Who is Andy Postema?

Phil's got this thing where he wants to be a hall monitor every so often. When he really writes, he writes.

His makeup seems to be that of a peacemaker, and that is a very delicate art, probably not best practiced so frequently, and especially in a place like this.

People have different styles of dealing with conflict. Style is not as important as results, when you set out to do something. I don't question your goodness, Phil, I'd only point out that your current strategies have gone past not getting the results you want and moved over into the backfiring range, over and over.

rde
You gotta be sore by now...

(Edited by Rich Engle on 10/31, 7:59am)

Post 81

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 8:44am

Andy,

I don't think Adam Reed is or was a pedophile. I don't think the other Andy was or feels particularly insulted by Adam's attempt at ironic humor, I don't think you are being truthful when you say you didn't feel personally insulted by Adam's post.

Adam is one of the dozen or more people here whose "take" on things and intelligence I particularly value. I have definitely benefitted by following his discussions here. That is also true of Phil Coates. You, however, are seeming more like "the incredible shrinking man" with your escalating virulence on this issue.

Post 82

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 9:25am

> your current strategies have gone past not getting the results you want and moved over into the backfiring range [Rich]

Rich, I actually don't think my posts have that effect because they don't have -any- immediate effect either positive or negative.

The reason is that when people are "emotionalists" about a topic, or about how to post, or whenever they encounter particular adversaries ...they aren't actually willing to listen to or carefully think through a critique of that. I basically write critical posts "for the record". Outsiders can see that long time Objectivists, very dedicated to the philosophy, are not all about food fights.

My experience is that the angrier the person...and the less willing to step back from the anger at some point...the less likely they are to "hear" me. [Aside: I saw this with Peikoff over the Reismans issue and the Kelley issue before that. And I see this with many TOCers when the issue of Peikoff or ARI comes up. They can't actually 'see' the demon-adversary, and are unwilling to cut them any slack or see any good whatsoever in them - attributing every action or thought to dishonesty or cowardice.]

I'm also really not that all that interested in how *I* look or if some of the people I have criticized dislike me, so I'm perfectly happy to let an unfair criticism of me stand unanswered when it would involve me in a great expenditure of my time which can more productively be used otherwise. The overall reactions of most people on Solo to me is just not that important to me. They are not personal friends I have known for years...and I'm not of the view that I look to find all my friends or colleagues among Objectivists anyway.

(I'm responding to you because you raise an interesting point and because, despite some lapses :-), you often make thoughtful or interesting posts.)

Phil

Post 83

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 9:33am

(I'm responding to you because you raise an interesting point and because, despite some lapses :-), you often make thoughtful or interesting posts.)

Lapses... Heh-heh. Probably when the Holy Spirit eenters mah Boh-dee. :)

People definitely go out when the emotional center takes rein. The horses are not only driving the carriage, at that point they're in back pushing it.

best,
rde

You Are Heeld-ah.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 10/31, 9:34am)

Post 84

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 11:00am

Fraser,

How the honest expression of emotion in a good cause makes the milquetoasts quail. Therefore, let us not stir the still waters of their gray lives.

Mike E.,

Seeing that you travel in the same circles as those who think the Cold War was a hoax, I understand how facts don't count for much in your judgments. To be called a liar by one who esteems Reed is a badge of honor.

Rich & Phil,

I applaud your wisdom of sticking to sterile and supercilious conversation that'll keep you in the good company of the mob instead of risking the controversy of making a judgment that might upset them.

Andy

[Edited to accommodate the wishes of Mike E.]

(Edited by Andy Postema on 11/01, 5:27am)

Post 85

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:35pm

Am I the only one who has picked up on the fact that Andy B. Postema is fictitious - not really the person whose picture was posted - and you are all being had?

What's the likelihood that you find an image on the web that mistakenly seems to look a bit like a Soloist, but it isn't and he has no real connection to Objectivism

...And then he coincidentally joins our list a day or two later?

Phil, no need to dig any deeper. I simply signed up to let folks know Adam had apologized to me, Andy B Postema.

I still am amazed at the life of this thread...but I have enjoyed checking back to see where it is taking the fine folks here at Solo.

Post 86

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:54pm

Andy:

I applaud your wisdom of sticking to sterile and supercilious conversation that'll keep you in the good company of the mob instead of risking the controversy of making a judgment that might upset them.

What the eff are you talking about, mon? I was simply pointing out that people do not behave (or write) rationally when their emotions fully overtake them. As in when you're in a verbal argument with someone who gets so mad they can't even process what they're hearing. Perhaps I was unclear.

I prefer reasonable, sterile you can get in bad college textbooks and such... :)

Post 87

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:35pm

Andrew B Postema,

What is your definition of God? Do you think that God exists? If so, what reason do you have to think that God exists?

Post 88

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:59pm

Dean,

You wrote (Post 69): "You will be more successful in encouraging Mr. Andy B. Postema to stick around by making insightful posts than by allowing him to by-pass the moderation system."

