Your TAS Dollars at Work

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael, I think you're being too rough on Jim here. Pointing out misremembering and ambivalence, fine. Accusing Jim of lying--I see no evidence for that. The news from TAS right now is bleak. Mr. Perigo and his cronies are crowing. But none of that is Jim's fault.

I agree with toning down the jump down throats and flung "Liarrrrr!" coming from a list admin/participant/Emperor, whether Emperigo with his lashings of Pomowankero bitch liar fiend scumbag barracude yadda . . . or Michael's nasty turns from time to time. It is hard to be policeman and Emperor for Joe, Michael and Lindsay.

On the whole, Jim is a straddler, lashed both by Michael's tongue and Lindsay's cat-o-nine-tails. So my heart may lie with Jim and Michael and their blind spots (both cops on the beat for the Hands Off Rand street patrol. Indeed, Jim seems to amplify Michael's complaints if not invective regarding the evul sport of Extreme Rand Bashing). As Jim has been to the line and no further in finding moral depravity in Barbara, he exemplifies a moderate in the minefield of Randonian Wars of Succession. He's on his own Don't Slag Rand, Don't Slag Barbara fence.

But my other heart is with Ellen. The ick of revulsion at the reward given to bufoonery. The lesser ick at Jim's lack of empathy.

So, hurt and lashings and sting and regret and passion all round. Is it a circus or an intellectual movement or both? The odiously MOR RoR opinions of Jeff Perren are much more deserving of the lash, in my cynical opinion.

Blunder, Emperor Michael. My vote is with Ellen, Phil, Alonso, Robert and etc.

Fence sitting can be dangerous, Jim.

William, dangerous how? I've got a job I love, a wife who loves me, a wonderful group of Objectivists in Arizona including a real scientist I can talk particle physics with, a wonderful Objectivist brother, parents who really loved me, a couple of computer scientists and a radiologist for uncles. Haven't made my first million yet but I'm working on it. Life is OK.

Jim

[Philip Coates]

> "None of the witch-hunters has the guts to front up here and confront me directly." - Lindsay Perigo, SoloP, 1/6/08

Hey, Linz! Remember that when I *did confront you* and criticize you over there, you called it "bad faith" and somehow bad form to do it "in your own home"? And kicked me off your website?

Forgot about that, huh? :-)

[James Heaps-Nelson]

> "None of the witch-hunters has the guts to front up here and confront me directly." - Lindsay Perigo, SoloP, 1/6/08

Hey, Linz! Remember that when I *did confront you* and criticize you over there, you called it "bad faith" and somehow bad form to do it "in your own home"? And kicked me off your website?

Forgot about that, huh? :-)

This is going to get interesting :-).

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe you guys can "hep-me-yout" here. I have a thinking/evaluation problem with respect to Jim.

But before I go into it, I want to be clear that the path to disagreement is not a one-way street. Anyone can disagree with me (sincerely and non-fanatically) and that is perfectly OK by me. But I reserve the right to disagree with all you folks who are disagreeing with me, too (sincerely and non-fanatically). That's only fair.

I admit that I am not the Lord Master of Universal Truth Forever and Ever Amen and could have a perspective problem or something, so I want to break the issue down into some thoughts the way I see it, then see if anyone has anything to say to "hep-me-yout" in my own thinking.

My main problem is my goddam memory. Once I learn a fact, I can't forget it no matter how hard I try. And God knows I have tried over life. My refusal to leave Inconvenient Facts out of my judgments and conclusions has gotten me into all kinds of trouble. But there it is. I am stuck with me.

Another issue is that I learned a cognitive rule about human behavior that predates my ingression into the Objectivist Way of Thought and Evaluation: I learned as a child that when a person says one thing but does another, you put much more weight on what he does if you want to judge him correctly.

For the life of me, I have been unable to get rid of this criterion, and God knows I have tried to do that, too. I don't know how many times I have been taken in by what someone has said and suffered some kind of penalty for it. And everytime I have looked, the reason was that "what he did" was in conflict with "what he said" and I decided to ignore "what he did." After countless times of being duped and cleaning up messes in my life, I have decided that "what he did" really is a reliable indicator of fact. I cannot ignore this criterion so I have learned to bite the bullet and look at what people do when they spout off. The problem is that it leads to Inconvenient Facts and those lead to trouble.

