Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Anyway, that's all there is to it, folks. It wasn't a guilty conscience that compelled me to write that line, it was my conditioning by other Objectivists. So you can dispense with the amateur psychology and "gotcha" high-fives.I never expected this degree of insularity, however. By Zeus, you people are paranoid.ReligiousIdeology,And by Zeus you are obnoxious. You have come on board already looking for a fight.I re-examined at your opening post. It essentially bitches about another forum, asks people to grant you something you do not grant them, and then makes lofty pronouncements that we had better do what you say using a mishmash of terminology that makes no sense, otherwise we shall continue being fringe kooks. (Then you smile sweetly and take a bow to the peanut gallery.)And you have kept up a steady stream of "bizarre," "paranoid," etc.I'm moving this thread to the Garbage Pile. If you want to play these games, feel free to do so there. I'm paranoid enough to think this is nothing but bullshit.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Well, Michael, his first post here was twaddle.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I never expected this degree of insularity, however. By Zeus, you people are paranoid. The most striking aspect of all this, to me, is that my post has yet to be discussed (with the exception of General Semanticist, who offered at least some partial feedback and seems to have an open attitude). Instead, a flurry of suspicion immediately commenced, almost as though it were intended as a smokescreen to avoid the topic of discussion.The suspicion was because of the timing of your appearance. Recently (or so it seems; I don't know if any of the cases have been verified) Victor Pross, a person who was banned here for repeated plagiarism, has been attempting to re-gain access using an alias. Your opening line had a sort of Victorish sound.I have been assured by a third party that you are too literate to be Victor Pross and that I've become paranoid about him. I have to agree. If you are who you say you are, I apologize for what I've said.I'm glad to know that at least someone among you is capable of analytical thought.I am the someone who wrote to Brant off-line assuring him that you are not Victor. I did a lot of detective work tracing original sources of Victor's plagiary; I'm well familiar with his use of language. On his own, he couldn't put together a series of correctly formed sentences making a coherent argument. Nor would he have the background to have made the particular argument you made (or to have referenced Susan Blackmore's work, as you did on another thread).I, btw, am primarily not posting here any longer myself -- I've recently blipped in because the subject of Allan Blumenthal's music course came up, a subject on which I have first-hand information, having been there at the original course. But although I'm no longer active, I figure people might consider my testimony worth hearing on the issue of your not being Victor.If you're curious about Victor's history here, you can find lots of material in the "Garbage Pile" forum.Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Ellen,Regardless of anything else, I know who you are and you know who I am.I have no idea who this snarky joker is and no interest in using tech resources to find out. But feel free to pursue your values among these kinds of individuals. I think I have made it clear what I think of them.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I see nothing wrong in RI's first post. He just gave a bit background about his experience with Objectivist forums, and I think he made a good point with the rest of his post. Like Ellen I didn't think he was Pross, as his posts are definitely more intelligent that those of Pross (as long as the latter didn't copy some text from other people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Dragonfly,It is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of good manners. This dude came among the savages to see if we were really savages and griping about the other savages who bear the same name. I doubt he would have done that, say, at a university class on philosophy.If he doesn't want to respect people he never met, it should be no surprise that some of them (like me) will not respect him when he mouths off from behind an anonymous moniker.Here's a thought. Let a person like this dude make his own forum, then I can go and sign up using an alias and make snarky comments about his forum while complaining about the injustice of it all, how he is paranoid, the bizarre behavior among savages like the folks in his kook fringe, etc. I wonder how he would behave.Actually, I don't wonder. I already know because I have seen it time and time again (although I have not performed in it). Very few people will show up, he won't know what to do with the trolls who do, and he will close up shop. Then off he will go back to looking for audiences elsewhere to exhibit his snobbery.