[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Monday, March 30, 2009 - 11:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am surprised, and dismayed that Mindy is on moderation. It is inappropriate given the harsh, abusive posts I've seen in the past that did not result in moderation.

When I look through old threads I'm sad to see all the really bright people that no longer choose to post here - and now a good mind is being chased away.

Mindy was unbending in the face of criticism and showed no deference towards authority - I had hoped that it was a tendency she would rein in a little bit rather than let the conflict get to this stage. And I believe that would have happened with a little more time.

I hope she bides her time, and values RoR enough to return and "play well with others" - although, for some reason she is being asked to meet standards not demanded of others.



Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 3:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When I look through old threads I'm sad to see all the really bright people that no longer choose to post here - and now a good mind is being chased away.

Steve, I've been reading this forum for a long time. It was only a matter of time before Mindy made attempts to chase you away. Then Ted (when he returns), and probably Bill. She was well on her way to chasing Ed away.   Dragging a three plus month old grudge into every thread a member participates in is inappropriate. Period.  Ed doesn't do that and neither do you.   




Post 42

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 9:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Steve, I've been reading this forum for a long time. It was only a matter of time before Mindy made attempts to chase you away. Then Ted (when he returns), and probably Bill. She was well on her way to chasing Ed away. Dragging a three plus month old grudge into every thread a member participates in is inappropriate. Period. Ed doesn't do that and neither do you."

This opinion shows absolutely no confidence in their abilities to handle arguments. If that is the case, I can see why they need your protection Teresa. I understand. Alpha males indeed.

Michael



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

I really don't see a dynamic like you are talking about. I don't see that Mindy was working to drive people away.

I saw the animosity towards Ed that seemed inappropriate and inexplicable but I don't see the level of attacks or 'vendetta' that you describe. I think that this could been handled differently and I think that hurt feelings and personality issues became magnified to the point where the value of her contributions was overshadowed.

The opposite sort of thing is where someone who 'plays well with others' most of the time, but is shallow, without much value on an intellectual forum is forgiven outrageous behaviors under the context of people getting passionate over ideas. You and I have seen that happen before in the past.

Somehow, we need to be better at steering the evolution of RoR such that it grows in intellectual stature. I've found that really bright people are often quirky in some way or another - not as a property of intelligence, but, my guess is that it's an adaptation to our culture's bias against exceptionally bright people. We should be working, not to sanction any negative behaviors, but to find ways to minimize them for the purpose of keeping the people here.

Assuming that she were interested in returning, what would it take to bring her back? Clearly, once she was back, it would include not interacting with Ed, anything else?



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Online objectivism :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE




Post 45

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I asked Teresa to cancel my membership here.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 12:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I'd like for you to reconsider your request to drop your membership. Sometimes it is possible to shift ones perspective just enough to revisit a decision like that.

I've disagreed with you vigorously on occasions and found you to be a strong advocate. I value that strength and I liked that you didn't feel threatened by opposition.

I want you to stay with RoR. If those who are able to speak their minds - and strongly so - without getting their feelings hurt and without getting vicious leave, and if those who have unique visions leave... who is left.

If you know of another place that exhibits better characteristics in the areas we are discussing and has intellectual values worth noting, let everyone here know where it is and why it's better - that would be of help in letting people make changes - to bring improvement to RoR.

If you don't know of a better place, then stick around, at least a while longer, fighting for the values you want to see here.



Post 47

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 1:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

This opinion shows absolutely no confidence in their abilities to handle arguments. If that is the case, I can see why they need your protection Teresa.
I can handle myself just fine, Michael. I would wager that Teresa understands that I am no pushover in need of coddling or protection from getting trashed on in here. I thought a flashy thread would prove that point. It's not the first, and won't be the last, time that someone doesn't like me. If you are going to leave this place over this (and I hope you don't leave because I value you), then you had better understand it in the first place.

In the first place, you're talking like Mindy's been banned (or even put on some kind of permanent moderation) and she hasn't. So that's wrong of you. I don't know about any of the particulars related to Mindy's moderation here (beyond what has been said in this thread), but if you think that that means she can't speak her mind, then simply verify it with her via her posted email.

You make it sound like only really very nice posts of hers will get through -- like she'll be intellectually shackled behind the scenes -- when in fact you could keep in perfect touch with her about this in an ongoing way -- and you know it and everybody knows it.

Just verify that instead of assuming.

All of you guys have been making it sound like this terrible, terrible thing has just happened to Mindy out of the blue. Oh, Joe must have done something that is so terribly unjust. We don't know about the particulars, but we don't have to, we just have all the answers -- and we are right about Mindy and Joe is wrong.

