• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Major Update to OL (please click to open)   02/09/2016

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but we had to update OL and there have been some serious changes made by IPB. The real bad news is that they had to merge User Names and Display Names. This meant that I had to choose between bad and bad. I opted to keep the log-on information the same, so you can get on OL like you always did, but now your User Name is displayed. If your User Name and Display Name were the same, you will not feel the change. If they were different, you are probably irritated right now. I will figure out how you can change this so you can revert to the Display Name you used before if you like, however this may entail a change in how you log-on. The good news is that OL is now searchable from the very beginning. This means all the old posts from the A-Team in Objectivism (and everybody else) will finally show up when you search for something. I will keep changing this announcement as we adapt to these new changes. It's a pain, I know, but after looking around the backend for a bit, I believe the benefits will far, far outweigh the current irritation. They changed things in a hamhanded way and I don't like that, but I can't do anything about it. Benefit-wise, they actually did a good job, so please bear with us. In addition to this change, many good things are coming over time. You are the reason OL exists and I am sorry you have to go through this. Think of it like birth pangs... (All right, all right, that's forcing it.  ) Michael
Philip Coates

Posting Guidelines and Insulting Behavior

160 posts in this topic

Thread: Posting Guidelines and Insulting Behavior

Subject: Time for Me to Leave

(1) To the site owner: "Did you issue a 'public warning' to anyone else on these current threads?"

(2) Answer: "No.....Please do not call people names like cunt."

Was it acceptable over the last few days for George H. Smith to REPEATEDLY call me a liar, an evader, a scumbag? Why didn't you "publicly warn" him? And he's done the same constant insulting thing with Shayne (and, if I recall Ted before that.)

Also, on the other thread -- "bad boys, swagger deficit", Jonathan has been making a whole series of similar comments:

"[Phil] not only craves attention but is also a bit of a moron and quite an asshole." [post 76]

"Wow, what a total idiot." [post 77]

"you're behaving like an idiot, a moron, an asshole and a schoolmarm...it is therefore just, fair and reasonable for you to be called those things." [post 84]

"Hey, fuckhead" [post 95]

"Stop leaving your shit-stain on every thread " [post 95]

"Good job, Shitstain! You've left your scent all over yet another thread." [post 101]

"Your nature is to be a schoolmarm asshole." [post 106]

Are those less offensive and less repeated than the single word I used? NO REASON TO MAKE A PUBLIC ISSUE OF WHAT HE SAID, IS THERE?

.......

OL POSTING GUIDELINES: "The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. "

Michael, you are a facilitator of insult, smearing, and character assassination. You "enable" and allow the vilest kinds of insult and humiliation from people you side with. But you don't apply the same standard with others - like Ted Keer beforehand and now me. You've never asked those on the other side of these flame wars to cut it out: "If you're going to disagree with Phil, please do so politely."

Why not?

In fact, you even make supportive jokes after George or Jonathan has called me immoral or the equivalent.

I will be leaving: I won't be insulted and villified over and over....and then be 'warned' when I respond, but have the perpetrators allowed to continue to insult me and question my character. And just be given an abrupt, dismissive "No" when I ask if you are going to warn the other parties to the exchanges.

BOTTOM LINE:

I will never post on your site again. I would prefer not to have anything further to do with you or to communicate with you again. Quite frankly, your weakness and double standards disgust me.

Edited by Philip Coates
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you, Phil. I'm glad for you. I'd rather see you go with all your flags flying than anything else I can imagine.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun is shining; the birds are singing; the country's going to hell, but I digress.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now George, Jonathan, JR, Ellen and I can turn on ourselves, proving to Phil it wasn't about him, it was about our nasty uses.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you spell relief? R E L I E F!!

--Brant

has he really left or is it all a good dream?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, where were we?

--Brant

I was watching Demetrius and the Gladiators. Make of it what you will.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, where were we?

--Brant

I was watching Demetrius and the Gladiators. Make of it what you will.

With Victor Manure?

JR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Phil finally accepted the fact that he isn't the one who makes the rules here.

(Whew! It took long enough!)

But it seems to have pissed him off.

:)

(For anyone watching this unfold without knowing much about the history, there is a history if you feel like going back and reading a lot of stuff, not only here on OL, but also on some other forums and blogs.

But here's a small explanation of the way I try to run this site--regardless of history. I make many exceptions to my rules--I call it flexibility--in order to keep as open an atmosphere as possible. For example, when two posters go at it on isolated threads and get pretty nasty to each other, I generally try to let them work out their differences.

