Bye, All!

[Brant Gaede]

How do you know?

Do you speak for every reader, even the ones you don't know?

I'm talking about observed positive consequences.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

Controlling, condescending, buttinnsky, badmouthing, control freak, over-critical, bigshot-imitating, powerlusting, contemptuous, grandstanding and attention-seeking Phil

Now that’s what I call self-knowledge!

Seriously Phil , have a drink , or meditate , just don’t lose sleep over these tempestous teapots.

Hey, you swiped my dog! He answers to Binny (short for Binswanger), look out he's a biter.

[mvir9]

Well, since a number of these posts deal directly with me--assumptions and assessments--I will respond.

I haven't been around for quite some time for several reasons--the primary of which is the hypocrisy I encountered from some (definitely not all) members here.

1. Yes, I was irritated by the responses I received about my ability in the martial arts. What happened to the idea that we should take PRIDE in our abilities? I've been doing karate for nearly thirty years, and when people do something for that long in their lives, it is incredible to me that they would be assumed as hacks. No, I didn't intend to boast (unearned confidence and bragging, by my definition). The subject came up for a reason (which I don't recall out of hand), and my ability was immediately dismissed due to--not individualistic reasons--but to collectivistic reasons...I'm "small," and small people just can't defend themselves with quality, I guess; I'm a "girl," and girls can't defend themselves with quality, I guess. Herein lies the hypocrisy.

At that point, I just didn't feel the need--or desire--to defend my ability to all of you.

2. The ridiculous amount of ad hominem attacks here befuddle me to no end. What becomes the point? Is this truly civil discourse? I doubt that Aristotle would think so, and I know I don't think so. Again, another hypocrisy.

3. I'm just too damned busy now to banter constantly--vaguely reminding me of Aristophanes. Rather, I'm spending my time productively--and, yes, I'm damned proud of it.

I wish most of you the best. And I hope that all of you (just as I do) will consistently seek to understand yourselves better, and to improve upon what you find.

Virginia

Edited November 2, 2009 by Virginia Murr

[Jonathan]

1. Yes, I was irritated by the responses I received about my ability in the martial arts. What happened to the idea that we should take PRIDE in our abilities?

No one had a problem with your taking pride in your abilities. We only had a problem with your claims that you wouldn't get hurt in a fight against a male opponent three times your size. World-class fighters often get hurt in matches against larger opponents, which is why weight classes are adhered to, and regardless of how great a fighter you think yourself to be, you would also get hurt against much larger opponents.

I've been doing karate for nearly thirty years, and when people do something for that long in their lives, it is incredible to me that they would be assumed as hacks.

I don't remember anyone assuming that you were a hack. Recognizing that you have an inflated opinion of your abilities isn't the same as thinking that you're a hack. Likewise, if an Olympic medalist in the high jump came here and asserted that she could clear 100 feet, one wouldn't be accusing her of being a hack if one told her that she had an unrealistic opinion of her abilities.

No, I didn't intend to boast (unearned confidence and bragging, by my definition). The subject came up for a reason (which I don't recall out of hand), and my ability was immediately dismissed...

Your ability was not dismissed. Your exaggerated assertions were challenged, and you were asked to back them up with proof.

...due to--not individualistic reasons--but to collectivistic reasons...I'm "small," and small people just can't defend themselves with quality, I guess; I'm a "girl," and girls can't defend themselves with quality, I guess. Herein lies the hypocrisy.

It's not collectivistic or hypocritical to recognize the physical reality that smaller people are at a major disadvantage against much larger opponents, and that females are generally not as powerful as males. With that in mind, we simply weren't willing to take you at your word without proof. We were willing, and even eager, to consider any evidence of you successfully taking on a determined male opponent 2 or 3 times your size, especially in an uncontrolled match which simulated the realistic conditions of a street fight by not stopping and restarting the match each time that a point was scored, or otherwise artificially protecting or giving advantages to the smaller fighter. You declined to provide such evidence.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Virginia,

I am very glad to hear you are doing well.

You might be interested to know that Sean, Kat's son who has an Autistic spectrum disorder similar to Asperger syndrome, is taking Taekwondo. It is doing wonders for him. He eve broke his first board.

Not Karate, I know, but still a martial art.

Michael

[Xray]

Well, Phil, it's obvious your pedalogical methods aren't working. (Maybe with Xray.)

-- Brant

Pedalogical? Was that an intentional misspelling to create a new word? ;) Edited November 2, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Yes, Virginia, There is a Tar Baby

> my ability was immediately dismissed

Virginia, I would like to apologize to you on behalf of those who disagree with your attacker.

I wouldn't take it seriously. There are trolls on every list and you unfortunately ran up against the nastiest one we have on this list. He speaks only for himself (notice how he used the phony "we...we...we" as if he were speaking for a significant number of people or for the list? and to bully a new person?) Also, trolls often operate with a lot of bluster and imply that everyone knows you are wrong or have feet of clay or are lying.

