A couple reasons I couldn't vote for Rand Paul

[Robert Baratheon]

What is this entire topic if not just a half-hearted trolling of the libertarians and objectivists who frequent this blog? MSK had Kacy pegged from his earlier entry in the topic series:

MSK: "Is there a point to opening a whole thread just to bash Alex Jones? Are you trying to find someone to play "Alex Jones sucks," "No he doesn't," "Yes he does," "No he doesn't," and so on?"

So now we have yet another topic where "Alex Jones" has been replaced with a mock-up "Rand Paul" for us to abuse at Kacy's direction. Next week it will be _______ (fill in the blank right-wing politician or pundit). It's a testament to the good-faith natural of this blog that the people here even attempt to intellectualize these vacuous threads based on 24-hour-news-channel talking points.

What is painfully obvious - and a number here have noticed this, not just me and SB - is that Kacy isn't the least bit interested in examining the validity of ideas or questioning his own assumptions in these threads. The true goal is to paint a right-wing target for collective scorn - with Kacy sitting pretty as bullier-in-chief - and watch the other commenters dance to his show tune for a while like 1920's-era cabaret dancers. It would be a miracle if these posts turned into anything other than petty bickering in the end, given their dubious underpinnings, especially when substantive comments from me and others go completely unaddressed by the topic originator.

[Brant Gaede]

But there are a lot of powerful minds here (and Brant!). I like this place, and I have no problem being the voice of dissent from time to time. I am not going to let trolls who follow me here chase me off for good. You run a great forum. I’ll see you guys around.

Does this mean I'm outside the "powerful minds" category?

I don't see any problem with bashing many conservatives, but while Rand wrote an article over 50 years ago doing just that, it was too much.

The basic Objectivist strategic mistake--I think it was fueled by Rand and Branden ego--was driving away conservatives and libertarians in the name of Objectivist purity. I'm talking of conservatives who might have been rights' oriented and libertarians who were. That left neither group with anywhere to go respecting Objectivism. They could have said, look, if you want to fight for human rights--[hey, here's the door opening even for some liberals]--so do we, and if you have further interest in Objectivism, here it is. Instead we end up with "Objectivism is a dangerous philosophy to fool around with" and it's its own "avenger" nonsense. This was true for the philosophy culturally but it's 95% culture, the culture of Ayn Rand. The problem of taking Galt's speech and elaborating on it into "Objectivism" is the moniker was hijacked. Look, it's reality and reason, rational self interest and freedom--not John Galt as a god pontificating, finally, to those still able to hear and understand him. I don't remember, but did Galt say somewhere therein for those folk to get the hell out of Dodge or is he merely gloryingly enjoying the victorious fruits of his war? I know, he was talking to the reader, not the idiots who would listen to a Fidel Castro length secular radio sermon. So, the readers were now supposed to save the US from socialism. Sorry, but that's conservatism, the endorsing of the state Galt fought against, mostly unheroically. Just as the reader is subservient to Galt--Galt's speech--he's to be real-life subservient to to the actual state while making it better. Thus the lack of real individualism and critical thinking in Objectivism: they don't fit the culture. So Rand attacking conservativism was her conservative side attacking conservativism in a turf war with W.F. Buckley, jr. and his irrationalists. By attacking all of them, she attacked too many of them. Same, same for the libertarians--too individualistic and not-under-her-thumb for her taste. It was entirely logical everything blew up in 1968: the center couldn't hold; the culture was irrational overall from the lying root on up.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

And no, I won't support Rand Paul. Too damn bad.

I disagreed with OL's other SB, Stephen Boydstun, about Rand Paul back before he was elected.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8627

So we can disagree without being disagreeable around here. But maybe you can't, since you have this posse after you.

Also he has, not a 'malevolent universe' premise, but a 'malevolent humanity' premise.

Nice distinction. I like it.

I have more observations, but I won't be making them in a public forum. Ask me about Narcissus and Medusa next time we hang out.

[PDS]

RB registered here for one reason and one reason only to troll and harass me. You see, I wont let him on my FB page, so when he found out I was here, I guess he saw that as his golden opportunity. I don't suspect he'll stick around when his only real incentive for being here is removed.

