Enter the Dean


deanwins

Recommended Posts

Michael,

Thanks for your support. I'm just trying to clarify exactly what Brant means, especially since it is so damning and inclusive, particularly in seemingly including me, which I have yet to have him spell out for me. If he responds that I should look up in the dictionary the word "all"... then we have the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brant

"You are only Joe's children over there and that's where the paterfamilias comes from."

"I despise [Joe's] paterfamilias."

Such statements would lead me to deduce that you despise me.

"If your moderation priviledges are so light why was Robert put on moderation? What will you be looking for?"

Your first question doesn't really make sense, the former not related to the latter. I accept things that seem obviously acceptable. If its obvious spam (genuine scam stuff and off topic advertisements) I delete. Otherwise I just leave them in the queue for Teresa or Joe to decide. Sometimes I make mistakes. Your recent posts at RoR were not in themselves inflammatory, but I'm not sure now what your intentions were: Given that your prior history with "Robert" was inflammatory, then maybe it was your intention to incite him over Joe's line. "Why was Robert put on moderation?": ask Joe... but it probably had something to do with his posting obsession with OL/MSK.

Edit: Re #136... this is how I interpreted your posts at RoR by just reading the words.

Dean,

136? I was just being funny. (This thread.)

My first post in the contretempts on R or R reads badly for me in that it addresses something that hadn't happened, as I've explained above. So I explained it on R of R.

I don't have a beef with what you do there as you explain it. I could do that too. I'd have an impossible job running a site like Michael does here for he's much more expansive psychologically than I am. I don't despise you. Actually, I admire you and your professional success. How I feel about Joe doesn't spill over to you. We all know people we bounce off for various reasons. I bounce off him 100%. Conversely note how quickly we can like someone, even without thinking about it. There's a lot of genes involved, but it's not the whole story. Particularly, I don't appreciate how Joe comported himself and R of R back in 2005 in the context of all the animadversion brought down on the Brandens via Valliant's screed of a book. Too much bad history but you are out of that loop even though you spend time over there doing what you call moderating which is not the same thing at all as commonly understood in these forums. Michael has done some moderating here--he had too--a few times. And a few times he's outright banned. Why if he were to dare ban me I'd start my own web site and drive OL out of business with my superior product (cost one million dollars to join--hey! I'll only need one sale!--it costs a lot of money to superiorize your product!) causing him to collapse in a paroxysm of envy.

Going back and reading my posts about this here I can see why my using this thread caused you to think I was trying to dump on you. If we x out the moderation misunderstandings we can x that out as well though that wasn't that much in my head at the time beef-wise. Sorry for all this. I'm more sorry for Robert on R of R for that damage can't be fixed. I went there in my mistakeness because I really like the guy; now he hates me; now he hasn't got a posting home unless he endures moderation. It doesn't matter if all he writes goes through it for won't generally go through fast enough for conversation.

--Brant

I don't despise "Joe's children"--that's what I think his implicit perspective is, not theirs

maybe you could tell Joe I won't be back and to give Robert another chance--I won't ever post there again regardless--and I notice he was put on moderation a mere ten minutes after his last post reacting to my last post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never known Brant to be manipulative.

Ever.

Outspoken at times?

OK.

Aggressive at times?

OK

Manipulative?

I just don't see it.

That's not Brant.

I admit, I never tried my hand at being a lady with a whip, so who knows what I'll think if my perspective ever changes?

:smile:

Michael

I came pretty close with my last post over there. I was counterpunching Robert after his go back to your "master" crap in a way he shouldn't have responded to, but even there I wasn't trying to get him banned and I didn't think he'd respond, but 10 minutes after he did he was placed on moderation. His general my-way-or-the-highway posting style did him in since it wasn't his highway. It also did him in here. I'm afraid Jules--his primary antagonist on R of R--nailed it: he wasn't long for being not moderated anyway.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Re: Brandens... that was a terrible fiasco. I wasn't involved because I don't really care that much about Rand's personal life. To me its like gossip about a movie star. Honestly I didn't really follow what happened... so I don't know what Joe did or who said what. I guess it falls along the lines of trying to adopt and communicate 100% consistent Rand's Objectivism versus being objective & self interested, and doing your best to discover the truth, whether you are fully in agreement with Rand/LP or not.

For academic purposes I think its helpful for some people to know very well what Rand said/thought, and to defend her, since I do think she put together a lot of great ideas. Starting from her, I think people could be much more successful in their life on Earth than any other philosophy/religion known to me. Particularly the metaphysics and epistomology. Except I can't say I agree with the details of what Rand thought about how the human mind works, although definately she's way better than postmodernists and the typical subjectivist. Ethics... I think they are worth studying, but I don't think Rand's generalization of humans applies to all individuals, which tears apart homo sapien's preference of systemic capitalism into factions.