In this case, other thoughtful readers know enough about martial arts to tell that it is exactly those skills that enable a weaker or smaller person to defeat a bigger by avoiding getting in a clinch and by using throws and leverage and other techniques. In other words using his strength against him. Silence does not mean anyone takes the attack dogs or trolls very seriously. Another tactic is what I call "tar baby-ism": they launch an endless barrage or lengthy itemized list of attacks and then demand that you engage them, answer them point by point. (There is also a tendency among some trolls to simply lie about whether or not you have answered them.) My approach is generally just to post 'troll ignored', nothing more. I can only think of one person on this list whom I repeatedly do this with. The poet Dryden had the best line for avoiding lowering yourself to engage with a persistently vicious attack dog or tar baby or troll:

"The Eagle Does not Hunt Flies."

> The ridiculous amount of ad hominem attacks here befuddle me to no end.

The level of it is one of the first things people notice who come from the outside. You are certainly not the first to notice.

The problem is it's contagious. As you get more and more people who prefer this, those who are interested in thoughtfulness get crowded out. I've noticed a steep decline over several years. Bad money drives out good, and I suspect I will 'bail' myself at some point. The only thing that keeps me is there are a small handful of thoughtful people to debate with or learn from. (Athough with the absence of Barbara Branden and Ted Keer, the infrequent participation of Jim HN and a couple others - that number is dwindling.)

>...I haven't been around for quite some time for several reasons..//..I'm just too damned busy now to banter constantly

Your disgust and going away in part from having your honesty (about your skills) questioned is just one more example. Plus "banter", even when not used to humiliate or attack personally, is sometimes fun but not when it pushes out intellect.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Phil, it's obvious your pedalogical methods aren't working. (Maybe with Xray.)

-- Brant

Pedalogical? Was that an intentional misspelling to create a new word?

Opps! (squirm, squirm)--my English skills are limited.

--Brant

[Xray]

Well, Phil, it's obvious your pedalogical methods aren't working. (Maybe with Xray.)

-- Brant

Pedalogical? Was that an intentional misspelling to create a new word?

Opps! (squirm, squirm)--my English skills are limited.

--Brant

Don't sweat it - 'pedalogical' would sound quite good as a neologism imo.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You are doing a typical partisan thing of using one example to stand for all, even as you preface your remarks to the contrary.

I don't find that method of analysis or arguing objective.

EDIT: Just as curiosity (with no hostility intended), how does one ignore anything by commenting about it? Isn't commenting about something a clear indication of not ignoring it? My cognitive precision meter jumped into the red with that one.

EDIT 2: For the record, I didn't want to dredge up the old arguments and go through all that again, but since there has been a misunderstanding, let me say that I always thought Virginia would be a powerful foe against a larger opponent, even one with the same level of ability. Obviously, not everyone agrees with me.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

For the record, I didn't want to dredge up the old arguments and go through all that again, but since there has been a misunderstanding, let me say that I always thought Virginia would be a powerful foe against a larger opponent, even one with the same level of ability.

To a point. The larger being larger might be somewhat slower. A good shot to the knee could stop almost anyone unless he was able to grapple. In a mugging situation the mugger would likely be taken by complete surprise and lose badly if she's vicious enough.

--Brant

[Xray]

JR is always leaving Internet forums. Sometimes he comes back.

Ah, I get the picture.

[Jerry Biggers]

Jeesh!!

As some "philosopher" (!!) once said, "Can't we all, you know..., just get along?"

I guess the answer to that is, "No!"

Anyway, Jeff Riggenbach has been around in libertarian circles for a long time, and is a published author.

I rather doubt that he has a "thin skin." Perhaps I am missing a crucial exchange that somehow devastated his feelings, but I doubt that that occurred.

He did not say exactly why he was leaving. I, for one, enjoyed reading his comments. If he comes back, great. If he does not,...well, it's his life.

Now, we were saying,......

Edited November 3, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Philip Coates]

Subject: I'm Leaving

I'm also going to leave.

I may or may not completely 'bail' as I have some uncompleted topics to post a couple more times on...but for all practical purposes, I don't need to spend so much time this way.

Many things I don't enjoy or benefit from or consider a valuable trade. It's actually less incivility (which can be ignored) as it is how much benefit I get from the content level compared to the time spent wading through chaff and compared to more productive use of time -- reading books, writing, etc.

,,,,,,

I may wrap up a couple points on Atlas Shrugged and great literature over the next couple days (A couple threads I'll miss, but I can check in from time to time.)

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: I'm Leaving

I'm also going to leave.

I may or may not completely 'bail' as I have some uncompleted topics to post a couple more times on...but for all practical purposes, I don't need to spend so much time this way.

Many things I don't enjoy or benefit from or consider a valuable trade. It's actually less incivility (which can be ignored) as it is how much benefit I get from the content level compared to the time spent wading through chaff and compared to more productive use of time -- reading books, writing, etc.

,,,,,,

I may wrap up a couple points on Atlas Shrugged and great literature over the next couple days (A couple threads I'll miss, but I can check in from time to time.)

No! No!

And just when I finally started rereading AS just for the pleasure of arguing with you!

