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 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 140

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

By his own admission in his last post on this thread, it was not off the cuff that David came in with guns blazing.
 
Pre-programmed failure often outperforms the regular kind. The man was on a mission. :)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 141

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 3:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I draw SOLOists' attention to the following exchange between Peter Cresswell & Fred Seddon on the Frank Lloyd Wright thread:

Peter: "Fred - do you have to work at being an arsehole or does it come with your tenure? It's just not possible for you to celebrate the birthday of someone great without picking & cutting & sniping, is it? Fucking arsehole."

Fred: "Peter, you fucking dickhead. I was asking you a question & you respond with name-calling. ... You can be a hero-worshipper without sticking your head up your ass. What's up, you moronic shithead? You wrote: 'Fucking arsehole.' Ah, your favourite eating place. Suck shit, mother fucker."

Under a strict no-insult policy, Peter & Prof Seddon should immediately be moderated. That would seem odd to me. Is it what folk here want?

Linz


Post 142

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Absolutely not - Peter would probably derive pleasure from this form of punishment.

I believe I have a way to ensure that he gets periodically subjected to music by ABBA, Westlife and Shania Twain.
You could use this as leverage to get him to moderate his language...

:-) :-) :-)


Besides, it seemed to me like Prof Seddon was trolling for bites and got the one he was angling for. Are we to demand infinite patience when dealing with trolls too?

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 6/16, 3:37pm)


Post 143

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 3:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is it what folk here want?
I think common sense should be the rule.

There's an obvious difference between serious personal abuse and jocularity.


Post 144

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was so delighted by Peter's post I laughed out loud! I can hear Fred laughing too.

I love feistiness, even crankiness. It's downright meanness I can't stand.

Post 145

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Name calling brings so much unwelcome baggage with it that I find it hard to imagine it is redeemed by being a mode of entertainment.  Maybe if we were 4 months out on a cruise and had not seen land or a woman in all that time it would take on an entertainment value.

Post 146

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Charles,

You are so nice. I really do like that in most people.

Linz has an essay on bellylaughs that might be worth your reading. Also one on what he finds irritating in posts and articles (Seven).

I find them both to be gems of what sincerity means.

Maybe that will help you understand what all the loose cannons are doing around here.

Also, don't mind about Peter and Fred. That's Solo's own Hatfields and McCoys going at it over Kantian moonshine.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/16, 7:13pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 147

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,
Thanks for bringing this disgusting exchange between PC & Prof Seddon to our attention. We suggest that PC should be drawn and quartered and Prof. Seddon burnt at stake.

SOLO Moral Policing Squad


Post 148

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re: the following example:

Peter: "Fred - do you have to work at being an arsehole or does it come with your tenure? It's just not possible for you to celebrate the birthday of someone great without picking & cutting & sniping, is it? Fucking arsehole."

Fred: "Peter, you fucking dickhead. I was asking you a question & you respond with name-calling. ... You can be a hero-worshipper without sticking your head up your ass. What's up, you moronic shithead? You wrote: 'Fucking arsehole.' Ah, your favourite eating place. Suck shit, mother fucker.""


If they are doing a tongue in cheek exchange or are 2 salty fellows given to bandying such language about, then let it be.

If they are generally polite, like Joe is, and someone brings it to the moderator's attention, then they ought to be spoken to.

Is this such a terrible approach?

Otherwise, fuck it. Just make a 'no rotten bullshit to Joe but free for all for everyone else' rule and let's move on.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 149

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz:

Since you asked...
I draw SOLOists' attention to the following exchange between Peter Cresswell & Fred Seddon on the Frank Lloyd Wright thread:

Peter: "Fred - do you have to work at being an arsehole or does it come with your tenure? It's just not possible for you to celebrate the birthday of someone great without picking & cutting & sniping, is it? Fucking arsehole."

Fred: "Peter, you fucking dickhead. I was asking you a question & you respond with name-calling. ... You can be a hero-worshipper without sticking your head up your ass. What's up, you moronic shithead? You wrote: 'Fucking arsehole.' Ah, your favourite eating place. Suck shit, mother fucker."

Under a strict no-insult policy, Peter & Prof Seddon should immediately be moderated. That would seem odd to me. Is it what folk here want?

At the risk of being a one-note Nathan, insults are not the issue. One can insult without being grossly abusive. Abuse is the issue.

So, the question is: Are the words these two exchanged grossly abusive and out-of-place on SOLO?

Hmmm. Let me review. We have mention of:
  • an excretory orifice, twice;
  • a sex act;
  • comparing another to male genitalia;
  • an anatomically difficult position involving an excretory orifice;
  • comparing another's head to excreta;
  • suggestions that another ingest excreta;
  • suggestion that another copulates with his mother.
Hmmm. Is this abusive language? Hmmm.

