TO WHOM IT MAY (OR MAY NOT) CONCERN

[caroljane]

You can't read at all, can you? I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone. If you ask me a question, it goes unanswered for the reason I stated. If I'm unaware that anyone else is interested in what I might have to say about the question, why bother writing a reply?

JR

Then why not keep a journal, rather than posting online?

Like Mike Marotta, I'm rather bemused by that. It is arbitrarily selective that the person asking a question doesn't merit a reply, but a general interest by others - which is hardly possible to ascertain - does. Why should numbers matter?

Anyhow, in general, engaging on forums, apparently one can take two approaches: either a direct communication with one other person, or a broad appeal to the dozens or hundreds, who will be looking in.

Or some combination.

For me, I'd probably get self-conscious if I kept in mind that this is a public forum, visited by, gawd! a lot of people. That's enough for writer's block to set in, and three posts a month all she wrote, from me. (Which some may think not so terrible to contemplate... )

Of course, this is no more that a perception, but I direct myself at that one member, or at most a handful with whom I've had pleasant/provoking/well-intentioned exchanges in the past.

To each his own, and many are comfortable with a general audience. I'm just a one-on-one type, I guess.

Tony

Write more posts, Tony. I'm the only one who will read them, honest.

[jriggenbach]

You can't read at all, can you? I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone. If you ask me a question, it goes unanswered for the reason I stated. If I'm unaware that anyone else is interested in what I might have to say about the question, why bother writing a reply?

JR

Then why not keep a journal, rather than posting online?

Like Mike Marotta, I'm rather bemused by that. It is arbitrarily selective that the person asking a question doesn't merit a reply, but a general interest by others - which is hardly possible to ascertain - does. Why should numbers matter?

Anyhow, in general, engaging on forums, apparently one can take two approaches: either a direct communication with one other person, or a broad appeal to the dozens or hundreds, who will be looking in.

Or some combination.

For me, I'd probably get self-conscious if I kept in mind that this is a public forum, visited by, gawd! a lot of people. That's enough for writer's block to set in, and three posts a month all she wrote, from me. (Which some may think not so terrible to contemplate... )

Of course, this is no more that a perception, but I direct myself at that one member, or at most a handful with whom I've had pleasant/provoking/well-intentioned exchanges in the past.

To each his own, and many are comfortable with a general audience. I'm just a one-on-one type, I guess.

Tony

Marotta's question is, of course, notably ignorant, since I already explained why I post here. Anyone who bothered to read what I wrote before asking irrelevant questons already knows the answer. There's no mystery about it. And "numbers" have nothing to do with it. If Xray asks me a question, why am I supposed to assume that anyone else is interested in reading what I might reply to such a question? If another person, who is not Xray, asks me the same question, I'll answer it. But if I have no reason to believe that anyone is interested in the answer, why should I bother to write it?

JR

Edited April 4, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[George H. Smith]

You can't read at all, can you? I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone. If you ask me a question, it goes unanswered for the reason I stated. If I'm unaware that anyone else is interested in what I might have to say about the question, why bother writing a reply?

JR

Then why not keep a journal, rather than posting online?

Like Mike Marotta, I'm rather bemused by that. It is arbitrarily selective that the person asking a question doesn't merit a reply, but a general interest by others - which is hardly possible to ascertain - does. Why should numbers matter?

I don't know why you would be bemused by this in the least. I frequently follow the same standard that JR does, especially in regard to Xray. If she raises a point -- say, about the fact/value issue -- that I think I have addressed adequately in the past, then I will ignore her -- unless I think that others might be interested in a rehash of this topic, in which case I might reply. What is the mystery here?

Ghs

[anthony]

But if I have no reason to believe that anyone is interested in the answer, why should I bother to write it?

JR

JR,

Because (and here I am contradicting my own preference for 'individualized engagement')I for one - and several others, surely - would definitely be interested in what you have to say in response. Not that you have the least obligation to 'teach' anybody,anything, but one pleasurable aspect of OL is what can be learned here. An intelligent and knowledgable rebuttal of a skeptical or dismissive argument, is invaluable to me.

We are not all intellectual and academic equals.

Tony

Edited April 4, 2011 by whYNOT

[anthony]

You can't read at all, can you? I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone. If you ask me a question, it goes unanswered for the reason I stated. If I'm unaware that anyone else is interested in what I might have to say about the question, why bother writing a reply?

JR

Then why not keep a journal, rather than posting online?

Like Mike Marotta, I'm rather bemused by that. It is arbitrarily selective that the person asking a question doesn't merit a reply, but a general interest by others - which is hardly possible to ascertain - does. Why should numbers matter?

