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 6


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 120

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara Branden and James Kilbourne made a mistake with that alcoholism bit, but apparently they did think it was true. They thought it was an explanation for bad behavior and bad behavior was exactly what it was. Since Linz is not subject to moderation they must have thought their efforts were a last chance for the him and SOLO combo. Now he is obviously trying for nothing but good behavior--knock on wood--and doing a pretty good job, but this place is still not much more than a Lindsay Perigo super blog. Until someone has the power to place him on temporary moderation when he goes off (if he does) and this is demonstrated (requiring him to go off, I suppose) the imploding quality damage on SOLO cannot be reversed, for the people mentioned in the previous post probably won't be coming back and others will probably be seen less and less in these environs.

It is too bad, for I've never seen anything approaching the Internet conversational dynamic that has obtained on SOLO. The greatness of Linz's creation cannot be denied. And the potential is mind-boggling. For instance, I don't see why the owners might not someday sell advertising space and make a lot of money from that. What could be more brilliant than that and free editorial content? If that happens they could afford to pay for professionally written articles to supplement the free content making SOLO an even more desirable destination. Etc.

--Brant




Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 121

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 3:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So what if they believed Linz was an alcoholic? They had no real evidence of this. It was their responsibility not only to have evidence before claiming something (which they should have dealt with in private in any event) but as "Objectivists" it is their responsibility to have evidence BEFORE they "believe" anything.



Post 122

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Uh, Casey, you have evidence they didn't have evidence? I hasten to point out, though, that evidence of doesn't necessarily mean he was. All his NZ friends on this list I know of think he wasn't/isn't.

--Brant




Post 123

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To believe something on insufficient evidence is morally irresponsible, Brant. To publicly accuse someone of alcoholism without also indicating the nature of the evidence that compels this conclusion is much worse still. The moral question for Ms. Branden is precisely whether the evidence was enough to responsibly support her allegations.



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 124

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let's see if I get the gist of this new-found interest.

Now that there is a public drift against Barbara Branden and James Kilbourne for the Drooling Beast article, we can jump easily from "they had their reasons" to "their reasons (evidence) should have been made public," to '"there was an act of moral irresponsibility based on a complete lack of evidence" to "they are BAD PEOPLE."

I wonder what comes next?

<<<doiiiiiinnnnnnng>>>

Eureka! I just had an ORIGINAL THOUGHT.

Based on Drooling Beast, maybe Aynd Rand was perfect in every aspect and detail after all and the Brandens are to blame for all the woes - every single one - of the Objectivist movement. And Kilbourne is merely icing to the cake.

Hmmmmm... I wonder if Linz keeps a journal...

Any aspiring authors out there wanna write a book about this? Do you write, MagHorny?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/22, 7:57pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 125

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can we please let this thread die? I am still feeling pretty raw about this, & I don't appreciate coming to SOLOHQ to see it back on the front page. The perpetrators have to live with the vileness of what they did. Leave them be. And leave me be.

Linz



Post 126

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz, just letting it die is exactly what I wish.

I was just trying to nip another something vile in the bud before it started (needlessly cashing in on this for another agenda and trying to make it something larger than it was).

I personally have not discussed the merits of this article in public and will not do so. Maybe one thing. It was proof of nothing at all. It was not damning proof against you as a lush nor is it damning proof against them as vile monsters. All of you have wonderful achievements that will be around long after this thing is dead.

I was talking about something else. Sorry it was here and like this.

Fucking bugs...

Michael




Post 127

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lindsay:

"Can we please let this thread die? I am still feeling pretty raw about this, & I don't appreciate coming to SOLOHQ to see it back on the front page. The perpetrators have to live with the vileness of what they did. Leave them be. And leave me be."

I'll second, third and fourth that, Lindsay. This thread's in danger of setting a world record for paralysis by analysis.

Be gone, Drooling Beast!

[Ross waves magic wand...]

There, it's gone. Easy.

