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 unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


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

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I was originally going to post the below in the thread to Joe Rowland’s article, Solo in Review part 3, but I felt it would detract too much from Joes focus, so I have posted it here.

 

For selfish reasons, I feel compelled to comment on behalf of those that write articles.

 

One of the easiest things in the world to do is dissect someone’s article. You guys know the drill; you cut and paste sections of the guys’ article, and then add a quick comment negating his arguments in a sentence-by-sentence fashion. We've all done it to some degree and there is nothing wrong with that. With a few exceptions (the guys that are devoted to the art of hair-splitting), what most people are doing is forcing you to elaborate on your assertions and challenging the thought process that arrived at those conclusions.

 

One thing I learned quickly is that the second you hit that 'post article' button, your ideas have just entered the boxing ring. Sometimes that article scores a quick knockout, sometimes its a grueling 12 round slugfest, and don’t be surprised if at some point you get a bloody nose while listening to a 10 count being delivered above your fallen body! 

 

Sometimes the fight is sold out to a giant audience (usually when you write an article that you thought would cause little debate), other times after spending hours and hours putting your heart and mind into an article that means a lot to you, you find that no one bothered to buy tickets to see that one.

 

But for those of you that have never written an article and posted it, I strongly recommend that you do. Making well-founded and rational assertions is far and away more difficult than negating them, but the reward is also far and away higher.

 

Give it a shot, I dare ya!

 

George

 

PS: This is yet another reason I admire Tibor Machan, on top of everything else he does as an academic scholar, he also takes the time to regularly contribute his ‘Musings’ for Solo. Having written a few articles myself, and understanding the time and effort involved for just 1 article, the prospect of doing so on a regular basis is a daunting one.

 

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/27, 5:13am)


Post 1

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is an "article"?

In the Objectivism forum discussion "If Not Democracy, Then What?" I posted twice, once for tyranny, once for democracy.  Are those articles?

It is nice of you to give a forum to Tibor Machan.  Is there some formalized process for creating and posting such headline grabbers?

SOLOHQ has several hundred subscribers and several dozen regular posters and several people whose "articles" appear on the homepage.  That is in accordance with the "Pyramid" theory of activism.

Objectivists take money very seriously.  Yet, if you look at the standard definitions for  "money" and "coin" you will see that they depend on the concept of government.  This is especially true in the numismatic trade journals which will not accept advertising for "coins" that are not produced by govrnments.  Is government a necessary precondition to money?  How many words would you like? Maybe that seems obvious and not important.

I developed a dozen new words for ways to think about money. Is that interesting?  Who decides?  Who designs the banner? Who writes the headline? Who posts it to the homepage?

Perhaps my ideas are not that compelling.  I mention them because I believe that if you challenge people to write articles, you need to define the challenge and point to the goal line. 


Post 2

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Michael,

you said:
Perhaps my ideas are not that compelling.  I mention them because I believe that if you challenge people to write articles, you need to define the challenge and point to the goal line. 
Damn it man, RELAX!

Geeeeeez

Look, search this website a little bit more. You will find that anyone can submit an article - anyone.

If accepted by Linz or Joe it will then appear on the homepage at some later point. Just scroll down on the homepage and on the left hand side there is a square with the words 'contibute content' - click on that and then follow your nose.

George


Post 3

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George,
I won't even fall for this. I will publish nothing that is short of either a Nobel Prize or an Ignobel Prize!  


Post 4

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George W. Codero wrote:  ... If accepted by Linz or Joe it will then appear on the homepage at some later point. Just scroll down on the homepage and on the left hand side there is a square with the words 'contibute content' - click on that and then follow your nose.

Thanks for the reminder. 
 
Why would I want to "write an article" when I can create a topic without having it approved?  I write for a living.  Writing here without getting paid for it is a serious investment for me.  I consider it practice -- like working at another keyboard I did not get along with so well -- in order to be able to perform in public for money.
 
As a freelance writer, the last thing I would do is write something and then hope it gets accepted by an editor.  Doing that is why artists starve in garrets.  I am a capitalist, a merchant.  Does your grocer deliver a bottle of catsup on the hopes that after you use it, you will buy it?
 
I prefer to write for the Forums.  It is more cost-effective. 
 
Are you are offering to pay for articles? 
 
