Angry Adam Reed Leaves SLOP

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In agree with just about everyone on this thread. It is a real temptation to set up an Out-House out back so when people get the urge, they have a proper place to discharge it.

However, there are important issues that arise sometimes, like Barbara's thread on Lepers. Preaching and cheering the wholesale killing of intellectuals in the name of Objectivism is serious business and needs to be discussed.

When OL started and soon after I got banned from SOLOP, we spent a few months without talking about other forums at all - despite being called every name in the book on SOLOP and a couple of other sites. I actively discouraged the bickering because we were busy building something new and marvelous (which we are doing with great success). Then along came that obscenity against Chris Sciabarra presented to the world on SOLOP and Noodlefood as if it were rational discourse in the name of the philosophy I adhere to. I could not contain myself any longer. Barbara started by blasting this and I soon followed.

What I witnessed was like opening the floodgates. Robert Bidinotto just mentioned a symbiotic emotional relationship because some people go back to it over and over. This might be the case with some posters, but I think it is a universal reaction in human nature to feel resentment against constantly being called slime and so forth in public. That resentment certainly was built up and when the reaction on OL started.

One thing I am proud of on OL with these criticisms. Generally they are about important issues or they are lampoons are done with a great deal of talent (see Roger's New Site thread in Humor or Victor's caricature of Perigo). The problem is that recently there has been an excess of petty gossip without any talent or style whatsoever:

"So-and-so said this about me on SLOP."

"So-and-so is fighting with someone else on SLOP."

"So-and-so criticized such-and-such on SLOP."

"So-and-so on Noodlefood thinks OL is bad."

"So-and-so will probably do this on Noodlefood."

And so it goes. Over and over. This is the attention that feeds these mediocre souls that Robert mentioned.

People, we are better than this. Every poster on OL is intelligent. There is no need to lower our standards and create an Out-House so that when we need to talk about something important regarding another forum, we have to mix it with this kind of petty bickering. I don't want to encourage this lowlife stuff on OL.

(I am talking about OL in general, but I am aware that many members do not engage in what I am criticizing. The standard caveats apply.)

I suggest that each person who wishes to post something derogatory about another forum or about a post that appeared somewhere else ask the following questions to himself or herself:

"Do I need to mention this forum (or poster) or can I express this idea just as well without doing so?"

"Does my complaint only pertain to me, or does it contain a universal theme that is worth sharing?"

"Will other people want to stop their lives and spend a few moments of their valuable time to read this?"

Now here is the most important question of all:

"Am I expressing myself with talent and style?"

If we must criticize others, folks, please let us do so with talent and style--even when we are being entertained, as Dragonfly mentioned (which I think is certainly valid in some cases). We are special, as the quality of our membership shows, but that is an earned distinction. It has taken a lot of hard work to get that reputation.

Like it or not, we have not been so special recently.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I agree with Mike Erickson that "The worthy topic in this thread is Adam Reed." I'm sorry to see Adam leave SOLOP -- though I sure understand why he did -- since he'll likely stop posting anywhere if he doesn't post there. (Considering his long-standing opinion of Nathaniel Branden and his current opinion of Barbara, I don't suppose he'll want to post here; and RoR has become what I consider, and what he'd probably consider as well, thoroughly blah.)

I think that Bob Bidinotto paints with too broad a brush in his blanket description "guttersnipe" sites. As applied to SOLOP, that seems to me just the reverse of various persons there calling this list "Objectivist Lying" -- as if everyone on a specific list could be described by a collective term.

I expect that George Smith would be entertained at having been described as a "normal person." I'm chuckling at that myself, and will tell George he was thus described.

If a subforum is set up in "The Outer Limits" for such purposes as the current thread, I'd vote for calling it "Schadenfreude." Seems a very apt title.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan brought up an issue that has been danced around a lot: age of consent for sex.

I just gleaned a link from the "other site" that I think will be interest: Worldwide Ages of Consent of AVERT (UK based HIV/AIDS charity organization).

I am surprised that consent laws do not have some kind of sliding scale in them. I see a huge difference between a 14-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old, and a 54-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old. In a 18/15 scenario, for example, the idea of the 18 year old being engaged in statutory rape seems ludicrous.

I would suggest a lower age of consent, but up to about 18, with a condition of a 4 or 5 year age difference in partner limitation. After that, the person would be considered legally a full adult sexually.

(Maybe this needs a new thread...)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

An open statement:

I wonder if Adam Reed is aware of this thread that I posted. I also wonder if it’s true that he would be out of a “home” as somebody suggested. Personally, I liked Mr. Reed. I always felt that his membership at SLOP seemed incongruent there, but that’s me. I think he is one hell of a smart and cultured man, and I would like to put it out there to have him here at OL.

