Not just another thread about Phil


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

Subject: Show Me What You Got, Pal

> many examples of Phil’s bad behavior...answer his accusations and demonstrate his hypocrisy...my idea here is to have a thread with brief summaries (or quotes) and links to the worst of his posts, and to the best of the replies. Yes, I have concluded that Phil is this bad of a blight on the OL landscape....I’m looking to build a resource here, and the goal is simply time-saving for those of us who are Phil’s constant targets. [ND, Post 1]

> I think it’ll work better if it’s not a discussion thread, strictly a chronicle. Just links and quotes, with brief explanations or keywords when needed. [Post 6]

My guess is that not-a-doctor and his brain brothers will run out of gas and not find very much to post - or he'll simply drop the context. My guess is that -- unless assisted by Jonathan or Ellen -- he'll probably peter out lamely and slink away quietly.

> I don't think Phil will mind this thread. I don't like it myself. [brant]

I think I would have been outraged or offended or irritated a year or so ago, but now this sort of thread is to be expected. And it's also to be expected that while Michael would shut down a thread solely devoted to throwing mud at someone else as inappropriate (Shayne or someone? started a thread a few months back on the claim that GHS was doing something in bad faith? Do I recall that correctly? It was closed.)

At this point, I'm sure Michael has seen the thread by now and if he were going to close the thread, he'd have done so by now....and I actually hope he doesn't! I'm *actually interested* -- with sort of an amused, roadside accident mindset -- to see what ND comes up with:

1. Show me my VERY WORST posts, most offensive, most irritating.

2. And how frequent they are.

3. Put Up or Shut Up.

(I expect I will click on every link he ... or Ellen or Jonathan, to cite the two people most likely to pitch in with doing God's Work here ... provide -- just out of masochistic curiosity if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I’m disappointed to see that there has been no growth in Phil qua writer in all these years.

Ninth, he just called you and your co-Philophobes "not a doctor and his brain brothers." I find this fairly playful and a definite progression from "***!!*** and ##***!!?!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George: Using the formal Roberts Rules of Order and keeping with the formal civility required here, I raise a Point of Information... isn't it true that Mr. Coates was formally educated in computer language and programing? Adam Faithfully Submmitted for Consideration

I could be wrong, but when I first met Phil in 1995, I think he was working with computers, possibly as a programmer. My theory, for what it is worth, is that Phil simply doesn't want to give in on the issue of using the quote function. It has become a badge of independence -- a very peculiar one, admittedly, but a badge nonetheless. I say this because Phil won't even give the quote function a trial run. There is no good reason to refuse even to try it out unless using the quote function, for Phil, involves a lot more than using the quote function.

Ghs

As far as I know he used it once just to show he could do it, not so much to try it out.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m disappointed to see that there has been no growth in Phil qua writer in all these years.

Ninth, he just called you and your co-Philophobes "not a doctor and his brain brothers." I find this fairly playful and a definite progression from "***!!*** and ##***!!?!!!

I’m disappointed to see that there has been no growth in Phil qua writer in all these years.

Ninth, he just called you and your co-Philophobes "not a doctor and his brain brothers." I find this fairly playful and a definite progression from "***!!*** and ##***!!?!!!

This exponential growth cannot be maintained.

My basic problem with Phil is I do not like teachers teaching altho I do like learning. A teacher who is an expert in what he is teaching is gold, while the teacher who is only expert in teaching is at best a good baby sitter. The difference in what is learned has to do with the knowledge, not the methodology, even if the prof speaks with a heavy, hard to understand foreign accent.

Another problem is his effectively taking Objectivism hook, line and sinker with only lip service to the contrary. That's a dead-end piece of intellectual lead to me.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Show Me What You Got, Pal

Consider this a research project in process, it’s going to take time. In the end I foresee a summary post, comparable to this one. Trouble is, there the goal was to demonstrate one type of wrongdoing, plagiary. In your case there’s the schoolmarming, the pontifications laced with ignorance, the faulty quoting practices, and probably other categories we’ll be identifying as we go along. So have patience. And enjoy the attention.

> I think it’ll work better if it’s not a discussion thread, strictly a chronicle. Just links and quotes, with brief explanations or keywords when needed. [Post 6]

Never mind that. There’ll be a summary at some point, once we’ve reached critical mass. Now I say let the thread go where it may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For any newbies who are interested... the Flame War Rant thread contains Joanathan at his most hateful and irrational.

