About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 100

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All:

Whether Linz' tirades are caused by alcohol or not I have no opinion. However, I have the opinion that this behavior is learned. Just as Clinton did it because 'he could' so Linz does it because he could (can). Somewhere in his development nobody had the authority and will to say to him that such behavior was inappropriate. Being a 'bad boy' can have positive reinforcement Justifying his antics as 'passion' is pure bullshit.

Apparently he's a TV personality in NZ. Does he get away with this behavior on the air? Does he make his money this way a la Howard Stern?

Sam


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 101

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I bearly got a few posts under my belt, before Linz decided I was a social climber (whatever that meant) and musically illiterate. I'm not, so it didn't bother me. Later came kinder words.
Robert, I wish more SOLOists displayed your level of maturity.

(Edited by Duncan Bayne
on 7/31, 9:26pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 102

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 12:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara Branden wants to use Linz as a punching bag if he displeases her with any comments he makes. He says something, he gets a punch. He apologies, he gets a punch. If he abstains from posting at all, he gets a punch. She also started this "drunk" innuendo shit in her first post (#29) "I did badger you to join the ranks of the sober and the civilized."

I think Barbara's reaction to Linz's apology shows what a hypocrite she is. Over a month ago a women left SOLO because of the "Elmore" stuff. A number of people thought that this woman would be a loss for SOLO and wanted Linz to try to bring her back. He said he would try. He came back and said she had sand bagged him-- she was coming back and then at the last moment said no. This was the total public part of the story on the forum.

Soon a hysterical Barbara Branden accused Linz and Joe of some kind of conspiracy against this woman. Linz shut her up when he said he had this woman's e-mails. Barbara never gave an apology for these baseless charges. They were more serious and more damning to the character of Joe or Linz, if true, then calling someone a "hand ringer" or "fork tongued."

She did it again with her post on the "Jim Peron" thread. Though innuendo, she accused everyone with any evidence, of being in a witch hunt. Again no apology.








And you all thought I was going to point out that James Valliant proved that Barbara Branden made up the story about Frank O'Connor being an alcoholic.



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 103

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 6:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter,

Please take a deep breath and hold on a sec. You are one whom I respect a great deal and some of your contributions that I have read have been absolutely stunning. So talking to you is not the same for me as talking to one who has done nothing.

I understand your anger and I am EXTREMELY favorable to one who stands up for his friends, like you just did for Linz. I would like to echo all of your positive feelings for him. I don't share the negative ones about Barbara.

Frankly I don't know the way out of this mess and I am seeking. I want to preserve them both as friends - from love and respect for them both. Also, I have a deeply held opinion that they belong together.

Does a whole lifetime become undone because of one mistake? I ask this on both sides of the issue. Both Barbara and Linz have magnificent achievements. Both stumble. Do we merely look at the stumbles and not at the achievements?

I have tried to stress this in the past and I will keep on stressing it. Let's by all means get them both boxing gloves and let them slug it out. But I cannot ignore their value - either of them.

So without going into Barbara is right/wrong or Linz is right/wrong, one thing that is not productive at all is to give sanction to someone like Glenn Heppard, who has done nothing on Solo but grasp at straws and stick his tongue out in posts at big names in the hopes of gaining attention.

Tomorrow that name will be you or Linz (or another of the good guys) when the attention dies down and he needs his fix. Yesterday it was Chris Sciabarra of all people.

Like I said, I understand your anger. I sympathize with much of it, but you are much, much better than that. Do you really need a brat to help your public arguments? Or was that just to obliquely dump on Barbara?

Michael


Post 104

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Duncan,

Robert, I wish more SOLOists displayed your level of maturity.
Thanks, but I am 63 years old, I deserve little credit.  Humans are like cheeses and wines they improve with age.


Post 105

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is foolish to set out to control someone else's behavior. But we can control our own. Trickier business, really.