For the record, I don't think that anybody was concerned with the new Andrew overcoming the moderation thing in this case. I think that the coincidence just got to them. I think they were welcoming him at the worst. Probably expressing delighted hilarity.

(btw - I don't recall sanctioning him myself. I may have on one post that received multiple bonks, but I doubt it.)

Michael

Post 89

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 7:54pm

Andy,

Lest anyone be confused about who you are referring to, if you don't mind kindly edit your post and change "Erik" to "Erickson" or "Mike E."

As far as whether I believe the Cold War was a hoax people can read our exchange for themselves and determine whether anything I said suggests that:

http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1489.shtml#7

I will continue that discussion if you have anything further to say about it. Perhaps during cooler times.

I will not deny that I esteem Adam Reed for his contributions to Solo, his intelligence and his insights. And his courage to both make mistakes and try to make amends for them.

I did not exactly call you a liar so in that regard your badge of honor is a little tarnished.

Regards,
Mike E.

Post 90

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 10:43pm

Michael,

I think that the coincidence just got to them. I think they were welcoming him at the worst. Probably expressing delighted hilarity.

You can welcome by words instead of bonks. You can express yourself in more clear ways than with bonks. I like to reserve sanctions for genuine breakthroughs in thought. What is the significance/meaning of a sanction if a sanction is awarded for saying "Hello"?

Post 91

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 1:31am

Andy - I'll call you a liar. I'll name you as an honourless, indisciplined and corpulent bombaster who finds it impossible to keep his word.

I'll also call you a feeble, flailing fool who wails for attention at the expense of sane judgement.

When are you actually going to fuck off for the week you promised?

Post 92

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 5:41am

Mike E.,

My apologies for screwing up your name in my last post. I fixed that as you requested.

Now to the substance of your post:

I will not deny that I esteem Adam Reed for his contributions to Solo, his intelligence and his insights. And his courage to both make mistakes and try to make amends for them.

Courage? Courage is a virtue. What virtue is there in making a mistake? There may be courage in taking a risk that ends up in a mistake, but that would only be the case - at the very least - if the risk was taken for a rational purpose. What rational purpose did Reed have in his attempt to assassinate my character (and in the process slur the other Mr. Postema)?

As for making amends, there's no virtue in that. It is what we do to correct injustices we cause. It is only rational that we do, otherwise every criminal is a hero for serving his sentence. Granted many people are too cowardly to own up to their mistakes and fix them. But not being a coward doesn't mean you're courageous.

Andy

P.S. I said you were in the same camp as those who think the Cold War was a hoax, because you argue that our defense against the Soviet Union was unnecessary for that reason that it would fall of its own accord. In doing so, you are denying the same facts that the conspiracy-mongers do.

Post 93

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 5:52am

Rich,

What the eff are you talking about, mon? I was simply pointing out that people do not behave (or write) rationally when their emotions fully overtake them. As in when you're in a verbal argument with someone who gets so mad they can't even process what they're hearing. Perhaps I was unclear.

Now that I understand your thinking better, I find that there is a lot to like in what you say. However, I'm still going to take you to task when I think you're wrongheaded. That's what happened here.

I can understand the desire to stay out of a brawl and to not take sides. Most of the time that's prudent. Other times it's probably cowardly. Nevertheless, I understand it. What I have little patience for is those who make disdainful commentary on the fact of a dispute while striking the supercilious pose that they are above the petty issues involved. Either ignore the brawl or get into it.

Otherwise if you're going to stick around on the sidelines, expect some mud to get splattered your way. ;-)

Andy

Post 94

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 5:56am

Fraser a.k.a. Milquetoast,

I take it with all the cussing and name-calling you're throwing my way, you're expressing some honest emotion there, huh? Next time try it in a good cause, and I might have reason to think better of you.

Andy

Post 95

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 8:12am

I guess I just don't go for "brawls" on forums. It is cheap trade, even easier to find than a crackwhore outside of my office building.

I used to. Damn, I loved it. Loved it. Some of it is still around in the archives on the NB Yahoo forum. But the peak of it was on the old Cleveland Freenet/Case Western CWRUNet. And of course, there will never be a better place to street fight than on IRC.

Two things I ended up noticing. The first was that, like drugs or alcohol, it feels the best when you're doing it. Later, it can come back and make you feel not so good. The second, and more important fact is this: it is much, much easier to do than actually stay in there without ad hominem and try to conclude with all parties intact. It is easy to be artful with a flamethrower. Agree, disagree, whatever, exit with respect. That is not milquetoast, there is no weakness in it. It requires a great deal of discipline, and honesty, does it not?

The reason I ran Adam up the flagpole was because it seemed funny to me, but I kind of figured it might seem funny to Adam, too, to point out his error that way.

Post 96

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 2:45pm

OK, Rich - in case you didn't notice, I thank you.

Post 97

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 2:58pm

I wasn't trolling for thanks, Adam, but that was very kind of you.

Post 98

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 6:26pm