Philip Coates

Thanks for the very thorough review, Jerry. You mentioned a dozen different points or aspects. That kind of review gives a reader a really good idea whether or not he'll be missing anything if the documentary doesn't show up in a theater in his state.

> the "problem" of induction was solved many times in earlier centuries, primarily by Aristotelian philosophers. [GHS] Care to back up that wild (and philosophically ignorant) claim?

> give a false impression that OL is the domain of yahoos and knuckleheads Unlike yourself, of course....

Dennis, I clicked on both links and got Document not Found. Can you say in simple English what causes the cosmic background radiation if it is not a humongous explosion?

Snarky, over the top, unfair humor** ** It can be a delicate line to walk and your partisans or people who agree with you are not likely to be particularly sensitive to it, especially if you are skewering someone they detest or have contempt for. I doubt if many politically-active liberals are going to find the extreme parodies of conservatives like Palin, Reagan, etc. to have been unfair. Or anything less than hilarious and "fair game".

> most of it is accurate [PDS] I marked the points that weren't: there were way too many. > it is without a doubt "Effective Persuasion...and Communication,". Actually, I'm glad you claimed that because that part usually isn't in the long run. Snarky, over the top, unfair humor usually only persuades people who were already persuaded in the first place. It makes the target look ridiculous but over time, if the target was unfairly caricatured, in the minds of fair people the exaggeration tends to backfire in the face of reality. Worst of all, it can lead you to question the judgment of the perpetrator. Lindsay Perigo who has done this a lot more frequently and less fairly than William, I don't think has earned great kudos in the Oist movement for this. There is a big difference between a cutting remark that is clearly meant humorously and one that is expected to be taken seriously. The question with this piece is whether the points I indicated were meant to be taken at face value, especially the non-humorous ones. When I was a teenager I always enjoyed seeing the things MAD magazine satirized. But you're not supposed to think the writer really believes the things are literally true. Same with the "Church Lady" thing. It's an effective exaggeration but with an element of truth. Or when Reagan was satirized as always napping thru meetings - to satirize a top down, you work out the details but stick to the big picture management style. Or Sarah Palin for her anti-intellectual folksy forms of expression. By overstating something (while not expecting to be taken literally), you can underscore a point that might not be gotten unless put in stark relief. It stepped over the line with the "I can see Russia from my room" because she never said that or anything that foolish. Yes, she was no intellectual heavyweight but the satire went "over the top" in a perigoonish way into a smear.

Hmmm, you mean in my own corner I can simply delete insults from ND, Jonathan...and youse guys??? Hmmmm...sounds good to me...what's the catch???

" The role of being a good teacher is more in preventing the piano from being thrown off the roof in the first place." My point here was that teachers catch people early when there is still time to form their non-piano-throwing character.

Yes he is. However, even though I'd like to see discussion of the points I snipped in post 1 without getting sidtracked on the following, I have to say I'm not a fan of this, well-written and funny though it is: "Diana, bless her ChurchLady soul, does her picnics and her measles parties and her videos and her exercise tips and her morality-of-feeding wackaloon posturing, and occasionally (though not this year) manages to get a letter to the editor published in suburban coupon-weeklies. She gets to fool herself and her other Church people that she is in the Vanguard and not merely another crazed windbag. She gets to make unbelievably boring, trite, graceless and horrifyingly righteous Youtube videos. She gives 'advice' on how to do everything the Objectivist Way (including cooking yams and whether to eat pickles stem first or not or how to deal with the Evul of Vegetables), but at the same time she lives off her husband's earnings and flails about trying to find a job. Her readership (at Noodlefood) has plunged; the comments have dried up, she gets uglier and more insulated from criticism every week. " Ridicule and parody are legitimate. It's the kind of exaggerated or unfair nature of the ridicule or its substitution for other more exact and pointed 'takedowns'. This over-the-top style seems have been introduced into the Objectivist movement by Lindsay Perigo with his talk show host, all-about-entertainment, malicious style of unfairness toward his enemies. Yikes. Almost makes me want to defend Diana {anyone who has been following the movement for several years knows I've been her most persistent critic} from the wholesale exaggeration: Nothing wrong with including other things than philosophy on your blog. She doesn't claim there is an Objectivist Way to cook things. I don['t know if she is "flailing" or failing at finding a job. I don't think that she, her husband, and others in her circle are only publishing in "suburban coupon-weeklies". Her 'tips' are a mixed bag; they're not all trite. And calling her 'ugly' is a bit petty and has little to do with being insulated from criticism. The following points I simply don't know about their fairness since William doesn't document them and they aren't obvious: "Her readership (at Noodlefood) has plunged; the comments have dried up, she gets..more insulated from criticism every week. " (I have to admit, though, that I got a huge laugh out of the Church Lady metaphor, somewhat unfair though it was. But then again, I'm a slut for humor. I even found Pompous Pontificator Perigo calling me a Schoolmarm entertaining.)

> Yes, you are continually pushing my button. I hate many, many memories of my elementary school teachers and classrooms--teachers who did exactly what you do here. I hate lectures and being lectured--and talked down upon Sit down and shut up or I'll rap your knuckles.

> I don't propose to be a teacher and go out and save the world, which is akin to catching a falling piano. The role of being a good teacher is more in preventing the piano from being thrown off the roof in the first place.

> On post 33 you congrat us for what we are doing and on post 49 you dump on us. Jeez, that should be freaking obvious. On post 33 I was complimenting one thing and on post 49 I was criticizing a different or later development.

> You are not talking to those who've just shown up on OL regardless. I know, but I don't have unlimited time to post and repeating myself takes time that's in short supply. Plus, what I wrote above is a good-enough summary: I don't see you or others providing tons of detail.