I don't know why you would be bemused by this in the least. I frequently follow the same standard that JR does, especially in regard to Xray. If she raises a point -- say, about the fact/value issue -- that I think I have addressed adequately in the past, then I will ignore her -- unless I think that others might be interested in a rehash of this topic, in which case I might reply. What is the mystery here?

Ghs

Ghs,

Absolutely fair enough. I see JR's point, too.

I withdraw "arbitrarily selective", and substitute simply "selective."

That is how it should be in all dealings and 'value-trades', I do believe.

Anything more would be benevolence - and more than that, um ... toleration?

Tony

[Ellen Stuttle]

[The initial quote is from MSK.]

> Someday you might want to look into why this happens so often.

I know exactly why it is: Because if I see a mistake someone makes who is bearing the standard of a philosophy of reason - whether in logic, in civility, in facts, in rationalistic methods - I will criticize it. I just won't let them get away with nonsense or failing to be fully rational, fully factual.** And I've been doing that for several years, until people just let their resentment out.

That post by Phil bears close attention. It's a statement of a sense of mission, of Phil's view of himself as out to shape up the behavior of those "bearing the standard of a philosophy of reason."

For one thing, does anyone here consider him- or herself a standard bearer? It's indicative of how Phil thinks about "the Objectivist movement" that he'd think of OL posters in such terms as "bearing the standard."

For another, I can attest that Phil indeed has been acting like the self-appointed mentor-on-behavior on Objectivism-related lists for years -- 12 now since I first became aware of his existence through his posts on the then-newly-started OWL list. I wondered way back then what was with this guy and, upon inquiring of someone with whom I frequently corresponded then, was told that Phil had long had a reputation for being a "schoolmarm."

People with a sense of mission often are entirely impervious to feed-back from others to the effect that their nagging is unwelcome. The sense of the righteousness of the cause to be served provides a shield against taking complaints as coming from any other motive besides resentment at just criticism.

Ellen

[sjw]

People with a sense of mission often are entirely impervious to feed-back from others to the effect that their nagging is unwelcome. The sense of the righteousness of the cause to be served provides a shield against taking complaints as coming from any other motive besides resentment at just criticism.

Ellen

This is too generalized. Suppose Phil's mission was to tell police officers that they should take extreme care in not violating the individual rights of suspects, because the suspect might actually be innocent. This is a virtuous, meaningful mission, and if he pursued that, I'd call him heroic. But his mission is petty and misguided.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

People with a sense of mission often are entirely impervious to feed-back from others to the effect that their nagging is unwelcome. The sense of the righteousness of the cause to be served provides a shield against taking complaints as coming from any other motive besides resentment at just criticism.

Ellen

This is too generalized. Suppose Phil's mission was to tell police officers that they should take extreme care in not violating the individual rights of suspects, because the suspect might actually be innocent. This is a virtuous, meaningful mission, and if he pursued that, I'd call him heroic. But his mission is petty and misguided.

Shayne

I think Phil has the posting environment he really wants. If he wanted something different he'd get it, here or elsewhere, even to the point of significantly modifying his postings and posting techniques. It's sad that when he actually makes a substantive post negative reader inertia has tended to turn him off prior to the reading even, and one has to work extra hard to get into his material.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I don't think that would be such a virtuous mission for Phil.

If he went into something like that, I can see him trying to scold the police in the middle a shoot-out with dead innocent bystanders all over the place.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Ghs,

Absolutely fair enough. I see JR's point, too.

I withdraw "arbitrarily selective", and substitute simply "selective."

That is how it should be in all dealings and 'value-trades', I do believe.

Anything more would be benevolence - and more than that, um ... toleration?

Tony

Jeff and I have been close friends for forty years. At times I cannot help but smile at some of the complaints people make about him. Jeff and I have been in arguments, both in person and online, that have been gotten so nasty as to make his supposedly offensive comments on OL look like compliments. I recall one flamewar on A2 that erupted over the life-and-death issue of whether Lucretius' On the Nature of Things should be called a "poem." The amusing thing about that flamewar is that Jeff and I were exchanging cordial offlist emails throughout it.

In the late 1990s, during one of JR's beer busts in SF, we got into an extremely vitriolic argument about something or other. Insults were flying back and forth, and testosterone lay so thick in the air as to cause women within a ten-foot radius to sprout unsightly body hair.

I remember people watching us with worried looks, wondering if this marked the end of a decades-long friendship. Then Jeff said, "I need some more beer. You want some?" I said, "Yeah" -- after which we walked into the kitchen together and started talking about something else.

