatever way I can. ...
Sylvia S. J-166, AUSTRALIA
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/letters/l/Sylvia_S._J-166,_AUSTRALIA.html
Years ago, I read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged", and
"The Virtue of Selfishness", which contains some
essays by Nathaniel Branden if I remember correctly. Rand's philosophy of
Rational Self-Interest had quite a profound effect
on my ways of thinking, which I suppose must have influenced ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Nicholas Rich
>Tony Donadio (tdon...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>
>: While this is certainly an accurate description of the despicable actions
>: of the Zonnies, I think it is extremely important that this NOT be stated
>: as the reason why NT posts should not be allowed on h.p.o. The reason is
>: that these posts are irrelevant to the topic of the newsgroup.
>
>if it means letting in a few posts by the Zonnies. The proposal to
>ban certain people and topics from the group is repugnant; it stinks
>of hurt feelings, revenge, and petty censorship.
>
>From what I've seen of the Neo-Tech kooks, they probably can't play by
>reasonable rules. They'll shut themselves out of the group by their
>own behavior. All you have to do is write the fairest rules possible
>and the rest will take care of itself.
You're assuming I and other Objectivist NT readers will be posting there.
Can't speak for others, but to a moderated group set up for the singular
purpose of excluding NT? No way.
This demonstrates you haven't a clue as to what NT is all about. On apo, the
way to demonstrate the dynamics of fully integrated honesty is through
competitive intrusions. On that moderated group? To ignore it entirely, make a
tremendous value of apo, and put it out of business. Eventually, there will be
Brad, Betsy, Tony and a few Shi'ite associates all giving each other rubdowns.
boooooooooooring.
Chuck Kincy
>>While this is certainly an accurate description of the despicable actions
>>of the Zonnies, I think it is extremely important that this NOT be stated
>>as the reason why NT posts should not be allowed on h.p.o. The reason is
>>that these posts are irrelevant to the topic of the newsgroup. Their
>>persistent spamming and irrelevant crossposting is the reason why the
>>charter is making specific mention of them, but in principle the same
>>prohibition should extend to any other form of irrelevant posting -- from
>>Scientology to VLSI design to how to stir-fry Chinese vegetables.
>I support the NG creation, and will vote YES. But, what Donadio states about
>NT being irrelevant to Objectivism is clearly, clearly not the case. Now, I
>understand that he desperately, deeply, clingingly, agonizingly wishes that
>his assertion reflected the underlying reality. Alas, it's simply not the
>case, as demonstrated below.
Nick, you don't seem to understand that this mind-numbed Randroid
Goddess-worshipping zombie (and others like him) will not be persuaded that NT
is Objectivism without a quote from St. Ayn Rand the Goddess of Objectivism
Herself (peace be upon her).
On the other hand, perhaps you understand this all too well....
I will vote yes, too. Let the losers have their faux-Gulch. *snork*
cpk
Tony Donadio
: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
: >There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
: >excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
: >maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
: >one way or another.
: But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
: the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
: E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
: views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
: in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
: to put my address in the universal kill-file?
: If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
: This needs to be clear.
This is not the intent, no.
The purpose is to create and maintain a forum whose standards are those of
rational debate and common sense -- NOT adherence to or agreement with
Objectivism.
--
Tony * Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish
Donadio * to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for
* value. - Francisco D'Anconia, in ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand
Steve Reed
>The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>(sufficiently) disagree with.
That "sufficiently" is left conveniently undefined. I have difficulties with
any such control mechanism being put in place, in a newsgroup that makes
continued pretense at being fully open for discussion. It either is being
pushed to fulfill a hidden agenda, or ends up being superfluous.
>On the other hand ... From the standpoint of critics of the proposal,
>what harm does it do? If the new group ends up as a few people from one
>camp agreeing with each other and locking everyone else out, how are the
>rest of us worse off? And if it ends up as an open discussion of
>Objectivism with cross posts and the like eliminated it, isn't that a
>useful thing?
Where it does harm is by implication. Since "humanities" is now part of the
semi-sanctioned semi-official Usenet hierarchy, this group gets a sanction and
sense of legitimacy (and wider automatic distribution) that isn't given to
"alt" newsgroups. And the group that thus attains this hierarchy is one where
Objectivists are shown as being -afraid- of free-ranging discussion, so much
so that they want the unwieldy results from attempting to moderate it.
Objectivist philosophy has nothing to fear from attackers, especially
irrational ones, because it reflects reality. I find that asserted among
Objectivists at many points in discussions. And I agree with it. But the
Undernet #AynRand channel tosses off IOS members, however polite. And the
proposed h.p.o tosses off Neo-Techers, however polite (and has the mechanism
in place to deal with new sets of "heretics"). Do we have a split between
theory and practice?
>One suggestion ... If the group passes, someone should put in a post
>every month or so describing a.p.o., the various newsgroups, and the web
>sites, neo-tech included, so that people will not think that the sanitized
>version is all there is out there. Or does that violate the ban on
>Neo-tech?
An eminently sound suggestion -- and, probably, it'll be one of the first
posts that the moderator will toss into the bit bucket. It would admit that an
outside world exists, of other thinkers whom one must deal with. That goes
against every impulse and rationalization in this RFD.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
> >excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
> >maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
> >one way or another.
> But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
> the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
> E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
> views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
> in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
> to put my address in the universal kill-file?
> If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
> This needs to be clear.
The answer is "Obviously not!" Is that clear?
Betsy Speicher
> In article <4i9gjn$f...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
> > But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
> > the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
> > E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
> > views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
> > in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
> > to put my address in the universal kill-file?
> >
> > If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
> > This needs to be clear.
> I think the RFD is ambiguous on this. It says:
> > Humanities.philosophy.objectivism shall exist for the purpose of fur-
> > thering discussion by Objectivists and those who admire Ayn Rand's
> > ideas.
> That sounds as though those who disagree are not welcome, but ...
Not true, but perhaps this can be made clearer. The purpose of the new
group is to have _everything_ that a.p.o. had without the gross abuse and
harassment that we have seen from Neo-Tech (and arTHra) or the off-topic
threads that result from cross-posting.
> > Those who disagree with these ideas may of course also post to
> > humanities.philosophy.objectivism for the purposes of civilized debate
> > and discussion of Objectivism. Any posters who persistently abuse
> > their posting privileges are subject to revocation of these privileges
> > at the discretion of the administrator (qv)
> So there is some unstated definition of civilized debate and discussion,
> and violating it is grounds for being banned from the list.
The stated standard is anything but blatant, extreme abuse. I'll leave
it to an impartial common-sense NetAdmin to handle this.
> It is unclear
> whether the definition is limited to not flaming, or whether it also bans
> posts that are too critical of Rand, fail to accept fundamental ideas on
> which Objectivists believe the discussion should be based, are
> "anti-life," "anti-reason," etc.
The definition means spamming, "templating," reposting the Neo-Tech
mailing list, 500 postings of garbage per day -- the really _obvious_ bad
stuff.
> The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
> approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
> (sufficiently) disagree with.
Ideas of all kinds are welcome. Abuse that disrupts the communication of
ideas is not welcome. Got it?
> On the other hand ... . From the standpoint of critics of the proposal,
> what harm does it do? If the new group ends up as a few people from one
> camp agreeing with each other and locking everyone else out, how are the
> rest of us worse off? And if it ends up as an open discussion of
> Objectivism with cross posts and the like eliminated it, isn't that a
> useful thing?
You bet it is!
Vote FOR humanities.philosophy.objectivism.
Betsy Speicher
> That "sufficiently" is left conveniently undefined. I have difficulties with
> any such control mechanism being put in place, in a newsgroup that makes
> continued pretense at being fully open for discussion. It either is being
> pushed to fulfill a hidden agenda, or ends up being superfluous.
How about the not-so-hidden agenda of having a heated, all-sides-heard, no-
holds-barred discussion of _Objectivism_ instead of Neo-Tech?
If I want a members-only discussion of Objectivism among people that
agree with my basic views, I've got OSG for that. If I want a wild and
wooly no-man's land where I can meet and do battle with Kantians and
Communists, Libertarians and Kelleyites, meet newbies and old-timers, the
knowledgeable and the clueless, and sharpen my critical and debating
skills, I used to go to a.p.o.
That's what this new newsgroup should be. If anything about the proposed
charter is vague or unclear, suggestions for revisions are welcome.
Ed Glamkowski
:P lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
:P I think the RFD is ambiguous on this. It says:
:P > Humanities.philosophy.objectivism shall exist for the purpose of fur-
:P > thering discussion by Objectivists and those who admire Ayn Rand's
:P > ideas.
:P That sounds as though those who disagree are not welcome
well, then it doesn't seem very useful if everybody just
sits around agreeing with everybody else ;)
anyway, i, for one, am opposed to moderated groups in general,
so i would give it a no vote just on that premise alone :P
(that's what kill files are for :)
Nicholas Rich
<be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
>excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
>maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
>one way or another.
Will there be other tabo words which must not be uttered to the priesthood and
spiritual body whilst in the temple?
Clinton Brome
>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
>>excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
>>maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
>>one way or another.
>But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
>the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
>E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
>views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
>in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
>to put my address in the universal kill-file?
>If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
>This needs to be clear.
>Larry Sanger
I agree. This point ought to be explicit in the charter.
(a line stating "NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT") -- followed
by an explanation that while "off-topic" posting such as discussion
of NT candidates for president are to be excluded, politely
expressed views of Rand's philosophy will not be excluded.
I also object to the automatic exclusion of the NT folks.
Exclude posts _about_ NT, whatever their source, as "off-topic",
and ban commercial promotion as such. If the NT crowd continue
to "spam", post commercial advertising, and post way "off-topic",
_then_ they should be warned, and if the problem persists, expelled.
They should not be expelled for their beliefs, if they are
willing to express them in a polite and rational manner.
Clint Brome
(P.S. In case it wasn't clear, I am in favor of the creation of
a very loosely moderated group in addition to a.p.o.)
Lawrence M Sanger
>>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>>(sufficiently) disagree with.
>
>any such control mechanism being put in place, in a newsgroup that makes
>continued pretense at being fully open for discussion. It either is being
>pushed to fulfill a hidden agenda, or ends up being superfluous.
My understanding was that the reason for excluding the Neo-Techies
was that posts specifically about Neo-Tech are off-topic -- not
that they promulgate an incorrect philosophy.
In fact, I agree with this. They are off-topic. They are about as
much as on-topic as repeated posts from Christian Scientists would
be on a fundamentalist Christian group. (Please don't infer too
much from my analogy. :) )
Larry Sanger
Nicholas Rich
Friedman) wrote:
>One suggestion ... . If the group passes, someone should put in a post
>every month or so describing a.p.o., the various newsgroups, and the web
>sites, neo-tech included, so that people will not think that the sanitized
>version is all there is out there. Or does that violate the ban on
>Neo-tech?
Sure does, according to my reading. Even if the notice was derogatory with
respect to Neo-Tech, Betsy has stated that the posts will be scanned for
content, and Neo-Tech (as well as others I'm sure) is a taboo word. It cannot
be uttered.
And the funniest line of all:
"The discussion will be wide-open (except for Neo-Tech)." --Betsy
ps - I support the proposal and will vote a resounding YES (assuming votes by
those who utter the taboo can be counted). Can I vote twice?
Brad Aisa
>> Humanities.philosophy.objectivism shall exist for the purpose of fur-
>> thering discussion by Objectivists and those who admire Ayn Rand's
>> ideas.
>
>That sounds as though those who disagree are not welcome, but ...
No, it says that the group exists primarily to satisfy the values and goals
of those who admire Rand's ideas. It is a general standard, which is to be
used in understanding, interpreting, and applying the charter.
Are you opposed to the right of people to peaceably associate under terms
they find mutually agreeable? What is wrong with rights-respecting,
civilized adults assembling for a positive purpose? Usenet is not a
zero-sum game. People who may disagree may associate on whatever other
forums they wish. The creation of new forums doesn't imperil old ones.
>> Those who disagree with these ideas may of course also post to
>> humanities.philosophy.objectivism for the purposes of civilized debate
>> and discussion of Objectivism. Any posters who persistently abuse
>> their posting privileges are subject to revocation of these privileges
>> at the discretion of the administrator (qv)
>
>So there is some unstated definition of civilized debate and discussion,
>and violating it is grounds for being banned from the list. It is unclear
>whether the definition is limited to not flaming, or whether it also bans
>posts that are too critical of Rand, fail to accept fundamental ideas on
>which Objectivists believe the discussion should be based, are
>"anti-life," "anti-reason," etc.
No, you are making up all the latter. It is impossible to derive such a
paranoid interpretation from what is written. "Civilized" has clear
meaning in an intellectual context, which would include such things as
correctly quoting others, using civilized language (as opposed to
profanity), not libelling others, and similar considerations. "Objectivism"
would include the philosophy of Ayn Rand and related ideas. Does it include
knitting? Stamp-collecting? Object Oriented Programming?
Neo-Kook/Loonpower? No.
Not only is the paragraph clear, but fortunately, it will be a real-world
common-sense, rational, system administrator somewhere interpreting it, so
potential contributors shouldn't worry too much.
>The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>(sufficiently) disagree with.
The explicit banning of Neo-Tech is for two reasons: 1) Neo-Tech has
nothing to do with Objectivism; 2) its adherents have stated their goal of
"taking over" Objectivist forums, and cyberspace in general. This is a
defense against hostile attack. And flooding a group with unrelated
irrational nonsense IS an attack, especially to newcomers, who would be
completely boggled by it. And accepting the precedent with NT'ers, would
simply open the floodgate for every crazed kind of loon on the net.
I am surprised that Dr. Friedman, an anarchist who claims that methods of
free association will solve questions of rights, is so suspicious of people
trying their best in very anarchic circumstances to defend their right to
associate and speak without harrassment from avowed enemies.
The reason for the creation of this newsgroup has little to do with
Objectivism, per se, and everything to do with freedom of association and
expression, which INCLUDES the freedom to associate for a positive,
peaceful purpose, and the right of those who wish to do so, to establish
the terms of association. Other newsgroups are starting to be created on
this principle (such as misc.activism.militia), which is a natural
consequence of the (predictable) abject failure of the anarchic mode of
association which has been Usenet so far. The problem is clear: there is no
way to *prevent* unwanted association from: miscreants, nihilists, raging
irrationalists who won't respect subject hierarchies, and even just the
ever growing number of never-ending, and inextinguishable cross-posted
threads.
No one who wants to discuss Objectivism, from any position, will be
prevented from doing so by the charter of Jason's proposed group. But it
DOES exist to serve the purposes of those who agree with Objectivism.
Let's put it this way: anyone who disagreed with Objectivism, but still
wanted to have a forum to discuss it, could not simultaneously claim there
should not be the right of people who agree with it to start a forum to
serve their interests. Certainly, if someone was an enemy of Objectivism,
AND denied its proponents the right to associate, they certainly couldn't
plausibly then expect those same proponents to come and discuss ideas on,
say, alt.kill.objectivists.die.die.die. (Though I invite such persons, if
there are any, to indeed form this group if they so wish, and to practice
their freedom of speech and association on it, which I fully support.)
Here is what a person will be sanctioning, who agrees to participate on
hpo: Objectivism, the philosophy originated by Ayn Rand, exists, and there
are people who admire it and who seek to associate for their benefit on the
forum. That is something someone of any plausibly honest viewpoint, who has
any legitimate interest in Objectivism, should be able to morally agree to.
(Note: I am not saying that Jason's proposal requires any kind of oath or
affirmation or positive agreement of any kind, I am only explaining the
nature of his proposal as I see it, and this new kind of newsgroup
mechanism, from a moral and sanction viewpoint.)
