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


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow! Michael Newberry wrote,
Thanks for your compliments Bill. You're right about the hand-eye coordination.
Your welcome! I love to watch tennis, although I don't play it, even though my mother did. I tried it a couple of times, and noticed that hitting backhand was harder than hitting forehand. I guess hitting forehand was easier, because I was used to swinging a baseball bat that way, but I wasn't a switch hitter, so hitting backhand was kind of awkward. I have a friend who's been playing tennis for quite awhile, so one day I said, serve me a ball and I'll see if I can hit it. He serves about 110 mph. Jesus, I could scarcely see the damn thing, it came over so fast. How do you guys return 130 mph serves?? What do you think of Roger Federer? Rod Laver thinks he's the most talented player the game has ever seen. Of course, Federer's game is somewhat Laver-like, so it doesn't totally surprise me that Laver would say something like that.
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.
LOL! But that's that an impressive resume to say the least! Awesome stuff! Do you still play, and are you ranked in any of the older age groups. You're a contemporary of tennis legends, Borg, McEnroe and Connors. I wonder if they're still playing, and did you ever get a chance to play against any of them, or against any of other top players of that era, like Evan Lendl? By the way, who was the #3 player in the 45's division that you beat, if you don't mind my asking?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 4/27, 11:56pm)


Sanction: 41, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 41, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 41, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 41, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting thread Michael.

I've noticed the tendency to embrace victimhood as well.  I wrote that article "Rallying to the Underdog" as an attempt to try to disarm its potency.  The real problem is that it works so well.  You just have to say "poor me", and even those running in Objectivist circles eat it up.

But for me, there's a bigger issue.  You hit on it when you said we should focus our energy on creating.  It's not that these kind of discussions are inherently bad.  It may be important to bring them up, and talk them through.  But it's of secondary importance to creation and production. 

I see it as akin to vacation.  A vacation may be valuable, but it has to be a vacation from something.  It's secondary, and your real profession is the primary.  So while these issues and denunciations may have some importance, if we ever let them become primary, we'll have lost sight of what living is really all about.

That's why John's comments that this is an act of pride by Diana is so important.  I think it might be, and that's the worst part.  For some people, this is "The total passion for the total height".  This is what they think the "total height" is all about.  This is what they take pride in, and is the measure of their success.  This is what they're living for.  It's sad.

This was one of the reasons I wanted to close SoloHQ.  While I was happy to have a forum where people could discuss stuff like this, I was unhappy that that was becoming the real purpose behind it.  That was not what I had been working towards, and it was not a source of pride for me.  I think the division worked out well.  We each got what we wanted.


Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just want to agree with Phil Coates.  I fully understand the desire to discuss issues in a forum where objectivity is expected.  Ethan and I have talked in the past, and we agree that we want RoR to be focused on ideas, activism, and creation.  We prefer to minimize these kind of squabbles on this site, and are happy to let it all happen on other sites.  We're not going to ban the topics, though.  We just ask that people keep a little perspective and help us avoid turning that into a major theme here.  We really do have better things to do.

Post 43

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


this is an act of pride by Diana
Not so - is an act of 'macho', not pride ....... the two often get confused.....


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This was one of the reasons I wanted to close SoloHQ.  While I was happy to have a forum where people could discuss stuff like this, I was unhappy that that was becoming the real purpose behind it.  That was not what I had been working towards, and it was not a source of pride for me.  I think the division worked out well.  We each got what we wanted.

I completely agree. This is the reason I direct people to SOLO when they want to engage in these types of discussions.

Name calling is easy and for the most part pointless. Moss of the arguments involving TOC/ARI Open vs Closed descend into endless name calling and moral repudiations. It does more to discredit the name-caller than it does to refute their co-belligerant. It does go over well in an audience where most people are on your side. It's called playing to the crowd. If your argument is a valid one, then this type of thing adds nothing, and if it's invalid then it's just a smoke screen.

Ethan


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Name calling is easy and for the most part pointless
I agree with you, Ethan, but why you have never stopped some people, on you forum, from calling MSK, names? 
Civility, is when we respect those with whom  we disagree.
RoR has not been better than solo passion in regard name calling.
CD

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 4/28, 8:33am)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

I don't stop anyone from doing or saying anything here. I may say that I don't agree with them and that I think they sholdn't say it. I may not say something as well. I'm not the forum police. If I read it and think its wrong I will say something, but I don't read every thread or comment,

Michael has been called names and calls others names. He embraces that and as such is in no position to argue against it. When he or others uses the name calling thing, it takes away from their arguements. It's the same as if I do it, and I'm sure I have at some point.

