Does anyone actually stay here?

Browsing through the old threads and articles I've noticed that RoR has a huge turnover. Even in the short time I've been involved here quite a few people have vanished or outright quit. For the old timers, what runs people off the site?

Post 1

Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 7:39pm

perhaps getting a life?

Post 2

Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 8:19pm

Ryan,

I'm an old-timer, but even my own participation in this forum has waxed and waned.

I used to be much more prolific than now. I used to be like Ted, basically. I can speak best for myself. The reason that I produce less here now is that some life issues have hampered my former serenity. Robert (perhaps in "code"?) said something like this above. After getting into a good place in my life again, a comfortable place, I will likely become something like my former self. I can already see hints or inklings of myself budding and blooming.

For the others, they all left because they were highly immoral and couldn't stand the "light".

Just kidding. But get a load of this:

Some folks left because they had started out when this site was SOLOHQ (Sense of Life Objectivists; HeadQuarters). What they wanted was the flamboyant, borderline existentialism of Lindsay Perigo. Linz is a freedom-monger. He's colorful. It was entertaining to have him here. Ted is our new "Linz", but with even more of a NeoCon slant. When Ted first got to this forum, I was aghast. I used to be one of the shining beacons of light here, colorful in my own way. Then Ted shows up, and he can think damn near as well as I can, but here is the kicker: He can express himself better.

I was doomed.

Now I wasn't going to continue to be top-dog and too-cool-for-school, impressing all of the ladies with my ... well ... my ... zhoo-noo-say-qwah. Ted was going to take that position. How can you compete with someone who is likely a manic? I can't post as many pictures as he can. I can't compete with his flamboyancy. As I foresaw, he took the reigns and steered this ship, like an anti-zealot zealot hell-bent on using the site to destroy Islam (or something to that NeoCon "effect").

Phil Osborn once wrote something eloquent about this.

Anyway, I'd like to see a turnover rate for sites in general. I'm of the suspicion that what happened here is largely explained by 3 major phenomena:

1) the borderline Objectivist who was actually a closet existentialist -- wanting flashiness and flair over substance and truth (and the 3rd party onlookers who got a real kick out of watching folks like me philosophically "handle" them)
2) a general decline in forum activity across all philosophy-based websites
3) the seeming NeoCon takeover which dominated this site during the Bush years [the same NeoCon philosophy which, by disgusting Americans, helped Obama to get elected in this formerly-free country]

Ed

p.s. I don't really want to call Linz a borderline existentialist. In a spirit of generosity, I want to call him a borderline Objectivist -- and to just leave it open to debate whether he is in fact be a borderline existentialist masquerading, by choice or innocent illusion, as an Objectivist. For whatever it's worth, many folks who have left have tried out his site. Due to being run by a guy who breaks molds because they're molds, it's a kind of "big-tent" Objectivism over there (even though he's often harsh on folks believing differently than he).

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/01, 8:27pm)

Post 3

Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 8:49pm

I simply type fast. (You'd be surprised how slow most people here type.) I post here and elsewhere while I play Grand Theft Auto, while I watch Oz, Dexter, and other shows about serial killers on streaming video. If I don't post for three days in a row it's cause I'm off on a boat in the swamps behind Atlantic City. Fishing.

And the reason people leave?

Post 4

Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 11:46pm

What�s nearly running YOU off this site?

Post 5

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 12:24am

Eh, its the information age, Robert. Its not that hard to stay connected and still get stuff done. Hell, I'm usually multitasking 2-3 things at a time with my iphone. I do have a job with a huge amount of downtime though, which is probably atypical.

It still seems odd that so many people would just up and walk though. With an essentially worldwide potential base, we have what? 4-5 pretty hardcore posters with perhaps 10 more casual posters. I would think there are more Oists out there who like to talk on the internet and nothing to do at least once or twice a day. I certainly haven't seen much in the way of competition. There is the disillusionment factor, but still those are pretty low numbers.

Jon, I'm not planning on going anywhere. I am a bit irritated at the moment, but I'm pretty far from a ragequit.

Post 6

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 2:54am

I dunno, but Ed's probably right (as usual.)

Now, I should mention that there was some serious dis-information spread about this site after it split from SOLO. I think those deliberate lies are still affecting membership here.