The converse would be a newsgroup devoted to some activity which in and of
itself was improper, let's say a newsgroup for racists. Now, to participate
in such a group would be wrong, because it sanctioned the premises of the
group. It would not be wrong to discuss racism, only to do so in a forum
whose founding premise was the legitimacy of racism, and which existed to
serve the interests of racists.
So, if anyone thinks it is *immoral* or dishonest to admire Ayn Rand, then,
if they are interested in this matter, they probably ought to vote 'No'.
But voting 'Yes' does not make a claim of the correctness of Objectivism,
nor even of what it exactly consists, merely, that Ayn Rand developed this
philosophy, that it has students and admirers, and that they like
associating. And as the charter specifically states, those who disagree are
welcome.
>On the other hand ... . From the standpoint of critics of the proposal,
>what harm does it do? If the new group ends up as a few people from one
>camp agreeing with each other and locking everyone else out, how are the
>rest of us worse off?
This is not the intention of the proposal. Nor will it be the consequence,
since some mechanism of its coming to be would have to be adduced, and I
can see none. I suspect even foul-mouthed creeps will end up being
tolerated, with only the most blatant kinds of spammers or attackers (like
arTHra) ever being actioned against. One would hope however, that a more
civilized, intellectual and polite atmosphere would prevail.
> And if it ends up as an open discussion of
>Objectivism with cross posts and the like eliminated it, isn't that a
>useful thing?
This is the intention of the proposal.
>One suggestion ... . If the group passes, someone should put in a post
>every month or so describing a.p.o., the various newsgroups, and the web
>sites, neo-tech included, so that people will not think that the sanitized
>version is all there is out there. Or does that violate the ban on
>Neo-tech?
It is immoral to sanction your enemies. Will you please explain to me how
you justify "group rights"? -- which seems to be what you are doing here. A
few whacked out parasites get together and put a stupid label on
themselves, and this suddenly gives them some kind of God given
metaphysical right to be treated as metaphysical absolutes and have their
message trumpeted all over the net by their enemies? WHY?
The short answer is (and Jason can correct me if I misinterpret this) "That
violates it." The NT'ers have declared themselves enemies of Objectivism,
and that they are going to "take it over".
Can we get frank about this please? They are a few apocalyptic loons,
whose only claim to fame is that akin to serial killers -- the fact of
their victimization of others. Left to their own devices, in a better
premised kind of Internet, no one would even hear about them. They are
regularly turfed off every private Objectivist forum I've heard of. In
actual fact, I think that those few non-NT'ers who support them are really
just supporting the nihilistic, anti-Objectivist premise at their core (in
my humble opinion). The NT'ers have their own freedom of speech and
association. I don't know anyone who has ever suggested alt.neo-tech
shouldn't exist, or should be banned, or anything like that. If they were
in actual fact civilized, and respecting of the rights of others and the
subject hierarchy of Usenet, they would have *invited* Objectivists (and
similar) from other forums to come and discover Neo-Tech on their forum,
discussion lists, etc. No one would have minded this, since this leaves
choice intact, and is respectful of people's rights to associate on clearly
denominated newsgroups. But the whole error of Neo-Tech is a wild-eyed
primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which combined with their overblown
science-fiction cosmology and "future history", leads to the incendiary
consequence of crusading Jihaders who equate flooding other newsgroups with
actually winning arguments or gaining new adherents. I should remind that
this is just another version of The Big Lie -- if no one cares to actually
identify their nature, and BELIEVE them, when they say things like "taking
over cyberspace", then no one should be surprised when they make cyberspace
unusable. I suspect the reason Jason didn't try to make a wider category,
rather than naming them specifically, is that as (currently) a unit of one,
they don't yet qualify for conceptualization status. If another type of
loony movement arises with similar characteristics, then it would probably
be time to ammend the charter. But keep in mind, they are *metaphysically*
insignificant. They are only of interest, because of their enormous
irritation and their very real attacks against the subject hierarchy.
There's like only about ten or so of them all told. That people are
conceiving of them as some kind of serious movement is just bizarre. They
are weird little zombies who need to be told where they can play and where
they aren't welcome. They are not rational, and all attempts to found any
process of dealing with them on the premise they ARE rational, must
necessarily fail. Another Big Lie type of thing. It is important to treat
the irrational as the irrational.
Anyway, I am voting YES for this group, even given some of my past
misgivings about Usenet in general, and some misgivings I have about this
new form of newsgroup setup. (I basically don't think that anything of
sufficient value can be created in a newsgroup, that I need worry too much
about this -- if it ever goes sour, the good people can leave, leaving only
a name, which has no power in and of itself.) In my view, it represents a
legitimately premised kind of public forum to which persons of many
viewpoints can morally contribute, but at the same time, including a
standard of value with a specific implementing guideline, to protect the
rights of speech and association of those who wish to participate on the
forum for its founding purpose, and not to have it taken over for some
(literally) alien purpose, like the parasites in the movie Alien did to
their unfortunate human hosts.
So, I say, vote YES for humanities.philosophy.objectivism.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
1 Mises (M1.00) = 0.01 troy ounce gold; 1 Rand (1R) = 0.01 Mises
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Tony Donadio
: Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
: >dd...@best.com (David Friedman) writes, about the RFD:
: >
: >>The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
: >>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
: >>(sufficiently) disagree with.
This is not an issue of "banning ideas we don't agree with." It is
requiring that posts be *on-topic* for the newsgroup. On an Objectivist
newsgroup, Neo-Tech's SF cult drivel is simply irrelevant to what we are
supposed to be here to talk about.
: My understanding was that the reason for excluding the Neo-Techies
: was that posts specifically about Neo-Tech are off-topic -- not
: that they promulgate an incorrect philosophy.
Yes, exactly.
: In fact, I agree with this. They are off-topic. They are about as
: much as on-topic as repeated posts from Christian Scientists would
: be on a fundamentalist Christian group. (Please don't infer too
: much from my analogy. :) )
--
Tony Donadio
: I agree. This point ought to be explicit in the charter.
: (a line stating "NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT") -- followed
: by an explanation that while "off-topic" posting such as discussion
: of NT candidates for president are to be excluded, politely
: expressed views of Rand's philosophy will not be excluded.
The problem with putting it this way is that prohibiting off-topic posts
*IS* "moderation based on content." You can't have content-free
moderation; that is a contradiction. What you can do is specify clearly
what the standards WILL be -- in this case, common sense and rational
discourse.
: I also object to the automatic exclusion of the NT folks.
: Exclude posts _about_ NT, whatever their source, as "off-topic",
: and ban commercial promotion as such. If the NT crowd continue
: to "spam", post commercial advertising, and post way "off-topic",
: _then_ they should be warned, and if the problem persists, expelled.
I think the worst offenders have already convicted themselves, and should
be banned from the start. Apart from that, it is unworkable to ban posts
from NT folks. I certainly don't plan to waste my time keeping a list of
them.
: They should not be expelled for their beliefs, if they are
: willing to express them in a polite and rational manner.
I think they have already given adequate evidence of being unable and
unwilling to do that. We should act accordingly.
Mike Wahler
>And the funniest line of all:
>
>"The discussion will be wide-open (except for Neo-Tech)." --Betsy
>
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
har har har har har har har har
giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle
guffaw guffaw guffaw guffaw guffaw
Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Jerry Seinfeld, George Carlin, Bill Cosby, et
al: you're all out of business!
I predict that this quote will still be around 100's of years from now.
Tom Radcliffe
its existence be posted regularly to a.p.o. A.P.O will presumably be abandoned
to the geoplanerians, and newbies who happen upon it would benefit considerably
from knowing that there exists an open forum for discussion of Objectivism.
It is my understanding from the RFD that (most of) my stuff, which is usually
quite critical of Objectivism, would be welcome (or should that be ``tolerated?'' :-)
on h.p.o, which I think implies a sufficiently broad standard of discussion that
there is little risk of the group becoming nothing more than a cheering section
for Rand. I would like to see the cross-posting rules relaxed a little, as I think
we have seen some benefits from cross-posted discussions in the past (the
deconstructionists were at least amusing, don't you think?) But I would vote
for h.p.o as the proposal now stands.
-- Tom
Nicholas Rich
>Lawrence M Sanger (lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: and Chris Wolf, have repeatedly annoyed the hell out Peikoffians (and
>: others), by posting things Peikoffians (and others) found extremely
>: offensive; but it is not the case that the vast majority of people
>: would place these guys in the category of our beloved arTHra and the
>: Neo-Techsters.
>
>: So now, how do you propose that such characters would be handled? If
>: Chris Wolf were to post his infamous insults to Diana on h.p.o, then
>: what would happen?
>
>Chris Wolf has been in my killfile for a long time, so I did not see these
>posts. From the description, however, I think they would be excluded as
>off-topic. Insults against another participant would not be germaine to
>the discussion of Objectivism. As far as being "annoying" is concerned:
>if their posts discuss Objectivism, I don't care how "annoying" they are;
>at least they be topical, and not net-abuse. I will just ignore them.
>
>The intent is to maintain and protect the "open forum" aspect of apo,
>without the net abuse -- NOT to create another "Objectivist Club." We
>already have plenty of those.
Well OK then. I guess this is as good a time as any to post what I have
prepared. This point of not having hpom as an eclusionary club based on the
content of one's ideas is central to the discussion.
One way of distinuishing a club, like OSG, from hpom would be to explicitly
state that the same standard applied to continued membership in OSG will not
be the same for the new newsgroup.
OSG has a contract. From what I've seen of it, and seen implied in many posts,
it is prohibited for a member to give sanction to a group by posting to any
forum where such posting could be interpreted as giving sanction to that
group--which is considered in opposition to Objectivism.
Below is a partial account of my experience with OSG in 1992. I was asked to
leave. I was not asked to leave for breaking any posting guidelines, that was
never at issue. I was specifically asked to post about Neo-Tech after an
informant (Betsy Speicher) let the owner of OSG know that she had discovered
an NTer on the list. What follows are Bob Stubblefield's postings. It is quite
clear that I was given the choice to leave because of ideas I held. Let me be
clear that as owner, I fully support his right to do that. I bring this up
just only so that those forming the new NG will have the opportunity to
address concerns that the group may turn into a similar sort of dynamic.
From owne...@uunet.uu.net Mon Aug 10 20:46:24 1992
Original-From: qsun!bobs (R W Stubblefield +1 908 949 2846)
To: op...@osg.com
Subject: Open Message to new OSG member Richard Nikoley
Content-Length: 484
X-Lines: 13
Richard,
I understand that you are interested in something called "Neo
Tech." I don't have any first-hand evidence on what that is;
but I have heard from other OSGers that it is a kooky rip-off
of Objectivism. Could you please provide some brief
essentialized information about Neo-Tech in your own words so
that OSG members can evaluate it--and sothat you can see if it
is possible for you to sanction that activity and still abide
by the OSG contract.
Thanks.
Bob Stubblefield
From b...@osg.com Fri Aug 14 19:57:11 1992
To: uunet!Corp.Sun.COM!Richard...@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: Open Message to new OSG member Richard Nikoley
Organization: Integrity Ventures
Reply-To: b...@osg.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v3
Content-Length: 2604
X-Lines: 57
Richard, In Regards to your letter
<920812193...@azur.Corp.Sun.COM>:
Bob,
Just to let you know that I did receive your message, cited
below. I will prepare a proper response within the next few
days. I was already four paragraphs into one when my system
went down and all was lost. I'm somewhat perplexed that you
found it necessary to include the phrase, "but I have heard
from other OSGers that it is a kooky rip-off of Objectivism."
Since you had just indicated that you did not have any
first-hand evidence concerning it, and the purpose of the
message appears to have been to request information from me,
it's unclear to me just why that statement is there--right in
the middle.
It's not that I don't understand your concerns. Based upon some
previous posts on the subject that another OSGer was kind
enough to provide me, it's quite clear that a degree of alarm
could result from the way in which some of the material was
presented--rather out of context. I will attempt to provide a
clear, concise, and brief statement of what I think Neo Tech is
and what they are doing--the essentials. Interestingly, had it
not been for Neo Tech, I may never have found Ayn Rand and
Objectivism. I had heard of neither when I first read Neo
Tech, about two years ago now. Since that time, I have devoted
literally thousands of hours of discretionary time to the study
of both. Had it not been for Neo Tech, there would have been
eight other people to whom I might never have had the
opportunity to introduce the wonderful works of Ayn Rand. Had
it not been for Neo Tech *and* objectivism, I would no doubt
still be a stagnated, god fearing employee on government
payroll instead of the diligent irreverant, value producing
market businessman that I have become.
Warm regards,
Richard
I used the term I did as the most open and polite way I could
to capture the hypothesis I hold about the nature of Neo Tech.
I posted the message openly for several reasons.
1. There have been many additions to the list lately and I want to
make sure everyone knows how serious I am about not lending support
to questionable activities.
2. Based on the admittedly second-hand evidence about Neo-Tech, I
have very strong reservations--and so would anyone else on the list
who saw the same postings I did. If it's not as bad as I think, the
others on the list should learn that, too.
3. I would expect the discussion to be lively and interesting.
------
<bo...@osg.com> Copyright 1992, OSG Bob Stubblefield
[At htis point, I wrote and posted a fairly lengthy account of
NT from my perspective. Then there was a deluge of
back-slapping posts to the list, each one increasingly
out-of-context.
I've ommitted my account for the sake of brevity. However,
there is one thing I said in the last paragrph of my essay
which is pertinent, and which was also referred to by several
who made half-spirited attempts to post in my defense:
"I must also point out that I joined OSG to study Obectivism,
not to debate Neo Tech with objectivists or "convert" anyone. I
decided to write this only because I knew that I would enjoy
doing it and I have. I will be happy to address any specific
questions/clarifications concerning Neo Tech. I will most
certainly be ready to accept any challenges for any errors I
may have made on essentials. However, I will find it difficult
to entertain criticism of Neo Tech where obvious its widest
integrations have not been grasped. It's for the same reason
that an objectivist would probably not care much to debate
Objectivism with one who had never read or understood even one
of Miss Rand's works..."
What follows is the Bob Stubblefield's posts concerning my
expulsion for possessing certain ideas, not for posting about
NT.]
From owne...@uunet.uu.net Thu Sep 10 22:15:39 1992
To: op...@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: NeoTech & Objectivism: It's either/or
Organization: Integrity Ventures
Reply-To: b...@osg.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v3
Content-Length: 969
X-Lines: 22
Richard,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to write your message
on NeoTech. Although I have not yet had time to read it
carefully, I can say with certainty that you are going to have
to make a choice.You can not be an advocate for NeoTech AND
Objectivism: it's one or the other. I'm not asking you to
leave OSG--although I will cheerfully refund your money if you
choose to. But I do request that you not tell other people
(e.g., in America on-line discussions) that NeoTech and
Objectivism are compatible: they are not. As just one
fundamental that hangs in my mind since skimming your article
some hours ago: NeoTech's metaphysics being business is such an
error of hierarchy that it boggles my mind.
I invite anyone who has more time to point out some of the
other incompatibilites they noted. If no one else has the
energy and time to do so, I will get to it in a few weeks.
Bob Stubblefield
<bo...@osg.com> Copyright 1992, OSG Bob Stubblefield
From b...@osg.com Fri Sep 25 20:40:07 1992
To: uunet!Corp.Sun.COM!Richard...@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: CHOICES
Organization: Integrity Ventures
Reply-To: b...@osg.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v3
Content-Length: 957
X-Lines: 21
Richard,
I am posting today a message to o...@open.com wherein I say that
one who sanctions the activities of Neo-Tech--asrepresented by
an as that I exerpt--cannot be virtuous. You may have learned
of some good ideas (Objectivism) through Neo-Tech; but you
should have seen by now not only how incompatible it is with
Objectivism but also what a fraud it is. When I first asked for
a "brief essentialized summary" of it, my only knowledge of it
was indirect. Now I know its nature first-hand.
