[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 60

Monday, April 13, 2009 - 3:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A pity, this.. Mindy was a very worthy person to be here........



Post 61

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 7:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fair enough, Joseph.

I'm sorry to have snapped at you.

Ed




Post 62

Saturday, May 30, 2009 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The mere fact that this thread was created is shameful, an unworthy act. The same for the general gang-up on Mindy. Her abruptness never approached in viciousness the malice with which she was treated. There was no call to place her, alone, on moderation. She deserves an apology from all involved.



Post 63

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 12:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On Shame

Ted,

I guess it's obvious but perhaps it still needs to be said: I don't agree that creating this thread was a shameful act.

Maybe you could elaborate on how you view it as shameful (rather than just calling it shameful). Maybe you view it as something unprovoked? Maybe you view it as something provoked, but somehow still an inappropriate response? Perhaps you view it as over-the-top, or maybe you view me as an initiator of rudeness in the matter (and Mindy as a much more innocent party, even a "victim" perhaps).

Can you better explain why it's a wrong, or shameful, response of me toward Mindy? Do you think that a more virtuous alternative would have been for me not to ignore Mindy for months (like I did) -- but to follow Mindy around in each thread where she may have chosen to engage in slander (or destructive criticism) of me, in order to "more properly" defend myself (rather than to try to deal with it in a single thread)?

Be clear on this: I'm not talking about being too thin-skinned, or being "too-cool-to-be-criticized" -- I'm talking about alternative responses to criticisms (and their relative virtue). Equally important is communication with those involved. Beyond this first and obvious attempt -- where you seem to have lots of answers -- have you had a chance to communicate with Mindy, or even any of the "all involved" that you mentioned?

Ed

p.s. Robert Malcom, if you feel like Ted does, I present the same questions to you.
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/31, 12:35am)




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 1:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is, perhaps, the most fascinating and informative thread I've ever read here. I'm not a fan of these flame wars, or whatever the hell you call them, but this one was great! So much passion. So much cockiness. Only four pages? Here's the update if you don't want to go through it all again. (I think you should. Much better than the garbage you're probably going to watch on TV.)

First Ed comes out with kid gloves on. He was rather boring, but not for lack of material. I think he was trying to be kind. Trying.

Then Mindy gets on and throws a one liner out there. I was really hoping it would continue - He says this and she says that - until one of them broke and really took a lunge. That didn't happen :(

However, what did happen was almost better: everyone started piling in and throw this bit of rubbish and that bit of garbage here and there. But they were only a sideshow. The really fun ones came next.

We all know them. People who love fights but want to appear superior and neutral. They always come too. They are the "peacemakers". Haha! Peacemakers! Someone almost made it there in post 5, but it didn't go far enough and was much too early anyhow. That's aright though, because someone made up for him (and they always do) later on. (BTW, I am not in this camp, if you are trying to make the link. I enjoy fighting for fighting sake. I won't hide behind a veneer of superiority. I love when people misbehave.)

Then, our heroine (or villain. The choice is yours) started posting private notes from the administration. It was very much like being in middle school; Jane hates Jill so Jane gives Billy all of Jill's old notes about him. Rather cowardly step, but such is love and war.

Mindy left, I guess, and a few guys traded in their Hetero membership cards. People started demanding things, the owner got involved (I can't joke about him [1] because he was reasonable and [2] because I don't want to be moderated), and someone even wanted to terminate their own life here.

That, my friends, is the short version. Maybe there will be more but, it would be nice to hear some of the arguments hashed out in the real world of the forum. And, it does seem a little infantile(?) to start a post with the title Flame War: Newton vs. Thompson on a site which appears to be dedicated to a philosophy.

I'm not taking side's though. I would never ruin this with taking sides.

Edited for spelling.(I hate when I make spelling errors. I feel like a third grader. But, one must clean up a mess.)
(Edited by Steve on 5/31, 11:26pm)




Post 65

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 3:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And, it does seem a little infantile(?)
.....................

The question mark is after the wrong word...



Post 66

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 6:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, you're mis-interpreting the context of this thread.



Post 67

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 10:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:
And, it does seem a little infantile(?)

Robert:
The question mark is after the wrong word...
Robert,

I asked you if you agree with Ted that this thread -- as a response to Mindy -- was shameful. You didn't really answer except for responding to something Steve said in order to accentuate it. This action -- this way of responding to a direct question -- is to what Steve was referring when he said "a few guys traded in there[sic] Hetero membership cards" -- It's when someone refuses to make a straightforward argument (to make a case), and tries to either get what they want with pithy comments that play on others' emotions, or smear the opposition by the same, questionable method.

Please consider answering the same questions I posed to Ted in post 63.

Ed



Post 68

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 11:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wouldn't use the word 'shameful', no... but it was certainly less than of sterling quality...



Post 69

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 7:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the response.

Ed




Post 70

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 8:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What an incredibly ugly, uncivil thread.