Post 7

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 3:18am

Honestly, I have next to zero knowledge of the whole "solo" thing at all. Just from listening to people that were involved it seems like it was pretty intense drama, but that's the extent of my knowledge. I hadn't even begun seriously exploring Objectivism at that point, much less any sort of community.

That sordid event can't explain it all though. C. Jeffrey Small has virtually disappeared, except for plugging his activism efforts. He's a great guy, I liked his input. Here was the Mindy Newton issue, and there have been a few apparent ragequits lately, over largely asinine antics. Certainly nothing epic enough to justify the visceral emotions evoked. Are we eating our young?

Post 8

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 6:44am

I didn't know there was "serious dis-information" spread on the SOLOHQ split. I guess I was simply just not very interested in what Linz had to say beyond once in a while being surprised by his rant.

There was also a Michael Stewart Kelly split... I'm not too worried about it.

After a while I got to know everyone's positions on things, so its less interesting to debate. I think a lot of people still visit this website and see what people have to say, even if they are not actively posting. If I don't post to answer someone's question or point out a philosophical error, I'm pretty confident someone else will say something that closely matches what I'll say. So I'll let the newer posters have the fun being the teacher. If I posted more I'd probably have to bore you guys to death with "me too" posts. : P

Joseph Rowlands is awesome and I'm here because I'm drawn towards his philosophy. From that I generally think people who post here are also in general agreement with his philosophy (more than other similar forum's owners). You guys post some interesting articles and news that I like to read. Despite our sometimes nasty moral outrages towards each other once in a while, I consider most of you all good friends and I like to come here to talk about the important things in life.

Cheers,
Dean

Post 9

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 10:23am

'ragequits' - nice term, Ryan. That explains a modest number of departures from here. People just get fed up and go looking for greener pastures. It probably wouldn't be hard to figure out whether the missing discussers are simply participating in some other forum like Objectivist Living, SOLO, Objectivism Online, etc. Anyway, what's bugging you, Ryan?

Jordan

Post 10

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 2:28pm

Ryan,

This'll sound a little rationalistic, but that's just my style. Ted said it his own way with a movie. I prefer numbered lists. Here is how 80-90% of these things go:

1) folks get excited that this site is a place where reason reigns supreme (that's the initial "draw")
2) big, flashy folks like this, too, because it gives them legitimacy
3) big, flashy folks compete with one another and on-lookers pick sides
4) big, flashy folks (wielding heavy, philosophical battle swords which cannot be used delicately) end up not being able to get along with each other
5) one knight knocks the other off of his horse and this is too embarrassing -- so the fallen knight quits
6) the fallen knight starts his own kingdom and takes his loyal subjects with him

We'd have less jousting if this site wasn't based on reason, but that'd defeat the original purpose. Other sites may have real big tents, but it seems that -- due to psychology -- there will always be winners and losers here.

Ed

p.s. Thanks, Teresa.

Post 11

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 2:48pm

The four most recent departures were:

Mindy
then Newberry
Manfred
and Mike Erickson

Can anyone explain why Mindy and Manfred left?

I also remember Cordero who left over the treatment of Hong, who didn't leave.

And then there's Andre/Kyrel Zantanovitch.

the bigwigs Bissell and Bidinotto simply faded away.

There are the banned Chris Baker and the moderated Chavez-fan Michael Stewart Kelley.

There's the moderated Bob Kolker.

Not one of these people and their leaving fits your paradigm, Ed. The paradigm is moderation/banning which is usually somewhat popular and the occassional (Cordero/Newberry/Erickson) protest departure.

I think your caution was right, Ed, and that a theory got the best of your facts.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/02, 2:50pm)

Post 12

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 3:29pm

So everyone is on the same page here, Mindy quit after Ed made a dissent thread in light of her behavior toward him.

Newberry left due to disgust with that exchange.

Manfred appears to have quit in light of a tiff with Ted.

Bissell quit, apparently disgusted with the quality of some of Ed's and others' posts.

Zantonavitch quit after Steve Wolfer accused him of racism and suggest he get banned.

Cordero is a mystery. Maybe he went wherever Hong went. Bidinotto is a mystery, too.

