To Whom It May Concern

[Dennis Hardin]

Michael,

Could you let me and other OL members know what Ted said that prompted you to place him on moderation? I have reviewed his recent posts and see nothing that appears to remotely justify such action. Did he call you hypocritical for demanding respect while you relegate his posts to the garbage pile? You stated he was ‘unreasonable.’ What is so unreasonable about wondering why he owes an assumption of good faith to someone who does not extend it to him?

Is having the temerity to ask such a question also going to get this thread dumped in the garbage pile? Am I also being 'unreasonable'?

What exactly did he do that was a violation of the forum rules? I would sincerely like to know.

Thank you

Confused in California

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

The problem is an accumulation of disrespect from Keer and his outright preaching of bigotry.

Just to defuse this hiding issue (out of respect for you and OL posters, since I see this has become an issue) here is the post I deleted. As a technical explanation, deleted posts go into a special place before final deletion, so I can keep copies, which I usually do when the posts are not deleted for being duplicates, etc.

You are a hypocrite, Michael. Don't expect me to show you the courtesy of reading your posts in good faith when you do not extend the same to me.

This was the last straw in a series of crap like that.

I deleted it not because I wanted to hide anything from OL posters. I did it because I got pissed. I saw the pattern starting of him saying this kind of crap, me moving it to the Garbage Pile, but it staying there for all to read. And the acrimony from him has been slowly growing.

This crap done to the owner of a place spoils an environment like nothing else I know of. I speak from a lifetime of dealing with little destructive souls like Keer. I have watched in horror as they destroyed my projects over and over. I've tried to reason with them. I've tried to find ways to come to some kind of agreement with them. I've tried to explain what and why I do things to them. I've tried everything I can think of. The fact is their commitment to their petty vanity is too strong for them to see what and why they destroy.

And you know what they do once they destroy? They move on to destroy something else and talk bad about you once in a while.

I build for that? Hell no.

In this dude's case, the last time he was moderated here, he called me a "piece of shit" or something like that. When I released the restriction, I made it clear to him that he was not to disrespect me again--that I would not tolerate it. Yet I tolerated it some more. I cut him some slack. But now my cutoff point has been reached.

If you are uncomfortable with all this, I'm sorry. I'm not going to change. I've had it.

(Stupid me, too. Notice I still haven't banned that dude.)

If this forum is thriving, it's because I learned how to do it. This is a learned skill and anyone can learn it. I had to learn it the hard way because I had nobody to teach me. I learned there are principles. If you do not observe them, reality will not forgive you. (And boy, do I have stories!) That's the way it is with any human endeavor.

One of the unpleasant parts to keeping things going harmoniously in a discussion forum is dealing with neurotics. There may be better ways to do it than what I do, but what I do works (giving neurotics some flexibility, but moderating them or getting rid of them when they push too far--and even then, I make exceptions). If Keer has neurosis about authority issues, let him take it elsewhere. I'm fed up. I'm not a therapist and I don't believe in sanction of the victim.

I'm actually flexible. Read through the forum and you will see that I put up with a lot (even from Keer), but the bottom line is you can't do that crap to me here. Especially not over and over. If someone wants to call me names, there's the entire Internet out there to do it. Just not here. If you were the owner, the rule would be that people can't do that to you here. That's just the way crowds work, that is if you want to keep things from becoming a huge pile of mess.

Anyway, the forum guidelines are clear. If somebody doesn't like them, let them find a place where they agree with the guidelines. Or let them do their own sites and they can set their own rules. I refuse to watch this forum go down the tubes over BS.

About the bigotry. I don't agree with Islam, but Keer's constant digs (Mohammad being a "child rapist" and crap like that which you can find sporadically peppered in his posts) are nothing but hate speech.

OL is not a hate site.

Criticize Islam if you wish. But keep it within the bounds of philosophical discussion, like dealing with fundamentals and so forth. Not bigotry--and believe me, bigots know what they do. Especially when they do it over and over.

I don't want hate speech on OL, period.

And even then, I have been somewhat flexible. But please note, just because I try to be flexible due to context and my belief in the goodness of people (believing that most harsh remarks are just sounding off due to temporary flare-ups, or in more serious cases, I believe the people will eventually come around), this does not constitute a precedent. There are no new rules. This stuff is not a change to my guidelines--but an exception to them.

