| | Phil, wow. That was quite a series of posts. I'm not sure how to even respond. You just spent all your energy pissing on other people's accomplishments, and taking credit for the accomplishments of others. Did that make you feel better about yourself? Am I supposed to respect you now?
I could defend the accomplishments you seem so desperate to minimize. I could point out the thousands of people Lindsay has converted to Objectivism, the millions he's influenced, the libertarian party he spawned, the number of activists and their projects (like Cresswell's blog), the effects on government officials there, SOLO, etc., etc. I could point out for myself the large number of conversions, the huge number of people that have read Importance of Philosophy, the fact that professors and high school teachers across the country recommend it to their students, being quoted in a major TV show, a rock band who quotes me at the beginning of their concerts, etc., etc. And that only scratches the surface.
But that's not really the issue, is it? You said a magazine couldn't run longer than a year, because you yourself failed at it. When I point out the FreeRadical, what happens? You try to minimize it. Oh, that's just a New Zealand magazine! NZ doesn't count! Oh...other magazines have done better! Etc., etc.
The problem is, it shows you don't know what you're talking about. Where you failed miserably at a venture, Lindsay has succeeded (and however you measure his success, he beat you hands down). Where you weren't able to attract activist writers, Lindsay has been able to do it for years (often having to reject people because the issue is already too long). Now, if activism were your goal, I would expect that you try to figure out how he managed to succeed despite your belief it couldn't be done. What did you do wrong, and what did he do right? But instead, you just write it off because it hasn't changed the world overnight. That's just pathetic.
For SOLO (now RoR and SP), you've predicted failure from the start. And if we had consulted you back then, you would have predicted failure before it started. And once again, you're completely wrong. Instead of trying to figure out how it was done, you rush to dismiss it as "nothing".
Consistently your advice is worthless. But instead of seeing why your ideas stink, you spit on your superiors. And you can't imagine why I don't respect you?
It's so easy to sit back and tell other people that their efforts aren't good enough. You could say that about Ayn Rand or the Founding Fathers! As long as you get to decide what's good enough, you can always criticize other people. You can always point to something as a flaw. It's the easiest thing to do in the world, Phil. You're not special for doing it. You're not important for doing it. You're just a critic, trying to ride off of the achievements of others by insulting them.
This is why I will never take you seriously as an activist, or respect your opinions. You find far more pleasure in trying to tear down the accomplishments of others than you do in trying to improve things.
|
|