Now please forgive me if I am unaware of certain backstage politics. I don’t know if Mr. Reed would snicker at my suggestion or if MSK would look down at the prospect of having him here. I have heard that he was critical of Barbara, but I was in the same boat. It is now known by all that I advanced an open apology--which I stand by to this day.

If Mr. Reed would be willing to do likewise, [if need be] so that he may have an internet home, he and everybody else would benefit. I believe that a man like this would a great addition to our fine cast. Okay, that’s enough gushing.

Mr. Reed is a good man. That's why I posted this thread in the first place. I was upset at the treatment he was getting at SLOP. I would like to see him here.

I wonder if I’m alone in these thoughts?

Victor

Edited October 16, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

He has appeared on Hsieh's site, so he must be a hopeless case, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Only a week ago he wrote: "One of my sources, Barbara Branden, proved to be worse than unreliable, a manipulator and a liar", and "I also confirmed my evaluation of MSK and his clique as enemies of principles qua principles." The enemies of our enemies are not necessarily our friends.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

You just reminded me of a saying in Brazil:

When Bandit A fights with Bandit B, you know who wins?

The cops.

(Of course, the reverse is true, too.)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Mr. Reed is a good man. That's why I posted this thread in the first place. I was upset at the treatment he was getting at SLOP. I would like to see him here.

I wonder if I’m alone in these thoughts?

You aren't. I've read Adam's posts for many years -- since the last stretch of Kirez Korgan's Cornell-L list -- and I think he is, as you describe him, "a smart and cultured man," whatever specifics of agreement/disagreement I have with various of his views. But I don't think he'd be amenable to your suggestion. Once he's made up his mind in a negative way about someone, he can be...shall we say, firm in the opinion.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a principle involved here that is nagging me, so I want to get it out. Please do not think I am talking particularly about Adam. I am sure his pronouncement was made in anger, which resulted in the words that are prompting the observation I make below. I am only commenting on this here because these specific words illustrate my point eloquently.

I rarely see a particular sentiment in Objectivism I detest expressed so clearly as the following, yet it is a popular sentiment.

"At this point I cannot reasonably trust any man who trusts [fill in the blank], in this or anything else."

This makes me wonder, does the person who says this include himself? Like I said, this is a popular sentiment. What are we to think of all of this person's work and life up to the point of denunciation? After all, he trusted [fill in the blank] up to that point. Does his whole life suddenly become without trust? His whole life? Or is he to admit a double standard in his thinking, where this standard only applies to others, but not to himself?

There is no way on earth to practice this principle consistently. This is guilt-by-association taken to the level of a philosophical principle.

Also, there is another consideration. Let me stand in for a wronged person for a minute. When an evil act has been practiced against me, it is very easy for me to see. When it has been practiced against another, it is much harder for me to see correctly. So does this evil suddenly become manifest because I was the one who was wronged? Or was it present all along and I just did not see it?

And then, once again, does that mean that my life up to that point is not worthy of trust? Or does it mean that I learned something important by having to experience it to see it? And that maybe there are reasons for that which need to be studied and remedied? And even communicated to others?

People who know me already know the answer to that.

I say, lay blame squarely where it belongs and nowhere else. I am fully for denouncing someone who has practiced an evil act. I am fully for not trusting those who proclaim to be in agreement with that act. But I cannot condemn someone who simply trusts a person who has committed such an act.

When a person lives like that, he ends up running out of people he can trust.

That is not a philosophy for living on earth.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

"The enemies of our enemies are not necessarily our friends." That's a great line, Dragonfly.

You quoted the statement that we at OL are "enemies of principles qua principles." I defy anyone to say what in hell that means. Is there anyone, anywhere, who runs around attacking principles because they are principles? That, too, would be a principle -- a statement that principles ought to be attacked. Sometimes, jargon is simply gibberish. I believe it was Nietzsche who said of some philosophers, "They muddy their waters to make them seem deep."

Barbara

Ellen, George will be mortally offended at being caled "normal!"

[Dragonfly]

Ellen, George will be mortally offended at being caled "normal!"

I suppose this is some inside joke which I don't get... I only know him from his posts on Solo, which seemed to come from a normal person with common sense, in contrast to the ravings of the inmates of that asylum.

[Chris Grieb]

I can't keep silent. I haven't followed SLOP fight about Adam Reed but I will report two facts about him that I have seen. In 2004 he was at Vancouver for TOC's Summer Seminar. He asked long question which on at least one occassion he was asked if he had a question. On another occasion he told me that he had question about the production of Atlas Shrugged because the company was named Crusader. I guess because he is Jewish and the crusaders in the Middle Ages were mean to the Jews. My presonal reaction is that if I found out Adam Reed was going to an event Iwould think about going I must add that several people at the Summer Seminar in Orange, California made the same comment. Mark Twain once said it was a terrible death to be talked to death. Adam Reed is guilty of doing that.

