Another pile

[Dennis Hardin]

btw - I don't want OL more popular than it is right now. I'm waiting until I make enough money in another field so I can hire people to help me manage this place before I open up the traffic stops. (Believe me, if I wanted, I could have more traffic than anyone imagines just from doing a couple of the Internet promotion techniques I have studied--at which point OL would become my jail cell.) I don't promote OL on purpose. It's a time sucker with no money.

I don't mind keeping it going as it's a labor of love and I believe strongly in what I am doing. (I also care about the people here.) There's a time for growth, though. From what things look like right now in my other projects, that time is not now. But it will come.

Michael

Well, that's clarifying. A little difficult to believe, but I will take you at your word. At the very least, wouldn't you like to see more women posting here? I know I would. Here's a comment I made on another thread:

Phil’s observation is a good one:

The first thing Nathaniel Branden said in his return to an Objectivist conference after a quarter century was "What happened to all the women?"

**one obvious reason is women tend to like the contentious, insulting, 'macho' head-butting much less than men.

Men are much more likely to respond to insults with guns blazing. Women will just sigh at the obvious immaturity and move on.

You want more women posting here, Michael?

Stop allowing little boys to use OL as a means of compensating for their shortages.

[kiaer.ts]

You think it's popular now. Just imagine what it might be if people could post here without fear of some pompous a-hole spitting in their face?

And I suspect there are a lot of people who agree with me and aren't saying so, for whatever reason.

Yes.

Ted, this is hypocritcal. When I was new on this forum you spit in my face, and swore at me, and though it surprised me it certainly did not make me conclude that that the forum was a vicious snarkhole. It was an emotional debate and these things happen.

I have responded to you in private (check your email) about my personal reasons for having told you once to fuck off.

This matter with Phil is not about a four letter word in anger. It's about his not being able to comment in a fresh thread on a totally different topic, without someone making an out-of-the blue attack.

There have been two threads, if not more, created in the last month, for no other purpose than to attack Phil. Was either moved into the garbage pile?

You recently wrote one of the best short essays I have read about someone here on this thread dealing with a dying parent.

Consider that that person, who says posting here is limited due to the time demands of dealing with a dying parent, writes post after post attacking Phil, often out of the blue.

This is not about two words spoken once in anger.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

You have selective eyesight. Look at thread after thread where some topic or other is being discussed. Then Phil shows up, was not part of the discussion, and starts telling people how to behave. All of a sudden, no more discussion about the topic, but plenty of discussion about Phil and his opinions of the people in the discussion. Post after post after post after post. And the topic dies as people start responding and telling him what they think of him and his interventions.

Once in a while, OK, but time after time after time. This pisses people off.

Why is that not on your selective table?

When you put the facts in proper balance, I might entertain some of your comments. but right now, it's too lopsided.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You think it's popular now. Just imagine what it might be if people could post here without fear of some pompous a-hole spitting in their face?

And I suspect there are a lot of people who agree with me and aren't saying so, for whatever reason.

Yes.

Ted, this is hypocritcal. When I was new on this forum you spit in my face, and swore at me, and though it surprised me it certainly did not make me conclude that that the forum was a vicious snarkhole. It was an emotional debate and these things happen.

I have responded to you in private (check your email) about my personal reasons for having told you once to fuck off.

This matter with Phil is not about a four letter word in anger. It's about his not being able to comment in a fresh thread on a totally different topic, without someone making an out-of-the blue attack.

There have been two threads, if not more, created in the last month, for no other purpose than to attack Phil. Was either moved into the garbage pile?

You recently wrote one of the best short essays I have read about someone here on this thread dealing with a dying parent.

Consider that that person, who says posting here is limited due to the time demands of dealing with a dying parent, writes post after post attacking Phil, often out of the blue.

This is not about two words spoken once in anger.

My posting here is limited as to length of my posts, much less so with the number. I think Mom is dying, but not of any particular thing, not even CHF. Her life is just running down and out. She has no reserves. I'm trying to keep her from that one trauma that precipitates the end for so many elderly.

I haven't written that many posts "attacking" Phil. Recently we've become more cordial as Phil is sincerely trying not to be so off-putting. Do you remember the post you made this month referring to one of Phil's posts as "dishonest and dishonorable"? Have you forgotten the couple of recent times Phil debated whether you should be classified as one of the "attack dogs" along with me and some others? Do you remember some of your nasty posts attacking others? After you congratulated me on my fifth grade level of posting and compared such as I to "parasitic flies" followed in a later post by a reference to, with a nice illustration of, a vampire bird obviously aimed at the same targets?

You need to take stock.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Phil, please just stop responding to every provocation. Just don't even read them. When, for instance, is the last time Gaede or Engle made any comment above a fifth grade level?

