Eiuol

I find it interesting to point out that you actually visit and post on OO and OL, yet aren't being hostile towards me. GHS and Brant have been hostile, yet don't visit OO. Jonathan visits both, accepted my apology, and moved on. As far as I see, the hostile people misunderstand entirely what the point of moderation is on OO. It is only about civility, which is apparently harder to get around here - even though I explicitly gave an apology for a specific action which was *accepted* by the person whom the apology was directed at. Your post is very good, whYNOT.

Oh, now I'll throw out my True Word of Ayn Rand guidebook, the one all of us moderators get.

I suppose I have to leave it at "I need to gain trust". I have no particular credentials to present anyway, so I'd be needing to gain trust in any case. I understand taking a presumption.

That's an interesting idea I haven't explored much. My interest in the Objectivist community, in terms of actual community as opposed to reading books by various Objectivist intellectuals, hasn't strayed far from my origins so to speak, so I don't have any public image to even promote. Then again, since I have a strong interest in having Objectivism become more widely known and accepted at least as good, having a more solid identity would be useful once I have some "big" plan in mind. My first name isn't even that majorly secret, given that Mikee already figured it out, but it still doesn't tell you anything about me. Really all I'm missing is a last name. If anything, my real name is more anonymous to you than my online name.

I can and could present an argument where judgments of beauty can have an indirect relationship with "man's life" as a relevant consideration in inducing a concept of beauty. But that's a tangent and not the reason for the post delete. In any case, if you wish, I can explain my reasoning for the post delete, but I think it's moot now anyway. It wasn't that you were deviating from a "party line" position. For some reason people seem to think OO is the place for the "party line" Peikoff dogmatists. Sure, there are some of those on the site who have that type of viewpoint (none of which are mods), but I can only think of two such posters post much since the last ~4 months. Then again, there are people who are no longer mods, so I can't speak for their actions before I was a mod. Yes, I'm saying I misjudged. I wrote: "I'm the one who hid it since it appeared to me you were trying to misconstrue some of Rand's statements when I'm sure you know better, and you say it contradicts Oist aesthetics to just say later/eventually all of Oist aesthetics is stupid anyway. " Is the only thing I think is relevant to say from my PMs, because as I said, those words are based on a misjudged premise of your intention. I don't have a reason to mention my real name since I don't use Facebook even. I have no other online identity really. I can't speak for the others, though I don't think it's any more unusual than other sites where there are a mix of users who are private or relatively open. MSK, thanks for the greeting. I might visit the epistemology section of the site because that's my main area of interest.

It's not my real name, no. All you know about me is that I'm the moderator mentioned by Jonathan. I just don't want a moderator team to be misconstrued as a big brother cabal that gets together every week to judge who is a "real" Objectivist, based off of one moderated post. I doubt as much is actively moderated as you think.

Jonathan, since I do browse the Interwebs and other goings on in the world of Objectivism and you are talking about me, I should defend myself as I see fit. I believe you misunderstood my reasons for deleting the post in question, was primarily my only judgment of an inappropriate comments at a particular member, while throwing in my own habit to tangents and responding to the content of your post even when moderating something else about the post. Plus, dare I say, my fallibility is in play about judging intentions, intentions which I now believe I was mistaken about. If you are going to post about me though and reference me specifically, at least go as far as to copy what I wrote in the PM to you so people can judge for themselves if it was an effort at censorship of ideas or of me being ignorant (about one single post!), or of you misinterpreting what I said to you. What you presented is without the context of anything I said to you. It disappoints me that accusations of irrationality and idiocy crop up like this.