In my second message I said you would have to make a choice:
you cnnot advocate Objectivism and Neo-Tech. Now I must go
further: as the contract you agreed to says, you cannot use my
resources to study Objectivism while you sanction an activity
thus opposed to Objectivism. If you choose to continue to
advocate Neo-Tech, please let me know and I will refund your
money and remover you from OSG.
Bob
<bo...@osg.com> Copyright 1992, OSG Bob Stubblefield
Lawrence M Sanger
>The problem with putting it this way is that prohibiting off-topic posts
>*IS* "moderation based on content." You can't have content-free
>moderation; that is a contradiction. What you can do is specify clearly
>what the standards WILL be -- in this case, common sense and rational
>discourse.
The point about off-topic posts being omitted based on their content is
well-taken. But at any rate, my question was answered the way I wanted
it to be. Thanks.
I have another question. In the past, some people, such as Tim Starr
and Chris Wolf, have repeatedly annoyed the hell out Peikoffians (and
others), by posting things Peikoffians (and others) found extremely
offensive; but it is not the case that the vast majority of people
would place these guys in the category of our beloved arTHra and the
Neo-Techsters.
So now, how do you propose that such characters would be handled? If
Chris Wolf were to post his infamous insults to Diana on h.p.o, then
what would happen?
Larry Sanger
Nicholas Rich
>Lawrence M Sanger <lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>> >There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
>> >excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
>> >maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
>> >one way or another.
>
>> But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
>> the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
>> E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
>> views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
>> in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
>> to put my address in the universal kill-file?
>
>> If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
>> This needs to be clear.
>
Well I might decide to go back on my previous statement then, where I said I
would support the formation of the group, but would not attempt to
participate.
Let's just see how tolerant they are (and if I do participate, I will follow
the charter of the group to the best of my interpretation).
I guess, right-off, that means I can't utter taboo words like Neo-Tech or
Zonpower. But what happens when a discussion leads into particular
interpretations/identifications found in the NT literature? I am quite capable
of expressing all NT stuff without using the vocabulary in the slightest.
Perhaps I'll give a demonstration in apo. If anyone is going to be excluded on
the basis of heresy, best find out now, eh?
Nicholas Rich
>David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
>> The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
>> approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>> (sufficiently) disagree with.
>
>Ideas of all kinds are welcome. Abuse that disrupts the communication of
>ideas is not welcome. Got it?
Let me ask a few very specific questions then.
Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will be
programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the article,
regardless of context and originator?
For instance, if I participate (assumming that I'm not programmed out from the
beginning), does the bot reject an article from me because of the word
Neo-Tech in the body of the post?
And if Betsy Speicher happens to use the word in a post, is it let through
because it's comming from Betsy Speicher?
Nicholas Rich
>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>> That "sufficiently" is left conveniently undefined. I have difficulties with
>> any such control mechanism being put in place, in a newsgroup that makes
>> continued pretense at being fully open for discussion. It either is being
>> pushed to fulfill a hidden agenda, or ends up being superfluous.
>
>holds-barred discussion of _Objectivism_ instead of Neo-Tech?
Ok, what happens when there's such a discussion going on and NT ideas are
introduced without the lingo? If someone says, "oh, those are NT ideas," does
that mean the discussion becomes taboo?
>If I want a members-only discussion of Objectivism among people that
>agree with my basic views, I've got OSG for that. If I want a wild and
>wooly no-man's land where I can meet and do battle with Kantians and
>Communists, Libertarians and Kelleyites, meet newbies and old-timers, the
>knowledgeable and the clueless, and sharpen my critical and debating
>skills, I used to go to a.p.o.
That's clear enough, and fairly reasonable, I suppose. Well, assuming this
formation is successful, which I hope it is, we'll see whether idividual
advocates of NT can also do battle within the terms of the charter.
Tony Donadio
: I have another question. In the past, some people, such as Tim Starr
: and Chris Wolf, have repeatedly annoyed the hell out Peikoffians (and
: others), by posting things Peikoffians (and others) found extremely
: offensive; but it is not the case that the vast majority of people
: would place these guys in the category of our beloved arTHra and the
: Neo-Techsters.
: So now, how do you propose that such characters would be handled? If
: Chris Wolf were to post his infamous insults to Diana on h.p.o, then
: what would happen?
Chris Wolf has been in my killfile for a long time, so I did not see these
posts. From the description, however, I think they would be excluded as
off-topic. Insults against another participant would not be germaine to
the discussion of Objectivism. As far as being "annoying" is concerned:
if their posts discuss Objectivism, I don't care how "annoying" they are;
at least they be topical, and not net-abuse. I will just ignore them.
The intent is to maintain and protect the "open forum" aspect of apo,
without the net abuse -- NOT to create another "Objectivist Club." We
already have plenty of those.
--
Betsy Speicher
> Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will be
> programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the article,
> regardless of context and originator?
Yes.
> For instance, if I participate (assumming that I'm not programmed out from the
> beginning), does the bot reject an article from me because of the word
> Neo-Tech in the body of the post?
Yes.
> And if Betsy Speicher happens to use the word in a post, is it let through
> because it's comming from Betsy Speicher?
No.
Nicholas Rich
>Lawrence M Sanger (lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: >dd...@best.com (David Friedman) writes, about the RFD:
>: >
>: >>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>: >>(sufficiently) disagree with.
>
>requiring that posts be *on-topic* for the newsgroup. On an Objectivist
>newsgroup, Neo-Tech's SF cult drivel is simply irrelevant to what we are
>supposed to be here to talk about.
>
>: My understanding was that the reason for excluding the Neo-Techies
>: was that posts specifically about Neo-Tech are off-topic -- not
>: that they promulgate an incorrect philosophy.
>
>Yes, exactly.
Well gentleman, you're going to have to put your money where your mouth is. I
will probably attempt to participate in this new group *and* argue the ideas
of Neo-Tech while keeping within the bounds of the charter. I will demonstrate
to all just how on-topic NT is, and I'll not use NT vocabulary to do it.
Does anyone have a problem with that?
So the question becomes: is it the words which are taboo, or the context of
the ideas--or both?
And if it is the context of the ideas, then what is it that differentiates
Kantian primacy of consciousness from alleged NT primacy of consciousness?
What makes one form of this model appropriate for discussion while banning the
other?
Nicholas Rich
>Clinton Brome (br...@scws5.harvard.edu) wrote:
>
>: I agree. This point ought to be explicit in the charter.
>: (a line stating "NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT") -- followed
>: by an explanation that while "off-topic" posting such as discussion
>: of NT candidates for president are to be excluded, politely
>: expressed views of Rand's philosophy will not be excluded.
>
>*IS* "moderation based on content." You can't have content-free
>moderation; that is a contradiction. What you can do is specify clearly
>what the standards WILL be -- in this case, common sense and rational
>discourse.
>
>: Exclude posts _about_ NT, whatever their source, as "off-topic",
>: and ban commercial promotion as such. If the NT crowd continue
>: to "spam", post commercial advertising, and post way "off-topic",
>: _then_ they should be warned, and if the problem persists, expelled.
>
>I think the worst offenders have already convicted themselves, and should
>be banned from the start. Apart from that, it is unworkable to ban posts
>from NT folks. I certainly don't plan to waste my time keeping a list of
>them.
>
>: They should not be expelled for their beliefs, if they are
>: willing to express them in a polite and rational manner.
>
>I think they have already given adequate evidence of being unable and
>unwilling to do that. We should act accordingly.
The plot thickens.....
I have stated that if I attempt to participate, that I will abide fully with
the charter as it is in my best ability to interpret its meaning. At the same
time, I will argue my own ideas.
But here, above, it appears that by introducing the concept of original sin, I
am already guilty of violating this charter, which I don't believe formally
exists yet.
hmmm.
Nicholas Rich
>Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
>> Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will be
>> programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the article,
>> regardless of context and originator?
>
>Yes.
OK.
How about the phrase 'fully integrated honesty?' Will that be blocked too.
>> For instance, if I participate (assumming that I'm not programmed out from
> the
>> beginning), does the bot reject an article from me because of the word
>> Neo-Tech in the body of the post?
>
>Yes.
A sideline question: will any particular vulgarities be banned?
>> And if Betsy Speicher happens to use the word in a post, is it let through
>> because it's comming from Betsy Speicher?
>
>No.
OK.
Nicholas Rich
>Hence, I have no objection to excluding posts about Neo-Tech from the
>proposed h.p.o., just as I have no objection to excluding posts about the
>politics of gun ownership from "rec.guns".
Are the words "politics" and "owner[ship]" taboo words on rec.guns?
Jim Klein
writes:
>The purpose is to create and maintain a forum whose standards are
>those of rational debate and common sense -- NOT adherence to or
>agreement with Objectivism.
"Rational debate and common sense"...these sound like great words on
which to build clear, objective standards. May we anticipate that the
Government you support will be equally as clear?
jk
Paul Hsieh
I'd like to add my voice in support of Jason Kuznicki's proposal for a
moderated Objectivism newsgroup.
I have no problems with the principle of moderation to exclude off-topic
posts unrelated to Objectivism. I read other moderated newsgroups and
have not found any significant problems with that policy.
For instance, on "rec.guns", the charter states that the newsgroup shall
be devoted to a discussion of technical and recreational aspects of
firearms. Discussions about the political aspects of gun ownership are
specifically forbidden, and anyone who attempts to post an off-topic
political article is told to send it to "talk.politics.guns", not "rec.guns".
Similarly, "sci.med.orthopedics" is moderated, which keeps the
discussions on-topic (and also weeds out "crank" medicine).
I used to think that moderation for a.p.o. was unnecessary, because I
could easily kill-file the various irrelevant posts and off-topic posts.
But I'm having a more difficult time doing this as the clutter on a.p.o.
continues to increase. It's taking me significantly longer to sift
through the newsgroups to find the on-topic articles, which is why I've
changed my mind on this issue.
I don't regard Jason's proposed system of moderation to be a form of
illegitimate censorship, any more than I would regard it as such on
"rec.guns" or "sci.med.orthopedics". His proposed system of moderation
is aimed at increasing the quality of the discussions, not at enforcing
any sort of ideological purity.
Specifically, (polite) challenges to the Objectivist philosophy will not
be excluded, as long as their posts are on-topic. Hence, anyone who
wishes to argue against the Objectivist aesthetics, epistemology, or
political philosophy, etc. is welcome. Similarly, it is my understanding
those who wish to discuss and defend David Kelley's views on Objectivism
are also welcome. These posts would all be "on-topic" for an Objectivism
newsgroup.
If the moderation policy were such that disagreements with Objectivism
were not permitted, then I would not care to participate in such a
newsgroup. But that is *not* the case with Jason's proposal. Hence, I
am supporting it.
--------------------
With respect to the Neo-tech issue: I've never paid much attention to
those posts in the past. The NT ideas never made much sense to me, but
I've always just ignored them as harmless and irrelevant, not worthy of
any significant attention.
As far as I can tell, those posts don't have any obvious relationship to
Objectivism. In the setting of an Objectivism newsgroup, I regard them
as off-topic, just as I would regard posts about Szechuan cooking in a
Chinese music newsgroup or (in a perhaps closer analogy) posts about
astrology on "sci.astronomy". Plus, there already is a dedicated
"alt.neo-tech" newsgroup.
Hence, I have no objection to excluding posts about Neo-Tech from the
proposed h.p.o., just as I have no objection to excluding posts about the
politics of gun ownership from "rec.guns".
==================== ~~~ *** ~~
|| || * * ~ ~~
|| Paul S. Hsieh || /\ ** ** _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || _ | | ** ** __ | |
|| || __| |__|__|__ ** ** | |___| |
==================== | | | | ** ** | | | |
Norm Berls
than the establishment of a new paradigm. As such, it qualifies
as a routine procedure. There is simply too much information
on the net for a human being to cope with without using some kind
of filter to get down to the interesting and useful stuff.
I would be interested in seeing who ends up on the blacklist and
for what reasons. Hopefully, the list would be short enough to
maintain as a permanent viewable file.
I understand the rationale of not allowing cross postings as
input... but output may be another matter. If I had a limited
cross posting option on output... say to only to a.o.p... I
would likely avail myself of it from time to time.
Do it. Create humanities.philosophy.objectivism as a moderated
forum.
Norm Berls
Nicholas Rich
>Betsy Speicher (be...@speicher.com) wrote:
>: Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
>: > Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will be
>: > programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the
> article,
>: > regardless of context and originator?
>
>: Yes.
>
>are used like this : n e o - t e c h or like this:
>
>n
>e
>o
>-
>t
>e
>c
>h
>
>r
>u
>l
>e
>s
>
>?
>
>
>it looks like there are lots of ways to get around auto-moderation :-)
I wish to state for the record: *if* I decide to participate in the new group
(assuming I'm not guilty prior to having the choice to abide by the charter or
not), then I will abide by the charter as it is established through the
process of all those participating in the group's formation.
My personal morals would preclude me from trying to circumvent the established
guidelines, whether I agree with them or not.
Apo is an entirely different matter. There, I am just one of many posting
their differing views and perspectives of Objectivism, and I know of no
organized charter which any group of individuals labored to establish as
guidelines at the outset.
So, it's kind of like the differnce between a public park (apo) and a public
park where people have put in the effort to go through a process to organize a
meeting of individuals in a clearly defined way (hpom).
In the first instance, it is perfectly valid to jump in with all the others
and pass out leaflets. In the second instance, it is not appropriate to
disrupt the organized meeting to pass out leaflets.
Though OSG, for instance, is not a very good alalog, as it is private, I can
give this close-anoalogy: I could, if I wished, open up a series of 10 day AOL
accounts, join OSG, and flood it with NT postings. Such an act would be
reprehensible. Bob S is the owner of the list, and he gave me a choice in
1992--to renounce NT and stay on the list, or advocate NT and leave. I left
voluntarily and the balance of my subscription was refunded to me. That
business is finished.
Hopefully, this will demonstrate that I, as an NT advocate, am not just
posting stuff to apo without the backing of principle. The Shi'ites would have
you believe that is is "anything goes," and that is simply not the case.
Steve Reed
>>>Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will
>>>be programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the
>>>article, regardless of context and originator?
>>Yes.
>OK. How about the phrase "fully integrated honesty?" Will that be
>blocked too?
I note that no such word-by-word text filter is mentioned in the RFD. Can you
say "hidden agenda," boys and girls?
Rich implicitly notes the fallacy of text filters. Once the principle is
established, where does it stop? How can it be delimited? It's absurdly
concrete-bound, as well. What will be done to stop the next group of putative
spammers or off-topic posters? They simply can choose synonyms (or variations
such as "Neo-T*ch") to get past any such filter.
And how soon will "Kelley" and "IOS" be added to the list? What principle
exists to exclude adding those proper nouns to the Index Verbum Prohibitorum?
Are the non-Shi'ite, non-Neo-Tech Objectivists here truly willing, as some
have hinted to me in e-mail, to blithely accept that they won't be future
targets of this automoderator? How many here detest such a censorious attitude
on principle?
>>>For instance, if I participate (assumming that I'm not programmed out
>>>from the beginning), does the bot reject an article from me because of
>>>the word Neo-Tech in the body of the post?
>>Yes.
>A sideline question: will any particular vulgarities be banned?
And will they take the opportunity to do so to insulate themselves from the
First Amendment-eviscerating CDA? We could witness a delectable irony in
seeing the content-based moderator of any such group being hauled into Federal
court, charged with a felony for not insulating minors through a "properly"
programmed autobot. Hoist by their own censorious petard! No, I wouldn't like
any such prosecution, but I'd find it hard to weep for their fate.
>>>And if Betsy Speicher happens to use the word in a post, is it let through
>>>because it's coming from Betsy Speicher?