Edit: Woops I meant #148 not #136. It was just a coincidence that #136 was a post by you. Updated my post above...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give a man enough rope..dayum now that he isss pretty much gone I have to console myself that I am once again the dumbest poster on RoR. Im good with that, being in the company of engineers, rocket scientists and psychologists and Ed where the hell is ED? I hope he is ok!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I want to state that it wasn't my intention to go there and get Robert B. moderated..."

I knew that was your intention when you showed up and I thought it was small minded and petty of you. Now that you're lying about it I think you'd have to look up a ways to get to small minded and petty. I think I need a long break from the fragile egos in both places. What a waste.

Can I say it again? My first post was a mistake. I thought Robert had continued with his forbidden stuff but he hadn't. That's what I said in my second post. I had misread Robert's posting dates. My last post was a straight arm to the chest for Robert's nonsense. Now, WTF have I lied about? It's not my intention for it's what I said and I know it better than anyone.

--Brant

You could have easily sent a pm to Robert if your intention was based on goodwill towards him. Posting on the thread got the reaction you hoped for. Throw ten thousand words at it, it still is what it is.

"...it's what I said and I know it better than anyone." Save that, along with the phrase "I never lie, I should know better than anyone".

Robert was sincere in trying to open a dialog about different issues. He has a unique perspective and position and I believe truly concerned about the state of our culture and government from an insiders view. He is intelligent and voluble. He brought the possibility of actual new information content and perspective, rather than engage him he was subjected to unabated insult and baiting. He took the bait, not hard to predict, congratulations, the mirror gazers and personality mongers won the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I want to state that it wasn't my intention to go there and get Robert B. moderated..."

I knew that was your intention when you showed up and I thought it was small minded and petty of you. Now that you're lying about it I think you'd have to look up a ways to get to small minded and petty. I think I need a long break from the fragile egos in both places. What a waste.

Can I say it again? My first post was a mistake. I thought Robert had continued with his forbidden stuff but he hadn't. That's what I said in my second post. I had misread Robert's posting dates. My last post was a straight arm to the chest for Robert's nonsense. Now, WTF have I lied about? It's not my intention for it's what I said and I know it better than anyone.

--Brant

You could have easily sent a pm to Robert if your intention was based on goodwill towards him. Posting on the thread got the reaction you hoped for. Throw ten thousand words at it, it still is what it is.

"...it's what I said and I know it better than anyone." Save that, along with the phrase "I never lie, I should know better than anyone".

Robert was sincere in trying to open a dialog about different issues. He has a unique perspective and position and I believe truly concerned about the state of our culture and government from an insiders view. He is intelligent and voluble. He brought the possibility of actual new information content and perspective, rather than engage him he was subjected to unabated insult and baiting. He took the bait, not hard to predict, congratulations, the mirror gazers and personality mongers won the day.

Yeah, PM was the way to go. Another mistake. Didn't think of it as I seldom use it regardless. I'd rather lie than make a mistake. I once called 911--by mistake it turned out (the mistake of not being God)--and a man died because of that. Repetition is the key. Make a mistake and next time you likely won't, but all you can do with a dead man is put him in the ground. No rinse and repeat.

--Brant

maybe your real beef is with Joe Rowlands; you're not getting anyplace here with me; have you noticed yet that the only thing he wants to do with the Roberts who post on his site is get rid of them?; and have you noticed that no one has posted anything there in nearly 24 hours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Okay. You are not a liar and it was not your intention to have Robert silenced in both places. A mistake. But it sure looked like it when you showed up after not being on RoR since I don't remember when. I have had differences with Joe Rowland in the past and didn't get anywhere. I don't feel like starting in again. I have noticed the lack of activity.

I stand by my comments about Robert. He had something to offer. There is no such thing as Objectivist activism, though all of the elements of individualism, respect for reason and humanity and human progress are all there. There is no single point that the Marxists, socialists, progressives rabble on about that the methods of reason and objectivity and respect for real human rights that objectivism offers doesn't answer better. But the Objectivist community (perhaps .01%?) is filled with self righteous mirror gazers who could care less about identifying and offering workable solutions that truly comport with human nature. Most people are not interested in Objectivist history trivia, who did what to who when. The majority don't have IQ's of 140+ and aren't interested in trying to understand ITOE in order to be in with the in crowd. But people are not stupid. Markets work, capitalism works because the majority is not stupid. Our politics is broken because people get away with telling lies with no consequences. Our system of government is broken and needs to be fixed. Where are the objectivist solutions? Where is the plan? Where is the activism? Beyond telling people they're evil and fucked up. They're not, they're self interested but misinformed. In engineering troubleshooting the number one rule is "Understand the system". Robert could offer insight but was rejected. Again, what a waste.

