Note re "Not Good - Iran Escalation" thread

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

What your action in locking the "Not Good - Iran Escalation" thread looks like to me is that Peter's financial threat carried the day.

I'm hoping that Jon isn't going to discontinue posting.

He's correct that he didn't "rope" you into anything.

Ellen

[Peter]

You need a laugh. "May The Schwartz Be With You" Ellen. "Funny, she doesn't look Druish." What does he mean by that, Mel? What's the matter, Colonel Sandurz? Chicken? Newsman: On a sadder note, Pizza the Hutt was found dead earlier today in the back seat of his stretch limo. Evidently, the notorious gangster became locked in his car and ate himself to death.

Spaceballs is a 1987 science fiction spoof in which Planet Spaceball's President Skroob sends Lord Dark Helmet to steal Planet Druidia's abundant supply of air to replenish their own, and only Lone Starr can stop them. The film parodies Star Wars, Star Trek, and The Wizard of Oz, among others. 

 

[Peter]

Hello. Dudes and Dudettes. Thank you for the applause.  I am a rapper named Cracked Ice, here on the Psycho Friends Hot line. Now listen up y’all. This is a real headline from Business Insider: Russia’s new drone looks like a snowy owl, and it has a deadly purpose. That was just on the net around 9:30. Peter 

[Brant Gaede]

Starting in late July I pledge $100/mo to OL. I am quite capable of raising that if I read any more crap about how donating to OL grants anybody, including myself, any special status here.

--Brant

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Starting in late July I pledge $100/mo to OL. I am quite capable of raising that if I read any more crap about how donating to OL grants anybody, including myself, any special status here.

--Brant

That is outstanding Brant. So generous . . .  wait . . . you said "if." But I think any contribution that keeps the spirit of Atlantis alive will be appreciated by everyone who reads and contributes here.  

Tonight I was re-watching the movie "Pearl Harbor" on AMC and I started wondering about the wisdom of a war movie about a current good ally who was once the object of our bombs and hatred. A few years ago I wouldn't have thought about it, even though I lived in Japan for 9 months, but now it somehow did not seem appropriate. Vietnam may, be in a similar way, become a place of friends and allies. I will have to look the cast of Pearl up. I thought the guy who played Roosevelt was quite good. 

Edit. I am a donkey’s uncle. It was an unrecognizable Jon Voight. Well done. And Kate Beckinsale was so beautiful and made me believe she was a lady from the 1940’s. Peter

   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

What your action in locking the "Not Good - Iran Escalation" thread looks like to me is that Peter's financial threat carried the day.

Ellen,

Wrong.

I don't work that way. 

My history speaks for itself. Ask around...

(btw - I'm going to be taking the Adsense ads off OL in a week or maybe a little more. Not because I don't need the money, I do, but for other reasons.)

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

He's correct that he didn't "rope" you into anything.

Wrong again.

He said he wasn't going to use the rhetorical brilliance you so admire in his posts anymore on OL, but adhere instead to the warm OL humor blah blah blah. Then he used the same rhetorical brilliance right there in that same post to insinuate I have mental illness issues (muh meds). The idea is that I would feel the sting he feels, yada yada yada..., except being brilliance and all, only those who saw it would get it.

That's called roping me in. 

Like I said, enough bullshit. This is a site of ideas, not that crap. I don't mind the ribbing and in another context, I would have laughed it off and not given it two thoughts. Hell, I don't even mind flame wars up to a point. 

But the quantity of this bullshit--and the need to perpetuate this bullshit in even greater quantity to the detriment of everything else (including my downtime on my other projects to run kindergarten monitor duties here)--was too much. There's plenty of this kind of bullshit on that thread if anyone really gets value out of it. There's no lack of both bickering or his rhetorical brilliance for people to admire. But this was going to escalate into more bickering and, furthermore, I imagine, he wanted everyone to feel what "stalking" feels like or whatever else is bouncing around in his head about social interactions.

Notice, despite the overwhelming number of posts devoted to this crap, it had nothing to do with the Iran problem escalating, which was the purpose of that thread. You know... the threat of major war? That trivial thing?

I mean, come on. I love Jon (and Peter, and you for that matter  and all OL regulars). But he did that stuff a gazillion times already and, from the looks of things, wanted to do it a gazillion more. A great variation on the Phil Coates syndrome.

Meanwhile, readers are going away, which I mentioned in that thread.

My job is the health of this forum, not play kindergarten monitor. I'll do it up to a point, but I'm not eternal. And that crap is.

Wanna see something?

Go to Solo Passion right now. Or RoR.

They're both closed down.

 

Granted, parts of RoR are still accessible, but not the main page for posting. And it's been that way since April. Also, SLOP will probably open back whenever they decide to, I guess. But who knows about any of it?