Ah, I see. So when I posted my own topic on moral foundations of economic behavior (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13276#entry183524), it was all merely part of an elaborate plan to harass you. The ensuing conversation must have been just a pretext to ensnare your attention, right? Thanks for commenting on that topic by the way - oh wait, you couldn't be bothered (douche). I did, however leave multiple substantive comments, that were in no way "trolling," on your MSNBC-talking-head-esque RAND PAUL DRUG WARRIOR WHARRGHARBL. Here was your only remotely substantive response to my arguments in that topic:

"I favor small government. If you don't like that fact that I use the term "Libertarian" as a shortcut to describe myself, either get over it or ignore it. Either way, too damn bad if you don't like it. And no, I won't support Rand Paul. Too damn bad."

Magnificent fodder for discussion, Kacy! Have you ever considered that you might get out of things what you put into them?

Similarly, when I responded to SB's topic on the IRS targeting conservative groups (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13286#entry183758), and other topics posted by fellow members where you weren't a participant, I must have just been secretly praying that you would grace us with your presence there. This is what you actually think? Well that tells us more about you than it does about me by a long stretch.

Notice how everything's always about YOU in your posts. Your topic is titled "A couple reasons *I* couldn't vote for Rand Paul." So it's really just a topic about YOU, as if people here give the slightest flip who you would vote for. And you have the gall to accuse me of being a narcissist? I can at least talk about things other than myself, when people manage to put the effort in. And SB and I are not the only commenters who have bemoaned your lack of intellectual curiosity here, in case you haven't been paying attention. The distinct impression most here seem to have of you is that you want to post a bunch of cheap Mother Jones-type talking points, have a good bash on religious conservativism, then rinse and repeat. Kudos to them for refusing to drag the blog down to that base level.

I came here because SB invited me here. I told him I was looking for a new blog. He told me that he respected this blog and its moderator. I didn't mention you ONCE in that conversation, you may be surprised to know.

One "outsider's" perspective:

1. You and SB have a hard-on for Kacy that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

2. You and SB are fond of rehashing personal grudges that cast attention away from the topics at hand.

3. Like it or not, Kacy makes substantive points, is a fine writer, and does so while serving a full-time officer in the military.

4. Relative to #3, unless one is an anarchist (and even then I wouldn't agree with it), there is no rational justification for denigrating those who serve in the military.

5. Most posters on this site do not care much about spats, the history of spats, or dirty psychological laundry.

6. Relative to #5, notice how few people engage on the personal level as regards RB's and SB's comments about Kacy.

I admit I may be completely wrong about items 1-6. But, here is my prediction: once Kacy leaves, SB and RB will not be posting much here anymore. In fact, i give them less than 30 days.

That is too bad, as both seem very bright, but it will also prove I my perspective is right.

[anthony]

Me, I've been happy to have them all around. Livens the place up, and substance does often surface (as
it usually happens in the heat of battle).

Mainly, there is nothing as challenging as hearing dissent or contesting views from articulate writers with such keen intellects.

En avant! nos enfants terribles...

[Robert Baratheon]

Once "outsider's" perspective:

1. You and SB have a hard-on for Kacy that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

2. You and SB are fond of rehashing personal grudges that cast attention away from the topics at hand.

3. Like it or not, Kacy makes substantive points, is a fine writer, and does so while serving a full-time officer in the military.

4. Relative to #3, unless one is an anarchist (and even then I wouldn't agree with it), there is no rational justification for denigrating those who serve in the military.

5. Most posters on this site do not care much about spats, the history of spats, or dirty psychological laundry.

6. Relative to #5, notice how few people engage on the personal level as regards RB's and SB's comments about Kacy.

I admit I may be completely wrong about items 1-6. But, here is my prediction: once Kacy leaves, SB and RB will not be posting much here anymore. In fact, i give them less than 30 days.

That is too bad, as both seem very bright, but it will also prove I my perspective is right.

1. Kacy trolls libertarians/objectivists with anti-right-wing-pundit topics. We object to this trolling.

2. I have plainly tried to engage Kacy on substance. He has stated that he categorically will not participate BECAUSE of personal history. So what does that leave us with?