Jeff S.

[Brant Gaede]

I was going to leave ...

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

I was going to leave ...

--Brant

LOL! Don't tell Xray!

Regards,

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't leave even if I wanted to...

Michael

[Jonathan]

Subject: Yes, Virginia, There is a Tar Baby

> my ability was immediately dismissed

Virginia, I would like to apologize to you on behalf of those who disagree with your attacker.

If I were to claim that I could beat Kobe Bryant in a one-on-one game with one hand tied behind my back, would anyone who expressed doubt be a big nasty meanie? Anyone who asked that I prove my claim would be a vicious "attacker"?

I wouldn't take it seriously. There are trolls on every list and you unfortunately ran up against the nastiest one we have on this list. He speaks only for himself (notice how he used the phony "we...we...we" as if he were speaking for a significant number of people or for the list?

and to bully a new person?)

Psychologizing again, Phil? My use of "we" referred to me and the other people in the previous discussion who questioned or doubted Virginia's claims. It had nothing to do with pretending to speak for a "significant number of people" (but I would be interested in hearing which word you would suggest that I should use when referring to myself and others if using "we" is now "phony" and an act of bullying). Have you even read the previous discussion to which I was referring, or are you once again speculating about people's motives without bothering to inform yourself of the facts first?

In this case, other thoughtful readers know enough about martial arts to tell that it is exactly those skills that enable a weaker or smaller person to defeat a bigger by avoiding getting in a clinch and by using throws and leverage and other techniques. In other words using his strength against him.

That sounds great in theory, and it works in very controlled matches which artificially limit a larger attacker's ability to make full use of his size and any momentum he might gain from using multiple blows, and it sometimes works in situations where a larger opponent is taken by surprise, but it's not very realistic in the type of situation that Virginia originally proposed, which was being matched up against a determined, aggressive opponent three times her size.

Silence does not mean anyone takes the attack dogs or trolls very seriously. Another tactic is what I call "tar baby-ism": they launch an endless barrage or lengthy itemized list of attacks and then demand that you engage them, answer them point by point.

It's understandable that you don't like it when people provide multiple reasons to support their views and refute yours, and that you get angry when you can't answer your opponents' points.

(There is also a tendency among some trolls to simply lie about whether or not you have answered them.)

The most recent example in which I said that you hadn't answered me was the thread where you hadn't answered me about Howard Roark and the initiation of physical force. And you STILL haven't addressed my points. I'll remind you of the discussion: Xray asked you who initiated force against Roark which entitled him to use "retaliatory force." You replied that there was a "misapprehension" of Roark's "intellectual property" by those who altered his design. I responded that Roark did not have a contract with those in charge of the project, but committed the fraud of trying to pass off his work as someone else's. You haven't answered my points. My saying so is not a lie.

My approach is generally just to post 'troll ignored', nothing more. I can only think of one person on this list whom I repeatedly do this with. The poet Dryden had the best line for avoiding lowering yourself to engage with a persistently vicious attack dog or tar baby or troll:

"The Eagle Does not Hunt Flies."

I think a better line for you, Phil, would be:

"The schoolmarm greatly resents being bested intellectually, and she quickly resorts to condescension and psychologizing."

The problem is it's contagious. As you get more and more people who prefer this, those who are interested in thoughtfulness get crowded out.

If you're interested in thoughtfulness, you could always address the substance of my points instead of avoiding them and resorting to condescension and psychologizing.

I've noticed a steep decline over several years. Bad money drives out good...

That's true. You drove out JR.

Your disgust and going away in part from having your honesty (about your skills) questioned is just one more example.

I'm still open to seeing proof of Virginia's claims about how well she would do against an opponent three times her size in a situation that wasn't tightly controlled to give her artificial protections and advantages. I'm still ready and willing to be convinced with actual evidence.

J

Edited November 3, 2009 by Jonathan

[Brant Gaede]

A sad exchange.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

(trying out my tech-fu here)

[9thdoctor]

The acrimonious departures of JR & Phil make you think of the Beethoven 9th? At least you didn’t quote the actual Ode to Joy, as it is I infer you’re making a call for peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K4635W4roY

[jeffrey smith]

The acrimonious departures of JR & Phil make you think of the Beethoven 9th? At least you didn’t quote the actual Ode to Joy, as it is I infer you’re making a call for peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K4635W4roY

More precisely, speaking up for somewhat more harmony and somewhat less dissonance.

Of course, trying to sing a Beethoven choral work is not for the faint of heart.

[9thdoctor]

Phil keeps twisting his blade in the wound he’s inflicted:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&pid=83062&st=260entry83062

Long goodbyes deepen the hurt…

but do what you must.

He deserves a special tribute, so Phil, remember this as your OL torch song:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QabEgTRFGQ0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QabEgTRFGQ0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QabEgTRFGQ0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I know I am going to regret this quip, but I can't help it. The setup's too good.

In Brazil, there is a saying that whores never change, they just take some time off.

I don't know what that could mean in the present discussion, though...

(ducking)

Michael