HPO Passes!
Jimmy Pena
Hello all,
There's something I wanted to say about the new group. First, to
thank everyone who voted YES. Thank you for reaffirming the belief that
individuals have the right to associate to the exclusion of those who
they do not wish to deal with. Thank you for providing us with a
(relatively, compared to a.p.o) noise-free newsgroup, with which to
discuss Objectivism without irrelevant crossposting from other groups.
And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk well
enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to my killfile.
... Force works on servile natures, not the free. - Ben Jonson
--
Jimmy Pena - ji...@walrus.com
Steve Reed
ji...@news.walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) writes:
>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk well
>enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to my killfile.
So much for showing a dedication to honest inquiry and open debate. I thought
the flatulent attitudes above would be held in abeyance for at least 12 hours
after the vote was announced. Silly me.
I look forward to seeing the complaints to Skirvin you and others will be
making about us 46, in order to get us banned. Since that will take up at
least half the message volume of the new newsgroup, that will cut down the
volume of substantive posts to peruse, quite nicely.
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Billy Beck
jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>ji...@news.walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) writes:
>>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk well
>>enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to my killfile.
>So much for showing a dedication to honest inquiry and open debate. I thought
>the flatulent attitudes above would be held in abeyance for at least 12 hours
>after the vote was announced. Silly me.
I know. It sorta made me ashamed that I'd voted for it.
It's cool.
I intend to make up for it.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 4/16/96
Phil Oliver
In article <4p889h$o...@walrus1.walrus.com>, ji...@news.walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:
>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk well
>enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to my killfile.
I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in justice.
Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO on
h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created, they shouldn't
benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
Phil Oliver
Jimmy Pena
Phil Oliver (ph...@iquest.net) wrote:
: I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in
:justice.
: Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO on
: h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created, they
: shouldn't benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
Something similar to this was considered, but it was removed from
the original charter. I think that those who have nothing to contribute
will do the same thing on HPO that they already do; attack from the
fringe, with no real argument. Should they choose to violate the charter,
they will remove themselves.
Steve Reed
>>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk
>>well enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to
>>my killfile.
>I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in justice.
>Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO
>on h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created, they
>shouldn't benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
More of Phil's own long-standing flatulence. If he'd bothered to read the CFV,
he would have seen this line:
>No specific individuals shall be excluded from h.p.o., save as
>their behavior on the forum itself warrants.
His petulance makes him forget the rules he himself supported by a "yes" vote.
This provision was changed from the initial RFD, to omit an initial blacklist
or "reject file," at the vocal complaint of many people to the initial RFD.
In any event, many individuals dislike the entire idea of a moderator, period,
quite apart from any explicit advance rules -- partly because a moderator can
pretty nearly toss out any such rules, and little can be done about it.
I said three months ago that the Shi'ites wanted this newsgroup in order to
have another public cloister, with exclusionary games about dissenters. Do
some of you believe me now? Phil's letting the proverbial cat out of the
h.p.o bag, and it isn't even in operation yet.
er...@SUNDIAL.NET (Eric Juttelstad) writes about this:
>can silly people like these also go into the "reject" file?
<grin> They can, and ought to, if one has a selective newsreader or killfile.
And they're needed. Because these people will certainly infest the new h.p.o.
Nicholas Rich
In article <4pn2n0$s...@epx.cis.umn.edu>, Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>er...@SUNDIAL.NET (Eric Juttelstad) wrote:
>
>>> I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in
>>> justice.
>>>
>>> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO
>>> on h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created,
>>> they shouldn't
>>> benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
>>>
>>
>>can silly people like these also go into the "reject" file?
>>
>
>How is Mr. Oliver's suggestion silly? What values could someone who is
>interested in a serious, moderated discussion of Objectivism gain from
>people who opposed the creation of the moderated forum?
>For that matter, why would anyone who voted no want to use HPO anyway?
>If anything, the ban would prevent them wasting their time--from wasting
>their time on a forum which they think has negative value. I'm all for
>the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
Steve Reed:
Wasn't there a prediction by you somewhere along these lines?
--
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble
nr...@ss-n.com a...@ss-n.com
Take the legal system away from the lawyers - http://www.ss-n.com
(and make money doing it - http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.htm)
"We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you."
-- Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED
Lionell Griffith
er...@SUNDIAL.NET (Eric Juttelstad) wrote:
>In article <Dso6x...@iquest.net>,
> ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) wrote:
>>In article <4p889h$o...@walrus1.walrus.com>, ji...@news.walrus.com
>(Jimmy Pena) wrote:
>>>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk
>>>well enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to
>>>my killfile.
>>
>> I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in
>> justice.
>>
>> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO
>> on h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created,
>> they shouldn't
>> benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
>>
>> Phil Oliver
>can silly people like these also go into the "reject" file?
>ej
I suggest that we follow a well tested and effective method of
management.
The first violation of policy is due to management not making the
policy clear. So, the violator is instructed as to his error and
is encouraged to do better.
The second violation of policy is partly due to management not
making the policy clear and the violator ignoring his instruction.
So, the violator is further instructed as to his error, encouraged
to do better, and warned that the next time he violates policy, he
is out.
The third violation of policy is totaly due to the violator ignoring
policy. So, off with his head! Fire the bastard! Cut him off at the
pass! Put him in the kill file.
Please note that this method totally begs the question of the validity
of the policy. Most managerial policy IS stupid, hammer-headed,
anti-productive, short-sighted, and a failure (see Dilbert). Yet this
method is quite effective in its enforcement.
Paul Hsieh
[Regarding Phil Oliver's suggestion of placing all those who voted
against the h.p.o. proposal on the initial ban list,]
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>If anything, the ban would prevent them wasting their time--from wasting
>their time on a forum which they think has negative value. I'm all for
>the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.
The charter of h.p.o. stated explicitly that no one was to be banned
unless they behaved inappropriately *on that new group*.
I'm all for implementing the charter *exactly* as was worded in the CFV
(and as was approved by the majority of voters). It would be wrong to
take any such action that was so blatantly against the original terms of
the charter, and I'm surprised that anyone would advocate such a thing.
Certainly, if the moderator implemented Mr. Oliver's suggestion, it would
be a major betrayal of the trust placed in him by those who voted "yes"
for the h.p.o. charter. Fortunately, I am confident that the moderator
will do the right thing and implement the initial ban list as was
specified in the CFV.
(Of course, if anyone persistently engages in spamming, net-abuse, or
other clear-cut violations of the h.p.o. charter *on the new h.p.o.*, then
he *should* be banned. This is provided for by the charter and should be
done regardless of whether he voted "yes" or "no" on the original CFV.
His vote prior to the formation of the group should have no effect on the
decision of whether to ban him or not for his actions on h.p.o.)
==================== ~~~ *** ~~
|| || * * ~ ~~
|| Paul S. Hsieh || /\ ** ** _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || _ | | ** ** __ | |
|| || __| |__|__|__ ** ** | |___| |
==================== | | | | ** ** | | | |
Jeffrey Haber
er...@SUNDIAL.NET (Eric Juttelstad) wrote:
>> I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in
>> justice.
>>
>> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO
>> on h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created,
>> they shouldn't
>> benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
>>
>> Phil Oliver
>
>can silly people like these also go into the "reject" file?
>
>ej
How is Mr. Oliver's suggestion silly? What values could someone who is
interested in a serious, moderated discussion of Objectivism gain from
people who opposed the creation of the moderated forum?
For that matter, why would anyone who voted no want to use HPO anyway?
If anything, the ban would prevent them wasting their time--from wasting
their time on a forum which they think has negative value. I'm all for
the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
Jeffrey Haber
Ed Matthews
On 12 Jun 1996, Paul Hsieh wrote:
> [Regarding Phil Oliver's suggestion of placing all those who voted
> against the h.p.o. proposal on the initial ban list,]
>
> I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.
>
So must I. I think the charter should have included Mr. Oliver's
suggestion. However, the charter that was passed is the one that we need
to stick with. I agree with Paul's point that any subsequent abuse by
those people is ample reason to ban them from h.p.o. Let's not pass more
rules than necessary.
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Nicholas Rich
>I'm all for implementing the charter *exactly* as was worded in the CFV
>(and as was approved by the majority of voters). It would be wrong to
>take any such action that was so blatantly against the original terms of
>the charter, and I'm surprised that anyone would advocate such a thing.
Are you really that surprised Paul, or just using a figure of speech? You're a
sharp guy.
This was predicted explicitly, by Steve Reed and perhaps others, long ago. The
formulation of the prediction, essentially, is that once a banning mechanism
is in place, banning individuals will be a consistent theme.
It was inevitable.
And it began even before the cooling off of the voting booths.
Ernest Brown
On 12 Jun 1996, Jeffrey Haber wrote:
> For that matter, why would anyone who voted no want to use HPO anyway?
> If anything, the ban would prevent them wasting their time--from wasting
> their time on a forum which they think has negative value. I'm all for
> the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
Well, the principle objection of the "no" voters, as I recall, was that
there would be an exclusionist mentality that would result in HPO being a
cultic waste of time and that those who disagreed with Objectivist
"orthodoxy" would be eliminated for mere disagreement with Rand.
It is so nice to see that their fears were totally unjustified.
<SNARF>
E. Brown
John Alway
Ernest Brown wrote:
> On 12 Jun 1996, Jeffrey Haber wrote:
> > For that matter, why would anyone who voted no want to use HPO anyway?
> > If anything, the ban would prevent them wasting their time--from wasting
> > their time on a forum which they think has negative value. I'm all for
> > the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
I think we have to stick with the charter which people
voted on, otherwise the voting wouldn't be valid.
> Well, the principle objection of the "no" voters, as I recall, was that
> there would be an exclusionist mentality that would result in HPO being a
> cultic waste of time and that those who disagreed with Objectivist
> "orthodoxy" would be eliminated for mere disagreement with Rand.
> It is so nice to see that their fears were totally unjustified.
> <SNARF>
h.p.o. is an additional newsgroup among many, which I see
as a means to getting more focused discussions of objectivism.
I think that's a value. Afterall, the news group doesn't
threaten anyone in any way, and, in fact, *increases* the
opportunities for interesting discussions. Why? Because
you can still participate in a.p.o. along with the many
other ngs on USENET, not to mention all of the other forums
available in life.
Even if h.p.o. allowed only two people, I wouldn't
care, because it would effect me not one wit. However,
the way it is set up now I think it has a good chance to
be beneficial, and maybe it'll attract some new and
interesting people. Only time will tell.
Tempest in a teapot.
I'm looking forward to the new group.
...John
--
___________________________________________________________________
\_The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is Reason._\
/_I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.__________/
\_____________________________________________________Thomas Paine_\
/__John Alway jal...@icsi.net______________________________________/
frank forman
>How is Mr. Oliver's suggestion silly? What values could someone who is
>interested in a serious, moderated discussion of Objectivism gain from
>people who opposed the creation of the moderated forum?
>If anything, the ban would prevent them wasting their time--from wasting
>their time on a forum which they think has negative value. I'm all for
>the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
I presume you didn't intend to have the first "moderated" in your second
sentence.
You apparently didn't get my answer: Killfiles are easy for *me* to set
up, though I'd have to set one up for two groups, since I will be
participating in both. (I'll be killfiling threads in h.p.o. after hey
have outlived their usefulness. There is NO Newgroup where this does not
happen.) On the other hand, I'll probably be spending a lot of time
repeating myself on the new group. So, which factor outweighs the other?
Another thing *against* h.p.o. is those who abandon a.p.o. won't get the
benefit of dissenting voices from other Newsgroups. For instance, I got
off onto talking about Ayn Rand's concept of definition. I have serious
problems with it. So I asked how a mammal is defined and cross-posted it
to sci.bio.systematics. I don't think Objectivists will be able to defend
Ayn Rand's concept from the biologists.
