| | Joe,
My participation on this thread started with post 4. I quoted George Cordera and suggested that I was perplexed about the attack on Engles. This was met not by a discussion of the quote but by a snide remark by Erickson "Take your time, Robert, it'll come to you." [1st blood] I responded. "Your opinion of yourself is highly inflated. I suggest you find a way to distinquish between egoism and egotism. ;-)"; back came the reply "Easy: if I agree with RD, I'm an "egoist". If I DON'T agree with RD, I'm an "egotist". ;-).
Agree about what? The quote I contributed that should have been the focus of any response was met by a personal attack, not a discussion. To this I responded "Your response--characteristically banal.", a rather mild rebuke I would say in the face of the patronizing "Take your time Robert". There was then some inane remark from Erickson about the Nutcracker Ballet.
Ethan entered the fray to tell me that "If you read George's article you'll see that the situation with Rich and the one that George is talking about in his article are completely different. Context."; not very informative. I know that context matters. What O doesn’t? The quote I provided included, "When you expound against the religious mores of another person, is your exposition a defense of reason, or a hammer of ridicule? If the mere image or mention of a religious figure or symbol can throw you into a fit of rage, I tell you that your issue is not with a false morality, but with the very concept of morality itself.", so I was legitimately confused, and at post 15, asked "completely different", really?
Various squabbles broke out, and I was quiet until post 31 when I reacted to a post from you "Rich didn't suggest specific forms of activism. He suggested a complete surrender to irrationality by claiming we shouldn't bring up the fact that religion and faith are not based on reason." To which I replied "I personally did not find Rich irrational or willing to surrender to the irrational, and so what if he did. If an accurate representation of Objectivism is a requirement for posting here 90% of the membership should be run off, and the remaining 10% would still be louts by ARI's standards.", and continued with quotes from Rand and Peikoff regarding their approach to attacking religion and their warm feelings for the Deists of the Enlightenment.
I considered this a substantive post, to which Gores responded "That's a bunch of bull." [1st blood] Ethan set the record straight with "Rich wasn't exiled. He left. Why is it that everyone forgets this. He chose to leave." Quintana piped up with "Good job of quoting Rand out of context Robert D. [1st Blood] The point of your post is that: Most people lack intelligence and that we shouldn't criticize religous belief because 90% of people need it to keep them in line.", which was not my point at all. Malcom countered agreeing with me. At #36 I replied to Ethan "I stand corrected.", and ask " Would he have been moderated if he chose to stay?" and to Jason, despite his rudeness, saying "Sorry this all you took from what I said. My point is that it (belief in God) must remain in place until supplanted by something, not stripped away by force." A non-sequetor followed from Jason replete with punctuation, "Force???? What on earth are you talking about. Is anyone here advocating force???????, which I ignored.
Dean complained that I had misunderstood him somewhere along the line and I assured him that I was not accusing him of anything, "Was not accusing you or even referring to you" and that "This thread went off the subject of you quite aways back." Then there was a long allegory by Ethan which Gores applauded with a sentence that reads "In addition, I'm looking forward to less non-objective arguments and propaganda" to which I replied "fewer". In hindsight I see how that could be considered "bitchy", but in context as so many here are fond of saying, the failure to distinquish between ‘less and fewer’ has been a cause of mine for sometime and I have said so previously on this forum. Although, the fact that it was addressed to Gores did not sadden me.
I then replied to Ethan telling him his approach was reasonable, but that I believe he mischaracterized Rich, "Rich is not by any objective standard a Christian. He doesn't even believe in the divinity of Christ. Appearences are deceiving. I sometimes fear casting aspersions and jumping to conclusions are the only exercise anyone gets around here. ;-) " (Note the emoticon). Ethan clarifies his position with "Errr I wasn't sugesting he did beleive that Robert."
At post 47, Theresa took issue with my assertion that O is deceptively simple. Responding with "Oh, good grief! Exactly how tough is "I belong to myself" to understand?? Or "I am, therefore, I think?" Pretty easy shit, if you ask me." Pretty easy shit? A libertarian would agree with her. She continued with a rant about Christians not comprehending the Bible or their own religion and added "And if you ask me, the moral principles in Chrisianity are far more difficult than those outlined by Rand and Objectivism." I replied, "We disagree and therein lies the problem with many Objectivists. As I have said many times, because Rand's prose is so accessible, most folks think it is easily understood. It is only apparently simple.", and quoted her again "I think it's very possible to be an illiterate Objectivist.", to which I agreed, "You are clearly correct, see above." This was followed by another long rant about Objectivism, which was irrelevant to the discussion, as I was talking about Objectivists.
