Minding One's Manners

Yo...peeeeeoople?

You're all repeating yourselves. Endlessly.

I'm getting BOORRRRRRED.

Isn't being BORING the Mortal Sin for which Linz condemns we TOC types?

But now you SOLOists are even putting us to sleep.

This thread has turned into a "gotcha" contest, where participants are footnoting each other's excesses, counter-footnoting, sub-footnoting, cross-referencing their footnotes, etc. But to what end? To come up with the "Perfect Proof of Moral Transgression"?

You know, I've put up nearly 700 posts here since last December. I just bet that somebody could go back through all of those and find evidence that I was, somewhere, over the top, profane, insulting, unfair, immoral, unjust or even unconstitutional.

Yes, even ME -- as unbelievable as I know that sounds.

So what possible gain is there from continuing this pissing contest? Has anything really been left unsaid? Is anyone about to cry "Uncle!" and repent and convert to his accuser's side?

In the immortal words of that eminent philosopher, Joan Rivers: "Oh -- grow up!" We're Objectivists: we never concede that we were wrong. If we did, we'd implode. Our self-esteem would evaporate, taking with it our characters, values, virtues, minds, spirits, ideas, concepts, ideals, and...oh yes, even our bodies. (Yeah, those "things," too.)

I thought this thread, a public spanking of an individual for a past transgression, was a bad idea from the start. Now it's become an obsession for otherwise productive minds.

Life is all too short for this sort of nonsense. This dead horse has now been beaten into an oozing pulp. Unless this sort of spleen-venting is your idea of a masturbatory fantasy, why don't we get off this pointless exercise in finger-pointing, and get back to celebrating or discussing something really important...

...such as counting the mixed metaphors in the preceding paragraph...

Post 101

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 5:16pm

Jeff, you wrote: " I would have been in favor of moderation if that attack was directed at anybody. That it was at Joe of all people was just another straw. We will moderate or ban anyone that is that rude and who is attempting to destroy the wonderful atmosphere we have here with their petty bitterness. There is no double standard."

Jeff, I agree with you, but clearly Linz does not..

What I see as so objectionable in David's post was not merely one or two insults, but the wholesale attack on Joe's character, on his honesty and integrity. This, I emphatically agree, should not be allowed to anyone. In fact, the post was so off-the-wall that I truly thought it was David's not-very- funny idea of a joke, directed at a friend, and so I ignored it.

But I don't see this as an issue of principals versus members. Linz, no one is denying your legal right to your property or Joe's right to his; surely you see that the issue is not one of legality, but of wisdom, civility, morality, however one wishes to put it. And at the risk or having your wrath descend on my head, I must tell you that I am in agreement with the point made that once the principals enter into the debates that are at the heart of Solo, they should not demand to be treated differently than other debaters. And if insults are allowed to anyone on Solo, and are indulged in by any of the principals, then the principals should not object to receiving their share of insults.The solution, surely, is to insist on a single standard: that heat, anger, rage, and tantrums are acceptable; personal insults are not.

Rick, you wrote that you disagree with my statement that I do not insult people. Have I insulted you or have you seen me insult someone else? Please explain.

num++, you wrote: "For the love of Galt, is it too much to ask that the people who have no dog on this debate just shut up and let the people who are involved work it out on their own pace, publicly and/or privately."

But we all have dogs in this debate, for a least a couple of reasons. First, the discussion has taken place on the pages of Solo, which are open to us are and where we are invited to voice our opinions; our dogs have been dragged into the debate whether we like it or not. Further, we all have an interest in the future of Solo, and when someone like Jennifer, who to my mind has been one of the most valuable members of Solo, is so personally insulted that she leaves, that is important to every one of us.

Surely an organization that boasts of its benevolent sense of life can once and for all dispense with the vileness of personal attacks! "The total passion for the total height?" It is hard to find it on his thread.

Barbara

Post 102

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 5:25pm

Barbara - please see my post 97.

Post 103

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:23pm

I am leaving SOLO, as I'm sure many of you had already surmised I would do.

If I had any compunction about doing so after the Manners thread (and my moderation) was begun, I was relieved of any hesitancy after Linz's follow-up posts made the intransigence and policies of upper management clear.

I would like to thank all of you who made posts getting to the main point of the moderation (double-standard) -- especially when many of you vehemently disagreed with the tenor and substance of my original post against Rowlands. I salute you all.

I have had a terrific time with many of you in the two months of my short membership. I wish you all the best in the times ahead and an open invitation to join Kelly and I at our get-togethers in Tennessee/Georgia.

