[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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 4Page 5


Post 100

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne and Linz,

First, let me say that after corresponding with Shayne a little, I have been converted from a dedicated Shayne hater to liking him a bit. I have promised to explain what I think is wrong with his style, and if he will stick around, I will do it. I often enjoy the content of his posts, and I would love to see him say his good things in a nicer way. I also want to say that I sympathize with both sides. I can understand Shayne's frustration with this thread and with SOLO in general. It does seem that lots of people here are kind of smarmy and namby pamby about what are to me clear cut moral issues. I agree with him that I saw a lot of excuses on this thread, rather than gentle explanations of where Nicole went wrong. I don't think the thread needed to be dragged out so long; Nicole made amends and so we can move on. But there did seem to be a lot of people saying what she did was ok. She's not wimpy; she can handle being judged.

I also understand everyone's frustration with how rude, abusive, and downright mean Shayne has been in lots of his posts. It's fine to tell people what you think, but I don't like that almost constant insulting. He seems to jump to conclusions about people awful quick, and I don't think he considers a person's context when deciding how severe to be. Nicole is very new and very young, and there is no need to treat her as if she is a hardened copyright infringer. It is also counterproductive to call her names, if the goal is to help her understand what she did wrong. The justice must fit the person being judged and our goal in dealing with them. I am also very offended that Shayne's profile basically says he doesn't like SOLO and finds almost no value here. If that is the case, why is he here?

All that said, there are lots of people on this site who name call, jump to conclusions, get into fights, and generally misbehave. I don't see that Shayne is really any different from them, except that he is more ARI than most here. I don't think that is a good reason to boot him (or moderate him). I hope Shayne stays here, and I hope he changes his style and shows everyone the positive side of him I have seen in personal correspondance. I also hope that Linz will reconsider moderating him for rudeness and obnoxiousness. If we moderated every rude and obnoxious person on this site, we would need a full time staff of moderators.

Kelly





Post 101

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne kept mostly to the issues afterward despite being called a "buzzkilling troll" by katdaddy. an "ARI Crapper" by Malcom, a "moralizer" by MSK, an "asshole" by Sarah House.
This is the point that bothers me.  Why is it ok for some insults, but not for others?  If Shayne had complained about it, would he then be on equal footing?




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 102

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kelly and Dave,

Woah there a little. There is a bit more going on here than unjust crucifixion for abrasiveness.

I am absolutely delighted that you, Kelly, are talking to Shayne and hopefully getting through to him about why the insulting sweeping generalizations and unprovoked personal barbs he throws into his arguments when he disagrees with something start moving out of the "passionate defense" category and into the "obnoxious." 

I am also, frankly, relieved that you, Dave, have stood up for him. I don't like mob actions against anyone and this thing could get ugly. A man needs a friend when the hordes come running his way clamoring for blood.

I have considered writing to him about this in an email, but I am generally VERY CLEAR about it online when I have been bothered. To tell the truth, a grudging respect seems to have developed between myself and Shayne - on both sides. But because of a certain amount of accumulated friction, I am not sure that I am the proper person to discuss this with him.

I described what I call the Randroid Shuffle earlier. I did so because I observed it on numerous occasions. It exists as argument for argument's sake and to kill good vibes, not for convincing, learning or arriving at an understanding.

In this particular thread, Shayne has accused all who don't agree with him of not being able to recognize a principle if it bit them. I strongly disagree - both with the observation and with the need to say something like that in this context. I don't want to rehash the arguments, since the principles were quite clear to most everyone from what I read. The application of them is where there were some disagreements.

You don't have to like (what is that phrase...? ah...) "touchy-feely creeps" in life. You don't have to publicly sneer at them and call them ridiculous all the time either when a good argument is called for.

I would personally would hate to see Shayne go. I have even sanctioned him - more than once. I would like to remind you both that he is not on moderation. He has only been advised by the owner of the site about the "sense of life" policy that is being infringed - and I am in general agreement with the sense of life around here. Linz is doing a very good job of keeping it alive.

As to the name calling, Shayne has the right to sling out just as much mud as is slung at him. I have no issues with that. I do have issues with unprovoked nastiness.

But now I have to get back to a little purring issue of my own to take care of.

Shayne - a personal note to you. If this turns into a lynch mob instead of a site policy issue, I will formally retract everything I said about you and gladly stand by your side.

Michael



Post 103

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne can be abrasive sometimes but he often makes good points and is right more often than wrong, in my opinion. I know you don't need or want my sanction, Shayne, but I think solo would lose something if you were banned or if you banned yourself. I do read your posts. I can't say I'm not aggravated occasionally, but I get something out of your viewpoint.