>>No.
If anyone believes THAT kind of exclusion of such a prominent member of
the Elect will ever happen ... well, they ought to hear about this bridge
between Manhattan and Brooklyn that I have for sale.
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Brad Aisa
>I have another question. In the past, some people, such as Tim Starr
>and Chris Wolf, have repeatedly annoyed the hell out Peikoffians (and
>others), by posting things Peikoffians (and others) found extremely
>offensive; but it is not the case that the vast majority of people
>would place these guys in the category of our beloved arTHra and the
>Neo-Techsters.
>
>So now, how do you propose that such characters would be handled? If
>Chris Wolf were to post his infamous insults to Diana on h.p.o, then
>what would happen?
The person administering the automoderator will be a busy person, who won't
be a member of the group. They won't have much interest in the goings-on,
and action would need to be initiated. A person would have to make a
complaint, provide evidence of impropriety (say, vile profantity directed
at a person), and ask for action. One assumes the administrator might ask
the offending party to stop. Further abuse might then be actionable.
I doubt it will be easy to do anything, because the admin will probably not
be too interested. But the possibility is there, which would hopefully act
to temper the more egregious kinds of posters.
I can't see how anything which is purely *ideologically* annoying, but is
plausibly connected to Objectivism, could be actionable, based on the
charter.
Russ Allbery
> The problem with putting it this way is that prohibiting off-topic posts
> *IS* "moderation based on content." You can't have content-free
> moderation; that is a contradiction.
Actually, you can. You just can't make judgements like on-topic or
off-topic with it.
(In case you're curious, the kinds of things you can enforce with
content-independent moderation are subject line keywords, header
requirements, no crossposting, and that sort of thing.)
> I think the worst offenders have already convicted themselves, and
> should be banned from the start. Apart from that, it is unworkable to
> ban posts from NT folks. I certainly don't plan to waste my time
> keeping a list of them.
Well that's good, at least. I'm not particularly fond of moderation by
blacklisting, but at least that's better than trying to exclude everyone
who believes a certain way from your newsgroup.
> Clinton Brome (br...@scws5.harvard.edu) wrote:
>> They should not be expelled for their beliefs, if they are willing
>> to express them in a polite and rational manner.
> I think they have already given adequate evidence of being unable and
> unwilling to do that. We should act accordingly.
You may want to think about who exactly "they" are.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Brad Aisa
>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>>OK. How about the phrase "fully integrated honesty?" Will that be
>>blocked too?
>
>I note that no such word-by-word text filter is mentioned in the RFD. Can
>you say "hidden agenda," boys and girls?
No. The charter says no discussion of Neo-Tech or other off-topic subjects.
The idea of message filters has been advanced in the past, but it is
impractical. If a person does not follow the charter, then they will be
banned. It is that simple, and there is no hidden agenda. The converse,
"message filters", would simply lead to a goofy "word war" which could
never be won.
>Rich implicitly notes the fallacy of text filters. Once the principle is
>established, where does it stop? How can it be delimited? It's absurdly
>concrete-bound, as well. What will be done to stop the next group of
>putative spammers or off-topic posters? They simply can choose synonyms
>(or variations such as "Neo-T*ch") to get past any such filter.
The solution is the one chosen: no word filters.
>And how soon will "Kelley" and "IOS" be added to the list? What principle
>exists to exclude adding those proper nouns to the Index Verbum
>Prohibitorum?
You have no evidence to support this, and everyone involved has
specifically stated the opposite. You are sure being intolerant and
malevolent.
>Are the non-Shi'ite, non-Neo-Tech Objectivists here truly willing, as some
>have hinted to me in e-mail, to blithely accept that they won't be future
>targets of this automoderator? How many here detest such a censorious
>attitude on principle?
You are free to remain on apo and bask in The Civilization of The Universe,
or you can come to hpo and discuss your grievances with Objectivism.
Paranoics won't be excluded on hpo, provided they stay on topic.
Brad Aisa
which hopefully everyone is aware of, but bears exposure: false elevation
of NT to status of importance. In essence, they are implying as hidden
premises in their every post here, that NT is something of value and
relevance, and that a newsgroup in which its discussion was banned would be
a horrible place indeed, in which the NT starved posters, were all
desperate to discuss NT and its application to the latest crop of posts or
curent events, but were prevented by the Mean Automoderator from doing so.
In actual fact, NT is a load of irrational nonsense with a tiny handful of
whacked-out, bug-eyed proponents and is of zero relevance or interest to
rational men and women interested in Objectivism from any even plausibly
rational viewpoint. I have no evidence that any legitimate admirers or
critics of Rand have any interest in discussing it, and I have a broad
acquaintance amongst Objectivists and some of their critics both on-line
and outside. As a phenomenon, NT is mentioned very occasionally in derisive
dismissmal, and its "content" (to use the word loosely) is a subject of
zero interest. (To even reach the barest identification of it in
essentials, is to damn it.)
Be careful. In fact, although allegedly aimed at discussion with the
proponents of the new newsgroup, their posts are not designed for them at
all, but are simply galling posturing, designed for propaganda/"we're being
persecuted" value, after the fact. Note how Mr. Rich tried to discredit Bob
Stubblefield with his selective presentation of the history of his being
turfed from the private discussion list Objectivism Study Group (OSG). (Mr.
Rich carefully omitted his exposition of Neo-Tech, for example.) Note how
he tried to turn it into an issue of character persecution, rather than the
one Mr. Stubblefield claimed: that Mr. Stubblefield was not willing to let
his resources be used by someone who advocated an ideology which was
completely incompatible with and destructive of Objectivism. THAT is one of
the main reasons for their ban on the new group, and is based on
overwhelming evidence from the cult's activities in the past. Why should a
super person, like HPO proponent Jason Kuznicki, and those others of value
who would comprise the core readership and posters of the new group,
sanction their own destruction, and create a platform of value for a cult
like Neo-Tech to usurp, invade, and propagandize from?
So, keep in mind, if you are going to answer them or discuss with them,
that it is not you they are talking to, but are making attempts to mislead
innocent outsiders into thinking their cult has any relevance to those who
will comprise the readership of the new group, and that they are being
unfairly persecuted or singled out.
NT is not merely wrong, it is evil. It is not merely misguided application
of Objectivism (which reading NT/Zonpower literature must demonstrate is
too absurdly nonsensical to be simple error). It is a new kind of cult
which preys on the appetite of some for a Romantic view of existence, and a
confused respect for reason and logic. That a cult could use Romanticism,
reason and logic as *weapons of entrapment* and mind-control, has to be a
new low in the sad history of cults.
There was a time when I thought NT/Zonpower was just a few innocent, highly
misguided youths with some crazy ideas. But something this well organized
and propagandized (check out their templates, "Neo-Tech Advantage #XX",
on-line bible "Zonpower", etc. is NOT misguided hijinx. This is too -- well
too -- organized and purposeful to be a couple of over-imaginative high
school kids. This is someone with a purpose...
Believe in evil or be consumed by it. Just ask... (no, I won't say it.)
Betsy Speicher
> I have another question. In the past, some people, such as Tim Starr
> and Chris Wolf, have repeatedly annoyed the hell out Peikoffians (and
> others), by posting things Peikoffians (and others) found extremely
> offensive; but it is not the case that the vast majority of people
> would place these guys in the category of our beloved arTHra and the
> Neo-Techsters.
> So now, how do you propose that such characters would be handled? If
> Chris Wolf were to post his infamous insults to Diana on h.p.o, then
> what would happen?
I'd leave that to Diana. ;-)
As long as somebody doesn't post their identical rant 10 times, post
8,000 line "books," or engage other obvious abuse that would lead a lot
of h.p.o.ers to complain to the impartial NetAdmin who runs the
automoderator (and which would be so bad the the NetAdmin would agree),
they could still post. I'd imagine the NetAdmin would pass on the
complaints to the offender. Only if the offender had the kind of I-don't-
give-a-damn attitude we've seen from the Zonnies and arTHra, would they
be automatically banned.
I think most NetAdmins could handle it.
Betsy Speicher
> In article <4ic39t$g...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will be
> >> programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the article,
> >> regardless of context and originator?
> >
> >Yes.
> OK.
> How about the phrase 'fully integrated honesty?' Will that be blocked too.
Yep. And "Civilization of the Universe" and "Cassandra's Secret" and
"Golden Helmets" and all those other charming turns of phrase that _only_
Neo-Techers use and which we have come to associate with abuse on a.p.o.
> >> For instance, if I participate (assumming that I'm not programmed out from
> > the
> >> beginning), does the bot reject an article from me because of the word
> >> Neo-Tech in the body of the post?
> >
> >Yes.
> A sideline question: will any particular vulgarities be banned?
It's not in the charter. If there are enough complaints that a
particular person is being grossly abusive, the impartial NetAdmin will
decide. That would probably eliminate arTHra and "Make Money Fast," but
little else.
Nicholas Rich
>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>> Although Kuznicki isn't directly citing IOSians, the proposal is nonetheless
>> disingenuous. I see the impulse as one of craving control, not of creating
>> quality. To cite Neo-Techers as being excluded is merely to publicize this
>> with the most convenient nemesis at hand.
>
>The Neo-Techers are being excluded because of their _methods_ -- not
>their ideas.
And will the charter be written to exclude those methods?
>> What is being sought is the control
>> mechanism.
>
>The "control mechanism" will be exercised by a common-sense, responsible,
>impartial NetAdmin who will be charged by the newsgroup charter to
>exclude only those who use abusive _methods_ of posting.
And in what context are these so-called "abusive _methods_" judged? Are they
judged against the ideas of a few individuals currently posting to apo and
setting up hpom, in the context of current posting methods to apo, or will
they be judged against the terms of the charter of hpom in the context of
actual posts by individuals to hpom?
Tomm Carr
>
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
> >excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
> >maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
> >one way or another.
>
> But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
> the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
> E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
> views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
> in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
> to put my address in the universal kill-file?
>
> If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
> This needs to be clear.
>
I, for one, search apo for posts that meet the following criteria:
1 - they agree with the Objectivist view but expand upon it, give it a
new twist, expose a seeming weakness, apply it in a new way, etc.
2 - they disagree with, or question, the Objectivist view, but do so in
at least a somewhat logical manner. When I, or any other Objectivist,
debate the point(s), a well thought-out answer comes back, and on and
on.
The second category, while rare enough, are more numerous than the
first.
I live for the days when I must change my mind on something. After
"discovering" Objectivism, I went on an in-depth examination of
everything I believed. Every belief or premise I held that I determined
was wrong, I threw it out. Some beliefs were easy to identify and
purge, some were not -- it took about three years before I completely
lost all belief in God, it being so intertwined in everything else I
believed.
Although this is a life-long search, it gets more and more difficult.
After a while, I would go for several days before saying, "Here! This
is where I am wrong. I must change my thinking on this!" Then it was
several weeks, now I go for months at a time. When shown to be wrong
(not just ignorant), I celebrate! "I have improved myself!" (Not that
I don't improve myself by aquiring new knowledge and becoming less
ignorant. It's just not in the same league...I learn something new
every day!)
So I welcome opposing views. Convince me I am wrong -- please! I will
hold you in the highest esteem.
But the need for a moderated newsgroup is great. So many postings at
apo are just rehashes of tired cliches. And any argument in them is
nothing more than personal attacks or what I call Argument by Assertion:
"You're wrong because...because...well, you just ARE!" I agree with the
proposed method, start a new newsgroup while leaving apo alone. For all
its faults, apo has a certain charm I would not want to touch. Diana
Brickell describes apo as "a wild west version of Objectivist
discussion", which fairly sums it up.
Speaking of Diana, visit her site at:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~diana/objectivism
for a good list of other Objectivism-oriented resources including the
Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy (MDOP) which operates
thru email.
In the meantime -- disagree with me, argue with me. That's why I'm
here.
--
Tomm Carr |Philosophers study logical fallacies
| so they won't use them.
|Lawyers & politicians study logical fallacies
| so they can use them more effectivly.
Paul Hsieh
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>I'd imagine the NetAdmin would pass on the
>complaints to the offender. Only if the offender had the kind of I-don't-
>give-a-damn attitude we've seen from the Zonnies and arTHra, would they
>be automatically banned.
>
>I think most NetAdmins could handle it.
One thing I am still wondering about -- how does one find a NetAdmin-type
person to serve as moderator? Will someone have to pay them? Will they
volunteer to work for free? Why would an impartial NetAdmin wish to take
on the job of supervising the moderator-bot, especially if he is a
non-Objectivist who presumably has little interest in the topics on the
group?
(Also, I don't know how other moderated newsgroups found their moderators,
and whether most of those newsgroups are structured in such a way so that
the moderator may not post to the group except for administrative matters.
Can anyone enlighten me?)
Betsy Speicher
> In article <ddfr-14039...@129.210.77.17>,
> dd...@best.com (David Friedman) wrote:
> :On the other hand ... . From the standpoint of critics of the
> :proposal, what harm does it do?
> This is a good question, and since you win the synchronicity award for
> today (I was leafing through MACHINERY OF FREEDOM while waiting for a
> file transfer just now), I'll answer.
> The concern here is precedent - if it's done once, we can reasonably
> expect it to be tried again and again and again.
So? I can't imagine why any libertarian who wants free choice, voluntary
action, and is against limits on freedom would oppose h.p.o.
Nobody is proposing taking _anything_ away from _anybody_. We are not
closing down a single existing newsgroup or forbidding anybody from
posting where he now does.
We are proposing that a _new_ newsgroup, an _additional_choice_, be made
available for those who voluntarily choose to avail themselves of that
option.
It is those who would vote against h.p.o. who are restricting the options
and voluntary choices of others.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >I'd imagine the NetAdmin would pass on the
> >complaints to the offender. Only if the offender had the kind of I-don't-
> >give-a-damn attitude we've seen from the Zonnies and arTHra, would they
> >be automatically banned.
> >
> >I think most NetAdmins could handle it.
> One thing I am still wondering about -- how does one find a NetAdmin-type
> person to serve as moderator? Will someone have to pay them? Will they
> volunteer to work for free? Why would an impartial NetAdmin wish to take
> on the job of supervising the moderator-bot, especially if he is a
> non-Objectivist who presumably has little interest in the topics on the
> group?
Most NetAdmins consider it an honor or good personal publicity to be
asked to serve as a moderator. Many NetAdmins volunteer as part of
their involvement on the Internet, and several of them work as employees
of ISPs who encourage them to do so.
Since automoderation is on the cutting edge of UseNet technology, many
welcome the chance to be involved with it in some way.
Betsy Speicher
> hsi...@crl.com (Paul Hsieh) writes:
> >One thing I am still wondering about -- how does one find a NetAdmin-type
> >person to serve as moderator? Will someone have to pay them? Will they
> >volunteer to work for free? Why would an impartial NetAdmin wish to take
> >on the job of supervising the moderator-bot, especially if he is a
> >non-Objectivist who presumably has little interest in the topics on the
> >group?
> All are pertinent questions, for monitoring as to "off-topic" posts will take
> time and knowledge of Objectivism. As others pointed out, cross-posting and
> author blacklists can be automated (as well as text filters, which Speicher
> contends are to be used on this newsgroup, though the RFD doesn't say so). But
> reading posts for content is far more involved.
> Unless, that is, the "scratching an itch" principle is used, wherein the
> number and vehemence of complaints -- instead of their substance -- are the
> criteria for "banning" some author address from the newsgroup.
The proposed charter already spells out (but suggestions for making it
clearer are welcome) that the criteria for banning of posters is net-
abuse. So far the only people who have done this are arTHra, who is no
longer around, and the Neo-Techers who are named specifically. The
banning of cross-postings should go a long way to keeping discussions on
topic. While keeping things on-topic is an important goal of h.p.o. as
stated in the charter, the only thing that will be banned is net-abuse.
