RoR: Forum

Linz, how do you reconcile your enthusiastic use of the term "Rock on"? Isn't that an expression that was born out of the caterwauling tradition?

Post 41

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 8:33pm

Pete, maybe he was suggesting that. But if so, he should have specified a lesbian rather than bi-sexual. After all, one wouldn't want any unwelcome surprises in the dark.

Post 42

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 8:55pm

With all this talk about me and trichotomy, I want to point out that I am not bisexual, trisexual, or into threesomes. I am *hetero-sexual* and *mono-gamous* and I have great quads. They are quint-essential and ready for sex-tantial activity.(And I hope I don't have to repeat that three times to bi-standers or tri-vial pursuitists.) But I number all of you among my friends.

I hope that clears up my condition.

Post 43

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 10:13pm

Robert B,
Pete got it right. A bi-sexual female would be one who likes males and females. I wasn't suggesting that you should become bi-sexual.
And by the way, I agree with you about women. I find male homosexuality quite mysterious. But hey, to each his own.

(Robert, if I had said lesbian instead (which I considered) she would only want your wife, not you. Sheesh. Read carefully. Think before you say these things. Grins, Jeff.)

P.S. Try it with the lights on sometime. Sheesh.
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 5/12, 10:16pm)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 5/12, 10:16pm)

Post 44

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 10:29pm

You know it's spring when even a discussion of political magazines leads to talks of threesomes...

Post 45

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:55am

And you know you've struck a nerve when supporters of one of those magazines refuse to address concerns about it.

Linz

Post 46

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 2:01am

Joe Rowlands wrote:

When I read the FreeRad, it's a different experience than when I read other magazines.� It gives the feeling that the various contributors are part of a real community.� Even before I met many of them, and there's still a many I don't know, I felt this personal connection to them.� These people are allies and friends.� Their personalities leap from the pages, letting us know that these ideas are important to them.� They're passionate about freedom and life.� There are�so many young people bursting with energy, displaying the best within themselves, and putting it all out there in the name of their convictions.� I'm not left with the feeling that these people are just writing articles.� I'm left thinking that these people are real, are serious, and they absolutely care.� Lindsay adds to this sense with witty descriptions on the back cover, the humor making it seem like we're all friends.

So right! They *are* real, they *are* serious, they *do* absolutely care, & we *are* all friends, part of a community of individualist soulmates. The dreary dryness of the other publications simply doesn't get a look in because these folk are all *passionate* about what they write. The New Namby-Pamby talks about a need to find contributors. Hell, I have them coming out my ears!!

Linz

Post 47

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:48am

Jeff, re post 43:

One-on-one relationships are quite complicated enough for me, thank you. Never was much good at multiplication.

And like you, I just don't grok male homosexuality, though I'm not phobic about it and have several gay friends.

I can empathize with lesbianism, though: I find women so adorable that I just assume that women would, too. ;^)

Post 48

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:47pm

I voted for TIA since its the only one on the list I've read. However given:

... a need to find contributors. Hell, I have them coming out my ears!!

It seems I should try out FreeRad.

Post 49

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 4:25pm

Robert,

I have a technical question:

No, I am not in negotations with TOC regarding doing a nude centerfold. So eat your hearts out.

Does that include that beard too? Or is there something on the table we don't know about?...

btw - I voted Free Radical, but if anything ever comes out of this beard thing, I might see what can be done to change it.

Michael

Post 50

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:13am

Ed,

First, let me acknowledge that Tomlinson's articles *did* shine out as examples of liveliness that I never saw in the Navigator. If you're determined to aim for such originality, it would be a major leap in the right direction, content-wise.

But something glared at me from your explanation. You basically described TNI as an outreach magazine -- aimed at vulnerable non-Objectivists. In that case, it's only being sent to 150 members of its intended audience, who haven't even asked for it. The rest of the readers are TOC members, at whom the magazine is not aimed. So, do those 150 intended readers justify the massive amounts of funding that goes into the magazine?

It seems to me that in order to justify the expense of TNI, it must either reach a much larger audience, or its content should be directed at its current audience (which would make it "in-reach"). As before, the problem is an identity-crisis, which is why everyone was so shocked in Vancouver when it was revealed that the Navigator consumes the vast majority of TOC's funds!

