RoR: Forum

"Bob (which is the same thing backwards, as forwards) ..." It's also the action of going backwards and forwards. Which fits in nicely with this thread's title, as well!

Post 41

Thursday, March 6, 2008 - 5:06pm

Except the problem with our own Bob is that there's no net progress in the process! Apparently, the ole' he smoke & mirrors has turned into the bob & weave, and it's Bob weaving his self-produced web of intellectual stasis.

;-)

Ed
[a gentleman is he who never insults another unintentionally]

Post 42

Friday, March 7, 2008 - 9:11am

Wasn't sure if I should make that joke, since actually I like this Bob better than a few other Bobs I have encountered online. Not sure why--maybe it's because I sense that his roar is much worse than his bite.

Post 43

Friday, March 7, 2008 - 1:40pm

I like Bob, too (for some reason).

Ed

Post 44

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 1:12pm

I received this nice e-mail today I wanted to share:

Today, I received an unsolicited mailing, the content of which appeared familiar to me, even though it was written by someone who's name seemed familiar to me (John Flinn). Since I receive junk mail from time to time, I decided to entertain myself and read the letter. As I'm sure you've guessed by now, it was from a "secret society" who thought that I'm "special" and wanted me to "join them", blah blah blah. I reached into my desk drawer and pulled out an envelope with a booklet in it that was sent to me two years ago when I received a similar letter from the "Nouveau-Tech society", asking me to join them. They sent me a small free booklet that was supposed to contain "The Greatest Kept Secret of All Time for Money, Power, and Romantic Love!" As you know, it was just testimonial stories designed to invoke desires in the reader for a better life. The funny thing about all this is that, in 2000, I received the same letter, ordered and received the same useless 7 story booklet, fell for the sales pitch and bought "The Neo-Tech Discovery", and I still have that book on a shelf in a closet. You'd think that the Neo Tech publishing company kept records to know who their customers are. You'd think that, the free booklet that promised secrets would've delivered something more than a sales pitch to buy books. I read that book from cover to cover twice and while I could see the logic in it's Objectivism based foundation, as I read the book, I kept waiting for the big secret that was supposed to deliver the promise of wealth, power, and endless love. What I got was exactly what you detailed on your article- The rantings of a mad man.

I had questions about whole "biological immortality bend" that were never answered. Biological immortality makes no sense. A world where no one dies will eventually become over crowded, natural resources will eventually be used up, then what? Colonize other worlds? Ok. Technology advances could make that possible, but if we assume that there is intelligent life on other worlds, what race of beings would allow another race to overpopulate the universe uncontrolled? If we follow this tract, wouldn't it eventually lead to some advanced race exterminating a biologically immortal humanity somehow? The extension of human life is one thing. Biological immortality is another subject entirely. I'm not sure that would be in our best interest, much less, the universe's.

The whole Zon thing sounds suspiciously to me like the creation of an extraterrestrial based "God" to whom it appears that Wallace's reverence seems alot like "worship" to me. I rejected religion based Mysticism before I was even out of puberty. I always found it strange how seemingly intelligent humans in "modern times" would follow a book without question (the Bible) written long before any of them were even born, by people who claim to have been either ordered, directed, or inspired by God to write it (The Mormons have a similar "Bible" written by someone who claims to have been directed to tablets lying in the grass and told what the translation of the inscriptions were). I read through the Bible and never accepted or believed any of it without question (try that in the bible belt South where I live and see how people look at you... LOL). In edition to that, I never have been a member of any church and have never paid any tithe because I immediately spotted the scam on that, which made me further question the Bible, it's content as authentically being "The word of God", and the true motive of preachers in churches who use this tactic to trick people out of ten% of their earnings. When I was married, my wife and I attended her church. I watched as the preacher (who always arrived in his brand new Cadillac and was never seen wearing the same suit, shirt, tie, shoes, or socks within the year I attended with her) passed the collection plate around the church an average of three times each Sunday, claiming that he was paying extra on the church mortgage to pay it off early, and the sheep followed the shepherd without question, emptying their wallets, as I passed the collection plate to the person next to me without every contributing to his the pastor's luxury lifestyle (the real reason behind the Tithe).