3. "Alex Jones sucks" is a substantive point? "Rand Paul is a big government drug warrior" is a substantive point? He's trolling you, nothing more. When I responded with substance in this thread, he refused to engage on a meaningful level. Again, what does that leave us with?

4. When somebody on government subsistence repeatedly asserts that they are an elite, risk-taking, self-made, productive individual in the context of a discussion of objectivist values, it becomes relevant to the discussion.

5. So ignore it and start your own topics.

6. Kacy has authored even lengthier personal comments about us, so apply your comments equally to him.

30 days is an eternity in blog time. I may or may not decide to stay for that period. Anyone with eyes can see I have participated in, and am continuing to participate in, topics where Kacy is neither a subject nor a participant.

[PDS]

Once "outsider's" perspective:

1. You and SB have a hard-on for Kacy that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

2. You and SB are fond of rehashing personal grudges that cast attention away from the topics at hand.

3. Like it or not, Kacy makes substantive points, is a fine writer, and does so while serving a full-time officer in the military.

4. Relative to #3, unless one is an anarchist (and even then I wouldn't agree with it), there is no rational justification for denigrating those who serve in the military.

5. Most posters on this site do not care much about spats, the history of spats, or dirty psychological laundry.

6. Relative to #5, notice how few people engage on the personal level as regards RB's and SB's comments about Kacy.

I admit I may be completely wrong about items 1-6. But, here is my prediction: once Kacy leaves, SB and RB will not be posting much here anymore. In fact, i give them less than 30 days.

That is too bad, as both seem very bright, but it will also prove I my perspective is right.

1. Kacy trolls libertarians/objectivists with anti-right-wing-pundit topics. We object to this trolling.

2. I have plainly tried to engage Kacy on substance. He has stated that he categorically will not participate BECAUSE of personal history. So what does that leave us with?

3. "Alex Jones sucks" is a substantive point? "Rand Paul is a big government drug warrior" is a substantive point? He's trolling you, nothing more. When I responded with substance in this thread, he refused to engage on a meaningful level. Again, what does that leave us with?

4. When somebody on government subsistence repeatedly asserts that they are an elite, risk-taking, self-made, productive individual in the context of a discussion of objectivist values, it becomes relevant to the discussion.

5. So ignore it and start your own topics.

6. Kacy has authored even lengthier personal comments about us, so apply your comments equally to him.

30 days is an eternity in blog time. I may or may not decide to stay for that period. Anyone with eyes can see I have participated in, and am continuing to participate in, topics where Kacy is neither a subject nor a participant.

You have a peculiar conception of what it means to be a Marine officer.

You also have a peculiar conception of the Objectivist view of government, which, although it aims toward a very limited role, still contemplates that there will be a military to respond to or prevent the initiation of force from others. Who do you expect to do this while we are awaiting the free society hoped for by libertarians and Objectivists? Bloggers? Video game aficionados?

Of course I could ignore this topic, but if you take a look to your left, you will see I have been hanging around OL around for 3+ plus years. That's 36+ eternities, by your standard.

Do you find it curious that most of the people gently trying to tell you and your pal to back off on Kacy don't find 30 days on OL to be "an eternity?" Do you find it curious that you and SB seem to be the only ones who feel he is a "troll'?

[Robert Baratheon]

You have a peculiar conception of what it means to be a Marine officer.

You also have a peculiar conception of the Objectivist view of government, which, although it aims toward a very limited role, still contemplates that there will be a military to respond to or prevent the initiation of force from others. Who do you expect to do this while we are awaiting the free society hoped for by libertarians and Objectivists? Bloggers? Video game aficionados?

Of course I could ignore this topic, but if you take a look to your left, you will see I have been hanging OL around for 3+ plus years. That's 36+ eternities, by your standard.

Do you find it curious that most of the people gently trying to tell you and your pal to back off on Kacy don't find 30 days on OL to be "an eternity?" Do you find it curious that you and SB seem to be the only ones who feel he is a "troll'?