> Then quote whom you are criticizing. Post by post. Not going to do your work for you. Especially when all you have to do is read the -preceding- eight or ten posts. And you don't even have to do that. Just use your memory and reflect on how often you yourself and many others use lazy one-liners or slothful posts. Every freaking day. Brant, this is not even a debatable issue. You are just trying to slip and slide out from under it.

(That's only an abstract sampling. WSS writes a lot better and more forcefully than that.)

WSS has made a number of interesting points on other threads that could apply to many of us and to successful communication in many other cases. Are they rigid rules or guidelines? How far should his points be applied? [i've condensed and snipped and excerpted a lot] ==> please try to De-Otherize your posts, as this will make your communications more effective. Please also examine your post for weak or passive constructions ª. Please try to grasp that your usual Theme (the Other fails to do right) is not always the best way to introduce a topic --if [one] wants to discuss Doing (instead of Musing), we can do it best by featuring stories of folks that got off their flabby-ass butts -- even if we [didn't] --Our own stories, of course, are the ones we know best. ...put aside the tired passive voice and passive construction...set aside the rampant Otherizing and finger-wagging and pursing of lips...simply tell the story of your life --Here is a simple rule-of-thumb for strengthening prose constructions. Ask "Who is doing what in this sentence?" If there is no somebody or somebodies named, if the subject of the sentence is a murky THEM, then fix it. Make something happen in the sentence. Similarly, examine a whole paragraph to see if there is any Action.

> Ghs put it best: you first .... and then he will hop in. That is me, too. You go first, then I will happily hop in. This would show good faith... William, I have no problem with sharing my own 'activism' and pursuit of values, but I hate to repeat myself, and I thought I'd written on those things numerous times....experiences in college and grad school, starting clubs across the country, getting published, public speaking, LTE's, professional publication, oist and non-oist stuff, debating the lefties.

I posted this in '09 on the original thread "Off to Vegas...": "Thanks Michael for this detailed and 'rich' post: Lots of very interesting points! You've obviously done a lot of helpful thinking about the 'generating audiences and the internet' topic. It will take me some time to digest it, try out the links and sources you mentioned, etc. When I have something substantive to say, I will post it on the new thread you created for the above subject. " Sometimes a post shows that someone has done a lot of reading and thinking about a subject. Here are a few of the things valuable about this writing by MSK: 1. The break-up into major categories instead of jumbling it all together: attitude - profiling an audience - technical - content. 2. Attitude is very important and is often neglected. And Michael has a lot of good points on this subject. If you have the wrong attitude, you are unlikely to find a large or at least a healthy audience. 3. Good tips on how to find an audience with your own interests on the internet... 4. Under content, the -steps- in attracting and holding interest are very important.... Very helpful post and worth revisiting. (I'll probably buy the Cialdini book.)

> you are not in the Ford Hall here, you are in a diner, an arts cafe, a hangout. Yes, but occasionally if the artistes are going to tackle serious issues you want them to do so in a more thorough way than one-liners, zingers, and put downs. The subject matter merits it.

> Sorry; there was only Adam and Carol exchanging two posts of banter. Sorry, that's not accurate. And my point was not about banter, it was about lazy posting on things which require thought or a bit more detail.

William, ignoring any insults or personal attacks, you have a lot of useful tips and (schoomarmish - I use that term as a compliment) warnings in your above two posts (and, I recall, in a number of other posts). They are a bit long and perhaps just a tad rambling, so, in order not to go hijack this discussion of examples of being active and doing things, I'm going to 'snip' some things out of them and insert them into a new thread on what is your real subject: "the art of effective persuasion and communication".

> I have in fact engaged in such activity as you describe, but it was in the area of union organizing, striking, etc., and though deeply satisfying and exhilarating as it was, I do not think you would admire it. [#14] Daunce, I'd like to learn from it. I don't have to agree with the goal to learn from the method or be inspired by the energy or persistence. Or to want to hear about your deep satisfaction and exhilaration. I actually read an occasional 'ministry' email form Christians who are explaining how to proselytize, organize, administer, spread their ideas.

> When you start a thread it’s a safe assumption that you’re going to take an active part in the conversation. So the complaint was when I'm too schoolmarmish and prescriptive and now the complaint is when I try more to stand aside and listen or ask questions for a while? (Too often I've started a thread and written a too dense pages-long diatribe and the conversation just dried up. Instead, a lot of interesting comments on this one and I for one have learned some things - I particularly like the quotes.)

I would think that would be obvious: the place to insert a comment like this --> "Part of the non-thoughtful decline of this list is all the lazy, "twitter"-like, one-liner, half-assed humorous posts --- including this one." -- is right where it happens. Immediately after a whole string of evidence proving exactly what I'm talking about. If people resent that kind of comment, then they should stop doing the kind of action that warrants it. (Again, that should be obvious.)

> seeing those paragons of "getting-many-things-done fast" raises feelings of guilt in me. But since I wouldn't want to be that active anyway, there's actually nothing to feel guilty about. [Xray] That's right. It's not how much or in how many different directions. It's just that, if you have strong values and ideas and consider them important, you - at some point - in life take or have taken -some form- of significant action*. Doing too much in too many different directions can be a mistake as well. Lack of focus, lack of skill, distraction. And, also, as you mention, doing something "too fast" that instead requires time and thought...and maybe even mulling over and trial and error. There's a quote from Dagny - maybe one of my top five or ten from the book - about we are those who do not leave our values to empty dreams. * Values are meant to be brought into reality. You can't change the whole world and it's not a novel so you have to be realistic and you have other goals.