Meanwhile, all those posts by all those people over all those years are simply bye-bye.

That will not happen to OL, no matter who wants to bicker.

Most OL users don't even think about these things, nor should they. I make sure they don't have to.

That is my priority, not winning a stupid flame war or selling out for donations or any of that crap.

There's a reason we're the only one left standing.

I intend to keep it that way.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Starting in late July I pledge $100/mo to OL. I am quite capable of raising that if I read any more crap about how donating to OL grants anybody, including myself, any special status here.

--Brant

Brant,

Does ass-kissing count?

You're not the only one who's quite capable... I have my own talents...

(Just joking, as I imagine you are. If not, that's good, too. It's all good.  )

Michael

[Peter]

Michael won't need to put the new thread that described the old thread being put into the garbage pile, into the garbage pile. The new press secretary looks like an actress. Sahara Sarah Huckabee Sanders is still considering a run for Governor of Arkansas. I might send her a few bucks if asked. Peter

[Ellen Stuttle]

On June 25, 2019 at 10:28 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Starting in late July I pledge $100/mo to OL. I am quite capable of raising that if I read any more crap about how donating to OL grants anybody, including myself, any special status here.

--Brant

I'm not questioning that Michael genuinely likes Peter's posting style - which he calls "happy-go-lucky" and which Jon and I find rude and a nuisance.

But unless I missed it, Michael hadn't said anything about the substantive issue in dispute between Jon and Peter - the existence of CIA black-ops activities in Iran.

Peter called Jon's charges "petty," and then impugned Jon's sources and sanity in making the charges.

When Jon responded with name-calling, and Peter said he'd take his money and leave if the name-calling wasn't stopped, Michael then gave a discourse on humor and indicated (not in this exact wording) that Jon is tone deaf to light-hearted banter, i.e., that Peter wasn't being serious in guffawing the idea of CIA black-ops activities in Iran.

This looked to me like an attempt to save face for Peter by passing off his oblivion as joking -- and a superior form of joking at that, since Michael proceeded to make comparatively negative remarks about Rand's views on humor.  

Now I think that Rand's statements on humor are among the dumbest statements she made.  But Jonathan, who explicitly relishes taunting people, has at least twice that I've seen, maybe another time too, quoted Rand's views in justification of his enjoyment.  I haven't previously said anything about her views myself, not wanting to get into the topic, and maybe Michael hasn't wanted to get into it either. However, he's joined in with Jonathan's routines re William and climate change.  As best I'm aware, it's only now, in support of Peter, that he's holding up "banter" as the high form of humor.

---

Anyway, I've fulfilled the condition of your "if."  So you'll start contributing $100 per month at the end of July.  Added to my half-that-amount average per month contribution, Michael's hosting fee and some subsidiary expenses should be covered whatever on-again/off-again decisions Peter makes about his contributing.  

Ellen

[Peter]

You ended your letter with a devil emoji, Ellen. Money does not trump morality on OL. If I lied about anyone on OL Michael would take me to task. I try to never curse or defame anyone no matter how mad I may be. I don’t falsify quotes with quote marks or with a person’s name, a colon, and then a supposed quote from them. Nor do I deliberately attempt to turn our internet home into something toxic, bad for anyone, or not a good place to communicate.

I don’t jokingly or falsely quote anyone unless it is clearly labeled as a joke. What do I mean? An example of my use of dialogue attributed to “Elaine” not “Ellen” follows, with a real quote below it. I was going to put this on the 2020 Dem thread.

Imaginary dialogue from Elaine Bettes in the new show Seinfeld 2020:

“Julian Castro and former Maryland congressman John Delaney may be the most sponge-worthy Democratic candidates. The rest of them aren’t worth a (the “f” word.”)

Notes. Max Zahn Reporter Yahoo Finance June 27, 2019 . . . . But even moderate candidates, like Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), highlighted the economic injustice that divides haves from have nots. In all, eight of the 10 candidates voiced Sanders-style economic populism — though a sharp disagreement over “Medicare for All” showed divides in the substance behind their rhetoric . . .  Exceptions to the populist stance came from former United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro and former Maryland congressman John Delaney, who described himself as “different than everyone else here on stage.” “Prior to being in Congress, I was an entrepreneur. I started two businesses,” Delaney said, suggesting he considers issues from the perspective of both working people and the business owners who employ them. end of unsent message

Clearly I did not jump the bonds of what is decent or deceitful, Ellen. Nor will I falsely accuse, bear testimony, or do anything else to create a bad environment for people. I don’t stalk people. I rarely block anyone and not read messages unless it is of no interest. And except for a bit of a flame war against Ghs and his explanation of "anarchy" I have stayed within the rules. Peter  