Ross




Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 128

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

When I discovered this forum I thought; my god these are the people I always wanted to meet. Every message posted here, especially, By Linz or Barbara, was something I always read and reread, because afraid of missing something important. Since Barbara left, and like her many others, things are little different now.

Linz is not the one I used to read, he sounds sad, and tired.

Objectivism seems to be under a god dammed malignant spell, which leads the great minds of objectivism to parting of the ways.   

 This is not the forum it used to be. There is a sense of malevolence in the air. At part   the happy event of Michael and Kat, It all seems so sad.

I think that, Linz, Barbara, James and all the others must show to the world that peace is possible. It could be something colossal, something to be written in the history of objectivism, something very useful especially for the future generations and above all for objectivism.

 

This is my pray for tonight.

 

If you have done something you know to be wrong, if you feel guilty about it and  wish to correct it, there are usually five steps you should take: (1) Acknowledge the fact that it is you who have taken that particular action. Face and accept the full reality of what you have done, with out denial or disavowal. Acknowledge, accept, and take responsibility.

Do not say, it really wasn’t me. (2) Seek to understand why you did what you did. Understand where you were coming from. (3) If others are involved, as they often are, acknowledge explicitly to the relevant persons the harm you have done.

Convey your understanding of the consequences of your behavior. Convey your understanding of how they have been affected. (4) Take any and all action that might make amends for or minimize the harm you have done. (5) Firmly commit yourself

To acting differently in the future.     

 

Dr. Nathaniel Branden.  

Good night my friends, and god bless you all .

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 8/23, 11:05am)




Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 129

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 2:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Barbara Branden sent me this letter, which has apparently been submitted to Solo but not posted. I can't see why not, given everything that's been posted before in this thread and elsewhere, including about Barbara and her friend. She sent it to me just for my information but has agreed to let me post it myself, though warning me I might catch some flak (that's okay; nobody knows where I live). I should note that I still believe it was a bad idea to submit/post the Kilbourne article.--David

 

* * *

Barbara's letter:

 

Now it’s my turn to be angry. I can scarcely believe the things that some of you are saying about James Kilbourne, despite the compliments and praise you properly rained on him in the past  – such as "one of the most honest men on the planet," – "an inspiration to us all" – "we are blessed indeed to have him among our ranks."  Do you think he suddenly jumped out of his skin and become someone else? Do you have no sense of context, and of whom this man is?

 

He is being attacked for having made public – by posting it on SOLO – his opinion that Lindsay has an alcohol problem. Yet Lindsay has equally made public -- by posting it on SOLO – that some of our most esteemed Soloists are "quisling appeasers," "vile," "scum," "despicable," "loathsome," "vicious," "cowardly vermin, "cheap tawdry boot-lickers,"

 

I, of course, am a "Namblaphile" and "an apologist for naked evil" – a charge, among a number of others, that Lindsay made publicly against me for the edification of the Internet. Does anyone care to think what these accusations, if they were believed, would do to the reputation I have spent more than forty years earning?

 

James accepted Lindsay’s apology for the names he was called, and he has made no accusations; after months of trying to privately help this man whom he respected and loved, he finally decided that the best way to do so might be to make the issue public. If you disagree with him, fine, say so – but do not forget everything you know and have admired about James Kilbourne – just as he has forgotten nothing that he knows about Lindsay Perigo or about those among you whom he considered his friends.

 

Now I would like to say something abut the publication of James’s article, "Drooling Beast." When James sent it to me – after he had sent it to Andrew Bissell, insisting that it must be shown to Lindsay for his approval or rejection – I was certain that Lindsay would not agree to its publication. But when it was published, I could think of only one reason why: that Lindsay agreed with its general premise that he had a drinking problem and that that problem was one source of his SOLO rages. I have since learned that this was not his reason and that he disagrees with the article, although such being the case I have no idea why he allowed it to be published. But it was this belief that caused me to post a note congratulating him on his courage in allowing the article to appear on SOLO and saying "I think it is the truth, from my limited experience with alcoholism." I have also heard that the article was published in order to avoid a "whispering campaign." I cannot believe that this was relevant, since James had neither whispered nor stated his belief to others.