Nicholas Rich
>As long as somebody doesn't post their identical rant 10 times, post
>8,000 line "books," or engage other obvious abuse that would lead a lot
>of h.p.o.ers to complain to the impartial NetAdmin who runs the
>automoderator (and which would be so bad the the NetAdmin would agree),
>they could still post. I'd imagine the NetAdmin would pass on the
>complaints to the offender. Only if the offender had the kind of I-don't-
>give-a-damn attitude we've seen from the Zonnies and arTHra, would they
>be automatically banned.
Question: Does the "somebody," mentioned above, include anybody? IOW, is
somebody anybody who is not excluded from the start on the basis of alleged
improprieties outside of the charter which pertains only to hpo?
Nicholas Rich
>In article <4i9gjn$f...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
>>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>>excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
>>>maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
>>>one way or another.
>>
>>But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
>>the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
>>E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
>>views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
>>in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
>>to put my address in the universal kill-file?
>>
>>If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
>>This needs to be clear.
>
>
>I hope this clears things up.
In case anyone missed the contradiction, that should read "Obviously not!
(except for Neo-Tech content)"
Nicholas Rich
>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> Unless, that is, the "scratching an itch" principle is used, wherein the
>> number and vehemence of complaints -- instead of their substance -- are the
>> criteria for "banning" some author address from the newsgroup.
>
>The proposed charter already spells out (but suggestions for making it
>clearer are welcome) that the criteria for banning of posters is net-
>abuse. So far the only people who have done this are arTHra, who is no
>longer around, and the Neo-Techers who are named specifically. The
>banning of cross-postings should go a long way to keeping discussions on
>topic. While keeping things on-topic is an important goal of h.p.o. as
>stated in the charter, the only thing that will be banned is net-abuse.
By what standard is "net-abuse" detetermined? Is it net-abuse if Betsy
Speicher, for instance, posts 25 times that something is net abuse, or is it a
rational, objective standard where hard evidence is shown that specific posts
by a specific individual violated commonly accepted criteria used by net
admins?
Also, again, and I believe this question is being avoided, are these alleged
net-abusers to be excluded from hpo from the start? If so, that would tend to
imply that's it's really not the "net-abuse" that is of concern, but the ideas
the idividual expresses, and so you wouldn't want to give them the opportunity
to expound upon thier ideas *without* violating the charter. For, then you'd
have shot your last bullet.
And another also. What specific individuals? You say, above "...and the
Neo-Techers who are named specifically." Does that include *any* "Neo-Techer,"
right now, already excluded for alleged violations of the hpio charter which
isn't even yet in effect? I didn't see any NTer named specifically. I see a
sort of collectivist premise, but no specific names.
Bruce Baugh
:On the other hand ... . From the standpoint of critics of the
:proposal, what harm does it do?
This is a good question, and since you win the synchronicity award for
today (I was leafing through MACHINERY OF FREEDOM while waiting for a
file transfer just now), I'll answer.
The concern here is precedent - if it's done once, we can reasonably
expect it to be tried again and again and again. A low-traffic group is
not particularly a problem. Many sci.* groups, and I understand some
humanities.* groups, are quite low-traffic. They sustain relevant
research and not much else. What _is_ a problem is a group that looks
like it's going to be really one-sided. A forum for, essentially, a
single set of views is a Bad Thing in the Big 8. If we go for h.p.o,
what can we reasonably refuse to go for?
The proposal at hand makes a lot of sense for a mailing list. It does
not make good sense for a newsgroup, where as a public forum there
should be minimal restrictions on point of view. (I point to rec.guns
and soc.religion.christian as two moderated groups which handle this
very well.)
:One suggestion ... . If the group passes, someone should put in a post
:every month or so describing a.p.o., the various newsgroups, and the
:web sites, neo-tech included, so that people will not think that the
sanitized
:version is all there is out there. Or does that violate the ban on
:Neo-tech?
Amusingly enough, it would. The ban they're talking about would kill a
FAQ if it mentions any of the Naughty Words, because there's
(deliberately, it seems) no provision for context.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
List Manager, Christlib, where Christian and libertarian concerns hang out
See new SF by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Bruce Baugh
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
:Cross-posting is being widely recognized as a blight on all kinds of
:newsgroups. Admittedly, it might be argued some sort of compromise
:might plausibly be arguable on cross-posting, but a simple outright ban
:is unequivocal, and won't require any intervention.
I agree here, very strongly. Crossposting is a useful tool, but also one
susceptible to abuse. And it doesn't take very many abusers to really
muck up a whole bunch of groups. A comprehensive ban works (though you
_really_ want to think about an exception for news.announce.newgroups,
for relevant RFDs and CFVs).
Betsy Speicher
> In article <4id9gd$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >As long as somebody doesn't post their identical rant 10 times, post
> >8,000 line "books," or engage other obvious abuse that would lead a lot
> >of h.p.o.ers to complain to the impartial NetAdmin who runs the
> >automoderator (and which would be so bad the the NetAdmin would agree),
> >they could still post. I'd imagine the NetAdmin would pass on the
> >complaints to the offender. Only if the offender had the kind of I-don't-
> >give-a-damn attitude we've seen from the Zonnies and arTHra, would they
> >be automatically banned.
> Question: Does the "somebody," mentioned above, include anybody? IOW, is
> somebody anybody who is not excluded from the start on the basis of alleged
> improprieties outside of the charter which pertains only to hpo?
The only "somebodies" excluded by the charter are the owners and employees
of Neo-Tech Publishing Company. A Zonnie follower who doesn't discuss
Neo-Tech or post material written by the owners and employees of Neo-Tech
Publishing Company or engage in obvious net-abuse may participate.
Thinking your own thoughts and using your own words might actually be
good for you, Richard.
Jason Kuznicki
lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>There will be NO MODERATION BASED ON CONTENT -- with the exception of
>>excluding Neo-Tech. The moderator will be a "bot." The human who
>>maintains the 'bot' will be a NetAdmin with no relation to Objectivism
>>one way or another.
>
>But let's get this clear: *persons* will not be excluded from
>the proposed newsgroup based on the *content* of their posts?
>E.g., if I were persistently to question Objectivists on their
>views on how egoism can get around the problem of justice (as
>in fact I have done in the past), might that constitute reason
>to put my address in the universal kill-file?
>
>If the answer to this is "Obviously not!" then just say so.
>This needs to be clear.
Obviously not!
I hope this clears things up.
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of
physical force from social relationships--thus establishing the
principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they must do so
only by means of *reason*."--Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government"
Jason Kuznicki
>lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) wrote:
>
>and violating it is grounds for being banned from the list. It is unclear
>whether the definition is limited to not flaming, or whether it also bans
>posts that are too critical of Rand, fail to accept fundamental ideas on
>which Objectivists believe the discussion should be based, are
>"anti-life," "anti-reason," etc.
Since the moderator will not be on any side of the debates, but rather a
recognized sysadmin from outside the community, this individual will only
moderate for net-abuse, not for any ideological position. The moderator,
as I believe has been stated before, might as well be a Catholic priest,
provided that he can recognize net-abuse, get rid of it, and let the rest
of us debate.
>The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>(sufficiently) disagree with.
The explicit banning has nothing to do with my disagreement with Neo-Tech;
I explicitly disagree with socialists, anarchists, and all other kinds of
people without wanting to ban them. The reason Neo-Tech is being banned
explicitly is because they are recognized by the Usenet community--from
alt.slack to rec.arts.books to alt.philosophy.objectivism and beyond--as
net-abusers. Ideology has nothing to do with it, and I have nothing at
all to say about the ideological beliefs of Neo-Tech. As far as I'm con-
cerned, they have nothing to do with the debate.
>On the other hand ... . From the standpoint of critics of the proposal,
>what harm does it do? If the new group ends up as a few people from one
>camp agreeing with each other and locking everyone else out, how are the
>rest of us worse off? And if it ends up as an open discussion of
>Objectivism with cross posts and the like eliminated it, isn't that a
>useful thing?
Exactly.
>One suggestion ... . If the group passes, someone should put in a post
>every month or so describing a.p.o., the various newsgroups, and the web
>sites, neo-tech included, so that people will not think that the sanitized
>version is all there is out there. Or does that violate the ban on
>Neo-tech?
It would be an excellent idea to have a sort of description of the various
groups out there. I don't believe that it would violate the charter to
post occasional reminders that neo-tech posts belong on alt.neo-tech.
Jason Kuznicki
>>>Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will
>>>>be programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the
>>>>article, regardless of context and originator?
>
>>>Yes.
>
>>OK. How about the phrase "fully integrated honesty?" Will that be
>
>I note that no such word-by-word text filter is mentioned in the RFD. Can you
>say "hidden agenda," boys and girls?
[This is from memory, not verbatim:]
The automoderator will be programmed and reprogrammed as necessary to
exclude Neo-Tech. This would include whatever the moderator deemed
necessary to exculde them, including a word-by-word text filter.
>Rich implicitly notes the fallacy of text filters. Once the principle is
>established, where does it stop? How can it be delimited? It's absurdly
>concrete-bound, as well. What will be done to stop the next group of putative
>spammers or off-topic posters? They simply can choose synonyms (or variations
>such as "Neo-T*ch") to get past any such filter.
Then we will know exactly who they are, and these people go to the global
user killfile.
>And how soon will "Kelley" and "IOS" be added to the list?
Never. Ask Brad Aisa. Ask Betsy Speicher. Ask Tony Donadio. Ask them in
person if you wish. There is NO ONE who wants this to happen.
Can you say "strawman," boys and girls?
>What principle
>exists to exclude adding those proper nouns to the Index Verbum Prohibitorum?
Um... Objectivity?
Todd Michel McComb
Jason Kuznicki <jt...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Since the moderator will not be on any side of the debates, but rather a
>recognized sysadmin from outside the community, this individual will only
>moderate for net-abuse, not for any ideological position. The moderator,
>as I believe has been stated before, might as well be a Catholic priest,
>provided that he can recognize net-abuse, get rid of it, and let the rest
>of us debate.
So who is this moderator going to be?
Todd Michel McComb
mcc...@best.com http://www.best.com/~mccomb
Nicholas Rich
>Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>> In article <4id9gd$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher
>> <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>> >As long as somebody doesn't post their identical rant 10 times, post
>> >8,000 line "books," or engage other obvious abuse that would lead a lot
>> >of h.p.o.ers to complain to the impartial NetAdmin who runs the
>> >automoderator (and which would be so bad the the NetAdmin would agree),
>> >they could still post. I'd imagine the NetAdmin would pass on the
>> >complaints to the offender. Only if the offender had the kind of I-don't-
>> >give-a-damn attitude we've seen from the Zonnies and arTHra, would they
>> >be automatically banned.
>
>> Question: Does the "somebody," mentioned above, include anybody? IOW, is
>> somebody anybody who is not excluded from the start on the basis of alleged
>> improprieties outside of the charter which pertains only to hpo?
>
>The only "somebodies" excluded by the charter are the owners and employees
>of Neo-Tech Publishing Company. A Zonnie follower who doesn't discuss
>Neo-Tech or post material written by the owners and employees of Neo-Tech
>Publishing Company or engage in obvious net-abuse may participate.
Ah, interesting. So by automatically excluding them, perhaps it is hoped that
the rest of the NTers who are not owners/employees of NTP (such as myself)
will latch onto some principle of solidarity and refuse to participate.
I'd have to think that one through, but offhand, I'd say my allegiance is to
objective reality only, and what follows from that (like any good
reality-cultist).
Well, at least it appears that my raising this issue has resulted in some
back-room discussion, and what appears a compromise on what I believe was the
original intent of the RFD, and some of your follow-on posts. I'll be quick to
point out that's just my own *sense.*
Another sense is that I don't see NTP, its employees and writers, attempting
to circumvent a moderator bot. I feel I understand them pretty well, and that
would be seen as a monumental waste of time, not to mention ethically
questionable where the generally agreed-upon guidelines have been clearly
published. It would kind of be like sending unsolicited email to people, which
NTP has explicitly stated is against their policy, and have issued apologies
for a couple of times where it happened accidentaly while posting a follow-up.
I doubt they would attempt to participate in the new group, and my guess would
be that if they did, it would be in accordance with the charter. In short, I
see no basis for concern whatsoever. But again, this is all just speculation
on my part.
And if you wish to consider a piece of well-intentioned, helpful advice, I
would say that excluding *any* individual, or worse, collective, on the basis
of alleged imporprieties outside the specific context of the charter (posts to
hpo) is a recipe for a rough road come voting time. Better to establish
objective principles and rules and then have them applied by an impartial net
admin.
I would further suggest, in order to cut down on the bickering that's likely
to go on concerning who should be excluded, that the founders of hpo (Jason,
Brad, Betsy, Tony, and whomever else) be identified in the charter, and that
they exclude themselves from debate about charter violations in the group.
That's what I would do if I wanted to avoid any appearance that I had an
agenda to exercise, rather than principles and rules.
>Thinking your own thoughts and using your own words might actually be
>good for you, Richard.
I have consistently demonstrated over the years that it's precisely what I do.
Take this discussion, for example.
Nicholas Rich
>In article <jsreed.12...@interaccess.com>,
> jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>>lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence M Sanger) writes:
>>>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>I don't know why Kuznicki didn't go ahead, since this RFD doesn't have a
>>>>snowball's chance in hell for approval anyway, and ban the Institute for
>>>>Objectivist Studies (and its supporters) from his proposed enclave of
>>>>purity.
>
>I did not do this because to my knowledge, the supporters of the IOS have
>not been perpetrating net abuse. The Neo-Techers have.
*Who?*
>>>>Or didn't just decide that the posters' addresses would be compared to the
>>>>current contributors' list of the Ayn Rand Institute before messages were
>>>>allowed on the newsgroup.
>
>Here are a few reasons, just off the top of my head:
>
>Because I am in no way interested promoting the Ayn Rand Institute.
>
>Because I favor a wide range of viewpoints, *including* the members of the
>IOS and whoever else wishes to discuss Objectivism.
*Whoever?* Does that include the owners and employees of Neo-Tech Publishing
Co., Inc?
>Because the place for an exclusionary group like the one you describe is
>a private mailing list, not a public newsgroup.
*Public?* Does the public include the owners and employees of Neo-Tech
Publishing Co., Inc?
>>>>Why this pretense is being maintained that the main desired target is
>>>>Neo-Tech is beyond me.
>
>The "pretense" is being maintained because it is MORE than a pretense;
>this is my entire goal.
In other words, *neither* "whoever," nor "public."
>>>Are you claiming that Jason is being disingenuous in implying that
>>>the supporters of the IOS would be welcome on the group? That he
>>>is just lying?
>>
>>He is -not- saying, affirmatively, that such would be welcome. And with all
>>of the public supporters of this that I've seen -both- screaming constantly
>>at the Neo-Techers and, in Aisa's phrase, smearing Kelley as leading the
>>"rabble" .... well, it's not hard to discern additional motives.
>
>Let Mr. Aisa have his own motives; I'm perfectly confident that you could
>dream up far worse motives than he actually has in any event. MY motive,
>and let there be no doubt about this, is to create a place for debate that
>is moderated by an impartial and well-recognized net administrator who will
>exclude people NOT on the basis of ideology, but only because of certified
>net abuse--such as the Neo-Techers.
Are you prepared to *certify,* objectively, that any owner or employee of
Neo-Tech Publishing has committed net abuse.
And it still has not been answered directly: does this net abuse provision
apply to alleged and/or certified net-abuse *outside* of the context of the
charter (activity on hpo)?
Nicholas Rich
>In article <ddfr-14039...@129.210.77.17>,
> dd...@best.com (David Friedman) wrote:
>>The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
>>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>>(sufficiently) disagree with.
