RoR: Forum

Congratulations to all for this growth during a particularly difficult month.

Post 1

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 5:23pm

Hear-hear, James!

Michael

Post 2

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 6:56pm

You'll notice that the 'SOLO Architecture' page is currently 'under construction' for the truly banal reason that I've only just seen it myself. Thanks Joe. :-)

Galt knows how I add to it. :-/

So, the good news then is that you yourself have a chance to influence the direction of SOLO Architecture. Send me your ideas, links to your favourite architects, favourite architecture articles, books and works etc. And if you're at all interested in architecture, then make sure you click the 'Join Group' link.

In the meantime, here's two links to get you started -- What is Architecture? and Architecture 101 -- and a question to answer: is architecture art? If so (or not) what makes it so (or not)?

And here's a reading list to get you started. :-)

Post 3

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 11:27pm

Joe, it's INCREDIBLE!

Barbara

Post 4

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 11:57pm

I'm glad.

--Brant

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 12:32am

Thanks for all your hard work, Joe & Co.

You know, hard work is a master key to the good life. We all spout off about lots of things and there's a value in that to be sure. But nothing beats holding a vision and making it a reality. Assuming you are working with well-conceived blueprints, it's the day after day focus that makes your work a success. You guys should be proud. SOLO stands as a model for anyone who wants to create something of their own.

Post 6

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 4:53am

What's great is that those who prissily pontificated about "mistakes" & "gross errors of judgement" by me in this "difficult period" have been shown to be wrong. My sticking by a friend�Joe�in the face of attacks by a jerk like Elmore & his dim-brained, treacherous, fork-tongued groupies�has borne fruit. Punters saw through the hand-wringers & malefactors, & not only stayed with us, but came to us in greater numbers than ever. Had the hand-wringers been around at the time of The Fountainhead, as it was rejected by publisher after publisher, they would have capitulated at the first turn. Well, this Founder & Principal & his Exec Dir are not for turning, any more than Ayn Rand was. Those who think Elmore & his lackeys were mistreated are free to go join them. SOLO? It'll carry on promoting & exemplifying "the total passion for the total height."

Linz

Post 7

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 5:15am

Lindsay,

I admire and respect you, but if you go on another one of these scorched earth campaigns, I fear you will lose a great may good people in the sound and fury. Maybe we should put up a SOLO poll asking if the Minding Your Manners thread was a good idea?

Jim

Post 8

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 5:32am

Jim - your butt must be shredded by the splinters from all your fence-straddling. Mind Your Manners was my defence of a close friend & colleague, Joe, against a presumptuous jerk who had insulted him utterly unjustly on this very site that Joe is paying for, & wouldn't apologise. If you think that was a bad idea, you can go join his insulters ... as I believe you already have. I couldn't care less what a poll would show. I do care about what is right. I do care about staunchness & loyalty to one's values & the friends who embody them. If that's "scorched earth," then raise the temperature, I say.

Your TOC credentials are showing, James ... total lack of passion for the total height.

Linz

Post 9

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 6:46am

Lindsay,

I don't know either David or Joe. I do think what David did is wrong. I think it's unfortunate that David's contingent would leave in a huff. I like many of the people in his group. I will continue to talk with them as I will with you unless that is an impossibility. This issue just doesn't mean as much to me as it does to you and this will be my last post on the subject. I am the only one who has issued an apology in all this and it was a sincere apology. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Jim

Post 10

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 11:29am

This is my last post on SOLO HQ.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 7/02, 2:35pm)

Post 11

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 12:08pm

(sigh)

More grandstand exits? At least this two-post cynosure was short.

Michael

Post 12

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 1:13pm

Michael said:

More grandstand exits? At least this two-post cynosure was short.

This reminds me of something a scientific colleague of my wife once said. He said that he was thinking of leaving their field, but he was afraid that no one would notice.

Glenn

Post 13

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 1:23pm

Back to the point of this thread: Thanks to all those who make this site possible.