These guidelines are not requests. They are Kat's and my conditions for guests and readers to use this forum. This should not be rocket science for a person who professes to understand property rights.

When a guest violates them over and over, and keeps pushing to see how much more he can get away with, you get the idea that he isn't interested in observing them. So something has to give. I decided to nip it in the bud before it became an issue. I miscalculated, though. I should have done what I did sooner because it is an issue. At least it's a minor issue that will go away before too long.

Now, about all these emails flying around. Those are the business of people who send them and people who receive them. They do not interest me and I have nothing else to say about them.

There you have it. These are my positions. I believe they are reasonable. If you don't, once again, I'm sorry. But I'm not going to change (unless someone comes up with a really, really good idea that I have not experienced). I know the cost of that.

Also, I'm not going to throw this discussion in the Garbage Pile out of respect for you. But if this thread starts going south, I will close it and move it there.

At the moment I'm overdosing on Keer crap. I haven't yet reached the place where I regret releasing his former restrictions, but I'm pretty damn close. Here's a thought. If I had just kept him out of the forum earlier, there would be no problem now, would there? That would be food for thought, but frankly, I'm sick of dealing with Keer's manipulations and I'm sick of talking about him.

Give it some time.

Enough.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I think this thread should have a life of no more than 24 hours and then shut down. Ted's philosophy of one (claimed) wrong deserving another, from him, is true hypocrisy respecting any justice.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

The problem is an accumulation of disrespect. . .

This crap done to the owner of a place spoils an environment like nothing else I know of. I speak from a lifetime of dealing with little destructive souls like Keer. I have watched in horror as they destroyed my projects over and over. I've tried to reason with them. I've tried to find ways to come to some kind of agreement with them. I've tried to explain what and why I do things to them. I've tried everything I can think of. The fact is their commitment to their petty vanity is too strong for them to see what and why they destroy.

And you know what they do once they destroy? They move on to destroy something else and talk bad about you once in a while.

I build for that? Hell no.

One of the unpleasant parts to keeping things going harmoniously in a discussion forum is dealing with neurotics. There may be better ways to do it than what I do, but what I do works (giving neurotics some flexibility, but moderating them or getting rid of them when they push too far--and even then, I make exceptions).

I don't want hate speech on OL, period.

When a guest violates them over and over, and keeps pushing to see how much more he can get away with, you get the idea that he isn't interested in observing them. So something has to give. I decided to nip it in the bud before it became an issue. I miscalculated, though. I should have done what I did sooner because it is an issue. At least it's a minor issue that will go away before too long.

Give it some time.

Enough.

Michael

Michael,

Whatever Ted’s infractions may be, they are nothing compared to the vicious, mindless puke that regularly plops out of Jeff Riggenbach. Yet you allow him to treat OL like his own personal toilet, crapping on anyone as he pleases and leaving a stench that makes me want to hold my nose every time I visit OL. You know the level of contempt he holds for Beck and FOX News, and—by implication—for you, yet you allow him to stink up the place because he doesn’t say it to your face. You welcome that two-faced, phony, smelly horse’s ass into your home, but you find Ted difficult to tolerate? That I will never understand.

I apologize to one and all for the overt personal attack—I tried hard to come up with some other way to say this--but I do not know how else to express my honest feelings at this time.

Dump this in the garbage pile, moderate me, ban me, whatever. I don't give a shit. You're not the only one who is fed up.

[Greybird]

[...] Whatever Ted’s infractions may be, they are nothing compared to the vicious, mindless puke that regularly plops out of Jeff Riggenbach.

Nothing that Jeff Riggenbach has said on this site has been either "vicious" or "mindless." A lot of it has been contemptuous of fools, dismissive of the rhetorically deficient, or disdainful of hypocrites, but your adjectives do not apply to any of that.

(Whether his comments always come to a productive point? Well, that's a nearly universal failing around here, including with me.)

I have to speak up to defend a periodic, welcomed acquaintance (and dinner partner) over the past 30 years. Riggenbach is not what (or who) is wrong with this site.

