Effective Persuasion, Dialogue, and Communication

[william.scherk]

Look at this pearl of wisdom (which follows some qualifications). It is under the "Current Controversies" tab over there.

We believe she [Diana Hsieh] has revealed herself to not understand and/or to not agree with certain aspects of Objectivism. In addition, we have serious concerns about the nature, frequency, and tone of her public disagreements with Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Does it get any more religious than that?

Great catch, Michael!

Is she religious, no. But holy monkey shit does she apply herself religiously. And so her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes is turned upon her and she is now on A List, and gawd forgive her for her sins because she is certainly cut from the same unforgiving crag as the List Pêople. They are doing the same schizzy thing that Evangelical and Brethren churchgoers do. They split, and mutually disdain, and pull their holiness ever closer.

Michael resurrected the "Ick Factor." Yes, the True Brethren creepiness of it is awful, but it stands telling again and again -- she perfected the Modern Objectivish Dogpile on Sciabarra, so she can stew in tea she poured, the bitch.

Edited January 26, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Objectivist turkeys have come home to

r o o s t

With sincere apologies to Malcom X...

[Philip Coates]

> her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes [WSS]

Huhh?!??

Is that an exact quote - did she -say- that? Where exactly?

[Philip Coates]

Hmmmm....I usually get instant response when I say something one of the "usual suspects" on OL like Adam - ND- J. - Ellen - Brant etc. want to snark about.

But dead silence all day on this one.

Does that mean this claim about DMBH was an untruth or smear? Sort of like "I can see Russia from my house"?

[9thdoctor]

I just added this to the thread on OO:

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288044

Clearly the Gang of Fourteen are being ridiculous. Attacking Diana for being enthusiastic about a topic and not showing the tone of reluctant disagreement in responding to Dr. Peikoff's off-the-hip remarks in a podcast is a failure at objectivity to say the least.

Like vote Democratic in 2006 because of the immediate danger of a theocratic takeover? And bomb the “Ground Zero Mosque” as a matter of foreign policy? Or doctors who perform sex changes are, without qualification, morally equivalent to Nazi concentration camp monsters such as Mengele? Yeah, there’s been much that’s ridiculous, and thus worthy of ridicule (er, enthusiastic disagreement). For those who’ve been around long enough to understand the above juxtaposition, here’s an old Bob Marley number that comes to mind:

[Philip Coates]

> her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes [WSS]

> Is that an exact quote - did she -say- that? Where exactly?

STILL WAITING for an answer.

Or for a retraction of a 'smear'.

[william.scherk]

Grundy is all worked up again. Regaring this (emphasis added):

The weirdest post ever from Diana was during a fit of authoritarianism back around the Purge the Speicher episode. I can`t be bothered to look it up, but it came after she had denounced Betsy, banned her and slagged her, and told all Betsy list people to fuck off from Noodlefood and never talk to her at conferences.  A reader asked in Noodlefood comments what she (the reader) might expect if she was an attendant at a conference on University grounds (or something collegial) and Diana said of course she would answer questions as required under a contract, but otherwise Fuck Off and Do Not Look In My Eyes or get near me or address me.

Is she religious, no. But holy monkey shit does she apply herself religiously. And so her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes is turned upon her and she is now on A List, and gawd forgive her for her sins because she is certainly cut from the same unforgiving crag as the List Pêople. They are doing the same schizzy thing that Evangelical and Brethren churchgoers do. They split, and mutually disdain, and pull their holiness ever closer.

Now, I am told that Grundy is grinding the gears over this. Grind grind grind.

Here are the facts, Grundy. I have the link and the URL right here. And you want it.

Here's one deal, Grundy. I could post that link and URL. I could post it without a quid pro quo, not because you whined and fussed, but for the record.

So, here is the final deal. Take it or leave it.

-- YOU answer one question from my recent posts addressing your bullshit on this list.

-- YOU answer using either conversational quoting or the OL convention.**

If I judge that you have answered one single question put to you by me, in the form I demand of you, I will post the link and the URL documenting Diana's strange behaviour.

NB -- the venue in which Diana did her strange dance was ObjectivismOnline (not Noodlefood).

______________________

** It has been explained to you over and over again how stupid and unreasonable is your usual habit of introducing quotes from other list members in discussion.  But I think perhaps your insistence on using your own shonky bullshit is because you once learned the left-caret convention in your mailing-list days.

For the benefit of the folks who came to the internets after the beginning, after Usenet, after mailing-lists, I have to give a little bit of a lesson. It is not compulsory. You are not chained to the desks, and you may leave the room, go have a piss, whatever. The information is for information.