>
>The explicit banning has nothing to do with my disagreement with Neo-Tech;
>I explicitly disagree with socialists, anarchists, and all other kinds of
>people without wanting to ban them. The reason Neo-Tech is being banned
>explicitly is because they are recognized by the Usenet community--from
>alt.slack to rec.arts.books to alt.philosophy.objectivism and beyond--as
>net-abusers. Ideology has nothing to do with it, and I have nothing at
>all to say about the ideological beliefs of Neo-Tech. As far as I'm con-
>cerned, they have nothing to do with the debate.
This really contains so many fallacies that it boggles the mind.
Rather than pull up each individual weed, let's just get to the bottom of it.
"Neo-Tech" is a concept, not an individual or a group. The staement: " The
reason Neo-Tech is being banned explicitly is because they are recognized by
the Usenet community..." is nonsensical. *Who* is "Neo-Tech?" What's his/her
email address, I'd like to send them some?
Let me say that I fully support putting a bot in place to filter out genuine
net-abuse...*genuine* net-abuse, mind you.
But saying that we have to ban the mere mention of the word because some
mysterious (seemingly collective) entity has abused the net will absolutely
fail any rational challenge. Bet on it.
Another thing is that you guys are equivocating big-time. At first, the
argument was that it was off-topic. When I and others demolished that one, in
the context of a public forum, the argument has switched to some foggy notion
of collective net-abuse. When I pinned you down on why any NTer would be
automatically excluded from the start, without ever violating the charter, it
was added that the ban only appies to NTP owners/employees.
The collective net-abuse argument is the last straw[man]. Now that I am
poitning out the bad premises underlying that, you are going to have to say in
the end: "ok, no crossposting and no *certified net-abuse* _on hpo_, as
determined by an imparial net-admin. Everyone is welcome at the start, and the
blacklist starts tabula rasa.
And I would further suggest, as helpful, that to avoid all appearances of
hidden agenda, that the founders of hpo voluntarily exclude themselves from
debate on the topic of charter violations.
When you've done that, I think you will really have accomplished something,
and will have demonstrated to all that you are reasonable people who can be
persuaded by rational argument, and are willing to do everything necessary to
demonstrate that what underlies hpo is principle and not agenda.
Over & out.
Jason Kuznicki
jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) wrote:
>In article <jsreed.13...@interaccess.com>,
> jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>>>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>>>Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>be programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the
>>>>>article, regardless of context and originator?
>>
>>>>Yes.
>>
>>>OK. How about the phrase "fully integrated honesty?" Will that be
>>>blocked too?
>>
>>I note that no such word-by-word text filter is mentioned in the RFD. Can
you
>>say "hidden agenda," boys and girls?
I wrote:
>[This is from memory, not verbatim:]
>
>The automoderator will be programmed and reprogrammed as necessary to
>exclude Neo-Tech. This would include whatever the moderator deemed
>necessary to exculde them, including a word-by-word text filter.
The first sentence should have been in quotes. The second sentence is
a corollary, but not explicitly stated. My apologies.
Nicholas Rich
>In article <jsreed.13...@interaccess.com>,
> jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>>>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>>>Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will
>>>>>be programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the
>>>>>article, regardless of context and originator?
>>
>>>>Yes.
>>
>>>OK. How about the phrase "fully integrated honesty?" Will that be
>>>blocked too?
>>
>>I note that no such word-by-word text filter is mentioned in the RFD. Can you
>>say "hidden agenda," boys and girls?
>
>
>The automoderator will be programmed and reprogrammed as necessary to
>exclude Neo-Tech. This would include whatever the moderator deemed
>necessary to exculde them, including a word-by-word text filter.
More equivocation.
*Who* is "Neo-Tech?" Who, precisely, are you excluding? If the answer is that
you are excluding those who discuss Neo-Tech, then what you are doing in
reality is excluding ideas that certain individuals find distasteful.
Excluding the individuals who promote them on spurious grounds of
present/past net-abuse is nothing more than a poorly-disguised sham to rid
yourselves of ideas you don't like.
"Wide-open (with the exception of Neo-Tech)" is a blatant contradiction.
So stop equivocating. *Why* are you excluding Neo-Tech from any debate on hpo?
Is it because the ideas have *allegedly* no relation to objectivism (then
answer what the difference is between Kantian P of C and "NT P of C"), or is
it because of alleged net-abuse?
Nicholas Rich
>> In article <4ic39t$g...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher
> <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>> >Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will be
>> >> programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the
> article,
>> >> regardless of context and originator?
>> >
>> >Yes.
>
>> OK.
>
>
>Yep. And "Civilization of the Universe" and "Cassandra's Secret" and
>"Golden Helmets" and all those other charming turns of phrase that _only_
>Neo-Techers use and which we have come to associate with abuse on a.p.o.
hmm, O...K...
Well, then...let...me...see... So what about, say, if the three words "fully,"
"integrated," and "honesty" (which I assume are not taboo words in themselves)
are ordered differently? For instance, what if someone is attempting to convey
an idea, and says: "honesty, fully integrated with all the known and relevant
facts?"
Taboo?
"...and all those other charming turns of phrase that _only_ Neo-Techers use
and which we have come to associate with abuse on a.p.o."
So, then, it would appear that this *is* designed to idenitfy and exclude
individuals with certain ideas, right? I mean, that's what the taboo
word/phrase exclusions are designed for, to *identify* "_only_ Neo-Techers" so
they can be excluded from participation in the debate, right?
Matt Keys
: The only "somebodies" excluded by the charter are the owners and employees
: of Neo-Tech Publishing Company. A Zonnie follower who doesn't discuss
: Neo-Tech or post material written by the owners and employees of Neo-Tech
: Publishing Company or engage in obvious net-abuse may participate.
: Thinking your own thoughts and using your own words might actually be
: good for you, Richard.
ah yes, listen the the wise mama-lioness Betsy.
Read the Neo-Tech agenda post on 3/19 to see why
Betsy and the others tried to create a new newsgroup
solely for the purpose of eliminating on-topic
Neo-Tech related posts.
Matt.
--
Zonpower Rules Cyberspace http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
Golden Helmet vs IRS http://irs.class-action.com/book/intro.html
Templates that Vanish Pips http://www.neo-tech.com/vanish-pips/
Steve Reed
Brad Aisa:
>Steve Reed:
>>Nicholas Rich:
>>>Betsy Speicher:
>>>>Nicholas Rich:
>>>>>Will the words Neo-Tech and Zonpower be taboo words that the bot will
>>>>>be programmed to kick out if found in either the header or body of the
>>>>>article, regardless of context and originator?
>>>>Yes.
>>>OK. How about the phrase "fully integrated honesty?" Will that be
>>>blocked too?
>>I note that no such word-by-word text filter is mentioned in the RFD. Can
>>you say "hidden agenda," boys and girls?
>No. The charter says no discussion of Neo-Tech or other off-topic subjects.
>The idea of message filters has been advanced in the past, but it is
>impractical. If a person does not follow the charter, then they will be
>banned. It is that simple, and there is no hidden agenda. The converse,
>"message filters", would simply lead to a goofy "word war" which could
>never be won.
Brad, you and Betsy really must get your stories straight. She's confidently
talking about filters, and you aren't.
Not that I *expect* all of you to agree on tactics. After all, the real sub
rosa struggle, as with any moderated but putatively "open" forum, is to
control the moderator.
>>And how soon will "Kelley" and "IOS" be added to the list? What principle
>>exists to exclude adding those proper nouns to the Index Verbum
>>Prohibitorum?
>You have no evidence to support this, and everyone involved has
>specifically stated the opposite.
To "support" what? I asked you all a question. I freely admit that one of my
premises is that word filters won't ever be acknowledged to exist, if they are
used. But they'd be discovered soon enough.
My other premise, I also admit, is that any censorious impulse* that gains
wide support in a community isn't confined for very long to its original ends
-- however limited they may be. We have a long history of avid Comstockery in
this country to support that premise. I haven't seen much evidence that
Shi'ite Objectivists here have resisted this pattern. Quite the contrary,
-vide- the Reismans and ARI.
* "Censorious impulse," as contrasted with "censorship," to distinguish the
private effort from the governmental statute. Also for Brad's benefit, for
he's been confusing criticisms of ends with calls for censorship as means (see
thread "I don't get it").
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Brad Aisa
>If h.p.o is created then I would strongly argue for an automated
>announcement of its existence be posted regularly to a.p.o.
Yes, this is a good idea. I figure apo may even eventually get dropped by
sysadmins anyway, if it simply becomes a crosspost graveyard, with no
native readership or posters.
>It is my understanding from the RFD that (most of) my stuff, which is
>usually quite critical of Objectivism, would be welcome[...]
And you would be correct in this understanding.
> I would like to see the cross-posting rules relaxed a little, as I think
>we have seen some benefits from cross-posted discussions in the past (the
>deconstructionists were at least amusing, don't you think?)
Cross-posting is being widely recognized as a blight on all kinds of
newsgroups. Admittedly, it might be argued some sort of compromise might
plausibly be arguable on cross-posting, but a simple outright ban is
unequivocal, and won't require any intervention.
The answer here, is to invite discussion on h.p.o. on another group, of a
topic which is or becomes relevant to Objectivism (or the converse). This
preserves the rights of association and topicity of the people in BOTH
groups, yet is still free and open. Also, it is more encouragement to h.p.o
regulars to make their newsgroup an enjoyable, interesting place to which
others would like to subscribe for its own sake.
> But I would vote for h.p.o as the proposal now stands.
Super!
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
1 Mises (M1.00) = 0.01 troy ounce gold; 1 Rand (1R) = 0.01 Mises
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Nicholas Rich
Incidentely, I didn't post my essay concerning NT (which Aisa mentions below)
for two reasons:
1. Brevity. It's very long, and I've posted it to apo many times past. If
someone wants me to post it, just ask. I've nothing in the world to hide.
2. That wasn't the point. It was asked for, specifically, by Bob S. After
posting it, he posted that I could stay on OSG. He later removed me because he
believed that I held ideas which he is contrary to.
I simply raised the point, and clearly distinguished the difference between an
owned forum and Usenet. Is it that BA does not wish to directly address the
issue of whether people will be excluded from hpom for the ideas they hold,
even if believed those ideas are contrary to Objectivism? It's stated that the
impetus is to disallow certain kinds of posts, and not ideas. I provided an
opportunity to clarify an issue which should reasonably be of concern for
some--seeing as how three of the main initiators are OSG regulars. Will hpom
become another ODG-sort of forum or not?
Just answer the question, in specifics please.
The following post *should* remove all doubt in anyone's mind that this new
sham of a "wide-open" group is anything less than an eventual mechanism for
dispensing with "uncomfortable" ideas.
It is my belief that *authority* is behind this whole idea of creating hpom.
Watch and see.
It's quite heartening to see how easily BA is led into these sorts of
emotional tirades.
In article <4icvs9$1...@noc.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
wrote:
>The Neo-Tech cult propagandists are employing a predictable technique,
>which hopefully everyone is aware of, but bears exposure: false elevation
>of NT to status of importance. In essence, they are implying as hidden
>premises in their every post here, that NT is something of value and
>relevance, and that a newsgroup in which its discussion was banned would be
>a horrible place indeed, in which the NT starved posters, were all
>desperate to discuss NT and its application to the latest crop of posts or
>curent events, but were prevented by the Mean Automoderator from doing so.
>
>In actual fact, NT is a load of irrational nonsense with a tiny handful of
>whacked-out, bug-eyed proponents and is of zero relevance or interest to
>rational men and women interested in Objectivism from any even plausibly
>rational viewpoint. I have no evidence that any legitimate admirers or
>critics of Rand have any interest in discussing it, and I have a broad
>acquaintance amongst Objectivists and some of their critics both on-line
>and outside. As a phenomenon, NT is mentioned very occasionally in derisive
>dismissmal, and its "content" (to use the word loosely) is a subject of
>zero interest. (To even reach the barest identification of it in
>essentials, is to damn it.)
>
>Be careful. In fact, although allegedly aimed at discussion with the
>proponents of the new newsgroup, their posts are not designed for them at
>all, but are simply galling posturing, designed for propaganda/"we're being
>persecuted" value, after the fact. Note how Mr. Rich tried to discredit Bob
>Stubblefield with his selective presentation of the history of his being
>turfed from the private discussion list Objectivism Study Group (OSG). (Mr.
>Rich carefully omitted his exposition of Neo-Tech, for example.) Note how
>he tried to turn it into an issue of character persecution, rather than the
>one Mr. Stubblefield claimed: that Mr. Stubblefield was not willing to let
>his resources be used by someone who advocated an ideology which was
>completely incompatible with and destructive of Objectivism. THAT is one of
>the main reasons for their ban on the new group, and is based on
>overwhelming evidence from the cult's activities in the past. Why should a
>super person, like HPO proponent Jason Kuznicki, and those others of value
>who would comprise the core readership and posters of the new group,
>sanction their own destruction, and create a platform of value for a cult
>like Neo-Tech to usurp, invade, and propagandize from?
>
>So, keep in mind, if you are going to answer them or discuss with them,
>that it is not you they are talking to, but are making attempts to mislead
>innocent outsiders into thinking their cult has any relevance to those who
>will comprise the readership of the new group, and that they are being
>unfairly persecuted or singled out.
>
>NT is not merely wrong, it is evil. It is not merely misguided application
>of Objectivism (which reading NT/Zonpower literature must demonstrate is
>too absurdly nonsensical to be simple error). It is a new kind of cult
>which preys on the appetite of some for a Romantic view of existence, and a
>confused respect for reason and logic. That a cult could use Romanticism,
>reason and logic as *weapons of entrapment* and mind-control, has to be a
>new low in the sad history of cults.
>
>There was a time when I thought NT/Zonpower was just a few innocent, highly
>misguided youths with some crazy ideas. But something this well organized
>and propagandized (check out their templates, "Neo-Tech Advantage #XX",
>on-line bible "Zonpower", etc. is NOT misguided hijinx. This is too -- well
>too -- organized and purposeful to be a couple of over-imaginative high
>school kids. This is someone with a purpose...
>
>Believe in evil or be consumed by it. Just ask... (no, I won't say it.)
>
>--
>Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
>
>1 Mises (M1.00) = 0.01 troy ounce gold; 1 Rand (1R) = 0.01 Mises
>
>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Rich
wrote:
>jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>
>>>OK. How about the phrase "fully integrated honesty?" Will that be
>>>blocked too?
>>
>>I note that no such word-by-word text filter is mentioned in the RFD. Can
>>you say "hidden agenda," boys and girls?
>
>No. The charter says no discussion of Neo-Tech or other off-topic subjects.
>The idea of message filters has been advanced in the past, but it is
>impractical. If a person does not follow the charter, then they will be
>banned. It is that simple, and there is no hidden agenda. The converse,
>"message filters", would simply lead to a goofy "word war" which could
>never be won.
Well this is comforting, in part. Let's see if it happens that way in reality.
>Paranoics won't be excluded on hpo, provided they stay on topic.
Which implies that someone will be excluded.
Well, we already have an idea of the categories of *things* that will be
banned, but I wonder if there already exists a list of *people* deemed to be
already excluded.
Is there such a list? If not, is there any consensus among the founders?
Who are the individuals whom you have already decided will be excluded from
hpo? Why not name them now, along with explanations of why they will be
excluded?
Since hpo does not yet exist, it cannot be said that these individuals
(assuming there are any) have violated the charter of hpo (since I doubt the
charter will set conditions on how people post to *other* groups).
So, then, an explanation of what other outside activities will cause an
individual to be banned from hpo would be most helpful for those still
undecided on how to vote (my vote will be YES).
Oh, yes, and will there be any mechanisms in place to investigate and seek out
such outside activities, assuming that outside activities will *ever* be
grounds for exclusion from hpo.