I do recognize that human beings seem to have the inherent need to be led by authority figures and told what to do, how to live, what to think and feel (I have never had these needs), and I also recognize how easy it is for "Neo-cheaters" to control masses of people with mysticism, which they clearly do not question. I began my search for truth at a young age and I found this "Neo-Tech Discovery" started off making logical sense and ultimately descended into nonsense and madness, but I did not realize why until I read your article and subsequent links to your site. You have put the whole thing together in a way that makes total logical sense to me. Being one who is not inspired by sales pitches that clearly are meant to invoke emotion, I tend more toward logic and reason, which is very interesting considering that I am an artist, poet, and musician/guitarist (25 years experience as a guitarist/musician). Considering all of this as well as the fact that, having sold me the Neo-Tech Discovery in 2000, sending me the same sales pitch letter to get me to buy it again in 2006 and just now in 2008, it is clear to me that this Neo-Nonsense is nothing more than a scam meant to play on the desires of the average person in this economy who wants a better life, just like so many Internet and mail order scams out there. I washed my hands of this Neo- Nonsense 8 years ago and thanks to your informative writings, I completely understand the inner workings of the scam as well as how many have fallen prey to it. Thanks for the info. I for one appreciate the time and effort you put into it.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 4/15, 1:14pm)

Post 45

Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 6:17pm

Luke, I must say you have written an excellent essay on Neo-Tech. If you consider yourself to be a "True" Objectivist, much of the Neo-Tech philosophy would be incompatible with Objectivism. But of course Frank R Wallace used several sources to create Neo-Tech. I do believe the early Neo-Tech books are still worth reading.

Of course his advanced writings on Zon and Zonpower are quite a bit harder to make sense of. And if I remember correctly, somewhere in one of his books he stated most people wouldn't get the message, whatever it was supposed to be. I will admit i have bought some of his books directly from Neo-Tech, but I have also purchased many of them on the used market, simply to save money. I really don't think you should have to publically apologize for ever having an interest in Neo-Tech.

As I mentioned, their earlier books were and are still worth reading. However, I think the most glaring error of Neo-Tech is that they never pointed people in the right direction on how to start thinking for one's self. I cannot blame you for not having anything to do with the "New" Nouveau Tech Society and its many variations. They seem to have abandoned their old customers all together and have focused on their over-priced Secret Societies.

I suppose if you really wanted a copy of their "New Inner Secrets" you can easily find them on eBay or the used book market considerably cheaper than their $200 price. I too do not have any involvement with the "New Neo-Tech!" And as such I cannot endorse their current business practises.

Post 46

Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 4:01am

I received this e-mail today I wanted to share for discussion:

I have owned Neo-Tech material since 1986. When I first read the Neo-Tech Discovery, I slammed it against the wall -- literally. It challenged everything I believed and understood about life. The manuscript went on the shelf and its concepts on my mental shelf. In time, however, I discovered the writings of Ayn Rand.

I had no idea of any connection between the philosophy of Objectivism and Neo-Tech. I did my best to apply the concepts I learn in "The Virtue of Selfishness", "Atlas Shrugged", "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal," and "The Romatic Manifesto" with little success. Further, those self-proclaimed "Objectivist" I met proved to be little more than condescending assholes (pardon my French). In short, Objectivism though valid intellectually failed to assist me in competitive situations.

Neo-Tech, however, came to my aid again and again. I found myself removing concept after concept from my mental shelf and putting it immediately to use in life and death situations. I'm not exaggerating. I kept a loved one alive despite the massive weight of the government against me; whose mindless policies sought stop me every step of the way. I survived attacks on my life, liberty, and property as well as more than ten (10) years among murders, thieves, rapists, and thugs in state prison. (My imprisonment was due in part to my honest efforts at non-initiatory force self-defense being characterized as dangerous by the "leaders" of Objective which gave sanction to the government outlawing the Common Law Court movement). But Neo-Tech works.

As for Objectivism, I value it solely because of Neo-Tech. I find most Objectivists cold, elitist, and boring. If it were not for Neo-Tech, I would have found myself denied its benefits.

Post 47

Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 9:19am

As for Objectivism, I value it solely because of Neo-Tech. I find most Objectivists cold, elitist, and boring. If it were not for Neo-Tech, I would have found myself denied its benefits.
This may be cold, elitist, and boring, but, whatever. Is he expecting Objectivists to extend anything other than contempt after a set of blanket insults like this? I can only imagine how he must have come off to those he's now comfortable labeling as "assholes."

Fuckem.

Post 48

Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 11:46am

Wow. I'll comment for the sake of fun.

"I did my best to apply the concepts I learn in "The Virtue of Selfishness", "Atlas Shrugged", "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal," and "The Romatic Manifesto" with little success."

I've found it difficult NOT to apply the principles in the above works as I've learned them (the ones in all the works not mentioned are pretty valuable too). There hasn't been much that hasn't resonated with me. As in reinforced what I was already thinking or reasoning out. The stuff that I wasn't ready for, I put down.

"In short, Objectivism though valid intellectually failed to assist me in competitive situations."

This is possibly the single most ignorant statement I've ever heard. I'm not talking about the attack on Objectivism either. When did intellectual validity become equated with competitive advantage? The Law of Gravity is intellectually valid, but I'm not sure if I'd want to live in a world where understanding it would provide serious competitive advantage with my fellow man. They'd all have to be pretty stupid. I've always thought of a philosophy as a framework to integrate knowledge and provide a guide to appropriate action. Being skilled or strong willed makes you competitive. A philosophy gives you a basic framework. You must discover your values (where to compete). Philosophy can only point you to proper principles for discovery and proper methods to compete by.