But there it is again. I can't scrap the criterion and I am stuck with me. Now, with respect to Jim, here is what I have observed:

1. Jim has posted frequently on OL in many discussions praising Rand and her ideas, or developing them using the best thinking he could muster (which is the highest form of praise, in my opinion). Many pleasant discussions. I could link to post after post to prove this, but since the people objecting to my harsh judgment of Jim have usually been the ones interacting with him, I will leave it up to them to do their own research if they are interested in such proof. The point is that his many pleasant discussions in praise of Rand on OL is a fact. An undeniable fact that can be proven. This is "what he did."

2. Now let's look at "what he said." Jim has recently come on board in defense of Perigo (for God knows what reason) and hauled out the stale old PARC/ARI-like insinuation that anyone who discusses a failing or weakness of Rand is her enemy. But that is the insinuation. Jim has outright stated that Rand has received very little consideration or respect on OL and that this figures strongly in his "encyclopedia of annoyances" with this site. The obvious insinuation is that OL is a site devoted mainly to Rand-bashing.

Hmmmmm...

What he did was post on OL frequently in discussions praising Rand, but what he said was that these discussions are very rare. I see a contradiction here. Am I the only one who sees it?

So my first and obvious conclusion was that Jim was lying (for whatever reason). That is a reasonable conclusion. Life has taught me that, in the vast majority, people who say one thing and do another are lying. But I will admit to some other possibilities. Like I implied above, I am not the world's greatest genius so I am just as prone to error as the next guy.

Let's look at it more closely. What would cause a person to say one thing and do another like Jim did? How could he simply not remember what he did when he said those things about OL?

Hmmmmm...

Well, he could be a retard. That's a possibility. But is that the only one?

Hmmmmm...

Well, he could have severe mental impairment, especially with respect to his memory.

Is there anything else? Hmmmmm... Right off the bat, I can't think of anything reasonable.

I admit, it is a stretch, but if OL members think I am mistaken because Jim is retarded or has a severe mental impaiment, thus he is not lying, I can live with that. I don't really believe it, but for the sake of keeping the peace, I can live with it. Jim would not be a liar but instead a retard or mentally deficient.

Can anyone think of any other reason Jim said one thing and did another repeatedly? I really wish I could get rid of these Inconvenient Facts swirling in my head because it would make judging all this so much easier.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllll...

There is another out (and a good one). I could simply ignore out the whole mess and all those pesky Inconvenient Facts, say it doesn't matter, and turn the other cheek.

In fact, that's exactly what I intend to do. Turn the other cheek. Are my critics comfortable with this? Do you have any wisdom to share with me about what I may be missing in my analysis or what other course I should take?

Don't worry. I am not advocating turning the other cheek with malicious power-seekers who inflict real damage. Scum is scum and needs to be identified as such, so there are limits. But with an out-of-focus sap who is geniel most of the time in discussions praising Rand and other topics of interest, I think his potential for damage is mostly nonexistent, so turning the other cheek is a good momentary tactic.

Whaddyall think?

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Maybe you guys can "hep-me-yout" here. I have a thinking/evaluation problem with respect to Jim.

But before I go into it, I want to be clear that the path to disagreement is not a one-way street. Anyone can disagree with me (sincerely and non-fanatically) and that is perfectly OK by me. But I reserve the right to disagree with all you folks who are disagreeing with me, too (sincerely and non-fanatically). That's only fair.

I admit that I am not the Lord Master of Universal Truth Forever and Ever Amen and could have a perspective problem or something, so I want to break the issue down into some thoughts the way I see it, then see if anyone has anything to say to "hep-me-yout" in my own thinking.

My main problem is my goddam memory. Once I learn a fact, I can't forget it no matter how hard I try. And God knows I have tried over life. My refusal to leave Inconvenient Facts out of my judgments and conclusions has gotten me into all kinds of trouble. But there it is. I am stuck with me.

Another issue is that I learned a cognitive rule about human behavior that predates my ingression into the Objectivist Way of Thought and Evaluation: I learned as a child that when a person says one thing but does another, you put much more weight on what he does if you want to judge him correctly.

For the life of me, I have been unable to get rid of this criterion, and God knows I have tried to do that, too. I don't know how many times I have been taken in by what someone has said and suffered some kind of penalty for it. And everytime I have looked, the reason was that "what he did" was in conflict with "what he said" and I decided to ignore "what he did." After countless times of being duped and cleaning up messes in my life, I have decided that "what he did" really is a reliable indicator of fact. I cannot ignore this criterion so I have learned to bite the bullet and look at what people do when they spout off. The problem is that it leads to Inconvenient Facts and those lead to trouble.

