emb021 Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 All-Am a little surprised there was no mention of this occurance here.For those who don't read SOLO (another Objectivist forum), there has been a thread going on over there for sometime after NB's official website somehow got taken over by a porn site. The thread was kind of interesting. Posters used it to beat up NB about being 'sleazy', then saying he was incompanent for allowing his website to be taken over (when this happens, sometimes its the fault of the hosting company, not NB or his admin's fault), then got into 'yet another diatribe' on the Branden-Rand split.Personally for me the whole thread said more about the posters then it did about NB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I looked on http://www.solopasion.com/ but couldn't find any threads about NB's website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAMF Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Jonathan,Was that a joke? If so, I laughed my ass off. Here's the link to the real thread:http://www.solopassion.com/node/1969I believe the pornographic pics are gone from the link. When I first looked, I don't recall there being a warning...and I lost all innocence. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 24, 2006 Share Posted December 24, 2006 That link no longer features porn pictures. Apparently the reason it happened is that a subscription ran out on NB's domain name and it was not renewed, so a porn outfit specialized in harvesting expired celebrity domain names got it.Whoever had the misfortune of following the links got a load of spyware, malware and automatic ads on their computer. Something called Gold Codec. (And yes, dumb me decided to see where the links went... It was a mess to clean up.)Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAMF Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I followed the link, but I didn't get any viruses or anything. You need an Internet Condom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 That link no longer features porn pictures. Apparently the reason it happened is that a subscription ran out on NB's domain name and it was not renewed, so a porn outfit specialized in harvesting expired celebrity domain names got it.Yup...that is exactly what happened. I neglected to get the domain renewed on time (actually, it wasn't JUST forgetfulness, but who needs excuses).RCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I wasn't going to say anything about the conversation that came out of the whole thing; it seemed easy enough to figure out what happened, since it does all the time. For whatever reason, it got past RCR and that's easy enough to do. The comments, though, really showed me even more than I expected over there. A new low, it was way low.How ridiculous to cobble something up about NB and his old site getting jacked for porn. If something like that happened THERE, the responses would've been entirely diffferent. Same occurance, different responses.Yup, real objective. Yuppers. But that's OK. It showed true colours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The comments, though, really showed me even more than I expected over there. A new low, it was way low.How ridiculous to cobble something up about NB and his old site getting jacked for porn. If something like that happened THERE, the responses would've been entirely diffferent. Same occurance, different responses.Yup, real objective. Yuppers. But that's OK. It showed true colours.Honestly, and without a hint of exageration, the word "ridiculous" doesn't cover it; that display was pure hysterical lunacy completely detached from anything resembling reality. That site is little more than an online asylum crawling with the undead, pitifully craving brains.RCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Honestly, and without a hint of exageration, the word "ridiculous" doesn't cover it; that display was pure hysterical lunacy completely detached from anything resembling reality. That site is little more than an online asylum crawling with the undead, pitifully craving brains.Um, I'd like to say a word on their behalf. Justice and all that. Some of those who post on SOLO have good brains in fine working order, and even have intelligent reasons for preferring to post there.Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Christian; Tell us what you really think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Honestly, and without a hint of exageration, the word "ridiculous" doesn't cover it; that display was pure hysterical lunacy completely detached from anything resembling reality. That site is little more than an online asylum crawling with the undead, pitifully craving brains.Um, I'd like to say a word on their behalf. Justice and all that. Some of those who post on SOLO have good brains in fine working order, and even have intelligent reasons for preferring to post there. Inconceivable!!! B) RCR(Seriously, I must have missed any sign of intelligence; is this how aliens feel?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I post to all three major nonOrthodox forums related to Objectivism. I have never believed in a Peter Schwartz-style application of sanction. I've never had any particular allegiance to anyone in the Objectivist movement except perhaps David Kelley and only then because I agree with much of what he has to say.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) I post to all three major nonOrthodox forums related to Objectivism. I have never believed in a Peter Schwartz-style application of sanction. I've never had any particular allegiance to anyone in the Objectivist movement except perhaps David Kelley and only then because I agree with much of what he has to say.Hear hear!By what kind of nonsense is it OK for me to talk to my neighbor, who's likely all for enslaving me to the whims of the mob, but it's not OK to talk to most of the people in these forums who I think it's safe to say for the most part are for individual rights?I'll tell you by what nonsense. They're afraid of being associated with people who espouse false notions, because they're afraid that the masses will get the wrong idea. But you can't save stupidity from itself. If someone is really so stupid that they're willing to parrot whatever ARI (or TOC or MSK) says, they're hopeless anyway. Only those willing to think for themselves matter, and those people are not going to be swayed to the wrong view just because Peikoff (or Linz or MSK or Kelly) didn't ostracize him. Edited January 4, 2007 by sjw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Christian,At least it was halfway decent porn... (I am pretty sure even the slowest understood that over "there.")Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Russell Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Christian,At least it was halfway decent porn... (I am pretty sure even the slowest understood that over "there.")MichaelMichael, that porn was just plain gross; no artistry whatsoever. Oh God! Am I slower than the slowest SLOPER? The Horror!What I found significant abut that whole ridiculous thread, was that it was started by Chris Cathcart. A once sober thinker is now a laughing stock. A shame, actually.Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Mick,(Sorry about the delay.) I read you. Last year a mental click happened with Chris. It kicked in from one day to the next. A switch got thrown in his head and he broke free of something inside himself. I have a feeling it was something really bad and really repressive. So he went too far the other way. Foul language is now installed in his brain as the equivalent of "rational passion" and reasoned arguments. He's basically a good kid, but we now have to wait for potty training before he will do anything really useful anymore.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Mick,(Sorry about the delay.) I read you. Last year a mental click happened with Chris. It kicked in from one day to the next. A switch got thrown in his head and he broke free of something inside himself. I have a feeling it was something really bad and really repressive. So he went too far the other way. Foul language is now installed in his brain as the equivalent of "rational passion" and reasoned arguments. He's basically a good kid, but we now have to wait for potty training before he will do anything really useful anymore.MichaelMichael,I don't know where you're getting any of that. You are talking about Chris Cathcart, right?Chris Cathcart is no "kid." He's got to be at the outside youngest in his late 30s. And he's a long-time veteran of Usenet discussion boards. I've never read any of those boards myself, but from everything I've heard of them, they make even the Atlantis lists (1 and 2), both of which could get pretty brutal, look like a kindergarten teaparty in terms of the warfare style employed. Chris contributed for awhile on Old Atlantis, then was gone for a time, then came back for occasional stretches on Atlantis 2. He could be blunt, pungent, and on occasion crude.What did happen to him, as a slow proces, over the last maybe year or so is that he became closer to the Ortho outlook. I think that he and Fred Weiss were frequent sparring partners in the Usenet venue. But Chris has gotten closer to tending to share Weiss's views on various issues, notably including PARC. In terms of list atmosphere, he likes SOLO; he likes the sort of brawling quality of SOLO (he's said so several times in posts of his I've read on one thread or another over there). Plus that list is a lot more heavily into political issues, and he has a strong interest in those -- as well as in movies (he's a movie buff, has seen many more movies than I'll ever manage to see, though I do much enjoy the film art form).Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Ellen,I was just commenting on what I have read of him, and that admittedly has been on RoR and SLOP. Often I skip his writing because it wanders about and is a bit unfocused, often talking about some side issue or other and taking it to somewhere distant. In the last few months (after the "click" I mentioned), all you could read was fuck, shit, prick, etc. in his posts on SLOP, peppered with KASS, KASS, KASS, and other SLOP catchphrases. His posts became a parody and were heavily laced with foul language and little more than ranting and sucking up to whoseisface over there for quite a while. During the time he was criticizing Robert Campbell, they were almost incoherent.Of course, he was held up as a prime example of the New Intellectual in that environment.Like I said, some time is needed for potty training. But I think he is basically a good... er... kid... or whatever...Later, he will have to live with what his is at present as what he was. He's intelligent, so I imagine he will not find it to be among his finer moments in life.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Gagne Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Hi. I'm Steve Gagne, and this is my first post on this board. I've spent a few days reading and trying to learn who is here, and the range of ideas, before (figuratively) attempting to insert my foot in my mouth.I checked out the link to the thread on SOLO, and what I found over there was a typical example of what Bill Buckley called "the psychology of small differences." Those people over there are so enamored of the minutiae and concretes of their beliefs, that they are willing to sacrifice the communicability of their own conceptual coherence. And they'll drive away anyone who doesn't embrace what they have to say, with or without evidence, condemning it as a moral failure. Since it not in my power to change others' behaviour, but only my own, I would think that my moral judgments concerning behaviour would always apply first and foremost to myself, and rarely to others. Their condemnatory behaviour there at SOLO shows that they do not share this understanding.Apart from anything Dr. Branden did with Ms. Rand, his work, especially "The Disowned Self," stands on its own, and the vituperation and character assassination from SOLO against him is stupid. So, I think the word I am looking for here is 5 letters long, starts with an "i" and ends with a "t" -- yes, that's it, they're all a bunch of ESKIMOS! Without a doubt, blame the INUIT!Their kind of nonsense is the reason I excluded myself from the humorless "objectivist community" over 30 years ago; A is A, and thumpers are thumpers whether they're holding a Bible, a Qu'ran, the Gitas, the Book of Mormon, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or Atlas Shrugged. Ay hombe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Steve,Welcome to OL. I liked the spirit of your first post (and I don't mean the criticism of SOLOP, although that is not a bad thing in my book ). I hope to read more from you. You sound like good people. Make yourself at home.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now