phantom000

Why I am here.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

You don’t do even the mildest criticism, not from Deanna, not from your friend. You turn it into a demand to sniff balls so you can reject it out of hand.

If Michael can't handle the mildest criticism, how is it that you - with your chronic dissatisfaction with how Michael runs his list - haven't been banned long ago?

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

If Michael can't handle the mildest criticism, how is it that you - with your chronic dissatisfaction with how Michael runs his list - haven't been banned long ago?

Ellen

Why are you even linking the two?

Why would criticism or expression of disagreement with who gets run off and who is welcomed warrant a banning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Why are you even linking the two?

Why would criticism or expression of disagreement with who gets run off and who is welcomed warrant a banning?

Jon,

You claim that Michael can't handle criticism.  (I suppose that's what your "You [MSK] don’t do even the mildest criticism" means.)

Then why does Michael tolerate your presence with your chronic criticism of how he runs his list?

Ellen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon,

You claim that Michael can't handle criticism.  (I suppose that's what your "You [MSK] don’t do even the mildest criticism" means.)

Then why does Michael tolerate your presence with your chronic criticism of how he runs his list?

Ellen

"Not being able to handle criticism" doesn't necessary imply banning the other person. It could also mean "always insisting on having the last word", or "not being able to say 'lets agree to disagree'" for example.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon,

You claim that Michael can't handle criticism.  (I suppose that's what your "You [MSK] don’t do even the mildest criticism" means.)

Then why does Michael tolerate your presence with your chronic criticism of how he runs his list?

Ellen

He does handle criticism, he handles it. In this case by pretending it is a demand to sniff balls and dismissing it, telling Deanna she doesn’t have the Socratic Circle quite right, mention some books on neurology, assurances he is really really good at this stuff, etc.

But he hasn’t banned Max or Deanna or myself and this is evidence he constructively handles criticism?  Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon,

You claim that Michael can't handle criticism.  (I suppose that's what your "You [MSK] don’t do even the mildest criticism" means.)

Then why does Michael tolerate your presence with your chronic criticism of how he runs his list?

Ellen,

OL is not the only forum where I post. No matter what the topic (screenwriting, story creation, copywriting, black hat stuff, hell, even a Jung group, and so on), when someone starts questioning the rules and this is allowed to grow, those discussions get the longest and most heated threads. And it's always the same. Those are the threads where people line up into factions and things start getting tribal and ugly as they start thowing rocks at each other.

(For an easy example of what happens when that is allowed to grow, remember the constant "flounces" on the old SoloHQ where people would make one swan song after another, be hooted or defended, only to reappear to fight another day? Man, did O-Land people hate each other back then. :) )

I keep an eye out so things don't get to that point on OL. I have yet to see something constructive come from that behavior--not anyplace, not even one place. Based on this experience and trying out different things, I came up with a winner that works, well. In the way I run OL, I use the metaphor "traffic cop" and I am certainly not ham-handed. I don't ban or moderate left and right when things get ugly. For example, look at the sheer amount of trash talk and shit posting Jon has done over time in the midst of some really great material. Imagine him doing that on Objectivism Online, for example. :) How long would he last over there?

(Incidentally, I do forum differently than they do, and the OL independent thinking approach to Rand is different than theirs, but there are some really great people on that forum. So my point is not to diss them with this example.)

Jon just doesn't get to shoot the traffic cop and that bothers him at times (like now). And since this power dynamics bullshit is always irritating for the person in the traffic cop seat, I opted, this time around, to do my own trash talk and shit posting right back. Seeing who sniffs whose balls, so to speak. :)  I'm going to have to tone it down, though, because this can get to be too much fun. And then everybody leaves. 

But in the present case, doing my own shit posting and trash talk allowed me to express my affection for Jon (and all other posters, for that matter) and still let him know he doesn't make the rules or enforce them on OL. I do.

I am proud of what we have built here at OL. It has not been by accident. We are in a slight down phase because of the sheer amount of Trump-hatred in O-Land and I (and the Trump supporting people here on OL) will not bow to their peer pressure of hatred. To hell with those that bothers. But many who used to post here have decided that pro-Trump talk is a no-no, so they left (for now :) ).

Also, the tech giants, where much of the organic traffic comes from, are on a Trump hating stretch and using dirty tricks to shut down pro-Trump expression (but, oddly enough, cracks are appearing and this is now showing the beginning signs of changing.) All that will pass and we will come out on the right side of history. And that will be even more for us to be proud of.