But there it is again. As I said, that is one fundamental criterion I can't get rid of, so I am stuck with me. Now, with respect to Jim, here is what I have observed:

1. Jim has posted frequently on OL in many discussions praising Rand and her ideas, or developing them using the best thinking he could muster (which is the highest form of praise, in my opinion). Many pleasant discussions. I could link to post after post to prove this, but since the people objecting to my harsh judgment of Jim have usually been the ones interacting with him, I will leave it up to them to do their own research if they are interested in such proof. The point is that his many pleasant discussions in praise of Rand on OL is a fact. An undeniable fact that can be proven. This is "what he did."

2. Now let's look at "what he said." Jim has recently come on board in defense of Perigo (for God knows what reason) and hauled out the stale old PARC/ARI-like insinuation that anyone who discusses a failing or weakness of Rand is her enemy. But that is the insinuation. Jim has outright stated that Rand has received very little consideration or respect on OL and that this figures strongly in his "encyclopedia of annoyances" with this site. The obvious insinuation is that OL is a site devoted mainly to Rand-bashing.

Hmmmmm...

What he did was post on OL frequently in discussions praising Rand, but what he said was that these discussions are very rare. I see a contradiction here. Am I the only one who sees it?

So my first and obvious conclusion was that Jim was lying (for whatever reason). That is a reasonable conclusion. Life has taught me that, in the vast majority, people who say one thing and do another are lying. But I will admit to some other possibilities. Like I implied above, I am not the world's greatest genius so I am just as prone to error as the next guy.

Let's look at it more closely. What would cause a person to say one thing and do another like Jim did? How could he simply not remember what he did when he said those things about OL?

Hmmmmm...

Well, he could be a retard. That's a possibility. But is that the only one?

Hmmmmm...

Well, he could have severe mental impairment, especially with respect to his memory.

Is there anything else? Hmmmmm... Right off the bat, I can't think of anything reasonable.

I admit, it is a stretch, but if OL members think I am mistaken because Jim is retarded or has a severe mental impaiment, thus he is not lying, I can live with that. I don't really believe it, but for the sake of keeping the peace, I can live with it. Jim would not be a liar but instead a retard or mentally deficient.

Can anyone think of any other reason Jim said one thing and did another repeatedly? I really wish I could get rid of these Inconvenient Facts swirling in my head because it would make judging all this so much easier.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllll...

There is another out (and a good one). I could simply ignore out the whole mess and all those pesky Inconvenient Facts, say it doesn't matter, and turn the other cheek.

In fact, that's exactly what I intend to do. Turn the other cheek. Are my critics comfortable with this? Do you have any wisdom to share with me about what I may be missing in my analysis or what other course I should take?

Don't worry. I am not advocating turning the other cheek with malicious power-seekers who inflict real damage. Scum is scum and needs to be identified as such, so there are limits. But with an out-of-focus sap who is geniel most of the time in discussions praising Rand and other topics of interest, I think his potential for damage is mostly nonexistent, so turning the other cheek is a good momentary tactic.

Whaddyall think?

Michael

Michael,

I'm aware that my comment is a sore spot with you. I'll be sure not to repeat it here or anywhere where you are likely to see it while I'm active posting on this board. Your opinion of me is duly noted and registered.

Jim

[sjw]

Michael,

I'm aware that my comment is a sore spot with you. I'll be sure not to repeat it here or anywhere where you are likely to see it while I'm active posting on this board. Your opinion of me is duly noted and registered.

Jim

Perhaps instead of scheming about future manipulation you might engage in, perhaps you should squarely face the question he asked. Or, you could just not post. I don't think the scheming is a good idea though.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

Maybe you guys can "hep-me-yout" here. I have a thinking/evaluation problem with respect to Jim.

[ . . . ]

But before I go into it, I want to be clear that the path to disagreement is not a one-way street. Anyone can disagree with me (sincerely and non-fanatically) and that is perfectly OK by me.

[ . . . ]

I admit, it is a stretch, but if OL members think I am mistaken because Jim is retarded or has a severe mental impaiment, thus he is not lying, I can live with that. I don't really believe it, but for the sake of keeping the peace, I can live with it. Jim would not be a liar but instead a retard or mentally deficient.

Can anyone think of any other reason Jim said one thing and did another repeatedly?

[ . . . ]

Whaddyall think?

Seriously? I think you are being an asshole.

Jim is a 'straddler,' and entirely on both sides of the fence; on one side he can see a value in Perigo at the Grandstand, on the other he shares your revulsion for "Rand Bashers."