Since reality is more important than what Ayn Rand taught, I'm doing a
real service to Objectivists who want to remain objective. But I could be
wrong: there could be an adequate response to the biologists from the
Objectivists. But if the person or persons who could supply this response
has abandoned a.p.o., *he* will not have the sastisfaction of overcoming
an objection to Objectivism, and *I* won't learn of it either.
I say that meeting challenges, or else modifying one's views even to the
extent of abandoning Objectivism, is WORTH the effort of having to
killfile or otherwise pass over irrelevant postings.
Alas, I was mixed on whether having to repeat myself overrode some real
advantages of h.p.o.--you're asking for the disadvantages--so I never
made up my mind and voted. But now I think I would have voted against it,
since I want to give Objectivists every opportunity to answer problems I
have with it.
Is my answer satisfactory to you? I mean have I succeeded in giving some
valid reasons why h.p.o. might not be a good idea?
Frank
frank forman
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960612144635.15086A-100000@gladstone>,
Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>On 12 Jun 1996, Paul Hsieh wrote:
>
>> [Regarding Phil Oliver's suggestion of placing all those who voted
>> against the h.p.o. proposal on the initial ban list,]
Shame on everybody if they think Phil wanted the NO voters to be banned
from h.p.o. He merely thought they *should not* participate and have, I
take it, the decency to stay away.
Well, shame on me if Phil really wanted them banned. It was I that was
not paying attention!
Frank
Brad Aisa
jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>I look forward to seeing the complaints to Skirvin you and others will be
>making about us 46, in order to get us banned. Since that will take up at
>least half the message volume of the new newsgroup, that will cut down the
>volume of substantive posts to peruse, quite nicely.
I think everyone associated with this process recognized that there would
be a dishonorable few who, unable to prevent this peaceable
rights-respecting (and I might add reputable) association through the
ballot, would then adopt the methods of hooligans, or elsewise refuse to
respect the charter, in order to continue to harrass the overwhelming
majority of decent people who will make up the readership and active
posters of hpo.
I choose not to participate in a great many organizations and associations
whose basic premises I do not consider proper to sanction. In these cases,
I demonstrate my respect for the rights of others, even those with whom I
disagree, to exercise their rights without harrassment.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@tor.hookup.net> http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Jimmy Pena
Brad Aisa (ba...@tor.hookup.net) wrote:
: I think everyone associated with this process recognized that there would
: be a dishonorable few who, unable to prevent this peaceable
: rights-respecting (and I might add reputable) association through the
: ballot, would then adopt the methods of hooligans, or elsewise refuse to
: respect the charter, in order to continue to harrass the overwhelming
: majority of decent people who will make up the readership and active
: posters of hpo.
You know what the killer thing is? No matter how many times they
violate the charter, should they do so, they'll complain about being
excluded for some "other" purpose, such as for voting NO or because we
never liked them and were looking for an "excuse" to drop them.
Tim Starr
In article <Dso6x...@iquest.net>, Phil Oliver <ph...@iquest.net> wrote:
>In article <4p889h$o...@walrus1.walrus.com>, ji...@news.walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:
>>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk well
>>enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to my killfile.
>
>
> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO on
>h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created, they shouldn't
>benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
Never mind the fact that this bit of retrospective "justice" would constitute
a gross violation of the group's charter, eh?
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org
http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
>
>>> I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in
>>> justice.
>>>
>>> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO
>>> on h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created,
>>> they shouldn't
>>> benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
>>>
>>
>>can silly people like these also go into the "reject" file?
>>
>>ej
>
If his proposal for a retrospective purge isn't a reductio ad absurdum of
hippo, then I don't know what is.
>...What values could someone who is
>interested in a serious, moderated discussion of Objectivism gain from
>people who opposed the creation of the moderated forum?
You could learn something from them - either something they're right about,
or something they're wrong about which is thought-provoking enough to lead
you to find out what the right alternative is.
>For that matter, why would anyone who voted no want to use HPO anyway?
Perhaps to say "I told you so," when their predictions about it come true?
>I'm all for the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
Ah, yes: "Damn the charter! Burn the heretics!"
Keep it up, you're exposing the real motives underlying the creation of
hippo.
Steve Reed
ba...@tor.hookup.net (Brad Aisa) writes:
>jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote to someone else,
>about those who voted "no" on h.p.o:
>>I look forward to seeing the complaints to Skirvin you and others will be
>>making about us 46, in order to get us banned. Since that will take up at
>>least half the message volume of the new newsgroup, that will cut down the
>>volume of substantive posts to peruse, quite nicely.
>I think everyone associated with this process recognized that there
>would be a dishonorable few who, unable to prevent this peaceable
>rights-respecting (and I might add reputable) association through the
>ballot, would then adopt the methods of hooligans, or elsewise refuse to
>respect the charter, in order to continue to harrass the overwhelming
>majority of decent people who will make up the readership and active
>posters of hpo.
Your elliptical sentences are now obscuring their target, Brad, but I surmise
from this that, it being a reply to me, you're including my comment above in
the actions of "hooligans." Well, I'm not sure that you ever were exposed to
the concept of sarcasm -- you write with too much bluster to notice it -- but
my comment in that vein above already bears fruit. As did my prediction of
three months ago.
H.p.o isn't even activated yet, and already Oliver and Haber have called for
pressing a blacklist upon the moderator, consisting of those who voted "no."
That doesn't "respect the charter." Where's your puffing about them?
>I choose not to participate in a great many organizations and associations
>whose basic premises I do not consider proper to sanction. In these cases,
>I demonstrate my respect for the rights of others, even those with whom I
>disagree, to exercise their rights without harrassment.
Bully for you. If you are saying that my commentary constitutes "harrassing"
you and others, be honest enough to come out and say so. (And show for all
concerned just how truly thin-skinned you are.) If that's not what you're
saying, drop the elliptical style and say what you mean.
Jeffrey Haber
hsi...@crl.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
>I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.
>
>The charter of h.p.o. stated explicitly that no one was to be banned
>unless they behaved inappropriately *on that new group*.
>
>I'm all for implementing the charter *exactly* as was worded in the CFV
>(and as was approved by the majority of voters). It would be wrong to
>take any such action that was so blatantly against the original terms of
>the charter, and I'm surprised that anyone would advocate such a thing.
I was unaware of that, and on the basis of this knowledge which is new to me I am retracting what I said in that first post.
Jeffrey Haber
Tom Scheeler
heroic!
Now, there are a whole slew of leftists out there who...
Tom
"Reason is man's tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to
perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in
accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of
cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely
tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are
the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic
premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which
may be right or wrong. A whim is an emotion whose cause you neither
know nor care to discover. Now what does it mean to act on whim?
It means that a man acts like a zombi, without any knowledge of what
he deals with, what he wants to accomplish, or what motivates him.
It means that a man acts in a state of temporary insanity. Is this
what you call juicy or colorful? I think the only juice that can come
out of such a situation is blood. To act against the facts of reality
can result only in destruction." --- Ayn Rand 1964 March interview by
Alvin Toffler for _Playboy_
Jeffrey Haber
(This is somewhat of a repost since my first post ran the full length
of a webpage's width, at least with my Netscape reader.)
I was unaware that the HPO charter said that no one was to be banned
unless they misbehaved specifically on HPO. Given this new knowledge,
I am retracting my previous post which seconded Phil Oliver's
suggestion that those who voted "no" on HPO should be banned. It would
be nice, though, if such a provision were in the HPO charter.
Jeffrey Haber
Tim Starr
In article <4ppr6f$n...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>(This is somewhat of a repost since my first post ran the full length
>of a webpage's width, at least with my Netscape reader.)
>
>I was unaware that the HPO charter said that no one was to be banned
>unless they misbehaved specifically on HPO. Given this new knowledge,
>I am retracting my previous post which seconded Phil Oliver's
>suggestion that those who voted "no" on HPO should be banned.
Good.
>It would be nice, though, if such a provision were in the HPO charter.
Why?
BTW, just for the record, I didn't vote either way on hippo, just like I
didn't vote either way on a.p.o. I never thought a.p.o. would pass, & I
thought hippo was a bad idea but didn't care enough about it to vote
against it.
I'm just having a great time watching the spectacle of the victors quarreling
over the spoils. It's so revealing of their true motives.
Nicholas Rich
In article <4ppr6f$n...@epx.cis.umn.edu>, Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>(This is somewhat of a repost since my first post ran the full length
>of a webpage's width, at least with my Netscape reader.)
>
>I was unaware that the HPO charter said that no one was to be banned
>unless they misbehaved specifically on HPO. Given this new knowledge,
>I am retracting my previous post which seconded Phil Oliver's
>be nice, though, if such a provision were in the HPO charter.
Oh, yeah. That would have been a cool charter.
"Everyone who votes NO to this charter will be registered in the initial ignor
file."
I believe that would have guaranteed an almost unanimous NO vote, except for
*perhaps* 3 or 4 individuals I can think of.
Betsy Speicher
Paul Hsieh <hsi...@crl.com> wrote:
> I'm all for implementing the charter *exactly* as was worded in the CFV
> (and as was approved by the majority of voters). It would be wrong to
> take any such action that was so blatantly against the original terms of
> the charter, and I'm surprised that anyone would advocate such a thing.
I agree 100%.
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)
Billy Beck
ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) wrote:
>In article <4p889h$o...@walrus1.walrus.com>, ji...@news.walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:
>>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk well
>>enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to my killfile.
> I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in justice.
> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO on
>h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created, they shouldn't
>benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
I wonder if Mr. Skirvin now has sufficient cause to reflect on
precisely what it is that he has involved himself with.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
"Anthology"
Matt Keys
Nicholas Rich (nr...@ss-n.com) wrote:
: Oh, yeah. That would have been a cool charter.
: "Everyone who votes NO to this charter will be registered in the initial ignor
: file."
: I believe that would have guaranteed an almost unanimous NO vote, except for
: *perhaps* 3 or 4 individuals I can think of.
hmmm. who could that be?....the most objective people
anywhere?......the fearless leaders of a.p.o who
started hippo to silence their critics?......
....yup you guessed it... THE E-TEAM!!!
--
Neo-Tech Objectivism http://www.neo-tech.com/prosperity/
Neo-Tech: Get Rich By 2001 http://www.neo-tech.com/world/
Ernest Brown
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, John Alway wrote:
(comments snipped, for space reasons and because Haber
misunderstood the charter)
> Even if h.p.o. allowed only two people, I wouldn't
> care, because it would effect me not one wit. However,
> the way it is set up now I think it has a good chance to
> be beneficial, and maybe it'll attract some new and
> interesting people. Only time will tell.
>
> Tempest in a teapot.
>
> I'm looking forward to the new group.
I am as well. If I hadn't lost my ballot in a data crash on my server (I
had too many darn saved messages, and it won't let me scrollback) I would
have voted YES as well. Unlike Steve Reed and his fellow dissenters, I
think that even if it was nothing but an "isolation ward" for so-called
"Shiite Objectivists" it would still have value, if only in the negative
sense of getting those uninterested in talking with non-Objectivists off
of APO onto their own newsgroup.
Ernie
Paul Hsieh
I, Paul Hsieh <hsi...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>>The charter of h.p.o. stated explicitly that no one was to be banned
>>unless they behaved inappropriately *on that new group*.
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>I was unaware of that, and on the basis of this knowledge which is new to
>me I am retracting what I said in that first post.
It's not always easy to make a public acknowledgement of one's error, and
I respect you for having the integrity to do so.
However, I must confess some surprise that you were previously unaware of
the terms in the charter specifying how the ban list was to be
implemented.
After all, the whole point of moderating h.p.o. was to have an effective
mechanism by which inappropriate posts could be screened out by the
auto-moderator (and/or human moderator), with formal banning as the final
"big gun" that the human moderator had at his disposal to use against
anyone who persistently violated the charter.
Hence, I was keenly interested in the *exact* rules that the
auto-moderator and human moderator would use to exclude individual posts
and posters. I regarded them as the heart and soul of the charter, and
the key to making h.p.o. into what I anticipate will be an excellent
newsgroup. It was clearly in my self-interest to make sure that the
moderation/banning rules were consonant with this goal, and were neither
too lenient nor too strict.