[Peter]

Ellen wrote: But unless I missed it, Michael hadn't said anything about the substantive issue in dispute between Jon and Peter - the existence of CIA black-ops activities in Iran. end quote

The evidence is “out there” in the public realm? I find substance lacking in that assertion for a very practical reason. If Ellen knows that, then Iran knows. If they didn’t know before, they certainly know now. What would Iran do with the CIA black op personnel and anyone shielding them? Imprisonment and hostage taking? Death? Mulder and Scully, what do you think? That is an attempt to use good natured ribbing to add weight to my counter assertion. It is in no way vile, curse worthy, or meant to be mean or hurtful. Peter          

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

But unless I missed it, Michael hadn't said anything about the substantive issue in dispute between Jon and Peter - the existence of CIA black-ops activities in Iran.

Ellen,

So I'll say something about it.

Could be...

Maybe not...

There. That's my comment on the substance. I'm not in Iran. I don't believe the mainstream news one way or the other because they lie on purpose. The alt media is unreliable in presenting facts for different reasons (sometimes they get it right, sometimes not). But these are all we've got. As to trusting the CIA one way or the other? Ha. And, from my personal experience, I've seen--up close--the US government interfere abroad and I've seen it not interfere. 

So, ultimately, how the hell should I know?

I would like to discuss and try to tease out some ideas from the swirl of unreliability. That's why I started that thread. But, alas, greater epic issues of intrepid consequence and legendary matters of legend must take precedence.

For example, which one between Jon and Peter is a poo-poo head? Despite the earth-shattering importance of the question, I preferred to let the reader decide and all that did was create even more hostility. Until that gets resolved, I guess bombing Iran, the CIA and so on will have to wait.

Or maybe those two could work it out between them without constantly demanding the other doesn't belong on OL. My own opinion is that neither is a poo-poo head, but my opinion does not seem to be the popular one. 

(Maybe I should make about two hundred posts a day insisting that my opinion be the only one--and that means everyone has to agree with me goddamit--when people are trying to discuss other things like bombing Iran. Maybe I should call everyone names or threaten to shut down the site if they don't agree with me. Maybe I should get aggressive and teach them all how I feel or lecture them on what OL behavior should be. Who knows? I might get some defenders. And then, with that kind of feedback, I could feel really really really really really good about my job well done, striking blows for truth, Ayn Rand, apple pie and the sanctity of my own thin-skinned prevalence.    )

Besides, Jon was complaining--bitterly and often--about being stalked. By closing down the thread when that became the main issue in a barrage of posts, the problem got solved, right? 

 

As to the donations from you and Peter, I am grateful. Seriously grateful. Thank you. You two are the main donors to OL and your contributions mean a lot to me. Small sums from others sometimes piddle in every three months or so and I am grateful for those, also. None or this is necessary for the site to exist, I will make sure the site continues regardless, but they sure as hell help.

Michael

[Peter]

These are the voyages of the Star Ship Enterprise. Scratch that. Thanks to Michael and Ellen for their contribution. It’s 91 degrees here at 5:30 pm.

Have I used these letters before? I don’t remember. These are some interesting, and contrastingly different way of disagreeing and unnecessary roughness about the concepts “consciousness” and the “subconscious.” The first two are from our own Ellen and the last is from Jeff Riggenbach on the old Atlantis. They have contrasting styles. Ellen is just fine; erudite and sure. Jeff is abrasive. Why post them, Michael and the readers of this thread? What makes a house a home?  Just food for thought. Peter

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis To Michael Hardy Subject: ATL: Where Is Experience? (was....subconscious [vs.] unconscious) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:05:03 -0400 [MH:  Due to the vagaries of the archives, I sent this to you via regular e-mail as well as posting it.] Mike uses a form of expression which relates to an issue I've been puzzling about for a long time.

He writes: >"Internally" means introspectively, and introspection means directly observing what's going on inside your head.

When I was very young -- three through five plus -- I used that form of expression --"in my head" -- and I still sometimes use it as convenient terminology for particular contexts.  But from the time I was going on six, I've been wondering just exactly WHERE one's experience is. Experience has an odd locale, a nebulous locale.  It sort of seems to be someplace, but if you really try to notice, *what* place?

Consider the experience of touch.  What I experience is simultaneously a feeling of surface and a sense of pressure.  The feeling of surface has characteristics which identify it as a specific kind of surface -- e.g., wood, plastic, metal, fabric; with specific details -- rough wood versus smooth wood, crinkly versus smooth plastic; silk versus leather versus terrycloth, etc., etc.  The sense of pressure has a large range of characteristics -- e.g., lightly delicate to heavy pressure, pressure mixed with the sense of heat or cold, or pain.

