Flame War: Newton vs. Thompson

I started this thread so that Mindy would have a place to criticize me, my actions, and my intentions -- and so that I could have a place to respond in kind (if appropriate).

In Jeff's Book Campaign thread, I suggested that she quit hijacking other peoples' threads in order to trash me (I suggested that she start a new thread for that), but that suggestion didn't work; because she followed-up with at least two back-to-back posts trashing me (further hijacking Jeff's thread).

NOTE: The reason I chose the Dissent forum is to avoid giving the impression that what you are about to get exposed to below (my up and coming scuffle with Mindy) is what this website is even about.

All that being said, take your best shot, Mindy ... Go! ...

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/28, 11:17am)

Post 1

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 11:17am

A lot of Ed's posts need correcting.

Post 2

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 12:06pm

Mindy needs a new attitude.

Post 3

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 4:01pm

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/28, 9:28pm)

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/28, 9:28pm)

Post 4

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 4:20pm

Oh my - speaking of a big chill...;-)

Post 5

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 7:47pm

Big Chill? The reference I was getting was that there is more below the surface.

I apparently missed the posts where this thing got started, but have to say I've had a respect for both, based upon various posts that I've read. Therefore I'm in the dark, and (I think) will choose to remain so, and hope this just peters out.

jt

Post 6

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 9:48pm

Jay,

Big Chill? The reference I was getting was that there is more below the surface.

I apparently missed the posts where this thing got started, but have to say I've had a respect for both, based upon various posts that I've read. Therefore I'm in the dark, and (I think) will choose to remain so, and hope this just peters out.

Thanks for having / showing respect, Jay.

This whole, sticky ball-of-shame-and-blame started when Mindy asked me -- in the middle of an otherwise-intellectual discussion (in a measurement omission thread?) -- if I was saying propositions don't have meaning. I flipped out at that moment. I didn't show (on the thread) that I flipped out, I just quietly flipped out. I guess I could have drew a picture of a chimp banging on his computer with a baseball bat, or something. Anyway, this is just background because I didn't flip out publicly -- all I did was attempt to politely end my part of that discussion with Mindy.

When discussing things with folks I don't know real well, I look for key behaviors in order to trim down how much time I spend with or on folks who give me hints that they aren't interested in progressive and mutual understanding. There are examples of folks like this in the archives. I've personally logged dozens and dozens of interactions with such folks. In the beginning, I couldn't tell either way with Mindy. She seemed like such a smart gal. She could put premises together into a conclusion like a champion. I had no reason to doubt her intellectual sincerity -- until she asked me if I was saying propositions don't have meaning.

It's perfectly fine to start a discussion by asking if propositions have meaning, such as in a philosophy class, or to really kick off an otherwise-boring tea party or coffee talk. What's not fine -- what lights up my radar like nuclear material found in an airport -- is when someone asks something like that very far into an obviously-advanced philosophical discussion. There is a certain kind of person who will ask something like that after talking to you -- someone who is not interested in progressive understanding, but rhetoric-for-rhetoric's-sake (a kind of debate point-scoring, if you will).

So, she asks me this very sketchy question -- a kind of question which postmodern, linguistic analysists ask for the purpose of dissemble -- and, at that moment, I tell her I need a break from discussing the issue with her.

Needless to say, she did not take that very well -- hence this thread, today.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/28, 10:33pm)

Post 7

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 9:55pm

Here

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 10:17pm

Mindy,

If you are going into intellectual battle with an adversary, it's good to know the caliber of the fighter you're getting into the ring with.

Sometimes, a boxer will throw many powerful and crafted punches in the air before a fight in order to try to intimidate his opponent. Metaphorically speaking, I am going to do that with you and I am going to do it right now. You need to know who (what) you are up against here, and I know of no other person (other than myself) quite able to show you exactly that.

Just for starters, Mindy, were you aware that I can link myself to John Galt in just 3 premises [edit: and 12 edits]? That's right. You heard that right (actually, you read my writing right). And, on top of that, in just 4 premises -- I can link you to Hitler. Now that should strike fear into the heart of any opponent.

I know what you are saying or thinking now, Mindy. You are saying or thinking: "That's all just talk, it's all just speeches." Well, in case you are saying or thinking that, then I guess I will show you then. Grab a security blanket or something, because you are going to need it while experiencing the full power of my unaided mind ...

A shorthand for editor is ed. (which is my first name, only it's not capitalized like my first name is).
John Galt substituted his speech for the president's speech (which is kind of like an edit).
The president's last name was Thompson (which is my last name).
Therefore, I'm linked to John Galt, the Ed.itor of Thompson

I know, I know -- you're both amazed and scared at the same time (I would be, too). Now, here is -- with virtually-equal brevity and poise -- a logical link between you and Hitler:

Mindy's last name is Newton.
Folklore says that an apple fell on Isaac Newton's head and that that got him thinking, etc.
Apples are what vegetarians eat.
Hitler was a vegetarian.
Therefore, Hitler and Mindy are all but the same person (with only maybe a few things like gender and epoch and possibly some other things separating them).

Whoa!

I know what you are thinking -- i.e., what you are seeing with your mind's eye or saying with your mind's mouth (actually, forget that last part). What you must be saying or thinking at this moment is ... holy crap. What am I doing messing with this guy? I know if I were you, I wouldn't be messing with me -- knowing what I know about my mental powers and whatnot.

