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 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 4:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, hello. No, your emails to me are safe...esp the last one.

No, I was saying evidence in an experiment, or in a persuasive debate, or argument, differs from evidence that one person uses to form judgements about another. And what would constitute ample and damning evidence for one person, might be dismissed as trite by another. Its not about subjectivity, but about context.

The public/private issue is also about context.

I sent you a PM btw.

John



Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael Newberry is exactly right. The content of a letter is the property of the writer, not the recipient, and can only be rightly quoted and excerpted with the writer's permission.

As I said elsewhere, I don't read SO-LOW anymore, and don't pay attention to anything oozing from the House of Hsiehame. So I haven't read Hsieh's latest post. But if she did quote from someone's private correspondence, then she violated the letter writer's copyrights. Period.

Regarding John's posts above, I, like Michael Newberry, have no idea what he meant by "evidence" that only has to be convincing to one person -- "evidence" that is not "peer reviewed." Wasn't her public post intended to be read by peers? And what, exactly, is "evidence" that cannot be subjected to independent, objective verification? I'm afraid I'm missing the point here.

Accusations made publicly against an individual's character and reputation are very serious matters. "The consequences of her missing the mark will be known only to them," John wrote above. Nonsense. The consequences to Sciabarra of accusations by Hsieh of dishonesty (I gather) are public and potentially far-reaching. They thus should be held up to the most rigorous standards of scrutiny -- the same kind of scrutiny that applies to similar accusations of dishonesty made in a courtroom.

Would a judge or jury in a courtroom give such claims a pass merely because the accuser was personally convinced of his accusations before making them public? If you can't prove damaging accusations objectively, you should keep quiet about them -- or face legal action for libel or slander.

I say this in principle only, because I haven't any specific idea of what Hsieh is accusing Sciabarra, or whether she provided sufficient evidence.

However, I do know that what some have described as a 12,000-plus-word personal denunciation -- following on the heels of several years of incessant posts denouncing others -- is as good a way as any to once again defer work on the requirements of an alleged scholarly career.

I'd advise Sciabarra to continue writing his many scholarly books and articles and publishing his scholarly journal, and to cede to Ms. Hsieh those forums whose standards and preoccupations are best suited to her own abilities.


Post 22

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 4:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am going to post this here as well -- given Mr. Bidinotto's last post. This is from SOLO in a post titled
"Read and Understand Diana's Post Before Commenting"

The problem with discussing and debating the Dialectical Dishonesty thread is that most of the people who actually took the time to read the ENTIRE thing were those who either donít care about him or Diana and had an extra 30-45 minutes to kill or those who already dislike Chris or his work and like Diana and her work.

I can guarantee that NONE of Diana's recent critics (with the possible exception of MSK who has no problem with evading facts) has actually read this (LONG) blog and has analyzed it to the point where they can understand all of the evidence presented. Their assumptions about Diana, the nature of her blog, ARI, SOLO, Chris, Lindsay and everyone else involved were set going in. They skimmed it, didn't really grasp the contexts involved, failed to notice or properly interpret the really critical evidence (Joe's email) and just assumed that Chris (a ďNICEĒ guy) was being denounced as a heretic and immoral person by an "insane cultist".

The facts necessary for a conviction are there for those who are actually interested in putting them together. I might debate whether or not such cases ought to be made loudly on public forums (whether taking hours to write, post, read and debate such things is in anyone's rational self interest) but as an impartial and objective reader of that blog entry I have come to the conclusion that Diana's case has been made very clearly for anyone who wants to take the time to seriously read it. Unfortunately Chris was manipulating and talking about his friends behind their backs. They certainly have a right to be angry with him. Hopefully Chris will come clean and admit his mistake.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana
on 4/27, 4:30pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Demon Banana just emoted:
...(with the possible exception of MSK who has no problem with evading facts)...
Ha!

ahem... (Did I just evade?)

Michael


Post 24

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 5:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Demon Banana"

HAHA! You need to come up with a better nickname for me!

Since you've infered in the past that I am a baby killer how about something like :

"Baby Killtana"

Demon Banana doesn't really make any sense.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana
on 4/27, 5:47pm)


Post 25

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Jason that, if your going to bother to involve or comment on Diana Hseih's post you had best read and think about it. I'm not commenting on the merit or lack of it in that post, as I haven't read it in detail. Any reasonable person should want to arm themselves with an understanding of their opponents arguments prior to going on the counter-offensive.

As with the other topics involving disagreements between peoples and organizations such as TOC, ARI, OL, etc I respectifully request that those wishing to debate the topics take them to the SOLO forum. There is no point in sitting back on another site and making statements and engaging in long distance name-calling and argument. It merely perpetuates the status quo of Objetivist sectarianism.

Thanks You,

Ethan


Post 26

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 6:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael Newberry wrote,
Perhaps it is the ex-pro tennis player in me, but, I have never had any sympathy for so-called intelligent people playing the victim in personal relationships or voluntary relationships...
No shit! You were a pro tennis player? Well, a superb artist must have exceptional hand-eye coordination, and the same for an elite tennis player. But a pro? Man, you must have been exceptional! How far did you rise in the rankings, if I may ask?