I am now going to say something about Jeff that may embarrass him, but it needs saying. Jeff is a treasure-trove of information and wisdom, especially in the area of literature (and aesthetics generally). He was publishing stuff in his twenties that would have been a credit to someone three times his age. It therefore amazes me that more people don't tap into that vast reservoir of knowledge by asking Jeff questions. And he has a lot more than raw knowledge to offer. His is a knowledge tempered with highly refined judgments. The result is true wisdom that takes a lifetime to acquire.

I honestly don't understand how so many OLers can have an invaluable resource like Jeff at their disposal and not take advantage of it. Okay, so Jeff has a gruff demeanor at times. So what? You (this is a generic "you") will never train Jeff, but you can learn how to handle him long enough to get the information you want and exit with your head still attached to your body. It is worth the effort, believe me. (I exaggerate, of course. When you deal with Jeff in his own domain, you will find him extremely cordial.)

Jeff is also a superb writer who has developed a style all his own. I would say he easily qualifies as one of the best writers in the libertarian movement. I have always enjoyed reading Jeff, even when I disagree with him, and people who wish to improve their writing can learn a lot by paying close attention to the details of his style.

One thing I have always prided myself on is my willingness -- indeed eagerness -- to learn from other people. I started learning from Jeff from the time I met him, and I am still learning from him. It is not uncommon, even today, for me to ask Jeff his opinion on literary matters. When Jeff recommends a writer that he likes, I pay attention. For example, many years ago Jeff recommended an essay writer, William Gass, whom I had never heard of before. Now I pick up books by Gass whenever I run across them for a reasonable price. Indeed, a couple months ago I purchased Finding a Form: Essays by William Gass.

Jeff is far more reticent than I to go into detail about his opinions without being asked. Jeff made this point, if in a roundabout way, when he said that he has no interest in responding to Xray's questions unless he thinks other people are interested. So ask.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That post by Phil bears close attention. It's a statement of a sense of mission...

Ellen,

I think you are on to something.

I think Phil nurtures a gigantic craving for attention wedded to a martyr complex and I have worked out a template that shows the sequence of events in one of his typical intrusions where he disrupts a conversation and makes it all about Phil. (I will present it before too long on the "To Whom It May Concern" thread started by Dennis.)

I'm not doing this to pick on Phil, but he insists on calling attention to himself, so by God he's going to get some attention--and from the best thinking I can muster.

Just like with the other parts of my template, your observation is based on Phil's own words (and I have no doubt other examples can be found to illustrate it). In fact, your observation works very nicely with my template and gives it completion.

Thank you.

Michael

[caroljane]

That post by Phil bears close attention. It's a statement of a sense of mission...

Ellen,

I think you are on to something.

I think Phil nurtures a gigantic craving for attention wedded to a martyr complex and I have worked out a template that shows the sequence of events in one of his typical intrusions where he disrupts a conversation and makes it all about Phil. (I will present it before too long on the "To Whom It May Concern" thread started by Dennis.)

I'm not doing this to pick on Phil, but he insists on calling attention to himself, so by God he's going to get some attention--and from the best thinking I can muster.

Just like with the other parts of my template, your observation is based on Phil's own words (and I have no doubt other examples can be found to illustrate it). In fact, your observation works very nicely with my template and gives it completion.

Thank you.

Michael

You have all known Phil much longer than I but I would like to add a word here (non-satirically). I recently received his cheque (thanks, Phil!) for the dictionary he bought here. (He was not late sending it, it languished in my neighbour's mailbox for a week and our mailman is dyslexic I think). I used to study graphology in an amateur way and so looked at his writing on the envelope, signature etc. as I would a stranger's. I don't know about martyr complex but to me the writing is not that of an attention craver. What stands out are high aspirations and optimism - and yes, perseverance, stubbornness, a certain cussedness I guess.

Just my $.02CDN.

Carol

[Ellen Stuttle]

Just like with the other parts of my template, your observation is based on Phil's own words (and I have no doubt other examples can be found to illustrate it). In fact, your observation works very nicely with my template and gives it completion.

Thank you.

Michael

You're welcome.

I'm pretty sure there have been other times when Phil has explicitly referred to a goal of bringing people's behavior into line with how he thinks adherents of (or at-least-partial adherents of) Objectivism ought to conduct themselves. I'm sure that he's expressed the idea that Objectivism is needed to save the world, and he's griped about folks who spend time on what he considers side issues of no importance to the salvation campaign. (The description "salvation campaign" is mine, not his.)

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Just like with the other parts of my template, your observation is based on Phil's own words (and I have no doubt other examples can be found to illustrate it). In fact, your observation works very nicely with my template and gives it completion.

Thank you.

Michael

You're welcome.