Where does this touch experience occur?  To me, it seems to have a non-precisely-specifiable location somewhere partly in the substance touched, partly in my skin, partly somewhere between. (Try the experiment of touching things with your eyes closed, so you don't have visual cues of location, and try to specify the locale of the experience.)

Consider one's thought processes.  Well, sometimes it seems to me that my thoughts actually are happening IN my head, as if they're heard in a sort of imagined hollow sphere residing between my ears. Other times it seems more as if I'm listening to them from a sort of ghostly set of headphones more or less positioned outside my ears.  Other times, when I'm carried away by a thought process, and nothing is going on which distracts, it will seem as if my thoughts are filling a sort of "field" which extends to a non-specifiable (generally spherical) distance around me.

Consider visual experience:  where's the locus of what one sees? The objects of direct visual perception -- the objects which I see by means of light waves entering my eyes -- I experience as being out there in the world, with me looking at them.  But when it comes to images -- ranging from daytime images to dreams -- then I can't clearly specify a "where."  Sometimes images seem to be kind of in the air before me (though I've been known to have images of things which seemed to be behind me).  Sometimes the locale has the semblance of being within a sphere within my head.  Other times -- especially when I'm lying with my eyes closed in a darkened room, or when I'm dreaming -- the images seem to be an existent world -- a virtual world, if you will -- which *I* am within (instead of the images being within me). Ellen S.

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: The difference between the subconscious and the unconscious Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 18:59:21 -0400

Christian Ross wrote: <  We know that there are parts of the brain that when "disabled" make recognition of previously known objects impossible.  We know that abstractions such as personality are also related to the physicality of the brain.  (i.e. damage to the frontal lobe).

<<<<  ((this is in brief regard to "where is experience"))  >>>>

I replied: <  I'm assuming that the parenthesized comment refers to my post titled "Where Is Experience?"

<<<  Knowledge of which parts of the brain are necessary in order for us to have certain experiences doesn't tell us anything about the experiences.  I was reflecting on *what* I experience, not on the mechanics of how I'm enabled to experience.  >>>

Christian says: <  I was attempting (very briefly) to suggest that in order to understand "what" and "where" experience is--one must understand that there is in fact no difference between the abstract sense that you are reflecting on, and the mechanical sense I have invoked.  >>

I'm not sure what Christian means by "abstract sense," but if he's attempting to say that there's no difference between the "what" and the "how" of experience, then I must strenuously disagree.

What we experience is seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, thinking, dreaming, etc.  We don't experience, for example, chemical changes in the retina, neurons firing, nerve impulses propagating, etc. We don't even know that any such events are occurring until we become scientifically advanced enough to discover that they're occurring.

I suspect, from the remainder of Christian's response (see below) that he misunderstood the issue I was raising.  I was describing phenomenology, attempting to say in words....well, how shall I put this? "the 'seeming' of experience?"  I raised the issue here only because Mike had used the phrase "inside your head," a phrase which connects to memories of my earliest attempts at giving verbal expression to the phenomena of consciousness.  I wondered if anyone would respond with self-reports such as the brief one I gave.  I wasn't proposing any form of separation between biology and consciousness.

I

n regard to Nathaniel Branden's work, which Christian mentions: the issue I was talking about isn't the same sort of issue as Nathaniel discusses.  I've read the majority of NB's books. The only place I can recall where he makes more than passing reference to the type of phenomenological issue I meant is in *The Art of Living Consciously*, where he has some brief description of different states of consciousness. Ellen S.

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: The Brain and the Mind Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:53:37 -0700

Christian Ross states: "We know that there are parts of the brain that when 'disabled' make recognition of previously known objects impossible."

No, in fact, we do *not* know any such thing. What we *do* know is that "inexplicably" (to those who are wedded to a crude physical reductionism as regards consciousness), in some individuals, other parts of the brain "take over" the tasks no longer possible to the damaged parts, while in other individuals, this never happens. JR

[Peter]

What will keep Objectivist Living’s heart beating? The freedom to post your thoughts but not to . . . well, you fill in the blank. I think everyone has “that thing” they strenuously object to, and that in nearly everyone’s opinion crosses a line of decency. Perhaps Jimbo’s over moderation of Atlantis had a chilling effect, but can under moderation also have that effect, if a poster is a bad person? It is hard to come up with a sample of this but perhaps it is a picture of someone shaking a fist and someone giving the finger. They are similar, but different. I think I want to live like an objectivist and I am willing to pay . . . a modest amount . . . for owners and sometimes gatekeepers who cherish Rand’s legacy.            