I had a boss once who was sometimes unbelievable in how nit picky obnoxious he was. He could explode at the most trivial thing. We had one memorable exchange, both shouting "F___ you",s at each other. But, I learned some job skills and attention to detail that served me well on other jobs. I think that Nicole might have been a little too sensitive. No matter what you do someone isn't going to like something about it. It's what you think that matters. I'm glad everyone felt good at the end. It's good to have the hide of a rhinocerous, if you can figure out how to grow one. At least Shayne lets you know where he's coming from. The people I don't trust are the one's that are too 'nice' all the time. Set's off my alarms.



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 104

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with him that I saw a lot of excuses on this thread, rather than gentle explanations of where Nicole went wrong.


I think what initiated the whole downward spiral of this thread is the assumption that Nicole erred out of some failure of principle, and required any “gentle explanations” to straighten her premises out or whatever. It looked to me like she was pretty clear on what needed to be done and what principles were involved at around post 7. There was really no need for advice or discussion on the matter beyond that.

I suspect that what was really frustrating about this thread to Nicole was that people kept giving advice and trying to explain principles well after it was necessary or useful to do so.



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 105

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 12:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne and I have talked a bit privately, and it is over. I did feel he was a bit too harsh on me, and we can debate that endlessly, but the original problem was taken care of. I don't support going on any more about Shayne's behavior, or moderating him. I have noticed some marked improvements about how his tone has changed over the history of his posts. Perhaps SOLO is rubbing off. He does make some really good points... and we both like The Pirates of the Caribbean, so it's cool. And my tone will evolve as well as I go on here. If you think, David, that I am a bit sensitive, well, you'd be right. To certain things, I am. Can you relate to being told by many that you're being anti-reason in some way when you feel you're not? I'm sure it's happened to you a some point, since there are quite a few disagreements within this movement. I still maintain that what I did was not to be put on the same level as Napster use or common thievery, and I was being labeled as such.

And forgive me for assuming something, but from what I have read on SOLO in many, many other threads, it is not too hard to get a label and have it stick to you... and that label, no matter what some seem to do, cannot be lifted. I was trying to stave that off and got a bit... ahem... uppity. I am is someone here who does not want to end up in an Objectivist mass grave. (They're all too common from what I have seen.) And I am not going to lie, from the way that some here were reacting, I was pretty scared that I was going to end up with some $30,000 fine and jail time from the NYT or something... so forgive me for expressing my relief that that was not what happened by being a little lighthearted ("touchy-feely". Whatever.). Nature, you explain what I was feeling quite well: it was assumed that I failed in some principle, and while I might have, I was very principled in correcting and fixing both the problem and the thoughts in my brain. That was what was noticed by some, who were later made as if to be consorting with the enemy. Some felt that they needed to lecture me about ethics... well, if I thought what I had done was ethical I would have needed that, but I did not. We disagreed on the degree of my error, but that was all. When I said that I was doing all I could to clear up the problem (and did it), I was shocked to see that I was (am) still being swung at here. And I dare you not to get a little peeved when someone accuses you of being "an immoral thief" (and this was said) when you were frantically trying to return and fix what you had taken, as well as examining my original premises. I was quite clear on this from the beginning (Shayne's note) that it was wrong. And from that moment I never stopped trying to correct it. Grr.

Overall, I could say a lot, but what needs to be said is this is over. I cannot change the past, but I am changed now. It is the same that I cannot change the fact that I was once an "irrational theist". But I was smart enough to fix that, and I was smart enough to fix this as well. What is more important than my past action is my present state of mind. I think most of us were at some point irrational, but the point is we changed to something better. As you can see, Mr. Webmaster Jeff has edited the original article. (Thanks!) This is acceptable to the NYT, and I am glad that it ended up working out. No matter how much discussion you have here, however, I cannot open my mind to you and show you that it has changed. You'll just have to wait and see the next time I am tested.

I do not see what else can be accomplished by continuing to debate anything on this thread. If there are other disagreements, or you think that I need a lesson in O'sim, please message me privately. I may need a lesson, but you won't get me to listen by grabbing me by the ears and yanking me to the desk. You risk getting kicked in the shins. ;o)

Thank you all again.

~NT




Post 106

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 12:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The NYT legal department sent me a message saying it is fine to post...

What? No subpoenas? The nerveless swines!

I was hoping for a climactic courtroom drama (ala Fountain-Ed)... ah well.



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 107

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Big group hug, everyone!



There, now, don't you feel better?

Hey, isn't that Linz in the front? I mean the back. I mean his back in the front. Oh, never mind.:-)

Let's get out the snap cup!

(Edited by Bob Palin on 4/29, 6:37pm)




Post 108

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh wow! Mr. Palin, where do you find these pictures? The guy nearest camera appears to have almost no body fat what-so-ever. Enough talk about that-



Post 109

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 9:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Definitely not Linz then......



Post 110

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As a woman, should I like that?

Cause.... eww. Boys don't come in those colors or that... sheen.

But seriously... group hugs are sometimes good. Thanks Bob!

~NT




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 111

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOLOLOLOL...

Bob, you are one funny dude.

Sanction, if I can stop laughing long enough to click the mouse...

Michael




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]