RoR: Forum

Looking at the front page, I was surprised to see that Andrew's request had garnered 40 posts in the discussion thread.

Reading it, I'm not surprised.

However, I do have one question: how is that we seem to spend more time & energy bitching about the trivia than we do about the real issue: life, & how best to live it?

Maybe we need a "SOLO Suggestions & Complaints" section where people can post about what they think needs improving around here, thereby (hopefully) keeping the main discussion threads a little more on-topic.

E.g. I'd *hoped* to find 40 posts regarding the process of writing, submitting & editing articles in this thread.

Post 41

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:32pm

I just want to say that Andrew is doing great, and I'm so glad to have him as a key part of SOLO. He's very bright, funny, and hard-working. And what deeply impresses me is that he's taken an active role to help improve things. There are plenty of people who say they want Objectivism to change the world, but so few are willing to step up and do something about it. This site and organization is blessed with a number of people who take Objectivism seriously, and do what they can to change the world. Instead of sitting and complaining, they stand up and do something about it.

As opposed to those who think of themselves as "customers". They sit and complain, demand that others provide them with intellectual entertainment, minimize the accomplishments of others, exaggerate any problems, and predict failure at every turn. They want others to change the world for them, as they pretend to be generals shouting commands from behind, and whining when others don't do what they ask. That kind of attitude has no relationship with benevolence. I can't think of anything worse than hurling insults from the sidelines. Saying you only hurl the insults because you care just adds insult to injury. If you really cared, you'd step up and contribute.

Phil Coates, you make me sick.

Let me suggest another theory. Things on this site were going great until Phil Coates showed up. Then, after spending months and months saying how horribly malevolent all the people here are, how SOLO has no chance, and how the SOLO staff are doing everything wrong, that attitude caught on. Instead of seeing SOLO for the fantastic and unbelievable accomplishment it is, they took the Phil Coates approach of looking for any blemish, and ignoring every virtue. He was able to keep them so focused on any problems, and distracting from anyone actually working to improve things, that they left believing SOLO offered them nothing.

Well, unlike some others here, I think SOLO is far stronger than it's ever been. Since the so-called decline of SOLO, we've added Julia Brent, Andrew Bissell, and Dean Michael Gores (as the new assistant webmaster) to the staff. Any one of these would have been worth all of the people we lost. Getting all three is a huge boost to SOLO. These three are dedicated to making SOLO reach its potential. On top of that Lindsay is about to start full time work on SOLO. Things are getting better all the time.

Post 42

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:35pm

> Maybe we need a "SOLO Suggestions & Complaints" section [Duncan]

That's a good idea. Then I wouldn't have to take all this crap for complaining in the wrong place.

Post 43

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:44pm

" malevolent all the people here are, how SOLO has no chance, and how the SOLO staff are doing everything wrong" [Joe]

1. ALL the people?

2. NO chance?

3. doing EVERYTHING wrong?

Joe, if you can give exact quotes where I said those things, I will gladly retract them!

If you strip off qualifications or overstate, you can make anyone look bad.

Post 44

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:53pm

If you strip off qualifications or overstate, you can make anyone look bad.

Conversely, if you constantly add qualifications and understate your points, you can often make any bad idea seem palatable.

Post 45

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 11:06pm

Or....

We could get back to the point of this thread and write new articles.

Takers anyone? There's no lack of talent around here.

(Personally, I'm hard at work on my own next go round.)

Andrew is getting way too much time off. He needs to work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work. He's getting so bored he's actually paying attention to this stuff.

//;-)

Michael

Post 46

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 11:13pm

Heh, you get a bonk Michael for a spirited jibe at my work habits. But how can I just leave my own threads to the care of random passersby?

When you see me posting here at 3:00 A.M. Pacific time, then you'll know I'm burning the candle at both ends. ;-)

Post 47

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 11:26pm

Joe wrote:

Well, unlike some others here, I think SOLO is far stronger than it's ever been.

Darn tootin' it is.