"I kept a loved one alive despite the massive weight of the government against me; whose mindless policies sought stop me every step of the way"

If you have the mystical ability to sustain life by the power of your will, sell your services. The mindless can not seek to do anything. That statement doesn't make any more sense than "Voodoo Loa helped me win the lottery".

"(My imprisonment was due in part to my honest efforts at non-initiatory force self-defense being characterized as dangerous by the "leaders" of Objective which gave sanction to the government outlawing the Common Law Court movement).

What was the other part? Crimes you committed? What leaders of "Objective (ism?)? What state or atlantis do Objectivists hold sway? The gov't requires Objectivist sanction now? Sweet, we're doing better than in my wildest dreams. Who are these "leaders"? I consider myself an objectivist and I'd like to meet them. They're sure squeamish about identifying themselves if they're out there. The government outlawed (whatever legal principle you thought was valid), you knew it, you did whatever you wanted under that principle anyways, and went to jail? Amigo, thats how life goes. You put up with some Gov't bullshit and work to change it, If the cons far outweigh the pros, you either find that a whole lot of others feel the same way or you're a stranger in a strange land. If that is the case, I'd suggest withdrawing from society or leaving the country. Giving the law of the land the finger just to see what happens seems kind of stupid. Try to cultivate the sense that an ape has and stop stepping on the f**king rake.

"But Neo-Tech works"
Reading your tale of woe, I'd have to say that it sure as hell doesn't look that way to me.

"As for Objectivism, I value it solely because of Neo-Tech. I find most Objectivists cold, elitist, and boring. If it were not for Neo-Tech, I would have found myself denied its benefits."

Feel free not to "value" Objectivism solely because of Neo-Tech. I would suggest look up the term "value", as you haven't applied anything resembling it to Objectivism yet. Not to mention a philosophy totally inconsistent with another can't find value in the other as a "client" philosophy. I agree with your assessment of Objectivists.
Cold = Don't feel emotion for you. Not worth the time.
Elitist = Smarter and more sure of ourselves than you.
Boring = Totally different values, and you aren't worth talking to.
Is Objectivism of value only because of Neo-Tech, or is Neo-Tech valued because it leads to the benefits of Objectivism? Even if this parallel "client" or "adjunct" philosophy bullshit was valid, and it isn't, you'd still have to pick one way or another.

PS - Thanks for the laugh.

Post 49

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 4:40am

Good grief. More of the same:

Why did you do that to me Luther? I'm not with Neo-Tech. I don't know the folks there. I only gave you my honest account. I thought you might be a person I could talk to. Instead you robbed me of my dignity as a human being. I don't understand your cruelty. You asked what Neo-Tech owners thought and I gave you my answer based on my experience. What's wrong with you people at that forum of yours? If any of you really knew or even cared about the life and death struggles I've endured, I can't imagine that you would ever have been so callous.

Later, still more:

Again, Mr. Setzer, why? I went back to your website and I find you have not posted my response. I don't understand your behavior at all. I was searching the web for Neo-Tech. I found your webpage, "Attention Neo-Tech Owners". It asked me "please take our survey" so I read your content. I searched for the link and when I clicked you name the email box appeared. I couldn't get it to work so I cut and pasted into gmail. My correspondence was addressed to you alone. I only wanted to speak with you and get your feedback. I don't understand why you felt the need to humiliate me and why you now do not even post my response. As I've said, I'm not with Neo-Tech Publishing. I'm just a person who's suffered a great deal at the hands of crooks. Crooks with political power. I was drowning and I grabbed onto whatever I could to live. I am sorry my life and death struggle isn't pretty and tidy and consistent with your Objectivist standards. When I said I couldn't make Ayn Rand's writings work in real life and death situations, I was merely reporting facts. Please remove my email and the posts attacking my person. I will not trouble you again. I feel deep sorrow for you. I hope you find the power within yourself to address this character flaw.

Post 50

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 3:59pm

It's clear why Objectivism doesn't appeal to this person. Reality isn't optional there.

Post 51

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 3:54am

Lol, we have a regular "clue" type mystery going on here. I think this guy is on RoR.

Post 52

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 4:02pm

People with so much to hide are too much work.

Post 53

Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:18am

The guy is good at shifting your attention off of what matters.

What's funny is that we don't know who he is -- because Luke never named him -- yet he says he's humiliated now. Think about that. Let's say I've got a male friend who plays with dolls and I say so. I come on here and say something like: "Well, you know, I have a male friend who plays with dolls."