 

Barbara




Sanction: 33, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 33, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 33, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 33, No Sanction: 0
Post 130

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 4:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sigh.

The reason James & Barbara stopped being posted is that they'd already left. They'd said several times that they'd left. Yet they kept posting, & we, in our usual liberal way, kept allowing them to. Till we decided that "I'm gone" from umpteen previous posts actually meant "I'm gone." What it apparently means now is "I'm gone, but I'll keep posting via some flunkey who has as little respect for property rights as I."

I called Barbara (and anyone who behaved similarly, generically) a "Namblaphile" and "apologist for naked evil" because that's exactly what she was being in defending an unspeakable promoter of pedophilia in spite of all the evidence to which her attention had been drawn. At the same time, she attacked as smear merchants those who exposed him. Disgusting.

If those were among the terms I apologised for at the time, I now retract my apology. It may be a matter of indifference to you, Mr Brown, as it clearly is to Ms Branden, when someone tries to insinuate pedophilia into libertarianism, but it isn't to me & never will be.

The claim that Kilbourne had been pleading with me privately, ceaselessly, vainly for months about my "drinking problem" and had no alternative but to "out" me publicly is complete rubbish—low, filthy rubbish, about which I shall produce chapter & verse if I'm challenged about this. But even if he had, and even if I did have a "drinking problem," who apart from Kilbourne says it's his role in life to "out" me? The sanctimonious humbug! When he was a decent human being, he sent me on my way home to New Zealand, after a magical two days as his guest, with a Martini. No pontificating about a "drinking problem," just as there hadn't been when we quaffed red wine & smoked cigarettes while listening to Lanza. I've no idea what happened to that decent human being in so short a time.

Ambushing is this pair's stock-in-trade. Without warning, Ms Branden, a SOLO staffer, went public with an accusation that I, SOLO's Founder & Principal, had been less than candid with regard to the Elmore episode. I hadn't heard from her through the whole melodrama—then she came out with that, publicly. I provided chapter & verse to show that I had not been less than candid. Ms Branden's response? Silence. Same deal with Kilbourne, another SOLO staffer. Nothing from him in weeks, then Drooling Beast. And nothing from either of them to me privately since. They are abject cowards. Theirs is the subterranean murk of assassination agendas on anyone who's walking above ground in the sunlight.

I now have nothing but contempt for Brandbourne, & nothing but contempt for your trouble-making on their behalf, Mr Brown. Which part of "Can we please let this thread die?" from one of your co-hosts on this site do you not understand?

You, Mr Brown, & Ms Branden's other stooges Ciro & Brant are now under moderation. It's clear to me now that SOLO cannot go forward with "total passion for the total height" while this carping guerilla warfare against me & SOLO on my own turf has my sanction. So I've withdrawn it. Go spread your toxicity somewhere else.

Joe Rowlands & I have lots of projects for me to be getting on with. I am now in a position to proceed with them. Other decent SOLOists have lots to do as well. That's what's important, not the efforts of indecent swamp-dwellers to drag us down to their own total depths.

Please read This Boy's Not For Turning. If that doesn't tell you that it's onward & upward from here—poisoners, naysayers & assassins notwithstanding—then nothing will. But it won't matter. We're here. We have the best Objectivist web site there is. We have "lit a fire under Objectivism," and no one will extinguish it. Those who would like to extinguish it should just get over themselves, or jump into the swamp.

Linz



Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Post 131

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
" Ciro & Brant are now under moderation" [Linz}

Wait a minute, what did Ciro and Brant do?



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 132

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

I understand you want to end this thread, but you made a stand that I think merits a lot more attention ...
It may be a matter of indifference to you, Mr Brown, as it clearly is to Ms Branden, when someone tries to insinuate pedophilia into libertarianism, but it isn't to me & never will be.
A half century ago, William Buckley had to read out of the conservative movement in America the anti-Semites who wanted it as cover for their squalid bigotry.  It's the same problem now in libertarianism with the pedophiles and their fellow travelers.  They want the respectability of associating with freedom-lovers as cover for the evil they trade in.