I would not have voted "yes" for h.p.o. unless I had read the rules and
found them satisfactory (any more than I would have signed a business
contract unless I had found the terms satisfactory).
I assumed that any other intelligent h.p.o. supporter would have done the
same. Hence my surprise at your error.
=============================== =============================
// ________ ________ ___ ___ // //
// / ___ // _____// /_/ / // Paul S. Hsieh //
// / _____//_____ // __ / // <hsi...@crl.com> //
// /__/ /_______//__/ /__/ // <hs...@mirlink.wustl.edu> //
// // //
=============================== =============================
Jimmy Wales
Jeffrey Haber has retracted his support for this suggestion for the reason
that he had not realized the content of the charter. But I think he
should retract it for another reason. Phil's suggestion was wrong,
*period*.
>How is Mr. Oliver's suggestion silly? What values could someone who is
>interested in a serious, moderated discussion of Objectivism gain from
>people who opposed the creation of the moderated forum?
Some people may have voted no in opposition to *specific* points in
the charter. (This seems to be the case for more than a few of the
prominent opponents.) But even barring that, this is *surely* the
sort of issue about which reasonable and honest people may disagree.
The simple fact that someone voted "no" should not lead to the automatic
conclusion that there is *no value* to be gained from talking to them.
These and related issues are at the *heart* of the Kelley/Peikoff debate.
--Jimbo
Lionell Griffith
If HPO is going to be so much a wasteland, don't participate.
That will show them.
Just think, it will get only ten or twenty postings a day
instead of the 200 to 300 that apo gets. Oh well, apo makes
up in quantity for what it lacks in quality.
tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>In article <4pn2n0$s...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
>Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>>er...@SUNDIAL.NET (Eric Juttelstad) wrote:
>>
>>>> I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in
>>>> justice.
>>>>
>>>> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO
>>>> on h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created,
>>>> they shouldn't
>>>> benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
>>>>
>>>> Phil Oliver
>>>
>>>can silly people like these also go into the "reject" file?
>>>
>>>ej
>>
>>How is Mr. Oliver's suggestion silly?
>If his proposal for a retrospective purge isn't a reductio ad absurdum of
>hippo, then I don't know what is.
>>...What values could someone who is
>>interested in a serious, moderated discussion of Objectivism gain from
>>people who opposed the creation of the moderated forum?
>You could learn something from them - either something they're right about,
>or something they're wrong about which is thought-provoking enough to lead
>you to find out what the right alternative is.
>>For that matter, why would anyone who voted no want to use HPO anyway?
>Perhaps to say "I told you so," when their predictions about it come true?
>>I'm all for the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
>Ah, yes: "Damn the charter! Burn the heretics!"
>Keep it up, you're exposing the real motives underlying the creation of
>hippo.
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Jimmy Pena
Jimmy Wales (jwa...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: the charter. (This seems to be the case for more than a few of the
: prominent opponents.) But even barring that, this is *surely* the
: sort of issue about which reasonable and honest people may disagree.
: The simple fact that someone voted "no" should not lead to the automatic
: conclusion that there is *no value* to be gained from talking to them.
: These and related issues are at the *heart* of the Kelley/Peikoff debate.
Perhaps you're right. I learned several things, particularly from
the way Steve Reed spits at many of the participants of a.p.o. One, that
there are some people who just don't want to listen. Two, that there are
some people who still find value in listening to nonintellectual debate.
Phil Oliver
In article <4pn89u$r...@crl.crl.com>, hsi...@crl.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
>I'm all for implementing the charter *exactly* as was worded in the CFV
>(and as was approved by the majority of voters). It would be wrong to
>take any such action that was so blatantly against the original terms of
>the charter, and I'm surprised that anyone would advocate such a thing.
>
>be a major betrayal of the trust placed in him by those who voted "yes"
>for the h.p.o. charter
Paul -- my comment was inspired mostly from disgust at reading the
not surprising names on the NO list. I stand by the rationale for my
comment; but I certainly would not expect nor would I want a moderator
to do anything which transgressed the original voted-upon charter.
Phil Oliver
Phil Oliver
In article <4po5tm$e...@sundial.sundial.net>, er...@SUNDIAL.NET (Eric Juttelstad) wrote:
>it was silly because it assumes that the entire class of no voters,
>without exception, have nothing positive to contribute to h.p.o.
My comment was from a sense of justice, not from any consideration that
"they have nothing positive to contribute." (which is very likely absolutely
true -- they have nothing positive to contribute.)
>it was silly because it ignored the fact that BOTH sides of the h.p.o.
>debate presented substantive arguments to support their position.
The NO voters thought h.p.o. should be never have been created, whatever
their "reasoning" (to abuse a concept.). Let them abide their choice. Any one
of them who posts to h.p.o. is using a value created by others; a value that
they wanted to destroy before it ever got started.
>it was silly because it was embarassingly punitive and intolerant.
i.e. justice. Embarassing? Speak for yourself.
By the way -- I never expected the suggestion to be taken as though
I thought it could or would be implemented; it was an expression of my
disgust at the supposition (soon no doubt to be shown in reality) that a
number of the NO voters who are routinely active on a.p.o. will no doubt
show up and post their junk onto h.p.o. now, heedless of the contradiction
that entails.
Phil Oliver
frank forman
In article <4pqhv1$1o...@mule1.mindspring.com>,
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p889h$o...@walrus1.walrus.com>, ji...@news.walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:
>>>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk well
>>>enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to my killfile.
>
>
>> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO on
>>h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created, they shouldn't
>>benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
>
>precisely what it is that he has involved himself with.
Well, here's what Phil actually said. I claimed he merely wanted everyone
to put into their own personal killfiles the NO voters, not that he
thought the hpo moderator should banish them. But Phil speaks of an
"initial reject file," which *may* refer to something under the
moderator's control. So I don't know if I was wrong or not.
Phil, which is it?
Frank
Matt Keys
Paul Hsieh (hsi...@crl.com) wrote:
: Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
: >
: >I was unaware of that, and on the basis of this knowledge which is new to
: >me I am retracting what I said in that first post.
: I would not have voted "yes" for h.p.o. unless I had read the rules and
: found them satisfactory (any more than I would have signed a business
: contract unless I had found the terms satisfactory).
well Jeff helped to *write* the charter so I find it amusing he
claims he "did not know what it said".
I can't wait till hippo gets rolling. there will be contradictions
flying all over the place.
Matt.
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960614...@black.missouri.edu>,
Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>...Unlike Steve Reed and his fellow dissenters, I think that even if it was
>nothing but an "isolation ward" for so-called "Shiite Objectivists" it
>would still have value, if only in the negative sense of getting those
>uninterested in talking with non-Objectivists off of APO onto their own
>newsgroup.
Yah, their very own little intellectual ghetto, as if OSG weren't enough
of one for 'em. That's another reason I didn't vote either way, even
though I thought it was a bad idea. Still, there's always the danger that
some poor fool will get suckered in by their claims to objectivity, etc.
Michael Huemer
ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) writes:
> The NO voters thought h.p.o. should be never have been created, whatever
>their "reasoning" (to abuse a concept.). Let them abide their choice. Any one
>of them who posts to h.p.o. is using a value created by others; a value that
>they wanted to destroy before it ever got started.
Phil, let me ask you a question:
If you believe that there shouldn't be any public roads, does that
mean that, given that there ARE public roads, you shouldn't use them?
Or if you think there shouldn't be public (government run) libraries,
does that mean that you should never use the public library, given
that it exists?
--
^-----^
Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl | V |
\ /
Tim Starr
In article <4ps4tp$g...@mandolin.qnet.com>,
Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com> wrote:
>If HPO is going to be so much a wasteland, don't participate.
>That will show them.
What? And let their nonsense go unchallenged? Why should I? I've learned a
lot from arguing with them, & I see no reason to forego that benefit just
because they forfeit one newsgroupd & retreat to another.
DEFanyo
In article <4po31m$p...@alice.walrus.com>, Jimmy Pena (ji...@walrus.com) writes:
>Brad Aisa (ba...@tor.hookup.net) wrote:
>
>: I think everyone associated with this process recognized that there would
>: rights-respecting (and I might add reputable) association through the
>: ballot, would then adopt the methods of hooligans, or elsewise refuse to
>: respect the charter, in order to continue to harrass the overwhelming
>: majority of decent people who will make up the readership and active
>: posters of hpo.
>
>violate the charter, should they do so, they'll complain about being
>excluded for some "other" purpose, such as for voting NO or because we
>never liked them and were looking for an "excuse" to drop them.
Speculating on the contents of another's mind is called
psychologizing, which Rand frowned on...
--Dorothy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than
in the one where they sprang up. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFanyo
In article <4pnofv$m...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, Brad Aisa (ba...@tor.hookup.net) writes:
>jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>
>>I look forward to seeing the complaints to Skirvin you and others will be
>>making about us 46, in order to get us banned. Since that will take up at
>>least half the message volume of the new newsgroup, that will cut down the
>>volume of substantive posts to peruse, quite nicely.
>
>be a dishonorable few who, unable to prevent this peaceable
>rights-respecting (and I might add reputable) association through the
>ballot, would then adopt the methods of hooligans, or elsewise refuse to
>respect the charter, in order to continue to harrass the overwhelming
>majority of decent people who will make up the readership and active
>posters of hpo.
That includes everyone who voted NO, I take it. Rand did not
approve of claiming clairvoyance... she called it psychologizing.
Tim Starr
In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>,
Matt Keys <matt...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Paul Hsieh (hsi...@crl.com) wrote:
>
>: Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>: >
>: >I was unaware of that, and on the basis of this knowledge which is new to
>: >me I am retracting what I said in that first post.
>
>: I would not have voted "yes" for h.p.o. unless I had read the rules and
>: found them satisfactory (any more than I would have signed a business
>: contract unless I had found the terms satisfactory).
>
>well Jeff helped to *write* the charter so I find it amusing he
>claims he "did not know what it said".
Lemme guess: his working group was assigned to a different part, & he wasn't
allowed to see the whole thing?
>I can't wait till hippo gets rolling. there will be contradictions
>flying all over the place.
Me neither. What fun! I'm enjoying it already, laughing my ass off.
Brad Aisa
> I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in justice.
>
> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO on
>h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created, they
>shouldn't benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
This subject was brought up during the Request For Discussion, and in
response to concerns, a measure was specifically added to the charter which
specified that the only reason for banning from HPO was charter-violations
in posting to HPO.
Thus, this suggestion has no relationship to reality. No such action will
be taken.
Of course, individual subscribers are free to boycott reading and/or
responding to whomever they choose on the new group.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@tor.hookup.net> http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Billy Beck
ji...@walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:
>Jimmy Wales (jwa...@MCS.COM) wrote:
>: These and related issues are at the *heart* of the Kelley/Peikoff debate.
> Perhaps you're right. I learned several things, particularly from
>the way Steve Reed spits at many of the participants of a.p.o. One, that
>there are some people who just don't want to listen. Two, that there are
>some people who still find value in listening to nonintellectual debate.
Oh, and all of that is implicit in, and can be deduced from, a yes or
no vote on h.p.o., right? That's all it takes, and the decision to
vote yes or no is not more complex than the way you paint it, and it's
a boilerplate indicator of the acceptability of the particular voter
in question, right?
Guess what, Dewd: *I* voted *yes*.
That's wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck), for the benefit of your
killfile. Get it right. Do it early.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
"Anthology"
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Jun 1996, Brad Aisa wrote:
> Mr. Oliver is not the moderator of HPO, nor was he involved in the lengthy
> preparatory discussions for the initial RFD, nor was he much involved (that
> I can recall) in the RFD discussions.
>
> Therefore, to attach any connection between the group proponents, and Mr.