How about a particular social beef Jon has that I hold dear, also? Pedophilia, especially among the ruling class where they control each other through blackmail. It will be a glorious day to see many of these perverts in jail and that is already happening. OL is on the right side of that, too, and that should make many OL people proud.

Or a topic you, yourself, are passionate about--the manmade climate change scam? We are on the right side of history on that, too, but there is a lot of opposition against OL out there because of this.

Also, re the down phase, there are some constraints due to the nature of the software and hosting company we use. But that will be resolved in the not too distant future.

So before long, there will be a positive surge here on OL, both in traffic and number of topics people discuss. 

However, one rule will not change. No one gets to shoot the traffic cop.

People who don't like that rule should try running their own forum. Then we can see how that goes and how long they stay in business.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Give me a break. Did you even read what I wrote?

I wrote nothing of the sort.

Michael

Nothing of the sort?

Deanna, was it anything sort of like being told you don’t quite have it right, that’s not what Phantom was doing, so you don’t quite have what it is right, anything of that sort? Asking for a friend. Did it land sort of like that, or closer to nothing of that sort?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max said:

"Not being able to handle criticism" doesn't necessary imply banning the other person. It could also mean "always insisting on having the last word", or "not being able to say 'lets agree to disagree'" for example.

Max,

That's rich.

Can you point to a discussion where you yourself have not tried to get the last word or said, "Lets agree to disagree"?

Heh...

From what I've seen, your complaint only goes in one direction.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Nothing of the sort?

Jon,

Nothing.

I most definitely did not tell Deanna "she doesn’t have the Socratic Circle quite right."

What part of the following was difficult to understand?

On 10/18/2019 at 5:09 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From what little I read, I didn't find any meaningful connection with how this phantom guy opened...

In case this is too difficult, let me lay it out in plain language.

I mentioned my understanding of Socratic Circle (and limited understanding at that), not hers.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

You do everything perfectly and no one is going to get away with shooting the traffic cop, I mean suggesting otherwise.

Jon,

I don't understand what you mean from this wording, but if you mean I make the rules on OL and enforce them and you don't, I agree with you.

But if you mean for me to sniff your alpha dog balls, I'm still not going to sniff them.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t want to understand, because it is a criticism and you always find a way of turning those into attempted cop shootings, forced ball sniffings, etc. so that you can not understand and dismiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then you do that. Every time that is how you handle it. No legitimacy for the criticisms, no acknowledgment of the dodgings or apologies for the wild accusations made in their furtherance — It all just dissolves away now like it never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

No legitimacy for the criticisms...

Yeah, I'm bizarre.

Right.

Whatever...

I would never tell you how to do motorcycle stuff, not even theoretical mechanics. You know about it, I don't. I'm fine with that.

So knock it off and stop trying to tell me how to run a forum. I know what I'm doing. I know how to do it. You don't.

 

 

(time out to take a breath... ooooohhhmmmm... ooooohhhmmmm... Ah... that's better...)

 

 

There is something I find hilarious in this thread, though.

Imagine what it's like to be William right now.

How many times do you think he's hovered his mouse pointer over the like button about something you said to me?

Imagine him thinking, "Yes!!! Nailed his ass!!!" And then he runs his fingers across the keyboard and mouse.

Sudden he stops as reality sinks in... Oh, shit. This is Jon... The guy who constantly calls me... uhm...

And he just can't pull the trigger...

:)

Dayaamm!

The more I imagine this image, the more I laugh...

:) :) :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread sorta reminds me of the Big Bang.

--Brant

is it something out of nothing or nothing out of something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Max,

That's rich.

Can you point to a discussion where you yourself have not tried to get the last word or said, "Lets agree to disagree"?

Heh...

From what I've seen, your complaint only goes in one direction.

Michael

I just give some possible alternatives to Ellen's notion that "not being able to handle criticism" would automatically imply "banning your opponent", that's all. I myself don't continue a discussion if I've clearly stated my viewpoint and the other side is just going to resort to personal attacks. In such cases I let the other have the last word, I'm not interested in some endless ping pong game that doesn't solve anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Max said:

I myself don't continue a discussion if I've clearly stated my viewpoint and the other side is just going to resort to personal attacks. In such cases I let the other have the last word...