The only options for someone displeased with the behavior of another towards them is to continue to be available to it (which can involve fighting, persuasion, whining, and whole other range of stances), or to simply not be in the presence of that behavior.

This is a very simple thing, but that's how it works, in the real world.


Post 106

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 3:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

That last statement was so simple it was brilliant.

---Landon


Post 107

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 5:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Robert - as a 60 year old youngster, I agree wholeheartedly.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 108

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Such a coincidence. I was talking to a sixty year old and a sixty three year old yesterday. The 63 year old said, ďOh, what I wouldnít give to take a healthy piss again. The 60 year old said, ďI wish I could have an uncomplicated bowel movement.Ē

I said, ďI have a smooth pee around 5-6 am, a welcome and simple movement around 7. My problem is getting out of bed by ten.Ē

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 109

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To age well, one has to take care of self - else gets mold, like cheese.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 110

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 4:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been busy with various matters offline and was unaware of this latest dreadful ruckus until last night.

I would like to start by thanking Lance for his compliment way back in post 49 of this thread.

I have long been concerned about the aspects of Linz's behaviour that have generated this and far too many other threads here on SOLO (i.e. his tendency to blow up and hurl unwarranted and/or unnecessary invective), and have expressed concerns both publicly and privately to Linz in the (failed) hope of convincing him that the behaviour was unproductive and at times unjust.

While these various incidents are no doubt exploited by some of Linz's detractors, my own concerns about the behaviour arise from the fact that I admire him and his achievements so much. And he has achieved much that is great - leaving a lucrative tv career rather than be an "intellectual whore", starting the Free Radical up from scratch, and of course founding SOLO. Were this type of problematic behaviour being displayed by some punk in a trashy bar, no one would be too concerned, no one would expect better. For me, it's a problem when Linz does it because I know he is better than that. To the extent that certain valued members of SOLO have left the organisation in part due to that behaviour, it has damaged Linz's own achievement. A communist on another internet forum once told me in anger that I ought to be put up against a wall and shot. I laughed that off. Linz once told me in anger to "fuck off" after I defended a friend against what I believed were unjust attacks from Linz. That bothered me a whole lot more, because it came from Linz.

And let me make clear that while I do think Linz has a problem of some sort, and while I do retain tremendous respect for Barbara and James, I do not think that it was either wise or proper of them to suggest with basically no evidence whatsoever that Linz's problems are due to alcoholism.

None of this is meant as a personal attack on Linz - despite my arguments and disagreements with him I have attempted to maintain cordial relations, and I sincerely hope that his current "sabbatical" enables him to finally deal with his problems.

MH


Post 111

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 7:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

I guess I should have said some of us improve with age, or we should improve with age.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 112

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew,

Henry Cameron is not a villain. Rand approved of KASS.  I donít have to tell you, she did a bit of it herself; she wasnít about to be some mousey little footnote in history.  The tension was palpable at NBI lectures when she thundered, ďAre you in Focus?Ē

 

I understand both the frustration and the passionate commitment from which Linzís tirades derive.  What most donít understand is how many of them are meant to be funny; that aside, they are attention grabbing, clever, creative, savvy marketing and good for business.  If his approach were quiet and dignified, as some would have it, SOLO would be just another Objectivist snooze.  

 

I donít want to see Kick Ass become Kiss Ass. He is not always right but his approach is right on.


Post 113

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"What most donít understand is how many of them are meant to be funny; that aside, they are attention grabbing, clever, creative, savvy marketing and good for business. If his approach were quiet and dignified, as some would have it, SOLO would be just another Objectivist snooze. I donít want to see Kick Ass become Kiss Ass. He is not always right but his approach is right on." [Robert D]

There's two distinctions to be made here: i) If something is meant to be deliberately over the top, funny, a rant, a joke, a clever gibe directed at someone you basically respect rather than meant literally, that should be made clear in some way (including to the intended object of it). ii) It can be appropriate to direct calumny or insult at really vicious people or movements. Anything you want to say about the character of Hitler or an equivalent is probably not going to be unfair or unjust. But there aren't many Hitlers, certainly not in the Objectivist movement.