> Oliver, is unwarranted. (Unless those proponents are to be collectively
> held liable for Mr. Oliver's personal remarks. <SNARF>)
Brad,
You seem to have conclusion-jumped again. Note that Mr. Haber -agreed-
with Oliver, and he's been around long enough to know better. The
objective fact of the matter -is- that such an attitude exists and Paul
Hsieh, J. Kuznicki (sp.), and the other initiators and driving forces
behind HPO bent over backwards to assure the voters that this attitude
would -not- be tolerated on HPO. Whether or not this will be the case
remains to be proved in the new forum.
For myself, I never understood why the Libertarians got all in a lather
about HPO. By their standards, they should have marched right up and
voted for it, given their stated views of freedom of association (and the
freedom of -exclusion- which it presupposes). If sulfurous epigones of Rand
like Grossman (BTW, how are you and the squirrel getting along?) want to
fulminate against the unwashed in their own newsgroup, let them!
Ernie
Brad Aisa
In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>,
tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960614...@black.missouri.edu>,
>Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>...Unlike Steve Reed and his fellow dissenters, I think that even if it
was
>>nothing but an "isolation ward" for so-called "Shiite Objectivists" it
>>would still have value, if only in the negative sense of getting those
>>uninterested in talking with non-Objectivists off of APO onto their own
>>newsgroup.
>
>Yah, their very own little intellectual ghetto, as if OSG weren't enough
>of one for 'em. That's another reason I didn't vote either way, even
>though I thought it was a bad idea. Still, there's always the danger that
>some poor fool will get suckered in by their claims to objectivity, etc.
Just to correct a point of fact. Objectivists are interested in talking to
non-Objectivists, and do it all the time both on apo and elsewhere.
But like any self-respecting adult, Objectivist or not, Objectivists are
not interested in having discussions with foul-mouthed creeps. Such types
should take better care to identify the nature of the subset of apo
participants to whom decent Objectivists won't sanction in debate.
John Alway
Ernest Brown wrote:
RE: My statement that I'm looking forward to HPO. Tempest
in a teapot and all of that rot.
>I am as well. If I hadn't lost my ballot in a data crash on my server (I
>had too many darn saved messages, and it won't let me scrollback) I would
>have voted YES as well. Unlike Steve Reed and his fellow dissenters, I
>think that even if it was nothing but an "isolation ward" for so-called
>"Shiite Objectivists" it would still have value, if only in the negative
>sense of getting those uninterested in talking with non-Objectivists off
>of APO onto their own newsgroup.
But, of course, this isn't the way HPO has been designed.
It has been designed so that people can discuss Ayn Rand's
philosophy of Objectivism.
Besides, you omit other options, such as, perhaps some
people think that a higher level of discussion is possible.
You can't fault anyone for seeking out that. Right?
...John
Jim Klein
In <4pv6ii$7...@loki.tor.hookup.net> ba...@tor.hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
writes:
>Such types
Great term...is it actually approved of by the Objectivists?
>should take better care to identify the nature of the subset of apo
>participants to whom decent Objectivists won't sanction in debate.
Could we please "take better care to identify the nature" of the
principal, before we identify the subsets: What exactly is a "decent
Objectivist"??? Thanks.
jk
Michael Huemer
Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> writes:
>For myself, I never understood why the Libertarians got all in a lather
>about HPO. By their standards, they should have marched right up and
>voted for it, given their stated views of freedom of association (and the
>freedom of -exclusion- which it presupposes). If sulfurous epigones of Rand
Perhaps you don't understand libertarian principles.
Being a libertarian does mean that you believe in freedom of
association, freedom of speech, etc. But it does not mean that you
would automatically vote "yes" on any and every proposed newsgroup.
There is a good reason why votes are taken, you know -- we don't want
to have a million newsgroups (btw, are newsgroups ever *eliminated*?),
and it's not a violation of anyone's (libertarian) rights. The people
who own computers that carry and transmit usenet messages have a
right, and are reasonable, to choose a certain procedure for limiting
the number of newsgroups they carry. This is part of their property
rights. Those who take the time to vote are merely being nice enough
to help the former decide which ng's to carry.
Paul Hsieh
Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>You seem to have conclusion-jumped again. Note that Mr. Haber -agreed-
>with Oliver, and he's been around long enough to know better. The
>objective fact of the matter -is- that such an attitude exists and Paul
>Hsieh, J. Kuznicki (sp.), and the other initiators and driving forces
>behind HPO bent over backwards to assure the voters that this attitude
>would -not- be tolerated on HPO. Whether or not this will be the case
>remains to be proved in the new forum.
I won't presume to speak for any other proponent of h.p.o. However, I
will continue to do my best to ensure that the moderation policies on
h.p.o. are implemented as specified in the charter. In particular, I
will oppose the banning of anyone unless they persist in egregious
violations of the h.p.o. charter. (Fortunately, from what I know of the
moderator Tim Skirvin, I believe he will do a good job.)
It is true that many a.p.o. participants (and presumed future h.p.o.
participants) often express attitudes that other participants find
objectionable. My position is that they are free to say whatever they
want on h.p.o., provided that they don't violate the charter terms.
If either Phil Oliver or Jeffrey Haber had made their earlier a.p.o.
posts in this thread on h.p.o., then I would have reacted identically -- I
would have voiced my disagreements with them. But I would have also
defended their right to make those posts on that forum -- those posts
would have been well within the confines of the h.p.o. charter.
==================== ~~~ *** ~~
|| || * * ~ ~~
|| Paul S. Hsieh || /\ ** ** _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || _ | | ** ** __ | |
|| || __| |__|__|__ ** ** | |___| |
==================== | | | | ** ** | | | |
Brad Aisa
matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:
>well [Jeffrey Haber] helped to *write* the charter so I find it amusing he
>claims he "did not know what it said".
This is absolutely false. Mr. Haber had nothing to do with it.
(Not that I am expecting Mr. Keys to either supply some evidence for his
claim, OR retract it. One of Neo-Tech's basic premises is that assertions
do not need to be proven nor based on any tangible evidence.)
Brad Aisa
In article <4q15n9$p...@crl.crl.com>, hsi...@crl.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
>
>I won't presume to speak for any other proponent of h.p.o. However, I
>will continue to do my best to ensure that the moderation policies on
>h.p.o. are implemented as specified in the charter. In particular, I
>will oppose the banning of anyone unless they persist in egregious
>violations of the h.p.o. charter. (Fortunately, from what I know of the
>moderator Tim Skirvin, I believe he will do a good job.)
>
>It is true that many a.p.o. participants (and presumed future h.p.o.
>participants) often express attitudes that other participants find
>objectionable. My position is that they are free to say whatever they
>want on h.p.o., provided that they don't violate the charter terms.
As someone else who was involved in the discussions for this group, I
concur completely with Mr. Hsieh's comments.
>If either Phil Oliver or Jeffrey Haber had made their earlier a.p.o.
>posts in this thread on h.p.o., then I would have reacted identically -- I
>would have voiced my disagreements with them. But I would have also
>defended their right to make those posts on that forum -- those posts
>would have been well within the confines of the h.p.o. charter.
Being associated with intellectual forum of any kind is an important
responsibility. I would like to urge people to take the charter seriously,
and not toss off idle suggestions or unsustantiable speculations about how
the group should be moderated -- this has already been decided.
The charter is clear, and there is ample room for benefit of the doubt on
borderline cases. If a person occassionally posts something of interest to
the subscribers, but which is only peripherally related to Objectivism, I
would hope that this wouldn't spark some kind of jihad. The charter was
designed to eliminate the most egregious forms of abuse and parasitism, and
to provide the moderator with a standard with which to guage relevance and
abuse. But the words in the charter are not equal to all the knowledge
necessary to implement it, just as a definition is not a concept, and a
country's constitution is not the sum of its laws and institutions.
Also, I really hope the forum itself does not become a central topic of the
forum. There is a world out here, remember? I would urge proponents and
supporter of the group to not get too sucked in by the "baiting" which many
of its detractors will doubtless engage in once it starts. Let's try to
discuss Objectivism, as it relates to important issues of our day.
Brad Aisa
de...@teekay.win.net (DEFanyo) wrote:
>
>Brad Aisa (ba...@tor.hookup.net) writes:
>>I think everyone associated with this process recognized that there would
>>be a dishonorable few who, unable to prevent this peaceable
>>rights-respecting (and I might add reputable) association through the
>>ballot, would then adopt the methods of hooligans, or elsewise refuse to
>>respect the charter, in order to continue to harrass the overwhelming
>>majority of decent people who will make up the readership and active
>>posters of hpo.
>
>That includes everyone who voted NO, I take it. Rand did not
>approve of claiming clairvoyance... she called it psychologizing.
Nonsense. Ayn Rand said nothing of the sort.
Ayn Rand wrote an essay on psychologizing in The Objectivist magazine ('The
Psychology of Psychologizing') -- I have seen many people misrepresent
these ideas here on apo.
One can certainly make valid speculations about someone's future behavior,
based on an understanding already obtained of their actions and premises.
And based on one's observations of many individuals, one can make valid
speculations about the distribution of certain kinds of behavior, based on
a knowledge of a statistical distribution of certain kinds of premises.
There is a scientific discipline which studies the relationship between
premise and action: psychology.
There are several scientific disciplines which study the relationship
between the premises of indidivuals, and the actions of individuals in
groups: particularly sociology and anthropology.
Psychologizing is a specific error of making conclusions about a person's
motivation or premises, without any evidence. The best example is Henry
Rearden, who kept inventing reasons for his family's behavior towards him,
then excusing them morally, rather than simply accepting their behavior and
judging them accordingly.
Jimmy Pena
Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: > Perhaps you're right. I learned several things, particularly from
: >the way Steve Reed spits at many of the participants of a.p.o. One, that
: >there are some people who just don't want to listen. Two, that there are
: >some people who still find value in listening to nonintellectual debate.
: Oh, and all of that is implicit in, and can be deduced from, a yes or
: no vote on h.p.o., right? That's all it takes, and the decision to
: vote yes or no is not more complex than the way you paint it, and it's
: a boilerplate indicator of the acceptability of the particular voter
: in question, right?
Perhaps. Someone who votes NO on the group is trying to say that
they oppose the charter, or the name of the group, or the right of
individuals to associate. Supposing that the major problem is the latter.
What would be the implications of someone voting NO? That they don't
respect the rights of others to associate to the exclusion of others. If
you still find value in debating with *those* people, be my guest. I do
not. That is what I said, and what I meant. See, I have this funny little
habit of trying to reduce conclusions to their logical premises. It's
just one of my quirks.
Jimmy Pena
Jeffrey Haber (habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: How is Mr. Oliver's suggestion silly? What values could someone who is
: interested in a serious, moderated discussion of Objectivism gain from
: people who opposed the creation of the moderated forum?
: For that matter, why would anyone who voted no want to use HPO anyway?
: If anything, the ban would prevent them wasting their time--from wasting
: their time on a forum which they think has negative value. I'm all for
: the implementation of Mr. Oliver's suggestion.
I agree that those who voted NO have little to offer the new
group. They have a moral right to disagree with Objectivism or with the
newsgroup creation. Perhaps we could never gain value from them. I would
never, ever, even *consider* banning them from the group if they had not
violated the charter. Personally, I think they are parasites, preparing to
post to a group they didn't want before, and don't like now that it is
approved. But ban them? Never.
Jim Klein
>Someone who votes NO on the group is trying to say that they oppose
>the charter, or the name of the group, or the right of individuals to
>associate.
Do you mean to imply that this is the total set of possible
explanations for voting no?
>Supposing that the major problem is the latter. What would be the
>implications of someone voting NO? That they don't respect the rights
>of others to associate to the exclusion of others.
Well, I suppose so...that if that WERE the total set, AND the latter
was the major problem, that AMONG the implications is the distinct
POSSIBILITY that they don't respect others' rights. Of course that was
how you defined them in the first place anyway, isn't it?
>If you still find value in debating with *those* people, be my guest.
