| | Given that Mr. Perigo wishes to devote the board concerning Ms. Hsieh's article to the article alone and not any periferal subjects, I shall comply with this request and expand upon my discussion with Mr. Rowlands concerning the conditions under which SOLO would reconcile itself with Mr. Emrich.
Mr. Rowlands has made eloquent arguments in defense of his viewpoint, and I consider his claims to possess validity in certain respects. My purpose here will not be to argue against what he had posted, but rather to describe my general impressions of Mr. Emrich's conduct as well as my interpretation of what, precisely, may be needed for him to be accepted once again as a contributor to SOLO.
Mr. Rowlands writes, "Stolyarov, I think you're the farthest off. You say that Henry is a 'coalition builder'. Merely because he writes an article that says we should have coalitions? His first instinct is to not let you republish the article, and only does so after being show how hypocritical his action was. He spent a month trying to convince everyone that SOLO was evil and needed to die. He's attacked several people personally. And the first thing he does when he gets back is attacks Diana."
Mr. Rowlands, you are indeed correct in your factual narration of the episode over the reprinting of the article. Nevertheless, I had approached Mr. Emrich with reasoned, calm arguments as to why his response was inconsistent with the ideological message he had propagated, and Mr. Emrich not merely conceded the correctness of my claim but complimented me extensively. We have been on good terms since. I have gotten the impression, from this episode, that Mr. Emrich is in fact capable of admitting his mistakes and pursuing his principles.
As for Mr. Emrich's return posts, I do not consider his words to have "attacked" Ms. Hsieh in any way other than to disagree with her course of action and the mindset behind it. Mr. Emrich used no inflammatory expletives or ad hominem slurs. If we agree that Mr. Perigo's "bollocks" comment was of no substantial bother (which opinion I do share, by the way; I would have done nothing but shrug it off were I in the position of someone interested and participating in the organo-centrism discussion), then Mr. Emrich's returning messages are even milder and more proper in comparison.
Mr. Rowlands: His delusional paranoia makes him think that he's being censored when every one of his posts was posted intact. He thought anyone who disagreed with him must obviously be a cultist. He thought everyone was out to get him.
Mr. Stolyarov: I will be the first to defend SOLO and claim that there exists no "censorship" or "cultism" within the organization, even if every post must be passed through moderation. (I have had to enact the same policy on The Rational Argumentator, after spammer-bots tainted my Yahoo! mailing group with pornografy).
Though Mr. Emrich's accusations in this respect were indeed unjustified, I could understand his concern with certain SOLO members' condemnations of particularly active participants and contributors as "board hijackers." He even (if I recall properly) brought up a quote from you, Mr. Rowlands, which conceded that, though often the direction of the conversation on the boards may not be what the author had intended, this is a fact that should be reconciled with rather than suppressed.
If Mr. Emrich apologizes for the ad hominem accusations and harsh expletives but maintains his disdain for the term, "board hijackers," will this be sufficient for you, Mr. Rowlands?
Further in the discussion, I offered the analogy of a reconciliation scenario between Peikoff and Kelley, to which Mr. Rowlands responded with considerable depth. I concur with Mr. Rowlands that merely saying, "I'm sorry" in a situation such as Peikoff's is not sufficient. I also concur that there is no obligation to accept the apology, as Mr. Kelley's property rights (just as those of Mr. Rowlands) grant them the authority to reject it.
If we compare Mr. Emrich's actions to those of Peikoff, and apply the ideas expressed in Mr. Rowlands' response, will the following from Mr. Emrich be sufficient to readmit him to SOLO?
1. A public list of all the faulty accusations he had posted and a renunciation of such.
2. An apology for his use of harsh language and invocation of the "sanction debate" (already provided).
3. The creation of productive written works that enhance discouse on SOLO and add to the organization in a positive way beyond the above "reparations."
4. A continued demonstration of politeness over a "trial period," during which his posts will be passed through moderation (how else can he demonstrate tactfulness except by engaging in discourse in this manner?)
What is my compelling interest in this matter, you may ask (as I have spent considerable time on the subject)? I seek to witness the filosofy of Objectivism rise to global prominence within my lifetime. This will mean employing all the possible intellectual resources that all rational men can gather as a foundation for a massive cultural influx of Objectivism in all arenas. Mr. Emrich, in my estimation, is a man from whom this endeavor will benefit greatly (which means that all of us will benefit greatly in the long run). The excellence of this organization and its new website are beyond all possible doubt, and it is precisely for this reason that I seek to reconcile it with another worthy individual, who is indeed capable of polite cooperation and profound exchange of ideas.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
|
|
