RoR: Forum

Linz, you're an arse. Don't ever change.

Post 1

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:40am

Well, we all choose our forums and our means of expression. Diana's nice little blog is enjoyable & welcome. No doubt there.

But gimme SOLO anyday. The shitkickers & the motherfuckers that inhabit SOLO from time to time do not dilute it's spirit. If it doesn't kill you, it only makes you stronger.

If some have viewed Objectivism as a cult then perhaps it's down to it's sometimes closeted & turgid public face. A masonic-like mien. SOLO flies in the face of that mindset.

I hope that the Diana Hsieh's of the world do, despite their misgivings, subscribe, figuratively & literally, to SOLO's milieu. We need 'em all. The learned & the merely excited.

And the truth will out.

Ross

Post 2

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 2:03am

I understand where Diana is coming from. She doesn't want to sanction mongrel-Objectivism. She says:

That's not to say that there's not some good people contributing to SOLO. However, as with all such joint ventures between good and evil, the good elements legitimize the bad while the bad drowns out the good."

She makes an excellent point. This would be the likely scenario should SOLO fall apart. There is a large and noisy contingent of SOLOists who are at odds with Objectivism. I'd say 50% of the regular posters.

But the better people continue to make SOLO worth breezing by all those dishonest posts. It's usually easy to identify when a SOLOist has a black heart. Not always, but usually.

In Diana's defense, many good SOLOists allow themselves to be duped by the black hearts just as Dagny and Hank allowed themselves to be duped by James Taggert and his cronies.

In Linz's defense, SOLO is like a roller-coaster. Go for a ride and it's an entirely different experience from what you get outside the gate. I'd be happy to see Diana and other ARI folk here. And more TOCers as well. Just no more black hearted bozos, please.

Post 3

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:19am

Before MSK gets his mits all over this, Lance, let me agree. The place is only as valuable as those who contribute, and when they do, good things have happened here. Actually, important things have happened here. ;)

Post 4

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:49am

Linz,

To the saps who keep quoting the bit from the Credo

That would be me. Thanks. You can just say "Ethan" next time.

As a tireless defender of SOLO, and of your right to say what you like in your own forum, I have no condemnations for you. I have no interest in being PC and have hurled invective with the best of them. On occasion it has given me cause to apologise to people, but overall I try to judge people and myself fairly. PC had nothing to do with my comments on Michael's article and your response. Mike has published some good things, and some things that I've commented on unfavorably. Whether I agree with him or not, my description of him would never include insults. I believe it's important to challenge ideas without including disparagments when the person I'm dealing with is a friend and ally. My standards are apparently different from yours.

If your intention is not to insult Mike but mearly challenge his ideas, then you could stand to be a bit clearer. This may be the age of umbrage, but one needn't be an umbrage taker to see the insults mixed in with the arguments in your response. That's your choice, but you yourself have had many positive things to say about Mike in the past, I would think that this would temper your response to him. You are a blaster and a volcano. That's cool (hot!) Passion in this world is necessary, and I'm not asking you to change, nor am I asking you to remake yourself. You can be an awesome guy and have accomplished a lot. So blast away, but check your target. The man who wishes to change the world will need allies. Allies have a level of mutual respect. They may not agree on everything, but..... If you piss on your allies often enough, they will not be your allies for long. In the long run this will harm the goal of changing the world. Have Cake. Eat Cake Too. We know all about that. Oh, and one more thing, don't call me a sap you limp dick sheep humper.

Q:   WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M:   Well, I was told outside that...
Q:   Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M:   What?
Q:   Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M:   Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q:   OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M:   Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q:   Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M:   Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q:   Not at all.
M:   Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

Post 5

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:59am

I'll admit to being intellectually unserious.

Linz - "Transparently dishonest" suggests to me intentional duplicity. I know these are Diana's words, but do you agree with her accusation and my interpretation of it?