>I do not. That is what I said, and what I meant. See, I have this
>funny little habit of trying to reduce conclusions to their logical
>premises. It's just one of my quirks.
A quirk worth revisiting, perhaps. Maybe spend more time with the
premises as the start. Well checked premises often yield proper
conclusions on their own, yes?
jk
George Barota
In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>, matt...@netcom.com says...
>I can't wait till hippo gets rolling. there will be contradictions
>flying all over the place.
But it already is "rolling". I sent a post there TWO days ago, and it went
just fine. Why isn't anybody else posting?
--
George B
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Isaac Asimov The Foundation Trilogy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
george...@jonkoping.mail.telia.com
Huskvarna, Sweden
Tim Starr
In which the Killfile Kid is heard from:
In article <4pv6ii$7...@loki.tor.hookup.net>,
Brad Aisa <ba...@tor.hookup.net> wrote:
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>,
> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960614...@black.missouri.edu>,
>>Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>>...Unlike Steve Reed and his fellow dissenters, I think that even if it
>was
>>>nothing but an "isolation ward" for so-called "Shiite Objectivists" it
>>>would still have value, if only in the negative sense of getting those
>>>uninterested in talking with non-Objectivists off of APO onto their own
>>>newsgroup.
>>
>>Yah, their very own little intellectual ghetto, as if OSG weren't enough
>>of one for 'em. That's another reason I didn't vote either way, even
>>though I thought it was a bad idea. Still, there's always the danger that
>>some poor fool will get suckered in by their claims to objectivity, etc.
>
>
>Just to correct a point of fact. Objectivists are interested in talking to
>non-Objectivists, and do it all the time both on apo and elsewhere.
So long as "talking to non-Objectivists" doesn't include seriously considering
whether anything you Shi'ite Objectivists believe may be mistaken. Oh, you're
all too happy to preach the Gospel to the Heathen. It's us heretics you have
all the trouble with.
>But like any self-respecting adult, Objectivist or not, Objectivists are
>not interested in having discussions with foul-mouthed creeps.
Bullshit. You aren't interested in discussions with anyone who holds any
positions you disagree with, once you find that your pathetic attempts to
convert them have failed. No matter whether they express their dissent in
the most ornate Latinate prose or the good ol' Anglo-Saxon.
Jacob Weber
I find it hard to believe that the creation of a usenet newsgroup is such
a big deal that you people need to argue over it at such length.
"Shi'ite" Objectivists? The "E-Team"??? Give me a break.
Can we discuss Objevtivism please?
----
Jacob Weber
sjw...@oberlin.edu
Matt Keys
: : Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
: : >
: : >I was unaware of that, and on the basis of this knowledge which is new to
: : >me I am retracting what I said in that first post.
: : I would not have voted "yes" for h.p.o. unless I had read the rules and
: : found them satisfactory (any more than I would have signed a business
: : contract unless I had found the terms satisfactory).
: well Jeff helped to *write* the charter so I find it amusing he
: claims he "did not know what it said".
My apologies to Jeff, I thought he helped write the charter, but
I confused him with Jason Kuznicki.
Sorry about that.
Phil Oliver
In article <4prvta$6...@Mars.mcs.com>, jwa...@MCS.COM (Jimmy Wales) wrote:
>The simple fact that someone voted "no" should not lead to the automatic
>conclusion that there is *no value* to be gained from talking to them.
>
>These and related issues are at the *heart* of the Kelley/Peikoff debate.
That could well be. Superficially, the Kelley advocates such as yourself
advocate "making peace" at any cost, turning the other cheek to all insults,
making terms with those who are steadfastly opposed to your philosophy, etc.
(Up to and including your own absurd e-mail messages to "Arthra" when that
particular sub-human was actively spamming a.p.o.) In other words, an ugly
fusion of Christian "forgiveness" with Objectivism, which is the impossible
contradiction rejected by actual Objectivists.
Phil Oliver
Phil Oliver
In article <4ptqev$j...@amenti.rutgers.edu>, o...@amenti.rutgers.edu (Michael Huemer) wrote:
>Phil, let me ask you a question:
>
>If you believe that there shouldn't be any public roads, does that
>mean that, given that there ARE public roads, you shouldn't use them?
>
>Or if you think there shouldn't be public (government run) libraries,
>does that mean that you should never use the public library, given
>that it exists?
The analogy re: h.p.o. is flawed.
No one is *forced* to use h.p.o. as a communications medium. It is a rather
limited, albeit hopefully rationally good, way to discuss Objectivism with
somewhat less static from dolts with fingers and no brains. The dissenters can
theoretically easily form their own newsgroups (e.g.
humanities.philosophy.anarchy,
humanities.philosophy.incredibly_stupid_contradictions, etc.)
It is totally disingenuous to equate a USENET news group with government
created public roads. Roads are a geometrically, realistically, necessary way
for anyone to move themselves from point A to point B. In a free society (as
opposed to the semi-dictatorship that characterizes America today) roads would
still of necessity exist. They are necessary to live. Thus to use them is
completely rational. It is not the fault of those using them that they were
(currently, some of them) paid for by extortion.
Furthermore, for your analogy to hold any water, you would have to posit
that the NO voters had some sympathy for h.p.o. but objected to it because the
promoters were coercing something on someone else -- which is ridiculous. No
one is *forced* to use h.p.o. to communicate their ideas nor would exclusion
from it constitute anything except an indication that the poster would have to
use the other billions of avenues of communication open to them today.
Phil Oliver
Phil Oliver
To emphasize again what I have already stated -- although it's a disgusting
contradiction for those who voted against a newsgroup's creation to then use
it, I am all for total adherence to h.p.o.'s charter.
Certainly those involved with moderating a group must adhere only to the
group's charter and act only according to the clearly defined rules that were
voted upon. There are no doubt occasions when a moderator wishes that a
certain person would just go away but rightly does nothing at all because the
person is operating according to the rules of the forum (which is not
to suggest that the moderator, who I do not know, agrees with my evaluations
-- this is a general comment.)
I think there's a qualitative difference between those who want to
discuss and debate Objectivism (including those people who are in opposition
to the philosophy) and those who wanted to shut down the mechanism needed
to discuss it in a better atmosphere of discussion for all involved. I am
certain that not all who voted for h.p.o. are even remotely Objectivists --
but they saw some value in the idea of a more polite, on-topic forum for
debate.
I am _not_ against debates, dissent, disagreements, etc. Objectivism
thrives on dissent -- because it is reality based, it _does_ have the rational
alternatives to today's irrational cultural ideas. Disagreement is a ready way
to bring up alternative ideas, and to show principled methods for analyzing
ideas as such.
Anyway, I realize that I erred in making the moderation-related comments,
which were taken more seriously than I intended, and will be much more careful
in the future about them. The naysayers were roundly defeated, aren't worth
another thought, and are essentially irrelevant to a new forum that I hope
will provide years of active discussion of Objectivism.
Phil Oliver
Matt Keys
Brad Aisa (ba...@tor.hookup.net) wrote:
: But like any self-respecting adult, Objectivist or not, Objectivists are
: not interested in having discussions with foul-mouthed creeps. Such types ***
: should take better care to identify the nature of the subset of apo
: participants to whom decent Objectivists won't sanction in debate.
** foul-mouthed creeps with the exception of KOAH, or
anyone else who attacks Neo-Tech.
I'm still waiting to see the hippo charter changed
to exclude proponents of Neo-Tech, but include posts
attacking Neo-Tech. Maybe they will wait until all of the NT
people are kicked off the list first.
Or probably they just won't include it in the charter,
but anti-Neo-Tech posts will be tacitly accepted
and no one will complain to the moderator about them.
Will it be possible for any member of the E-Team to be
removed from h.p.o, if they violate the charter?
Billy Beck
ji...@walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:
>Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: > Perhaps you're right. I learned several things, particularly from
>: >the way Steve Reed spits at many of the participants of a.p.o. One, that
>: >there are some people who just don't want to listen. Two, that there are
>: >some people who still find value in listening to nonintellectual debate.
>: Oh, and all of that is implicit in, and can be deduced from, a yes or
>: no vote on h.p.o., right? That's all it takes, and the decision to
>: vote yes or no is not more complex than the way you paint it, and it's
>: a boilerplate indicator of the acceptability of the particular voter
>: in question, right?
> Perhaps. Someone who votes NO on the group is trying to say that
>they oppose the charter, or the name of the group, or the right of
>individuals to associate. Supposing that the major problem is the latter.
I have absolutely *no* reason to "suppose" any such thing Jimmy Pena,
and your attempt to smuggle the supposition as premise does not
reflect well on any assumption of honesty which I might be weak enough
to extend to you.
>What would be the implications of someone voting NO?
"Clear."
That's what they would be.
Unfortunately for the clarity of your entire line here, these
"implications" are, at least, invalid and not worthy of discussion...a
fact which...
>That they don't respect the rights of others to associate to the exclusion
>of others. If you still find value in debating with *those* people, be my
>guest. I do not. That is what I said, and what I meant. See, I have this funny little
>habit of trying to reduce conclusions to their logical premises. It's
>just one of my quirks.
...won't prevent you from carrying on about it, I see.
Yo, Jimmy, "reduce" *this*:
There were lots of good reasons to vote against h.p.o., and *nobody*
ever argued against the right of individuals to associate - explicitly
or *implicitly*.
The fact of this assertion's durability is revealing.
...as is the fact that you studiously neglected to deal with the fact
and implications of *my* yes vote.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
New Rant - June 16, 1996
Billy Beck
ba...@tor.hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>The charter is clear, and there is ample room for benefit of the doubt on
>borderline cases. If a person occassionally posts something of interest to
>the subscribers, but which is only peripherally related to Objectivism, I
>would hope that this wouldn't spark some kind of jihad. The charter was
>designed to eliminate the most egregious forms of abuse and parasitism, and
>to provide the moderator with a standard with which to guage relevance and
>abuse. But the words in the charter are not equal to all the knowledge
>necessary to implement it, just as a definition is not a concept, and a
>country's constitution is not the sum of its laws and institutions.
HPO should always be remembered for the essential *mendacity* of its
inception.
The idea first took serious form in February of 1996, very shortly
after Jimmy Pena (posting from ra...@ingress.com) posted the article,
"Keeping our newsgroup". The error in the title of the post was
glaring enough to all with eyes in their heads. However, it was
immeditately swamped (as were the objections registered by Lance
Neustaeter and myself) under the main thrust of the article: to find a
way to deal with Neo-Tech...or *not* deal with them.
For six weeks after that landmark post, a spectacular string of
pedestrian snake-oilers, Humists, stern Sunday Schoolmarms, and
hit-men brought us every form of plausible rationale for HPO which
would have sustained rational discussion *before* the scourge of NT,
but could only be suspect *after* the initial raison d'etre of the
newgroup had already been established. There are two reasons for the
suspicion: 1) the history of this affair is in the record, but NT is
almost never (if ever) admitted as the sole point of departure, and 2)
the specific reference to NT took its place in the HPO charter in
presumptive dismissal of the very worthy idea that NT bears at *least*
as much relation to Objectivism as any number of other philosophies,
ideas, thoughts, musings, or rantings & ravings, many of which were
included in the discussion and admitted as not beyond the chartered
pale. While the rampant substitution of empty pejorative for rational
refutation was sufficient to some, the expressed disagreement of
others remains in place, without address from the proponants.
The *fact* is that there is one "borderline case" which can never
"benefit" from any "doubt" in the HPO charter. Further, the sinister
implication is betrayed in the "hope" of a Shi'ite who dreads "jihad".
Precisely in the manner of his namesakes, he proceeds to majestic
ethical assumptions ("interest", "abuse and parasitism", "relevance
and abuse") carefuly crafted to buttress everything but his *own*
intellectual courage and ability from the test of the world. The fact
that his evaluations stand in the way of "interest", curiousity and
learning, and comparison is strictly opaque to his avowed
understanding. Very well: the charter stands with him.
However...
