Brant Gaede Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 This is what you get when the moderator refuses to moderate.I offered an Olive Branch, but Ellen demanded the entire tree. She has repeatedly insulted me in this exchange, and you don't see her offering to apologize. I have no problem with this -- tempers often flare in the midst of a heated argument, and I regard this as a normal part of the process, one that I don't take seriously -- but if Ellen can't take it, she shouldn't dish it out. GhsPoint of fact: Ellen has not been dishing out the same kind of thing you just dished out. You deserve enormous respect as a philosopher George, respect that several people here have not been granting, and there's nothing wrong I see in the logic of how you are assessing what's happened here with DF (although I still don't see that he was worth your time and energy, even from the beginning), but is the kind of escalation you are engaging in based on a principle or on something else?Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 This is what you get when the moderator refuses to moderate.I offered an Olive Branch, but Ellen demanded the entire tree. She has repeatedly insulted me in this exchange, and you don't see her offering to apologize. I have no problem with this -- tempers often flare in the midst of a heated argument, and I regard this as a normal part of the process, one that I don't take seriously -- but if Ellen can't take it, she shouldn't dish it out. GhsPoint of fact: Ellen has not been dishing out the same kind of thing you just dished out. You deserve enormous respect as a philosopher George, respect that several people here have not been granting, and there's nothing wrong I see in the logic of how you are assessing what's happened here with DF (although I still don't see that he was worth your time and energy, even from the beginning), but is the kind of escalation you are engaging in based on a principle or on something else?ShayneI agree with you about my last insult. I wrote and posted it too quickly, and I very quickly returned to OL to revise it by omitting the "Go fuck yourself" remark. But by then one response had already been posted, so I was stuck with it.My objection to my post is stylistic. To say "fuck you" in any form in exchanges like this shows a lack of style and originality. It is a lowbrow zinger that anyone can write. A decent zinger should show some bite, humor, and originality. "Fuck you" lacks all three. But let's face it: When someone apologizes, the classy thing to do is accept it with a simple "Thanks." If nothing else, that can start a process of reconciliation. Instead, Ellen came up with a pompous demand for a more complete apology. Why should I care whether she accepted my apology or not? I apologized because I was uncomfortable with what I had written earlier, not for her benefit.Lesson learned. I will slow down in the future.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Need I remind you yet again that after I repeatedly said that physicists have no special expertise in the realm of philosophy DF denied this, claiming that physicists do indeed have a special expertise when it comes to drawing philosophical conclusions from the experimental findings of physics.Ellen Stuttle: That is a straightforward appeal to authority in the realm of philosophy. Got it? I didn't make the remark attributed to me. Maybe you were indicating that it would have been a reasonable comeback to the remark George made.(Sorry, haven't time to cite the original post. I have to leave in a few minutes for the evening.)Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 (edited) kicking a ball is a macroscopic event. That was your example, not mine.Your point being? It was your post to GS about the smashed glass on the wall which led me to choose another example from the macroscopic world for you to relate. Xray: I call this the "fish fallacy": Imagine a fish in the ocean could reflect on existence and rejected the idea of life outside water being possible on the grounds that it does not match a fish's idea of "objective reality". Imagine an electron-elf who could reflect on the subatomic world and rejected the idea of macroscopic life outside that world as being possible on the ground that it does not match the elf's idea of "objective reality."Now we are getting there, George: Can you answer the question as to whose idea of life is the "objective" one? ...AZ: Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle. Ghs: Golly gee, you city folks sure use mighty big words! Never heard of that one before. Shucks! I need to get me some book learnin'!Good advice to yourself, George. I suggest you start with the book Einstein's Veil by the world-famous scientist Zeilinger you poked fun at with your comment. Zeilinger's explanations are so clear that even a layperson will get a glimpse of what it is about. Edited September 5, 2010 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 And here's a news flash for you, Ellen. The fact that you happen to be married to a physicist does not make you some kind of authority on physics. You are a former book editor and a housewife, and I take you no more seriously in this field than I take my next door neighbor. I want to apologize to Ellen for saying