Post 6

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:46am

If MSK wanted to experiment with this idea, he should have chosen a thread in the forum. Pontificating ex cathedra was a bit showy. Ethan's loyalty to his friend can not be a blank check. Evading reality, even for your friends, can not be the correct course of action, and may, one day, get you both indicted by a grand jury. On any other O site, not only would MSKs article have not been published, poof, he would have been gone. Here, he was merely chastened; whether or not too harshly is in the eye of the beholder. He must be alright with it, however, because he is still here.

As to Diana's comments: It appears she does not understand what this site hopes to achieve. SOLO wants to bring to life and to the art of living what ARI would prefer to mummify. Errors are made, yes, but errors are also corrected; and here one need not live in mortal fear that a perceived misstep will get you excommunicated. We live to learn from our mistakes, by being corrected by our peers.

Hsieh and the Randoids have a pathological fear of error. As a result, they stifle their imaginations and settle for dour, dark, and dreary lives. They remind me of ascetics scouring their every thought and deed for mistakes and flagellating themselves even when they find nothing, for having the audacity to believe they are virtuous. If you only look for trouble, trouble is all you will ever find.

It is in error, that we learn some of our finest lessons. I do not believe Rand expected perfection, merely the honest attempt. If she did, she would not have said she was writing about man not as he is, but as he ought to be. She relates how in her own life she made compromises (I refer to getting The Night of January 16th on Broadway), but she learned from her error and learned not to repeat it.

Post 7

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:58am

Linz,

I loved your article. I hope Andrew's back isn't too sore from the whipping you (probably) gave him over the lax editing. Don't get me wrong, I like Andrew Bissell. Some of his stuff cracks me up, like the time he wrote that Barbara Branden and James Kilbourne were free to post on SOLO even if all they wrote was "See, look! He's a drunk!" after every one of your posts.

I wish SOLO would bring back the 'no-sanction' option again as there have been plenty of times I've wanted to use it here. Otherwise, given enough time, any poster can gather enough atlas points to look like an Objectivist super-genius. Without it, in my opinion, the atlas point system is meaningless. Right now its only real utility is for achieving the necessary 10 points for un-moderated posting.

Eddie

Post 8

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:54am

Yes, it is true Diana reminds me of the monk in The Name of the Rose, who was aghast at the idea of Aristotle's comedic work be known and explored...

Post 9

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:44am

Lance makes a great point about the "large and noisy contingent of SOLOists who are at odds with Objectivism" (though I don't know if it's around 50%). Liking AR's fiction is good, but that's certainly not enough to be an "Objectivist," even by the most liberal open-system standard.

Robert D. had a thoughtful comment also. But I think Hsieh's blog is usually interesting and provocative (there are some good jokes there as well). So I disagree with his claim that she has a "pathological fear of error" and a stifled imagination just because she defends ARI and won't post on SOLO.

Finally, the quotation at the end of Lindsay's article is fantastic. I'm filing that one away.

Post 10

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:31pm

Adam Buker:

Linz, you're an arse. Don't ever change.

I thought you Americans spelled it "ass." And I won't (change).

__________________

Ross Elliot:

If some have viewed Objectivism as a cult then perhaps it's down to it's sometimes closeted & turgid public face. A masonic-like mien. SOLO flies in the face of that mindset.

Does it ever!

___________________

Lance Moore

In Diana's defense, many good SOLOists allow themselves to be duped by the black hearts just as Dagny and Hank allowed themselves to be duped by James Taggert and his cronies. In Linz's defense, SOLO is like a roller-coaster. Go for a ride and it's an entirely different experience from what you get outside the gate. I'd be happy to see Diana and other ARI folk here. And more TOCers as well. Just no more black hearted bozos, please.

Yes! To all the above. I'm not so good at spotting the "black-hearted bozos." Takes me ages to tumble to them. Joe Rowlands is much better at it than I.

_____________________________

Casey Fahy

Before MSK gets his mits all over this, Lance, let me agree. The place is only as valuable as those who contribute, and when they do, good things have happened here. Actually, important things have happened here.

Yes! And that has been the result of the preparedness of people to engage, along with the eloquent refusal of others to do so!