So long,
David Elmore

Post 104

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:39pm

This is the most depressing thread I've ever read on SOLO.

Post 105

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:50pm

Barbara Branden wrote:

Rick, you wrote that you disagree with my statement that I do not insult people. Have I insulted you or have you seen me insult someone else? Please explain.

Certainly. I consider this post to be insulting, particularly since you never acknowledged the error I pointed out in the following post.

Post 106

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 8:50pm

To all:

I received an email about my testy exchange with RCR in another thread, which for all the sound and fury was not all that personally troubling to me. The writer said:

What I see here, sadly, is just that everyone on SOLO today seems to have a bad case of the nasties.

I didn't fully understand what my correspondent meant until I caught up on the Minding One's Manners thread.

Good Lord, folks! I have one piece of advice:

Take a Time Out!

Let the ruffled feathers smooth, withdraw the fangs and claws, and remember that most of us can be friends tomorrow--unless we disembowel each other today, which usually puts a damper on future relations.

Give it a rest.

Nathan Hawking

Post 107

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 8:54pm

When I first read David Elmore's post, I bent over in disbelief and stunned disgust. The first lines seemed so close to coming from a place of envy and mental illness, I wouldn't read the rest.   Argue yes, degrade, no.    Even the worst of Lindsay's hystrionics haven't thrown me like that. Of course, it had everything to do with to whom the comments were addressed.   However, when word came to me that Lindsay and Joe and Jeff might take measures to restrict or limit entirely David Elmore's access to the site, I disagreed.   My argument was that it required too much effort.   To involve yourself with that sort of dysfunction is giving your power away.

While I still live by this policy, what I had forgotten was the point, now made repeatedly, regarding Joe's and others' efforts in providing SOLO to us for free. It's embarrassing how often I forget that the glorious internet playground exists because of the work of others. I'll catch myself raging, "why don't they have a proper old Welsh translator?" or tantruming "these battle maps suck!" forgetting they are free, free, free, how dare I complain and use that all-telling and most despicable word They as though I were still a child rebelling against the Great Parent.

It's difficult. I know by saying what I think, I am driving the hammer down on the chisel. The measures taken by Joe and Lindsay were well-thought through (yea, even labored, in many emails and long-distance phone calls) as they strove to do what is best for themselves, and for the people who invest their time writing posts and articles on this site. For my part, asking for a bloody apology and limiting access to prevent that sort of stuff is balanced and useful. There's been a trend of permissiveness of inappropriate wanking-off, and as SOLO gets bigger it will only attract more. Good that we are evolving.

Was there an element of the subjective in this decision? Probably, but I'm not the one to cast fault.   I find Linz' rants hilarious and eccentric, while this other thing left me ill. Am I uncomfortable that my presence on this site continues only at the whim of my betters? Of course not, because if I were, I would just go and create my own lovely Objectivist website with dynamic features and momentum while working full-time on the cutting edge of my industry making piles of money and spending hours fleshing out the philosophies of Ayn Rand in my spare time.

Going forward: we kick people off for lying and for being disgusting. Those are the rules.

Julia

Post 108

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 8:57pm

Rick P. write to Barbara:

I consider this post to be insulting,

I disagree.

Post 109

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:38pm

Julia, you wrote:

I find Linz' rants hilarious and eccentric, while this other thing left me ill.

How well you expressed what I think with other words!

You know what the spice is that makes the difference? It is called benevolence. (Well, maybe there's some other stuff too, but that is the main ingredient.)

Michael

Post 110

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:12am

I certainly don't mind being thought of as hilarious & eccentric, & I know for a fact that I am benevolent. But there's one adjective that hasn't come up that is more important to me than all the others, & it's straight from the Credo, so no one should be surprised: "Sincere."

Read the part of the Credo that deals with sincerity vs mind-games. This especially applies to those of you who've said one thing to me in private, on the matters involved on this thread, & a completely different thing in public.

Contrary to Sir Robert, the worst sin is not being boring, though that's pretty bad, & was indeed the specialty of TOC for a long time. The worst sin is hypocrisy.

Mind-games & hypocrisy are the "coolest" thing right now in the culture-at-large. Sincerity is the "uncoolest."

Just another example of why "cool" = nauseating.

Linz

Post 111

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:29am

Linz,

I love your hilariousness and eccentricity, I just need to learn to step to the side when you get going full force :-).

Jim

Post 112

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:46am

But think what you might be missing, Jim! :-)

Post 113

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 8:53am

I agree, Linz. Sincere is absolutely correct.

(I remember mentioning that once in a post on the 7 deadly sins as it jumped out at me from between the lines.)