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 This dude came among the savages to see if we were really savages and griping about the other savages who bear the same name.That's your interpretation, but not mine, I prefer to use the principle of charity. Knowing the methods of David Odden and OO, I'm not surprised that he got a strange impression of Objectivists; I can sympathize, as I've had similar experiences. He says that he was looking for information about a specific subject (human instinct) and not about Objectivism, so it's quite plausible that his post there wasn't directed against Objectivism per se but against some of the arguments presented there and the strange attitude of some of the posters, but then he got the usual Objectivist treatment (silence dissenters), as the shoe apparently did fit too well. Then it's not so strange that he looked for other Objectivist forums to see if they would be more open to discussion. Well, I don't blame him if his first impressions aren't too favorable. It's déjà vu all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I see nothing wrong in RI's first post. He just gave a bit background about his experience with Objectivist forums, and I think he made a good point with the rest of his post. Like Ellen I didn't think he was Pross, as his posts are definitely more intelligent that those of Pross (as long as the latter didn't copy some text from other people).His science/ideology/dogma/guru theme is so common it's become too trite to just dump it into/onto a forum in goodwill. This is trollmanship. He's probably posted essentially the same thing in many other forums not Objectivist in the least. And if that's not his name he's an out and out liar.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) This dude came among the savages to see if we were really savages and griping about the other savages who bear the same name.That's your interpretation, but not mine, I prefer to use the principle of charity. Knowing the methods of David Odden and OO, I'm not surprised that he got a strange impression of Objectivists; I can sympathize, as I've had similar experiences. He says that he was looking for information about a specific subject (human instinct) and not about Objectivism, so it's quite plausible that his post there wasn't directed against Objectivism per se but against some of the arguments presented there and the strange attitude of some of the posters, but then he got the usual Objectivist treatment (silence dissenters), as the shoe apparently did fit too well. Then it's not so strange that he looked for other Objectivist forums to see if they would be more open to discussion. Well, I don't blame him if his first impressions aren't too favorable. It's déjà vu all over again.You might be right, but trolls are too costly. Therefore the principle of clarity before charity I'd say.--Brant Edited January 23, 2009 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hudgins Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 For ideology as religion, read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer and come back when you're finshed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 For ideology as religion, read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer and come back when you're finshed.An excellent suggestion. I haven't read it in decades but it was so good it should be reread at least every ten years.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Dragonfly,You will find if you look at my posts that I almost always extend the principle of charity to newcomers who identify themselves, even when they start off on the wrong foot.If a person wishes to use an alias, I have no problem with that. But I expect good manners. If he starts bashing people, my antenna wiggles.On another thread there is a discussion of Blackmore's "teme" theory. Here's a very good "teme": anonymous Internet sniping using aliases. This has become such a common problem that it is regularly on the mainstream news. This is not a problem exclusive to the Objectivist subcommunity.There is only one cure for it I have found if you run a forum. That is to shut down the anonymous Internet snipers when they start.They complain or insinuate that their freedom of speech is violated, that the person enforcing this is close-minded, etc., but behind it all is not concern with high ethical values. Instead there is nastiness of spirit and a demand for sanction of the victim. If you require them to identify themselves, they go away. Frankly, good riddance to people who behave like that.As to OO, I have no problem with commenting negatively about other forums. I do sometimes. But I reference my comments with links to what I am talking about. I place very little value on an anonymous bitcher who can't even point to what he is bitching about when he is bitching. In the present case, this anonymous dude was able to later show something, but not at the time he was bitching. This later screenshot is the exception, not the rule. Too many anonymous posters bitch about others without being able to back it up and too many of them start polluting forums with snarky flame wars. I have no reason to extend the principle of charity to a rude anonymous poster. If I look at patterns, I have every reason to distrust him.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Ed,Your insinuation is right. I always find it ironic when I encounter true-believer types who preach science as a kind of faith and dogma, but they certainly exist.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Michael:"Instead there is nastiness of spirit and a demand for sanction of the victim." Yes indeed.The concept of the "sanction of the victim" was the thunderclap of Atlas that absolutely clarified for me all the unconnected "memes" in my mind. I think it is the most unifying insight of the novel.It has been spread by me to every person I have met and it has helped many people see clearly the power of their own voluntary action or inaction.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Ed,I want to add a thought to my last post. (I realize I am taking a point you made and pushing it in another direction, but I think it is important.)One of the hallmarks of a true-believer science missionary and apostle is war against philosophy as a valid form of human knowledge. The science Shiite's dogma does not allow for philosophy and science to coexist.Now what's funny is that if you accept that premise, then point to a scientist who does not support The One True Enlightened Path laid out in the dogma and pistology (which is very tribal and very "insider club"), such a person freaks out and starts melting down. If you do not budge, you can expect hostility that can rival anything you can find in a Holy War. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Keer, don't ever post big pictures of Nixon again. That is just foul.Cleansing moment:http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/graffiti/crook.htmrdeeew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalch Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Keer, don't ever post big pictures of Nixon again. That is just foul.Cleansing moment:http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/graffiti/crook.htmrdeeewI don't participate in the Objectivist community much, but just a few things i want to say:1. I am a PhD biologist (scientific view of the world)2. I admire the objectivist points of view, and like to read writings of individuals. However, I do feel that many writings of objectivism, lack funny enough, an objective, and scientific view. Not withstanding, objectivism has influenced much of the view of many. In fact, psychological and scientific findings can be related to the objectivist philosophy, including maslow's heiarchy.3. Unfortunately, for me, i suppose in this forum, I have a tinge of agreement with the original poster that the objectivist "movement" has a bit of a religion smell to it. And many of the movements promotions are similar to any movement, including religious. And there is NOTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THIS! It is simply the only known way to convey to others your ideological view.For example, there are leaders of the movement. There are books and literature (fictional i remind you) from which the ideology is founded (traditional religions have this too). Scientific and a rational explanation of the world comes from emperical and comparative data, not drawn from opinions or philosophy. Plus, an ideolog is just that, an ideolog. Science does change the way we define reality sometimes. I can provide a plethora of examples in medicine to demonstrate this.4. When i read objectivist writings, i sometimes find there is a lack of both sides of an argument presented, just more of the objectivist side - somtimes antagonistic, this is where i find staying very close to the objectivist world as not beneficial. I love the two sides of the story. There's nothing more powerful to refute an argument than to know the other side better than your opponent. I encourage instead of espousing the great things of objectivism, that both sides, with equal depth, be explored, and then rationally explain the deficiencies in the philsophy that doesn't make sense to you. 5. keep up the debate, i thoroughly enjoy it, and hope not to be banned for expressing my mind. I would hope that anyone who classifies themself as an "objectivist" would eagerly explain why some of the basic tenets of any traditional relgion-without the god aspect - don't apply to objectivism. Edited February 10, 2009 by watson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Pitiful. They seem to usually come on board late at nite with next to nothing in the profile telling us how supplicantal to Objectivism they are (may be the same and one person, not a "they") and blah, blah, blah, but there are "deficiencies" but they want to "learn" and "exchange" and nothing but lies, lies, lies and bullshit.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalch Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) k,now i'm confused. Brant, you seem angry at something.?what's with paranoid replies?Why aren't questions just responded to?I am an I, not a they.I am being villified for no reason!Asking questions, and hearing opinions is a valuable way to learn. Being attacked and accused is a turn off, as I can tell that you may have had some negative interactions previously.I find the tones of the responses different to what I expected from this forum. Edited February 10, 2009 by watson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Troll. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Watson,We have had a serious problem with anonymous trolls who start off acting like you are now doing. You are essentially anonymous. People with a life have no problem identifying themselves to others when they want to criticize them. Trolls do not have that integrity.I am losing my good will in trying to be serious with people who are not serious with me. I believe Brant is, too.If you are interested in lumping all Objectivists into the same boat, I suggest you start here. And I suggest you stay out of the Garbage Pile. Stuff goes on that you do not know about, unless you are one of these same people trolling under another alias to call attention to the "injustice of it all."Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalch Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) not trolling.You guys are paranoid. About what I dont know.I do find this interesting. And to seek the truth before applying a label is not nice.Michael, thanks for the link. Edited February 10, 2009 by watson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 not trolling.You guys are paranoid. About what I dont know.I do find this interesting. And to seek the truth before applying a label is not nice.Michael, thanks for the link.You've been here before with a different phony name. the MO is the same. And PhDs in your alleged field have oher things to do.Troll.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 And to seek the truth before applying a label is not nice.Watson,So it's better to call people you don't know religious, paranoid etc., before seeking the truth?Heh.I think you might have written that backwards. And if you did, why did you label before seeking the truth?Trying to be nice?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