Now, upon hearing about the hobby of this hypothetical, anonymous friend of mine, let's say that someone speaks up and says something like:

"Dolls are for girls!"

Now, at that point -- at that point where someone responded to something my hypothetical, anonymous friend did -- let's say that my friend overheard, or was actually lurking here and had read what was written. What is it that he lost by getting the honest feedback of strangers? What would motivate him to not want that honest feedback?

I may be missing some aspect of this (I haven't had any coffee yet) but I think that I captured a good deal of the issue. Just let me know about that ... but please, please ... whatever you do ... don't go onto another discussion forum and tell them what I said here (while leaving out my name, to protect my privacy)! If you do that, well, then I will be crushed and I will never forgive you! I don't want other people seeing what it is that I have to say. I don't want them criticizing what it is that I have to say. I want something "different" from that. [?]

I just want (demand) to be "loved" (unconditionally).

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/19, 9:31am)

Post 54

Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 5:01pm

The individual was/is here. It's John Henry Reed (no clue of that's his real name or not). He's contacted me, and I believe Ryan as well.

It's a game, and too much work. I don't have time for it.

Luke, how long have I known you? Several years, I'm sure. Mr. Reed is trying to paint you as a liar to me, and probably to others as well. Don't worry, I'm not falling for it.

It might be a good idea to restrict J.H. Reed's membership here, or put him back on probation.

Post 55

Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 5:16pm

Here's the exchange I've had in full with J.H. Reed - I had no idea what he was talking about when I received his first message. I saw it as an opportunity to be nice (because Objectivists are nice people. They don't play stupid games, or try to turn old friends against each other. They're driven by values, not emotions.)

J.H. Reed:

Hi,
Love ya. I was in MI in '81. Usually blasted. Am I the guy?
John

Me:

Goody, a mystery.
What guy? You'll have to post a picture in your profile for me to know for sure. ;) Preferably one of Brad Pitt, or something. *snort*
That reminds me...I have a terrible habit of not reading people's profiles. I'll have to do that when I get home.
I've really been enjoying your posts, John. Keep it up!
(You know, there's probably 10 bars for every car plant, UAW hall, and church in this state, I swear.)

J.H. Reed: (received this one today)

Thanks sweetheart but you said "fuck'em" when Lutherfer gave you my scarecrow without its contexts. If he had only answered me himself we could have come to an understand. I don't blame you. You were denied important information. But ultimately we have all lost. Farewell dear lady............................................

Here's my reply, out in the light, for the whole damn world to see, John:

Don't let the door hit ya!

Post 56

Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 6:57pm

Yes, thats him. I had refrained from posting my particular email on the assumption that it was a one on one altercation and sharing it would only cause a bigger insane blowup. It hit me earlier today to ask Teresa if she'd been messed with too, but she beat me to the punch. Since this seems to be a community problem now, I'll paraphrase the 3 emails I've received, so that everyone knows who they're dealing with.

Email 1 - Essentially a diatribe that I have been a complete fraud in my bio and that I couldn't possibly be a war veteran or a soldier. There was some insane rambling about bases (They were all wrong, I think it might have been a "test" in his mind). The evidence given for me not being what I say I am is that my haircut isn't right and I play video games. There was some nice assumed racism and insinuations of ear collecting to top it off.

Email 2 - Essentially an apology. Some deflection of blame by pointing out he was "dragged on the forum" against his will.

Email 3 - Said that it was good for me to call a condescending piece of shit (that was in my response to email 1). Made some statement about that being a equal exchange of values. Some rambling that didn't make any sense. Mentioned the scarecrow thing the same as in Teresa's email. Mentioned that he's fucked up (exact words). Drew equivalence from that to Ayn Rand's perceived flaws. The most original of which was that he heard she plagiarized Atlas. Ended by stating that Objectivism is rock solid philosophy, which I found odd given previous statements.

Noticed a profile change today too. Something a little less totally crazy now. Watch out folks.

Post 57

Friday, February 20, 2009 - 3:11am

Nutty.

Friday, February 20, 2009 - 4:53am

Since we're airing Mr. Reed's sins, here's a message he sent me Wednesday:

Hey Luke,

Fun while it lasted. Great cult following you got going. What a scam! Getting good dough? Beach Body, gotta say, ain't happening. Thanks for the inside on the Neo. The way you savaged that bitch, [name deleted]. I've never seen the scarecrow attacked with such gusto. You Objectivist -- just like Libertarian -- tempest in a teapot.

Gone.......................

I deleted the name of the person whom Mr. Reed said I "savaged" for privacy reasons. I am not sure if by "scarecrow" he means himself under a pseudonym or someone he knows via another forum. My guess is the latter and that they know each other (and abuse each other) on a Neo-Tech forum somewhere.

Post 59

Friday, February 20, 2009 - 8:29am