RoR: Forum

>> Curiosity - what was the supposed reason Jennifer was no longer interested in SOLO?

See the thread entitled 'Minding One's Manners'. Link here should work.

Post 41

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 7:56pm

Hong, I stand on my head corrected. :-)

And if you read my post carefully, I never said anything about personality types being exculpatory of misdeeds.

In lieu of our standing on both our heads, may I recommend that we simply start pulling each other's hair to distract the continuation of these proceedings? I notice some unsightly white hairs on your pic.

Smiles, Good will, and No faith,
num++ the atheist

PS: please Jonathan, for the love of Galt, NOT THAT THREAD AGAIN!!!

PPS: To anyone who thinks this attempt at humor on this thread unseemly, go pull your own hair. By the way, Barbara has said, "... I have said my last word on the subject..." I hope that decision will be respected. And oh, I'm done on this matter too.

Post 42

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:08pm

num++ siad: "may I recommend that we simply start pulling each other's hair"

I concede already since I am obviously at a disadvantage. ;-).
(That white hair must be from Luke's grandmother's.)

num++, you never fail to lighten me up! Thanks.

Post 43

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 9:11pm

For what it's worth, I've never seen anything from Lindsay that I thought was too bad. I like his bluntness.

And even if he were some terrible jerk who called me bad names all the time, I wouldn't care. It'd be easy for me to just ignore him. And keep interacting with other people, reading the articles I like, etc.

Post 44

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 9:42pm

Daniel wrote:

For what it's worth, I've never seen anything from Lindsay that I thought was too bad. I like his bluntness.

And for what it's worth as well, so do I. Linz doesn't have a phony bone in his body. If the price we have to pay for that is the spectacle of him blowing his stack from time to time, then so what? There's a massive over-reaction going on here. The simple facts are that David Elmore acted outrageously towards one of the owners of this site, refused to apologise, left, and was swiftly followed by his wife Kelly, and their pals Jason and Jennifer. Are these four people really worth agonising over any further?

In any event, it's clear to me that Barbara has been woefully misinformed regarding the circumstances of Jennifer's departure. I hope she reconsiders her attitude towards Linz.

Post 45

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 9:02pm

Well, while Achilles is in his tent I must say that I uncorked the bottle by pointing out to Barbara posts 6 and 8 which she had previously missed. I hope we can continue from here.

--Brant

Post 46

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 11:20pm

Adam, what the hell is going on in post 35, paragraph 2?

Jenn "really got it" from Linz.Why?
She stood by Kelly. Why did she have to stand by Kelly?
Kelly "really got it" from Linz. Why?
She stood by David. Why did she have to stand by David?
David "really got it" from Linz. Why?
Linz wanted a public apology from David. Why?
Blank out.

For someone who gets so angry at the religious right, you using a "do it for the children - pass" seems strange.

Are public apologies really the death of the American family? Are you saying that David would have delivered a public apology if asked privately? Or should David have been asked privately to deliver a private apology for what he did in public?

Post 47

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 12:15am

I know next to nothing about the circumstances surrounding the failed negotiations to repair relations with Jennifer Iannolo, so I'll leave that discussion to the people who know something about it.

On the subject of Linz's occasionally flying off his handle: like some other posters on this thread, I usually enjoy Linz's bluntness. Just once, I'd like to see the next person who gets insulted or berated by Lindsay to respond in kind to his remarks. Those here who are alleging a double standard would be surprised to find that such retorts would not result in moderation or banning. What have not been permitted are out-of-the-blue insults or persistent ad hominem snipings, of the sort we've seen from David Elmore and Justin Raimondo, respectively.

Linz's comments sometimes piss me off too. For instance, he dangles many posters' associations with TOC like a sword of Damocles, ready to plunge whenever they make a post he finds disagreeable. James Heaps-Nelson and I are friends, having met and enjoyed meals together several times last summer. I know that Jim is a wonderful Objectivist and has a lot to contribute to SOLO (why aren't you over on that "ether" thread, Jim?) so I wasn't very happy with Post 8. But that's Jim's bone to pick, and not mine. Jim's herculean patience for Linz's rebukes is one way to deal with him without getting indignant and storming off.

I think a better one would be, as I said before, to throw some of that stuff right back in his face. I know that this doesn't suit the tastes of some posters here. But "taking your ball and going home," as we have rightly chided some for doing recently, is (to my mind) the wuss's way out.

Post 48

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 12:51am

Andrew, I guess this was a "Freudian slip":

"[Linz] dangles many posters' associations with TOC like a sword of Damocles..."

LOL

The "sword of damocles" was hung by the TYRANT Dionysius to teach a court SYCOPHANT Damocles a lesson.

Post 49

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 1:03am

I am not going to get into point-by-point rebuttal with Barbara, but I am going to clear one matter up because the matter of my candour is at stake. Here, Barbara accuses me of dishonesty:

" ... you rescinded your request that she return when Joe said he didn�t want such an �ingrate� on Solo. That accusation is the reason why she finally refused to return. You have not been candid about this episode."

I'm not going to reproduce Jennifer's e-mails without her permission, but the following one on June 18 from me to her shows clearly that she pulled out of the deal we had struck before learning that Joe no longer wanted her back on staff:
________________________

You know, that last stunt was even better than the first - changing your mind after we'd struck a deal. As it stands, Joe is now so pissed that he'll *never* let you back. And if I tried to pull rank & over-rule him, he'd probably leave himself. Fucking great. Well done.

You know, too, I think I'd like to give it another shot some time, & I even entertain the hope that one day we'll be able to look back & laugh at all this. But I'm finding it bloody hard to think kind thoughts of you right now.

That said, my door is always open.