Jim is, in my opinion, wrong wrong wrong to show no empathy here with Ellen and others who have made good faith challenges to Lindsay. It is perhaps a simple unwillingness to pronounce, or less probably an inability to understand what the objection is. Emotionally tone deaf, one might say.

Your behaviour is, on the other hand, overwrought. If you apologize to Jim for being unfair, he will no doubt reach deep into this bag of thought and let us know that he has appreciated the objections to the Perigo Presentations -- even if he cannot 'grok' the emotional content.

Asshole.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I'm aware that my comment is a sore spot with you. I'll be sure not to repeat it here or anywhere where you are likely to see it while I'm active posting on this board. Your opinion of me is duly noted and registered.

Jim

Perhaps instead of scheming about future manipulation you might engage in, perhaps you should squarely face the question he asked. Or, you could just not post. I don't think the scheming is a good idea though.

Shayne

No Shayne, I think this board has seen enough on this topic. Michael and I have a disagreement and I am simply going to go further and refrain from future comment here or elsewhere. If it is your opinion that I manipulate, I am saddened by it.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Does that mean you think I should turn the other cheek (like I am doing with you)?

Michael

[sjw]

No Shayne, I think this board has seen enough on this topic. Michael and I have a disagreement and I am simply going to go further and refrain from future comment here or elsewhere. If it is your opinion that I manipulate, I am saddened by it.

That wasn't my opinion of you, it's my opinion of what you just said you were planning on doing. If someone accused me of having a blind spot and refused to answer my questions about it, then said they were just going to maneuver around this alleged spot, I wouldn't trust them anymore. Agreeing to disagree is another thing, but I didn't see Michael do that. (I am unaware of any sparring you and he have been doing).

Shayne

[Laure]

Just to chime in, I'm with Jim/Phil/Brant/Steve - particularly Jim. Got room on the fence for me, Jim? Scooch over.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Agreeing to disagree is another thing, but I didn't see Michael do that.

Shayne,

Absolutely correct. Turning the other cheek in the manner I am doing is not agreeing to disagree. It is declaring something wrong to be unimportant, despite acknowledging the disrespect or whatever was committed that was wrong.

It looks like a form of sanction of the victim, but it is really pardon by the victim without sanction.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Time to chill, everybody.

Nobody on this list invited Lindsay Perigo to speak at a TAS event.

Nobody here is going to get the decision reversed (assuming that it should be--and there is substantial disagreement about that).

Mr. Perigo isn't going to come here and explain himself.

No one from the TAS leadership has made an appearance here to explain himself, and chances are that no one will.

Let's save our anger for those we sincerely believe deserve it.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> Life has taught me that, in the vast majority, people who say one thing and do another are lying. [MSK]

Wow. I am stunned.

You have learned little, it seems, from Kelley's monograph and the original reasons regarding moral judgmentalism for the split from Peikoff. A partial list of explanations other than dishonesty includes: failure to integrate, mental block, misunderstanding, compartmentalization, oversight, or simply overstating one's case. Or simple mistake - not thinking through the accuracy of one's every remark.

Had you i) not been so foolish as to pounce on a single statement and shout "liar, liar, liar" out of context or ii) been non-aggressive, non-insulting enough to simply ask Jim if he meant literally no one defends AR here or even better!! ask him to give examples, you might have seen a fuller, better, or more precise explanation of a single remark.

Instead of causing a moral break.

The best way to parse an abstract statement you think is mistaken and pin it down is through the use of examples. Instead of making a federal case out of this and further damaging your own list --- Now what you've simply done, in Perigo fashion, is offended and insulted one of your better posters, one of the reasons some of us are likely to visit.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Instead of being stunned, I suggest making an attempt to understand what I meant instead of imputing a wrong meaning to my words so you can do your thang. It's less stunning to do that but at least it is correct.

If you are interested, I will explain it one day. It's common sense, though. I believe you have the intelligence to get it without any explanation at all. But right now, I have some other work to do.

btw - Jim's a big boy and knows he's pushing buttons by defending Perigo over here while bashing OL. He knew what he was doing. Or maybe you think he's mentally deficient and didn't know?

Heh.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

btw - Jim's a big boy and knows he's pushing buttons by defending Perigo over here while bashing OL. He knew what he was doing. Or maybe you think he's mentally deficient and didn't know?

Heh.