I like Ellen Stuttle. She presents a clear, unbiased history of Atlantis below which I think appeared on OL back in 2013. She mentions a drunk sounding ranter who once posted. So to jog memories I will post it again. Does anyone know when Atlantis Two became a memory? Peter   

Closed up for brevity. From Ellen Stuttle on Objectivist living, July 3, 2013.

Kyle, Re #5: I'm pretty sure that Jimbo was the moderator or one of the moderators of an Objectivist list which operated long before Atlantis. MDOP, I think it was called, Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy. That was back when you had to print stuff out on barred computer graph paper. My husband subscribed for a while, but then got tired of the mass of print-outs.

Jimbo was not the originator or owner of Atlantis. That was Kirez Korgan, who previously had run a different list operating from the Cornell University server. Kirez was a student at Cornell. (He's subsequently changed his name, btw; I don't know to what.). Joshua Zader became Kirez' co-moderator. They took turns.

In 1999, Kirez and Joshua set up a family of lists called the WTL family - We The Living. The two biggest of those lists were OWL - Objectivism at We (The) Living - and ATL - Atlantis. There were also a PSYCH list, an art list, a parenting list, and some others. OWL had the biggest subscribership. It was moderated, by rotating moderators, and there was a per/day posting limit for each poster. ATL was unmoderated; it had an "anything goes" policy and no per-poster posting limit. For some years it was a free-wheeling place with enormous posting traffic, although never more than 250 subscribers at its peak membership. Arguments there could and non-infrequently did desert "civility."

How Jimbo came into it with Atlantis is that the WTL family of lists was hosted through a server he provided via his business. In 2002, during a discussion which I think pertained to US policy on Iraq, Jimbo was active in a dispute in which he was disagreeing, strongly, with the intensely held opinions of some of the most-prolific posters. Jeff Riggenbach started a thread addressed to Jimbo's arguments and using the words "functional illiterate," a favorite epithet of JR's, in the thread title.

Kirez at that point was pretty much an absentee overseer. He was busy with other things and wasn't following list content. When problems needing executive action arose, people had to email Kirez to get his attention. (There had been one circumstance, I think the only one on the original ATL, when members called for a banning. The object of the request was a particular poster who exceeded the prevailing reluctance to ban with his posting, most every night, streams of drunken and obscenity-laced diatribes.)

When JR started the thread with the insult to Jimbo in the subject line, Jimbo promptly decreed, as an either/or deal - either accept or find a different server - a civility policy with himself as overseer.

One regular promptly started a Yahoo list called Atlantis_II which objectors could use as refuge and retreat. Some persons argued for a while with Jimbo on the original list. He was adamant. So a large percentage of members, I estimate more than 3/4 of the members, left.

(Edit: By "left" I mean stopped posting on Old Atlantis. Many members stayed subscribed in order to get the posts and keep tabs on what was happening. Sometimes posts from Old ATL were copied onto ATL_II and discussed there.)

I think that Jimbo did not understand the dynamics of the list, and didn't realize that he was wrecking those dynamics. For instance, I happened to be on-line when Jimbo made the announcement. I immediately sent Jimbo an off-list note saying that I for one would not continue posting if he put the policy into effect.

Jimbo was also on-line. He sent back a surprised note. Why would I object?, he didn't understand, I wasn't one of those whom he thought needed moderating. Dense, dense, dense, I thought - and said, not quite using that exact word, at first, to Jimbo himself.

Jimbo's policy destroyed the "alchemy" of the original ATL.

Some posters supported him, including two who were then astonished to find posts of theirs subjected to moderation. Those two were Ellen Moore and Jason Alexander. Ellen Moore stayed, and argued with Jimbo - I imagine causing him to want to tear out his hair (te-he). Jason left.

A few years later, I forget if it was in late 2004 or in 2005, bothering with ATL became more of a nuisance than Jimbo was willing to deal with. Plus the whole WTL family of lists was using server space which he wanted freed for other purposes. Thus he announced that in X months the whole operation would be shut down and the archives would be wiped out. The archives of all the lists were available to be downloaded by members during that lag time.

Atlantis_II had meanwhile become the place where the main action was, although with a missing "edge" of verve because of the missing antagonists who irritated most everyone else. Instead A_2 members had to fight amongst ourselves.

Membership and traffic gradually waned. Today only a handful of "old friends" still chat on A_2. (I still get the posts myself, but I read few of them and almost never blip in with a comment. If I recall right, late 2011 was the last time I said anything on A_2.) Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, Peter said:

What will keep Objectivist Living’s heart beating?

Peter,

That's easy.

Me.

And anyone else who wishes to come along.

And if nobody does, and we ever get to a point where we need new members, I know where and how to get them. Believe me, it's not hard. The Internet has solved that and made it easy. Also, interest in Ayn Rand is great. Essentially, you just go to the people store and order more.   (That's a quip, but it's also a good metaphor for the reality of the process.)