Matt Keys
[ typical E-Team ego-spout deleted ]
: So, keep in mind, if you are going to answer them or discuss with them,
: that it is not you they are talking to, but are making attempts to mislead
: innocent outsiders into thinking their cult has any relevance to those who
: will comprise the readership of the new group, and that they are being
: unfairly persecuted or singled out.
hmmm. Now I wonder since Brad thinks Neo-Tech is evil, and a joke,
and some kind of "cult", why would he and the others
create a new newsgroup *soley for the purpose* of keeping
out neo-tech posts? (read the charter closely to see that
this is the only reason the group is being formed)
Surely this is not the first full-scale "flame war" on
a.p.o. What is different
about neo-tech that bothers the E-Team so much? Why
could they not just ignore it like they do the other
"flame wars" on a.p.o?
Their excuse is "extreme net-abuse" which is a
bad cover up for the *real reason* they want
to eliminate *all* neo-tech posts. Stay tuned for the 3/19
agenda post which will shed light on the real reason why
Brad and the others cannot deal with the neo-tech ideas
by simply putting them in their killfile.
: NT is not merely wrong, it is evil. It is not merely misguided application
: of Objectivism (which reading NT/Zonpower literature must demonstrate is
: too absurdly nonsensical to be simple error). It is a new kind of cult
: which preys on the appetite of some for a Romantic view of existence, and a
: confused respect for reason and logic. That a cult could use Romanticism,
: reason and logic as *weapons of entrapment* and mind-control, has to be a
: new low in the sad history of cults.
Use of Pen Names? Neo-Tech a Cult?
One reason for using pen names is to protect the families and
employees of the writers from those emotionally disturbed by the
radical literature from Neo-Tech Publishing. But, the more
important reason for using many pen names, including no name
whenever possible, is to defuse any notion among the million
Neo-Tech readers that there are Neo-Tech leaders, gurus, or
authorities -- there are not.
Thus, author names are blurred so no "big" name guru is available
to focus upon. That fact is what makes those pips who rant about
Neo-Tech being a cult so ironic. Nothing is more the antithesis of
a cult than Neo-Tech Publishing, its owners, its writers and
editors. They are not leaders, gurus, or authorities to anyone --
nor will they be. They are writers, editors, and businesspeople.
As with most competitive businesspeople, the thought of stagnating
into leaders or authorities over anyone repulses them. They strive
to remain anonymous as much as possible in order to let their work
speak for itself while capturing more time to quietly, efficiently
move forward on their value-producing essences. No public
personalities exist at Neo-Tech Publishing. No media interviews or
speaking engagements are accepted. One of the main reasons the
profitable Neo-Tech Worldwide Summits were suspended in 1987 was
that too many attendees were looking up to the speakers as their
leaders and authorities. ...There are no Neo-Tech leaders or
authorities.
: There was a time when I thought NT/Zonpower was just a few innocent, highly
: misguided youths with some crazy ideas. But something this well organized
: and propagandized (check out their templates, "Neo-Tech Advantage #XX",
: on-line bible "Zonpower", etc. is NOT misguided hijinx. This is too -- well
: too -- organized and purposeful to be a couple of over-imaginative high
: school kids. This is someone with a purpose...
yeah, the purpose is to get rid of bogus leaders
and external authorities such as the E-Team leaders, and to bring an
Objectivist civilization to everyone.
: Believe in evil or be consumed by it. Just ask... (no, I won't say it.)
Believe in wimpish philosophising and total academic stagnation and
bogus objectivists or be consumed by it along with the E-Team.
Jim Klein
<be...@speicher.com> writes:
>> For instance, if I participate (assumming that I'm not programmed
>>out from the beginning), does the bot reject an article from me
>>because of the word Neo-Tech in the body of the post?
>
>Yes.
So, in other words, there'll be an "Objectivist" newsgroup which will
not allow the mention of an existent, specifically one which has
recently had tremendous relevance to the "Objectivist movement" (by
virtue of having instigated this whole issue in the first place)?
Do you find anything a bit contradictory in this notion?
jk
Jim Klein
>The Neo-Tech cult propagandists are employing a predictable technique,
>which hopefully everyone is aware of, but bears exposure: false
>elevation of NT to status of importance.
Your lack of objectivity is showing again. It's actually you and other
"Objectivists" who have elevated it to importance (though yes, it's
false). Look at what they have you doing...you have acceded the
majority of posts presently to discussions of NT and how to stop them.
As I mentioned to you previously, you have fallen for a trap.
>In essence, they are implying as hidden premises in their every post
>here, that NT is something of value and relevance, and that a
>newsgroup in which its discussion was banned would be a horrible place
>indeed...
It WOULD be a horrible place indeed, just as America is a horrible
place for not allowing folks like David Koresh to live here peacefully,
in spite of the nonsense he preached. But since you don't understand
that principles are more important than details, you probably won't get
this. Normally, I'd recommend Rand, but that clearly isn't the answer
here.
>In actual fact, NT is a load of irrational nonsense with a tiny
>handful of whacked-out, bug-eyed proponents and is of zero relevance
>or interest to rational men and women interested in Objectivism from
>any even plausibly rational viewpoint. I have no evidence that any
>legitimate admirers or critics of Rand have any interest in discussing
>it...
Thank you for admitting your illegitimacy as a Rand admirer. Unless
you're saying that you spend this much time discussing things which
don't interest you.
>NT is not merely wrong, it is evil.
This is correct, but because of what it does to INDIVIDUALS, not its
impact on groups like "Objectivists". Do you recall that principle,
individualism? As in, versus collectivism? As in, the primary point
of Objectivism?
>(check out their templates, "Neo-Tech Advantage #XX", on-line bible
>"Zonpower", etc. is NOT misguided hijinx.
"Zero interest", again?
>This is too -- well too -- organized and purposeful to be a couple of
>over-imaginative high school kids. This is someone with a purpose...
I told you the purpose...cash. You have no idea of the principles
involved, and why they work. The principles at work in NT are nothing
new; they've been done and re-done many times before, almost always
successfully. Again, usually I'd recommend Rand as a solid source for
understanding, but apparently the problem is too severe in present day
"Objectivists" for her to help. You have my condolences, and best
wishes for eventual understanding.
jk
Tony Donadio
: The proposal at hand makes a lot of sense for a mailing list. It does
: not make good sense for a newsgroup, where as a public forum there
: should be minimal restrictions on point of view.
There are not "restrictions on point of view" being proposed. The
restrictions being proposed are against net abuse. Restrictions on point
of view, and requirements that postings be TOPICAL and non-abusive, are
two very different things.
--
Tony * Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish
Donadio * to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for
* value. - Francisco D'Anconia, in ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand
Matt Keys
: The explicit banning has nothing to do with my disagreement with Neo-Tech;
: I explicitly disagree with socialists, anarchists, and all other kinds of
: people without wanting to ban them. The reason Neo-Tech is being banned
: explicitly is because they are recognized by the Usenet community--from
: alt.slack to rec.arts.books to alt.philosophy.objectivism and beyond--as
: net-abusers. Ideology has nothing to do with it, and I have nothing at
: all to say about the ideological beliefs of Neo-Tech. As far as I'm con-
: cerned, they have nothing to do with the debate.
for the REAL REASON Neo-Tech is banned from the new
h.p.o group, read the Neo-Tech Agenda Post coming
to a.p.o on 3/19.
Betsy Speicher
> This ia an attitude that's cropped up a few times in this RFD
> discussion. Is Neo-Tech actually *destructive* of Objectivism? Does
> that mean that Objectivism can be defeated by Neo-Tech???
Not at all. But Neo-Tech has done a lot of damage to alt.philosophy.
objectivism. They have wasted a lot of people's time and even driven
some good posters away from a.p.o.
Read the Head Zonnie's "Hostile Takeover Manifesto" on Tuesday and ask
yourself whether you want to limit yourself to only one Objectivist
group. If the Neo-Techers turn a.p.o. into a war zone, it might be
rather nice to have another newsgroup -- one with defenses against such
nonsense -- just in case.
thin...@netcom.com
BTW, do you have any idea why occasionally on a follow up post, the original
poster gets an email copy? How can that be prevented? Thanks to you or
anyone who can give me an answer. JF
thin...@netcom.com
RN, Thanks for putting a clear and honest focus on this issue through this and
other recent posts. Such posts provide groundwork for the OVERTHROW MANIFESTO
to be released on Tuesday, March 19, 1996. I think many opinions about Neo-Tech
and Objectivism will be radically changed after that post.
In article <4if8im$q...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <4if33a$7...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason
Kuznicki) wrote:
>>In article <ddfr-14039...@129.210.77.17>,
>> dd...@best.com (David Friedman) wrote:
>
>>>The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
>>>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>>>(sufficiently) disagree with.
>>
>>The explicit banning has nothing to do with my disagreement with Neo-Tech;
>>I explicitly disagree with socialists, anarchists, and all other kinds of
>>people without wanting to ban them. The reason Neo-Tech is being banned
>>explicitly is because they are recognized by the Usenet community--from
>>alt.slack to rec.arts.books to alt.philosophy.objectivism and beyond--as
>>net-abusers. Ideology has nothing to do with it, and I have nothing at
>>all to say about the ideological beliefs of Neo-Tech. As far as I'm con-
>>cerned, they have nothing to do with the debate.
>
>This really contains so many fallacies that it boggles the mind.
>
>Rather than pull up each individual weed, let's just get to the bottom of it.
>
>"Neo-Tech" is a concept, not an individual or a group. The staement: " The
>reason Neo-Tech is being banned explicitly is because they are recognized by
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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.
>
Steve Reed
>One thing I am still wondering about -- how does one find a NetAdmin-type
>person to serve as moderator? Will someone have to pay them? Will they
>volunteer to work for free? Why would an impartial NetAdmin wish to take
>on the job of supervising the moderator-bot, especially if he is a
>non-Objectivist who presumably has little interest in the topics on the
>group?
All are pertinent questions, for monitoring as to "off-topic" posts will take
time and knowledge of Objectivism. As others pointed out, cross-posting and
author blacklists can be automated (as well as text filters, which Speicher
contends are to be used on this newsgroup, though the RFD doesn't say so). But
reading posts for content is far more involved.
Unless, that is, the "scratching an itch" principle is used, wherein the
number and vehemence of complaints -- instead of their substance -- are the
criteria for "banning" some author address from the newsgroup.
>(Also, I don't know how other moderated newsgroups found their moderators,
>and whether most of those newsgroups are structured in such a way so that
>the moderator may not post to the group except for administrative matters.
>Can anyone enlighten me?)
Try reading some of the moderated-group RFDs in news.groups to see what's
being suggested. It's notable that most of these that I've seen call for a
small group of moderators or NetAdmin designators, not just one person. Many
that I've seen also don't exclude the moderator from substantive discussion.
Matt Keys
: : cerned, they have nothing to do with the debate.
: for the REAL REASON Neo-Tech is banned from the new
: h.p.o group, read the Neo-Tech Agenda Post coming
: to a.p.o on 3/19.
update: the real title for the upcoming
3/19 post is the "TAKEOVER MANIFESTO".
Steve Reed
>>The proposal at hand makes a lot of sense for a mailing list. It does
>>not make good sense for a newsgroup, where as a public forum there
>>should be minimal restrictions on point of view.
>There are not "restrictions on point of view" being proposed. The
>restrictions being proposed are against net abuse. Restrictions on point
>of view, and requirements that postings be TOPICAL and non-abusive, are
>two very different things.
Let's see, how is it conjugated?
I'm honestly speaking my mind.
You're not posting on the topic.
They're abusing the Net.
<sardonic grin>
You can slide around this all you want, but a blacklist based on particular
points of view is still a blacklist based on particular points of view.
frank forman
crawl through. I'm spending far more time on this subject than I ever
spent passing over Neo-Tech articles or later by killfiling them.
Anyhow, my thoughts on h.p.o.:
I see no reason why not, and I will certainly vote for it. It's free,
except for the time spent reading and responding. And it might be better
than a.p.o.
What many posters seem not to keep in mind is that h.p.o. is NOT a
replacement for a.p.o. Both will still exist. I can still read Neo-Tech
stuff on a.p.o. and occasional get-rich-quick schemes, too.
But I would definitely rethink the policy about rejecting all
cross-posting. Many cross-posts are a nuisance, it is true, and I just
add them to my killfiles. But I cross-post quite a bit myself and, I
fancy to think, to often good effect. I was responsbile for a thread that
is still going on occasionally after threee months or so on the subject
of free will: I read a think-piece by Joel Katz and posted it to eight or
so groups (some quite incorrectly. I also got a flame from the second
rudest poster on alt.logic telling me I was RUDE (in caps) posting to his
group, even though several alt.logicians joined in.)
And just a day or so ago, I spotted a post on alt.support.depression of
someone in search of a philosophy to live by. I thought you all here on
a.p.o. might have something to offer.
For my e-zine, _County Sovereignty_, I've roped in lots of left-wing
groups as well as right-wing groups. The leftists are being *very* quiet,
and that is significant.
I've roped in lawyers, economists, psychologists, anthropologists, other
philosophers, physicists, ...., to not all these on any one thread. And
sometimes I just add my Ayn Rand admirer friends when I'm reading other
Newsgroups to let you all know something about the world out there.
My big question, as opposed to this suggestion for reconsidering the
total ban on cross-posting, is whether I can continue to satirize the
Randian Inerrantists, including even referring to Ayn Rand's intellectual
heir as Dr. Pea Cough? Or need I walk with measured tread, gravely and
horribly, to say the same thing?
Frank
Martin Sandberg
jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) wrote:
I favor the creation of this group for a reason other than spam prevention.
As I understand it, the routing of all messages thru a single location
should cure the "reply to a message arriving before the message" problem
and make the threads much easier to follow.
The discussion of a philosophy will not be seriously impacted if messages
take a bit longer to post as well. Indeed, it can be argued that the
subject _requires_ more time and a slower pace to be properly done.
Please post replies to a.p.o as well as news.groups. Thanx!
Martin
Jim Klein
>And if it is the context of the ideas, then what is it that
>differentiates Kantian primacy of consciousness from alleged NT
>primacy of consciousness? What makes one form of this model
>appropriate for discussion while banning the other?
Presumably, a committee.
jk
Brad Aisa
>Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) writes:
>
>>someone [Neo-Techer] who advocated an ideology which was
>>completely incompatible with and destructive of Objectivism.
>
>This ia an attitude that's cropped up a few times in this RFD
>discussion. Is Neo-Tech actually *destructive* of Objectivism? Does
>that mean that Objectivism can be defeated by Neo-Tech???
Gresham's law applies to ideas as much as to money. Bad ideas, which are
*unopposed* can and do drive out good ideas. This is why mankind is in such
a mess today, because somewhat better (predominantly implicit) philosophic
ideas have been driven out by very bad ones, because the bad ones were
unopposed.
Given that NT is an egregiously flawed hodge-podge of unintegrated notions
that *claims* to be Objectivism, if it was not challenged, then actual
Objectivism would be displaced by it.
Those of us who take ideas seriously, and are unwilling to let a mutant
flea overpower a luminous philosophic Hurcules, are acting accordingly.
As I have pointed out innumerable times -- NT'ers have as much *political*
freedom of speech as anyone else. They have their forum. They can preach
their ideas to those who wish voluntarily to subscribe to their forum,
which the creation of this new forum does not hinder in the least. What
they won't have, is the right to parasitize on the value created by decent
Objectivists and other admirers of Ayn Rand, who have zero interest in the
Neo-Kooks. If Ms. Fanyo is fascinated by Neo-Tech, she should subscribe to
alt.neo-tech and discuss it there. If she wants to discuss Objectivism,
then she can discuss it on hpo.
Brad Aisa
mkwa...@ix.netcom.com(Mike Wahler ) wrote:
>In <4if95t$q...@nntp1.best.com> nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>>
>>
>>"Wide-open (with the exception of Neo-Tech)" is a blatant
>contradiction.
