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: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 65

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 9:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 9:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 11:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 11:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good Solo, good Solo, bow wow wow.

--Brant


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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 - 12:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
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)


Post 77

Friday, January 20, 2012 - 8:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I never had the pleasure of speaking with her and wish she was back.
Any post of hers that I did read conveyed a wonderful sense of life and high spirit.
Best regards wherever you are ma'am.

Jules

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

Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
She was wonderful.  Over the years, many such have drifted away, or been marginalized.  I understand and appreciate the fact that this board is for the discussion of ideas, themes, issues, questions, etc., of interest to Objectivists. 

If it were about Abstract Expressionism, you would still have the same problem:  artists who sell abstract expressionist works in galleries would still post basic questions even doubts about the genre; but that would not be the same as Dadaists and Pop Artists coming in to say you guys all wrong about everything.  So, yes, it is important to keep the commons both open and not over-grazed.  And, no, it has not always gone well. 

We used to have dozens of active posters, most of them interested in Objectivism and aware of its nuances. 

This board started as SOLO: Sense of Life Objectivists, a collaboration between Lindsay Perrigo and Joseph Rowlands.  Lindsay, however, has a huge ego, even for an egoist.  Just as SOLO was peaking - even Barbara Branden was a regular - Lindsay's own persona became a discussion topic, which could not end well... could not end at all, actually... until he and Joseph created two different boards meeting two different worldviews.  In short order, people sorted themselves out.  Also, Michael Stuart Kelly created his own, Objectivist Living (a different story there).  On the one hand, this all sort of streamlined things for everyone, letting people find that brand that suits them.  On the other hand, the loss of vibrancy, texture and complexity is obvious.  All three boards are dim reflections of what SOLO was.

I think that this speaks to a deeper problem with the "Galt's Gulch" movement.  I understand and appreciate the need in avoiding Vandals, Huns and Mongols.  I get that.  But then you never enjoy Cairo, Samarkand, and Cathay.  You never bring in spices and all your intellectual exchange has the nuance of English cooking.  The coins get small and thin.  And you discover that you cannot exchange wool for silk ... even as the Vikings are trading their fox pelts for silk and importing those big dinar and dirhem coins.  There was an English king, Offa of Mercia.  We wonder now if he was actually himself a Muslim because his coins so closely mimicked theirs, a reflection of a brief and shining moment that might have been a Camelot.  Anyway...  myself...  the primary ethic for a Trader is to make friends with strangers, but too many Objectivists have the Guardian ethic.  Ideas have consequences.  The quest for ideological purity has cost us a lot.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you'd like to keep up with Jennifer (I dare you to even try!) you can find her on Facebook or at Zenfully Delicious.  She's very active in the "gluten free" atmosphere.  Still hilarious. Still thoughtful.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.