Is it so hard for two people who are mad at each to either say "I'm sorry", or step away from each other and try politely ignoring each other for a while?

Is this sort of nastiness really what Ayn Rand would have approved of?

OK, gonna leave this thread now and never look at it again ...



Post 71

Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 11:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim! Have you ever read about some of the shit Rand pulled? She could be a real bitch when things didn't go her way. She may not have approved nastiness, but she sure as hell knew how to use it.

You're not going to look at this thread again? I'll cry into my pillow every night.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 3:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can't believe some don't see the humorous olive branch extended by the creation of this thread.  I'm amazed, really, because it was just so plain-as-day obvious to me.  




Post 73

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 5:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

You may not ever look at this thread again, but it's amazing that you would say this:

Is it so hard for two people who are mad at each to either say "I'm sorry", or step away from each other and try politely ignoring each other for a while?
I tried "politely ignoring" Mindy! This is so obvious because it is mentioned multiple times in this thread (not just once or twice) -- yet you still seem to place blame equally upon me and Mindy. And you have the same reaction as several others did.

Odd, that. It's like something's preventing you from seeing what's directly before your very own eyes.

Ed




Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 5:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I did not perceive that as an olive branch but as a direct personal attack, though, admittedly an open invitation to a fair and public engagement, different from the sniping in threads.

My view, TSI, is based on my having attempted the same thing  with "Marotta versus Armaos" in the Banter forum.  That thread was deleted by the sysops. 

So, I viewed Ed Thompson's attack as coming from privilege, as the RoR Outreach Coordinator.  You, TSI, are the RoR Editor and you see nothing but lighthearted banter, whereas Mindy perceived something else entirely. 

I grant fully that Joseph Rowlands and company are generally broad minded and open minded and willing to encourage (almost) all manner of interaction.  It is a a private medium.   Moreover, of all the Objectivist sites, I personally favor this one.  At the same time, some animals are more equal than others.

The standards here on RoR are subjective. 

While I agree with Ted on this issue, I also caution that Ted vaulted himself to a leadership position here, achieving "victory by firehouse."  He posts his links to paleo-conservative blogs, which makes RoR look traditionalist, not radical, and political, not philosophical.  He dishonestly manoevered himself into 9000+ Atlas Points and a fifth icon, as if he had earned broad approval, when, in point of fact, he specifically lacks it.  I understand and appreciate the use of embedded graphics, even for pointed humor, and that's why I find his use of cartoons insulting and anti-intellectual. 

All of that is to place into some context this Ed-Mindy thing.  Considering the abuses we tolerate, and the highly personalized nature of the engagements and the consequences that sometimes result, I think that Mindy understood the situation quite well.  She made friends and enemies quite easily, as soon as she arrived.  She went after Ed Thompson, cudgeling him about the head, perhaps, but, again, as I read it, Ed over-reacted to small criticisms, when, in truth, he could have ignored her entirely.  My opinion of Ed and my esteeem for him was not going to change because of anything Mindy said. 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/01, 5:24am)




Post 75

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 11:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How can anyone 'dishonestly' maneuver himself into over 9000 Atlas points? I'd say there had to be some rather broad approval. Approval doesn't imply 100% agreement. It just signifies that positive contributions has been made.

We should just bury the Mandy-Ed issue. It was an unfortunate, unproductive, unflattering exercise.

jt



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, I'm not going to get into the Mindy-Ed thing... I don't much care who was sniping at who, or who snipped first, or who snipped the most, or whose snipes were the most unfair. I would say that banning her was wrong, but the site belongs to Joe.

You spoke of Ed Thompson's "privilege" as Outreach Coordinator? Do you seriously see that as a source of great power?

And your claim that Ted vaulted himself to a leadership position? Give me a break! He persuaded people to click the little red arrow - I don't see that he has any vaulted degree of power. And it wasn't dishonest, just silly. My God, you sound all whiney, like someone got a toy you wanted. And, again, his posted links on military intervention or torture were not paleo-conservative (isolationists)... some were Neo-conservative, others have been more traditional interventionist conservative, some have been from ARI sources. I disagree with the Hawk-like positions but not as much as I disagree with anarchism. Yet here you are suggesting that his links make RoR look bad! I guess that is a matter of perspective.

My suggestion: Do not attack Ted in general terms, but attack specific posts as they occur - or ignore him.

It was strange that you would write, "Considering the abuses we tolerate..." - Except for when someone is making a dishonest, personal accusation, or name-calling, what are you talking about? You should expect flack when you are an anarchist posting on an Objectivist forum and calling yourself an Objectivist. I "abuse" you for that, and will continue to since that position is more harmful to the future of the Objectivist movement and the Libertarian political movement than anything you've mentioned here.





Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I thought Mindy was moderated, not banned.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Methinks the lady doth protest too much



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, stop, please don't let me manipulate you into sanctioning me!

LOL!



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


User ID Password or create a free account.