I don't take any issue with national defense, or even with the concept of a standing army necessarily. But it's intellectually lazy to suggest, implicitly or otherwise, that the basic need for a military justifies any and all "defense" expenditures or any number of salaried military employees. Or that it negates the plain reality that the military is, and always has been for many, a de facto jobs/welfare program for people who otherwise would have been cyclically unemployed or suffering degrees of economic hardship. Now there are advantages and disadvantages to this functionality, and I have explicitly mentioned that here before, but it's downright OFFENSIVE when those "serving" like Kacy look down their noses at us lowly "civilians" or claim some sort of elite status just for signing up for what is essentially a WPA-style federal jobs program. I could just as easily "pull rank" on Kacy based on any number of educational or employment factors, but I don't engage in that kind of posturing because I find it repulsive.

It is not true that "only" SB and I have identified Kacy's lack of intellectual curiosity or verbally reprimanded him here for engaging in partisan flame-war behavior. Numerous other commenters have noted Kacy's pattern of posting these vacuous topics solely to antagonize small-government advocates and start talking-point flame wars.

[PDS]

Oh, I get it now. Prior to joining the USMC, Kacy should have undertaken an independent examination of all necessary troop levels and other deployments, determined that there existed too many Marines already, and then decided that becoming a Marine would be the equivalent of welfare or busy work.

Also, having become a Marine officer, he should not have the audacity to consider this in any way an "elite" staus.

I take it you haven't spent much time in Quantico, have you?

[Robert Baratheon]

Oh, I get it now. Prior to joining the USMC, Kacy should have undertaken an independent examination of all necessary troop levels and other deployments, determined that there existed too many Marines already, and then decided that becoming a Marine would be the equivalent of welfare or busy work.

Also, having become a Marine officer, he should not have the audacity to consider this in any way an "elite" staus.

I take it you haven't spent much time in Quantico, have you?

No, he can do as he pleases, and I don't fault anyone for responding to incentives. But he has repeatedly tried to browbeat me in our discussions by asserting his "elite" military status as a blanket defense or appeal from authority, and that type of behavior doesn't fly with me.

What is the point of bringing up meeting the president or being "thanked" by John McCain? It isn't relevant to anything of substance.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, I don't think Kacy is a troll.

In fact, I feel quite capable of challenging his ideas when he goes into propaganda mode. And not just propaganda mode. Kacy has made some excellent observations on premises that need checking.

I feel OL regulars--hell, most all OL readers--are quite capable of standing their own with him, also

Not only do I feel capable, I strongly believe it is necessary to confront contrary ideas to win the intellectual culture over to the freedom side.

You can't convince anyone of the wrongness of an argument if you ignore it, only preach to the choir, or go about trying to trounce strawmen and/or weak proponents. (You certainly can't convince intelligent people of an argument by bickering over trivialities.)

So not only should such arguments NOT be ignored, I hold we should engage in discussions with reasonable people who are highly passionate about them.

Kacy fits that bill--even if he goes off into rhetorical excess la-la land at times.

All that personal crap is a distraction to the real issues that need focus.

Also, for the record, I do not believe RB or SB are tolls.

All three are good intelligent people with a bug up their ass about each other. I base my evaluation on reading their posts.

Now... if only we can get some bug spray...

Michael

[william.scherk]

Fakey Name one and Fakey Name two have numerous personal bones to pick with their personal Bad Girl, non-Fakey Name, Marine welfare whore Kacy Ray. A full on "but she is baaaaaaaad, please help me punish her with scolding and withholding, and secrets told, the very Bad Girl's shocking history of being Bad."

Bad Girl Kacy, with her large inquisitive eyes and her large Marine shoulders, is doing what a lot of girls like to do these days -- argue on public forums. The other two, McFakeyOne and McFakeyTwo, are trying to get read into the record the true and eternal sins of Bad Girl.

Is this fun? Is this reasonable, reasoned and reason-rich, fodder for those like me and PDS and those who have roots extending back a few years here? I say it is not so much fun to have two crabby girls repeat four times too many times the deep defects of their Bad Girl.

How to make "You are a bad girl and by now everyone should know it" exchanges more fun? I don't know. I don't know if it is possible.