Long ago, when Philip Agamemnon Micawber Coates began tormenting interlocutors online, mailing lists were very common (Phil mentions the OWL list, and Ellen has mentioned some of the history of the developing online 'ListLand' permutations. I can't be bothered to look that up right now.

Now, a 'mailing list' in electronic terms is simply a bit of automated, standard software. There are tens of thousands of these existing today. They might be know by their email addresses (torture-learning@list.ufuckmeup.harvard.edu, for example) or by other appellation (perhaps Craxed Windbags Trapped In A Bus Shelter).

A participant 'subscribes' to the electronic mailing list. by sending an ordinary email message to a special email address (might be subscribe@list.ufuckmeup.harvard.edu).

Now the participant (depending on how she manages her subscription) will now receive all messages (individually or in digest form) sent to the list.

And the participant may answer any such message sent to the list.

Which brings us to the conventions. This will be familiar to anyone who was or is active on Usenet. And now a digression on Usenet.

Usenet was and is the equivalent of an enormous compilation of mailing-lists, but the messages are delivered not to individuals, but to 'Groups'[ The groups are given unique identifiers. For example, the place where you (once upon a time) went to rant about crazy internet loons is called alt.usenet.kooks. The place you went (way back when) to discuss Satanic Ritual Abuse/recovered memory therapy issues with scientists and concerned activists was sci.psychology.psychotherapy.

OK, I have cut a few corners in this explanation ... but it is all to bring you to a couple of examples of what the exchanges and dustups and debates and harangues looked like -- both on Usenet and on email mailing lists.

The old left caret, or angle-bracket. This symbol of Phil's instransigence >

Right. So, back when Phil was active on mailing lists, I believe this is what an exchange might have looked like as delivered via Usenet (which archived postings were collected by the old Dejanews, folded into and since bought by Google -- which is now why you can read Usenet via Google Groups)

rom: William Scott Scherk <wssch...@bcgroup.net>
Subject: Armistice [was Re: Dear Ms Blume [was Re: Reply to "S.A. Jordan"]]
Date: 2000/08/06
Message-ID: <8mkieg$o1p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Deja-AN: 655168742
References: <8mk9ki$13km$1@twwells.com>
To: wssch...@bcgroup.net
Followup-To: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x56.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.244.160.183
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Aug 06 20:39:44 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDscherkw
Newsgroups: alt.support.dissociation,sci.psychology.psychotherapy

In article <8mk9ki$13k...@twwells.com>,
  anon-8...@anon.twwells.com (e) wrote:
> William Scott Scherk <wssch...@bcgroup.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <8miroi$2ek...@twwells.com>,
> >  anon-8...@anon.twwells.com (e) wrote:
> >> William,
> >>
> >> fwiw, i'm not sure why ppl, e.g., you or mic, think that
> >> strangers should drop what they're doing and respond to your
> >> concerns. iirc ESue is busy with an article and book. it seems
> >> rather presumptuous and intrusive to send her letters or
> >> materials to review in order to persuade her to alter her
> >> priorities or pov to fit your agendas.
> >>
> >> and why ESue? just wondering.
> >>
> >> thanks for spoilering, although you didn't need the double
> >> spoiler.
> >
> >Well, some might remember that I only occasionally can respond online
in
> >the summer months. I write letters to people instead. So shoot me.
> >
> > :-]
>
> hey, that's my line. and i mean it.  ;)  i didn't know that you
> couldn't usually reply online during the summer. i doubt that
> most ppl here knew that.

Yeah.

> >
> >Ms Blume is a public figure in a public place. She refuses to engage
> >with "them" or "Mr Jerk" or "FMSFers" here, so I offered her the
option
> >of examining information at her leisure. Apparently that filled her
with
> >horror, anger and alarm.
>
> first, i should tell you that i enjoy your writing. i laughed at
> this, as i think you probably intended.

:-]


>
> second, for the benefit of any asders who are reading, i don't
> think of you as an FMSFer. i wondered at first bc iirc you'd
> characterized van der Kolk as a kook.

In discussion with Olavi @ spp? I think you do remember correctly. I
will say this on vdK: 'confirmation bias.' But my education on his
researches continues.


> i still wonder why you
> swallowed the FMSF line so completely before checking things out
> for yourself. (i may have you confused with someone else. if so,
> i apologize.)

I do trust some of the respected scientists on the advisory board.
Beyond that, I generally sip, savour and spit most shoddy science,
whatever its provenance.