You are not actually expecting us to contribute professional level material to you for free just because you tell us that it would further the cause?  You would not say that because only a collectivist moocher would say that.  So, you must be saying something that I, as an "Eddie Willers" man of limited ability, fail to understand. Is that right?
 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/27, 11:30am)


Post 5

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I suppose you could name your price, Lindsay could solicit donations until your price was met [plus commission], then post your article.  I'd pitch in something, though I'm sure I couldn't afford the whole article, I think you're funny and you have very good insights on many things.  Glad to find someone who leans towards rational anarchist and who likes Heinlein.  Funny, many people who profess to be objectivists I don't care for.  I've never met anyone who likes Robert Heinlein who I didn't like.

As long as we're going to be paying for the article: it would be nice to see something in a formal essay form.  Introduction; so I know what the heck I'm reading it for.  Main body; argument, data.  Summary; simple version for my simple mind.

Mike Erickson


Post 6

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why would I want to "write an article" when I can create a topic without having it approved?


 
Because the reason you bothered to write on this forum in the first place is because you want to be heard. A home-page article means that even more people will hear you. So the benefit is primarily yours, and only secondarily theirs.
 
Writing here without getting paid for it is a serious investment for me. 
I consider it practice -- like working at another keyboard I did not get along with so well --


 
People write here primarily for 2 reasons; a) to further Objectivism, and B) to challenge the ideas of others and to be challenged. That second sentence in that quote has a ring of arrogance to it. It would be Ok if something you had written could justify it, but search as I may I have yet to find something you have done that does. Perhaps you could direct me to where I can find those 'Mark Twain' level writings of yours? If not, then I suggest you need more practice.
 
Does your grocer deliver a bottle of catsup on the hopes that after you use it, you will buy it? I prefer to write for the Forums.  It is more cost-effective.  Are you are offering to pay for articles? You are not actually expecting us to contribute professional level material to you for free just because you tell us that it would further the cause?  You would not say that because only a collectivist moocher would say that.  So, you must be saying something that I, as an "Eddie Willers" man of limited ability, fail to understand. Is that right?


 
Your nuts.
 
 
Sincerely, George
 


(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/27, 2:25pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the spirit of capitalism, I suggest SOLOHQ charge those who use the forum for the purpose of practice and later go on to perform in public for money. 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/27, 2:54pm)


Post 8

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, Michael, I'm guessing you won't be accepting this dare.

Post 9

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong wrote: George,
I won't even fall for this. I will publish nothing that is short of either a Nobel Prize or an Ignobel Prize!  

Hong, Sounds like your well on your way to writing a humorous piece or perhaps a standup routine about the quirks of science, motherhood, marriage, cultural differences...a couple of glasses of wine and I think we would see you tackle a room full of Objectivists with wit!

Michael




Post 10

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael (Newberry, not Marotta),
Thanks for your very kind words. But I won't fall for you either! 

Honestly, sparks of good ideas may not be that difficult to come by, but it would take Olympian effort, at least for me, to develop it into a well argued and well implemented article. So for now I'd just be standing at sidelines, cheering you guys on and occasionally mouthing my boos either silently or not so silently.


Post 11

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

BooWoos, I think that your "well implemented article" is a most excellent lead into a sex joke, if its not writing essays I still think standup is a possibility!


Post 12

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Cordero lurks in the sidelines as he watches Newberry slowly wear down Hong into comitting to an article. Newberrys tactics are straight from Sun Tzu, and Hong is a descendant of Sun Tzu - so this may work out. )


Post 13

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George W. Cordero wrote: Because the reason you bothered to write on this forum in the first place is because you want to be heard.
That claim depends on what you mean by "being heard."  Personally, George, I would rather spend an evening with you alone than to address a stadium full of people.  I think I am a pretty good public speaker, but, ultimately, the experience fails to satisfy me.  I would rather learn than teach.
George W. Condero wrote: People write here primarily for 2 reasons; a) to further Objectivism, and B) to challenge the ideas of others and to be challenged.
 That is closer to my motivation for logging in and participating.  Mostly, I am interested in being challenged.  I have clicked the Check for several articles that I liked.  A couple caused me to stop and think.  Jordan's question about the epistemological foundations of "society" and "corporations" was definitely challenging.  I have to admit -- and perhaps allow that it is my own failing -- that Dr. Tibor Machan was never challenging to me, even when we both wrote for The Libertarian Connection 30 years ago.  Adam Reed was also a writer for LC back then. I find him much more interesting now.  Again, perhaps it is only I who have changed.
That second sentence in that quote has a ring of arrogance to it.
Is an arrogant objectivist so unusual a find?
It would be Ok if something you had written could justify it, but search as I may I have yet to find something you have done that does. Perhaps you could direct me to where I can find those 'Mark Twain' level writings of yours? If not, then I suggest you need more practice.
The fact that I pissed you off would not be affecting your judgment, would it?  I have published over 200 newspaper and magazine articles in the last 20 years.  So, I think I have agoric reasons for believing that I know what I am doing.  Not a lot of that work is online.  You can find some of my articles about learning to fly at www.studentpilot.com and you can find some vignettes about numismatics at www.coin-newbies.com  The American Numismatic Association has a couple of my features on www.money.org under Publications off the homepage.  However, they do not post the two works that they granted me Heath Awards for.  The George Heath Literary Award is their highest honor for a writer.  I have been active in numismatics for only twelve years, though I first read Anthem in 1965 and completed the Basic Principles of Objectivism course before graduating from high school. Perhaps money is easier to understand than Objectivism is. 
 