What is this entire topic if not just a half-hearted trolling of the libertarians and objectivists who frequent this blog? MSK had Kacy pegged from his earlier entry in the topic series:

MSK: "Is there a point to opening a whole thread just to bash Alex Jones? Are you trying to find someone to play "Alex Jones sucks," "No he doesn't," "Yes he does," "No he doesn't," and so on?"

I have no faith whatsoever in Alex Jones, no expectations that he will dig past notions and suppositions to truth. I have no faith that Alex Jones knows how to reason his way to accuracy. I have seen enough of his deeply irrational outbursts to dismiss him as a fair player in the 'Information Wars.'

Any examination of Alex Jones means examination of his output, for me -- are his claims true, are his sources sound, are his conclusions valid?

Bad Girl Kacy says (it seems from the good girls' reckoning): "Alex Jones is fucked, as a purveyor of news and analysis." I agree.

Be that as it may, how many more times will McFakerham bore readers with the intensely personal girl-on-girl action of "You, you you you you you You, are a Bad Girl. You you you you"?

Once "outsider's" perspective:

1. You and SB have a hard-on for Kacy that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

2. You and SB are fond of rehashing personal grudges that cast attention away from the topics at hand.

3. Like it or not, Kacy makes substantive points, is a fine writer, and does so while serving a full-time officer in the military.

4. Relative to #3, unless one is an anarchist (and even then I wouldn't agree with it), there is no rational justification for denigrating those who serve in the military.

5. Most posters on this site do not care much about spats, the history of spats, or dirty psychological laundry.

6. Relative to #5, notice how few people engage on the personal level as regards RB's and SB's comments about Kacy.

[redacted]

1. Kacy trolls. We/I are troll patrollers

2.Blah blah blah

3.He's trolling

4. He is on government subsistence

6. Kacy is bitchy too!

This is poison. The intensely personal nature of this riposte to PDS is troubling to me. Using a bit of reduction, I could fairly say that the portly pseudonym is expecting all and sundry to agree that a dark badness infects Kacy and renders him Beyond Bad on scales of integrity and humanity.

It is ugly in a psychological way, I find. If I was a girl on the outskirts of this three-way invecta-blah, I would edge ever so carefully further away. I would wonder why the goal seems to be Negation, and why the sentence sought by Judges Girlfake and GirlFalloon is so, um, Final, punitive. I might even consider that the two Kacy-glued McPersonalBitchos are fixated on vanquishing Kacy. Not mere correcting, but a bowed head, full acknowledgement that the good girls judgement was correct and necessary.

I would probably get the impression that whatever the truth in their estimations of Kacy's argument, it is a creepy thing to expect him to submit to their psychological judgments and sentencing suggestions. This is the rough ground, when "Your argument is faulty" becomes "You. You you you. You are Bad. Bad to the bone. Admit it, or me and Stacey will make you suffer forevermore, wherever you alight."

You also have a peculiar conception of the Objectivist view of government, which, although it aims toward a very limited role, still contemplates that there will be a military to respond to or prevent the initiation of force from others.

t's intellectually lazy to suggest, implicitly or otherwise, that the basic need for a military ... negates the plain reality that the military is ... a de facto jobs/welfare program for people who otherwise would have been cyclically unemployed or suffering degrees of economic hardship.

The passive-aggressive stance is notable, despite a bland tone. Am I supposed to accept that Bad Girl Kacy is a military-welfare queen? Does the first set (military welfare queens) fully comprise the second set (Marines) and fully comprise the third set (bad girl Kacy)?

Why the persistently personal cast? What would benefit you two girls if everyone shared your odd insistent psychological judgments -- if we all here said we believed Kacy to be a military-welfare queen, what then? What does that judgement entail? What is the sentencing required?