> however, you seem to have changed your mind about
> some things, including vdk. if nothing else, that shows me that
> you are willing to listen to information that contradicts your
> pov and to change your beliefs based on new info. i like that.

Well, maintaining my self-image requires I follow basic precepts of
critical thinking (!)

>
> i'm basing the above upon fairly limited information. i
> occasionally read spp, where i have seen some of your posts. i
> don't read witchhunt, to which i think you sometimes contribute,
> or other fora or websites to which you may contribute.

My tone is within a fairly narrow range -- from sassy to provocative --
in these fora. What I most prefer to do is collect information, pore
over it and then present what I discover in bites that can be
'swallowed.'

> still, my
> guess is that you're funny, smart, and generally reasonable.

Nope. Saucy, sassy and slippery when mud-wrasslin' (!).

Good guess, though . . .

>
> third, i don't think Curio is a big issue either here or for
> ESue, although she can speak for herself about that. i don't
> think asd is the proper forum for discussing Curio or related
> topics.
> >

Yup. Which is why I . . . oh, never mind.

> >I certainly would have let the matter drop had she not again took a
> >surly swipe at me and my friends here at a.s.d, as I hope I had made
> >clear in the "Dear Ms Blume" posting.
>
> You've taken swipes at her here. What do you expect?

In this instance, better. However, anyone can read what I wrote to Cliff
in article <38ED8E89.6F426...@netbistro.com>

At the bottom of that article, my signature-generator appended a link to
the collected Usenet postings of Curio re: Braun.

E Sue responded with article <38ED8E89.6F426...@netbistro.com>

She expectorated on me, e!

>
> >Does she think that only those *she* deems survivors are worthy of
> >our ears and our consideration? I do not.
>
> I doubt that she thinks that. But that seems like a rhetorical Q
> IAE.

Okay . . . rinse, please . . .

> >
> >Some might also remember that she introduced this entire mess by
stating
> >baldly that she would take Curio's presentation over mine in a
> >heartbeat,
>
> apparently she knows curio. you've characterized yourself as a
> skeptic,

As Missourans (?) say, "Show me." I have a skeptical mind. So shoot me.

> which in this particular controversy generally means
> "unskeptical about the FMSF side but skeptical about the other
> side."

??? I am a skeptic. I accept the standard meaning:

    1. a person who questions the validity,
    authenticity, or truth of something
    purporting to be factual, esp.
    religion or religious tenets.

    [1565-75; < LL scepticus thoughtful,
    inquiring (in pl. Sceptic, the
    Skeptics) < Gk skeptikós = -skept
    (os), v. adj. of sképtesthai to
    consider, examine (akin to skopeîn
    to look; see -SCOPE) + -ikos -IC]

To my way of thinking, skepticism is the most useful blade in our mental
toolkits -- it alerts, protects and provides an intellectual 'scythe' --
a means to cut our own paths through the thickets of nonsense we
encounter in our slog through life. Sharp, perhaps menacing to those who
keep to the sidewalk, but oh so very necessary.


> given ESue's pov, i'm not surprised that she'd believe
> Curio over a skeptic.

Well, the blue-rinsers do generally walk only where their walkers (or
scooters) will take them.

Seriously, I believe we should *always* hear from a skeptical person
before we set off on our journeys. Sometimes certain well-trodden paths
lead only to danger and delusion (or a grizzly den).

>
> why did you characterize yourself that way? esp here?

To tell the truth, to tell the truth about myself. Doing so helps me
maintain my personal integrity..

>
> fwiw, you would probably get a better reception here if you
> didn't portray yourself as a skeptic (i.e., i'm in the hip pocket
> of the FMSF).   just a suggestion. ;)  as long as you do that,
> many ppl will react badly to you and even those who don't will
> wonder why you've portrayed yourself that way. IMO it makes you
> look like a troll, at best.

As we say in Canada, "je me sens bien dans ma peau" -- I am a skeptic
and really am doing okay with that so far . . .

:-]

 . . .and mic says I look like a dude, not a troll, thank you very much.
. .

>
> >when I noted the existence of Internation Postal
> >Reply Coupons for those SASEing her from outside the USA.
> >
> >Yes, that stung me, as I am sure was intended.
>
> really? it bothered you that someone you don't know would take
> another's word over yours? even if that other was Curio?  ;)

See above. I wrote 'stung' -- 'irked' would also have worked.

>
> fwiw, i've e-mailed with Curio a couple of times. she wasn't at
> all like she is on spp. (i know someone else whose opinion i
> respect who agreed.) since i doubt that ESue reads spp, her view
> of Curio is probably very different than yours.
>
> it's interesting to me that it would bother you

When a respected professional disses me online, I . . . oh, never mind .
. ..