As far as Michael goes you still have someone who has been dishonest and argued in bad faith. I know you refuse to extend your judgment to him and certain others, but I don't and I've said plainly how I feel about Michael and how disappointed I was over it. I liked Michael a lot, but my opinion has been changed by his actions.

Ethan


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dishonesty is ALSO when a person doesn't stand behind what he believes.
When MSK did not do that? e.i. standing behind his believes?


(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 4/28, 8:38am)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

He's free to stand by what he beleives.

His arguements as to what is and is not in agreement with Objectivism have been shown to be wrong by several logical and consistent posters here. His refusal to acknowlege that and to continue to espouse ideas that are not Objectivist as being Objectivist and his further use of shifting arguements and hyperbolic name calling towards various posters have shown him to be dishonest.

Ethan


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan: I know you refuse to extend your judgment to him and certain others.

Ciro: You are wrong!! My judgment to them is extended indeed!!!



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Ciro,

I may have mispoke in that case. I was thinking of a post you had made that I can't recall exactly, nor do I have time to earch for it. I withdraw that comment until such time as I can find what you said and determine if it means what I thought it did.

My appologies,

Ethan


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan: His arguements as to what is and is not in agreement with Objectivism have been shown to be wrong
Ciro: Why none of his alleged friends helped him on this issues then?
Oh! I know... because we had a 300lb gorilla in the middle of the room.
God damn, this is a resurrected man who had the power to be a good man again, instead
than being taken as example--and to learn that life can play cunning tricks on us, and that we can help and need help in life, some treat him as a fucking enemy. This is wrong!!!
CD


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

I exchanged several emails with Michael and asked him, no, pleaded with him to consider the arguements against what he was saying. You can assume the results of that from my current view of him.

If Michael admitted he was not an Objectivist and stopped what I see as a twisting of Objectvism I would take that as a sign of some honesty. He has not done that. By claiming that his views are consistent with Objectivism he is potnetially confusing those new to the philosophy and helping to perpetuate bad ideas while riding on the name of Objectivism. The enemy within is often the worst you can have.

Ethan


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 10:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Frankly I'm kind of amused at this.

It seems like almost anybody these days knows just what Objectivism is - but for some reason the major players can't seem to agree on it amongst themselves. Let's not even talk about Peikoff, Kelley, Branden, Sciabarra, etc. Just look at what happened here among the leaders - when this site was SoloHQ.

The issue is who, not what. I disagree with Rowlands sometimes and say so. Nothing more.

Ethan talks a lot of opinions and no facts (as he has consistently done for a while). He did not plead with me in e-mails about anything (I have them on file to prove it). He cannot even state which ideas I hold that are not in alignment with Objectivism.

Just more smear crap.

Michael



Post 54

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gee, I have the emails to.

As for opinions vs facts, I offer up the contents of the altruism and follow on threads. All the facts I need.

So, Ciro, you brought it up, and there it is. You, Michael, and anyone else who cares, can make of it what you will.

Ethan


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I recommend those interested read the entire Altruism vs Freedom thread.

Those looking for a more brief read can start with my first post on the issue here  http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1646_6.shtml#130
and Michael's reply following it. It would be better to read the entire thread for context though.


Post 56

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 11:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
sexual frustration

Yes, Freud! *grin*

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 11:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan,

Where in hell have you been these last couple of months? I backed off that stance and went into "research mode" a long time ago. I stated that it was an initial emotional reaction - and as that reaction was real, I wanted to get to the bottom of it. Even NB sent me a letter about this, discussing this kind of reaction.

I have mentioned this several times in several places. Can't you read? At least try it before you do something like you just did. I highly recommend reading. (I will dig up the posts and do your homework for you if you really need me to.)

Like I said, opinions and no facts. Pure smear crap.

Michael


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Given your strident stance on various threads I would expect you to seek out those people who you offended and make it widely known that you have changed your mind and you appologise for the fact. You used terms such a murederer and spoke of physical violence on the Altruism vs Freedom thread.

When I apologise for something I email the person with a link to that apology and make it bloody well known that I'm making it. If you've changed your mind and now wish to come clean about it, do it!

Ethan


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have mentioned this several times in several places. Can't you read? At least try it before you do something like you just did. I highly recommend reading. (I will dig up the posts and do your homework for you if you really need me to.)
And Michael,

You better apologise for this crap too while your at it.

Ethan


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.