this. It was inappropriate.George,To be honest, I find truth in both of your comments.MichaelYes, to a degree, but it was still over the top. The "housewife" crack in particular was a cheap shot. GhsNo cheaper than other details of your fusillade. Sorry, I can't accept the apology for that particular remark, since if I did, I'd seem to be giving a pass to other things you've said which are significantly worse. Apologize for accusing me of sucking up to an authority figure; then I'll accept the apology.EllenYour appeals to authority, especially in regard to DF, have been egregious.So go fuck yourself, housewife.GhsCopying that just in case you decide to edit it.Ms. Housewife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 (edited) Duplicate, see original below Edited September 5, 2010 by Ted Keer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Moderation is not a strong feature on OL nor does it need to be, but this thread should be shut down as it no longer has anything to do with RC's original post and is like a wounded animal lying in the street that you should run over twice to relieve it of its misery.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 One more thing....I have never had a problem with polemical exchanges, whether in person or on the Internet, especially if something worthwhile emerges from the fire. When I lived in SF from 1995-2000, I would often attend Jeff Riggenbach's monthly Beer Busts. (We have been friends since around 1971.) When Jeff and I argued, as we usually did, we frequently got very nasty. Then JR would say something like "Do you want more beer?" and I would say, "Sure," and we would go into the kitchen like nothing had happened.I write posts very quickly; even with lengthy posts, I rarely spend more than 10 minutes. I write as if were engaged in a casual conservation with someone, without censoring myself or going back to revise anything (usually). I view OL as a kind of living room where people are free to be themselves, warts and all, and speak their minds. Granted, things sometimes get out of hand, but I've noticed that in many arguments, including very nasty arguments, the participants eventually calm down, after which some substantive points are made. For me, polemicism is a sign of life and energy. (I am often reminded of a Klingon line in one of the Star Trek movies: "Exhilarating, isn't it?") People who believe passionately in ideas tend to defend them passionately, and anger is a form of passion. Of course, if there is no substance with the passion, then the argument is a waste, but not because of the passion per se. I almost never get angry when someone takes pot shots at me or calls me names. In fact, if the insult is a clever one, I will shake my head and say to myself, "Good one."I guess not everyone shares my philosophy of polemicism, but that's the way I approach these things. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 (edited) Half of the posters here are cranks, who spout the same skeptical and arbitrary nonsense over and over without ever making one positive contribution, and when they drive a thoughtful contributor like George to distraction, yes, I blame the moderator, just like I would blame a neighbor whose trash attracts mangy strays. Even contributors like Ellen who otherwise have a lot to say get hijacked by the commotion. There are a few dozen posts in this thread of great value that deserve preservation, yet they lie in a maggot infested pile of dung a thousand insults deep. Dragonfly is more guilty for wishing to pose as an authority while also refusing to identify himself than is George for losing his patience with such nonsense. Ellen is more guilty than Dragonfly for selectively defending the contradiction of a skeptic who himself expects to be taken on faith. Michael is the most guilty of all for allowing his forum - which reflects on Objectivism - to be abused in this way.We need a halt to the ad hominem and the arbitrary "you can't prove it's not the case" bullshit. Not moderating the forum means that people who try to be civil and make actual topic-focused arguments are left to be insulted and abused without recourse while the anonymous cranks run riot with sarcastic, anti-intellectual nonsense. Bad drives out good. We need a minimum standard of both civility and epistemology. The arbitrary is worse than the rude.Moderation would not be a full time job. People could be warned to stay on point. Skeptics can make the effort to ask intelligent questions rather than repeating slogans that show no attempt at understanding the Objectivist position on an argument. Provocateurs would quickly fall in line or step over it to their detriment . A simple policy allowing people to use the report button to notify the moderator of ad hominem attacks, irrational abuse, and contrarian nonsense, with the proviso that those who abuse the report function would themselves be moderated, would work at the moderators convenience and quickly discourage those who have nothing but smoke and bile to contribute. Edited September 5, 2010 by Ted Keer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 kicking a ball is a macroscopic event. That was your example, not mine.Your point being? It was your post to GS about the smashed glass on the wall which led me to choose another example from the macroscopic world for you to relate. My point being that kicking a ball is a clear example of causation. You said, or at least implied, that it is not. Ghs: Imagine an electron-elf who could reflect on the subatomic world and rejected the idea of macroscopic life outside that world as being possible on the ground that it does not match the elf's idea of "objective reality."Xray: Now we are getting there, George: Can you answer the question as to whose idea of life is the "objective" one? Both are objective, each from its own perspective. The subatomic world of the physicist is no more real or objective than the world of everyday life. Nor is it inherently more fundamental.