> i understand
> that bc it might bother me but that always puzzles me bc it's so
> illogical.

Uh . . . I am missing something here. Sorry.

> why do you care what ESue thinks about you?

I don't give a f*** what she THINKS! I care about . . . oh, never mind .
. .
>
> >Turn the other cheek when it is slapped by a nice little old lesbian
"shrink," in
> >public?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >Yes, I hoped to change her mind about *me* --
>
> i hope that she does.
>
> >I have also long hoped
> >Curio would imagine me as a normal flawed human being instead of a
> >monstrous ravening hyena, an Ur-artifact of the worst of an imagined
> >backlashing  spp "cabal."
> >
> >Go figger . . .
> >
> >Thanks, e, for the quiet words. I do not want to intrude at a.s.d,
but
> >on occasion I will indeed write here. I hope some understand why I do
> >so.
>
> i'm unclear on the concept.

> ;)

Which? The concept of William Scott Scherk trying to establish his voice
on a.s.d -- a place where he can occasionally discuss matters of intense
personal interest with, well, people like you? Er, what?

> why do you care what we think
> about Braun and Peterson? are they even practicing?

  "Do no harm.'

Yes, Peterson may be victimizing a patient as I write. It MATTERS. It
matters to you. It matters to me. It matters (though she ignores the
import) to E Sue. It matters. 'T' issues MATTER in a.s.d. Because . . .

  'caveat emptor'


>
> >For those who do not, I again ask forgiveness for trespassing on
> >tender soils . . .
>
> thanks for being so gentle with most of us here, William. i
> appreciate it.
>
> e

You are the first to welcome me. I appreciate that very much. I owe you
one (I have the latest Pope and Olio, plus reprints from Bernice Andrews
. . . plus about 85 kilos of other stuff which I am sure you have
already read!).

>
> ps  ESue isn't a bad person, William. Neither are you. I wish you
> two could see that but, in the mean time, I hope that you'll
> leave each other alone.

Entendu, e, entendu. Dorénavant commence l'armistice!

Merci mille fois.

>
> --
> For info about this service, see http://www.twwells.com/anon/ or
e-mail:
> h...@anon.twwells.com   -- for an automatically returned help message
> ad...@anon.twwells.com  -- for the service's administrator
> ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Edited January 28, 2012 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

> her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes [WSS]

> Is that an exact quote - did she -say- that? Where exactly?

STILL WAITING for an answer.

Or for a retraction of a 'smear'.

Are you on retainer?

--Brant

[william.scherk]

I won't touch the fragile formatting above in my fulltext original Usenet exchange. Suffice to say that the left caret is a feature of discussion from a parallel/older time. Discussions automatically were 'threaded' and multiple commenters could be quoted in a single page. As can be seen from the extensive headers at the top, the entire fucking point of all of this is to provide a unique identifier and a reference to quoted material.

Phil's stupid partial aping of the old Usenet formatting is not even close to the utility of the old ways.

That longwinded note above is designed to highlight my style. It seems to have hardly changed over the years. Persistent, loquacious, unwilling to be bullied by anyone.

If Phil persists in his stupidity, I will open a new thread devoted only to old OWL-list posts by him (yes, I was on OWL).

Grundy said (in a post somewhere above):

>.'raems' a fo noitcarter a rof rO

>

>.rewsna na rof GNITIAW LLITS

>

>?yltcaxe erehW ?taht -yas- ehs did - etouq tcaxe na taht sI >

>]SSW[ seyE ehT nI eM kooL TON oD reh

I say, wipe your own butt, Phil, before giving unsolicited lessons in toilet training.

Edited January 28, 2012 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

"I was on OWL."

Me too. I was also on The John Galt Line.

I think that trumps most.

--Brant

prehistoric

[Philip Coates]

> If Phil persists in his stupidity, I will open a new thread devoted only to old OWL-list posts by him [WSS]

No you won't -- I don't thnk you still have them in any organized fashion. Nor do I remember you as a member. You must have been a silent owl.

[9thdoctor]

Is she religious, no. But holy monkey shit does she apply herself religiously. And so her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes is turned upon her and she is now on A List, and gawd forgive her for her sins because she is certainly cut from the same unforgiving crag as the List Pêople.

> her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes [WSS]

Huhh?!??

Is that an exact quote - did she -say- that? Where exactly?

STILL WAITING for an answer.

Or for a retraction of a 'smear'.