Jordan

Post 13

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 4:26pm

As much as I would like to take the blame, Manfred left because he had been edited, a widely supported move backed up by Joe's ultimate deletion. Ryan, Teresa, Steve and each I pointed out that what he had posted was not a proper quote and we politely told him how to fix it. He tried to act as if Ryan and I and then especially Teresa whom he rather viciously attacked had unjustly victimized him. The "blame me" posts were jokes made after Manfred had already left. Apparently he doesn't get humor in English and using English units, so he came back to complain. Post 35 was an innocent private joke between myself and Teresa which I should have realized would reawaken the sleeping demon. In his post 37 Manfred chose to challenge me to check how he was quoted on the internet. Hence my final parody with the cute Cthulhu doll revealing the utter fraud which Manfred had been perpetrating all along. I suggest you read post 41 closely (it is both funny and quite telling) to see exactly what Manfred was doing.

If there had been any desire to chase Manfred away it would have begun with an explicit expose of his questionable self-quoting habit. On the contrary, multiple attempts were made by multiple people to explain the problem to him without embarrassing him.

Manfred has only Manfred to blame for Manfred's quoting Manfred's Manfred quotes.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/02, 4:28pm)

Post 14

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 4:27pm

Jordan,

No, Mindy left when Joe put her on moderation because she pissed him off.

George Cordero is probably lurking. ;)

Robert Bidinotto is holed up writing a new book, which is very exciting.

(Maybe we should we start a scathing controversy to reignite RoR's popularity?)

Dean,

One old member, Jennifer (you know Jennifer), told me she wouldn't come back to the new RoR because "Joe lied" about the new format of the site, or some such thing. When I asked how she knew this, she alluded to being told by Linz.

There were stupid rumors all over the place, but I don't have any of the old emails anymore, because that hard drive is loooong gone.

Post 15

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 4:45pm

Jordan,

I'd say that Mindy left because she was put under moderation - she was very feisty and didn't leave because of any attacks or sharp posts.

If Zantonavitch stays away because of my remarks, I'll be happy to claim credit - except that I wasn't alone.

I was sad that we lost C. Jeffrey Small - at the time it seemed to me that he was driven off.

Michael Stewart Kelly was another loss to the site - he was driven off and I was sorry to see that happen.

I don't know why many of the posters from far before my time left. The explanation about SOLOHQ, and the other explanations I've read in this thread don't ring true to me. I suspect that some people are driven off - sometimes for good reason, and others for reasons I can't fathom even when it happens right in front of my face and we lose a good person. I suspect that others leave because they want a different intellectual sense of life. ROR often has a kind of family feel, and many threads are less than intellectual - they may not have wanted that.

Post 16

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 4:46pm

Jordan, you should have checked Bissell's actual most recent posts. No edaggravation. Just a slow fade. He was busy for quite some time working on Nathaniel Branden's soon to be released book The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism

Post 17

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 4:52pm

Ted,

You mentioned these 11 names:

1) Mindy
2) Newberry
3) Manfred
4) Mike Erickson
5) Cordero
6) Andre/Kyrel Zantanovitch
7) Bissell
8) Bidinotto
9) Chris Baker
10) Michael Stewart Kelley
11) Bob Kolker

I, personally, philosophically jousted with 8 of the 11 above -- to the point where saving face would be a "problem" for someone unwilling or unable to admit being wrong. Others filled in the gaps (as Jordan notes above). You seem to be saying that moderation was the predominant (or even the ultimate!) issue leading to their falling away. I'm saying that indefensible philosophy, called out onto the carpet, was the predominant (or, at least, ultimate) issue leading to their absence.

Perhaps we can critically look at them on a case-by-case basis, discovering whether moderation was the ultimate cause of the fading away, or whether earlier philosophical disagreements -- brushing up too close against their egos -- are why they are no longer participating here. I, like Ryan, would like to know the answers.

Ed

Edit: A twelfth name is C. Jeff Small

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/02, 4:54pm)

Post 18

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 4:59pm

... I should add, in the interest of not prematurely denigrating folks who are not here to defend themselves, that the seemingly more- innocent "ragequit" is always an option.

Wild thought: It would be highly informative if each of the 12 were to post a little blurb about why they "left."

Ed

Post 19

Friday, October 2, 2009 - 5:03pm