[...] You know the level of contempt [Riggenbach] holds for Beck and FOX News, and — by implication — for you [...]

That implication is preposterous, for Riggenbach or for anyone else. I have a nearly boundless contempt for Glenn Beck and for every pretentious asseveration he puts forth. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any appraisal I have of MSK, or of anybody else, here or elsewhere. They are individuals.

[Mikee]

I am so disgusted with all of this, and you Michael. I'm out of here.

[George H. Smith]

Whatever Ted’s infractions may be, they are nothing compared to the vicious, mindless puke that regularly plops out of Jeff Riggenbach.

At a time when I thought I was on good terms with Ted, he repeatedly called me a pedophile. Later, he repeatedly called me an extortionist. Comments like this are on a completely different level than anything JR has ever posted. Then, to add fuel to the fire, Ted started posting his mindless "blah, blah, blah" comments over and over again, as if he were a child.

Ted is the only OLer that I have ever permanently put on "ignore." I won't be shedding any crocodile tears over his departure. In fact, since I had him on "ignore" for quite a while, I won't even notice his absence.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I pretty much agree with Steve about Jeff. Dennis, I'm afraid you let the horse run away with your wagon on this one. I have no idea where you got your evaluative material from. This doesn't mean he hasn't made some posts he shouldn't have. As for Ted, I'd have to go back and read his posts to get a better grip on Michael's main complaint, but if you're going to get into calling the site owner hypocritical and such you are not likely to win the war or argument. Ted is obviously a man of great intelligence and learning and I don't think he'll be back after this contretemps.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Have you guys noticed that the problem is always not sharing someone's hatred?

When someone hates, he gets personally offended that others don't hate what he does.

I don't find this to be a very good philosophical principle and I refuse to use it as a guiding principle for running a forum.

About Jeff Riggenbach, this is a man who is extremely well-read--a scholar, in fact. Someone who has produced books that are widely considered high quality in his field. (I have only read sections and I agree from what I have seen so far.) He's a producer. I hold extremely high regard for producers.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I consider him to be a person of good character and given my reasons. I don't intend to keep repeating them. Do I disagree with Jeff on some things? Sure. So what? We also have a huge amount of common interests, starting with Rand.

Glenn Beck is a person who accumulates a vast amount of research and chooses fundamental political targets that people in the Objectivist/libertarian field should be going after. He is far, far more effective at removing them from power, too. And he's a hell of a communicator. When was the last time someone from our subcommunity took down an outright communist like Van Jones in the government by exposing him? I can't think of anyone.

He also has educated mainstream America on our history more than anyone I know of. He even promotes Rand to his public. In short, he's a producer.

People hate these two men. I get that. And they want others to hate them. I get that, too.

So what?

I can't hate just because they do. What the hell kind of standard would that be? Obedience to a hater to hate qua hate without using my mind? So I can't. Not when I see so much good in both of those men.

And on a fundamental level, I own my soul. Nobody else does. If I am right or wrong in my choices, I made them using the best of my honest thinking.

The real bad guys are out there literally trying to kill us, and they are in our government literally trying to enslave us, yet folks want us to hate people like Jeff and Glenn.

Here's what I see. Both Jeff and Glenn are on record countless times saying they oppose violence. Haters of both constantly accuse them of promoting violence (in Jeff's case, by inviting destruction) and totally twist their messages. Most accusers aren't even familiar with their respective works. I know because I look at the accusations and I look at their words. The accusations are just plain wrong. So I conclude they come from hatred, not correct identification.

It's more than "I can't hate" just because others do.

I won't.

A person's hatred is his problem. Not mine.

I have things to build.

Whoever wishes to travel with me, that's the way it is.

To any reader, if that's not a good path for you, I wish you well on your own journey.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Riggenbach is not what (or who) is wrong with this site.

Steve,

Let's get something straight.

There is nothing wrong with this site. Not in the sense you mean.

It is what it is.

OL is not a preaching site. It is a discussion forum.

If that doesn't serve you, I'm fine with that so long as you don't disrupt the use of this forum by others.

Michael

[Greybird]

Let's get something straight. There is nothing wrong with this site. Not in the sense you mean. [...]