I haven't wanted OL to grow until I resolve the technical part and get my other Internet marketing thing up (which has taken a hell of a long time because, during this same time, I decided to study--for real--fiction writing, modern psychology and neuroscience  ). But why do I not want OL to grow just yet? Because more members and more traffic will increase the bandwith usage and push the site up into a far more expensive category (OL is hopelessly entangled with the host and software licensor--I will need to hire a specialist to untangle it all, I don't want to lose anything anyone has posted here). 

I worried about the sudden recent drop in traffic, but things are now moving along.

The one issue that really setback traffic a while back from the old guard, but not too much, was my support of President Trump. Many people in O-Land hate him with a passion that surprised me and they left. They valued their hatred of President Trump over anything on this site. Apparently, Trump doesn't follow rules of social engagement they think proper. After looking at what people say and what they do over time (including President Trump), I have concluded that that is pretty much the entire substance of their main objection (just like with the conservative never-Trumpers).

But come on. That's it?

Some way to integrate a philosophy, huh? 

 

Anyway, may they be happy, healthy and prosperous. What is good for them is good for OL.

The path here is more varied and independent.

btw - I have received some emails recently requesting OL's rates to host content from their pool of authors. I'm resisting this for now as this is generally link farm stuff. Some of them do other monkey-shines, too. I'm not too happy with the risk of spamming the site or, ultimately, spamming OL members.  

Michael

[Peter]

Ellen mentioned someone who use to rant on Atlantis. Bill Dwyer wrote in his last letter to Atlantis that Crazy, Larry Fullmore, committed a justly deserved suicide, complete with a police standoff.

[Peter]

Michael as the owner of Objectivist Living is an intellectual Paladin who debates and fights printed battles in his internet forum. The fact that he is paid for services rendered is the American way because Paladin is fighting for objectivism and never compromises his principles. You might pay him with gold and you can pay him by bearing your soul in printing, which may convince other worthy people to join the fray.

“Have Gun, Will Travel,” reads the card of a man.

A knight without armor in a savage land.

His fast gun for hire, reads the calling wind.

A soldier of fortune is the man called Paladin.

[Ellen Stuttle]

On June 27, 2019 at 4:08 PM, Peter said:

I don’t falsify quotes with quote marks or with a person’s name, a colon, and then a supposed quote from them

Jon did not falsify a quote from you.  He didn't attribute the "roped in" comment to you.  Read again.

 

18 hours ago, Peter said:

Ellen mentioned someone who use to rant on Atlantis. Bill Dwyer wrote in his last letter to Atlantis that Crazy, Larry Fullmore, committed a justly deserved suicide, complete with a police standoff.

What a mess!!! 

Would you find the supposed "last letter" from Bill Dwyer you're referring to and quote it?

Good luck.

And which Atlantis list are you referring to?

Larry Fullmer, who was banned for awhile, was then reinstated. I forget if the reinstatement was before or after the split into two lists.

His suicide was not justly deserved.  It was very sad.  The completely erroneous remark about a police standoff was made by Ross Levatter. I took Ross to task strenuously about that remark.  The facts of the gunfire:  Two bullets were fired, both from the same rifle, both by Larry Fullmer at Larry Fullmer.  The first bullet hadn't done the job.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

[Larry Fulmer's] suicide was not justly deserved.  It was very sad.  The completely erroneous remark about a police standoff was made by Ross Levatter. I took Ross to task strenuously about that remark.  The facts of the gunfire:  Two bullets were fired, both from the same rifle, both by Larry Fullmer at Larry Fullmer.  The first bullet hadn't done the job.

An addendum about Larry Fullmer, showing how absurdly reality can be distorted in people's fancying up tales:

The proximal cause of Larry Fullmer's suicide was his losing his little dog, Ginger.  The dog ran off when they were out walking and Larry couldn't find her.  Larry was pretty much in despair anyway.  People who knew him thought that he figured that if he killed himself, someone would be sure to find the dog and have her well cared for.  Someone did find the dog and gave it to Larry's sister.

Ellen

[Peter]

There  was a video of the Fullmer event. I  have the link but I would not advise anyone to watch it. It creeped me out. It did not happen as you remember seeing. I saw the whole effing event happen, Ellen. I don't want to watch it again or pass it on. You are wrong. 

The comments Jon attributed to me were compiled and then strung together out of context which is bad enough, but any how . . . One comment  I said. One I did not say. Another one I said. Another one I did not say. etc. That is libel.

Thou shalt not give false testimony. So what laws were violated? Not just biblical laws but what if he were giving false testimony in a court of law?

I ask you to stop sweeping up Jon's waste.  