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonrobt Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 This just came in.....http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Moderation is not a strong feature on OL nor does it need to be, but this thread should be shut down as it no longer has anything to do with RC's original post and is like a wounded animal lying in the street that you should run over twice to relieve it of its misery.--BrantJudging from the number of posts, this wounded animal still has a lot of life in it.There is no reason to arbitrarily shut down a thread. If people don't like it or get sick of it, they will stop reading it and posting on it, and the thread will die on its own. This happens all the time. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 This just came in.....http://www.johnmccas...esignation.html Yes, noted here yesterday on this thread:http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9169&pid=106785&st=20entry106785New Developments re Harriman Induction book#1Ninth Doctor $$$$$$ MembersGroup:Posts:1,115Joined:17-August 09Robert Campbell’s thread has drifted/devolved to such a point I think it’s time to start a fresh one to share this news. An ARI board member, John McCaskey, has posted an Amazon review of the Harriman book, and resigned from ARI within the last 24 hours. http://www.amazon.co...#wasThisHelpfulhttp://www.johnmccas...esignation.htmlWatch out for flying fur. Posted Yesterday, 04:26 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Ted,Three points:1. Stop the crap with me. I don't want to go back to deleting your posts, but I will the next time it happens. I have mentioned this before and you persist. I conclude you do it because you want to. I don't have time to babysit you, so I will just do what I have to do when I have to do it.2. If ever I were to contract a moderator, it most definitely would not be you or anyone who shows your level of wish to control others. I intensely dislike this mentality. Believe me, after what we have been through, you are here for your good qualities, not because I have accepted your bad ones as good. I tolerate them--even though I judge them to be bad (horrible, in fact)--in exchange for the value you sometimes provide. But my toleration and your value have limits.3. There is an entire Internet out there for you to gain your audience where you can impose on them to your heart's desire, if that is what you seek (and I believe it is). Too much of it is free for unavailability to be an excuse. Why not build your own audience instead of trying to run the audiences of others and do a nasty clique thing--with rudeness at that? That's a suggestion through question, not a question I am truly interested in discussing.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Ted,Three points:1. Stop the crap with me. I don't want to go back to deleting your posts, but I will the next time it happens. I have mentioned this before and you persist. I conclude you do it because you want to. I don't have time to babysit you, so I will just do what I have to do when I have to do it.2. If ever I were to contract a moderator, it most definitely would not be you or anyone who shows your level of wish to control others. I intensely dislike this mentality. Believe me, after what we have been through, you are here for your good qualities, not because I have accepted your bad ones as good. I tolerate them--even though I judge them to be bad (horrible, in fact)--in exchange for the value you sometimes provide. But my toleration and your value have limits.3. There is an entire Internet out there for you to gain your audience where you can impose on them to your heart's desire, if that is what you seek (and I believe it is). Too much of it is free for unavailability to be an excuse. Why not build your own audience instead of trying to run the audiences of others and do a nasty clique thing--with rudeness at that? That's a suggestion through question, not a question I am truly interested in discussing.MichaelMichael, I did not say anything uncivil. Nowhere did I ask to be made moderator. Surely mine cannot be the only post on this thread you object to. This forum is a valuable resource but one that I think is suffering from neglect, like a convertible left out in the rain. You are the only one who can fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Ted,I judge this forum does not need fixing in the sense you mean.Take it as is or leave it.EDIT: That last comment is a little harsh. It comes off as playing a power game and that is not where I am at.Here is where the root lies. People who disagree with Objectivism, even if they have an agenda (as some do), are free to post on OL. If Objectivism cannot be defended on an idea basis to these folks, how is it going to be defended elsewhere? People who do not like to see Objectivism criticized often get ruffled with this. But I think facing it squarely comes with the territory of truly wanting to make a difference.