Glenn

Post 14

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 3:11pm

"What's great is that those who prissily pontificated about "mistakes" & "gross errors of judgement" by me in this "difficult period" have been shown to be wrong. My sticking by a friend�Joe�in the face of attacks by a jerk like Elmore & his dim-brained, treacherous, fork-tongued groupies�has borne fruit."

"SOLO trees bear strange fruit,
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop."

Jennifer and Jason were right to leave.

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 7/02, 3:11pm)

Post 15

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 3:43pm

Lindsay,

I am dismayed to have returned to a SOLOHQ badly impoverished by the departure of Jennifer Ianollo and Kelly Elmore. I appreciate your subsequent effort to bring Jennifer back, but I would like to see all of us here step back and learn something from this mess.

David Elmore's posting to Joe was such a dismal display of linguistic and intellectual ineptitude that it brought my esteem for him into negative numbers. I don't see how an apology from someone who demonstrates such incompetence can be of value. I do not understand why anyone would seek an apology from him, or make it a condition of anything.

Your reference to Jennifer and Kelly as David Elmore's "lackeys" is, to put it politely, counterfactual. For a full-time mother and homemaker, which Kelly is, to refer to her husband's writing as "trailer trash behavior" takes tremendous integrity. Kelly is no one's "lackey," and to address her with such language is an enormous injustice.

When Kelly Elmore came to SOLO I already admired her contributions on the Objectivist Parenting mailing list, and I have equal admiration for her contributions on SOLO. I've had part of rasing 3 young ones myself, I have taught graduate courses in developmental psychology, and I do not grant admiration lightly. Parenting is of enormous importance to many of us, and to unleash invective - unjust invective - against SOLO's most distinguished contributor in this area is not something I would have expected of you.

You then stuck the same label on Jennifer Iannolo, because she understood and stood up for Kelly Elmore.

The only explanation I can think of is that you, Linz, are ignorant of parenting and marriage, and of what is entailed in a mother's relationship with the father of her child, and that you did not know what you were doing - and thus we lost Kelly and Jennifer from SOLO. Please stop the invective, and take a breather to think and learn.

Post 16

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 5:10pm

Adam�I have the impression you haven't read what I wrote as this saga unfolded. I don't want to relitigate it all now. But let me say that it was precisely Kelly's recognition that David's post was "trailer trash" that made it incomprehensible to me that she would leave SOLO in solidarity with him over it. You say it was so bad that we should have just banned him outright! How would that have ensured Kelly's staying? She chose to leave in what was a gross over-reaction born of mind-boggling lack of perspective, &, like Jennifer, made full use of the platform we provided her to announce her departure & take some potshots at the monsters who run SOLO.

If you have an issue with the fact that these two are no longer here, raise it with them. It was their choice to go. In Jennifer's case, she & I negotiated a deal for her return, which she promptly reneged on. Ask her about that.

Bottom line�Elmore behaved like an ass toward Joe & should have apologised. He didn't. He got moderated. Big deal. None of that should have led to all this, but I wasn't the one flouncing off in a hissy-fit.

Now I'm done with this topic once & for all. To paraphrase Richard Nixon, "One month of Elmoregate is enough."

Linz

Post 17

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 6:43pm

Linz,

No, I do not think that banning DE would have been a reasonable solution either. I'd have put him on moderation for a week (first time,) two weeks the second time, three weeks the third, and - if there were a fourth incident - indefinitely. My guess is that one week under moderation would have been frustrating enough to correct the tendencies he displayed in his posting, and there would would have been no repetition. Given what Kelly wrote, my guess is that she would have had no problem with David being on moderation for a week, and the problem would have been contained.

From what I know of the Southern States, demanding an apology from someone who fancies himself a "Southern Gentleman" makes it certain that you will never get one. On the other hand, if you do not demand an apology but just let him learn, an apology would have been forthcoming as soon as he realized he had been ungentlemanly in public.

Do they teach courses in Classroom Management in New Zealand? In some ways, SOLOHQ bears a striking resemblance to a classroom, and could benefit from similar techniques.

Post 18

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 7:09pm

Linz, you look like your in good shape for being six months shy of being 100 years old. (Extended Profile?) :)

Post 19

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 7:36pm