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 1


Post 20

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 8:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So true - and have found that out in the artist chats have gone into, as well as some of the similar forums to this one [no, no names here]..... what we say is indeed what in effect we are....

Post 21

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 11:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Haven't been banned either here or anywhere else, as far as I know.

And if you can't take me seriously with my moniker, which was made up on the spur of the moment (sorry, dude), that's fine with me. 

Personally, I'm rather happy to "take yes for an answer."  (shades of Nietzsche or Roark, perhaps?)

Signed,

Takeyes Fornanswer
 




Post 22

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 11:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

One other thing, I didn't say I wanted my ideas to be judged on their own merits -- I trust I can count on that here (?).  What I said was that I wanted my ideas to be judged independently of anyone on this forums' previous knowledge of me.  That is precisely why I won't say any thing more than that I changed my view of the TOC/ARI split.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 12:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Eyetaker,
What I said was that I wanted my ideas to be judged independently of anyone on this forums' previous knowledge of me.
Still doesn't sound too convincing somehow...

LOL

What the hell. Go for it. Different strokes for different folks.

My name is Michael Stuart Kelly. Don't know who the hell you are.

Pleased to meet cha anyway

(for now...)

Michael


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
robert m,
"...what we say is indeed what in effect we are...."

Can you clarify what "in effect" mean? Did you say that from your experience, you did learn about the real person from what they say on internet?


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Takeyes: "What I said was that I wanted my ideas to be judged independently of anyone on this forums' previous knowledge of me. "

I don't think you realize that this is very insulting to Soloists. You are saying that if we knew who you are we would allow that knowledge to color our judgment of your ideas; in a word, you are saying that we cannot be trusted to be objective. Presumably, we need your help if we are to be objective.

Are we to thank you for looking out for our interests?

Barbara



Post 26

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I didn't see an option to change name after I created my profile single name only, but my name is Aaron Bilger. I do not know who 'Takeyes' is or anything of his/her past.

I do not find Takeyes' stance insulting or unreasonable given that people do let their knowledge of others' identity color their judgement, even to the point where a SOLOist may flatly refuse to "discuss these issues or any others" with someone because of who they are. ( http://www.solohq.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/0538.shtml#11 )


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In reference to Barbara's comment to 'Takeyes', which was, "I don't think you realize that this is very insulting to Soloists. You are saying that if we knew who you are we would allow that knowledge to color our judgment of your ideas; in a word, you are saying that we cannot be trusted to be objective. Presumably, we need your help if we are to be objective." , -

 

- and later, Aarons response of, "I do not find Takeyes' stance insulting or unreasonable given that people do let their knowledge of others' identity color their judgement, even to the point where a SOLOist may flatly refuse to "discuss these issues or any others" with someone because of who they are."

 

Aaron, yes it is true that people often do this, it is a flaw that we all struggle to overcome to varying degrees.

 

However, it is also a flaw that many *have* successfully overcome. Given this - you have 2 choices: A) - believe that humans are basically malevolent and expect stupidity and prejudice; and therefore choose to hide from it under a pseudonym, or B) - accept that most objectivist are basically benevolent and rational; and therefore give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

 

Choice 'A' will not spare you from criticism for ideas that are rejected as false, it will only afford you a false sense of being protected by anonymity. It also displays an overall contempt for the capacity for human beings in general, and objectivist specifically, to rise above personal prejudice. One wonders why a person would bother to speak to people that they hold in such low esteem in the first place?

 

Choice 'B' *will* get you unjustly personally attacked from time to time, but this is the exception - not the rule. Furthermore, the impact of expressing oneself is strengthened when one displays the power of their convictions. Attaching ones real name to a statement, is a *statement* in itself; it suggest the courage of ones convictions and values.

 

Lindsay Perigo is fond of saying that the world is drowning in an ocean of weasel words, or something to that effect. Personally, I believe that the world is drowning in an ocean of moral cowardess masquerading as prudence.

 

George



(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/07, 2:28pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, and yes folks - just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water (from the movie 'Jaws II') -Cordero is *back* to posting again.

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/07, 2:25pm)


Post 29

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 2:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
bamp-BOOMP, bamp-BOOMP, bamp-BOOMP, bamp-BOOMP....

(Close-up: A fin breaches the water...then we see the fin perched on a head....it's GEORGE!)

He's baaaaaaa-ack.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 3:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think I am a good example of this.

My original username was Caned N Able.  I'm not sure I recognized it at the time, but the pseudonymity was, in a small way, an attempt to cover up what failings I had in my ideas.  I was afraid of writing something Objectivism would frown on.

Now, however, I hope to strip away that attempt at pretense, and be free from cowardice.  I will be Michael Allen Yarbrough, seventeen year-old present and future hero.

I can understand Mr. Garcia's need for anonymity, and I can understand where Takeyes is coming from, but I cannot criticize the latter, only sympathize, and hope for a fortunate decision between Choices A and B, as outlined by George Cordero above.

Take note that this is not to poke fun at Takeyes, but I recognize that Caned was a part of me, a part that I discovered to operate on vague motives.  Granted, I cannot write for Fornanswer's past, but someone's knowledge of both myself and Caned would hopefully give that reader more insight to the quality of my character and my ability to change, and not to some defect in my writings.

Michael

PS. And ah, I just remembered that George 'left.'  But now he's back, and there was much rejoicing.  *yeeeaay*


Post 31

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 6:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bravo, Mike.  Welcome back.

Post 32

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cordero: "...the world is drowning in an ocean of moral cowardess masquerading as prudence."

Come on George and tell us what you really think.

MN



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George,
Attaching ones real name to a statement, is a *statement* in itself; it suggest the courage of ones convictions and values.

You  are such a hypocrite - hiding behind a "W" and all...

I mean, there must be a zillion George W Corderos in the world.

Nobody can ever know who you really are when you attack. Talk about moral cowardliness!

Humph!

//;-)

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/08, 12:28am)


Post 34

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 12:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
First of all, "cowardess" is spelled "cowardice." Second, weasel-words are a manifestation of cowardice. No dichotomy here. Third, the worst kind of cowardice is that exhibited by a groupie who defends the lesser values to which he is groupie-beholden while betraying the best embodiment of his primary values.

Linz

Post 35

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cowardess /n: a female coward.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.