Some of you pay lip service like: "Well, she's been very critical of Ed -- and that's unexplainable to me -- but she hasn't done anything in particular that's particularly bad enough to qualify herself for moderation. In fact, her multitudinous jabs at Ed are actually quite "cute" -- and his ego is big enough to handle it. After all, she's so intelligent and charming, yada yada"

Have any of you guys -- you guys who claim I'm a bad guy if I challenge Mindy here in this thread, and I'm a bad guy if I "evade" (or just that Mindy should not be put through this terrible thing called moderation) -- have any of you guys even asked Mindy about this?

Why haven't you asked her (I know I would, if I were in your shoes)?

Have any of you guys even asked Joe about it?

How can this seem like anything but posturing / grand-standing, if you don't first ask the parties involved? I'm not pissed off that no one has asked me about this. I don't expect anyone to defend me. But I think you defend Mindy based solely on being charmed (without regard to other details).

If I'm wrong about this, I'll admit it (right here). All I ask is that, if I'm right, that you admit that.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/31, 1:56pm)




Post 48

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 2:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

Sometimes I let myself get lured into winning instead of focusing on whatís true. I say letís forgive each other for that once in a while. I perceive you as letting go of truth and going for the win OFTEN. Surely you often perceive me the same way. Big fucking deal.

Point being that you earlier described yourself as a seeker of truthóand you certainly are oneóbut donít try to billboard that as though thatís all you are. I am a seeker of truth, too, but the next time we tangle I will be looking for truth up and Edís chin down, not just truth up. It was you who observed some time back that we are like two alpha dogs. I still love you, so I guess it works for us but not for you and Mindy.
I agree with both your characterization and evaluation of the situation.

I can lapse into arrogance sometimes thinking I've got some pipeline to the truth of all matters. That's wrong of me. I see some of that in you (just as you predicted I would). I'm not just a truth-seeker, but a person -- complete with wants and needs and feelings such as the desire to be respected by others and to have community with others. Sometimes, personal feelings and desires make me feel like being more flashy or standoffish than truthful. I am a ham and a show-off. I will try to be more mindful about those aspects of myself. I will heed your warnings about the next time we face-off. I will try not to be such a tough guy, and try to communicate better without such grandstanding.

I love you, too, Jon (i.e., non-gay "Bro-mance").

Ed




Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 2:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hurray, some kiss and makeup! : P



Post 50

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This opinion shows absolutely no confidence in their abilities to handle arguments. If that is the case, I can see why they need your protection Teresa. I understand. Alpha males indeed.

Ridiculous.

Ask Joe for your resignation.




Post 51

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 5:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This opinion shows absolutely no confidence in their abilities to handle arguments.
Further, Michael, unless you're blind, Mindy didn't make "arguments" with Ed.  She made insults and slanders. A little too comfortably, and a little too often.

That's what Yahoo forums are for, and that's where she belongs.  




Post 52

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just remember Michael, you can only take your toys and go home once or it becomes unseemly!



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Oh, NOW my predecessor makes a showing!  Why didn't I write to him first? Probably because I figured he wasn't available! :cp)

Steve -
 
The opposite sort of thing is where someone who 'plays well with others' most of the time, but is shallow, without much value on an intellectual forum is forgiven outrageous behaviors under the context of people getting passionate over ideas.

I guess you're just going to have to trust me, Steve, but be assured, I totally know the difference.  This wasn't that at all.  We've talked about this.

I understand anger within the context of a thread's argument. I even understand bringing up past arguments in old threads when they apply, but I'll never understand bringing all of anger from one argument into every argument with an individual.  Can you imagine working with someone like that?? No thanks!

And I need to reaffirm that Ed is correct about the moderation status. It doesn't have to be permanent unless a member needs it to be.  Mindy's still a member here.

I saw the animosity towards Ed that seemed inappropriate and inexplicable but I don't see the level of attacks or 'vendetta' that you describe.

What level of vitriolic bizarreness should be adequate in my view? When an individual is attacking more than one member, for no other reason then to expel emotional diarrhea? You must think this was an easy thing for me to do. It wasn't.

Somehow, we need to be better at steering the evolution of RoR such that it grows in intellectual stature. I've found that really bright people are often quirky in some way or another - not as a property of intelligence, but, my guess is that it's an adaptation to our culture's bias against exceptionally bright people. We should be working, not to sanction any negative behaviors, but to find ways to minimize them for the purpose of keeping the people here.

Moderation serves that purpose. 
(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/31, 6:01pm)




Post 54

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 8:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve: "I'd like for you to reconsider..."

Thanks for your post Steve. I considered the action.

And asked Joe to cancel my membership.





Post 55

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 11:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wish you well, Michael.



Post 56

Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 11:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was really surprised to see this on these forums. This is an excellent demonstration of the interplay between emotion and reason. I don't think of it as a dichotomy, but rather as a complex interaction.

