IRC log started Fri Apr 12 21:53 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin the discussion, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners - Tom Wright and myself. Copying or redistribution of these logs in any form without the prior permission of the channel owners is prohibited. As usual, the discussion will be in +k mode. If you see anyone not on the channel who would like to be part of the discussion and in your judgement, would not be disruptive, please message them the keyword. The topic for this evening is "On Keeping an Open Mind". Commonly, when someone is accused of not keeping an open mind, the implication is that he is inflexible in his beliefs beyond reason. However, it is also used as an attack against the possibility of the certainty of *any* knowledge, or to make an opponent appear illogical and dogmatic when he refuses to grant sanction to arbitrary and often evil ideas. Therefore, I'd like to start off this discussion with an understanding of the proper meaning of the phrase "to keep an open mind". Is there any *rational* meaning to this phrase? What should one's mind be open to? Subetai: One's mind should be open to existence. One's mind should be open to new scientific proof of certain things which seemed impossible before. Very general, Tom. Could you be more specific in the context of this topic? New information New knowledge that would make a wider context. Sub: New discoveries in science, and ones own mind to check forr possible errrors. Subetai: Open to what can be provable via reason. What's the basis of your certainty in any belief you hold? Proof. one's mind should be open to a better arguement Basically when in Objectivist circles is called an "active mind" The context of your knowledge. To recognize that others may have made inductions or integrations that are germane to what's being discussed, and may differ from one's own. or proof :) Open to the non-arbitrary Okay. So if the basis for one's certainty is one's knowledge and how that knowledge has been processed to come to a conclusion, what should you be open to if that conclusion is challenged? Subetai: only newly discovered facts, or other logical organizations of previous knowledge. Subetai: Errors in your process. [TomR] You can observe a lot just by watching. Indications of logical flaws That other facts exist that are relevant, or that one has made a faulty integration. Intuition, Subetai, is a basis for certainty. The mind doesn't know itself fully... Subetai: You should be open to evidence that was previously unavailable to you that could change the context. Open to hearing about errors in one's own reasoning -- when in fact errors are being demonstrated, not simply "maybe you're wrong." Ely, huh? Tom: You mean things that you weren't aware of, not necessarily the things that no one knew of so far that were just recently discovered. Subetai: Both. ? TomM: The first will always be true, right. One should be open to specifics, not vauguaries .=? re Okay. I wanted to make sure that we covered the fact that our beliefs depend on the context of our knowledge and how we've processed that information to come to conclusions about things. We need to be receptive to new information that may have a bearing on our beliefs, and be willing to examine the the process through which we arrived at any particular conclusion, to ascertain that it was not erroneous. That's what I would consider "keeping an open mind". Any arguments there? Nope okay .... Next, I'd like to examine the other (negative) meaning behind the phrase. It's sometimes used to deny that man can ever be certain of *anything*. What is the psycho- epistemology behind that belief? Anyone? skepticism It asserts that man's mind is incapable of certainty That the mind distorts reality. Hello That one cannot rely on reason to determine anything skepticism is psychoepistemology? That reality is beyond the grasp of man that just beacuse an axiom can not be proven (like existence exists) ie it is self evident.. that one should accpe the premise that all sort of things are tru that can't be prooven .. blech Since the mind processes knowledge it can not be true knowledge. That information we do not possess is more important than what we do possess Subetai: The method of having omniscience as a standard of certainty. it's more of a symptom of a bad Psych.Epist. Fredrik: Good one or the assumption that just because certain people base their ethics, morality etc.. on unsupported assertions.. suggests that people that dont are close minded (blech again) Acceptance of the A-S dichotomy. Fredrik: That's the second point. There's another. That one should be open to new knowledge, even when it contradicts old knowledge. Sub: Please enlighten me! That man not ought not to try to be certain (One too many nots!) yeal : in a sense.. one should be open to new knoweldge even when it contradicts "old" knowledge... then be very careful in figuing out which of the two contradictory knoweldges are correct Fredrik: They're denying the evidence of the senses. They don't require omniscience. They say that it's impossible, just as knowledge about any little facet of reality is impossible. megsi: provided both are true, then one needs to re-integrate. tomm : agreed :) That mans identity is the disqualifying element of