|Looks as though I need to clarify a few things. |
First, Mr. Riggenbach wrote:
Seriously, Donald, I'm not angry at all. I'm somewhat exasperated by the SOLO "editor" who put up this post ("Can't This Pompous Ass Take What He Dishes Out?") *after* posting my reply to Linz, at a time when it was now irrelevant and no longer applied.
The person to be exasperated with, Jeff, is not the SOLO editor, Andrew, but me. I posted your reply as soon as I saw it, which was clearly not soon enough for you but was a function of the fact that moderated posts can't get posted till a moderator sees them. Duh! A short while later I spotted Can't This Pompous Ass Take What He Dishes Out? I considered it relevant still because it showed that a self-proclaimed intellectual giant couldn't figure out the aforementioned fact about moderation—duh!–and then threw a puerile tantrum at one of his hosts (me). Since so many have been belittled by this intellectual giant as intellectual pygmies, I thought I would allow this insight into the nature of their belittler to go through, best described by you yourself Mr. Riggenbach in your words immediately following those above:
And I'm annoyed by twits and ignoramuses who strut around and pound their chests, amid delusions of their vast knowledge.
No Kantian distortion in your mirror, Mr. Riggenbach!
As to the fitting cap-post of mine that Mr. Riggenbach so angrily donned, let me quote it in its entirety, just in case folk think the only thing I had to say about For the New Intellectual was that anarcho-Saddamites wouldn't like it:
For the New Intellectual is a KASS masterpiece. It's a tour de force, a polemical call to arms that easily surpasses, say, The Communist Manifesto from one of the opposing camps. To hell with the carping nay-sayers who say she misinterpreted Kant! Everyone who interprets Kant says that about everyone else who interprets Kant! Given that he was so effing convoluted he deserves every misinterpretation that he gets. Point is: Did he teach a reality/perception dichotomy? Yes! Did he preach a duty/self-renunciation ethic? Yes! That makes him a witch-doctor, sight unseen.
Rand's Attila/Witch-Doctor/Producer distinction is right on the money. I would expect clever-dick smart-ass anarcho-Saddamites who specialise in snide one-liners to have a problem with something so fundamentally decent, but not TOC or ARI. TOC probably allow the nay-sayers to speak, as we do here, but I'm sure that doesn't mean they, any more than we, want to turn the other way when FTNI is mentioned.
The last line about nay-sayers is important. It says something important about SOLO. It explains why people can come here & attack SOLO's founder the way they do in several posts on this thread & not be thrown out. The point is, this "pompous ass" cantake what he dishes out, & he does, even though he's under no obligation to.
All I would add is that I stand by what I dish out (or apologise if I subsequently deem myself to have been unjust), but I wouldn't like to have to try to defend the stuff that gets thrown at me.
Jonathan, who can always be relied upon to crawl out from under his pomo rock whenever there's some Linz-bashing going on, lists various epithets I have hurled: "Anarcho-Saddamites," "Clever-dick smart-ass pomo wankers," "Weasel-worders," "Namblaphiles," "Brandbourne Christian Temperance Union," etc.. Well, all of these terms have referents in reality: the people of whom they are an accurate description. Usually, however, the terms are used generically, and again it's fascinating to see how many folk step up wearing the cap that fits.
Adam, always eager to twist the knife in with a smile on his face, lists the women who've left. All five of them. Four, really, since Diana was never a regular poster here. I wasn't aware that Hong had officially left till I followed Adam's link. Seems she was upset by Marty's article about Western civilisation as well as with SOLO generally for allowing "incivility" to occur. So be it. But I need to correct one thing she said: Neither Newberry nor Cordero is in "exile" as far as I'm concerned. If he is, it's self-imposed exile. Those two haven't been banished any more than the Five Fleeing Floozies were banished. The Five Fleeing Floozies fled of their own accord. I mourn only one of them, Kelly Elmore. That woman has fire & balls, & it astonished me that she buckled so readily just because some heat was rightfully being turned on her husband.
The Limp-Dick/Hard-On divide has become sharper since yesterday when I first mentioned it. I suppose it's inevitable that more Limp-Dicks will shrivel up altogether & disappear, since that is what Limp-Dicks do. That's over to them, though.
I always wanted SOLO to be a place where ARIans, TOCites & homeless Objectivists & non-Objectivists & even good-faith anti-Objectivists could engage, since ARI doesn't allow such engagement & TOC qua TOC engages in very little except sleep. We are seeing, in part, precisely such engagement, if I'm not mistaken. But I want to do better than that. I want to see a new Objectivist culture that embodies "rational passion & passionate reason," "the total passion for the total height" (no need to quote the Credo to me, Mr. Dickey—I wrote it). Joe & Jeff & I set up this magnificent site as a vehicle for just that. To the Hards-On I say, "GREAT to have you on board. You're whom we need & value most. Stay here, & stay hard!" To the Limp-Dicks I say, "Don't shrivel up altogether & disappear. Relish the challenge & rise to the occasion!"
(Hint—a thicker hide & a sense of humour will help!)
KASS, everybody! :-)
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 9/06, 4:52pm)
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 9/06, 4:55pm)