_______________________________

Ethan Dawe, SOLO Secret Spy

Whether I agree with him [MSK] or not, my description of him would never include insults. I believe it's important to challenge ideas without including disparagments when the person I'm dealing with is a friend and ally. My standards are apparently different from yours.

Ethan, you can distinguish between epithets that have a meaning and a point on the one hand, and empty insults on the other. "Saddamite," "Pomo-wanker," "Randroid," "Weasel-worder," "Marshmallow-musher," "Vegetarian," "Economist" and the like are all legtimate shorthand for something in reality that is bad. Like "whim-worshipper." The insult you recently threw at someone, "Lousy fucking useless bastard," by contrast, is contentless and gratuitous. Michael was purveying marshmallow-mush. What would you expect me to say?

________________________________

Fraser

Linz - "Transparently dishonest" suggests to me intentional duplicity. I know these are Diana's words, but do you agree with her accusation and my interpretation of it?

No and yes. I don't agree with her accusation (although I have given it consideration) and I agree with your interpretation of it. I didn't delete her description since Michael had already quoted it himself on another thread.

____________________________

Robert Davison

If MSK wanted to experiment with this idea, he should have chosen a thread in the forum. Pontificating ex cathedra was a bit showy.

Correct.

On any other O site, not only would MSKs article have not been published, poof, he would have been gone. Here, he was merely chastened; whether or not too harshly is in the eye of the beholder.

Correct.

______________________________

Eddie Wood

I loved your article. I hope Andrew's back isn't too sore from the whipping you (probably) gave him over the lax editing. Don't get me wrong, I like Andrew Bissell. Some of his stuff cracks me up, like the time he wrote that Barbara Branden and James Kilbourne were free to post on SOLO even if all they wrote was "See, look! He's a drunk!" after every one of your posts.

It's not his back that's sore. But he's the bestest damned editor in the world, and I wouldn't swap him.

I wish SOLO would bring back the 'no-sanction' option again as there have been plenty of times I've wanted to use it here. Otherwise, given enough time, any poster can gather enough atlas points to look like an Objectivist super-genius. Without it, in my opinion, the atlas point system is meaningless. Right now its only real utility is for achieving the necessary 10 points for un-moderated posting.

The unsanction option got abused by people with vendettas. I yearn for it back myself when I see some Saddamite airhead with four Atlases, but the vendetta problem was huge.

___________________

Jon

I think Hsieh's blog is usually interesting and provocative (there are some good jokes there as well). So I disagree with his claim that she has a "pathological fear of error" and a stifled imagination just because she defends ARI and won't post on SOLO.

I agree about Diana and her blog. But ARI culture generally encourages just such a pathological fear and stifled imagination.

Finally, the quotation at the end of Lindsay's article is fantastic. I'm filing that one away.

Don't file it away, shout it from the rooftops! :-)

Linz

Post 11

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:16pm

Linz, you said

The insult you recently threw at someone, "Lousy fucking useless bastard," by contrast, is contentless and gratuitous.

Incorrect. Glenn leveled this piece of gratuitous filth at Michael

Oh, I forgot your often! repeated resume...
your a brown noser...
you were a drunk...
and a drug addict...
and your mother-in-laws bitch.

Laugh Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud

That is gratuitous and contentless. My response was the response any bully should get; A swift punch square in the nose. Were Glenn a decent person in my estimate I would have chosen another route. When I take issue with people's words on this forum, I do so based on there past actions as well as their current. For example, I've recently defended Andy Postema in several cases, while having previously chastened him for his style. He is a person who merits my defense. Glenn merits the disregard I have shown him. Justice.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/28, 7:18pm)

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/28, 7:19pm)

Post 12

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:28pm

Good context Ethan. Thanks.

Post 13

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:32pm

Thank you Jody!

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:44pm

     I'm not ready to respond directly, yet, to MSK's...near infamous, at this point...article, but, a quick thought about it, and this resulting conglomeration of Diana's thoughts, Linz' thoughts...and everyone (so far) else's.