consciousness (ITOE) And my question is, what's the psychoepistemology behind that? Megsi: I was referring to people who say one should keep an open mind about religion, etc. even though it contradicts old knowledge. I should have said, accepting things on faith. Psychoepistemology being the interaction between the conscious and subconscious mind from the point of view of cognition. An "open mind" usually means taking the other guys word at it that he has correctly identified some fact of existence, even whe he hasn't. For instance, those who claim that Peikoff is an intrisicist. From the examples given so far, it seems as though the false view of having an open mind stems from subjectivism, i.e. knowledge of reality isn't possible, however I was wondering if it's roots are in intrincisism. Let me explain... The psychoepistemology is that knowledge only comes from the senses, and that rationality plays no part in it Tom: Right, they want you to agree, or at least accept/tolerate them. Some justify it on the grounds that certainty is impossible. Those are the ones I'm asking about now. Others say that certainty is possible, but very hard to come by. That'll be my next An open mind implies believing or not ruling out ideas that have no basis in reality. Open to facts that you may not have considered. Open to utterances as fact Jim: go on Intrincisits hold that we don't gain knowledge by a method, but by revelation...not through sense perception, but from "mind's eye." I was wodering if the phrase "open mind" refers that intrincists belief in the "mind's eye"? Just "open" that "eye", don't resist the truth, etc. Those who say certainty is impossible are relying on the psycho-epistemology of doubt or skepticism...that nothing can ever be proven. So, to an intrincisist, if you don't accept his conclusions, you just don't have an "open mind." You're not accepting his revelations. my problem in debating with a few who claim to have had some type of experience . They do not suggest that this proof is good enough for anybody else.. but that it is good enough for them.. Am I to tell such a person to ignore the evidence of their senses and experience? megsi: ask them to prove it. Jim: Okay. That sounds like their epistemological method. As Tom says, such a person would operate on the basis of doubt/skeptisism. What would they accept as the "truth", whatever the "truth" was to them? well in the case of someone that had a "vision" or witnessed something that could not (as far as they could see it.. be explained by natural phenomena) I will not tell them to ignore what they saw In my experience those who keep calling for "an open mind" aren't really sure of their claims. Those who have given proper thought and integration rest on what they say, not how the other person takes it -- they assume the other person will be rational enough to examine it properly. truth would be a floating abstraction Subetai: The subjectivist has no standard; the intrinsicists claims to have one but offers no p-e advice; neither has a rational claim to knowledge. Subetai: Yes, ultimately an intrincisit is a subjectivist, but I thought the idea of an "open mind" implies some resistence to accepting someone's assertion of the truth. To an intrinsicist, the only reason you'd deny their view of the truth is if you're not opening up your mind to the revelations. [Gardner] "Any sufficiently advanced website is indistinguishable from software." unless of coarse they were on some type of mind altering drugs.. or were schizophrenic or had some sort of brain chemistry imbalance Jim: Okay, I see what you're saying. All right. Next kind of person who wants you to have an open mind .... Another erroneous belief is that one must know everything (or at least, lots and lots of things) in order to be sure of even the most simple things. It commonly comes across as the statement that you must be closed-minded because your knowledge is very little, and yet you presume to be so sure of belief X. What's wrong with this statement, and what's the psycho-epistemology behind it? He said psycho-epistemology... This is Fredrik's point about those who require omniscience. Subetai: Such an accusation implies that the preson doesn't grasp the contextual nature of knowledge. Jim: What's there to grasp? Please explain. It assumes knowledge is static...and that since we are incapable of being omnicient...we are incapable of ever knowing anything It has to be some kind of concrete-bound/emotional psycho-epistemology. Subetai: Such that you can't know knowledge within a context...you'd have to know how a fact relates to EVERYTHING in existence for you to know anything about it. Hmmm. Didn't come out quite as I wanted. It is concerned with the quantity of information, rather than its structure Jim: Does that include the belief that everything influences everything else? Does the fact that some child in Asia forgot to bring in his homework to school today influence the earth's rotation around the sun? Is there a missing sense of causality there? Subetai: I know what I watched on television tonight, but I don't know everything about it...such as how it was produced, how it was broadcasted, etc. So, I'd be accussed of not really knowing what I watched. It dismisses the notion of distinguishing characteristic Subetai: Psyco-epistememology goes something like this in this case. ' The only method of certainty there is is to check for noncontradiction. And in order to have that and still to have something meaningfull, it must be larrge. ' All this since the ... ... senses are not trustworthy. in favor of nothing distingquishing at all I'm asking this: when they ask for omniscience in order to have certainty, are they missing the fact that you need to know *relevant* facts rather than *all* facts? Subetai: That wasn't my specific point. My point is not knowing everything about something, such that you'd be accussed of not really understanding what it is you do know. Subetai: Yes, I think that's my point It's the skeptic's idea again that since the mind processes knowledge in a certain way, that its conclusions cannot be valid. Jim: I understand that point. I'm asking why it's so. What's missing in their understanding of reality. Subetai: Such persons do not know a thing about context...you can only know what you know, and ratioanlly organize it. They miss rationality as the basis for knowledge, and senses for information They think sense provide knowledge And rationality is just meant to keep an "open mind" Okay. So what's the world view of someone who claims that you need to know damn near everything to be sure of even one little thing? Subetai: The point isn't in their understanding of reality, but in their understanding of the nature of knowledge. They don't grasp that what you have evidence for you actually have evidence for. I had a similar arguement by email.. the young man suggested that because axioms could not be proven... everything we thought about anything was merely an an assumption Subetai: that's already been answered, but further, they ahve a standard of omniscience, and disregard sense perception as the bases of knowledge. I don't have any referents for such people. Are you talking about someone other than those who simply assert "arguments" from being a presumed authority? that proof of something presuposes the primaries of existence... conscious and existence world view? They have a concrete bound world view. Things happen, but they aren't sure why, and think the "why"s are unknowable no... it isnt just that ousey.. it is far worse... they are attempting to invalidate the faculty of reason subetai: It's not a world view, necessarily, but a knowledge view. Even Objectivism holds that everything is interconnected...that's the metaphysical basis for the need of integration of knowledge. But what the omniscience people don't grasp is how knowledge is contextual, that you do know what you have evidence for, even if you don't know everything else. as a tool of cognition Ousey: Yes, the world gives them pain, and there this world is not a nice place. there:=therefore The idea that you can't jusdge someone on moral grounds until you have their entire case history before you is part and parcel to this idea. -s Tom: I think we may be mixing two categories of people in that answer. There are those who claim that knowledge is impossible, because our senses lie, and those who claim that it's possible, but would require a great deal of knowledge to achieve certainty. Jim: Interconnected is different from "causally-connected". Should we make that distinction? TomM: Of course, it is also an error to judge anything with insufficient evidence, which is the opposite of the omniscience error...judging someone out-of-context. Subetai: The first are skeptics on principle; the other is a skeptic without principles ;) :) Well, we need to move on. Moving on to the next question. What should one *do* about keeping an open mind? What kind of statements that challenge your beliefs should you take the trouble to investigate? You gonna bring up the h.b.o. bit? Presently, hc. Subetai: Only those that are provable via reason and based on the evidence of the senses. Tom: How would you know that to begin with? h.p.o. Subetai: The ones that you can't thouroughly disprove? Subetai: don't know what you are asking...in the beginning, one must organize one's mind. Maybe it's a hunch at first... as long as those people dont wish to impose thier warped views on others... i suggest all you really have to say is " I disagree" .. since by their own arguement your "oppinion" is just as valid as thiers :) Something that makes you stop and go "Hmmmm" Okay. There must be some reason for you to believe that a particular claim could be true. What kind of reason would that be? Subetai: Only if it is logically tied to the available evidence. Subetai: Any attack on the self-evident can be dismissed pretty quickly. It's plausibility Tom: Okay. So it's something that you can connect to *something* else you already know as true. Subetai: You can't think of anything that contradicts it? A new, and more essential distinguishing characteristic, like "rational animal" was for man. Any attack on logic as a tool can be dismissed or you dont even have to say I disagree .. just say " wrong" Something that on its own terms is well-integrated and not openly contradictory, and may be relevant to examining another facet of what's at issue. The person offering must be seen as wanting sincere discussion, as well. Sub: It doesn't contradict but corresponds to yourr body of knowledge. or "no" feasibility We've talked