You didn't actually ask me what "sense I mean," though, did you?

And I didn't, and still don't, choose to elaborate. Mostly because I'm trying not to personalize what is largely a spontaneous order, going beyond what's done by either participants or administrators.

Every discussion site has some things wrong with it. If this one's faults were worse than they are, I wouldn't be here. And when those faults worsen, instead of choosing to "disrupt" it, I absent myself until they improve.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You didn't actually ask me what "sense I mean," though, did you?

Steve,

I'm not going to play that game.

You know perfectly well what a generalized insinuation is and does in a context like this.

So I stand by what I wrote. But I also respect your right to disagree.

Whether you come or go, you are pursuing your interests and that is all good to me.

Michael

[Greybird]

You didn't actually ask me what "sense I mean," though, did you?

I'm not going to play that game. You know perfectly well what a generalized insinuation is and does in a context like this. [...]

Again, you didn't choose to ask me. And I'm not playing a game. And you didn't identify where I supposedly disagree with you.

(Aside from saying to me, "OL is not a preaching site." Well, I've never said or believed it was, publicly or privately.)

Individuals can be what's wrong with a site. They almost have to be, and usually are. It's not IBM's (truly) game-playing Watson we're talking about here.

But, again, intense dissection of blame in a spontaneous order such as this is rarely worthwhile or helpful. Unlike, for example, speaking to a particular pronounced instance of unfairness, as I did above with Riggenbach.

[...] Whether you come or go, you are pursuing your interests and that is all good to me.

Well, that's a ringing endorsement of my presence! {sardonic smile}

[Robert Campbell]

If someone wants to call me names, there's the entire Internet out there to do it. Just not here. If you were the owner, the rule would be that people can't do that to you here. That's just the way crowds work, that is if you want to keep things from becoming a huge pile of mess.

One of the reasons why SOLOPassion has steadily declined is the owner's decision to allow nearly unlimited expressions of disrespect for himself, in return for a license to express unlimited disrespect for others.

I think Michael has made it clear where the lines are drawn here.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At a time when I thought I was on good terms with Ted, he repeatedly called me a pedophile. Later, he repeatedly called me an extortionist. Comments like this are on a completely different level than anything JR has ever posted. Then, to add fuel to the fire, Ted started posting his mindless "blah, blah, blah" comments over and over again, as if he were a child.

George,

This is an important point that, in a sideways manner, transcends the person. Here are a couple of thoughts.

Whenever there is a formed audience, certain kinds of individuals always pop up trying to draw attention to themselves in really offensive manners. I have yet to be in--or observe--a group where this is not the case.

I'm not talking about satire, either. For example, I doubt calling you a pedophile was intended as satire.

The amusing part of it is that they almost always deny to the four winds that it's about audience. You get the impression that they would rather die than regard that as an important part of their motivation. (Just to take the spotlight off of Keer at this moment, Perigo is one such person. There is no lack of these kinds of people, either. All you have to do is think about it a little and many examples come to mind.)

Over time, I've run my own private tests on several of these individuals. The thing that really sets them off and raises their blood pressure is when they get their own medicine back from a person they respect right in front of everyone. Man they don't like that. It makes them see red and go into a rage. Like the saying goes, they can dish it out, but they sure can't take it. Once I detected this (in the Objectivist/libertarian world), I started noticing that appearance is very important to these individuals--much more so than fact.

Obviously, facts matter to them, but priority-wise, I have observed that they prefer the lie that makes them look good to the crowd over an undeniable truth that does not align with their views. It's often a seesaw in their performance, but the lie wins out much more frequently than not. That's been what I've seen. Maybe your experience has been different.

I've also noticed something else about this kind of person. Sometimes they get in charge of something good. And they almost always wreck it.

Getting back to satire, these folks usually have a warped sense of humor. They understand it mostly in terms of humiliating other people or being the butt end of being humiliated. Getting a playful jab in the ribs and reacting in kind is foreign to their way of thinking. When they try to lighten up and "playfully jab" others in the ribs, there's always a smirk involved.

The idea that a person often slips short-term and has to correct his course to stay moving toward his long-term goal--and that satire between friends is a wonderful way to keep the good vibes going when this happens--seems threatening to their very sense of self. But life is the way it is and we all have to err to get things right.