Since the so-called decline of SOLO, we've added Julia Brent, Andrew Bissell, and Dean Michael Gores (as the new assistant webmaster) to the staff.� Any one of these would have been worth all of the people we lost.�

Darn tootin' they would have been, and are.

Getting all three is a huge boost to SOLO.� These three are�dedicated to making SOLO reach its potential.� On top of that Lindsay is about to start full time work on SOLO.� Things are getting better all the time.

Darn tootin' they are.

Great post.

Post 48

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 11:56pm

>" if you constantly add qualifications and understate your points, you can often make any bad idea seem palatable."

So what you are saying is that: you don't actually have to read what a person *actually says* in the way that it is said? You just use your psychic powers to infer that the person has -understated- what he actually believes, and then you infer the worst possible, most hypocritical, most dishonest, hidden-agenda motives?

Such as trying to deliberately destroy Solo rather than improve it so could succeed, even though I have never said such a thing...and the motivation for that would be unfathomable.

Philip Coates

Why don't you just let Joe reply to my three questions in post 43?

Post 49

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 12:02am

Andrew,

Bonk right back atcha - and I think I just pushed you to 4 Atlas thingies.

Michael

Post 50

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 1:30am

If you strip off qualifications or overstate, you can make anyone look bad.

Phil, my statements are not needed to make you look bad. You do that plenty fine yourself. The theme of your posts has been quite clear. I don't think I owe you the benefit of the doubt to assume you have exceptions to your repeated generalizations.

You like to complain about how other people are changing the world. What makes you think we care what you think?

And your theory of benevolence is all wrong. That's obvious from how you apply it. In the name of benevolence, you attacked Adam Reed for defending himself. In the name of benevolence, you attacked everyone who upholds objective standards in art so that the subjectivists wouldn't have their feelings hurt. When I discussed our policy with respect to Barbara Branden (not letting her posts, even through others), and specifically explained that it doesn't not mean you can't mention her or her work, you went ahead and malevolently interpreted it to be the worst kind of ARI tripe (and weren't benevolent enough to apologize even after seeing that it wasn't true, opting for a footnote to try to find something wicked in our policy). You constantly put down SOLO, the administration, and now our editor and current authors. You blame the SOLO administration for childish behavior of the participants, I guess expecting that we can make people act mature. You defend people who have actually violated our rights, while invoking the term benevolence. And as I said before, you minimize people's accomplishments and predict doom and gloom.

The theory clearly has some problems in practice. I wonder how it is you got benevolence so completely wrong? I have a few theories.

But for now, I just wanted you and everyone else to know I'm tired of your crap. If you aren't willing to step up and make a positive contribution, then quit complaining. We don't exist for your benefit. The activists on the SOLO staff work hard, usually without even being thanked. It's volunteer work. And despite what you think, we actually have a pretty good idea of what we're doing. If you have suggestions, we're happy to listen. If you have demands, take them elsewhere.

Post 51

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:02am

Joe, you've obviously drawn your conclusions about what I've said over a long period of time (and my intentions) in your long "bill of indictments" third paragraph [post 50].

And others are certainly free to go back and read my actual posts and draw their own conclusions about whether yours is an accurate summary.

So I will just drop this debate which is only progressively becoming more personal and negative. And the attempt to change Solo to fit my standards of civility and benevolence.