Edited May 21, 2013 by william.scherk

[Robert Baratheon]

William - I'm not a fan of the rampant and blatant misogyny in your post, and I'm not sure what exactly you think you've contributed here. Again, anyone is free to go to the beginning of this thread and plainly see that I responded to Kacy's post with substantive arguments. Kacy refused to have a real discussion on those terms - as he stated when I came to this blog that he would under no circumstances do - so the "poison" you see here is what is LEFT as a result of that decision. I'm fully willing to discuss the issues, and I have attempted to do so here. Kacy isn't. If you don't believe me, just ask him - he's said as much himself.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have no faith whatsoever in Alex Jones, no expectations that he will dig past notions and suppositions to truth. I have no faith that Alex Jones knows how to reason his way to accuracy. I have seen enough of his deeply irrational outbursts to dismiss him as a fair player in the 'Information Wars.'

William,

I don't want to defend Alex Jones, but duty calls...

... at least for a reframe.

You don't need to have faith in Alex Jones. Just look at his documentation when you come across him and only look at that. It won't kill you.

Jones is one of the only ones who actually gets copies of many damaging documents that those in power (both left and right) would prefer to remain hidden. That's why you see his headlines sporadically appearing on Drudge.

Instead of framing him using a competitive metaphor--as a "fair player," I would like to suggest a change of metaphor. He's the bomb you drop before you send in the infantry. Often, the bomb hits shit it isn't supposed to hit and often it misses the target altogether.

But it leaves a nice hole and opens up the terrain for others to move in...

That's how I see Alex Jones.

incidentally, to look at the Progressive side, in my mind, I frame people like Michael Moore with the same metaphor.

From that perspective, these are useful people for the free press. They jar the public and keep the system from lulling them into complacency. That is, if free press is a value to our respective world views. (It is to mine.)

Michael

[william.scherk]

I have no faith whatsoever in Alex Jones, no expectations that he will dig past notions and suppositions to truth. I have no faith that Alex Jones knows how to reason his way to accuracy. I have seen enough of his deeply irrational outbursts to dismiss him as a fair player in the 'Information Wars.'

You don't need to have faith in Alex Jones. Just look at his documentation when you come across him and only look at that.

Alex Jones' output on, say, chemtrails, FEMA camps, UFOs, Bilderberg tentacles -- these stories peddled via video/radio/internets tend to mix in hogwash with a few scant bones of fact. On balance, Alex Jones is not trustworthy. I can speak to my lack of faith in Jones' truthfulness quotient by invoking cognates of faith such as trust and confidence. I also have zero faith/confidence/trust that Jones conducts rational investigations of his subjects.

Instead of framing him using a competitive metaphor--as a "fair player," I would like to suggest a change of metaphor. He's the bomb you drop before you send in the infantry. Often, the bomb hits shit it isn't supposed to hit and often it misses the target altogether.

But it leaves a nice hole and opens up the terrain for others to move in...

That's how I see Alex Jones.

Fair enough. Without getting into specifics (say his slamming of Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy) we can wield metaphors with abandon.

Michael, for me, on balance, Alex Jones as information purveyor is unreliable. Not that he cannot identify smelly piles, or shine on dark places, but that his surmises are often tainted by cognitive bias and "it's all connected" bumf.

If you find him to be a nice bomb in your metaphor, okay, I think I get it. I think you might agree with me that Jones' unreliability mars his credibility, all things considered.

Let me put it this way ... I would never seek to consult Jones on matters of fact -- before consulting other venues and reporting. His baloney on FEMA camps did it for me (in the episode of Jesse Ventura's TV show that dealt with 'millions of coffins' and which fudged the difference between an immigration detention facility and a FEMA death camp). Frothing with wrongness and mistaken inferences, just about bottom of the barrel.

The documentation for the camps claims? Absent.

With that, I re-inter Jones in my mental crypt, and give way to more mature voices.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I think we agree on Alex Jones's overkill propensity to cognitive bias.

But here's a thought. After studying marketing, I learned a very useful form of compartmentalizing time (from Joe Polish and Dean Jackson).

It almost sounds silly, but they divide it up into three stages:

1. Before the sale,

2. During the sale, and

3. After the sale.

You can see this elaborated on--where each stage is broken down into more stages--in their report "Breakthrough DNA: 8 Profit Activators You Can Trigger In Your Business Right Now." (You can get a free copy here.)

Now here is the critical point when dealing with time. It is not binary. It's more like a conveyor belt.