Of course, Heaths or not, most numismatic periodicals will never print anything from me.  I hacked off the Numismatic Literary Guild by writing up one of their drunken awards ceremonies and posting it online.   As I said, it is pretty clear to me that having alienated the management here, a "sale" of any kind would be unlikely.  Even if you were not mad at me, the fact is that I am not a "Mark Twain."  I do not even like Mark Twain.  I also do not begin sentences with "Because."  Chalk it up to "artistic differences."
 
I have no grudge with you.  If you ever see anything of mine in SOLOHQ that impresses you, please, let me know.  I already sent you an email recommending several alternative ways to pay me.  There is no conflict of interest between men who share the same values.
 
FIOT, MYOB, and TANSTAAFL
Mike


Post 14

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 3:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marotta,

You seem to be under the impression that I am part of the management here, I am not. Also, I am not surprised that you find Dr. Machan unchallenging, but Adam Reed much more interesting. And Michael, I am not pissed off at you, I am sorry you got that impression; besides, I never expend that kind of emotional energy without being paid for it.  By the way, when I posted my last comment to you, I had already come across a couple of your 'essays'.

In your post you stated, "I hacked off the Numismatic Literary Guild by writing up one of their drunken awards ceremonies and posting it online." I can relate to that. A similar event happened to me when I wrote an article about a drunken party at the Playboy mansion, Hef has not allowed me back in ever since.

I do have a couple of questions for you.

What would you say is the value of a 1928 20-dollar note?  Also, do you support the Gold Standard? How about bronze or copper instead of Gold?  What is your take on the State Seals on Quarters, instead of the traditional symbols? Since the words "In God We Trust" appear on money, would you be in favor of changeing that to "One Nation Under God"? And lastly, are you a Monty Python fan?

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/29, 3:48am)


Post 15

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Let’s see Newberry’s Sun Tsu inspired tactics in coercing somebody into committing to an article: first flatter, and then daunt…. Nah, doesn’t work on me at all.

 

(Note to self: better shut up now otherwise may commit another blunder where sex joke spout up from nowhere. Not that I can't appreciate a good sex joke, but to be caught like that...Urrgh. banghead.gif )

 

 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/29, 9:21am)


Post 16

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 9:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George,

I am expecting a PM from you. I will be checking my Solo mail box .

Hong

(You are announcing PMs to everyone, and I am jealous).

 


Post 17

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ROFL

Hong, I sent you a PM.

George


Post 18

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Sir George!

Now I finally made it to the elite SOLOist group whom Sir George has PMed to. My vanity is satisfied.

I somehow believe our Objectivist cause is also being advanced, though I can't see exactly how yet... 



Post 19

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

You have a unique point of view on the Taiwan situation, as an objectivist and native Chinese. I recently worked in an engineering group with three chinese engineers here on work visas. I was the junior engineer in the group. I was very impressed with their professionalism, intelligence, courtesy and work ethic. And pure talent. Anyway, I mentioned Taiwan to my boss Ting (Robert)Zhou a couple of years ago. He had a much different take than I had. I thought that Taiwan had every right to remain free from mainland China if that's what the majority of the island wanted. Robert told me that the opinion of most Chinese was that most Taiwanese did not want to be separated from the mainland, that they were separated by force in the first place. From their point of view reclaiming Taiwan would be liberating the Taiwanese people. If you wanted to write an article about the Taiwan situation, especially since it seems to be heating up a bit, I would love to read it.

Mike Erickson

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.