RoR: Forum

Post 60

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:29pm

Link

Edit

Daniel,

We sure have an agreement, except for the subtext of insinuated barbs that get thrown at Linz for his colorful KASS manner. (Maybe you've figured out by now that I am fiercely loyal to a friend under attack - and this hasn't been the first time and the only friend.)

The subtext goes something like this:

Since Linz goes off once in a while about something he feels very strongly about, that gives the guests the right to gratuitously insult him, Joe (of all people - being that he is one of the politest posters on Solo), or anybody else for that matter.

The corollary subtext is that if the rude jerk of a guest is actually at fault and can't squirm out of it, he can dig in his heels because, well he didn't start this manner of posting, so the blame still falls on Linz.

That is pure crap.

I will listen to any argument for trying to not fly off the handle, tone down the foul language, exercise good manners in general, the works. I will agree with most. But there is no way I will agree that a guest is justified in acting that way (gratuitously insulting, which does not mean heavy-handed) under any circumstance at all. It is simply not his house.

Also, I strongly resist any attempt to castrate the joy around here - and joy, being an emotion, has its opposite end that comes up once in a while. Emotions are like that, so you just have to deal with them when that happens. I think Solo has been exceptionally successful in fostering the joy.

Michael

Post 61

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 10:28pm

Link

Edit

Michael, I think we owe a vote of thanks to Daniel for breaking through our little impasse.

So if I read you right: except for the owners, all other SOLO members are guests, and no guest has the right to insult anybody else. I can live with that.

Brendan

Post 62

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:23pm

Link

Edit

Brendan,

So if I read you right: except for the owners, all other SOLO members are guests, and no guest has the right to insult anybody else. I can live with that.

Almost, but still no cigar. Everybody seems to want a hard and fast rule here so they don't have to think anymore. I have not seen Linz gratuitously insulting anybody (funny how you left "gratuitous" out). I have seen him get excessive, but it came from deeply held rational values. There is a huge difference between this and a "gratuitous" rant insulting and cussing out someone up a storm over some personal reason.

As an extreme example, if anybody, even you, came here defending Adolf Hitler's politics because he built good roads, get prepared because I personally will not hold back - that is if I discover that you are serious. Scum is scum and frankly, Solo is a good place for dissenting views, but not a soapbox for scum.

You also snuck in the word "right" there in your quote. Once again, close but no cigar. I would much prefer "common sense" for insults and foul language - and that is extensive to everybody. As to "rights," posters have the "right" to post their views and content however they deem fit by as granted by the owners. The owners have the "right" to post their own views and content, and allow, moderate and ban whomever they deem fit.

Can you live with that? I certainly can.

Anyway, Solo is GOOD.

Michael

Post 63

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:51am

Link

Edit

Michael: �Can you live with that? I certainly can.�

I guess so, but there�s a lot to remember there. Perhaps a summary is in order.

SOLO Posting:

- No hard and fast rules apply.

- It�s OK to get excessive, provided it comes from deeply held rational values. This is not to be confused with gratuitous rants, insulting and cussing to satisfy personal vendettas.

- Dissent is OK, but scum are fair game -- provided they are serious � because scum is scum, and Solo isn�t a soapbox for scum.

- Insults and foul language are not acceptable as of right, but are fine when used with common sense, and that applies to everybody.

- Posters have the right to post whatever views they like, subject to the owners' OK .

- The owners have the right to post whatever views they like, as well as to allow, moderate and ban whomever they deem fit.

I can live with that.

Brendan

Post 64

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:15am

Link

Edit

MSK,

I liked your last post because it provided fine insight into your mindset.

Almost, but still no cigar. Everybody seems to want a hard and fast rule here so they don't have to think anymore. I have not seen Linz gratuitously insulting anybody (funny how you left "gratuitous" out). I have seen him get excessive, but it came from deeply held rational values. There is a huge difference between this and a "gratuitous" rant insulting and cussing out someone up a storm over some personal reason.

So you really believe Elmore didn't think he was not speaking with conviction that came from "deeply held rational values", but was actually thought he was "cussing out someone up a storm over some personal reason"?

So Elmore's elaboration of his position and how he believed that Rowlands was mocking it didn't convince you that Elmore felt he was justified? Or you think that Elmore was being gratuitous and only pretending to feel justified?

From another thread:

Angela Lucas:

Abolaji said:
Joe should make it clear that arguing with him can result in certain kinds of penalties
That should be insulting, not arguing. Big difference.

To which I responded:

Angela,

I think that if you've debated enough Objectivists, the line is fairly hard to draw, especially when the Objectivist is convinced that he/she is right and that your position is immoral. In their eyes, all denunciations of you are justified by your immorality.

Good rhetoricians are also skilled at dropping subtle, condescending insults when arguing. You often don't notice those insults when they are not directed at you. But the intended audience gets the idea pretty quickly, because they hold the positions being questioned.

Your post was a fine example of the mindset that I was talking about, as did Elmore's rant.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 65

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:45am

Link

Edit

Brendan,

Thanks for trying. It can all be summed up by a quote from "Animal Farm". "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Post 66

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:46am

Link

Edit

Laj,

Or you think that Elmore was being gratuitous and only pretending to feel justified?

I cannot speak for what goes on the the mind of David Elmore. I can speak of my observations of his posts.

As a comparison, Linz has built a public image based on KASS (that means kick-ass). People who engage him know that he is colorful and sincere. He has a long history of being the way he is. Sometimes he goes overboard, but then he apologizes.