The bottom line is that this kind of behavior is destructive, not productive. It's almost bullying (and often is), but I find it more neurotic than your garden-variety thug. And the problem is always what to do about them if you have a good thing going. So long as there is audience to be had, they like to be in front of it--not by merit (on the fundamental level) but by showing just how much they can get away with in abusing others.

They're spoilers at heart, not builders.

Michael

[sjw]

Whatever Ted’s infractions may be, they are nothing compared to the vicious, mindless puke that regularly plops out of Jeff Riggenbach.

I see this kind of remark every so often, and then I wonder to myself: what great posts of JR's did I miss out on?

Shayne

[sjw]

Whatever Ted’s infractions may be, they are nothing compared to the vicious, mindless puke that regularly plops out of Jeff Riggenbach.

At a time when I thought I was on good terms with Ted, he repeatedly called me a pedophile. Later, he repeatedly called me an extortionist. Comments like this are on a completely different level than anything JR has ever posted.

This is the kind of thing being ignored by the people defending Ted. There are times when he is mean-spirited to a very nasty extreme that goes far beyond any other poster here at OL except perhaps one. It is true that he doesn't usually get involved in week long mudslinging fests of the type that Phil hates. But he will just come in out of the blue and and make some wildly dishonest, obscene, below the belt remark (and calling something "below the belt" in this context is really saying something).

Shayne

[sjw]

I am so disgusted with all of this, and you Michael. I'm out of here.

Let me see if I can list the people here belonging to this category: Mikee, Ted, Phil, Dennis H. None of these people understand the trader principle, except Mikee, who just now, for the very first time, figured it out.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One of the reasons why SOLOPassion has steadily declined is the owner's decision to allow nearly unlimited expressions of disrespect for himself, in return for a license to express unlimited disrespect for others.

Robert,

You'd think that a dude intent on a personality cult around him would have figured that out by now.

This dude's not only a person of poor character, he's stupid.

You ought to see his emails when he finally gets a glimmer of this stuff, too. (I have a few from way back when.) He feigns he's just too innocent and pure a soul to have seen such guile around him. Such a victim is he, martyred mercilessly for standing for truth and justice. sniff sniff...

You can almost see his own portrait of Dorian Grey getting another wrinkle.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I have a suggestion for JR that will throw his critics off-guard.

Suppose Jeff wants to write: You are an ignoramus who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Instead, he should write: You are an ignoramus who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Keep 'em guessing with a smiley face!

Ghs

[Greybird]

I replied to the following in an earlier post, but two hours after the morning coffee began hammering on my neurons, I finally figured out what seems to be happening here. To wit (oh, and Phil, please note this self-documenting quote apparatus):

[...] Riggenbach is not what (or who) is wrong with this site.

Let's get something straight. There is nothing wrong with this site. Not in the sense you mean. [...]

You didn't actually ask me what "sense I mean," though, did you? [...]

I'm not going to play that game. You know perfectly well what a generalized insinuation is and does in a context like this. [...]

The difficulty here, I fear, is that MSK is talking about "a context like this" that doesn't exist, apropos of what I have posted, due to thread drift. So I'll clarify and state some matters for the record.

~ I entered this thread solely to respond to Dennis Hardin about Jeff Riggenbach. I didn't have anything to say about Ted Keer or about MSK's handling of matters concerning him. I still don't, especially with my not having read the threads in question. (I do think Ted should have been, all along, less sharply pointed and, yes, more generally civil.)

~ I was making no insinuations (nor playing any "games") about MSK's operation of this site by virtue of posting in this thread. He apparently was assuming that I wouldn't be doing so if I didn't mean to thus insinuate.

~ That, in turn, doesn't mean I haven't differed with MSK and others as to their opinions and demeanor in discussions. I have had many such differences and always will. Not every such matter, though, is worth bringing up. (And silence about them doesn't mean endorsing what others may do.)

~ I have no complaints about how MSK has administered this site. To be precise, although I've seen emphases I don't care much for (mostly related to matters that ended up in, and the whole notion of, the "garbage pile"), none have risen in importance for me to the level of being worthwhile to complain about.