This is followed by a couple of posts about Victorian living rooms and raging fireplaces.
At #55, I addressed Theresa again regarding her assertion, " It can be grasped superficially and consistently, or deeply and consistently.", remarking that "The periodic flame wars, disagreements, and exiles that erupt among Os disprove this theory. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Gores posted defending this site as better than most on those issues, with which I wholeheartedly agree, but he couldn’t resist "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That claim lacks context, useless". This surprised me as it related directly to Theresa’s contention that O can be grasped ‘superficially’ and ‘consistently’. (Silly talk if you ask me.) She rambled again saying among other things, " Omitting the nature and context of the so called "flame wars" isn't a very constructive approach to your argument, either. Would you prefer that everyone simply agree with everyone else in lockstep?" Clearly I don’t believe that. ;-) She ends with a paean to what she called ‘peer review’ to which I replied, "We disagree that it is 'peer' review. I attribute it ( the squabbles) to a shallow understanding of the subject, and the emotional need, many exhibit here, to be liked by the 'popular crowd'.", and included a note to Gores "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing was said in context. It referred directly to a quote. And you wonder why I lose my temper?"
This was followed by a post by Erickson offering advice on quotation marks and being nice and a post by Malcom applauding ‘peer review’ but agreeing with me that "Even tho there are a number seeking a sort of 'popularity contest', full of superficiality regarding understandings..." Theresa responded with a defense of seeking to be liked which included the sentence, "I certainly don't expect everyone who adheres to Objectivism to be a "perfect" Objectivist.", to which I replied, "Clearly", which prompted her to take offense and call me a troll. [1st blood]
Malcom wrote to show approval of my curt response and I wrote to ask Theresa, "Was that not clearly what you meant? I know you prefer schmoozing, but I don't have the time." Gores hastened to stir up trouble with, "Robert most certainly couldn't have meant "Clearly" in a friendly manner. . . " He’s correct of course. It was curt and dismissive, rightly so in the face of such a monstrous assertion. Gores gleefully continued with, "I'm also repulsed by his previous trolling behavior on threads discussing evolution." ( It appears evolution is another ‘simple issue’ one may not question. All men favor evolution, If you question evolution you are not a man, Therefore you are a troll, or something like that.) Theresa rejoined "Robert D, you seem very concerned with "schmoozing." [funny, it’s the first time I have ever used the word on this forum.] I've found that it's generally people who feel socially inadequate that concern themselves with such stuff." -- Has this socializer even read Rand’s novels?-- and to Gores ‘disgust’ replied, "Are you a psychologist? For your information, I find your ass-kissing equally repulsive.", and to Theresa , "Hell hath no fury . . .".
Erickson posts, "Robert "Troll" Davison, I agreed with Dean and sanctioned his post. Your "clearly" was another obvious example of your never passing up a chance to show your contempt for the members of this forum." [I will forever be contemptuous of someone who says, "I certainly don't expect everyone who adheres to Objectivism to be a "perfect" Objectivist." If that contempt is misplaced, someone will have to explain to me, why.] He continued with, "the fact that you are indirect about it simply shows your desire not to be kicked off of this forum. Then you would be deprived of your favorite hobby: insulting your intellectual superiors.", to which I responded, "Only some of them, and only when provoked. Don't fuss at me and I won't bother you." [a fair enough trade if you ask me.] Gores posted to tell me he felt abused, but not to apologize for calling me a ‘disgusting troll’. I replied, "Just leave me alone, and all your cares and woes will disappear. You'll be happy as a clam; snug as a bug in a rug; [insert your favorite bromide here.]" his rejoinder was to whine, "I didn't even talk to you until you insulted me." ‘That’s a bunch of bull’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘Troll’ are not talking in his world.
And finally Joe, you want to know what is my story? My story is that I take people at their word, I judge and that judgment is sometimes greeted by petulance or insult to which I respond in kind; unfortunately for some here I am good at it. I can’t imagine how they would have reacted to Rand screaming "Are you in focus" at them. I expect serious discussions of issues, and counter arguments not how others ‘feel’ about my opinions; or arguments from intimidation. The vast majority of the my posts on this or any other site are genuine and polite, those that are not I will agree are wicked; but they are also retaliatory, a force I believe in.
|
|
What's invalid is invalid. It's generally not a point of discussion except for those who insist on claiming that they have unprovable beliefs. Reality invalidates the arbitrary and the non-existant. ... not me. 