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Moderation would not be a full time job. People could be warned to stay on point. Skeptics can make the effort to ask intelligent questions rather than repeating slogans that show no attempt at understanding the Objectivist position on an argument. Provocateurs would quickly fall in line or step over it to their detriment . A simple policy allowing people to use the report button to notify the moderator of ad hominem attacks, irrational abuse, and contrarian nonsense, with the proviso that those who abuse the report function would themselves be moderated, would work at the moderators convenience and quickly discourage those who have nothing but smoke and bile to contribute.I don't agree with this at all, except when dealing with Trolls. When Jimmy Wales decided to impose rules of civility on Old Atlantis by sending warnings, there was a mass exodus of the best posters and that elist dried up. Thus was Atantis II born. I think the current policy works just fine. Michael is to be congratulated for his light touch. If I got a warning on every occasion when I went overboard, I would stop posting here, period.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Both are objective, each from its own perspective. The subatomic world of the physicist is no more real or objective than the world of everyday life. Nor is it inherently more fundamental.GhsMay I assume that you are not a reductionist?Both the man-scale world and the atom-scale world are as real as rain and just about anything in the man-scale world can be logically or epistemologically reduced to the atom-scale world. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 One further comment. There is an Objectivist forum where the owner does moderate according to ideology--RoR.I don't care for that style, but Rowlands has every right to do that. He also has every right to deal with the results.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Copying that just in case you decide to edit it.Ms. HousewifeNot one of my better moments. But I will send you a signed copy suitable for framing, if you like. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Saying that you don't like my suggestions as to how to go about it (as if I wanted myself appointed Soup Nazi) does not amount to proof that nothing can or should be done. Does anyone contest that well over a thousand posts on this thread amount to empty insult which makes this thread, its participants, and Objectivism look bad?Does anyone think, for example, that Michael Newberry's recent departure from this forum is a good sign?George, as far as I am concerned, you are a victim. Just stop letting yourself be goaded. Michael, you seem to be making the assumption that my saying you are the responsible party means that I am calling you evil, kind of like Peikoff in his recent letter to the ARI legal department. No. I am just stating the fact that the buck stops with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 One further comment. There is an Objectivist forum where the owner does moderate according to ideology--RoR.I don't care for that style, but Rowlands has every right to do that. He also has every right to deal with the results.MichaelA suggestion that you moderate for civility and for arbitrary comments to the effect "yuh huh, nah ah" without an underlying argument has nothing to do with ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 (edited) One further comment. There is an Objectivist forum where the owner does moderate according to ideology--RoR.I don't care for that style, but Rowlands has every right to do that. He also has every right to deal with the results.MichaelA suggestion that you moderate for civility and for arbitrary comments to the effect "yuh huh, nah ah" without an underlying argument has nothing to do with ideology.Ted, observe that George said he'd leave if Michael did things your way. What does that tell you?Shayne Edited September 5, 2010 by sjw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Both are objective, each from its own perspective. The subatomic world of the physicist is no more real or objective than the world of everyday life. Nor is it inherently more fundamental.GhsMay I assume that you are not a reductionist?It depends on what you mean by "reductionist." I believe that different levels of organization and complexity generate the need for different kinds of explanation. Both the man-scale world and the atom-scale world are as real as rain and just about anything in the man-scale world can be logically or epistemologically reduced to the atom-scale world. Nope. For example, the human actions studied by economics and history will never be explainable -- and therefore "reduced" in this sense -- in terms of the atomic world. Ghs 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