~ I'll go beyond this to say that I admire the even-handedness and fairness that MSK has used. These haven't been perfectly applied, but that's inevitable in any venue, and I appreciate his intending to and nearly always succeeding in doing so.

~ Thread drift is, from where I sit, both underestimated by MSK and overpracticed by all of us, including me. Tangents are too easily taken up and elaborated to the point of utter confusion. This very thread began drifting by its fourth post. It doesn't help to ignore that high drift velocity when claiming to see a context for what someone else says.

As to this last, it's a matter of "spontaneous disorder," working against coherence, but I don't see how it can easily be avoided. Some forums (non-Objectiv-ish) I've taken part in try to hammer driftwood back into shape, but that usually ends up stifling discussion spontaneity and limiting thread endurance.

MSK has avoided such hammering, which is praiseworthy. Seeing a context that isn't necessarily there, though, and assuming it's operative in someone's remarks — without, well, actually asking them? That can inadvertently have the same effect.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Greybird

[Greybird]

Now that I've churned up even more drift in this setting, one more swirl of it won't hurt: Could we, please, not have any more threads using "To Whom It May Concern," or any variant, in the title? Shouldn't we be gunshy, apropos of the Rand-Branden fireworks of 1968, about using that title in any Objectiv-ish setting? And now it's been used twice {sigh}

... And as to the second usage, please, let's avoid using runs of all-CAPS in thread titles as well as in running text, shall we? It remains tantamount to shouting on the Net. (Yes, Jerry, I'm sorry, this does especially point at you {rueful smile})

[Rich Engle]

This is not a democratic site. It is Mike and Kat's site. These are as reasonable a folk as you will ever meet in your life, and I have more than a few dozen ways to prove that due to the years I have worked with them. And no, I won't say what they are, other than that it is beyond loyalty, and into the area of pure respect.

The point being, you can try to say "what about this guy" and so forth, and whine away. Maybe that should be done in a message to MSK or Kat. In any event though, if you think someone else is worse, you can go think that.

What they say, goes, period. No likey? Hit bricks.

rde

[Jerry Biggers]

Now that I've churned up even more drift in this setting, one more swirl of it won't hurt: Could we, please, not have any more threads using "To Whom It May Concern," or any variant, in the title? Shouldn't we be gunshy, apropos of the Rand-Branden fireworks of 1968, about using that title in any Objectiv-ish setting? And now it's been used twice {sigh}

... And as to the second usage, please, let's avoid using runs of all-CAPS in thread titles as well as in running text, shall we? It remains tantamount to shouting on the Net. (Yes, Jerry, I'm sorry, this does especially point at you {rueful smile})

To deal with your last point, first, I noticed, after I had already posted, that the title that I used for the thread was in capitals, but I could not change that with the "edit" function, which only works for the body of the text. Anyway, I'm not sure that I would label that use as "shouting on the internet." Increasing font size to 6 or 7 and in red might qualify as shouting. But I will follow your suggestion and avoid the use of caps in titles of threads. :blush:

As for use of "To whom it may concern," it certainly does evoke memories of that low point in Rand's writing. We all know what the tone and invective in that article did to the Objectivist movement. That level of vengeful vituperation benefited no one, least of all, Rand. Forty-three years later, it is still being written about (with a note of bemused incredulity in the recent two biographies). That level of vengeful vituperation benefited no one, least of all, Rand. While the situation and intensity is quite different now, it is quite likely that displays of personal animosity will not improve the levels of discourse here. It may be appropriate for users on SOLO-Passion, but not here (IMO).

Edited April 3, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Jerry Biggers]

This is not a democratic site. It is Mike and Kat's site. These are as reasonable a folk as you will ever meet in your life, and I have more than a few dozen ways to prove that due to the years I have worked with them. And no, I won't say what they are, other than that it is beyond loyalty, and into the area of pure respect.

The point being, you can try to say "what about this guy" and so forth, and whine away. Maybe that should be done in a message to MSK or Kat. In any event though, if you think someone else is worse, you can go think that.

What they say, goes, period. No likey? Hit bricks.

rde

Quite correct. MSK and Kat own the site. It's not nice to sling mud in other people's houses.