Phil

Post 114

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 8:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Like I have said before, humor is malicious - but what or whom it is directed to makes for all the moral difference.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 115

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison wrote:
What most donít understand is how many of them are meant to be funny; that aside, they are attention grabbing, clever, creative, savvy marketing and good for business. If his approach were quiet and dignified, as some would have it, SOLO would be just another Objectivist snooze. I donít want to see Kick Ass become Kiss Ass. He is not always right but his approach is right on.
Phil Coates commented:
There's two distinctions to be made here: i) If something is meant to be deliberately over the top, funny, a rant, a joke, a clever gibe directed at someone you basically respect rather than meant literally, that should be made clear in some way (including to the intended object of it). ii) It can be appropriate to direct calumny or insult at really vicious people or movements. Anything you want to say about the character of Hitler or an equivalent is probably not going to be unfair or unjust. But there aren't many Hitlers, certainly not in the Objectivist movement.
I like this distinction, but where's the other one?  :-)
 
In regard to i), I have recently been the target of an over the top SOLO rant by someone who has been my friend for 35 years, and whom I assume respects my intellect and devotion to rational values (e.g., knowledge, morality, rights). There was no tongue in cheek, no humor, no light heartedness, just an intense, sarcastic and judgmental attempt to shut me down and discredit me to others for advocating a viewpoint that he thinks (or fears) would threaten his values. I would have greatly appreciated his having handled it less antagonistically and defensively. We could have dialogued and explored the points of disagreement and remained on friendly terms.
 
In regard to ii), I see very little blistering of Hitler types in comparison to the
"bandwidth" that is consumed these days --and not just on SOLO -- on trying to eviscerate those within the Objectivist movement who do not see eye to eye with one. It seems that, as soon as one decides certain people, who used to be one's friends or colleagues, have fun afoul of some principle, they become actually worse enemies than Hitler (because they should have known better, or some such reason) and thus deserving of public flogging (with words). Yesterday, it was Nathaniel Branden vs. Hitler, today it's David Kelley vs. Stalin, tomorrow, who? Chris Sciabarra vs. Osama bin Laden? Good God...
 
Personally, I'm glad I'm not an Objectivist, if that's what being one requires. But how much safer is it to be (as Adam Reed suggests) a "Randian"? Lord, please deliver us from the fanatics.
 
Best to all,
REB

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 8/02, 8:51am)


Post 116

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 4:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phillip,

that should be made clear in some way (including to the intended object of it).
All it takes is half a brain, a second read and a sense of humor. 


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 117

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 5:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lord, please deliver us from the fanatics.
And those thin of skin. 

I will regurgitate.  No one hurts your feelings.  You choose to feel hurt.  If someone you respect thinks your latest is a crackpot theory from hell and tears bedim your lovely eyes; you are valuing someone else's opinion above your own.    Dry your tears and check your premises.


Post 118

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 8:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 8/03, 9:26am)


Post 119

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Eleanor Roosevelt ("No one can make you feel bad without your consent.") and her contemporaries used to buy into this notion, but I see some problems.  One is that it's false, and the other is that it's pernicious.  If someone has hurt us we're never better off believing that we're additionally at fault for being hurt.  If a particular reaction is indefensible you might get at it indirectly by questioning the beliefs that were a necessary condition thereof (as both Objectivists and cognitive therapists maintain), but simply to say "[y]ou choose to feel hurt" is to overstate the point.  If you took this seriously you'd have to conclude that no one is ever to blame for bad manners or verbal cruelty because it's always the fault of the person on the receiving end.

The ur-Objectivist literature is ambiguous about this.  Branden made the essential observation - that feelings aren't under direct volitional control - back when he was writing in The Objectivist, but a lot of Rand's writings, and some of his own from those days, send a different message.

Peter


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.