After reading over all the posts in question, I found that this argument has followed the pattern that I see so regularly on Internet forums:

Person A makes an argument.
Person B offers a differing argument.
Person A feels the need to defend his/her argument, feeling it is being questioned by person B.
Person B now feels the need to defend his/her argument, feeling is it being questioned by person A.
The discussion begins, and a good time is had by the participants and the audience.
As the discussion continues, a few things tend to happen. First, the scope of the argument becomes more narrow. Rather than discussing the entire argument, the debaters will focus on one small portion of the argument.
As the argument becomes more specific, ambiguities and assumptions arise that generally go unnoticed. (They REALLY went unnoticed in your "epistemology" thread).
The scope of the argument narrows even further, and the debaters begin to focus on specific statements. As each phrase is picked apart, one or both parties will begin to feel that their ideas are not being treated fairly.
Often the arguments of one party are indeed one-sided; regardless, accusations arise such as that of intellectual dishonesty, rhetorical manipulation, or cherry-picking.
We end up in a charged situation like this, where DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THE MANNER OF CONVERSATION, rather than disagreements about any external topic of conversation, become the focus of debate.

It appears to me that emotion has fully taken charge here for Ed, Molly, and certainly some third parties.



I hope you don't mind my detached musings, but I am also a little curious as to why the hell this thread has so many Atlas Points.

"A lot of Ed's posts need correcting." - 3
"Mindy needs a new attitude." - 2

Intellectually stimulating indeed. Ed, Molly... how did you come up with such convincing arguments? I commend you, RoR members, for sanctioning such brilliance through your votes and comments.




Post 57

Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 2:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joseph,

I hope you don't mind my detached musings, but I am also a little curious as to why the hell this thread has so many Atlas Points.

"A lot of Ed's posts need correcting." - 3
"Mindy needs a new attitude." - 2

Intellectually stimulating indeed. Ed, Molly... how did you come up with such convincing arguments? I commend you, RoR members, for sanctioning such brilliance ...




You know, I see your point, but it really doesn't characterize the situation well. You've barely skimmed the surface and now you would like to jump in for a musing (as if from a position of greater understanding than the parties involved). It actually draws away from the important points of what happened. It's like you're not following your own advice or something.

For starters, Mindy's name is Mindy, not Molly.

Also, if you look at the reason why I started this thread -- and I outlined my reason in the first post of the thread -- if you look at the reason why I started this thread, then you will see how it was basically just mockery for Mindy to say what she did.

Now, you could go back one step and say: "Ed must've done something to deserve being mocked." Fine. We keep going back, from what one party did to the next, and, lo' and behold, the other party was always at fault -- until you go back further. Sooner or later you get to January 17 (Teresa posted the link) where first hell broke loose.

The reason folks sanctioned pithy statements is because they sense some kind of injustice and felt some kind of vindication in the statements. Like mentioned above, everybody went back as far as they wanted to, stopped there, and said to themselves: "From what this person here said, that other person really deserves it (whether "it" is mockery or whatever)."

After a few-month trial of avoiding her, I tried an experiment (this thread) where I would not only address every criticism to the letter, but that I would also dish back to her -- i.e., respond in kind -- what it was she was dishing out to me. Apparently, that wasn't good enough for her, either.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/02, 2:51pm)




Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 4:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a monument of some kind to the cold fact that 'tone' is far too easy to misinterpret in this medium.

It always was.

I find it easier if I picture everone with a can of beer next to their keyboard.

If anyone finds that objectionable, then ... this is another day ending in 'y'. But, I'll gladly change that mental image to anything from 'A'pple Juice in a sippy cup to 'Z'ima.

In fact, if I could make a constructive suggestion for the first time in my on-line life, that could be self-added as part of our extended profile: our preferred imagined favorite beverage sitting next to our keyboard as we give forth with our bon mots.

regards,
Fred



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Monday, April 13, 2009 - 2:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

You're right that I don't know as much about the particular issue as you do.  That's to be expected, as your feelings are the issue, and I will never feel your feelings more than you do.  For that reason I kept my comments general.  Perhaps you would antagonize people less often if you weren't so quick to stoop to petty jabs like this:
 "It's like you're not following your own advice or something." 
I didn't intend to offer advice, and I don't really follow your reasoning as to how I'm not following it.  I was actually interested in dissecting how these kinds of arguments evolve.  I thought it would be more fun to talk about since Mindy is no longer able to answer for herself.
For starters, Mindy's name is Mindy, not Molly.
My bad.  Thanks, Ed. 
Mindy, will you please accept my apology?  Oh, wait...
The reason folks sanctioned pithy statements is because they sense some kind of injustice and felt some kind of vindication in the statements. Like mentioned above, everybody went back as far as they wanted to, stopped there, and said to themselves: "From what this person here said, that other person really deserves it (whether "it" is mockery or whatever)."
Fair enough.  I just feel it "devalues the currency"  to give sanctions in such a manner rather than sanctioning insight, quality reason, and solid thought.  Note, Ed, that this is not directed at you, nor was it ever.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]