Phil

Post 52

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:49am

If ever there was a place where tyranny ruled, or was teeth-ahead-of-nose, without an eye-flash off to the side for a single glimpse at a different world-view, it�s SOLO, despite what its kings might claim. What a fake is this SOLOism. How can anyone state that modern-day music is evil in one sentence and then in the next never reveal any evidence as to what the emotions might be that are being felt by the so-called loser listeners? I don�t personally care a shit about most modern-day music myself. I hate a lot, love a lot. Modern music was just the first easy attack on SOLO of which I could think. What I�ve noticed in here, being SOLO, over many, many months, is that many many many people are trying to make out that issues are bigger than they are just so they can release their Objectivism-rooted repression-anger. Oh listen to the roar of indignation, all that fake sense of life. You people aren�t just a joke, or a growing one, but a serious one. You look like children to the real life-lovers. No, not farmer-life-lovers, although they would bring a good shag our way now and then. I mean big, massive, sky-eye-sized minds. The kind of rousing souls that most certainly don�t � and almost couldn�t � swoop down and slap a crum for being a crum. What big wings would have time to do that? Get a life you silly SOL Objectivists, stilted cowards. The only reason you�re following the king here is that a) he�s sticky, b) he�s a bully, c) you�d have nothing better to do if you ditched him, d) it gives you pleasure being an addict, ie. being accepted by him, and z) I�ve finally run out of reasons. Anyway, where was I? Modern music, yeah. Well no. Like it as I might, I�d rather sleep and dream of proper heroes, not the fakes in here. Oh, you�re not all fakes, just the head-heroes, whose fake manliness, fake seriousness, fake maturity, and fake passion enrages bulleting horses out of my mouth. To everyone who�s left SOLO, good on you. Everyhting I�ve said above was just flowers. All I really want to say is go, leave. Please. The false titans here probably won't even post this anyway.

Post 53

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:28am

Dawniec,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Dayaamm! That was one funny post. LOLOLOLOLOL...

Phil,

May I make a suggestion? If you are so interested in changing others, why not start with yourself? You can change so many things by example. Be a hero and noble. Others will see it.

That is a decisions that I came to years ago. If I wanted to change the world, I had to start with myself.

Solo rocks. I am proud to be a part of it. I am proud that my ideas are both agreed with and disagreed with by many fine minds here who care. It will all work out in the end. Reason and truth always prevail. Always.

Michael

Post 54

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:53am

Mr. Coates,
Your position is that you wish to make some people better by imposing your standards of benevolence and civility, correct?

I'm going to assume this is correct, and so I carry on with my post....

I understand your want for those to be better than they are, but you must see that it's futile to attempt to change(improve) them. Let me make clear that I'm talking about people in general, not just here on SOLO.

The kind of people that would change at suggestion aren't the type of people that you want to change the world, it's already happened, those people have shaped it. The world we live in now is that of those people.

My understanding of the people here at SOLO, is that at least they have they're own opinions and they have the desire to change the world into a better place. This is already more than you can expect from anyone.

Before I begin to ramble, what I'm trying to say is that it's wrong for you to try to improve anyone if they have not invited you personally to do so.

-William Bardel

P.S. This is as complicated as the issue needs to be. That's it. There shouldn't be any insinuations of malevolence or hate or destruction. Everyone should be taken at their word, not at what they "might" be "implying".

(Edited by William Bardel on 9/27, 10:55am)

Post 55

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 2:56pm

Upon examination of what can now be looked upon as the "Phil Dossier"...

Phil has committed no foul other than wanting something that will never fully be. Hopefully, what is will provide sufficient bounty for him. Certainly, he has not performed any transgression that even falls within cannonball range of some of the things people have done around here. I am not sure that the punishment (such as it is, mainly involving editorial scolding, and being presented with a brutal, yet darkly funny award that was clearly custom-designed for him) even fits the "crime".

Joe, I was suprised that it rubbed you so hard. There is generally always someone that makes a misguided action in places like this at any given moment. The man has no malevolence in what he writes. Whining is annoying, but it is not malevolent.

Michael has said it best. To my knowledge, it is the only way that works- here, and in most group settings.

best
rde

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/27, 2:59pm)

Post 56

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 3:16pm

All I really want to say is go, leave. Please. The false titans here probably won't even post this anyway.

Funny the things you let fly when you think you're going to be censored anyway.

But on a more serious note I think I'm in the minority here but I think's Joe's assessment was pretty dead on.

---Landon

Post 57

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 9:14pm

Damn it Andrew! It's 12:15 a.m. EST(which is the Platonic Ideal as far as time zones go), and where are the articles for the new day? You slacker. ;)

Post 58

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:41pm