Michael

Michael, are you suggesting that Jim H-N is covering his rear, so that when he shows up to TAS-Portland in July, Perigo won't single him out for abuse? What better way to support the TAS doctrine of Toleration than by adopting protective coloration so that one of the Intolerants won't attack you! :-)

For that matter, I'm interested: how many OL folk are actually going to go to TAS-Portland? I know Jim H-N is, and maybe Fran -- but who else? Becky and I considered going, but the cost (with no defraying of fees by being a speaker) was probably going to be prohibitive for this year -- and the nonsense with LP (Ayn Rand's non-intellectual heir) iced it for us.

Furthermore, I'm interested in how many OL folk are going to maintain their present level of $$ support to TAS, in spite of the LP nonsense. Becky and I are cutting back our support about 90%. We want to stay on the mailing list, but we are willing to forgo the discounts, as a way of registering our protest against the boneheaded move of inviting LP into our midst.

I especially want to maintain my support for The New Individualist, especially considering that Robert Bidinotto was opposed to inviting LP. I think the cultural stuff in TNI is very good -- including the book and movie reviews and Ed Hudgins' series on educational-cultural television programs now available on DVD. I even appreciate TNI's material on foreign policy.

[unlike some people, I have not yet made up my mind on foreign policy. I see strong merit in all three (?) positions, including the nuke-'em doctrine, the non-intervention doctrine, and whatever you call Bidinotto's position. Because the moral ~is~ the practical, any doctrine that doesn't recognize and embody that meta-insight is dead in the water, IMO, and I am not convinced which (or whether any) of the above has "got it right." For that reason, I want to continue to see as much vigorous debate about principles ~and~ their application to the real world as possible -- which means I will continue to closely read and ponder what they are saying in TNI ~and~ in The Objective Standard ~and~ by the non-interventionist libertarians.]

Beyond TNI, however, TAS has had diminishing value for me in the past few years. While I certainly appreciate TAS's hard work for the Atlas 50th, and I fervently hope that the Atlas movie comes to be and is as much of a blockbuster as it can and ought to be, on the intellectual side, I think TAS is becoming irrelevant. Not that I'm even faintly considering going over to "The Dark Side." Both TAS and ARI think too much "in the box," IMO, instead of fostering development of new ideas.

I wish I were wrong about this, but I am not encouraged by what I have seen in the Advanced and Graduate Seminars in the past 5 years. In this, at least (and probably, at most), Diana Hsieh was right. But ARI is only providing training in methodology, not encouraging new ideas. And for my money, who wants to be certified as an "Objectivist philosopher," when your own best, most creative ideas, even if they are compatible with Objectivism, are not allowed to be recognized as ~part~ of closed-system Objectivism? Can there be any more pitiful creature than an Objectivist philosopher whose own original philosophizing cannot be considered Objectivism? Hello!? Virtue of independence, anyone?

For that matter, isn't it outrageous that David Kelley's ideas on the virtue of benevolence are not readily acknowledged as being part of the Objectivist Ethics? I am no ethical theorist, but I can give a simple, straightforward argument, right out of "The Ethics of Emergencies," that ~proves~ benevolence is an aspect of integrity. I can give a knock-down argument, ~in Rand's own words~, for when and why we should help others, complete with quoted "should's."

But why should ~I~ have to do this -- and why are the closed-system Randroids unable and unwilling to do this themselves? Because they're thinking in the box and upholding the letter of Rand's writings, instead of their obvious, clear meaning. And people who think inside the box ethically are ~not~ a good bet to ally oneself with intellectually. Which is why I am ~not~ emulating Ms. Hsieh's pilgrimage to The Dark Side.

On the other hand, people who think inside the box epistemologically are not a good bet to ally oneself with intellectually ~either~, which is why I am spending more and more of my time developing and preparing for publication my ideas with the help of a very small group of independent "Objectivists" (or whatever they are!). My ideas ~are~ going to be disseminated and have an impact on the culture, and without the help (or aggravation and hindrance) of the sclerotic Movement leaders.

REB

P.S. -- I know I open a number of cans of worms in this post. Please feel free to start another thread(s) and comment there, if you feel it would stray too far from this thread's topic.

[Chris Grieb]

Roger; I may go to Portland one reason being is that I haven't had a long stay in Oregon since 1961. I know the woolly mammoths are gone and I like to see the other changes that have happened.

I was about to make another change about my financial support which I am now reconsidering .

I want to see what the rest of the program look like.