But when a situation becomes so over-the-top that it shuts down discussion after discussion involving many different posters and threads, and it just keeps repeating for the same reasons and never gets any better, I try to get the main trouble-maker to settle down. After that, I worry about the others if they need attention, explanations or whatever. This usually pisses off the main trouble-maker, but the way I see it, such person shouldn't be trouble-making over and over to begin with.

Is my way the best way? I don't know. It's the best I have found and it works pretty well so far.)

For the record, Phil is not moderated or anything. I actually feel bad for him. I hope he reflects on his public posting manner and why he keeps getting the same results wherever he goes.

If not, well... not...

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, where were we?

--Brant

I was watching Demetrius and the Gladiators. Make of it what you will.

With Victor Manure?

JR

The very same. Who after retiring with a tidy fortune applied for membership to a golf club who told him, "We do not accept actors." And he replied, "Hell, I'm no actor, and I've got 49 movies to prove it."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you spell relief? R E L I E F!!

--Brant

has he really left or is it all a good dream?

How many times has he done this already? Hate to spoil your reverie, but he’ll be back, same as before.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give this self-imposed cease-fire 24 hours. 48 tops.

If he can make it through the weekend, he will be on the Road to Recovery.

At the 1 week mark, Phil will wake up and wonder why he ever posted here. The smell of the Internets will offend him, food will taste better, and he will have an itch to "do something." After a month, Phil will have run his first 10k. After 6 months, his first marathon. I expect a book within 12 months: My Wasted Years on OL: And I Never Even Got a Lousy T-Shirt. Finally, within 18 months, I see him opening for either Tony Robbins or the Good General Mr. Colin Powell, retired.

This is the usual progression with these things.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have already left, Phil, then I am talking to the wind.

I think I have an up to date email address for you but you might want to send it to people you care to associate with so you can keep in touch.

When you are objective and not emotional the quality of your posts is excellent, no it’s beyond ‘A; work, on OL and on OWL.

Consider this. Ghs has defended a "Will O' The Wisp" for thirty years and has never described it, pointed at it, or attempted a scenario in all that time. He defends his illogical stance by ATTACKING constitutional government, Ayn Rand, and anyone who thinks ill of his concept which lacks a referent in reality: his chaos, his anarchy. He is a world class attack hound.

When you come up against people like that fight them. They will call in reinforcements as needed. They will analyze your weaknesses. When you see that standing your ground is leaving you drained, ignore them.

I have discovered a useful mental device. Whenever you hear the word "anarchist" IMMEDIATELY substitute the word, "crook." Then the anarchist dissolves into the monstrous “shape shifter” that he is.

There are plenty of rooms here on OL where you will not run into crooks. Stay in the brightly lit rooms. Avoid the dark streets with pockets of loiterers. Never enter the bars in old Dodge City without your badge and posse of deputies with shotguns to back you up. The dirty buggers won't fight fair.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real tragedy of Phil's apparent departure from OL is, of course, the fact that he was right all along. I must say that I am shocked and deeply saddened to see the rampant context dropping that is going on around here with respect to this debacle. People seem to forget that Phil was fighting for his very life. He had been (as William Scherk so eloquently put it) "viciously attacked, denigrated, robbed of due respect, harried, hounded, unacknowledged for polite and respectful disagreement on intellectual matters, denied recognition for important points made, insulted, demeaned, snarked at, and belittled." What would you have him do? Under the circumstances, keeping the context firmly in mind, I submit that using the "c" word to address Ellen was the only action Phil could take that was both civil and benevolent.

Sadly,

JR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching Demetrius and the Gladiators. Make of it what you will.

With Victor Manure?

JR

The very same. Who after retiring with a tidy fortune applied for membership to a golf club who told him, "We do not accept actors." And he replied, "Hell, I'm no actor, and I've got 49 movies to prove it."

Priceless, lol! Mature (he himself chose the name 'Manure' :D) obviously had a remarkable sense of humor. :)

Edited by Xray
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching Demetrius and the Gladiators. Make of it what you will.

With Victor Manure?

JR

The very same. Who after retiring with a tidy fortune applied for membership to a golf club who told him, "We do not accept actors." And he replied, "Hell, I'm no actor, and I've got 49 movies to prove it."