,,,,,,,,,,,

...I wonder, perhaps I should post this as the lead-off for a *new thread* called "Not just another thread about Jonathan"? Or should there be a separate thread for Jnth and one for ND?

Thanks for the idea guys!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In [Phil's] case there’s the schoolmarming, the pontifications laced with ignorance, the faulty quoting practices, and probably other categories we'll be identifying as we go along.

A big, and pervasive, one -- the hypocrisy: "Do (or don't do) as I say and not as I do (or don't)."

Don't make assumptions about motivations (which Phil makes abundantly).

Don't jump to snap conclusions (as he often does).

Listen to and learn from criticism. (!!!)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In [Phil's] case there’s the schoolmarming, the pontifications laced with ignorance, the faulty quoting practices, and probably other categories we'll be identifying as we go along.

A big, and pervasive, one -- the hypocrisy: "Do (or don't do) as I say and not as I do (or don't)."

Don't make assumptions about motivations (which Phil makes abundantly).

Don't jump to snap conclusions (as he often does).

Listen to and learn from criticism. (!!!)

Ellen

That’s a total of seven categories! As Phil would say, this amounts to “violating and raping the crow”. Isn't that redundant, btw? Anyway, it is certainly too much for one person to hold in mind all at once.

...I wonder, perhaps I should post this as the lead-off for a *new thread* called "Not just another thread about Jonathan"? Or should there be a separate thread for Jnth and one for ND?

Thanks for the idea guys!!

Hey, it’s do unto others…

By all means put in the effort, but expect to fly solo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Phil's first Objectivist Living post was on 28 December 2005, in a thread that discussed (among other things) the psychological reality of Rand's characters in both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead: "Ancient" post on Rand's Characters.

I do not remember reading the thread at the time, but it is very interesting from my point of view, fasacinated as I am by matters psychological. The first post by Ellen was a posting of an 'ancient' thread (actually from August 2004) to 'Salon Total Freedom list.'

The post of mine to which the title refers, as noted in the first "FWD," is something I sent "on Friday June 18 (might have been June 17) 1999 to the RandFem list, which at that time was discussing Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand." The RandFem list was run by Thomas Gramstadt (sp?). I later copied the post to Salon Total Freedom, adding a bit of prefatory material which I included in the OL post.

In that initial posting, Ellen noted that one of the interlocutors was Nathaniel Branden.

Although Nathaniel was subscribed to the Feminism list, he wasn't participating in the discussion. As noted, his comment of applause was sent off-list.

Subsequent to that post, a marvelous discussion ensued, including comments from Barbara Branden.

What you don't see from the OL thread as it stands is that there were a bunch of posts, before Phil appeared, which wandered into the Gormenghast trilogy and Kat's and my places of residence. Several of us were having a good time on the "digressions."

OL was young then. It was Phil's first post. Kat honored his objection and peeled off most of the posts which strayed from the path.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In [Phil's] case there's the schoolmarming, the pontifications laced with ignorance, the faulty quoting practices, and probably other categories we'll be identifying as we go along.

A big, and pervasive, one -- the hypocrisy:  "Do (or don't do) as I say and not as I do (or don't)."

Don't make assumptions about motivations (which Phil makes abundantly).

Don't jump to snap conclusions (as he often does).

Listen to and learn from criticism.  (!!!)

Ellen

That's a total of seven categories!

Four categories, with three typical example-types of the hypocrisy specified. ;-)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Ellen's Failure to Grow Up

> A big, and pervasive, one -- the hypocrisy: "Do (or don't do) as I say and not as I do (or don't)." Don't make assumptions about motivations (which Phil makes abundantly). Don't jump to snap conclusions (as he often does). Listen to and learn from criticism.

Dumb and false set of sweeping generalized smears as usual, Ellen.

Actually, when are you going to post a bit more on the -substantive- threads - instead of just joining your brain brothers like Jonathan in simply joining in to make a personal attack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[edited for spelking errors]

LOL. Was that deliberate or inadvertent? Funny either way.

Ellen

I am often toe-fingered in my first drafts; spelking just looked too dumb to correct, I must admit. As if I had suddenly lurched into Riksmål instead of English.

