RoR: Forum

James, Joe, Barbara, Lance,

Right on.

Others:

So now Linz is the victim here?

Since when is speaking the truth as you see it inappropriate on this forum? Did Linz make some new rule while I wasn't watching?

NO ONE goes from brilliant to raging asshole and back without a reason. You'd prefer think that Linz is insane rather than he has a drinking problem? Or, just "normal eccentric" for brilliant guys with "feelings"?

James', part about "enablers" comes to mind here.

Post 21

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 8:42am

I can make no comment about Linz either way, as I do not know him at all, but what the fu?
Robert had the perfect metaphor when he said-"this hand-grenade tossed in as you close the door and make good your escape." What evidence do you have to present us with James? Please respond to this question. And also why air it out in public? Even if Linz has a problem, doing something this vile is only bound to make it worse.
I do not know you either James, but this reeks-what a complete lack of moral integrity you have seemingly displayed. I hope you will respond with an attempt to clarify, rather than tucking tail and running as if you were hoping to leave this place in shambles.

Post 22

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 8:52am

Between the following '|' '|' characters, I will display all of the evidence provided by James, all of the evidence that I know of, and all of the evidence provided by others so far that support the statement "Linz is an alcoholic."

||

Is there any other evidence that I am un-aware of?

Post 23

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 8:54am

Brilliant Mike. You may wish to go study up on some of the logical fallacies; "either/or", "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"...just to name a couple.

Post 24

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 9:05am

James, Joe, Barbara, Lance ... and Mike,

Any end (to aim at) prescribes the right means to achieve it. I don't use a mallet to swat a mosquito on my friend's forehead. This publication was a collectivist mallet. Whether or not any accusations apply, it IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG to make such a public display.

I challenge you 5 to attempt to integrate this 'public display' with Rand's insights on the matter:

------------------
An individual has no right to do a "sit-in" in the home or office of a person he disagrees with ...

The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy.
------------------

This 'display' is a step in the wrong direction -- a step toward incivility and collectivism. It is an example of the kind of thinking that led to the verdict in the Kelo case -- and I find that despicable.

Ed

p.s. Don't anyone attempt to "preach" to me about the train-wreck potentialities of alcoholism.

When I was just a child, riding in the van with my family, my drunken mother tried to wreck the vehicle -- with the verbalized purpose to kill my family -- by driving off the road at high speed. My drunken father controlled the van to a stop, and then proceeded to 'control' my mother to a stop -- by repeatedly slamming her body against the side of the van.

I'm crying now -- as I remember sitting helplessly in the van, hearing those horrible thuds and feeling the van jar to the side, as my father repeatedly slammed my mother's body against the side of the van.

The horrors associated with alcohol are not the point here. Appeals to alarmism (of any kind or magnitude), used in the manner of this thread, are unjust and uncivil. That is the point.
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/31, 9:18am)

Post 25

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 9:06am

Jody,

Why don't you just tell me what you're talking about?

Post 26

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 9:16am

Mike-
EITHER Linz is insane OR he has a drinking problem? Sorry, but you are not the omniscient doler of alternatives. What I'm asking of you or anyone making these accusations is evidence that goes beyond logical fallacies as to why you say these things and also a defense as to why it should be done in this manner.
(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez
on 7/31, 9:20am)

Post 27

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 9:49am

Ed,

I would simply like to see these repeated episodes of driving people away from solo come to a stop. Linz' outbursts are public so you can expect a public reaction to them. Linz is free to ban myself or anyone from solo at anytime. I don't believe I'm infringing on anyone's property rights here, I'm simply speaking my mind on a public forum. If I didn't have a great deal of admiration for Linz (and I've expressed this many times) I wouldn't bother to say anything. I'd just go on my way. But solo is important for me, I would like it to be as open as possible so when people express themselves I feel confident that they are speaking the truth as they see it, and not self editing themselves to avoid a blow up by Linz or risk expulsion from this forum. I want to hear genuine debate by the best of the best, not muted opinions. The quality of the discussions goes down after each one of these blowups. This can be fixed, I'd like it to be. I have said before, I would pay a subscription fee for solo, then would it be ok for me to speak my mind about this kind of quality control issue?

The trader principle rules here. We are trading in ideas and all contributing to the best of our abilities.

Post 28

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 10:03am

Jody,

"NO ONE goes from brilliant to raging asshole and back without a reason. You'd prefer think that Linz is insane rather than he has a drinking problem? Or, just "normal eccentric" for brilliant guys with "feelings"?"

What I did was state that there must be a reason that Lindsay goes from "reasonable" to "raging" and back repeatedly. I suggested three possibilities, two of which I think are absurd. "Alcoholism" fits with my previous experience of the mood swings of alcoholics I have known. You are free to suggest any other reasons or to simply say "Problem?, I don't see no stinking problem." As to why this subject is public, that has a long history. Suffice it to say, James submitted this article, it was accepted and posted with Mr. Perigo's ok. All articles are open to discussion.

Post 29

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 10:21am

Mike-
I appreciate that you take the time to try and clarify what you have said. From what I've seen in here I may recognize that there is a problem, but I don't know Linz, so am in no position to speculate as to what the problem might be. It seems that so far all who have had direct connections with Linz have stated that he is definitely not an alcoholic. I trust their judgement better than those who come in here and make claims without any evidence. Since obviously Linz has sanctioned this article, I would give consideration to anyone who knows him and can present evidence that he is an alcoholic. So far though, any such direct evidence has been lacking.