Mindy, all of this was meant to intimidate you. Please understand that I felt it my duty to warn you about what you might be getting into here.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/28, 10:42pm)

Post 9

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 10:29pm

You're killin' me.

I can't stop laughing at it.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why Ed.it Thompson is Director of Outreach for Rebirth of Reason.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/28, 10:30pm)

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/28, 10:34pm)

Post 10

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 10:36pm

Teresa,

Thanks for providing context with that link (and also for the praise)!

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/28, 10:39pm)

Post 11

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 9:38am

Ed,
I am not amused, or impressed by your bullying. I read very little of your stuff (too many candy striped, excessively long and convoluted posts), though I've defended you in the past when I've thought you were unfairly attacked. I find I search out and read Mindy's posts. I think Mindy has at least 20 (minimum) IQ points on you and is more honest. You have an opportunity for personal growth here buddy. Don't blow it. (If you haven't already).

Post 12

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 4:58pm

Mike,

I am not amused, or impressed by your bullying. I read very little of your stuff (too many candy striped, excessively long and convoluted posts), though I've defended you in the past when I've thought you were unfairly attacked. I find I search out and read Mindy's posts. I think Mindy has at least 20 (minimum) IQ points on you and is more honest. You have an opportunity for personal growth here buddy. Don't blow it. (If you haven't already).

How am I being a bully? It's funny that you'd call me a bully when I've done everything to avoid Mindy for several weeks or months. Aren't bullies supposed to be instigators? Thanks for defending me before. Mindy may have 20+ IQ points on me, she's got a great intelligence quotient (which I admitted to Jay above) -- but that doesn't make someone right or fair or whatever; emotional intelligence would.

It's funny that Mindy has trashed me and my creations, and you're here to tell me I should grow.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/29, 5:53pm)

Post 13

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 6:05pm

Ed,

This thread looks like an invitation to a fistfight to me. Your "avoidance" looks like evasion. It would be respectful of Mindy to simply answer her questions directly.

When is it appropriate to be closed to criticism and call it "trashing"? Which is more important: "Reality" or "Ed's creations"?

And, please, no more talk about what boxers do. Funny you should mention "emotional intelligence".

Sorry to have to say these things Ed.

Mike

Post 14

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 6:45pm

Mike,

This thread looks like an invitation to a fistfight to me. Your "avoidance" looks like evasion. It would be respectful of Mindy to simply answer her questions directly.

I'm pretty sure that you haven't read some of the things Mindy has written about me. Things that look very much like an invitation to a fistfight. I could find quotes if you like.

When is it appropriate to be closed to criticism and call it "trashing"?

Okay, a quote is needed here. Here is a time, Mike, when it's appropriate to call it "trashing":

... I have made offers to "satisfy your honor" in a whole string of posts, Ed. ... You are an intellectual inferior. Your posts prove that. No quantity of logos beside your name can change nor hide the nature of your thought. It is all published. Your style of postings is characteristically insipid. You don't have much knowledge, you don't have a strong grasp of Objectivism, you don't know philosophy in general, and you don't express yourself clearly.

Mike, if you still think that that's not "trashing", then please provide an example of what "trashing" me would actually look like.

Which is more important: "Reality" or "Ed's creations"?

C'mon, Mike, that's a false dichotomy.

You could say the same thing about 'you-know-who': Which is more important: "Reality" or "Rand's creations"? Reality is important in it's own right, and artistic creations likewise. The literal answer is that reality is more important because we use reality in order to make creations -- creations being a selective rearrangement of parts of reality. But creations are not just an important -- but imperative -- part of the interaction of humans with reality. So you can't dismiss creations in order to "embrace" reality (not if you're being fully human).

Ed

Post 15

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 8:01pm

Mindy -

I inserted that rule for everyone's benefit, but especially for your own. After you bit my head off over it, I asked Joe if the Vendetta rule had any weight. It does. His exact words regarding your actions in relation to the rule are:

"Tell her it has to end or I'm planning to moderate her."

Joe rarely kicks anyone off. He puts them on moderation or banishes them to the Dissent forum.

I don't want to see that happen.

Regards -

Teresa

Post 16

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 8:56pm

"Note: If you want to mutually go through that epistemology thread -- line by line -- and morally evaluate each other's responses, then I would be comfortable doing that with you."

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0204_1.shtml#29

Post 17

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 9:06pm

No Ed, it is not a dichotomy. It is about hierarchy of value. And about the origin of truth. Reality and reason trump Ayn Rand. And Ed Thompson.

Post 18

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 9:09pm

I don't think you understand how much this entire topic bores and annoys me at the same time. I'm not interested in figuring out which of you is a better representative of Objectivism and kicking out the other. I'm not interested in picking sides. I'm not even interested in your topics of argument. I've read many of your posts and his and if I was trying to secure the purity of Objectivism I wouldn't let either of you speak, let alone be the purity police.

RoR is a place to discuss ideas, learn from one another, and create a community where we can find value from other like minded people. It's a place where we can find allies and friends. And by it's nature, it means there are going to be people we disagree with, sometimes greatly.

Get along or ignore each other. I don't care. Some people find value in your posts. Other people find Ed's posts valuable. If you want to promote good ideas, you can promote them without turning this into a turf war.-- Tom Rowlands, private message to Mindy Newton

Post 19

Monday, March 30, 2009 - 5:55am