Let's operate on the premise that this is not abusive language. What would actual abusive language sound like? I have a wonderful imagination, but I'm afraid it fails me here. How much lower can we go?

The only word which most people consider more abusive involves female genitalia and starts with "c." Is that it? This is not abusive because someone didn't call someone a c---? SOLO doesn't need Insult Nannies, but if this language doesn't qualify as abusive, I have no idea what would.

"Is [moderating] that what folk want here?" you ask.

My answer is: Only if you don't wish SOLO to look like the dung-draped walls of Usenet.

I can't imagine many desirable people leaving SOLO because nobody called anyone a "fucking arsehole dickhead mother fucker" today. On the other hand, I can imagine many good people departing if that language is permitted.

Rationalizing it as coarse banter might be fine for those regulars in the know, but how does it look to visitors?

Nathan Hawking




.

(Edited by Nathan Hawking on 6/16, 8:04pm)


Post 150

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK -- I am hiding something as you and Linz (if you are right about how he regards me) suggest.  I really am a sociopath and have been ever since Vietnam.  Remove the cloak of niceness only at the risk of turning to stone!

I need to know which of the seven deadly sins you have become aware of in my posts.  I think I enjoy a few of them, since I am not a carbon copy of Linz.  One that is not one of them is Cowardice.  I have been very clear about where I stand on principles and manners.  One thing that I really hate is the abuse of women.  If Linz is annoyed, then by all means I will give him my ear.

I told you that I curse only myself and god.  The danger of making such a list is that making complete lists is very difficult.  I forgot that I will also curse a very bright and virtuous man who betrays my good opinion by acting very stupidly.  If Linz wants to be in such company, then he has to show me that he is very bright and very virtuous and then stumble as he has lately.  Apparently, he would like the resulting post.  For now he does not qualify for one of my curses.  Maybe after he has made amends with Jennifer there will be a future occasion when he will.  He seems to take a great pleasure in oscillating between being very pleasant and very irritating.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 151

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 10:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> a strict no-insult policy..Is it what folk here want? [Linz]

I'm glad this Fred and Peter exchange came up. Case studies are helpful:

I just read the entire Frank Lloyd Wright thread, which (so far) has petered out and ended in the repeated exchange of insults.

What touched off the ill will and the negative ending to the thread was Peter Cresswell's response to those, including Jennifer Iannolo and Fred, who were asking him [I gather than he is an architect?] if some of the criticisms of Wright's construction methods (at Fallingwater for example)were valid: "People just love hearing stories that tear down great men; seems it doesn't even matter if they're true...Feel free to look for more. As I'm sure you will." And this which Peter directed specifically at Fred (who had said he couldn't believe a particular organization would spread falsehoods about Wright): "He probably figured you'd be happy enough to do it for him, Fred." And a shot aimed at Jennifer for not having devoted enough thought to her post, when all she did was ask in a single sentence whether the charges against Wright were accurate.

Once Peter had displayed a lack of benevolence in accusing two people who were only asking -questions- of bad character, ignorance, and falsehood or dishonesty, the thread rapidly went downhill and has ended with insults. (And I suspect Peter's overreaction probably obscured for some the very good answers he actually gave to unfair criticisms of Wright!)

If you read the thread, you'll see that the insults were clearly not intended as "light banter". The problem in this case was not one of name-calling - that was the last step. It was of questioning the honesty or character or stature of someone who disagrees with you.

I don't know anything about Peter C. Perhaps he doesn't do this sort of thing frequently. In which case he is not constantly sabotaging threads. I think if I went to the trouble of running a discussion list, my main goal would be to have quality and benevolent discussion on my board. And therefore I'd prevent anyone from destroying that - whether by stupidity, malevolence, grudge holding and vendettas, or posting nine million times in a row.

So I would definitely deal in some way with people who repeatedly sabotage threads however blatantly or subtly or unintentionally that is done (foul language or a formal insult may not be the criterion - as it would not be in this case). I'd probably only notice there was a problem after there had been some complaints or I had seen the person "hijack" a lot of threads. But I'd warn them first. And I'd only warn Mr. Cresswell if he had a habit of doing what he did above:

It's understandable that people do this sort of thing thoughtlessly on occasion, as opposed to it being a pattern. It's possible to lose your cool or be really angry because a hero or value of yours seems to be being questioned.

Ayn Rand would do this, as we all know. But this is not one of her habits we should emulate in building a community.