[Ellen Stuttle]

11 hours ago, Peter said:

There  was a video of the Fullmer event. I  have the link but I would not advise anyone to watch it. It creeped me out. It did not happen as you remember seeing. I saw the whole effing event happen, Ellen. I don't want to watch it again or pass it on. You are wrong

You're getting something else mixed up with the Atlantis poster Larry Fullmer, I have no idea what.

All my records of Atlantis posts prior to 2008 - and my correspondence with Larry Fullmer and with a lady friend of his and with the newspaper reporter who did the newspaper account of Larry's suicide - are on an old computer, not on the tablet I'm using.  I haven't time to search for the documentation.

I wrote to the newspaper reporter asking if he would publish a request that people in the area try to find Ginger, Larry's dog.  The reporter said that he'd been deluged by emails from people making the same request and that meanwhile someone had found the dog.

He also said that everyone who knew Larry knew that he wasn't violent and wouldn't hurt anyone.

 

 

====

11 hours ago, Peter said:

The comments Jon attributed to me were compiled and then strung together out of context which is bad enough, but any how . . . One comment  I said. One I did not say. Another one I said. Another one I did not say. etc. That is libel.

Following is a copy of the post by Jon you're talking about.  The bracketed inserts are mine.

Jon was saying that it was you who "roped" Michael in, not he.  Jon misunderstood Michael's meaning, but he was not attributing the wording "roped you" to you.

And "libel"?  My, my,  how very exaggerated a charge for the circumstances anyway.

=====

 

https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/17164-not-good-iran-escalation-flame-war/?do=findComment&comment=287586

On June 22, 2019 at 1:17 PM, Peter said:
To Michael and all others reading this. I’m thinking about taking another month off from communicating and supporting OL. I would hate to see such a wonderful site become a toxic waste dump. Are those posts conducive to living like an objectivist? Peter

Then, Peter, Posted Saturday at 11:00 PM “Civility indicates civilization. Is OL in the boondocks Brant? I will drop my support of OL, as of now.”

Then you [MSK] jumped in.

That was Peter [who roped you in], not me. I never asked you, let alone “roped you” in. That was Peter.

It’s a big difference, so I trust you agree on the importance and fairness of my pointing it out.

=====

[Peter]

Sorry about the circus lady comment. I may delete it.

I went to the following link and it was a heading for an Idaho newspaper. Peter
 

William Dwyer <wswdwyer@comcast.net>

Wed 6/1/2005 8:33 AM

For those on this list who are not already aware of it, Larry Fullmer, a former poster, better known for his foul language and drunken diatribes, was reported to have committed suicide in a dramatic confrontation with police in Pocatello, Idaho. 

 

http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2005/05/23/news/local/news01.txt

[Ellen Stuttle]

That's peculiar.

The Atlantis poster lived and died in Utah, Salt Lake City, I think.

The newspaper story isn't opening on this tablet.  I'll try on another one in awhile.

Ellen

[Peter]

From: Larry Fullmer To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: gay pride, not to mention homosexuals. Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:12:31 -0700

Atlantiens, I figure this is a more-or-less thoughtless post, but not nearly as bad as the "birthday list" crap I sent ya the other night. Since Pocatello made the national news, today, I thouht ya might be interested in what's going on here from an "objective" point of view. For the last week the local news media has been "cover to cover" nothing but reporting on the up-coming homosexual pride festival this weekend - the first one ever in our state. The Chamber of Commerce was bigtime 'gainst it, 'till they heard that 3,000 faggots were expected to show up.  Then they started counting how much they could make on hamburgers.  Money talks to to the Chamber.  They almost sound homosexual, themselves, the last few days. Anyway, in addition to the 3,000 morally depraved, I expected there will be 5,000 Mormons and Baptists show up to protest the depravity, what with four pages of "letters to the editor" today, threatening to do so. It oughta be a real bigtime Zoo, of interest to all, even Atlantieans. I figure the outcome will be that all 8,000 humans will be locked up in the same jail cell - minus one, me.  I've a lifeboat. Now, Peter Schwartz, if ya wanna write me up that homosexual pride has nothing to do with Objectivism, I write ya back an ask ya to dance, me not even gay, but knowing yor repressions, Rabbi. All you Atlantiens are invited to the celebration.  The battle lines are drawn, though.  It's Mormons and Baptists 'gainst homos.  There ain't no "objective" middle ground.

Reporting From Pocatello, Over & Out, Larry Fullmer  "the fat lady"

From: Larry Fullmer lfullmer1@home.com To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com> Subject: ATL: Kyle - Me thinks thou doth too much.. Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:53:07 -0700 Kyle, Attacking the flawed premises of others - others who are non-violent, protesting violence, as you have:

Well, Kyle, keep it up.  You are damn close to convincing me that your real war is with yourself, projecting as I see you doing. Check your flawed premises, Kyle, Pluuuuuze.