PS -- thanks for the timeline correction and background on the 'ancient' postings. I obviously skimmed past the explanatory framework!

I think that the issues you revisited are perennial -- and until Phil dropped in with his negative gurning that discussion had the flow and eddies that friendly, informed discussions often take in real life. A new OL member would perhaps understand that Phil's introductory post was too negative, an overreaction, a social blunder.

To return to the focus of Phil and his seeming habits -- I should reiterate that I think Phil himself gave the best insights into his occasional difficulties in communication, social navigation and personal relationships in a few reflective posts (exemplified by his bittersweet memorandum in The Objectivist Psychologists and Me).

[edited to remove evidence of my own sloppy thinking and reporting]

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For any newbies who are interested... the Flame War Rant thread contains Joanathan at his most hateful and irrational.

"Joanathan"? I'm envisioning myself all Ed Wood-like, in a wig and angora sweater. 6 feet 4 inches of feminine hotness.

Anyway, if you meant "Jonathan," and you think that the Flame War Rant thread contains me at my most hateful and irrational, then all I can say is thanks. If that's me at my most hateful and irrational, I must be a pretty sweet and amazingly rational person.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the Flame War Rant thread -- and of Phil's request for some documentation of his ascribing motives and jumping to conclusions, here's a post (#25 on the thread) which has lots of stuff all in one package.

[...] your usual 'attack Phil' mode.

Like several others on this board who bear grudges and let their objectivity slip where I or whoever is their "pet enemy" appears, you really need to become more mature. This is a thread about J's flame wars. Try to do as much research on that as you would on the topic of any other thread.

Another example of immaturity is the constant harping on links, the quote function and other trivial stuff. You do it, regardless of subject, because you have a psychological urge to find -something- to attack whenever I post. And you know very well that that is not the subject of this thread either...and would be distracted from it.

When you or anyone else do that, it's not as bad as J., who is consumed by the personal hostility thing and it's right out there on the surface. But it is dishonorable because you have to post in good faith and stick to the subject and afford me or any other opponent good faith. And the respect of addressing the overriding subject.

Phil, why don't you just admit that you were way off base in your psychologizing of Jonathan, instead of not only continuing with the same psychologizing of him but adding psychologizing of me? (Note, here I'm using "psychologizing" in Rand's actual meaning, rather than in the meaning with which it's often used, as merely an equivalent for any psychological statement.)

Jonathan has been trying to have a discussion of the Kant on the Sublime issue with Michael N. for a long time. Your motive ascriptions are unwarranted and are once more you doing one of the things you lecture others not to do.

Your claim that I have an urge to find something to attack whenever you post is even more off base than your standard run of "folks are out to get you" motive ascriptions. The fact is that ever since late 1998, when I first started posting on the old Cornell-l list, my primary urge when you've posted has been simply to skip the post. Your schoolmarming habit was well-established already then and already bored me and hasn't become any more interesting to me over the years.

Recently, I've been pushing at you properly to document source and provide context for your quotes because, for once, you've posted a few things I actually found worth replying to on threads where I've been active, but I am unwilling, in order to try to dialog with you, to have to do your sourcing and context-providing for you. If you won't do it yourself, then I'll just ignore your content on the threads of interest to me.

You owe Jonathan a big apology. Keep on with the psychologizing of me, and you'll owe me one, too.

Ellen

PS: You know what you should have done, Phil? You should have stayed out of this thread entirely and let Jonathan and Newberry thrash it out between them. It wasn't your battle.

Phil responded:

Ellen, your post is foolish on many different levels (and laughably spiteful with the sweeping attacks on what I've had to say over the years.)

Your pretty much across the board dismissal reminds me of that of a middle schooler.

So I won't bother to respond other than to say that I've had many, many compliments on lots of my posts over the dozen years since 1998.

Time to grow up, babe. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the issues you revisited [on the "'Ancient' post" thread] are perennial -- and until Phil dropped in with his negative gurning that discussion had the flow and eddies that friendly, informed discussions often take in real life. A new OL member would understand that Phil's introductory post was too negative, an overreaction, a social blunder.