     Everyone's correct. I know; that sounds just, so, well, you know, 'sorta PC', like. --- Fuck, man; it's true. All are...except Diana re her actual blog comment about MSK being dishonest. Assertions do not 'reason-to-believe' make. --- This kind of 'public' insult calls for...you know...'reasons' to back up the otherwise whimsical accusation that seems to amount to little more than the actual PC complaint: "I'M OFFENDED by this, and it's your fault". I've seen none. --- (I thought I already spelled out the idiocy of that 5-yr old attitude meaning nothing more than "I.Don't.Like.It." in my facetious response to Andrew [I do hope you took it that way Andrew; on re-reading, I think maybe I went overboard] re his call for more articles. Sheesh: some need a hammer to get a point!)

     Now, I've recently acquired a real prob with MSK's 'take' on O'ism, but, for Ishtar's sakes, if the disagreers with O'ism whom an O'ist-proponent finds worthwhile to point out flaws re such are ONLY those long dead (Plato, Kant, et al), and the living ones are ONLY worth ignoring or erasing (or insulting)...then such a proponent is never going to get beyond preaching to the choir. --- Granted, at some point, Roark's comment "I don't think of you" can definitely be apropos (How often did Roark or Galt purposefully 'insult', whether 'deserved' or not? Not their style, right? Take a hint); such is the time to stop wasting one's time debating, arguing, etc. But, that's not rationally determinable (in most cases) at the beginning of seeing that someone disagrees (or, has a warped-view) of...whatever.

     The unfortunately chronic appearance of 'knee-jerkism' re disagreers is going to keep O'ism from becoming an influential movement in intellectual circles (professional and especially non-) for a long time. O'ism's opponents (Buckley, et al) don't have to worry about "Divide and Conquer" tactics; all O'ism's PROponents are taking care of that all by...our own...selves. Indeed, it seems that it's grown from a predominant hobby to an intellectual addiction; like...a virus.

     ...sigh...

LLAP
J:D

P.S: Ok; so, this wasn't just a 'quick' thought. It was when I started it.

Post 15

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 12:28am

Linz wrote:
[quote]
The unsanction option got abused by people with vendettas. I yearn for it back myself when I see some Saddamite airhead with four Atlases, but the vendetta problem was huge.
[/quote]

Pick your poison, I guess, but the current system is akin to grade inflation. Is that not a huge problem here? Being able to 'sanction' and 'un-sanction' seems like the better balance to me even if there are ways to abuse the system. After all, the system is already being abuse in its present incarnation. People are sanctioning the most absurd crap. That should be an embarrassment to the owners of SOLO.

Post 16

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 1:11am

Well as a rough & ready way to sort out the problem you could award Atlas' according to a ratio of sanctions divided by posts. That should help highlight the people who constantly post good quality stuff, and mitigate the sanctions that get flung about willy-nilly in flame wars.

OR

Better still given the uneven supply of articles, you could make sanctions awarded to articles & their authors count for twice, or more, than those awarded in the forums.

I think even MSK would agree that Tibor (235 articles/224 Posts) and Linz (137 articles/1314 Posts) should be afforded a little recognition for their efforts than Michael who has written 6 articles but has 1,000+ more Atlas-points than Linz & Tibor. Yes, Michael contributes a much to the forums, but still...

One of the things I like about the Atlas system is that it allows new-comers to instinctively pick-out those articles & authors who are really worth paying attention to. It'd be a shame to loose that stamp of quality. In fact, I want all of my Atlas points donated to those authors with over 25 articles published here, just to help balance things up.

Post 17

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 3:19am

Before MSK gets his mits all over this, Lance, let me agree. The place is only as valuable as those who contribute, and when they do, good things have happened here. Actually, important things have happened here. ;)

Thanks, Casey. As I told James Valliant elsewhere I like how you do business man. A buddy of mine and I have been using you're line: "Everything is misleading if you don't know how to read" from another thread.

Jon, thanks to you also. That 50% is just an estimate, of course. Whatever the number it's significant.

Post 18

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 6:49am

Eddie, what Linz doesn't know is that I've been adding errors to articles, and let MSK's through on purpose, because I'm a glutton for his particular brand of "abuse" ....

Post 19

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 8:08am