An easy way to research this is to go to Betsy's site, for the simple reason that there's so little activity there a search doesn't turn up a lot of irrelevant hits. You have to hand it to DH, she really did succeed in sidelining Betsy. That place is a virtual tumbleweed farm now.

http://forums.4aynra...indpost&p=86090

There's something you need to notice about this: read Betsy's quotes, then hit the link. Plenty of the material isn't there. Did (A) Betsy just make it all up, or (B) did the memory hole do it's work? B, obviously. So, I don't envy WSS if he's taken it on himself to find the exact quote "Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes". It's sounds like the sort of thing she's written, and it hardly exaggerates her tone, but if he thought he was providing an exact quote it's possible that it's not there anymore.

If you choose to continue posting on The Forum, then however honest and nice you are, please do not post comments on NoodleFood. Do not e-mail me with or for information -- or for any other purpose. Do not talk to me at conferences or elsewhere. Just stay away from me. I want nothing whatsoever to do with the fleas who attack me on that forum -- or the people who sanction such attacks by participating in the pointless bull sessions with the fleas on that forum.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why would anyone be concerned about doing heavy research on a detail when it is, in the worst of the worst possible case, plausible?

And how on earth can someone call something plausible a "smear"?

Fer Kerissssakes...

Saying Hsieh lies to her followers on purpose is a smear. And that needs proof. Saying she uses over-the-top rhetoric at times when she gets angry is not a smear. She's done that plenty.

I thought Objectivism was supposed to teach people to think in concepts, not just concretes. But that doesn't take when a fundy feels threatened. This intense defensiveness on trivialities (bordering on paranoia) is one of the reasons I really dislike the fundy mindset.

It isn't conceptual.

And it uses up precious mind resources in a form that pisses a person's life away on nothing.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

> If Phil persists in his stupidity, I will open a new thread devoted only to old OWL-list posts by him [WSS]

No you won't -- I don't thnk you still have them in any organized fashion. Nor do I remember you as a member. You must have been a silent owl.

Are you so dumb as to throw down the gauntlet to WSS?

--Brant

no you aren't; you want him to do what he says he can do--that's the theory about you

[9thdoctor]

Why would anyone be concerned about doing heavy research on a detail when it is, in the worst of the worst possible case, plausible?

I’d have ignored this but Phil keeps needling WSS about it.

[william.scherk]

Do not e-mail me with or for information -- or for any other purpose. Do not talk to me at conferences or elsewhere. Just stay away from me.

Diana keeps an eye on Objectivist Living, it seems. Or perhaps her friend Trey Given does so. Hi Diana! Hi Trey!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

An ARI-side shunning effort has been formally started against Hsieh--with the standard denials and claims of merely trying to do yada yada yada... (See the comments to her post.) We've all seen that plot before, rigtht?

If it grows, it will complete. That's what these things tend to do unless the target is cunning enough to defuse it.

Good Lord, this thing has grown.

Almost the entire FAQ of the Checking Premises site is devoted to Hsieh. Out of the 9 FAQ's as of this posting, 8 deal with Hsieh.

Edward Cline kicked off the Positive Feedback over there. Look at this excerpt:

... I’m not surprised that Diana Hsieh is a topic of discussion here; my one and only encounter with her was over the moral meaning of the Ground Zero Mosque, and the bad taste she and her allies in that episode left in my mouth alerted me to the fact that many alleged Objectivists and presumptive students of Objectivism are very, very confused about what is and what ought to be.

I quoted Cline because this is how the shunning starts growing when it comes from the bottom up. One notable group member speaks up applauding the shun. Other major player will follow.

It's one of the laws of crowd psychology.

Notice how in a public presentation, when a speech is over and the Q&A opens, it takes some time and/or prodding to get the first question from the audience. After that, here comes the flood.

I believe the shun will follow the same path.

I think Hsieh will ultimately have to splinter off in a new denomination of Objectivism if she intends to keep flying under the Objectivist banner. As the FAQ said, she's now a PhD in philosophy. That's something that transmits credibility and authority to the public. So she just might be able to pull it off. But it's too early for that. There's a very painful process in store for her and others involved. This ain't gonna be pretty.

(Dayaamm, I'm a gossip... Ah... What the hell. Confession is good for the soul. )

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Dayaamm, I'm a gossip

I don't think that comes as big news to anyone, Michael

[9thdoctor]

Edward Cline kicked off the Positive Feedback over there. Look at this excerpt:

"A veteran Objectivist speaks, one who witnessed NBI blow up, contributed to the founding of ARI, applauded the “defrocking” of David Kelley (Dr. Peikoff did once say that he was the “Pope” of Objectivism)"

Beautiful.