Hypothetical for those reading (interpret the "you" as general):

Suppose you've heard of a new discussion board which has started and you take a look to see if you'd like to post there and conclude that the type of discussion isn't to your taste, would you sign onto the board as a member and post to *say* that the board isn't to your taste and you'll stick to the boards you're already posting on?

To return to the focus of Phil and his seeming habits -- I should reiterate that I think Phil himself gave the best insights into his occasional difficulties in communication, social navigation and personal relationships in a few reflective posts (exemplified by his bittersweet memorandum in The Objectivist Psychologists and Me).

I could sympathize with the problems if it weren't for the stubborn sticking to and defending the habits. I've begun to wonder if ND's masochist hypothesis is right and Phil enjoys producing a negative response.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, I'm sure Michael has seen the thread by now and if he were going to close the thread, he'd have done so by now....and I actually hope he doesn't! I'm *actually interested*...

Phil,

I just now saw this thread (and the one you started).

As to you being interested, I already knew that. I didn't need to see your post to know.

And boy, do I know.

All I have to do is look at my past addictions...

That's a quip, but I'm also serious.

I want to tell you that you alone hold the power to attract attention of a much higher quality than this, but I don't think you're ready to hear it. You're way too committed to getting the current kind of attention.

(I suspect you do this because of a value judgment--deep down, you believe this kind of attention is better than nothing and are scared shitless about trying a different way. But I might be wrong. You could be an outright masochist. :) )

But there is a much better way. It doesn't have to be as difficult as you make it. You alone will know when you're so tired of suffering that you decide you don't want to live that way anymore. And when you're ready, I'm here for you to help where I can. I'm serious about that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alrighty, let’s have a look at where this project stands. There’s a basic problem I see, which explains why this hasn’t been done earlier. Roark once told Toohey, “but I don’t think of you”; but when the subject is Phil, it’s more like “I try not to think of you”. So he buts in, derails a thread, maybe someone takes the time to analyze his behavior, but generally he just sinks the conversation and before long something else has come along. Sitting here spending time going through it feels like a waste of time, it doesn't inspire concentrated effort. Oh well, one must soldier on.

In [Phil's] case there's the schoolmarming, the pontifications laced with ignorance, the faulty quoting practices, and probably other categories we'll be identifying as we go along.

A big, and pervasive, one -- the hypocrisy: "Do (or don't do) as I say and not as I do (or don't)."

Don't make assumptions about motivations (which Phil makes abundantly).

Don't jump to snap conclusions (as he often does).

Listen to and learn from criticism. (!!!)

That's a total of seven categories!

Four categories, with three typical example-types of the hypocrisy specified. ;-)

So we have seven categories, and most have a common element, hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is too general to be a category, it’s just that pervasive, so I say we stick to seven. Maybe if we could come up with a shorthand, like Peikoff’s DIM (D2, M1 etc.) it would help. I bet a cool acrostic could be formed, let’s see, there’s seven letters in asshole, no, there’s two s’s, that’s no good. Suggestions?

This needs to be a collaborative effort, and so far I must say I’m quite pleased with the level of participation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here's one to add to the record books. I think the category ought to be "tone deafness". By way of asking for a "professional" summary of Nathaniel Branden's work, Phil repeatedly insults the whole OL community. Now, if he actually wanted what he was requesting, would he go about it this way? Only if he's tone deaf.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11547&view=findpost&p=150813

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one for the record books.

Notice ND's stupidity or maliciousness in not understanding the difference between an inappropriate "insult" and an appropriate, much-needed strong criticism of (almost) the entire OL "community", if you can call it that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice ND's stupidity or maliciousness in not understanding the difference between an inappropriate "insult" and an appropriate, much-needed strong criticism of (almost) the entire OL "community", if you can call it that.

Do you believe you went about your request the right way, meaning, in a way that would actually inspire someone to invest the time into putting together the information you asked for? Or, are you acknowledging that that wasn’t your goal; that you sought only to deliver an insult, and to do it in a passive aggressive way?

On another topic, you know I have yet to have a thread I’ve created get moved to the Garbage Pile? Even when I got into the flame war with sjw, it wasn’t my thread and I didn’t even start the flaming. How many Phil threads are there? Yikes, someone call the DOJ, there's a monopolist in our midst. Well that’s it, I’m going to have to come up with something too risqué, maybe put some good T&A on display, I’ll try and whip something up this weekend.

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