Be well old man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, did I miss something? I've been very busy this past year, and occasionally haven't visited OL for weeks at a time, and therefore I may not know everything that's been going on. Is Robert banned from posting here at OL?

From my perspective (which is admittedly minimally informed), it looks like a bunch of people are being little Sensitive Susie crybaby wusses over nothing.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

He wanted to determine what he could and could not do on OL based on his own understanding and neurosis. If I remember correctly, the last straw was a campaign he kept up insisting that I ban Greg. (I think that's it, but I would have to look to be 100% sure.)

I told him he did not set the rules and he asked for guidelines. I gave him three (don't piss on the forum owner and things like that). He said he could do the first two but refused to consider the third until I made him understand it to his satisfaction (basically stop making a fuss over how the forum should be run, but for some reason he found that hard to understand). And he pushed and pushed.

So I finally said, "Fuck it." I don't have time to babysit a grown man.

He then went to RoR and opened one thread after another complaining about me and OL. The people there told him over and over to stop, but he wouldn't. Rowlands finally told him to stop. It was funny, too. Here's a little mischief on my part because it has entertainment value (as opposed to what happened with him here on OL, which was merely boring and irritating).

From here on RoR:

I agree with Teresa and all of the others that are tired of Robert's obsession with other forums. Robert, if you want to keep talking about that, go make your own forum like everyone else. No more posts on the subject of OL, MSK, or even indirect references like how online forums should be conducted. Take your grievances elsewhere.


From here on RoR:

Joe - Thank you for the clear direction. I'll show you I can follow it.


I couldn't resist and wrote the following offline to a friend when I saw that:

Do you remember the scene in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? where he was hiding and someone knocked or sang the "Shave and a Haircut" thing, but didn't finish it? And the urge kept welling up in him and he kept trying to keep it down and stay hidden? But the pressure built up so much, he finally popped out right in front of everybody with, "TWOOO BITTTTTS!!!!."


A couple of days later...

From here on RoR:

Brant - Got it - you're not interested in helping. Now return to your master.


After a little more bickering, Rowlands moderated him (see here).

And all I could think was this (which I sent offline to a couple of other folks who had by then contacted me):

Mmmmmph... Mmmmmph... Mmmmmph... Mmmmmph... Mmmmmph...

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmph...

"TWOOO BITTTTTS!!!!."

That didn't take long.

:smile:

(I'm evil, I know. I can't help it. I was born that way. :smile: )


I know this post is going to be a mistake because this person is obsessive, but the image is too perfect not to share.

:smile:

(I don't really think it's a mistake. :smile: )

The guy just can't follow instructions. Not from me. Not from Rowlands.

Maybe we should have done what they do on OO and delete his posts (which they have done) when he starts telling the owners who to ban and so forth.

I personally think it's because he works high up in federal government regulations in DC and has become accustomed to power. He's used to giving orders, not following them. That is, outside the in-house ass-kissing and intrigues he has to do to keep his job.

But I might be wrong and his neurotic obsessiveness might be plain old garden-variety control freak stuff.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Okay. You are not a liar and it was not your intention to have Robert silenced in both places. A mistake. But it sure looked like it when you showed up after not being on RoR since I don't remember when. I have had differences with Joe Rowland in the past and didn't get anywhere. I don't feel like starting in again. I have noticed the lack of activity.

Yeah. I know what it looked like. So I tried to fix it. Tar Baby time!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

If you would like this person's email so you guys can discuss things and, who knows?, set up a blog or forum or something together, I will be glad to send it to you.

Michael

I want to add something else to this.

It's to help the discontent check their premises to see if their problem is to be in front of an audience or if it is whatever else they say it is.

I got banned a long time ago from Solo Passion. Today I'm still restricted to the Dissent forum on RoR. (And I'm fine with both situations.)

Did I whine about it at the time?

Or did I go out and make my own forum?

When Kat and I started OL, all my online material was at those two places and we had no audience to speak of.

But we've done pretty good so far.

I'm not telling anyone (if they wish) to go do anything I didn't do myself.

Now, if some folks don't like what we do here, nor the way I try to keep order, and they aren't competent enough to generate their own audience, why should the OL audience be the means for their ends?

Just because they want it or feel they need it?

Just because they say so?

Heh.

That's about as un-Objectivist as I can think of.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go to Rebirth of Reason and click on "forums" then click on "last day" you'll only find two posts. It seems Robert B. was the only one keeping the place going and Joe Rowlands pulled the plug on him.

--Brant

it's doubtful Joe cares or he wouldn't have spent nearly a decade driving people away without figuring it out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Pekka:

This is a good thread on both bitcoins, thread drift and other fascinating aspects of OL...

A...

Link to comment
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