Thus, the purpose of Stage One is not to make the sale. That comes at the end of Stage 2. The purpose of Stage 1 is to get the client into Stage 2.

(Just for the sake of completion, Stage 3 is for referrals and repeat purchases.)

Do you see where I am going with this?

Thinking through something, including the news, to me is like a conveyor belt, not an on-off, right-wrong, good-evil, technocrat-bumpkin switch.

If you use the Polish-Jackson marketing sequence in an analogous manner in dealing with politics and current events, the purpose of watching Alex Jones (or Michael Moore) is not to form any conclusions. You are supposed to make conclusions at the end of Stage 2, that is, after the other parts of the stages where you double check his information, look at what others contrary to him say, study the topic a little, etc.

Alex Jones is for the beginning of Stage 1 or sometimes the other parts of Stage 1. Very rarely does he make it to Stage 2 with me.

If I were to use him as a credible source for my conclusions (Stage 2), I would bash him as much as you do for his quality inconsistency. But I don't. As far as being a Stage 1 commentator goes, he's pretty damn good at coming up with outside-the-box stuff to look at.

That's the value I find in him.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Be that as it may, how many more times will McFakerham bore readers with the intensely personal girl-on-girl action of "You, you you you you you You, are a Bad Girl. You you you you"?

Y'all have provoked the Wrath of Sherk. Good luck getting that genie back in the bottle.

Doesn't all this remind you of Phil? Remember all those threads that started promisingly, then became all about Phil? In small doses it could be fun, the dose is the poison as they say. Alas it ended the only way it could have ended:

[Robert Baratheon]

How can somebody post a picture like that and not provide any back story?!

[9thdoctor]

How can somebody post a picture like that and not provide any back story?!

Phil was OL's resident schoolmarm for years. Here he his modeling his work clothes:

Check out the Garbage Pile for numerous examples of him in action. Here's a few (not from the Garbage Pile) that I find memorable:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8632&p=99035

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8261&p=146813

You'll find that he's always asserting his intellectual (and/or moral) superiority, but that he just doesn't have the chops to back it up. And he would chase people from thread to thread, really just being an asshole.

Finally, when the first Atlas Shrugged movie installment came out, he went too far. He wrote a piece for the Atlasphere about how to use the movie to spread the word about Objectivism. So we're all discussing how we felt about the movie after it's been out a week or two, and he chimes in that he hasn't gone to see it yet. Ellen says 'C'mon Phil, money where your mouth is', and he replies 'Up yours, cunt.' MSK called foul on him, and he responded with the lines quoted in the picture above. But without the postscript, I added that. I don't think we've heard from him since. IMO the forum has been a much better place without him.

Don't take him as your model, please.

[PDS]

Has it really only been 25 months?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, Phil is not banned or even moderated on OL.

He jus' don' like us no-more...

(sniff sniff...)

Apropos, I wonder if he ever liked us to begin with. He certainly didn't sound like it--in post after post after post after post after goddam irritating negative post.

Otherwise, he's a good dude.

In fact, I wonder if he ever liked himself...

(Woah... This is getting heavy... )

Michael

[PDS]

I always sensed that he liked himself. A lot.

[Robert Baratheon]

All I ask from people is that they approach discussion topics with good faith and a willingness to question their own assumptions. It doesn't matter to me what a person's position is as long as there isn't a pattern of intellectual stubbornness or dishonesty.

I've been commenting on libertarian and conservative blogs for years and haven't had any issues so far. The only blog I ever had a problem on was a progressive blog that banned me when a new owner took over and accused me of "libeling" a local teacher's union that financially contributed to the blog. Several other commenters pointed out that nothing I said was even remotely libelous, but the blog owner really just wanted me gone for being a persistent critic (I had caught him misquoting people on more than one occasion - I'm a stickler for accurate representation of others).

Really I just consider this mental recreation and enjoy being exposed to new ideas I otherwise would not have been aware of.

[PDS]

Fair enough, RB.

Now if you can take your teeth out of Kacy's ankle you might get some substantive debate.

[Robert Baratheon]

PDS - You have the causation reversed. When I'm denied the substantive debate I crave, I get bored and go biting on ankles.