Priceless, lol! Mature (he himself chose the name 'Manure' :D) obviously had a remarkable sense of humor. :)

I think you misread that Angela.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you spell relief? R E L I E F!!

--Brant

has he really left or is it all a good dream?

How many times has he done this already? Hate to spoil your reverie, but he’ll be back, same as before.

So sad, when good love goes bad

- Phil and Don

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff Riggenbach wept:

The real tragedy of Phil's apparent departure from OL is, of course, the fact that he was right all along.

End quote

He very well may be. Since you are trying to lampoon him on his thread, like a hideous protester at a fallen heroes funeral I will comment.

After his sincere sounding elegy, JR goes on in faux Shakespearean style to mock Phil. A malevolent skunk like JR does not change his stripe. He pisses noxious fumes onto life’s annoyances. Phil Coates is not the vicious evader here.

Does Objectivism lead to Rational Planned Anarchy? If a person begins with a theory, uses the tenets of that theory as proof and then says the steps validate all conclusions, but one, how do we know?

“Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of acquiring and validating knowledge.” What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? How do we know what we know?

When describing a political theory that has never been tried, like planned anarchy, it must be described in detail, like a scientific theory, or a business plan. Facts of its existence must be presented. “Here it is,” the proponent of planned anarchy might say, “The facts of its existence are shown by the blueprints.”

A simple example would be a neighborhood agreement for a new housing development. To buy a home there you must read, understand, and sign the agreement. Mow your grass, and no garish lawn ornaments might be two rules. Signing is voluntary, which meets the *constant consent* requirement of anarchy.

Where’s the plan for anarchy? How do we know and show it for what it is? How was this knowledge of anarchy discovered? How do we prove it is true or not true? What happens when one anarchic territory with certain voluntary agreements collides with its neighbor? What happens the second time, the third time, and tomorrow, on into the future?

It can’t be proved by trying to disprove constitutional government. No philosophical double negatives allowed.

It can’t be proved by past writings like a complex mathematical formula such as relativity. Each stop of a mathematical proof can be shown to be logically, mathematically true. The writings of present and past people are not necessarily proof, unless painstakingly translated into math or, more debatably, symbolic logic.

It must be open to peer review. It must be verifiable by different experiments. Above all, The Anarchic Plan must be put into action and this has never been done. If Rational Anarchists like Jeff are sincere, and not a bunch of skunks, they must prove it. Show the world. Shower Objectivists with proof. We won’t be bothered by drops of truth.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misread that Angela.

What was it that I misread?

Edited by Xray
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I tried to follow your logic going from Jeff's lampooning of Phil to your rant against anarchy, but I couldn't find the connection.

btw - Several times in the past, Phil has made public announcements on OL that he would no longer post here for this grave problem or that. He started one thread I specifically remember to say that, while at other times he has posted within threads. (There might be more threads he started to tell folks he's going bye-bye forever, but I don't recall right now and don't feel like looking.)

He's always come back. Maybe he won't this time. I don't know. But if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on him staying gone for good.

Can you imagine John Galt giving his radio speech, saying, "I have gone on strike because you people unfairly called me names and were uncivil." And then return? And then do it again and again?

I can't, but I can imagine Phil doing it.

:)

I'm going to stop before I start saying cruel things. I actually like Phil.

Anyway, with all this kindergarten stuff swirling around about Phil (for the upteenth time on this forum), I'm starting to get flashes of the movie, What About Bob?

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I tried to follow your logic going from Jeff's lampooning of Phil to your rant against anarchy, but I couldn't find the connection.

btw - Several times in the past, Phil has made public announcements on OL that he would no longer post here for this grave problem or that. He started one thread I specifically remember to say that, while at other times he has posted within threads. (There might be more threads he started to tell folks he's going bye-bye forever, but I don't recall right now and don't feel like looking.)

He's always come back. Maybe he won't this time. I don't know. But if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on him staying gone for good.

Can you imagine John Galt giving his radio speech, saying, "I have gone on strike because you people unfairly called me names and were uncivil." And then return? And then do it again and again?

I can't, but I can imagine Phil doing it.

:)

I'm going to stop before I start saying cruel things. I actually like Phil.

Anyway, with all this kindergarten stuff swirling around about Phil (for the upteenth time on this forum), I'm starting to get flashes of the movie, What About Bob?

:)

Michael

I was thinking more of Groundhog Day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

I tried to follow your logic going from Jeff's lampooning of Phil to your rant against anarchy, but I couldn't find the connection.