Max,

You mean like this last post of yours?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m road tripping today and passing my time as a passenger surfing the internet. I rarely have more than a few minutes these days for this kind of activity, so I tend to be quite selfish with how I spend those minutes. Hence, my much reduced activity here in general and my hesitance to devote a lot of energy on this thread. 

But I see there are others attempting to speak on my behalf and perhaps being offended for me, so ....

Regarding a Socratic circle, I have no idea if there is a correct way to do one, and I’ve never participated in one. I only know what the young people in my life have told me about their experience. It’s typically done in ELA classes when discussing literature, but I assume it can be done in other settings. There’s an inner circle of participants who are meant to discuss and an outer circle of participants who are meant to observe. After a time, they switch places. There is some general topic, but other than that the discussion is meant to be a sharing of ideas and wherever that goes, it goes. 

Now, my understanding is that it can be quite boring when participants repeat by rote. Therefore, kids like my son will open with some purposely provocative statement. Playing devil’s advocate if you will. Pot stirring if you prefer. It’s common for him to begin dinner discussions this way. We’re both entertained. 

I’ve seen this be not so entertaining. One of the young people on my team at work is accustomed to being the most brilliant person in the room. And she is brilliant. But what worked for her in the classroom doesn’t always work in the real world. When she comes to me with a purposely provocative idea, it’s my job to coach her through communicating that in a way that won’t get her laughed out of the room. Or called condescending. 

Regarding the phantom, I don’t know him. I’ve said already that I drew conclusions about him based on what I gleaned from his original post and my own experiences. I don’t have any attachment to the rightness or wrongness of those conclusions. 

Michael, I simply don’t know what else I could contribute that would be enlightening for you, but I freely admit that I didn’t go very far backwards to see what other questions you may have asked that I didn’t address. Unless you expected a response to “aw, c’mon” in which case I’ll close with “Jane, you ignorant slut!”

That’s a joke, of course. Everyone be well. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon just doesn't get to shoot the traffic cop and that bothers him at times (like now). And since this power dynamics bullshit is always irritating for the person in the traffic cop seat, I opted, this time around, to do my own trash talk and shit posting right back. Seeing who sniffs whose balls, so to speak. :)  I'm going to have to tone it down, though, because this can get to be too much fun. And then everybody leaves.

But in the present case, doing my own shit posting and trash talk allowed me to express my affection for Jon (and all other posters, for that matter) and still let him know he doesn't make the rules or enforce them on 

Michael,

I enjoyed the trash talking back this time.  If you made a habit of it, then we'd have escalating trash talk, which I would find a crashing bore.

I think that Jon should learn that you indeed make the rules here.  He doesn't, and he should quit trying to get you to change the rules to suit his preferences in who's allowed to post here and who isn't.  Specifically, the issue for Jon is William's presence.  You've explained a number of times why you don't ban William.  (I strongly agree with your reasoning.)  Jon doesn't like your decision, and doesn't seem to understand your reasoning.  But tough.  You are "the traffic cop" here.

Ellen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Max said:

I just give some possible alternatives to Ellen's notion that "not being able to handle criticism" would automatically imply "banning your opponent", that's all.

I don't think that "'not being able to handle criticism' would automatically imply 'banning your opponent.'"

However, someone so incapable of handling criticism as Jon appears to think Michael is would have banned Jon, and some while ago, what with all the flak Jon has produced over MSK's not doing as Jon wants him to do in regard to William.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Michael,

I enjoyed the trash talking back this time.  If you made a habit of it, then we'd have escalating trash talk, which I would find a crashing bore.

I think that Jon should learn that you indeed make the rules here.  He doesn't, and he should quit trying to get you to change the rules to suit his preferences in who's allowed to post here and who isn't.  Specifically, the issue for Jon is William's presence.  You've explained a number of times why you don't ban William.  (I strongly agree with your reasoning.)  Jon doesn't like your decision, and doesn't seem to understand your reasoning.  But tough.  You are "the traffic cop" here.

Ellen 

Notes from the family owned funeral parlor. I wish Godfather Michael would more strictly follow his own rules for contributing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Why are you connecting my alleging Michael misfired on Phantom to my observations that William is here only to thwart OL’s intended use?

And why the siege mentality — I cannot replace Michael, cannot take over, it isn’t even possible. It does not fit into reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...