Alec

Post 51

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 2:38am

I've just received my first copy of the TNI. I can't honestly say that it's an improvement on Navigator in any respect whatsoever. Of its 20 pages, 5 are a rehash from an already-published book. Big chunks of the rest are ads. This is the work of fulltime staffers, & it enjoys massive funding, yet there's precious little original content. And the tone of the thing... well, the word that comes to mind is "dessicated." It ain't gonna rally folk to the barricades. I've nagged TOC about this for years. To their discredit, they acknowledge the truth of it privately ... but do nothing!

FreeRad has *no* fulltime staffers & pays *none* of its writers. Yet it kicks ass & creates ferment. It generates passion & excitement because ... well, that's what it's about: passion & excitement for changing the world! It doesn't worry about respectability within The Establishment�it unabashedly treats The Establishment as part of the problem.

This country's leading broadcaster, Paul Holmes, said of it, "It is angry, funny & intelligent�just like its creator." No higher compliment was ever paid. TNI has no anger, no humour, & a morbidly *academic* type of intelligence that will turn no one on.

The problems with TNI/Navigator are the problems of TOC itself: too tame, tepid & timorous. Too worried about respectability & not causing offence.

The hell with that!!

Linz

Post 52

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 3:35pm

At the risk of being called a pussy, I'd like to inject a note of caution:

1. Wait quite a bit longer before making final judgements on TOC version #2. Ed Hudgins has only been in charge a few months at TOC. It takes time to change anything (magazines, writers, projects). First a new manager needs time to learn. You try to radically change the direction of a boat instantly and all you do is capsize it. You try to change an organization that depends on donors who were enlisted in the old projects without time for explanation and persuasion, you end up with no donors.

2. There is a division of labor between balls out, confrontational, lively, and emotional styles of persuasion and building-bridges, focus-first-on-what-we-agree on, careful, scholarly, dry styles of persuasion. Aristotle tended more toward the latter, sacrificing emotion for weighing all sides and judiciously and non-dismissively treating their arguments with care and fairness. There are readers and audiences who clearly like one and are *completely* turned off by the other. Objectivism needs to attract both (and all) kinds of people.

Thus we need organizations which are like Solo and organizations which are very unlike Solo. But hopefully doing a better job ... and not to the point of dullness or wordiness or dryness or incomprehensibility ... than TOC release #1.

Ideally, it is not either-or and one can combine both styles and appeal to both types of people -- "the artist" and "the accountant" -- but that is *extremely* difficult. Just be happy if you're good at one of these, and don't demonize the guy who is only good at or interested in the other.

Meeeooow.

Post 53

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 4:11pm

Phil, that's a very fair and sensible post.

You're absolutely right: it takes time to change an organization. Ed Hudgins et al. haven't even finished unpacking boxes in TOC's new DC offices. Besides setting up the new office, they're hiring new people, outlining new directions, planning for the Summer Seminar, and -- oh yes -- trying to put out a monthly magazine using material that's already "in the pipeline," while planning a total revamping of it.

But in the face of all this, there's a kind of smugness from some here, a mocking expectation (hope?) that the new venture and direction will flop. The split second TOC's move to DC was announced some here immediately assumed that the only conceivable reason was a desire to suck up to politicians. Did it occur to them that it made great sense to leave isolated Poughkeepsie, NY for a major media center -- that DC is one of the U. S.'s two major media centers -- and that office and living space there is far cheaper than the other media center, New York City? Did it occur to them that DC is also the center for think tanks and public policy groups and magazines of ideas -- that networking with (or challenging) such groups face-to-face also makes a great deal of sense for any organization seeking to influence the political-cultural debates?

Phil, you're right. TOC is clearly undergoing seismic changes -- changes of management, location and focus. Why don't supposedly benevolently-minded Objectivists stop acting like vultures waiting for TOC to become road kill, and instead wish the organization good fortunes in its efforts to refocus its efforts and improve its effectiveness? The chronic sniping here doesn't speak well of the attitudes and motives of the snipers.

Post 54

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 6:15pm

Robert and Phil, I agree with you. There is a place in the market for both TOC and SOLO. I feel that they are indirect competitors at best.

Post 55

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 6:16pm

Bidinotto:

"Did it occur to them that it made great sense to leave isolated Poughkeepsie, NY for a major media center -- that DC is one of the U. S.'s two major media centers -- and that office and living space there is far cheaper than the other media center, New York City? Did it occur to them that DC is also the center for think tanks and public policy groups and magazines of ideas. . . ."