I'll still buy you lunch, but now its gotta be a "Charlies", the gay bar in Pocky.  Don't worry, I'm not sure what accounts for it, but I've found gays to be very accepting of anarchists, objectivists, libertarians and other folks the culture claims are sicckos. You may not welcome them, but they will welcome you, with no hidden aggenda. Flawedly, Larry Fullmer

From: "William Dwyer" To: <Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: truth, and the X-Files Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 12:10:13 -0700

Larry Fullmer wrote, >As the poster in Mulder's office says - "the truth is out there".  I absolutely love that, and that does not mean that I believe in space aliens. >

Actually, the truth is ~not~ out there, and that doesn't mean that I ~don't~ believe in space aliens. (What? – too many negatives?)

Larry, you may not be aware of it, but in previous discussions, it was pointed out (notably by George Smith) that Ayn Rand makes a distinction between truth and fact. For her, facts are "out there", but truth is "in here". Allow me to quote from her reply to John Hospers, as reprinted in her _Letters of Ayn Rand_ (p. 528). Hospers wrote, "Many things are true about the world which nobody yet knows," to which Rand replied: "Aren't you confusing ~'truth'~ with ~'facts'~?  'Truth' is a concept that refers to ~epistemology~,  not to metaphysics; to ~consciousness~, not to existence or reality.  ~'Facts'~ cannot be 'true' or 'false'; facts ~are~ ('existence exists')." Observe that Rand is here equating "truth" with epistemology and "fact" with metaphysics.  Are you listening, Ellen M.? Rand continues:

"~'Facts'~ are the standard of truth or falsehood; it is by means of ~'facts'~ that we determine whether an idea is true or false.  'Truth' is the attribute of an ~idea~ in somebody's consciousness (the relationship of that idea to the facts of reality) and it cannot exist ~apart~ from a consciousness."

Referring to Hospers, Rand writes, "You say:  'There are truths even when nobody knows them and nobody recognizes them.'  No, there are ~'facts'~ even when nobody knows them and nobody recognizes them; these ~'facts'~ are ~potentially the material of truths~; the recognition of these 'facts' by some human consciousness constitutes 'truths'." I hope you won't accuse me of quoting chapter and verse from the Objectivist bible.  I don't mean to hold Ayn Rand up as the standard of truth (to so speak! ;-), but I think she makes a good point, when she identifies 'truth' as epistemological and 'fact' as metaphysical.

Moreover, the best theory of truth is the correspondence theory, which states that an idea is true if it corresponds to reality.  Rand did not originate the correspondence theory, and, in fact, her view is a little different version of that theory than the standard one. She defines truth as "the ~recognition~ of reality", which presuppose knowledge, whereas a bare correspondence theory would not require that an idea constitute knowledge in order to be true; all that would be necessary is that it correspond to the fact that it refers to, not that anyone ~recognize~ that fact. For example, take the idea that space aliens exist.  If we define truth simply as the correspondence of an idea to the facts of reality, then if space aliens exist, then the idea they exist is true, regardless of whether or not anyone ~recognizes~ their existence.

You wrote, >Our task, see it as I, is not to proclaim it, but to discover it, jointly, I might add, to any who are still my potential friends. >

I'm in sympathy with you here, although I don't see anything wrong with proclaiming it once you've discovered it. However, as Ayn Rand observes, the "it" to be discovered is ~fact~, not truth. Bill

From: "Dave Thomas" <davethomasTo: atlantis Subject: RE: ATL: Jury duty conflicts with intelligence Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:14:31 -0700

Larry Fullmer: "The last time I tried real hard to play dumb, so's I could nullify.  It didn't work.  One thing that is not allowed in a jury is any hint of intelligence.  The prosecutors, the defense, and the judge hate intelligence.  They've got their game to play, in the current context.  Intelligence, and justice get in the way."

W

hen I mentioned I had jury duty to a friend, she told me that I wouldn't be picked because they only want stupid people.  I made some comment that jury members are selected if they believe that what rhymes must be true.  So all the defense layer needs to do is find a good rhyme for "acquit", and he's home free. If I get the chance, I'll try responding to other messages on this thread, but there's something here that I'd like to respond to (I think it was Kyle Varner who made a similar point... and Ellen Lewitt? told a personal story). Isn't it wrong to lie or be deceptive in order to get on a jury?  I can't come up with a decent justification for failing to be forthright with my beliefs regarding what should be punishable under the law. Dave "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs—jolted by every pebble in the road." -Henry Ward Beecher, preacher and writer (1813-1887)

[Peter]

I tried the Idaho link and if you click on a topic modern day stories pop up.