>Also, I really hope the forum itself does not become a central topic of the
>forum. There is a world out here, remember? I would urge proponents and
>supporter of the group to not get too sucked in by the "baiting" which many
>of its detractors will doubtless engage in once it starts. Let's try to
>discuss Objectivism, as it relates to important issues of our day.
...it should never be forgotten *why* HPO was born. This is very
clearly an instance when "what might have happened" is as irrelevant
as a 36-hour day. What happened, is what happened.
Say what you will about Neo-Tech (and I might even join you), but
include this in a spirit of justice:
HPO was designed, from the very start, as a *seclusion* of Objectivism
from Neo-Tech.
It's a tad late to be reminding us that "there is a world out there",
and it is quite true that there will *less* of a world "in there".
Billy Beck
sjw...@oberlin.edu (Jacob Weber) wrote:
>I find it hard to believe that the creation of a usenet newsgroup is such
>a big deal that you people need to argue over it at such length.
>"Shi'ite" Objectivists? The "E-Team"??? Give me a break.
>Can we discuss Objevtivism please?
Why, certainly, Jacob.
In what context?
Jimmy Pena
Jim Klein (rum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >Someone who votes NO on the group is trying to say that they oppose
: >the charter, or the name of the group, or the right of individuals to
: >associate.
: Do you mean to imply that this is the total set of possible
: explanations for voting no?
No.
: Well, I suppose so...that if that WERE the total set, AND the latter
: was the major problem, that AMONG the implications is the distinct
: POSSIBILITY that they don't respect others' rights. Of course that was
: how you defined them in the first place anyway, isn't it?
Well then, was there a problem with the name of the group? No.
Was there a problem with the charter? No. So then what was the problem?
Certain individuals chose to vote NO because they would not respect our
right to peacefully associate to the exclusion of others. Perhaps they
did not think the group would be effective, or some such reason. Then
leave us to fail!
: >If you still find value in debating with *those* people, be my guest.
: >I do not. That is what I said, and what I meant. See, I have this
: >funny little habit of trying to reduce conclusions to their logical
: >premises. It's just one of my quirks.
: A quirk worth revisiting, perhaps. Maybe spend more time with the
: premises as the start. Well checked premises often yield proper
: conclusions on their own, yes?
Well darnit, if I actually cared to find out why, I would mail
each and every person who voted NO and ask them. But since I don't, I
won't. Besides, I've only been speculating on the premises of those who I
actually recognized on the NO list, not on *everyone* who voted NO.
Lionell Griffith
wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
> Say what you will about Neo-Tech (and I might even join you), but
>include this in a spirit of justice:
> HPO was designed, from the very start, as a *seclusion* of Objectivism
>from Neo-Tech.
> It's a tad late to be reminding us that "there is a world out there",
>and it is quite true that there will *less* of a world "in there".
So, would you argue that Alchemy should be included in Chemistry,
or Astrology in Astronomy, or Voodo in Medicine, or Magic in
Engineering? NT and that ilk has as much to do with Philosophy and
Objectivism as those pseudo-sciences have with ligitimate science.
You still have apo and 12000, or so, other news groups that will not
exclude such garbage. Feast in the dumpster of philosophy if you
like. I prefer more wholesome intellectual food.
Jeffrey Haber
I'm being raked over the coals in this thread.
Just to reiterate, when I said that I agreed that the people who voted
against HPO should be banned I was unaware that the charter specified
that no one was to be banned for their posts outside of HPO. When I
learned that that was in the charter, I immediately retracted what I had
said. I did not read the charter in great detail, but I knew that the
proposed forum would not allow crossposting, no mentions of Neo-Tech,
and that trolls and other troublemakers would be banned. The discourse
on HPO couldn't be any worse than that on APO.
I still wouldn't mind if the people who voted against HPO were banned
from it. I cannot think of a rational reason why anyone would vote
against it.
Looks like I'm the big ass on this thread. If you enjoy that fact,
don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for pointing it out.
Jeffrey Haber
Jeffrey Haber
matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:
>: Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>: >
>: >I was unaware of that, and on the basis of this knowledge which is new to
>: >me I am retracting what I said in that first post.
>well Jeff helped to *write* the charter so I find it amusing he
>claims he "did not know what it said".
>
>I can't wait till hippo gets rolling. there will be contradictions
>flying all over the place.
>
>Matt.
This is blatantly false. I had nothing to do with the writing of the
HPO charter. So much for "fully integrated honesty" on Matt Keyes'
part.
Jeffrey Haber
Jacob Weber
In article <4q3oml$1p...@mule1.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy
Beck) wrote:
>sjw...@oberlin.edu (Jacob Weber) wrote:
>
>>Can we discuss Objevtivism please?
>
> Why, certainly, Jacob.
>
> In what context?
Do you mean "in which newsgroup"? Personally, when I post a message, I
could care less what the name of the newsgroup is, as long as I can reach
rational, intelligent readers. If h.p.o has more of them than a.p.o, then
I'll use it. If not, not. What more is there to say about it?
The warring factions of Objectivism are turning this group into a
battlefield. I have yet to see a *rational* discussion of these group's
differences. You know, the kind with premises and arguments...and without
hostility and personal attacks.
Maybe it's better to keep discussion of Objectivism to the mailing lists.
But I find it hard to believe that allegedly rational people can not deal
with this situation.
----
Jacob Weber
sjw...@oberlin.edu
Jim Klein
In <4q43eb$d...@epx.cis.umn.edu> Jeffrey Haber
<habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>I still wouldn't mind if the people who voted against HPO were banned
>from it. I cannot think of a rational reason why anyone would vote
>against it.
From your point of view, it would seem more productive to ban those who
voted YES on it...after all, you probably know more of what they think
than of those who voted NO. And I trust that expanding your area of
knowledge and understanding other's points of view (even when wrong)
has appeal to you. If not, it should. There are A LOT more of them
than there are Presidents of Objectivist Clubs.
I can think of hundreds of possible rational reasons why someone would
vote no, from limitations of their software to a desire to have a
single newsgroup devoted exclusively to objectivist topics.
Of course, to me, it was sufficiently unimportant to not even merit a
vote. Though I may refer to it as the "stroke" forum, if my
expectations come to fruition.
jk
Billy Beck
sjw...@oberlin.edu (Jacob Weber) wrote:
>In article <4q3oml$1p...@mule1.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy
>Beck) wrote:
>>sjw...@oberlin.edu (Jacob Weber) wrote:
>>
>>>Can we discuss Objevtivism please?
>>
>> Why, certainly, Jacob.
>>
>> In what context?
>Do you mean "in which newsgroup"?
No. I meant what I asked.
How should we set a context for any dicussion of Objectivism?
(This is the ever-lovin' "Utopica Vortex".)
>Personally, when I post a message, I
>could care less what the name of the newsgroup is, as long as I can reach
>rational, intelligent readers. If h.p.o has more of them than a.p.o, then
>I'll use it. If not, not. What more is there to say about it?
That depends entirely upon what one thinks of it all.
>The warring factions of Objectivism are turning this group into a
>battlefield. I have yet to see a *rational* discussion of these group's
>differences. You know, the kind with premises and arguments...and without
>hostility and personal attacks.
>Maybe it's better to keep discussion of Objectivism to the mailing lists.
>But I find it hard to believe that allegedly rational people can not deal
>with this situation.
Well, I don't know how long you've been reading this group, but I've
seen *many* such discussions as you describe.
I just went and looked at my archives which only reach back for six
months, and there are too many valuable discussions to list here.
You know...I don't know about anyone else around here, but *I* regard
a "discussion" as a sequence of contributions by *individuals*. Just
like life, there are good elements and bad elements in the mix. On
any given day, there is no telling who will ring in with something
valuable.
So...to speak of the quality of "discussions" is essentially
meaningless to me. I look for the quality of the article. There is a
hell of a lot worth reading at a.p.o.
I am not, and never have been, opposed to h.p.o. in general.
I'll always be sad about the way it happened. And, I can be counted
on to refresh the history from time to time...particularly when I hear
self-righteous crowing about it.
Billy Beck
lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>> Say what you will about Neo-Tech (and I might even join you), but
>>include this in a spirit of justice:
>> HPO was designed, from the very start, as a *seclusion* of Objectivism
>>from Neo-Tech.
>> It's a tad late to be reminding us that "there is a world out there",
>>and it is quite true that there will *less* of a world "in there".
>So, would you argue that Alchemy should be included in Chemistry,
>or Astrology in Astronomy, or Voodo in Medicine, or Magic in
>Engineering? NT and that ilk has as much to do with Philosophy and
>Objectivism as those pseudo-sciences have with ligitimate science.
More empty pejorative, Lionell. Don't just stand there waving your
fuckin' arms, mate. I really have seen far more than enough of that.
Make your case. Get your observations, your reasoning, your
conclusions, your convictions, and your general shit together in one
tight bag and make your case.
You read like George Conklin comparing libertarians to Nazis: nothin'
but air.
Is that how you *endorse* Objectivism?
Is that the same rigorous technique with which you ditched
collectivism?
>You still have apo and 12000, or so, other news groups that will not
>exclude such garbage. Feast in the dumpster of philosophy if you
>like. I prefer more wholesome intellectual food.
Me too.
Feed me.
Billy Beck
ba...@tor.hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:
>>well [Jeffrey Haber] helped to *write* the charter so I find it amusing he
>>claims he "did not know what it said".
>This is absolutely false. Mr. Haber had nothing to do with it.
>(Not that I am expecting Mr. Keys to either supply some evidence for his
>claim, OR retract it. One of Neo-Tech's basic premises is that assertions
>do not need to be proven nor based on any tangible evidence.)
On the other hand, one might reasonably expect Aisa to substantiate
*his* assertion of the final sentence.
(fingers patiently drumming on the tabletop)
Brad Aisa
In article <4q247j$m...@d1o3.telia.com>,
george...@jonkoping.mail.telia.com (George Barota) wrote:
>But it already is "rolling". I sent a post there TWO days ago, and it went
>just fine. Why isn't anybody else posting?
Because very few people are receiving it.
Michael Huemer
george...@jonkoping.mail.telia.com (George Barota) writes:
>But it already is "rolling". I sent a post there TWO days ago, and it went
>just fine. Why isn't anybody else posting?
Perhaps because we can't.
I tried to send a message, but it was returned to me. Furthermore, I
did not see your message there. I only see one message by Tim Skirvin
on there. I don't know what's going on.
--
^-----^
Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl | V |
\ /
Brad Aisa
In article <4pvvon$t...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
rum...@ix.netcom.com(Jim Klein ) wrote:
>In <4pv6ii$7...@loki.tor.hookup.net> ba...@tor.hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
>writes:
>
>>Such types
>
>Great term...is it actually approved of by the Objectivists?
>
>
>>should take better care to identify the nature of the subset of apo
>>participants to whom decent Objectivists won't sanction in debate.
>
>principal, before we identify the subsets: What exactly is a "decent
>Objectivist"??? Thanks.
Mr Klein, you have seemingly become obsessed with posting bitchy,
mean-spirited little diatribes against the writings of many decent people
on this group.
Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist. Such obsessions can be treated.
Greg Swann
In article <4q27fp$b...@mule2.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy
Beck) wrote:
[clipped entirely to avoid gilding a most exquisite lily]
Well done.
--GSS
Greg Swann
In article <4pqhv1$1o...@mule1.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy
Beck) wrote:
>ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p889h$o...@walrus1.walrus.com>, ji...@news.walrus.com (Jimmy
Pena) wrote:
>>>And to those who voted NO, the names did not surprise me; I lurk well
>>>enough. Your messages no longer concern me. Welcome to my killfile.
>
>> I have an even stronger suggestion and one fully justified in justice.
>
>> Populate an initial reject file with the IDs of those who voted NO on
>>h.p.o. If they felt so strongly that it shouldn't be created, they shouldn't
>>benefit from its virtues by being permitted to post to it.
>
> I wonder if Mr. Skirvin now has sufficient cause to reflect on
>precisely what it is that he has involved himself with.