I suppose it should come as no surprise to me that the ever delusional Robert James Bidinotto should harbor such fantasies. DC is, at best, the third major media center in this country. Los Angeles is in second place, behind New York. And while, for obvious reasons, DC is the center for think tanks and public policy groups, the idea that "magazines of ideas" live there in large numbers is. . .well. . .delusional. Let's do a quick census of the best known "magazines of ideas," shall we? The Nation -- New York. National Review -- New York. Harper's -- New York. The Atlantic -- in the process of moving from Boston to. . .New York. Mother Jones -- San Francisco. The New Republic -- Washington, DC. Among libertarian "magazines of ideas": Reason -- Los Angeles. Liberty -- Port Townsend, Washington. Among online "magazines of ideas": Slate -- Seattle. Salon -- San Francisco.

I believe the facts speak for themselves.

JR

Post 56

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 10:39pm

First of all, I generally agree with Phil, as I stated on the first thread on which Robert B ever appeared. Second of all, I'm not sure who Robert is referring to.

If you were referring to me, Robert, as one of the smug vultures, surely you are misinterpreting my tone. I thought I pretty clearly sounded like someone who's interested in a resolution and remedy of TOC/TNI's problems. I can refer to history if you need corroboration.

I expressed optimism at the TOC changes when they were announced, and until this thread I didn't know that Hudgins was the editor of the new mag. I'm glad he is, because he seems the most open to reconsideration and change, and if he's willing to absolve TOC of the nepotism that plagued the Navigator, all the better.

But your comments in that last post are still flawed. We've been hearing about "seismic changes" for years. Severe impatience is in order. Never have such "seismic" events had such invisible consequences. We have every right to ask: what's the plan? *How* is TOC planning to change itself? We have every right to criticize what we see as the same old stuff. TOC's problems will only be solved if they are openly and properly acknowledged (which means open criticism and specific response) and directly fixed.

Sorry Robert, but you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand exercise silence about the problems that you *know* TOC has -- and how they should be solved -- and on the other hand complain when people get pissed off at the apparent detachment of TOC. Snideness is usually the voice of intense frustration. Your silence has only perpetuated that frustration.

Alec

Post 57

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 1:23am

I don't recall *anyone* here being "snide" about TOC. "Snideness" is pomo sneering. There are folk here who are angry with TOC, to be sure, & frustrated with them; there are folk trying to put a rocket under them, but "snideness"? No. It's just as Alec says�after years of hearing about these "seismic changes" (indeed these must have constituted the most indiscernible cataclysm in history) we have become exasperated. Were this not so, there'd be no SOLO. But now there is, I agree that it's not either/or. Division of labour & all that. Artist/accountant if you will, Phil. Artist/academic (in the *best* sense of the latter term) is perhaps more apposite. But with a fulltime staff & significant budget, they should surely be playing their part *much* more effectively than they are. That includes being clear & resolute as to exactly what that part is.

TOC's defenders should not cast aspersions on the motives of its critics (at least, not the ones here), or call them "vultures"�rather, they should listen & learn. If a talented young supporter (hitherto) like Alec is turned off/pissed off, they should realise they are alienating their brightest & best. I'm all for name-calling when the name is accurate & justified; I'm all for denouncing motives when the motives are obvious & hostile ... but to paint TOC's critics *here* as vultures gleefully circling for the kill is manifestly unjust & discredits TOC. Can't it take criticism? Was the suppression/denunciation of criticism not one of the things Kelley faulted ARI for when he set TOC up? Most importantly, don't we all want to revolutionise the culture?

I confess that sometimes I think TOC is more interested in *accommodating* the culture than changing it. Maybe it's just a stylistic difference, maybe something more substantive. I chop & change on that. But let there be criticism. Let there be progress. Let there be *something*!!!!

Linz

Post 58

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 4:46pm

Linz,

It's fine to criticize TOC and certainly some of their writing has been flawed, but the reason many of us TOC regulars stick is because of the quality of the conferences. I was there when David Kelley gave his groundbreaking talk on benevolence in 1995 before the publication of Unrugged Individualism. I was also there when Nathaniel Branden came back to Objectivism in '96 and when David Kelley lectured on Choosing Life in '99. I feel that justice requires that criticism is balanced by pointing out the good work they have done.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 5/17, 4:57pm)

Post 59

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 6:14am