It is a shame you had to blow your own horn on this and I will not even try to say that "benevolent" to me includes sincerity (which it does).

That needs to be explicitly stated. So let me restate:

You are a sincere, benevolent, hilariousness, eccentric and wonderful human being.

Sometimes we disagree, but I will take a disagreement with you anytime over the highest accolades the pharisees of lip service can offer.

Michael

Post 114

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 8:58am

Jeff and Julia - great posts! You too Barbara. I have never seen Jeff get pissed off and to see him line up someone like he does is great.

In the following I don't link to the specific quotes - I need to get this off my chest now! I have skim-read and re-read the threads and will edit links in tonight when I get to Florida.

Like Julia, I could not believe what I was reading when I read David's original post - I was so disgusted I can't put it in words. When you attack someone (which is often appropriate) you better have a damn good reason. David starts with the lines Linz draws to our attention and fails to justify them. He continues on in an arrogant manner. Where Joe calls that Whissler asshole an asshole, it's after he has shown that to be the case. Joe's attack was justified, David's was not.

David says he started with bombast, not blisters, to convey that we shouldn't attach too much weight to what he posted. This just seems like a half-arsed apology. If he was saying his comments had been misconstrued (having acknowledged many people had not reacted to his post in the way he had expected) he should have apologised for the abiguity of his comments.

I had thought David's comments came out of nowhere but he refers us to other posts, saying Linz had accused him of pursuing Joe and putting "pursuit" in scare quotes. If he thinks he hadn't been pursuing Joe, what the hell was this post?!

David attacked Joe the Hero and made a complete Joe Hunt of himself. I thought Linz was being too tolerant in his treatment. I would have booted his arse but Linz saw value in David so he merely moderated him and put it up as an example of what not to do, giving him a chance to apologise for his egregious post.

As Jeff pointed out, taking sanction against David was appropriate whether it had been a principal of SOLO he had attacked or any earnest member. While Linz pointed out that Joe funds SOLO, probably to let those of us who didn't know understand just how heroic Joe is, I think we should leave the funding issue aside as people could not have been expected to know this (as Kelly pointed out). I do want to address the "fit for the pauper, fit for the king" issue, however, as it has caused a great deal of confusion and the departure of someone I hoped would stick around.

If you set up a movement, you do so to achieve your ends. You do not do so to invite people to come insult you. That's the case in a business, a sports club, a dance club, a cooking club, a book reading club or here at SOLO. People cannot rationally expect to deliver unjustified attacks on Linz, Jeff or Joe and to be able to continue on as if nothing had happened.

That said, it's not to say you can't disagree with them or even call them irrational (when you justify your comment) on some issue (If you thought them irrational overall you should go your separate way). Having stayed with Joe and Jeff over a period of three weeks I can vouch for their ability to handle disagreement. Having got pissed and done a Perigo to Perigo at Cresswell's once, I can say that Linz certainly can take the flak too. Linz has also taken a lot of flak while others of us stood by, remiss, in other Libertarianz Party that need not be delved into here. (And yes, there's something I need to get off my chest there too that will have to wait another day).

So to Jennifer, who asked a sincere question that gave me pause for thought, I would say that unjustified attacks should be punished and while attacks on people must be justified no one should reasonably expect to continue a tirade against the principals (even if rationalised) and expect to stick around unchecked.

And to those of you who want to accuse SOLO's founders of ARI like intolerance and double-standards I say that your disagreements and even your attacks are accommodated here, but you have no blank cheque to fly off the handle like David did.

(Edited by Andrew Bates on 6/14, 9:07am)

Post 115

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 1:21pm

Damn.....Guess I walked in at a bad time.

--Dan Edge

Post 116

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:03pm

Hi Dan,

LOLOL...

You sure did walk in at a bad time.

But look around. It's a pretty cool place and lot's of good people, though it might be hard to believe from this thread.

These things generally work out in the end, so don't be too put off by this first impression.

Welcome to Solo. I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Michael

Post 117

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:29pm

Yes, Dan. Stick around! There are plenty of very wonderful people here who are very knowledgable about Objectivism. Any questions you have can be submitted in the Q and A section or as a regular post. Take advantage of reading the suggested articles on the front of the website and make yourself comfortable.

Best,

Jim

Post 118

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 4:56pm

Rick, I don't know the context between you and Barbara, but that insult was very rare for her, and I recall that she did quickly apologize. I have insulted Barbara before, and she conducted herself very gracefully, more than I deserved. So please take that into consideration.

Post 119

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:28pm