Oh, also: please do include my name in any planned purge list. I had told
Jason that I would vote FOR h.p.o., just in the spirit of giving the
kiddies their own sandbox, but, alas, I find a.p.o. too easy to ignore
and missed the vote. Darn!. But, in any case, I shouldn't want my perhaps
misplaced (omitted) generosity to deny me my rightful desserts as a heretic.
I've worked hard to annoy the orthodoxy and I want what I have coming to me.
--GSS
Phil Oliver
I wrote:
> Anyway, I realize that I erred in making the moderation-related comments,
> which were taken more seriously than I intended, and will be much more careful
> in the future about them.
My final addendum and comment on this thread: The bottom line is that I
posted hastily and without adequate consideration of the context and implications
of my suggestion (as opposed to a seriously analyzed and considered posting.)
Hence the valid criticisms of it, and needless to say I entirely withdraw the
suggestion as it regards moderation. Until someone can argue otherwise, I stand
by my analysis that it is a contradiction and hypocrisy for someone to attempt
to vote down a newsgroup (any newsgroup) and then use it after the attempt fails;
but if they want to, so be it.
Well, as the original poster said (responded to in my flamed to death post),
there are (personal) killfiles in newsreaders.
Phil Oliver
Tom Scheeler
In article <gswann-1706...@ip21-103.phx.primenet.com>, gsw...@primenet.com (Greg Swann) wrote:
[snip]
>Oh, also: please do include my name in any planned purge list. I had told
>Jason that I would vote FOR h.p.o., just in the spirit of giving the
>kiddies their own sandbox, but, alas, I find a.p.o. too easy to ignore
Interesting!
I find a.p.o to be more like the sandbox (given some of the
threads/responses I've seen) and was hoping the h.p.o. would be the realm of
intelligent adult conversation, much like a library, not the schoolyard
heckling prevalent here.
I hold hopes that in h.p.o., I can ask questions and receive well though-out
answers, thereby tweaking my understanding of the world. I find a.p.o. to be
useful, and have learned much, even from people that have verbally abused
me. But sometimes it is like trying to think great thoughts in the midst of
a rowdy kindergarten class (and get away from my firetruck, Beck!! ;~) )
>and missed the vote. Darn!. But, in any case, I shouldn't want my perhaps
>misplaced (omitted) generosity to deny me my rightful desserts as a heretic.
>I've worked hard to annoy the orthodoxy and I want what I have coming to me.
Agreed! What orthodoxy needs is a swift kick in the pants.
So, fire away, Greg!
>
>--GSS
Tom
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The
savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe.
Civilization is the process of setting man free of men." --- Ayn Rand
1961 "The Soul of an Individualist" _For the New Intellectual_
Jim Klein
In <4q4qim$3...@loki.tor.hookup.net> ba...@tor.hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
writes:
>Mr Klein, you have seemingly become obsessed with posting bitchy,
>mean-spirited little diatribes against the writings of many decent
>people on this group.
"Obseesion" would imply "to the ignoring of other points." I'm
confident I've made a few besides the frequent knocks of the
"anointed". Perhaps you don't notice them as regularly as they appear.
I certainly wouldn't care to argue that the folks against whom I snip,
for example you, aren't "decent". Firstly, if I didn't think so, I
would have no interaction with them whatsoever. More importantly, as a
genuine objectivist, I would naturally rate those interested in Rand or
Objectivism to be among the most decent alive, however misguided.
My purpose is the furtherance of information, then conclusions from the
evidence, and then integration of the conclusions into the real world
of human life. It is this last step that I believe many formal
Objectivists are not able to fully comprehend. Maybe it's too much
college.
It's necessarily with myself and mine that I'm most concerned, but I'm
sure that proper analysis and understanding will yield equal success
and happiness for others, to whatever degree they are capable. It is
to this end that I relentlessly try to point out serious, primary
errors which these decent people are making. That's really all I mean
by it; I'd sooner take any of you to be my neighbor than I would many,
many other people.
All that being said, I stand by all of my points (at least until
refuted). Seeya on the forum.
>Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist. Such obsessions can be treated.
A classic example...you expect one person to "treat" another.
jk
___________________________________________
P.S. Why did you send the above post to me by private EMail, when you
have previously requested no EMail transactions? While you're at that,
how did you even see the post, after stating that you were to
"killfile" me? Do you think dishonesty "becomes" an "Objectivist"?
And lastly, as long as you bothered to reply, would you care to answer
the original question: WHAT IS A "DECENT" OBJECTIVIST?
Billy Beck
Tom...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Scheeler) wrote:
>In article <gswann-1706...@ip21-103.phx.primenet.com>, gsw...@primenet.com (Greg Swann) wrote:
>[snip]
>>Oh, also: please do include my name in any planned purge list. I had told
>>Jason that I would vote FOR h.p.o., just in the spirit of giving the
>>kiddies their own sandbox, but, alas, I find a.p.o. too easy to ignore
>Interesting!
>I find a.p.o to be more like the sandbox (given some of the
>threads/responses I've seen) and was hoping the h.p.o. would be the realm of
>intelligent adult conversation, much like a library, not the schoolyard
>heckling prevalent here.
Good bloody luck, mate. I mean it.
>I hold hopes that in h.p.o., I can ask questions and receive well though-out
>answers, thereby tweaking my understanding of the world. I find a.p.o. to be
>useful, and have learned much, even from people that have verbally abused
>me. But sometimes it is like trying to think great thoughts in the midst of
>a rowdy kindergarten class (and get away from my firetruck, Beck!! ;~) )
(it's MY truck, Scheeler! I stole it fair & square!)
I dunno what to tell you, Tom. I could be way wrong, but I don't
think it's going to work out like the dream. I'll bet it'll get off
to a fairly good start. Make hay while the sun shines, pal.
I think it is fairly predictable, though, that the same proportions of
drivia and dreck will turn up there soon enough.
That's because some people simply enjoy picking locks.
>>and missed the vote. Darn!. But, in any case, I shouldn't want my perhaps
>>misplaced (omitted) generosity to deny me my rightful desserts as a heretic.
>>I've worked hard to annoy the orthodoxy and I want what I have coming to me.
>Agreed! What orthodoxy needs is a swift kick in the pants.
>So, fire away, Greg!
That's the spirit! And I second the urge to the estimable Swann.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
"Anthology"
Lionell Griffith
An example of Billy Beck doing as he accuses.
There have been hundreds of refutations, analysis of invalidity,
identifications of faulty methods, false content, and the like
of NT. Many of them submitted by myself. Billy, check the
archives. There is no point going over the NT garbage here.
wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) wrote:
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>> Say what you will about Neo-Tech (and I might even join you), but
>>>include this in a spirit of justice:
>>> HPO was designed, from the very start, as a *seclusion* of Objectivism
>>>from Neo-Tech.
>>> It's a tad late to be reminding us that "there is a world out there",
>>>and it is quite true that there will *less* of a world "in there".
>>So, would you argue that Alchemy should be included in Chemistry,
>>or Astrology in Astronomy, or Voodo in Medicine, or Magic in
>>Engineering? NT and that ilk has as much to do with Philosophy and
>>Objectivism as those pseudo-sciences have with ligitimate science.
> More empty pejorative, Lionell. Don't just stand there waving your
>fuckin' arms, mate. I really have seen far more than enough of that.
Why don't you answer the questions instead of "waving your 'fuckin'
arms"? I don't normally use such language, but apparantly that is
the level you wish to communicate.
> Make your case. Get your observations, your reasoning, your
>conclusions, your convictions, and your general shit together in one
>tight bag and make your case.
I and others have - over and over and over and over. Try reading it.
> You read like George Conklin comparing libertarians to Nazis: nothin'
>but air.
I have not read George Conklin, but there are similarities in some of
the underlying notions: the primicy of whim!
> Is that how you *endorse* Objectivism?
> Is that the same rigorous technique with which you ditched
>collectivism?
>>You still have apo and 12000, or so, other news groups that will not
>>exclude such garbage. Feast in the dumpster of philosophy if you
>>like. I prefer more wholesome intellectual food.
> Me too.
> Feed me.
Not my responsibility to feed you. I am willing to trade
rational discussion. This is my last response to you until
I see it from you.
George B
(Sorry if this post appears twice. I have trouble with my newsreader,
and I'm not sure the first one got through.)
>Phil, let me ask you a question:
>If you believe that there shouldn't be any public roads, does that
>mean that, given that there ARE public roads, you shouldn't use them?
>Or if you think there shouldn't be public (government run) libraries,
>does that mean that you should never use the public library, given
>that it exists?
>--
Poor logic, friend!
The reason you would be against the roads is that their built using
_tax-money_. Only an idiot would be against the roads themselves.
Now you didn't pay for HPO (and certainly wasn't forced to), so the
only reason here that you would be against it is that you dislike the
group, and _not_ the way it was financed. In that case, why would you
want to use it?
And if you _do_ wish to use it, then why did you vote no?
(I'm assuming that you did.)
As for me, I VOTED YES. (And I've been waiting for so long.)
George B
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Isaac Asimov The Foundation Trilogy
Michael Huemer
ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) writes:
>>Or if you think there shouldn't be public (government run) libraries,
>>does that mean that you should never use the public library, given
>>that it exists?
>
> The analogy re: h.p.o. is flawed.
I take it your answer is, "No, you can still use the public libraries."
> Furthermore, for your analogy to hold any water, you would have to posit
>that the NO voters had some sympathy for h.p.o. but objected to it because the
>promoters were coercing something on someone else -- which is ridiculous.
Hm, that's right -- the objections to the public roads are far *more
serious* than the objections to h.p.o, but yet it would still be
permissible and reasonable to use the roads.
Your claim that the analogy is flawed appears to be based on a
misunderstanding of precisely what the point of analogy was supposed
to be. The point was simply this: From the fact that you opposed the
creation of something, it does not follow that you would oppose the
use of it, *given* that it has already, over your objections, been
created. Thus, for example, from the fact that you oppose the
building of public libraries (btw, you're not *forced* to use those,
are you?), it does not follow that you would or should regard it as
wrong to use public libraries, given that they've already been built
despite your objections. Whether or not you would oppose using them
would depend on what your reason was for opposing their building. If,
but only if, your reason was (in the most unlikely case) that you
think books are evil and no one should read them, then it would indeed
be inconsistent for you to go on to use the library.
Similarly, if your reason for opposing the creation of hpo was that
you think objectivism is evil and no one should talk about it, then
indeed it would be inconsistent for you to use hpo to talk about
objectivism. On the other hand, there could be any of a number of
other, more plausible reasons for opposing the creation of hpo.
I think the analogy is excellent. The reasons for opposing hpo do not
have to be *the very same reasons* why one would oppose the building
of public libraries in order for the analogy to stand.
Michael Huemer
george...@jonkoping.mail.telia.com (George B) writes:
>The reason you would be against the roads is that their built using
>_tax-money_. Only an idiot would be against the roads themselves.
See my response to Phil. The analogy doesn't depend on the reasons
for opposing hpo being *exactly the same* as the reasons for opposing
the public roads.
>Now you didn't pay for HPO (and certainly wasn't forced to), so the
By the way, that does raise the interesting question: Who IS paying
for hpo, anyway? Seriously, we've all heard that "there's no such
thing as a free lunch," although you may be tempted to think the
internet is an exception. Well, it's not. SOMEONE is paying for all
the disk space that usenet newsgroups occupy, the computer equipment
and maintenance thereof, and the telephone equipment used to transmit
the newsgroups worldwide. If there were no internet, and some company
decided to create it -- i.e., by putting in place all the necessary
equipment (users buy there own pc's of course) -- it would cost an
enormous amount of money, wouldn't it? So who is paying for it, in
reality?
Hey, aren't a lot of the computers that carry and transmit usenet
messages university computers? And aren't almost all universities
publicly funded (even private universities get significant government
contributions)?