[Barbara Branden]

"I suppose this is some inside joke which I don't get... I only know him from his posts on Solo, which seemed to come from a normal person with common sense, in contrast to the ravings of the inmates of that asylum."

Sorry, Dragonfly. It's just that George has been a maverick all his life, standing outside the city gates and railing at the average, the conventional, the comfortable, what is so oftten called "the normal" -- against conformity to the status quo. But you're quite right, he is common-sensical and he's perfectly sane. . . most of the time.

Barbara

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Robert Heinlein said something to the effect that 80% of wisdom is minding your own damn business. I can't see what possible benefit people can get from digging up other people's old skeletons, finding every possible fault in people who are generally good and honorable. What end does it serve? After taking a brief survey of the negative sum bloodsport in the Objectivist movement, the toll is breathtaking. When will we stop in the Hatfield and McCoy business? In life, not every score has to be settled, not every grudge nursed and not every enemy vanquished. To do so would grant the negative, misfortunes, personal impasses and yes dishonor an undue significance these elements of life do not deserve.

Yes, Ayn Rand spoke of the necessity of judgment. But judgment includes the positive as well as the negative. A person's emphasis on the negative relative to the positive is a value choice that has a direct bearing on their success and happiness in life.

Jim

[jordanz]

I don't like to say bad things about other people in public, but I want to add that I was very happy when Adam disassociated with TOC. At the Summer Seminar whenever he would step into a Q&A line, I would leave the room. He would talk for many minutes without ever asking a question.

He can be a very nice man under the right circumstances, but he can also be very annoying.

[George H. Smith]

But you're quite right, he is common-sensical and he's perfectly sane. . . most of the time.

Jeeez -- a few unfortunate incidents with my chainsaw many years ago, and people never let you forget.

Ghs

[Victor Pross]

George! Wow, good to see you here...so to speak. We have just been speaking very highly of your book on some other thread: we think you are the dude that wrote the definitive book on athesim!

Edited October 18, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Welcome to OL. It's an honor.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Yes, George, welcome, and I hope you won't hold it against me some day. :-)

REB

[jordanz]

But you're quite right, he is common-sensical and he's perfectly sane. . . most of the time.

Jeeez -- a few unfortunate incidents with my chainsaw many years ago, and people never let you forget.

Ghs

Is this THE George Smith? I'm thrilled you're here. Atheism: The Case Against God was a transformational book for me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

You surprise sometimes. Seriously. You wrote to Dragonfly, quoting him partially quoting Damage quoting Adam, and quoting Dragonfly quoting Adam directly, of course:

You quoted the statement that we at OL are "enemies of principles qua principles." I defy anyone to say what in hell that means. Is there anyone, anywhere, who runs around attacking principles because they are principles? That, too, would be a principle -- a statement that principles ought to be attacked. Sometimes, jargon is simply gibberish. I believe it was Nietzsche who said of some philosophers, "They muddy their waters to make them seem deep."

I am flabbergasted. You missed it. Dayaamm!

Since the emergent ontology of properties and attributes are the contrary of their reduction, hence being the source of principles qua principles, but not yet proof, it is obvious that elimination of measurements will result in a primary that is no longer reductive, even when it is relation-dependent. This is decisively illustrated by reading Lolita in Tehran, where children are worse than raped, and which gives rise to the Christian conspiracy to murder well over 30 million people by stemming stem cell technology. This is not simply lashon harah. Anyone who proposes such barbarity is a fraud, manipulator and liar. With Al Capone behind bars, Jim Peron running rampant in the world and Nathaniel Branden with God knows how many personalities, how can you, qua source, be anything but unreliable? This is not just an evaluation. There is no evaluation other than I and this whole clique at OL are enemies of principles qua principles.

How come you didn’t get that?

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Michael, I did get it. I just didn't want to show off.

Barbara

[Mike Hardy]

I expect that George Smith would be entertained at having been described as a "normal person."

Oh god..... George Smith is normal??? I had no idea! He's been outed!! -- Mike Hardy

[George H. Smith]

Is this THE George Smith? I'm thrilled you're here. Atheism: The Case Against God was a transformational book for me.

I don't know if I am THE George Smith, but I am certainly THAT George Smith.

I'm glad you enjoyed ATCAG. Unfortunately, my transformational powers appear to be spent; nowadays I mainly annoy people.

Ghs

[Victor Pross]

George, why don't you let me do a caricature drawing of you...reaching out to God. Only God's hand will be seen. He will be reaching out to you, as if you were Adam.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Victor Pross

[jordanz]

I'm glad you enjoyed ATCAG. Unfortunately, my transformational powers appear to be spent; nowadays I mainly annoy people.

Ghs

Well, you've done enough transforming on me to give you a credit on any future annoying you might do.