[Philip Coates]

****OKAY, THAT'S IT!!!*****

> I know I open a number of cans of worm in this post. Please feel free to start another thread(s)

Actually, Roger, although I don't always agree with you, your post is a welcome change of pace from the dismaying charges of lying aimed at one's intellectual opponents. Just today charges of dishonesty - not just in anger, but stubbornly repeated when 'called on it' are on three current threads, this and the two on Ron Paul.

Charges of dishonesty against three entirely different people just this week -- Jim H-N, Matus, and myself. Charges that one's opponent has to be dishonest rather than mistaken - or even dumb or inattentive or posting on two hours sleep would be more intelligent and more benevolent accusation.

I've watched this site lapse more and more often in regard to lack of civility, lack of benevolence in discussions. And now it is reaching the rock bottom of calling one's opponents immoral. Not allowing for honest error.

Just like Diana's approach to opponents!

Just like Linz's approach to opponents!

This is a far more serious error than TAS's policies on whom they invite. I'm just filled with disgust: The moderator can't very well tell sjw (or others) to cut it out, if he's one of the practitioners of Peter Schwartz--Diana Hsieh--Lindsay Perigo moral slandering himself.

The number one thing I look for in any Objectivist that I associate with is benevolence and a sense of simple human fairness that a janitor with Down's syndrome could manifest. You don't have to be as smart as I am or as knowledgeable about differential equations or Shakespeare. I'm going to do what Jim H-N? and Michael Newberry and others are apparently? planning to do:

Largely for this reason, but due to other shortcomings, I'll take a break from posting on this site.

Bye-bye.

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

It's possible to subscribe to The New Individualist without any sort of membership in TAS.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

Charges of dishonesty against three entirely different people just this week -- Jim H-N, Matus, and myself.

Blaming OL for something I did given that I hardly post here is totally non-objective. (Which is fitting because Phil's comments to me that prompted my charges were totally non-objective--but that's a different subject).

Shayne

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

It's possible to subscribe to The New Individualist without any sort of membership in TAS.

Robert Campbell

OK, Robert, that's a good thing to keep in mind. I gave rather generously to TAS last year, including a check in late December that was earmarked for 2008, but which got credited for 2007 contributions. So, that allows me to make a real statement about my 2008 $$$ support. :-/

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Blaming OL for something I did given that I hardly post here is totally non-objective. (Which is fitting because Phil's comments to me that prompted my charges were totally non-objective--but that's a different subject).

Shayne,

Don't sweat it. People who know you know your posting style. If they want to engage you, they certainly know what to expect.

Phil also has a posting style and it's evident in a pattern I have observed over a couple of years of reading his posts. Unfortunately, the pattern has gotten worse recently (especially after he was banned by Hsieh and Perigo) and seems to be heading toward some kind of climax. Phil only posts nowadays to complain about the site he is posting on (here, SLOP, RoR, whatever), complain about someone posting there, complain about another site, or complain that people didn't read and/or agree with what he wrote.

In my opinion, he has a good mind, but somehow got on this track. I find it a waste of a fine intellect, but it's his intellect. Hell, I have my own to worry about.

I once read a Darwinian interpretation of biological behavior in my recent studies on wealth-building that might apply (or might not). It is called the Law of the Jungle and it states that the animals in the jungle kill off their weak and maimed, often eating them. One of the proposed reasons is that this habit exists to make the species strong. The suggestion for wealth-building is to not be a complainer or whiner. People in the market-place tend to see this as weakness and the strong eat these people.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Phil only posts nowadays to complain about the site he is posting on (here, SLOP, RoR, whatever), complain about someone posting there, complain about another site, or complain that people didn't read and/or agree with what he wrote.

Michael, I'll just post one more time to answer this. Even if your charge were fair or accurate, the point is not the -frequency- with which someone levels criticisms but their -accuracy-.

Once again, like another individual on another site, you're resorting to jumping into "Attack the Messenger" mode rather than withdrawing your own unjust charges of dishonesty leveled at Jim.

You still haven't done that, have you? Even after it's been explained and you've (presumably) had time to reflect on it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Whoever said I am going to withdraw my claim? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I said that despite Jim's lapse of accuracy, which I consider to be a lie but admit could be mental incompetence, I am turning the other cheek.

Which I did.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Phil,

Whoever said I am going to withdraw my claim? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I said that despite Jim's lapse of accuracy, which I consider to be a lie but admit could be mental incompetence, I am turning the other cheek.

Which I did.

Michael

C'mon, now, you just hit him with a right-cross followed by an uppercut!

--Brant