- Bill

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 6:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One thing that has been in my mind lately is this; objectivists often quote from the scene in the Fountainhead where Toohey asks Roark to say what he thinks of him, and Roark replies, "But I don't think of you." Some objectivists can't seem to shake thoughts of the Tooheys(or perceived Tooheys) in their life.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually-- just to make this clear, Chris has never, ever insinuated nor called me any names AT ALL. I read fast, I read a lot, and he has never insinuated that I was: a buttlicker, trailer trash, schizophrenic, and/or the "worst".

Diana was responsible for 3 out of the 4 names. I haven't gone back to check how many more, uh, euphemisms I am by association.

If anyone can guess where the "buttlicker" came from... :)

Post 29

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,

I was going to post that quote. Sanctioned, sanctioned, sanctioned.


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am absolutely convinced that it is all related to sexual frustration.
 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,
Hahahah, according to our shamelessly self-crowned St. George Cordero, it is all related to either sexual, or career frustrations.


Post 32

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hah - feed them all with lasagna, and they'll all feel better......;-)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Demon,

I'll stay with Demon Banana. I like the sound of it.

You little devil, you...

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> As with the other topics involving disagreements between peoples and organizations such as TOC, ARI, OL, etc I respectifully request that those wishing to debate the topics take them to the SOLO forum.

1. Ethan, you've said this before...and several people on SoloPassion have said, "hey come on over and debate us". The reason many people don't do this is because they observe people get called names or have their honesty or character questioned. [ As an example, just within the last 24 hours, Linz, who does this frequently, said something to the effect that I (and Chris Cathcart) had repudiated ethics or lacked moral scruple. ]

Why would you expect people to take things to a place where they are being insulted?

2. By the Way: On *this* forum MSK just insulted Jason Quintana by calling him Demon PinaColada or some such. Jason, showing more class and less irritation than I would, brushed it off and took it as a joke and perhaps it was...but twisting people's names is sort of juvenile (unless it's just done once and not out of hostility or harassment). They've started doing it over on Objectivist Living as well...which I view as descending to Linz's "outrageous talk show host" level, which they disapprove of when the ridicule and name calling is DIRECTED AT THEM. (I think Bidinotto and Bissell did the same thing elsewhere?)

Plus it is distracting and contemptous, when not done between friends:

If every time I were to post here, people were to call me PussyPhilanimous Un-CoatesHerent or FullOfHimselfPhil or Cootie (reaching even further back than middle school to first grade intellectual level...), I probably wouldn't expect that they were taking my ideas very seriously, would I?

I would like to express this as calmly, kindly, and benevolently (in the spirit of the sainted Chris Sciabarra) as I can:

COULD EVERYONE KINDLY JUST GROW THE FUCK UP!!!




(Edited by Philip Coates
on 4/27, 8:09pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

Er...

Are you evading?

//;-)

Michael

 

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/27, 8:31pm)


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Step #6 is where you trash your former friends who are persona non grata with ARI.

Step 12 sounds like it would be like A Million Little Pieces.

It's fine to get pissed when an ex-friend calls you names. Call him on the phone and tear him a new one. Then dump him, and move on.

But when you indirectly call other people names--- people you have never met --- and then put this stuff in public--- to fuel more ire and fire--- while basically saying you're a "good person"? In 12,000 words of exagerrated rhetoric? Are you kidding?

Bullshit.

Post 37

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, I agree with George. :-)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill:
No shit! You were a pro tennis player? Well, a superb artist must have exceptional hand-eye coordination, and the same for an elite tennis player. But a pro? Man, you must have been exceptional! How far did you rise in the rankings, if I may ask?
 
Thanks for your compliments Bill. You're right about the hand-eye coordination.
California State Junior Champion; Ranked 8th in the U.S. Juniors; Full tennis scholarship to U.S.C. (Fine art major); Played #3 on the NCAA championship team; 2nd place U.S. Amateur Mixed Doubles; Quit U.S.C. to become an artist but played part-time professionally to pay the bills; Played pro-tennis in Holland beat 3 guys that were top 100 in the world, went full-time to art school there; Teach tennis part time for a couple of years; Gave over 20 playing lessons to young Pete Sampras, never lost; Coached a 17-year old player to #17 in the world another to win the U.S. National 12 and under championship; Southern California 35's Menís Champion; 3-days hitting partner with Venus and Serena Williams; Didnít compete for nine years then represented the U.S. in Barcelona in the Menís 45's and beat the #3 world ranking in that division.
In my opinion I am a far better artist than tennis player but value in art is determined through aesthetic and critical thought; not like I can beat the shit out of other artists. ;)
Michael
 
 


Post 39

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Bidinotto wrote:
The content of a letter is the property of the writer, not the recipient, and can only be rightly quoted and excerpted with the writer's permission.
With one small reservation for fair use, I finally find myself in agreement with Robert on a copyright issue.

Publishing excerpts in public from private correspondence without the consent of the author is a copyright infringement. The author is the copyright owner.

Michael


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.