>only reason here that you would be against it is that you dislike the
>group, and _not_ the way it was financed. In that case, why would you
Now THAT'S poor logic. Are the only two logically possible reasons to
oppose forming something (a) because you don't like the way it's
financed, and (b) because you think the function it's supposed to
serve is evil? It seems to me there may be any number of other
possible reasons -- though I would not presume to say what those of
the no voters would be. (For instance, you might think the plan would
fail to achieve its purpose, that it would interfere with something
else that was serving the purpose better, that it was unnecessary,
that it was a waste of resources.)
(For example, what if you opposed the building of the public library
because you were afraid it would put the local B.Dalton, which you
work for, out of business. Would it then follow that, if the library
was built anyway, you would refuse to use it? Or what if you opposed
it because you wanted something else to be built on that place? Etc.)
>And if you _do_ wish to use it, then why did you vote no?
>(I'm assuming that you did.)
No, I couldn't be bothered to vote, and I don't know who voted no.
Someone mentioned the predictable list of 'no' voters. Might someone
post that list here, just out of curiosity?
Jimmy Wales
I wrote:
>>The simple fact that someone voted "no" should not lead to the automatic
>>conclusion that there is *no value* to be gained from talking to them.
>>
>>These and related issues are at the *heart* of the Kelley/Peikoff debate.
Phil Oliver <ph...@iquest.net> wrote:
> That could well be. Superficially, the Kelley advocates such as yourself
>advocate "making peace" at any cost,
Phil Oliver knows this is false. He says it anyway. That is, he's lying.
>(Up to and including your own absurd e-mail messages to "Arthra" when that
>particular sub-human was actively spamming a.p.o.)
I wonder if you would be willing to elaborate upon this.
I didn't think so. The cold light of day would expose this smear for
what it is -- the unjust cry of a mediocrity posing as an Objectivist
to attempt to gain some unearned respect.
Give it up Phil, no one believes your crap anymore.
--Jimbo
Billy Beck
lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) wrote:
>An example of Billy Beck doing as he accuses.
>There have been hundreds...
>!< ???
>...of refutations, analysis of invalidity,
>identifications of faulty methods, false content, and the like
>of NT. Many of them submitted by myself. Billy, check the
>archives.
How *bloody* far back do I have to *go*?
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>>So, would you argue that Alchemy should be included in Chemistry,
>>>or Astrology in Astronomy, or Voodo in Medicine, or Magic in
>>>Engineering? NT and that ilk has as much to do with Philosophy and
>>>Objectivism as those pseudo-sciences have with ligitimate science.
>> More empty pejorative, Lionell. Don't just stand there waving your
>>fuckin' arms, mate. I really have seen far more than enough of that.
>Why don't you answer the questions instead of "waving your 'fuckin'
>arms"?
Because I don't buy the *premise*, silly.
You know that.
>I don't normally use such language, but apparantly that is
>the level you wish to communicate.
Set & setting, pal. People get what they deserve from me. No more,
and no less.
Now. Here's your answer: No, I would *not* "argue that Alchemy should
be included in Chemistry, or Astrology in Astronomy, or Voodo in
Medicine, or Magic in Engineering."
Know *why*, Lionell?
Because nobody *could* do that. That's why. I don't care how hard
they tried, no feather-shaking chicken bleeder could ever make it into
a surgical suite; no purple-robed sorcerer could hack chemistry beyond
mixing dirt in a bowl; no card reader could figure a red-shift; and
Davd Copperfield couldn't tell me how to load a truss. Trust me: I
once asked him.
Are ya with me, Lionell? It's *natural*. Such preposterous fakes
simply couldn't hang, and therein lies the whole clue.
>> Make your case. Get your observations, your reasoning, your
>>conclusions, your convictions, and your general shit together in one
>>tight bag and make your case.
>I and others have - over and over and over and over. Try reading it.
What are you talking about? I've seen bits of what passes for
sneerin- I mean...*serious* discussion of this stuff here.
Guess what: some of it was rather interesting. And, except for the
peculiar animosity which NT has to wade through, it was comparable to
other interesting discussions around here...which means to me that
those guys have their places here, just like anybody else.
>>> I prefer more wholesome intellectual food.
>> Me too.
>> Feed me.
>Not my responsibility to feed you.
I didn't say it was, and you're the one who made the nutrition analogy
in the context of a.p.o.
Believe me: I won't starve without you.
>I am willing to trade rational discussion. This is my last response to you until
>I see it from you.
That is certainly your right.
However, you really haven't gone very far in the direction of
addressing the point of my initial post.
Whaddya think I should do, Lionell? Killfile? "Jihad"?
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
"Anthology"
Tom Scheeler
In article <4q5fpm$1h...@mule2.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>Tom...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Scheeler) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>>I hold hopes that in h.p.o., I can ask questions and receive well though-out
>>answers, thereby tweaking my understanding of the world. I find a.p.o. to be
>>useful, and have learned much, even from people that have verbally abused
>>me. But sometimes it is like trying to think great thoughts in the midst of
>>a rowdy kindergarten class (and get away from my firetruck, Beck!! ;~) )
>
> (it's MY truck, Scheeler! I stole it fair & square!)
>
> I dunno what to tell you, Tom. I could be way wrong, but I don't
>think it's going to work out like the dream. I'll bet it'll get off
>to a fairly good start. Make hay while the sun shines, pal.
I said "hope", not "dream". Are they the same?
>
> I think it is fairly predictable, though, that the same proportions of
>drivia and dreck will turn up there soon enough.
>
> That's because some people simply enjoy picking locks.
True enough. Even in such a situation, there will be a better signal/noise
ratio than a.p.o. with its lack of filters. Lock-pickers are probably
inevitable, but it would be nice to make them work harder for it. There are
always a few tricks that can be applied to the occasional adolesant than
gets through.
When I loaded the group his morning there were 108 messages, of which I
marked about 85 as "read" without even glancing at them. I based this on the
thread and the poster. Many of those remaining posts were also garbage and
heckling. I do not expect to ELIMINATE them, only to have to sift through
LESS of them.
Maybe I am not being clear enough: h.p.o. is not to be a private club, but
a public one with a few rules over content and form. This is satisfactory to
me. If it helps to focus the discussions, that is adequate.
If this fails, due to the lack of civility of participants, well, then I'll
spend the money to subscribe to Bob Stubblefields group. It would be tragic,
though, that even self-professed Objectivists, or quasi-Objectivists do not
practice what they preach. Unfortunately, I can count on one hand the
Objectivists that adhere to this.
Tom
Jimmy Pena
X-Newsreader: wsOMR/SOUP v1.20b
Lines: 12
In article <4q43eb$d...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
JH> I still wouldn't mind if the people who voted against HPO were
JH> banned from it. I cannot think of a rational reason why anyone
JH> would vote against it.
I agree with the latter statement. I also think that there are no
values to be gained from those who voted NO, but ban them? Why?
... Doubt is the root of education, not faith.
Nicholas Rich
In article <4q1smn$8...@alice.walrus.com>, ji...@walrus.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:
>Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: > Perhaps you're right. I learned several things, particularly from
>: >the way Steve Reed spits at many of the participants of a.p.o. One, that
>: >there are some people who just don't want to listen. Two, that there are
>: >some people who still find value in listening to nonintellectual debate.
>
>: Oh, and all of that is implicit in, and can be deduced from, a yes or
>: no vote on h.p.o., right? That's all it takes, and the decision to
>: vote yes or no is not more complex than the way you paint it, and it's
>: a boilerplate indicator of the acceptability of the particular voter
>: in question, right?
>
> Perhaps. Someone who votes NO on the group is trying to say that
>they oppose the charter, or the name of the group, or the right of
>individuals to associate. Supposing that the major problem is the latter.
>What would be the implications of someone voting NO? That they don't
>respect the rights of others to associate to the exclusion of others. If
>you still find value in debating with *those* people, be my guest. I do
>not. That is what I said, and what I meant. See, I have this funny little
>habit of trying to reduce conclusions to their logical premises. It's
>just one of my quirks.
God I get tired of this "right-to-assemble" fallacy started by Brad.
You do have a right to assemble... AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE.
Usenet is owned by those ISPs, Universities, and other organizations which
make up the hardware and software of the system. It is an association of
property owners.
In order to make Usenet manageable, and also to have the makeup of the actual
groups carried to reflect what the market predominantly wants, out to as small
of a market share as can reasonably be managed, they have instituted a system
of voting.
And what that system is, is this: a system of voluntary participation whereby
the users assist the owners in deciding how to manage a portion of thier
business.
Think of it as a sophisticated "suggestion box."
This fallacy, stated by Brad, and taken up by most other proponents, elevates
the suggestion box to the status a stock-holder's meeting.
It is not.
Now ENOUGH!
--
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble
nr...@ss-n.com a...@ss-n.com
Take the legal system away from the lawyers - http://www.ss-n.com
(and make money doing it - http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.htm)
"We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you."
-- Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED
Jimmy Pena
X-Newsreader: wsOMR/SOUP v1.20b
Lines: 50
In article <4q27ff$b...@mule2.mindspring.com>,
wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
> Perhaps. Someone who votes NO on the group is trying to say that
>they oppose the charter, or the name of the group, or the right of
>individuals to associate. Supposing that the major problem is the latter.
BB> I have absolutely *no* reason to "suppose" any such thing Jimmy
BB> Pena, and your attempt to smuggle the supposition as premise does
BB> not reflect well on any assumption of honesty which I might be
BB> weak enough to extend to you.
This gets better every time, Billy Beck. With each successive
message, you show me that you've been ignoring what I originally said to
start this thread, and what I've repeated several times: I find no value
in continuing to read messages from, or discuss anything with, those who
would vote NO on h.p.o, because we have a right to associate, and they do
not wish to respect that right, *whether h.p.o would fail or not*. I
killfiled only specific individuals whose names I recognized on the NO
list as being regular posters. Which only came out to about 5 people.
BB> There were lots of good reasons to vote against h.p.o., and
BB> *nobody* ever argued against the right of individuals to
BB> associate - explicitly or *implicitly*.
Apparently, your opinion translates into the right to stop us.
H.p.o may fail. It may fail badly. If so, then leave us to fail. If I
thought a newsgroup would fail, I would say so, as loudly as I can. But I
would *never* interfere with someone else's right to create that
newsgroup (Unless, of course, there was some *other* reason, which I will
purposely leave unstated because it isn't relevant to my comment).
Lots of good reasons? I never followed those threads too closely.
Care to give me your reasons? I saw reasons such as a ban on crossposting
would not help, or something to that effect. I think it will, because
crossposting is one of the reasons why the existing group is full of
irrelevant posting.
BB> ...as is the fact that you studiously neglected to deal with the
BB> fact and implications of *my* yes vote.
If I cared, and/or if it was relevant, perhaps I would ask. I'll
just speculate. The people who voted YES may have done so because they
would find value in the forum, because they want Objectivists to go away
to their own sandbox, or because they could see no reason not to. There
may be other reasons, but I'm writing this very quickly so I'll leave the
rest for others to guess. Which reason did you pick?
... If you learn from mistakes, you will learn a lot today.
Greg Swann
In article <Dt3yL...@iquest.net>, ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) wrote:
> To emphasize again what I have already stated -- although it's a disgusting
>contradiction for those who voted against a newsgroup's creation to then use
>it
How does this follow? The single best reason to vote NO on _any_ newsgroup
proposal is to cut down on the insane proliferation of newsgroups. It
does not follow that any particular NO vote is an expression of hostility
for the proposed newsgroup's charter, nor is the NO voter in some sense
logically obliged to refrain from visiting the new newsgroup when the
vote goes against him.
a.p.o has been and now probably h.p.o will be the primary residence of
the No True Scotsman fallacy. This is the game you're running on Wales,
and, tu quoque, he's running it right back on you. The message I'm
replying to is an attempt to cover your tail after you'd exposed it
rather brazenly. I don't want to play No True Objectivist, but I think
I can name a necessary quality of an objective mind: people who care
about truth are capable of saying, "I was wrong."
Greg Swann