Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Abuses of the net and Talk.rand
Message-ID: <1484@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sun, 14-Dec-86 07:11:15 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1484
Posted: Sun Dec 14 07:11:15 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 01:35:58 EST
References: <8612080908.AA08813@jade.berkeley.edu> <517@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Centram Systems, Berkeley
Lines: 60

I feel I ought to respond to this description of a recent exchange by Gene
Ward Smith:

> I find it amusing that one of the net.old-timers popped into the group,
> saw our harsh anti-Objectivist flames and went into a dither.

First, thanks for acknowledging my seniority; I was beginning to doubt my
own identity after tens of people on sf-lovers acted as if I had suddenly
appeared from nowhere in October 1986....

> It was suggested by us, between epithets, that he read Rand's "philosophy",
> and upon doing so he concluded that it was total garbage, one major fallacy
> per page, and gave up reading the book as a result.

True enough.

> This was after telling us in e-mail what close-minded anti-fringe jerks we
> were.

I feel that this sentence is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.  I
did not initiatre electronic mail contact with you; your version seems to
state that I spontaneously wrote you insulting letters.  In fact, the three
of you wrote me several insulting messages, to which I responded with calm
and equanimity.  I was called a "moron" more than once, but at no time did I
respond with similar insults via mail.

> The point is that if there are flames, perhaps it is for a reason. 

I am a long-time supporter of this idea.  I also support as an equal
principle that the reason for the flame must always be made clear, and
rationally supported, within the same message.  I have at times failed to
obey this myself, being human, but such incidents are usually several months
apart.  On the other hand, the discussion of Objectivism when I entered the
group was composed entirely on your side of flames (and flames more
insulting in any one instance than my entire output for a year) with no
rational support given.  That has since changed back to reasoned discussion,
which I applaud; but note that even the "Brahms Mafia" have admitted that
they deliberately changed their style in response to requests.

That I agree with the conclusions of your argument does not imply that I
support its form.

> One must be careful not to judge too quickly or superficially that
> "censorship" is what is intended by someone who is merely pointing out that
> someone else is a fool.

Also true enough.  Calling someone a gibbering moron is not in the same
league as trying to get someone banished from the net.  However, I do think
Eyal has a point about the flames against Objectivists participating in
talk.philosophy.misc .  I don't agree with anyone who would try to define a
philosophical work as "not *really* philosophy" just because it happens to
be fallacious, any more than I agree with Christians who would say that
sects with which they disagree are "not *really* Christianity".  I feel such
statements are intolerant and have an aim not fundamentally different from
censorship.  Still, wishful thinking tending toward censorship is not in the
same league as actual attempts to apply the power of censorship.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)