I don't envy your position, Linz, having to choose between friends and principle.  But I admire your integrity in making the right choice.  No surprise that this dilemma would arouse passion in you.  What normal human being wouldn't be pissed off?  It is disgusting that so many have not only run from a battle that must be waged, but have slandered you because of your anger at their flight.

My thanks to you for using your stature as a public figure to draw this line in the sand.

Andy




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 133

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've had Barbara's letter for some time now and didn't consider putting it up on SOLO (nor did she ask me to), because it had been blocked and out of respect to the owners of this list who made that decision. I also didn't think it reflected well on her even in the time context it was written. I certainly don't think much of David Brown for now putting it up and Barbara shouldn't have given him permission to do so out of respect for the owners' property rights.

I made a post after someone revived this thread, but wish it hadn't been. I agree with Linz to let it die now, but it is not clear to me why I have been placed under moderation. I hope this is that for this thread.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 8/24, 7:58am)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 134

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since the civility-and-moderation issue is on more than one thread, just a note that I have posted on the "This Boy is Not for Turning" thread a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to the positions of Linz, Joe, and Andrew on this:

Posts #76 and #77.

[ The owner gets to do what he wants. But when customers make reasoned suggestions buttressed by good arguments, I hope he will listen. ]

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 8/23, 1:42pm)




Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Post 135

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Up until now Lindsay and I have left an open offer to Barbara allowing her to come back anytime she chooses, as long as she actually chooses. We're not interested in her dragging on the controversy on and on. If she wanted to move forward, all she had to do was say that she wanted to stay.

I've suggested to Lindsay, and he agreed, that this offer should now be revoked. This is exactly the kind of grand-standing the policy was created for. This is exactly the wanting to have her cake and eat it that the policy acknowledges. Some suggested that the policy shouldn't apply to Barbara, but she's shown herself to be a perfect example of the need for it.

And now, knowing the conditions for being allowed to post, she bypasses our terms so she can get one last jab in. Absolutely disgusting as far as I'm concerned. If she can't even respect our property, she's not welcome back. The offer is gone. Her account on SOLO is gone.

And then there's David M. Brown, who decides he should have the final say on what goes on at SOLO. His post immediately prior to this one is about how we should have greater respect for civility. Shame he didn't think respect for ownership meant anything. I guess we're expect to crack down on people with bad manners, but not do anything about people who won't even respect our property rights. Are people's priorities really this screwed up?

Brant, I respect you for doing the right thing and respecting our property rights. Thank you. Lindsay agrees, and you are no longer under moderation.










Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 136

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe said:

And now, knowing the conditions for being allowed to post, she bypasses our terms so she can get one last jab in.
Sad but true. You can only pick your toys and go home once, without being unseemly. I've had my issues with Lindsay for his occasional outbursts. I've also now recognized that there is a time for them. While the whole insident that started this was wrong, Lindsay appologised, and that seemed to be enough for some, such as Michael. If it's truly not worth your time participating in SOLO, don't. If it is, do participate. The past few months have seen the loss of some people I really enjoyed talking with, hopefully this has caused deep thought on all sides. In the end SOLO is private property, and the right of the owners must be appreciated.

Ethan




Post 137

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"This leads us to the fourth principle. Not everyone is going to be happy. There will always be people who dislike certain conversations. There will be people who don't like another participant. There will be people who don't like someone's writing style. There will always be complaints. It's a fact of life. We don't try to fix it. This site is huge. There are tons of topics to pick from, and you can start your own. So when you get bored with a thread, stop reading it. And better yet, start your own that you do find interesting. We give people an opportunity here, not a guarantee of happy results." #101



Post 138

Friday, October 5 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The facts speak for themselves.




Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 139

Friday, October 5 - 10:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If a buncha midgets are atta hockey game and do "the wave" is thata ripple?? oh lord im sorry I shouldnt have said that...

Also about as relevant as posting on this old threat at all Michael..sometimes drooling beasts and other beasts are better left sleeping.

I apologize for posting on it at all.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.