>>
>
>alt.humor, along with phrases like "what if there were no hypothetical
>situations?" :)
I am starting a new philosophy called Rando-Trekism. It is Objectivism, but
expanded to include the esthetics and important sociological discoveries of
Star Trek, such as The Prime Directive.
Now, ammend that phrase:
"Wide-open (with the exception of Neo-Tech and Rando-Trekism)"
Now, invent some other kooky hare-braned cult. Add it to the list. Etc.
The proper, *in-context* interpretation of that statement: was, "wide-open
with respect to anything plausibly related to Objectivism (with exception
to the annoyingly frequent, but obviously unrelated kind of abuses heaped
on the newsgroup so far, such as Neo-Tech)"
This group is about freedom of speech and association for those who wish to
assemble and associate for a peaceable, civilized purpose of their
choosing, without harrassment from those who they do not wish to associate
with, based on the fact the harrassers ARE harrassing, AND have absolutely
nothing of value or interest to supply to the nature of the forum.
The vote for h.p.o. is about freedom and rights and civility vs. anarchy
and chaos and the lowest abusive thugs controlling Usenet.
Please vote FOR humanities.philosophy.objectivism, and help set a positive
trend for freedom and rights of association on Usenet.
Who decides? Not the kooks. Tough. The kooks have their own groups.
Nicholas Rich
Ahhh, the dream of every lawyer....
The process of establishing infinite statutes to cover every conceivable
permutation.
Arising from...?
Pragmatism--an inability to define and apply principles.
Nicholas
In article <4ihe6p$c...@crl13.crl.com>, hsi...@crl.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
>
>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>>* If you believe Speicher (this is not part of the RFD), an automatic
>>text filter will remove any post that contains one of an undefined list of
>>phrases. The current contention is that this will be limited to Neo-Tech
>>phrases. But no word list, nor principle for choosing such words, has been
>>stated. Again, nothing prevents adding other words later.
>
>>In saying "nothing prevents" above, I mean it literally. Moderated groups
>>are dependent on the good graces and integrity of judgment of the
>>moderator, no matter what is included in the "charter." The appointment
>>power of the moderator is absolute -- here, it's solely Kuznicki's
>>judgement. The latter factor -does- tend to be respected by local system
>>administrators who carry a newsgroup feed.
>
>
>What if it were stated within the proposed group's charter that certain
>topics for discussion were considered acceptable? (For instance, posts
>defending David Kelley and the IOS or posts challenging Rand's arguments
>against minarchism.)
>
>If it were made explicit within the charter that posting on those topics was
>*not* grounds for exclusion (provided, of course, that it was not done as
>a form of spamming or other form of egregious net-abuse), would that
>sufficiently address your concerns?
>
>Although a neutral moderator could (theoretically) still program the bot
>to exclude posts that mentioned "Kelley" or "IOS", I believe the presence
>of such a clause in the charter would make that extremely unlikely. And
>if he were to do such a thing, the presence of the clause would make it
>clear to all observers (including the various local sys-admins) that the
>moderator had exceeded his legitimate authority.
>
>If you regard this as insufficient protection, then are there any other
>modifications that you might care to propose?
Jason Kuznicki
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason Kuznicki) wrote:
>
>>>[This is from memory, not verbatim:]
>>>
>>>The automoderator will be programmed and reprogrammed as necessary to
>>>exclude Neo-Tech. This would include whatever the moderator deemed
>>>necessary to exculde them, including a word-by-word text filter.
>>
>>a corollary, but not explicitly stated. My apologies.
>
>
>I'm sorry if this caused any confusion. I am glad Jason has returned
>(hopefully tanned and refreshed?? :-) ) to actually answer questions about
>this.
Glad to have cleared up the confusion. Note that the automoderator may
only be instructed to exclude on the basis of *Neo-Tech* keywords, not on
the basis of any other kind of keyword.
I welcome any other questions you may have, and I am currently interested
in seeing recommendations for the moderator. I have already asked Tim
Skirvin to consider it, but he has not yet responded.
Please post any nominations on the group and invite the individual in
question to e-mail me so that all of us may see the nominees. I'm open
to suggestions on this one, but when the final CFV goes out everyone will
know in advance who the moderator will be.
Hopefully we can get a consensus going (???).
As to the "tanned and refreshed," no, I spent my time in Cincinnati.
I did manage to do some interesting reading, though: Charles Darwin's
_Origin of Species_ and a really excellent book by CWRU physics professor
Lawrence Krauss, _The Physics of Star Trek_. I think I'm finally
starting to understand QM (at least a little bit). Anyway, I highly
recommend both.
Mike Wahler
>
>
>"Wide-open (with the exception of Neo-Tech)" is a blatant
contradiction.
>
No, no, no ... it's simply funny, that's all. You know, it belongs in
alt.humor, along with phrases like "what if there were no hypothetical
situations?" :)
-Mike
Jason Kuznicki
>>Since the moderator will not be on any side of the debates, but rather a
>>recognized sysadmin from outside the community, this individual will only
>>moderate for net-abuse, not for any ideological position. The moderator,
>>as I believe has been stated before, might as well be a Catholic priest,
>>provided that he can recognize net-abuse, get rid of it, and let the rest
>>of us debate.
>
>So who is this moderator going to be?
A very good question, and I admit that I didn't have a particular indiv-
idual in mind when I wrote the proposal. Do you have any suggestions?
Jason Kuznicki
>In article <4if33a$7...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, jt...@po.cwru.edu (Jason
Kuznicki) wrote:
>>In article <ddfr-14039...@129.210.77.17>,
>> dd...@best.com (David Friedman) wrote:
>
>>>The explicit banning of Neo-tech, while hardly surprising, suggests an
>>>approach open to the idea of banning ideas that Objectivists
>>>(sufficiently) disagree with.
>>
>>The explicit banning has nothing to do with my disagreement with Neo-Tech;
>>I explicitly disagree with socialists, anarchists, and all other kinds of
>>people without wanting to ban them. The reason Neo-Tech is being banned
>>explicitly is because they are recognized by the Usenet community--from
>>alt.slack to rec.arts.books to alt.philosophy.objectivism and beyond--as
>>net-abusers. Ideology has nothing to do with it, and I have nothing at
>>all to say about the ideological beliefs of Neo-Tech. As far as I'm con-
>
>
>Rather than pull up each individual weed, let's just get to the bottom of it.
>
>"Neo-Tech" is a concept, not an individual or a group.
I agree. As I have said to several people who have mailed me, Neo-Tech
as a concept is neither more nor less idiotic than many concepts that
are currently doing much better than it is.
The trouble starts when you folks start raving about "vanishing pips
in cyberspace" and posting your ludicrous templates. It is manifestly
obvious that one part of the Neo-Tech concept is organized, systematic
net-abuse. *As a concept* the members of the net community may act
to prevent this, at the conceptual level if necessary, by excluding you
from forums where your posts are considered inappropriate. H.P.O.
would be exactly this kind of forum, with an explicit declaration of
exactly why you and your kind are being excluded. Is the truth really
that hard to handle, Mr. "Fully Integrated Honesty?"
>The staement: " The
>reason Neo-Tech is being banned explicitly is because they are recognized by
>the Usenet community..." is nonsensical. *Who* is "Neo-Tech?" What's his/her
>email address, I'd like to send them some?
Noe-Tech is a cult. Its objectives include the "hostile takeover" (Big
Wally's words, not mine) of cyberspace. Calling the desire to commit
net abuse an "ideology" in no way gives it legitimacy. It doesn't get any
clearer than that.
>Let me say that I fully support putting a bot in place to filter out genuine
>net-abuse...*genuine* net-abuse, mind you.
Very well. Then you should have no problem with supporting a group whose
members have chosen to be free of Neo-Tech and who have decided that the
posting of any such material will be considered net abuse in the future
based on the egregious violations in the past.
>But saying that we have to ban the mere mention of the word because some
>mysterious (seemingly collective) entity has abused the net will absolutely
>fail any rational challenge. Bet on it.
It seems to be passing quite nicely, thanks.
>Another thing is that you guys are equivocating big-time. At first, the
>argument was that it was off-topic.
Neo-Tech *is* off-topic.
>When I and others demolished that one, in
>the context of a public forum,
You did no such thing.
>the argument has switched to some foggy notion of collective net-abuse.
You and your associates have spammed a.p.o. for over a year. Don't even
suggest that this is a borderline or uncertain case. It's hard to get
much more blatant than what your lot have done, and I'll tell you something
else: The public is catching on. The regulars of a.p.o. have been more
than patient with you, asked you to leave politely, and now are confronted
with the stated intention of the NT Publishing Company to stage a "hostile
takeover" which will, by everything I have read of it, constitute the most
blatant abuse yet seen.
You are calling this a "foggy notion" of net abuse? Please...
>When I pinned you down on why any NTer would be
>automatically excluded from the start, without ever violating the charter, it
>was added that the ban only appies to NTP owners/employees.
Read the charter again. The advocacy of NT is not allowed.
>When you've done that, I think you will really have accomplished something,
>and will have demonstrated to all that you are reasonable people who can be
>persuaded by rational argument, and are willing to do everything necessary to
>demonstrate that what underlies hpo is principle and not agenda.
I have yet to see a rational argument from you, so I doubt that you are in
a position to make such an assessment.
Brad Aisa
>Is Jason a Pea Cougher himself? Are all the Pea Coughers supporting
>h.p.o.? I know Betsy, Tony, and Brad are such and they support h.p.o.,
>but I don't know about the others. Please ask them (I'm in the killfiles
>of all three) whether they would be supporting an h.p.o. if some dreaded
>Tolerationist had come up with the idea first.
This is too loaded and speculative to answer.
It is irresponsible and wrong to accuse Objectivists who uphold the notions
of one reality and objective truth, of being "intolerant" -- which is
just a code for the fact that they don't accept false ideas as true or
intellectually dishonest scoundrels as intellectuals.
There is a fundamental difference between upholding and defending proven
truths, and mindlessly crusading for religious dogma -- a distinction the
detractors of Objectivists try to wipe out.
The new group HPO is not an owned association controlled by a board,
therefore, there is no issue involved of sanctioning the ideas of others.
That is why those of us who consider it important to appraise the character
and ideas of those we associate with, are quite willing to sponsor this
venture. Since we are not sanctioning the ideas of particular people who
will contribute, it is moral for us to promote this forum, and disingenuous
for anyone to suggest there is some other purpose, when in fact the only
goal is the one stated: creating a new forum free of Neo-Kook,
crossposting, and arTHra or facsimiles.
Matt Keys
: I am starting a new philosophy called Rando-Trekism. It is Objectivism, but
: expanded to include the esthetics and important sociological discoveries of
: Star Trek, such as The Prime Directive.
: Now, ammend that phrase:
: "Wide-open (with the exception of Neo-Tech and Rando-Trekism)"
"wide-open" -- with the exception of any idea that
threatens the E-Teams ego's and their status
as bogus objectivism leaders.
: The vote for h.p.o. is about freedom and rights and civility vs. anarchy
: and chaos and the lowest abusive thugs controlling Usenet.
Get this! you are now a "thug" if you post something
that relates directly to Objectivism, but threatens
the fragile ego's of the E-Team! what a joke.
it posts like this that make Brad shine out
as an example of a true bogus objectivist.
: Please vote FOR humanities.philosophy.objectivism, and help set a positive
: trend for freedom and rights of association on Usenet.
"Freedom and rights" according to the E-Team that is. In other
words, if Brad decides you are not supporting his version
of "fredom and rights" with your posts, you will be banned from
the new group h.p.o.
It is a slap in the face of any rational people on this
group for Brad and the E-Team to say this new group
will be a "wipe open discussion of Objectivism". It certainly
will not be that. It will be a newsgroup controlled
by Brad, Betsy, and Tony, and they will censor anyone
they wish. By what standard does the E-Team decide
to exclude a group of people: if it is "kooky" to them,
then it will be excluded. What does that mean?
It means anything that threatens their status as bogus
objectivist leaders will not be allowed on the new group.
In other words, h.p.o will be run by and for "Objectivist
Hereos".
Objectivist Heroes
Pseudo objectivists frantically trying to flame fully integrated
honesty off the Internet anxiously flatter one another as
"Objectivist Heroes" defending the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Thirty years ago, those kind of heroes were the desperate
hangers-on in the Branden/Rand lectures of the 1960s in New York
City. Back then, they were characterized by their capes and
cigarette holders. They were the sycophantic defenders of their
ego facades leached from Ayn Rand's monumental achievement:
Objectivism. Throughout the years, such Objectivists have remained
the biggest impediment to advancing Objectivist philosophy around
the world.
Today, those ersatz Objectivists are panicking. And why not? After
30 years of faking heroic Galtisms and shrugging Atlases, they are
being revealed in cyberspace as contradictions to everything
Objectivism means in living competitively, honestly, and happily
through business-like modes. Similarly, in cyberspace, fully
integrated honesty is exposing the fakeries and dishonesties of
politicians and many government-dependent academics.
...Eventually, all such fakes will disappear as nothing in
cyberspace.
Such pseudo Objectivists appear as sad, boring people. They are
basically immature, kind of pitiful. Today, as back then, perhaps
not a single, self-made businessperson or really successful
entrepreneur exists among them. How many are really excited about
what they do for a living? How many are genuinely proud of their
competitiveness -- of their value-producing competence? Most have
no idea of the incredibly difficult journey required to
independently produce long-range, competitive values and jobs for
others. Ayn Rand knew. But, most of her dependent followers never
knew.
Today, on the Internet, some of the most immature, dependent
Randians seem to be on edu lines, perhaps living off some kind of
public funds with lots of idle time on their hands. They can never
acknowledge the wide-scope Objectivist nature of fully integrated
honesty. For, that wide-scope use of Objectivism through the
competitive dynamics of Neo-Tech reveals stimulating powers beyond
any imagined god -- exciting powers possible for all conscious
beings. Such competitive dynamics become illusion-collapsing
threats to ego-dependent followers of Objectivism -- especially
those living stagnant lives that are going nowhere.
What are those "Objectivist Heroes" harping about? What do they do
besides tear down values? What do they do constructively? Have any
of them ever made the excruciating effort or borne the racking
pain oft required to do anything really important, to take big
risks for big payoffs, to alone face down dangerous armed evil in
the real world, or even to build and maintain a business that
creates competitive values and jobs for others?
Many who attack fully integrated honesty are trying to inflate
their shrunken self-images by creating problems where none exist.
One should always ask those who tear down values what they have
done to make themselves proud of their lives -- what they have
done to produce growing, long-term competitive values for
themselves, others, and society. Today, such people might be
called wimps. Ayn Rand had a better word: pip-squeaks.
In reality, Objectivism never needs defending. Moreover, only
commercially competitive efforts increase the permanent,
long-range value of Objectivism to civilization. And finally,
Neo-Tech has never attacked a single tenet of Objectivism.
Instead, Neo-Tech vigorously applies and commercially advances
every tenet of Objectivism throughout the world.
By contrast, those ego-seeking pontificators of Objectivism
unnecessarily waste their lives on nothing much. Most never
discover their exciting, glorious potential in the value-producing
business dynamics throughout cyberspace. ...Yet, the helping hand
of Neo-Tech is always extended. Still, from Neo-Tech, no leader,
guru, or authority is available for anyone to follow, obey, or
defend. Only fully integrated honesty with its wide-scope
integrations is available for all to understand, use, and produce
prosperity.
The contributors to Neo-Tech integrations, not the flamers of
Neo-Tech, are genuine Objectivists. More important, only through
Neo-Tech business modes is Objectivism pushed forward, into the
competitive market place, bringing integrated honesty and exciting
Objectivism to the general public worldwide.