I'm pretty sure there have been other times when Phil has explicitly referred to a goal of bringing people's behavior into line with how he thinks adherents of (or at-least-partial adherents of) Objectivism ought to conduct themselves. I'm sure that he's expressed the idea that Objectivism is needed to save the world, and he's griped about folks who spend time on what he considers side issues of no importance to the salvation campaign. (The description "salvation campaign" is mine, not his.)

Ellen

Qua philosophy Phil thinks Objectivism is ready to go, out the door. This makes him like Ellen Moore that way.

--Brant

maybe Phil is like a back-seat driver looking not out the windshield and giving command advice, but at a video of a car going down a beautiful road and giving command advice

Edited April 4, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Philip Coates]

> Qua philosophy Phil thinks Objectivism is ready to go, out the door. [brant]

Qua philosophy, pretty much yes. But not qua psychology or qua applications in many areas.

[George H. Smith]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MqA734MAFxE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

[Kat]

Oh geez... how did this thread become all about Phil? He's a nice enough guy and all that, but I thought we were talking about someone else (Ted) who was moderated for good cause after fair warning (and IMHO should have been banned for calling a VIP member a pedophile and spewing racial hatred).

Whatever....

Kat

[9thdoctor]

Ghs

Whew, too fast! To read it all you have to hit pause, and who wants to pause Flight of the Bumblebee?

IMHO should have been banned for calling a VIP member a pedophile and spewing racial hatred).

I think it's pretty clear Ted called GHS a pedophile by way of a rhetorical flourish. It's not the kind of thing I would do (if I had to, I'd probably substitute "well poisoner", or something more clearly absurd, preferably anachronistic, and without the ick factor), but I'm not Ted. Also, on racial hatred, Ted's stuck on the idea that religion (particularly Islam) is a voluntarily held belief, and is therefore in a different category from race. There's some truth in his view, but it calls to mind the famous Jesuit, I'm drawing a blank on his name, who said (roughly) give me the child (to educate/indoctrinate) and I'll deliver you the man.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Ninth Doctor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

LOL...

I want to say something clever, but that's a hard act to follow.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kat and I just discussed the difference between bigotry and racial hatred.

Since I made the same mistake when I first started, I have no doubt many readers also make this mistake. So I want to make a comment about it.

Bigotry is a wider concept than racial hatred. You can be bigoted about a culture or set of idea, not just racial characteristics. Racism is actually a form of bigotry. It's like a German Shepard being a form of dog.

But to normal people who do not normally have hatred around them--they don't discuss hatred, they don't hang out with people who hate, they think about their jobs or studies and other things in their lives more than dissecting things like this, the difference between bigotry and racism seems more like the difference between horse shit and cow shit. To them, it's all shit and they want distance.

Like I said, I know this mindset because I had it before I started discussing this stuff. And I made the same mistake of mixing the two terms up.

So if you, reader, have this feeling, don't feel bad. Conceptually, you are making a mistake, but soul-wise, all this indicates is that you are a very good person.

Michael

EDIT: Just to make sure people understand what I mean by bigotry (and what is usually meant), you take the worst most disgusting parts and acts of a minority within a group--or distort stuff about the group to make it appear bad, or even make up bad stuff--and use it to fundamentally characterize the whole group in a hateful manner.

You can do this same process with a set of ideas and you can do it with a person.

Ayn Rand called racism "the lowest form of collectivism." I say ditto for all bigotry.

[George H. Smith]

Ghs

Whew, too fast! To read it all you have to hit pause, and who wants to pause Flight of the Bumblebee?

Are you serious? That was the point of the video.

All the passages are from this thread. Windows Movie Maker wouldn't allow me to make the clips move any faster (it's a pretty primitive program), but if I could have I would have doubled the number of frames.

The opening remark -- "Please, Phil, don't start" -- is the first line of my first post on this thread.

Ghs

[caroljane]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MqA734MAFxE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

"You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll criticize..."

BOW Awards buzz is already starting!

[caroljane]

Er, George, "fist line"?

You always come out swinging!

[George H. Smith]

Er, George, "fist line"?

You always come out swinging!

Yes, and it was also the first line.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

I do not believe that Phil can be rehabilitated. Sometimes, he can get through a thread if it is, say, just throwing up (um, putting up) information--he hasn't managed to foul up the book club discussion (yet). But that's about the extent of it. I guess it wouldn't be hard for someone to go over there and ramp him up, but he appears content and I do believe that is a good thing.

As to the hate speech thing, well, my feeling is that it doesn't take long to pick up on someone who is generally bitter, meanish, whatever--it comes out of them like sweat.

rde