ethan_a_dawe

Michael, You are free to view each person's posts through whatever lens you wish. I do the same. Ethan

Well, if you choose to not associate with certain people in your life, then you are living in just a contrived state of lusciousness. Ethan

Robert Campbell, When the owners of the site tell me I can't post my opinion here, I'll glady obey their wish. Your opinion is noted and filed accordingly. Ethan

Ok. I agree.

And I happen to disagree. That's all. No big deal. Do you care what I say about it? Ethan

Fine then. To answer your other underlying question, I have continued to post here as I find it personally valuable to challenge the content of Jonathan's evaluation of RoR. I do this of my own free will and not a the behest of anyone. Ethan

Personally I wouldn't intentionally bother making an alteration that did that. I wouldn't evaluate it as a "pussy" thing to do, as I have no idea what that means. If it were intentionally done I would say that it was done to make it more difficult for "Dissenters" to cut and paste threads into the dissent section. Whatever. Do I think such a thing would be done out of fear? If fear were really the issue, the person would be banned or moderated totally. If I thought Joe was the type of person who would moderate people whose arguements he couldn't handle I would look upon it negatively and would not be involved in RoR. I have seen no evidence that that is the case. Ethan

Rich, OL moderation is exactly what Michael and Kat wish it to be. It suits their desires or they would change it. Same thing on RoR. Does that answer your question or did I miss some point. Ethan

I could find out, and perhaps I will. Hell, in order to read the top categories one would merely need to not log in, so I don't know why it would be a part of the moderation. I assume people who are just plain moderated can still read the other sections. It's more likely and oversight than an intentional effect. Ethan

Rich, What is snotty about it? The first part is a fact and the second a personal evaluation of the tone of Jonathan's post, as your post above is of mine. Ethan

The reason you have been tagged as a dissenter is that you fit the criteria set by the owner of the RoR site. Personally, judging from the tone of your posts here I can see several other reasons to moderate you myself. Ethan

I simply explained what the reason for the new category of moderation was. Given the speculation for the reasons it seemed justifiable to me. As for a party line, all I'll say is that the action taken with regards to RoR moderation makes sense to me. I disagree with the whole religious/orthodox parallel being made here. RoR allows and encourages debate on Objectivism with people. Some people have honest questions and engage in debates where all involved learn things. After a time it becomes apparent that certain people are simply dissenters who are there to take issue with things and who consistentently support positions that are at odds with Objectivism. Once evidence shows that a person fits solidly into that category their access is limited. You may think that person is great and that their arguments are fine and dandy, but that doesn't matter. They can still post their ideas. They just have to post them in the dissent section where they can be talked about by anyone willing to engage them. I actually don't know if this is true, deliberate, or what. It wasn't part of the discussion I had.

Michael, Given some time I could supply you with point of view on this. I'll not likey have this time for several days. Ethan

Rich, you said: "My evaluation is that Ethan failed to address the core issues brought up. Neither here nor there at this time, I suppose. " Rich, What do you think I failed to address? I'll gladly address it. Ethan

Robert, I wagged my finger at you on SOLO for the exact reason I explained in those posts. That being that you are doing what I perceive to be a bad job defending people/organizations I value. I don't waste my time wagging my finger at people who do a poor job of defending things I don't value. As far as the "don't come back to RoR" part of your post, that is your own creation. You are free to post on RoR. I note that you said in the moderation thread here that you won't be going there much. Whether or not you do is up to you. Ethan

Michael, Jonathan is the one who brought up the idea of appologies. I was merely pointing out the errors he made in his post where he had said rude things about RoR and myself. Ethan

Jonathan, I was simply filling you in on the rationale behind the Dissent moderation. It was not I who labelled you as being immune to the arguments of others and that was only one of the criteria. I've already said that I did not nominate you and don't yet know who did. Therefore I have nothing to apologize for. You on the other hand do, but I'm not holding my breath. Ethan

Jonathan, As I wasn't someone who recommended you for moderation to the Dissent board, I can't answer your question. I recommended one person who isn't on OL as far as I can tell and who hasn't said anything about it yet as far as I can tell. I can look into it for you if you like. As for this: This is nothing more than a baseless insult. There are plenty of people who argue issues on RoR who aren't in the new Dissent moderation category. RoR is often accused of being too tolerant of non-Objectivists. As usual, you can't please everyone, nor should you try to. Ethan

Michael, If you can find one "personal insult" I've ever made against you that was not a justified reaction to something you have said, I will gladly retract it publically. We don't need to cover old ground do we? Perhaps we do. Your choice. My statements are there to be seen alongside yours, and I beleive, any negative comment I have made regarding you has been framed with a reference to what you said and where you said it, as well as stating that readers should make up their own minds. Both you and Kat have had some nasty public things to say about me as I recall. In fact I think I pointed that out to her. I'm going for now. I'll return, if you wish, should you find those unjustified quotes to offer my apologies. You should know that I took time recently to reread some threads on RoR, and related ones here to check back on my previous statements, but I'll gladly do it again if you think I missed anything you said. Yes, you would be fully within your rightd to remove me from OL. You don't think I'd disagree with you, or even call foul about it do you? You'll find my morals rather consistent. Ethan

Hi Robert, Sounds right. There were plenty of times on SOLOHQ when people would be up in arms about banning or moderation. Those banned or moderated always railed against the tyrannical owners for being hypocrites or thought controllers. There is no need to rehash the whole thing. What's done is done and the moderated peoples posts stand for themselves. I don't have to defend it or justify why this one or that one was banned. I just wanted to provide a few facts about what was done. Regards, Ethan

Rich, I'm not going to debate the issue with you. You don't like it, but it's a matter of private property. If it's ultimately bad, then the RoR forum will suffer for it. You post here on OL, so your concern is puzzling. I also find your tone and your racist equivocation angle. While you have expressed a wide tolerance for things in the past and in this post, The owner of RoR has expressed a tolerance to a certain degree. Beyond that, access to the forum could become restricted. Call it what you like and cast whatever stones you wish at those so rotten and intolerant to come up with such a system. I didn't come here to piss people off, merely to present some facts. I have no wish to disturb anyone here, so I'll leave shortly.

I fixed that typo, but I'm nut sure how I made that error in the first place

I came here to answer what amounted to a question about which I knew something. We have different experiences and views, as should be evident. He's not moderated in any way on your site, but is on RoR. He is characterized that way for his actions there. He's not forced to participate. Heck, we have posters who post only in the Dissent section anyways.

Based upon the owners evaluation of his actions he is being segregated. He is not being segregated based upon some uncontrolled factor such as the color of his skin. He is being segregated based on the evaluation of his actions. Attempts to draw a line of comparision between these two things is innacurate. The reason they are not banned or completely moderated is that some people can learn from engaging them. Others who have done so and/or who don't care need not read the Dissent section. RoR has a Dissent section, and that says a lot. The fact that you find Michael's methods more to your liking is why you are here is it not? That's the free market.

Dragonfly, The moderation to the Dissent Board is for those people who have been categorized as "dissenters." That means people who are, in the view of RoR managment, immune to the arguments of others and who fill up many threads with their consistent behavior as such. There are plenty of people who post dissenting opinions and argue on RoR. There will continue to be too. Moderation to the Dissent section is just for the invincible black knights of the board. As for the other opinions here about this policy being bad, etc. it will merely affect RoR, so no worries. I have no such fear however. Ethan