about what one can do to keep an open mind in the sense that he continues to expand his knowledge and examine his beliefs. Since knowledge is hierarchical, missing chunks of this hierarchy cast doubt on everything you know that depends on the missing facts. Many of us have such chunks missing from our knowledge, and consequent uncertainties about other things that depend on the missing knowledge. Some items may challenge more fundamentals than one thinks necessary. But if the one offering is honest, we should avoid ruling it out of court. We should admit that another context, another time, may make it appropriate to examine more fully. If you're presented with a statement that you cannot explicitly refute, yet you can tell that it somehow contradicts your beliefs, how should you go about examining it? What's a good response to such a statement? It would be a good excercise to examine how Francisco D'Anconia lead Reardon to check his premises. Subetai: ask for more details "you may have something there...lemme think on it a bit...I'll get back to you. Subetai: one can not have a hierarchy of knowledge if there are missing knowledge lower down on that hierarchy. not a good answer = you ignorant evading shit.. shut up and get a clue ! "I need to think about it." Subetai: Ask for the evidence that the person has to back up that statement...and check if it is valid. You have to reserve judgement until you can integrate it one way or the other. or prove or disprove it. Subetai: Both generalize it and concretize it and there should be plenty of material with which you can chech his claim. or " for the time being untill I have had time to think.. and get more evidence.. can we agree to disagree" check Subetai: Ask yourself what evidence you know that supports your own belief, i.e. what is the basis for your own feeling that you are correct? Tom: I'm saying that knowledge is hierarchical. Meaning that high school algebra precedes college algebra. However, people acquire bits of information that they have insufficient basis for. It exists in their mind. I'll give you an example.... For example, I can read the popular press for things on cosmology. I am not a physicist. Yet I undoubtedly know quite a few things about cosmology without having a sufficient background in it. I can easily be put in a position where I doubt my knowledge.. Subetai: My point is that you can't even *have* that part of the hierarchy unless you had some evidence for it. because it has no firm foundation. Same thing happens to people in philosophy, specially beginners, before they have fully integrated and checked their knowledge for such gaps. Subetai: And you have evidence for thos pictures of far away celestial things. It's possible to see the framework for a body of knowledge without knowing every elaboration. You can't act on the elaborations without knowing them, but that doesn't mean you can't see the important issues in such a field. To get such a framework, the essentials of logical hierarchies, used to be the heart of what was called "a liberal education." TomM: I'm saying that you have a belief with some basis for it, but not an adequate basis (one that holds up to close scrutiny). TomM: In cosmology: consider dark matter, we can't see it, but cosmological models say it *might* be there Subetai: Then you must hold it as a maybe, not as real knowledge, which is fine if it is not in your vlaue hierarchy. Tom: The evidence might simply be the word of scientists who you have come to trust. It's not an adequate basis, but it is some basis, as Subetai said. Subetai: You would know however that causality can't be invalidated by cosmological theories, so any claim of that would be easy to dismiss. However, if someone proposes that the redshifting is the result of plasma effects rather than expansion of the universe, that would be something you might not know the validity of. Ousey: that is only a theory, based on speculation. What do you do when someone attacks such a belief? Happens to all of us when we start reading Objectivism. Determine if a discussion is waranted It may not be Subetai: You can only go by what you *do* know to be true via a ratioanl method. Okay. So you declare the outcome as "undecided" and go read/think some more? Do you continue to act on that belief as if nothing had happened? Subetai: if you can't integrate it, then you can't act on it. Subetai: One of the things Objectivism did was to challenge you to examine your own premises, to check to see what you base your conclusions on. 29 Sometimes to check premises, one must attempt to act on them Tom: The belief was that honesty is good. You're trying to act on it. Someone comes along and shows you that you don't *really* know why honesty is good. Subetai: You have to be very careful and use your best judgment. Jim: Sure. You challenge your premises. But meanwhile? You need to reduce it back down to first level concepts and then build back up to the higher level concept, while at the same time integrating to your context of knowledge. Subetai: When someone challenges one of your beliefs, you need to consider what you based your beliefs on. If you can't defend your own beliefs even to yourself, you need to consider the issue further. subetai : I think it is a good idea to keep your beliefs untill such a time as