| | Phil,
That's pretty funny, I'll admit, but it brings to mind an important issue:
It seems that very many RoR participants seem to look at this issue not at face value, but with such a skeptical and brandishing eye. Perhaps that's unavoidable. Perhaps it's too much to ask -- even of Objectivists -- to take peers at their word when the heat is on, or to even be objective about EVERY issue. The subjective responses in this thread really amaze me. There are even people unwilling to believe what is before their very own eyes (because it contradicts their "holy" pre-conceived notion about this matter).
Joe spoke. Joe explained the issue. And, importantly, at least one "outsider" got it (Sam Erica). Go back and read what Joe said if you still don't understand.
For the record, I didn't ask for any "help" with Mindy from anyone. I was and am prepared to deal with Mindy on my own. As far as I know, nobody got "voted off" of anything. I, you see, take Joe at his posted word. Nobody posting here has ever admitted to consulting -- or even to NOT consulting -- with Mindy about this, which I find strange. You'd think someone would be forthright and say something (since I asked a few folks, directly). Some folks think there was a popularity contest (to which Phil alludes), but I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not, at root (if not at all), to blame for something like that.
This thread isn't about popularity, it's about justice. The justice was supposed to occur in this thread. It was supposed to occur via a one-on-one exchange between me and Mindy. That was my plan (after months of ignoring her). I was seeing value in Mindy and felt that the only way to become a friendly acquaintence (a peer) with her would be to confront her non-constructive criticism of me head-on in order to get past it.
Does that make sense to you naysayers?
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/05, 6:56am)
|
|