____________________________________

"That last stunt" refers to her pulling out of the deal. ("The first" stunt was Jennifer's highly public & prolonged departure on the basis of a misleadingly selective quotation from one of my posts on the Mind Your Manners thread, as anyone can verify by re-reading the thread.) It would seem that Jennifer has misinformed Barbara that she was still considering returning at that point. She was not. And the term "ingrate" wasn't used till an e-mail subsequent to the one above.

This might seem to be getting down to a James Valliant level of minutiae, but in such circumstances I must set the record straight. Contrary to what Barbara says, I have been entirely candid, as I always am, & do not appreciate having my honesty called into question, to put it mildly.

Linz

Post 50

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 1:10am

Andrew,

About that particular post, I personally am sitting on a hard fence to sit on and, frankly, the splinters are poking really hard into my butt.

I love Barbara - I think I have demonstrated that quite publicly. I love Linz - I think I have demonstrated that quite publicly.

I do hope the issues between them get resolved soon. If promises are made, they are supposed to be kept - and that applies to all who make them, not just to whomever is the object of ire at the moment.

One thing that is pleasing me to no end is that this issue seems to have been reduced to its proper size, which means an exchange of ideas about behavior. No grandstanding. No public exit of Solo section leaders and others. No nonstop moralizing by those left behind. No constant baiting of anybody on either side (despite a few hisses). And no barrage of excessive vituperation and invective (despite a few of growls).

Solo is strong and I like that. And I cannot forget that this was Linz's creation and that makes me love him even more.

That Barbara is staying and fighting it out on her terms makes me love her even more.

Damn fence!

Michael

Post 51

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 1:55am

I agree entirely with Michael's post above. Not to minimise or trivialise my & Joe's differences with Barbara, which are quite deep ... but her staying & fighting is precisely what the others should have done, instead of throwing hissy fits & indulging in protracted operatic farewells. All of us recognise in SOLO something very, very precious & important that should not be cast aside at the first sign of dissension. It unites us more than it divides.

It is repeatedly overlooked in all the prissy petty-moralising that goes on about my treatment of the hissy-fitters that they left�no one was ejected. It's not even true that an apology was "demanded" of Mr. Elmore�he could have withheld his apology & gone on posting under moderation. I can't be expected to know�or respect�that this flies in the face of some stupid convention common to a geographical area of feral inbreds. (Testing, testing, testing ... )

As for Andrew's Admonition to the Aggrieved to "give as good as you get"�again, I agree entirely. For instance, had Jim responded to my derision re splinters in his butt with something like, "In your dreams, Linz," I would have roared with laughter, knowing that I had made my serious point about TOC-type fence-sitting, that it had been ... er ... absorbed, & that its recipient wasn't going to get unduly ... er ... bent out of shape by it. I'm not faulting Jim's actual response; as Andrew says, he deserves praise for not throwing a hissy fit & instead ... er ... taking it in his stride. Generally speaking, good faith, good will & good humour can get us over the awkward patches that are inevitable on a site given over to "rational passion & passionate reason." It's when I sense lack of good faith that I'll come out with all guns blazing. And lack of good faith�"an outcome looking for an excuse"�is exactly what I sensed from the hissy-fitters on this occasion.

Linz

Post 52

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 12:43am

Andrew,

Retorting in kind means giving up your own context--who you are--to the person you are retorting to. Linz is Linz, I am Brant, Barbara is Barbara. We aren't retorting "in kind." We are retorting in our kind, such is the destiny of individualists. If Linz wants to destroy what he has created, who can--who is going to--stop him? Linz is making the Ayn Rand error: That his point of view should be THE point of view, never mind human differences.

--Brant

Post 53

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 2:22am

For those who are calling the "Manners" thread one of Linz's blowups, it is not. Go back and reread the thread. Linz posted with reason and passion. On an issue made difficult by people letting personal feelings overpower their own rationality, Linz has shown more than enough magnanimity and responded well, with Solo's best interest at heart.

JJ

Post 54

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 4:57am

Andrew,

You sly dog. You do not want me on the ether thread. If you think Linz gets worked up... I'll wait until the TOC Conference to show Mr. Nevin the error of his ways, preferably over a cold one :-).

Jim

Post 55

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 5:36am

Tape it, will you - that should be interesting to hear...

Robert

Post 56

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 6:59am

Robert M,

At the risk of a complete thread hijack(and no I don't have time to argue it over there right now) the General Theory of Relativity has been tested in a number of experimental ways, the most famous of which is the gravitational lensing of light during an eclipse. If a strict mass energy equivalence is assumed, the amount by which the light is bent is off by a factor of 2 . The General Theory of Relativity predicted this result perfectly if you work out the tensorial mathematics.

Jim

Post 57

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 8:08am

Dammit Jim,

Get on over to that ehter thread. So 'em who's boss.

Sarah

Post 58

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 10:43am

Linz said, "Generally speaking, good faith, good will & good humour can get us over the awkward patches that are inevitable on a site given over to "rational passion & passionate reason." It's when I sense lack of good faith that I'll come out with all guns blazing. And lack of good faith�"an outcome looking for an excuse"�is exactly what I sensed from the hissy-fitters on this occasion."

I feel the same way. Sometimes you just have to either laugh at or shrug off the antics of those prima donnas who take themselves way too seriously. Linz and Joe were more than fair and these people left voluntarily. Frankly, the only one of the lot I miss at all is Kelly. Jason used to be cool, but changed drastically. Jennifer... way overrated, never liked her but don't make me go there. David was poison and he took the infected ones with him. Big deal. It was a clique. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Time for Solo to brush itself off and carry on with creating an environment for total passion for the total height. We are all individuals with our own styles, some of us are soft and some of us are abrasive. We are who we are and can't please everyone all the time. We can however, try to be civilized and not post drunken rants we will regret later. *hic*

Post 59

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 11:18am