some one categorically shows you exaclty HOW your understanding is flawed Jim: Yes, and you are considering it. But that takes time. What do you do meanwhile? Subetai: You consult the magnificent great being of all knowledge ;) What are you asking? [Clay] "The struggle of history is between those who can, and those who won't." Subetai: You clarify for yourself where you are uncertain. Subetai: Meanwhile? What do you mean? In the meanwhile you act on what you do know. It is doubtful that everything in your life is that uncertain. it can be a painfull process that requires rigourous self honesty.... and in my own case the willingness to drop certain ideas I had integrated at the drop of a hat the minute they were shown to be false megsi: Okay. So you'd continue with it until you knew it was wrong, rather than suspend it until you could prove it was right? Subetai: It is better to be able to prove it. ok (Where proof is applicable). Time's short. Final question.... subetai : if one has integrated an idea into their life... I am saying that only a very stong arguement is going to shake them out of it Finally, I'd like to bring in a practical aspect of these questions. Several people on a.p.o. have often accused Objectivists of being closed minded, unwilling to consider possibilities other than they "dogmatically" believe, etc. What's the harm, if any, in letting people present their own beliefs in a forum, provided that you do not sanction their beliefs is they are contrary to reason? Is the 'golden rule' a reliable guide to behavior? Subetai: It is a waste of time to read those rumblings. That's about h.p.o., in case people missed it. and in fact... If ones ideas can stand up to the best of arguements .... they should be kept... Untill such a time as their ideas are shown to be false.. equivocation is not a fun place to be Any other reason? Anyone worried about what newbies might think of a.p.o? or a particulary moral highground... if you honestly hold a belief to be true and you act according to your own undersatdingin of what is right.. you are in better shape to integrate the new ideas.. than wishy washyiness One does not come to trade in the marketplace of ideas with an empty wallet (An "open mind" is often an empty mind). I don't participate in a.p.o....Haven't got much to base a decision on. certainly no personal experience. Would like to hear Subetai: Regarding apo...i don't care, and haven't for quite some time...they will find their way eventually. from those of you who do deal with it. Sub: The forum says something about whats in the forum. E.g. a.p.o says its about o'ism. But is it really? Frankly, it reminds me of the Young Republicans....infighting..factions, bleah Fred: Not without a moderator. You're concerned about misrepresentation of Objectivism, Fredrik? Sube: I'm concerned about wasting time trading thought for thoughtlessness Subetai: There is no stopping misrepresentation...except by the mind considering it. How would h.p.o. avoid the same trap? ...and putting both right next to each other on the same shelf Sub: Yes, as you said about the impression a newbie might get. Anyone here thinks that it's part of "keeping an open mind" to let dissenters into a forum? Subetai: I think it should be made clear that an open forum such as a.p.o should not be taken as official Objectivist thought, any more than comp.lang.eiffel, comp.lang.c, etc. contain only valid views on those programming languages. APO as a newbie was a scary thing... now i see it as a silly thing Subetai: depends on both the forum and the nature of the discentor. Subetai: Yes, as long as they are offering some reasonable arguments. Jim_N: You don't get a discölaimer while using a newsreader. Meaghan - rather like #freedom? no.. #freedom is a joke Subetai: Depends on the nature of the dissent. If it is a discent on the very topic of a forum, i.e. someone wants to talk about food when the forum is for discussing clothes, it is necessary to restrict the discussion to the topic on which the forum was formed. megsi: What gave you a clue? If you considered letting in a (polite) dissenter into a forum you ran, would it be part of "keeping an open mind" to you? Jim: Right. I'm talking about someone who sticks to the topic but is not an Objectivist. Fredrik2: If someone can't distinguish between a forum that represents an idea vs. a forum that allows any comments about an idea, then that's a mistake on their part. subetai.. yes.. as long as they are honest about wanting to find out about OISM and not there in a covert attempt to cnvert us Depends on how long he remained "polite". Sooner or later, he'll betray himself when faced against Objectivism Subetai: No, but it is good at times to be challenged by at least a half-way presentation. Subetai: Not if hes stating that hes a dissenter. Then people has a choiche about his postings. the type that ask questions and then get pissed off abut the answers are annoying Okay. I'll end the formal discussion here. Informally, how many of you are supporting h.p.o.? Subetai: you can't ignore the nature of the 'dissent' that they are complaining will be disallowed. flaming by the Ouray trolls, spamming by NeoTech, and massive purposeful crossposting to destroy the Signal-To-Noise ratio in the news group wasn't dissent, it was a beer hall