🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov15.094302.8873@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam  
Costello) writes:
> I recently propsed the newsgroup
> 
>     talk.philosophy.objectivism
>     unmoderated
>     For the discussion of all topics related to Objectivism.
> 
> I have since learned of many people who favor the creation of the group,
> and a few who oppose it.  The latter are opposed not to the group per
> se, but to its unmoderated status.  These few claim to be able to rally
> many no-votes, and I have reason to believe them.
> 
> I personally would prefer an unmoderated group, but to me it's more
> important that there be a group at all.  Therefore, I am willing to
> consider changing the proposal to one for a moderated group.  What do
> others think about this?
> 
> If a moderated group were created, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> would be
> willing to serve as moderator.  He is currently moderator of the
> objectivism@vix.com mailing list.
> 
> AMC
> amc@cics.wustl.edu

	My vote would be for an unmoderated group. While I expect that there  
will be some people who will just subscribe so that they may attack objectivism  
at every chance, I think the unmoderated forum would be preferable. If we  
include language in the charter to the effect that such a group is set up to  
discuss objectivism in a productive and useful manner (not necessarily always  
positive, but constructive) then we can simply point out the charter to anyone  
who is a pain, and I should expect that they would comply. If this is not the  
case, may an unmoderated group restrict a person from posting?

--
Robert Seymour				rseymour@reed.edu
Departments of Physics and Philosophy
Artificial Life Project			Reed College
Reed Solar Energy Project (SolTrain)	Portland, OR