*sob*

Weak. Very, very weak.

Now, I do know a couple of fifth-graders that are more, uh, yeah, than you. You are just mean. And mean is never pretty, and for sure never funny. Mainly, it is sad.

You might ask yourself questions like these: am I really that unhappy and joyless, or am I just acting that way, and, if so, why?

And so, Moneypenny don't be surprised if, occasionally, someone suggests that you undo that bun in your hair, hike your leg up over the desk, and let James have his way with you. He's going to try it anyway.

rde

Higher the Handicapped--They're Fun to Watch!

Edited March 21, 2011 by Rich Engle

[jriggenbach]

Perigo couldn't have said it better.

What was that, a puny attempt at insult?

Yes, the Film Director's attempts at insults do tend to be puny. But try to understand. He's so busy analyzing the use of CGI in other people's films that he has scarcely any time left to craft his insults.

Helpfully,

JR

[jriggenbach]

You think it's popular now. Just imagine what it might be if people could post here without fear of some pompous a-hole spitting in their face?

And I suspect there are a lot of people who agree with me and aren't saying so, for whatever reason.

Were you thinking of spitting in someone's face, Dennis?

JR

[Philip Coates]

> Phil shows up, was not part of the discussion, and starts telling people how to behave**.

That's kind of selective, Michael. It seems you've missed many of my good posts over the years and when I've tried to start threads on substantive topics.

Just as an experiment, look at my last twenty posts and see what percentage of them are about ideas as opposed to critical of people.

(I will admit to losing my temper from time to time, but it's hardly a constant.)

**so you're saying criticizing people for incivility is bad?

[Philip Coates]

> Recently we've become more cordial as Phil is sincerely trying not to be so off-putting. [brant]

I am trying. Sometimes I lose my temper though........

[caroljane]

You think it's popular now. Just imagine what it might be if people could post here without fear of some pompous a-hole spitting in their face?

And I suspect there are a lot of people who agree with me and aren't saying so, for whatever reason.

Yes.

Ted, this is hypocritcal. When I was new on this forum you spit in my face, and swore at me, and though it surprised me it certainly did not make me conclude that that the forum was a vicious snarkhole. It was an emotional debate and these things happen.

I have responded to you in private (check your email) about my personal reasons for having told you once to fuck off.

This matter with Phil is not about a four letter word in anger. It's about his not being able to comment in a fresh thread on a totally different topic, without someone making an out-of-the blue attack.

There have been two threads, if not more, created in the last month, for no other purpose than to attack Phil. Was either moved into the garbage pile?

You recently wrote one of the best short essays I have read about someone here on this thread dealing with a dying parent.

Consider that that person, who says posting here is limited due to the time demands of dealing with a dying parent, writes post after post attacking Phil, often out of the blue.

This is not about two words spoken once in anger.

Ted, I am not ignoring you, I read your email and responded immediately, but now I have checked and it is not recorded as sent or as a draft or anything, obviously it did not go through. Due to my previous problems with accessing this site I now have 2 emails and do not well understand them or my now 2 browsers either, so please bear with me. Let me say here that I understand, and was not personally offended by, your long-past remarks to me in the heat of argument. You were not talking to me but to the ideas I advocated. Again as I wrote privately but will say publicly, just accept that some ideas are as personal to me as they are to you.

Avatar - I love your avatar btw, my fave besides Mikee's cat and John Locke.

I guess you are a new-age dalek . Obtaining food is obtaining food, from near or far sources is of only tactical interest to the hungry. Go find a parasite who can't rationally convince you that he is an entrepreneur with proximate markets and productive activity at the forefront.

I am not a movie buff so that's my only guess.

[kiaer.ts]

Avatar - I love your avatar btw, my fave besides Mikee's cat and John Locke.

I guess you are a new-age dalek . Obtaining food is obtaining food, from near or far sources is of only tactical interest to the hungry. Go find a parasite who can't rationally convince you that he is an entrepreneur with proximate markets and productive activity at the forefront.

I am not a movie buff so that's my only guess.

Funny, I should have noticed that resemblance - but no, it is not a Dalek, and not fictional.

[Dennis Hardin]

Michael,

So how come you never mentioned anything in your responses about the "ignore" function?

"This post has been hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by impudent children."

Wow. Suddenly OL is a rational, benevolent universe. . .

GOODBYE ASSHOLE!

[Dennis Hardin]

(BTW, that last little love note was not directed at you, Michael.)

[Robert Campbell]

And the discussions still take place in a house. I thought the "cyber-community" was just a media gloss, not so. This is Michael and Kat's place and we get to blab and bellow all over it. Let's just try to be intelligible about it. And wipe our feet on the way in.

Well said.

Robert Campbell