RoR: Forum

Only one clarification to your post Jason: I wouldn't consider RoR a "safe" place in this context.

I, for one, won't let it go uncommented if the RoR forum becomes seen as a safe place to bash anyone on any side. If people are going to argue, they should argue. Posturing and name-calling are pointless wastes of time. Arguing your side in a forum with your opponents allows others to see the meat of your arguement and make up their own mind.

Ethan

Post 41

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:24am

> Why not stay and engage in the discussion [John]

For me, it's not an issue of whether most of the posters disagree with my views. It's how they disagree.

I can't speak for Robert C, but I've just recently been following the most active threads on SoloPass and the actual respectful discussion to name-calling ratio is not very high. I don't want to try to engage in the childish game of "who started it": I do think Robert has overstated or unfairly painted all or most ARI people or their intellectual products negatively morally (just as they do with TOC).

> instead of bad mouthing what is taking place in that discussion over here where it is safe. [Jason]

'Safe' is an insulting and inappropriate term ascribing motives you are not in position to know. One posts where one feels there are people who are actually listening, not because one believes one couldn't rebut strong arguments.

> take it to SOLO and pick up his gauntlet [Ethan]

Have the discussions where they arise or where you wish to take them. Where and for how long and in what form you want to have them. End of discussion.

Post 42

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:55am

Robert, I see I was hasty in my post. My apologies.

John

Post 43

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 12:25pm

I will be replying on SOLOPassion in a little while.

Allegations of "cutting and running" are made in way too facile a manner on these boards. My policy is to refrain from allegations of dodging an issue unless the poster simply drops out of sight (without a reasonable alternative explanation), or brings up red herrings, or keeps right on posting and never responds to the issue in a substantive way. I am aware that thoughtful posts often take time to prepare.

As for zealots and frothing, read the posts in the thread on Peter Cresswell's essay on SOLOPassion, or the thread in response to my essay on charges of pseudo-scholarship--and tell me how you would describe some of them.

John Newnham's quotation from Rand is of course crucial to the closed vs. open-system debate (as is the even more strongly worded variant now published in Ayn Rand Answers). What would it mean, though, for anyone alive today to keep in strict compliance with that dictum? Can the people who write for the Ayn Rand Institute actually comply with it?

To be continued...

Robert Campbell

PS. John, your apology is gratefully accepted.

PPS. Phil--you and I probably aren't going to end up in full agreement about ARI and its institutional culture. I know of good scholars and decent folks at ARI. I do wonder sometimes whether they ever try to take the frothers and the pit bulls aside and counsel them to cool their jets. Of course, maybe some do and they get the same response you most often get, when you remind other posters to be civil :-(

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 4/07, 12:33pm)

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 4/07, 12:41pm)

Post 44

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 12:36pm

Ethan,

I certainly wouldn't discourage the more vocal defenders of ARI from participating on this board.

Robert

Post 45

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 12:44pm

Robert,

They certainly could. The conversation is going well on SOLO though, so why spread it out? In my opinion, it would be nice to see ARI people here. The very few I've mentioned this to haven't yet been interested. People have certain impressions about this forum or have been attacked or insulted by some people who post on this forum, so who can say? Crap is being thrown around by all sides here. You have Philosophical arguments intermixed with personal vendettas from previous times. A newbie would easily be confused. What's going on with this on SOLO is a good thing. The sides are engaged face-to-face as it were. Linz got this started on his site, and though we disagree on many things, I think this is good in the end. Let it stay there where he can participate. Given how he feels about the split, I wouldn't expect to see him in this forum. The battlefield is there. The sides are all set up. Let the pieces fall where they may. I'll be reading.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 4/07, 12:46pm)

Post 46

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 1:17pm

> response you most often get, when you remind other posters to be civil

Robert, the response I usually get when I ask people to be civil is:

"Civil? @#$%^%. ...I got your civil for you right here!"

Post 47

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:08pm