--Phil

(Fred wasn't really at fault here, even though he was on a technicality the more insulting of the two. It's sort of when somebody slaps you and you hit him back...harder.)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 6/16, 10:14pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 152

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 10:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Charles,

Not one of your posts has hit any one of the seven deadly sins that I am aware of. I mentioned the link to show you that Linz has high criteria and is an intellect to be dealt with, not just a name-caller. Intellectual sincerity counts for a lot around here, even if it erupts into vituperation sometimes. Of course, all of your posts are extremely high class. (To tell the truth, it's not a bad idea to keep you around to give the joint a little class...)

You also mentioned

One thing that I really hate is the abuse of women. 
Linz too. He hates gratuitous cruelty and does not like to abuse any of them. He has posted that he thinks a few should be kept in captivity for breeding and the rest shot.

Sometimes I agree with him on this.

btw - Sociopath? Hmmm... I see you're starting to fit right in...

//;-)

Michael


Edit - It occurred to me that you might me thinking that I speak in the name of Linz. Oh dear me no! I speak only for Michael. I only speak about Linz at my own peril because I like living dangerously...

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/16, 11:05pm)


Post 153

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz, you wrote:
Under a strict no-insult policy, Peter & Prof Seddon should immediately be moderated. That would seem odd to me. Is it what folk here want?
Well I certainly don't want it. Not if it would deprive me of one of my great hoots of the day.

I just read the full thread. I knew what was coming. I could see it brewing.

When it finally exploded, I just couldn't stop laughing.

These are two guys who get down on the tough language of Kant and abstract philosophy as if it were saying good morning, howdy do. They both can put most of the posters on Solo in their hip pockets in using the big words and obscure reasoning.

Then to see them start calling each other... start calling... start...

LOLOLOLOL...

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 154

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 2:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Colonel Kelly wrote (NB, Kelly—I call you Colonel when you amuse me, boy):

"One thing that I really hate is the abuse of women." 

Linz too. He hates gratuitous cruelty and does not like to abuse any of them. He has posted that he thinks a few should be kept in captivity for breeding and the rest shot.


You should be more precise. "A few" sounds like way too many to me. A very, very small number indeed. The rest shot, to be sure. But flogged first.

Get it right, man!

Linz

PS—Glad most of you are getting the point re insults.





Post 155

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hell, Linz,

You called me "boy." It has been years since I have heard that said about myself.

So, Young Man, you just got a friend for life.

Michael


Post 156

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dear Hosts and Guests

Thank you for letting me wander into  your party.  Having no "food" or entertainment at my own place, I will be sure to avoid doing anything deliberately to offend and invite expulsion.

If I hear others using coarse language and speaking in ways that I would call discourteous, uncivil, vulgar, what am I to think?  Is this seemingly offensive behaviour driven by rational self-interest; is there some moral bankruptcy, or is it something else? 

Groping towards Objectivism
Sharon

PS  Moderator   If this post is high-jacking the thread; or is too simple-minded, please have the mercy to exclude it.  I'm still an innocent abroad.
(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 6/17, 8:27am)


Post 157

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sharon, you just asked:
Is this seemingly offensive behaviour driven by rational self-interest; is there some moral bankruptcy, or is it something else? 
I presume that this question is in earnest, so here is my shot at an answer.

The answer to all three questions is "yes." It all depends on who is speaking and why.

There is offensive behaviour driven by rational self-interest when evil, hypocrisy and mind games are encountered in posts (especially of the Randroid type of rationalizing everything to death until all the joy is squeezed out, or ideas contrary to the reality-oriented open-ended Objectivism promoted by Solo are being sold "under the counter" so to speak). 

There is offensive behaviour driven by moral bankruptcy in several posters from time to time. These posters come in with their own personal agendas, which vary. They usually get really nasty and vicious over time. They also usually do not last too long.

There is offensive behaviour driven by something else also. Benevolence. There is simply a great deal of good natured bantering that goes on. For those who find prudishness to be a "rational" value, then this is definitely not a good place to be. Even the fallout gets quite colorful.

We do have a lot of fun, though. Check out the good stuff around here. There's oodles.

Did that help any?

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/17, 8:59am)


Post 158

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 9:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,
You said "I don't know anything about Peter C...."

In my very subjective opinion, Peter is one of the nicest posters here at solo. I've had much bigger pleasure when he disagrees with me than the other way around. ;-)  Though don't know if Prof. Seddon feels the same...

I guess what's going on in that FLW thread is that PC and Prof. Seddon were ever so politely saying to each other, in their unique way, "Let's agree to disagree...and have some fun."

Hong 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 159

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Thanks for engaging me, I accept the moral bankruptcy and benevolence without question.

As regards  "evil, hypocracy, rationalizationing":
Do you say then, that these evoke emotions; and if so, are one's emotions driving these acts of rational self-interest?

Sharon




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.