putzch. Subetai: I'll give it a try, and will probably vote "yes". Subetai: It still depends on what is considered dissent. For example, even on OSG there is alot of debate about the meaning of terms, etc. For example, the "value" debate. Who are the dissenters? I think it was a valid debate. Sub: I am. <> PhilTwo raises hand I'm going to vote for HPO. I'm still trying to figure out where and how to vote Me too. :) Subetai: I don't have a problem with h.p.o. How often I read from it depends on the quality of postings to it. I'll vote for it too. I don't feel I have enough info Subetai: What is the issue in your mind that you would consider voting against it? Maybe I'll visit apo I think its odd that there has to be a "vote" on something like this Well, we need 100 more yes votes than no votes. I don't really think it will be a vast improvement...since it will still not be moderated. Plus the right ratio Jim: None. I'm worried about people prejudging it. Indifference. oh.. i thought is was going to be moderated Who is "We" Subetai? TomM: It will be automoderated Ousey: I think the usnet operators need to know there is a real need before starting a new newsgruop. phil2 what does that mean? HC: All of us who want to see h.p.o become a reality. phil: I know that...trouble is, who maintains the primary banning list? megsi: A computer program will automatically bounce out postings containing references to any Neotech bull and a few other things But if someone votes "no", why should they be tallied in. Why should those who want to congregate be held hostage to those who don't want them to congregate? [Freeman-1] http://locals.onslowonline.net/~mshilton/ Ousey: Well, it is my understanding that the usenet operators don't currently think there is a problem. Ousey: It's the way things are done on the usenet. Many sites carry the traffic, like it or not. I can see the sheer number of "yes" votes being a good criteria, but the "no" votes should be irrelevant, since they don't represent the people who want it <> megsi personally wont support a newgroup that is only for certain cliques of Oists to carrry out their grudges against other cliques of oists... enough of that silliness. not talking about neotechs Ousey: It's not irrelevant. It directly affects the outcome of whether the group is created or not, by fixed rules megsi: Well, the neo-techers are not Objectivists. Sub: Ok thanks for this good talk. How do I get it from hal? I know, I'm wondering about those rules Ousey: The "no" votes help keep newsgroups from proliferating beyond the ability of systems to handle the traffic. Phil: Right. And those fixed rules are there for a reason. Their machines are handling the traffic too. Tomm I know that Megsi: good comment Subetai: I don't disagree with the logic -- but the fact is, there will be massive vote fraud on the part of the Neotechers and sundry spammers LIke I said, reminds me of my days in the Young Republicans But the "no" votes give those who know they will be left out the ability to keep everyone else chained to them Had enough of that outta here. nite all Phil: the Neo-Techers will be Neo-Cheating? who'da thunk it? <> NathanJ whines, "Where's Baz?" Ghaki: But you're just using regular logic, not Neo logic ;) <> Ousey thinks about setting up a web-site forum for Objectivists, but dismisses it as too costly for himself Ousey: Are you a member of OSG? No I'm not much of a member of anything Ousey: Well, OSG is the best forum (e-mail) for discussing Objectivism. night all! And the first month is free. :) [Clay] "The struggle of history is between those who can, and those who won't." Phil: oh! I Neo-understand now. re Clay Okay. Tom has something to say.... yael : TANSTASFL ;) Megsi, huh? Anyway, how does one vote for HPO? megsi: What does "TANSTASFL" stand for? I've never learned that one, but have seen it several times. T.here A.re N.o S.uch T.hings A.s F.ree L.unches there aint no such thing as a free lunch [RexMundi] This entrance message is rightside up. Meaghan got it I'll vote but I'll hold off before posting there like I used to for apo 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applied to culinary expenses Hi Subetai. I have to apologize for last time. I carried on too Kpart: It'll die an untimely death if you do that. Gilles: Carried on what? I don;t see hpw the zonbies can be kept out How do I vote!?! Kpart: If it's a quiet group, they'll scrap it. There is a probational period. Ousey: the instructions will be in the Call For Votes that will be posted to the newsgroup. the auto moderator will scan the posts for key words Ghaki: On APO? We'll post the instructions on Hal9001. let me guess.. posts with "branden" in it wont be allowed ;) Ousey: APO news.groups OSG etc etc *laugh* Wright: so, it is best not to discuss Neo at all, (such as criticism of it) since it will be flagged? Thanks, Subetai <> TomM wonders if there are more than 100 good Objectivists to fill the gap? How soon to the vote? no problem. That new group is a good thing. can the automoderator weed out certain users? Rex: they have their own newsgroup, it's on topic there. it isn't on HPO (or APO) brb Free: it could be set up to do that, sure. Freeman: yes. even better! TomM: It really comes down to how many a.p.o people can't stand the neo-tech posts. Ghaki: ok. jim_n: true.