| | Shayne and I have talked a bit privately, and it is over. I did feel he was a bit too harsh on me, and we can debate that endlessly, but the original problem was taken care of. I don't support going on any more about Shayne's behavior, or moderating him. I have noticed some marked improvements about how his tone has changed over the history of his posts. Perhaps SOLO is rubbing off. He does make some really good points... and we both like The Pirates of the Caribbean, so it's cool. And my tone will evolve as well as I go on here. If you think, David, that I am a bit sensitive, well, you'd be right. To certain things, I am. Can you relate to being told by many that you're being anti-reason in some way when you feel you're not? I'm sure it's happened to you a some point, since there are quite a few disagreements within this movement. I still maintain that what I did was not to be put on the same level as Napster use or common thievery, and I was being labeled as such.
And forgive me for assuming something, but from what I have read on SOLO in many, many other threads, it is not too hard to get a label and have it stick to you... and that label, no matter what some seem to do, cannot be lifted. I was trying to stave that off and got a bit... ahem... uppity. I am is someone here who does not want to end up in an Objectivist mass grave. (They're all too common from what I have seen.) And I am not going to lie, from the way that some here were reacting, I was pretty scared that I was going to end up with some $30,000 fine and jail time from the NYT or something... so forgive me for expressing my relief that that was not what happened by being a little lighthearted ("touchy-feely". Whatever.). Nature, you explain what I was feeling quite well: it was assumed that I failed in some principle, and while I might have, I was very principled in correcting and fixing both the problem and the thoughts in my brain. That was what was noticed by some, who were later made as if to be consorting with the enemy. Some felt that they needed to lecture me about ethics... well, if I thought what I had done was ethical I would have needed that, but I did not. We disagreed on the degree of my error, but that was all. When I said that I was doing all I could to clear up the problem (and did it), I was shocked to see that I was (am) still being swung at here. And I dare you not to get a little peeved when someone accuses you of being "an immoral thief" (and this was said) when you were frantically trying to return and fix what you had taken, as well as examining my original premises. I was quite clear on this from the beginning (Shayne's note) that it was wrong. And from that moment I never stopped trying to correct it. Grr.
Overall, I could say a lot, but what needs to be said is this is over. I cannot change the past, but I am changed now. It is the same that I cannot change the fact that I was once an "irrational theist". But I was smart enough to fix that, and I was smart enough to fix this as well. What is more important than my past action is my present state of mind. I think most of us were at some point irrational, but the point is we changed to something better. As you can see, Mr. Webmaster Jeff has edited the original article. (Thanks!) This is acceptable to the NYT, and I am glad that it ended up working out. No matter how much discussion you have here, however, I cannot open my mind to you and show you that it has changed. You'll just have to wait and see the next time I am tested.
I do not see what else can be accomplished by continuing to debate anything on this thread. If there are other disagreements, or you think that I need a lesson in O'sim, please message me privately. I may need a lesson, but you won't get me to listen by grabbing me by the ears and yanking me to the desk. You risk getting kicked in the shins. ;o)
Thank you all again.
~NT
|
|