I know that all articles are and should be open to public discussion. My question is why James chose to make it a public discussion.

Post 30

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 10:28am

The only thing wrong with SOLO is that nobody has the power to moderate Linz when he goes off. He should have been placed under moderation for the nonsense that started this using the same standards that he and Joe use to place others who get out of hand under moderation. This double standard enables Linz to stand atop SOLO like King Kong on top of the Empire State building swatting down the airplanes of--whatever.

Letting James publish his irresponsible article here is a Linz masterstroke. I can't say anything more that I won't regret. But you hurt me Linz, with the truth. Please don't expect flowers.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 7/31, 1:55pm)

Post 31

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 10:42am

Jody,

For direct evidence I can only say that previously after blowups Linz has stated during his apologies that he had been unwinding after a hard day with a few drinks. And I have the latest Free Radical with all of the pictures of SOLO4 and in every picture of Linz he is holding a drink. And his anger at and abuse of people he is normally close to is characteristic of people who react poorly to alcohol. I also have every expectation that Linz is going to get past this very shortly and it will no longer be a problem.

Post 32

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 10:45am

I have no idea what this was all about. I have never seen Linz drunk and certainly have never seen any indication in the content of SoloHQ of any alcohol problem with anyone. This seems to me much ado about something that is no one else's business but Linz, if even his. Why not just continue the wonderful exchanges, postings, etc., instead of getting bogged down in such personal stuff. (We all have problems that could be exposed here and would detract from what SoloHQ is about, namely, discussions of issues of Sense of Life Objectivism.)

Post 33

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 11:26am

Very well said, Tibor. Very well said.

Post 34

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 12:10pm

Brant Gaede wrote:
The only thing wrong with SOLO is that nobody has the power to moderate Linz when he goes off.

[sarcasm]In addition, the only thing wrong with Brant Gaede's house is that nobody has the power to moderate Brant when he goes off.[/sarcasm]
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 7/31, 12:14pm)

Post 35

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 1:16pm

Humerous? Sad? Who can say.

Whether or not Linz is an alchaholic is beyond my ability to guess. I've never met him. If an intervention is needed it should be in private. What I find humorous is that this situation reminds me of the situation with Mr. Peron. I can't say whether or not the accusations against him were true. I've never met him. The first I ever heard of him was his appearance on SOLO attempting to quash the so-called" rumor that he supports various horrible things. Now we have Linz being publically accused of something and having to face hearing the cries of "alcaholic" at every turn. If I thought that Barbara and James were the type (which I don't) to do something like this to give Linz a taste of the medicine, I would have to say it was brilliant. Unofortunately, this isn't brilliant. I've sent Linz some PMs with my thoughts regarding the things that were said, but I won't bother to comment on this accusation. It may be true, but it may be false. I just don't know, and publically continueing to debate it is as bad as publically stating it as the article did. If (IF!) Linz has a problem, it is for him to address and those who really care should talk to him privately. Dragging it out here, no matter how good the intention, is only going to cause more problems for SOLO and all of us who care about it and its founder, managers, and members.

I have a lot of respect for you James, and don't think you did this maliciously, but I wonder at the terrible effect this will have. If you felt a private consultation wouldn't work, what makes you think a public one will?

Lets all leave this topic alone, especially since Linz has agreed to be away from SOLO and can't speak for himself.

Ethan

Post 36

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 1:53pm

Dean, SOLO is not a blog. Linz wants it to be more than his "house."

--Brant

Post 37

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 2:20pm

I have been thinking this over now,

I am assuming James first decided in his mind (and Barbara seems to agree) that Linz was an alcoholic during or after SOLOC4.

What happened subsequently was - not a peep out of both of them. Much enthusiasm and warmth towards SOLO.
Not wanting to enable? Bullshit!

All warmth and fuzzies from those guys.

How about the "holding court" slot and all the articles from James? How about Barabra's "stop the Linz bashing"?

Linz supported Barbara constantly against her critics. Linz heaped praise upon James and gave him emotional support during his troubles with Sergio.

Then when Linz criticises them, they turn on him viciously and publicly with this charge of alcholism. Did they e-mail Linz's closest friends to ask about it? Did they try to warn him in person or e-mail him? Did they try to treat the subject with sensitivity?

James and Barbara,

Your behaviour truly defies belief!

If Linz was really an alcoholic and you were really concerned about him, you would not behave like this.

You two really need to put your own houses in order!

Post 38

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 2:46pm

I've been to dinner with Lindsay a few times, & attended social get-togethers when he was up in Auckland.

I certainly haven't seen any behaviour on his part that would indicate alcoholism - in fact if I remember correctly, *I* was the one who had too much beer after some wine with dinner, & ended up asleep on the floor of his suite while he argued politics with the other Libz.

Secondly, if *I* had a problem with alcohol, and someone chose to bring it up not in private, or with a close group of friends, but in a PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM, I'd kick him so hard in the nuts that his eyeballs would turn hairy! Just WTF are you trying to achieve here? >:-(

[takes a deep breath] ... James, I suspect you mean well - you're certainly one of the genuinely nicest men I've never met in person (although the quality and depth of your writing means that I think I know you better than many people I share my office with). But please - reconsider your approach.

Post 39

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 3:01pm