David spent the whole time on Solo building up one kind of public image on Solo, then cut loose without provocation in that particular post against Joe cussing like a sailor. What he wrote equaled Linz at his most excessive, if not worse. Then when the heat came on, he said he was joking and didn't understand why nobody got the humor. He sent Linz an e-mail that was even worse, and the excerpt Linz posted certainly did not sound like joking. He did not apologize for the excess.

So yes, I do think David was being gratuitous and I do think he was motivated by an agenda that had nothing to do with rationally held values. That is my opinion.

I see the differences. You may ignore them if you wish, since that seems to be your mindset.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/21, 7:48am)

Post 67

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 9:23am

Link

Edit

Michael,

David spent the whole time on Solo building up one kind of public image on Solo, then cut loose without provocation in that particular post against Joe cussing like a sailor. What he wrote equaled Linz at his most excessive, if not worse. Then when the heat came on, he said he was joking and didn't understand why nobody got the humor. He sent Linz an e-mail that was even worse, and the excerpt Linz posted certainly did not sound like joking. He did not apologize for the excess.

1) Again, David Elmore didn't see what he did as cutting loose without provocation. He felt Joe's presentation of his (Elmore's) position purposely misrepresented his position for Joe's self-aggrandizement. He gave a lengthy post listing some of the specific phrases and issues that set him off.
2) You never saw the e-mail to which David Elmore was responding when he used the language he did in response to Linz. How can you judge the appropriateness of the response without knowing that? Or you are simply willing to assume all possible irrationality on the part of Elmore?
3) Elmore said that he was going for humor, not that he was joking. Don't conflate the two - the former is an attempt to make people laugh, the latter says that he didn't really mean what he said. Generally, anyone who writes stuff as over the top as Elmore did in the post that led to his moderation is trying to be funny, even if the humor is off color, because it takes some work to compose it. I am speaking as one who on different occasions has engaged in, laughed at and been turned off by such writing. Elmore's post was sanctioned by someone (who wasn't me, by the way): might that person have seen the humor?

Elmore made no claim to be attempting a humorous response in his response to Linz, a response, once again, to we-know-not-what. But IMO, his response was stupid, but I guess that he was probably ignorant of Linz and Joe's friendship.

Again, this is all from Elmore's perspective.

So yes, I do think David was being gratuitous and I do think he was motivated by an agenda that had nothing to do with rationally held values. That is my opinion

I only wish you would be more consistent in forming such opinions.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 68

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 9:38am

Link

Edit

Laj,

You don't get it in rational terms, especially in terms of context, so there is no use trying to argue about it.

I have no idea what you meant about the consistency thing. But I do see a consistency in you:

You like David Elmore.

I have one too:

I like Linz.

(I also like a whole lot more around here.)

I have tremendous respect for high achievers. Solo is one hell of a marvelous creation for exciting rational debate and information. I didn't do it. You didn't. They did.

This achievement (and those who don't have the ability to do something like this) speaks to me more deeply about character than any opinion you or anybody else may post.

Michael

Post 69

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:02am

Link

Edit

MSK,

Thanks again for displaying your penchant for seeing my position exclusively in terms of the motives you want to project onto me.

You like David Elmore.

I'm not sure what your evidence for this proposition is, but if MSK had done what David Elmore did and had gotten the same treatment, none of my posts would have changed substantially.

I like Linz.

(I also like a whole lot more around here.)

I have tremendous respect for high achievers. Solo is one hell of a marvelous creation for exciting rational debate and information. I didn't do it. You didn't. They did.

This achievement (and those who don't have the ability to do something like this) speaks to me more deeply about character than any opinion you or anybody else may post.

That's not a mystery - at least it wasn't to me. In fact, it's better to hear you say it explicitly, so we can see that your arguments based on other principles/analogies/metaphors etc. are rationalizations after the fact.

Don't assume without evidence that I'm also rationalizing my position because of a friendship.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 70

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:39am

Link

Edit

Laj,

You should not assume "rationalization" either in your game of the Randroid shuffle. There is good solid reasoning behind my positions.

I mentioned consistency (your word) taken from your posts as what I observed. I said nothing about rationalization. But then again, I guess your "mindset" is to play "mind games."

Anyway, I can smell rat-poison coming from in between the lines a mile off and I have no compunction about saying it.

I, apparently unlike you, bring motivations to the fore and talk about essentials.

Solo is GOOD.

Michael

Post 71

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 11:43am

Link

Edit

MSK,

I'll let our past posts speak for themselves, since the innuendo is getting a bit much and we both know that you are in the good books of our proprietors, who will not mind bringing down the hammer on me should things get testy.

Solo is GOOD.

At least we agree on something!

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 72

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 11:55am

Link

Edit

Laj,

LOLOLOLOL...

You sure gotta mouth.

Good books? I suppose so. I go sincerely from my heart and mind though.

Ok - posts speak for themselves. That's fine.

and... Solo is GOOD.

Michael

Post 73

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 6:47pm

Link

Edit

Good Solo, good Solo, bow wow wow.

--Brant

Post 74

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:33pm

Link

Edit

Brant,

Dayaamm!!! You got me laughing pretty hard too.

But haven't you learned anything about me? My preferences are feline.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/22, 10:01am)

Post 75

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:39am

Link

Edit

I've got four myself: Pavakah, Vajram, Shiva and Guna--all boys. Found the last two--kittens abandoned in the desert.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 6/22, 1:34am)

Post 76

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:52am

Link

Edit

Brant,

You can get a pretty good idea of mine here.

Michael

(edit - I originally wrote your name as "Brandy" by mistake - despite the temptation, I did not preserve it as it would have sounded sarcastic, which was not my intent, but it was pretty funny, so I kept it here in this note. Shades of Freud!!)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/22, 9:58am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/22, 10:00am)

Gratitude, Good Wishes, and Goodbye