END QUOTE

JR is an anarchist, or did I miss something? They are the Forrest Gumps of philosophy : o ) Phil is an Objectivist like in the title of this site - A cursing one, but still one of the good guys.

I just wish one anarchist will be intellectually honest and bring forward a model, other than "I will do what I want to do and they will do what they want, and we are all sufficiently rational to live happily ever after." Their anarchy is simply a rant against the best system we have devised up until today, with no blueprint, no history of anarchism other than the unintentional / emergency lack of government to protect rights. Or we see anarchic territories when humans flee totalitarianism. Soon, the "freer" territory has a sheriff - always have, always will.

I missed the beginning of Beck. He is making fun of Obama who is speaking against coal powered plants.

Peter

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misread that Angela.

What was it that I misread?

Angela:

My apologies, he did nickname himself that and "that beautiful hunk of junk" see Victor Manure and that beautiful hunk of junk were names he made for himself

Priceless, lol! Mature (he himself chose the name 'Manure' :D) obviously had a remarkable sense of humor. :)

Victor did have a great sense of humor, as Carol pointed out, but our resident expert on language, JR, came up with Victor "Manure," which is hilarious, and we all know that JR has a great sense of humor that ranges from droll to deadly with a side trip to demonic [with respects to Mr. Roberts].

Adam

at least that's the way I read it

Edited by Selene
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I agree that Phil is a good guy, but I don't agree that his only problem is cussing. (In the cussing department alone, it's more like--to paraphrase Aristotle--knowing how to cuss at the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way.That's never been easy for Phil. :) )

I view and treat anarchists differently than you. When they get overly negative or snarky, I remember that they are committed to nonviolence initiation-wise. So there's nothing to fear from them.

I can't imagine ever needing to take up arms against one.

Since I trust my own mind in things I have thought through, and since I try to think through the important stuff from the ground up, and I am not easily intimidated by snark. it's all good. What are they going to do to me when they disagree?

Laugh?

Say they disagree?

Get mad?

Well...

OK.

:)

You called anarchists crooks above. I call them pussycats.

:)

The bad guys for me are ones who want to beat me up and/or kill me, take my stuff, destroy what I produce, organize into gangs to do it with more effectiveness, etc. And they do this to people I value (including innocents everywhere).

I haven't found those kinds of folks among anarcho-capitalists yet. Maybe I will one day, but until that day comes...

(meow...)

:)

There's another thing, too. Ancaps are some of the most intelligent people I've met, so their arguments are often excellent premise-checks for me. I have a tendency toward being a true-believer that I constantly keep an eye on. It's embarrassing, but what the hell. I might as well admit it. You can't fix a problem unless you identify it.

I've always been that way, too. One of my striking characteristics as a child was excessive gullibility when I trusted someone. People used to set me up all the time because of that and laugh when I fell for their crap. Sometimes it would backfire.

My mother and father once told me my middle name was not what they had told me since birth. I must have been about 10 or 11 at the time. They laughed up a storm when I finally accepted it. But they didn't laugh so much when a truant officer showed up at our house wanting to know what was going on and why I was going all over the place trying to change all my public records. :)

When I finally fell for Rand, I FELL. Instant Randroid. (I've got stories and stories, but they are too many for here.) It took the longest time and more heartache than I care to remember to get out of that mindset in terms of the bad part--the sweet poison of blind allegiance, but still keep the good part--the vision and dreams.

Discussing things with ancaps keeps me honest to myself in that department. It keeps my concepts honed razor-sharp and alerts me to when I am taking too much on faith (i.e., without verifying it) from someone.

I am grateful to those who can prove me wrong when they can do it. And I'm grateful to those who make me look at my own ideas from different angles, especially when I end up concluding I am more sure I am right than before because I had to look deep into the idea and my understanding withstood the test of logic.

If ancaps have beliefs I don't go along with (and they have a few),

Well...

OK.

(meow...)

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victor did have a great sense of humor, as Carol pointed out, but our resident expert on language, JR, came up with Victor "Manure," which is hilarious, and we all know that JR has a great sense of humor that ranges from droll to deadly with a side trip to demonic [with respects to Mr. Roberts].

I didn't come up with "Victor Manure," Adam. It was something my father used to say when I was a kid, and I doubt he came up with it either. I'm not sure if Xray is right that Mature himself came up with it, but he might well have.

JR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now