ObjectivismOnline Objectivist Opposes Objectivism!

[George H. Smith]

I would add a rider about posters and moderators on highly sensitive forums such as mideast ones on Egypt, Syria etc, I imagine they might be targets of death threats for real.

I agree with your comment, but in such a case a person can explain the compelling reason for anonymity. What I cannot abide are coy games about who a person really is. And that seems to be what is going on here.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I would add a rider about posters and moderators on highly sensitive forums such as mideast ones on Egypt, Syria etc, I imagine they might be targets of death threats for real.

I agree with your comment, but in such a case a person can explain the compelling reason for anonymity. What I cannot abide are coy games about who a person really is. And that seems to be what is going on here.

Ghs

Let me put it this way: In the absence of a compelling and explictly stated reason for remaining anonymous, the presumption should be against a person who won't reveal his or her identity. It should be assumed, in other words, that the person is not being forthright about other matters. But this is a defeasible presumption; over time, as noted before, the person may gain the trust of other members.

Ghs

[caroljane]

I would add a rider about posters and moderators on highly sensitive forums such as mideast ones on Egypt, Syria etc, I imagine they might be targets of death threats for real.

I agree with your comment, but in such a case a person can explain the compelling reason for anonymity. What I cannot abide are coy games about who a person really is. And that seems to be what is going on here.

Ghs

Let me put it this way: In the absence of a compelling and explictly stated reason for remaining anonymous, the presumption should be against a person who won't reveal his or her identity. It should be assumed, in other words, that the person is not being forthright about other matters. But this is a defeasible presumption; over time, as noted before, the person may gain the trust of other members.

Ghs

Yes. Psychological visibility, so to speak.

[Mikee]

Louie did say he's rethought his early decision to use a pseudonym, with a little patience one might know his real name...

perhaps not a coy game, but an oversight after an initial cautiousness? Not every irritation is a result of a character flaw.

My full name is Michael Erickson if anyone cares (I know you don't). My cat Smokey is my avatar because he's MUCH more attractive than I am. Better personality too.

[caroljane]

Avatars are another story altogether! I admire the people who present their real faces, but at 107, and did I mention my resemblance to von Mises? I could never do it.

We had a cat Smokey, dearly lamented. Cats are the best.

[George H. Smith]

Louie did say he's rethought his early decision to use a pseudonym, with a little patience one might know his real name...

perhaps not a coy game, but an oversight after an initial cautiousness? Not every irritation is a result of a character flaw.

My full name is Michael Erickson if anyone cares (I know you don't). My cat Smokey is my avatar because he's MUCH more attractive than I am. Better personality too.

I didn't say anything about a character flaw. I was talking about playing games. If someone expects me to take him seriously, then I want to know the person I am talking to -- especially if that person makes a relevant factual claim, such as being the moderator of a forum.

I have no interest in Louie's last name, but I do have an interest in the honesty of that person, whatever his name may be.

Ghs

[caroljane]

I thought Euoil was a woman,,,, Am I mixed up?

[Mikee]

But I love Von Mises!

Smokey's almost three, I'm already lamenting how fast he's aging. I had a cat, Big Guy, for 17 1/2 years. Best friend I ever had. He died on March 13, 2004. I still cry a little sometimes when I think about him.

George, I think you're pretty awesome by the way. I think we may have met once in 1977 when I was living in Santa Monica. Not sure though. I looked up the local libertarians and attended a couple of meetings. I've forgotten his name but I went to a guy's house who was a local libertarian group vp or something and played chess a couple of times. He was a very good chess player but got really steamed (threw over the board) when I beat him one time. I was totally self taught, never read the books or knew the attacks and defenses so I guess I was a little unorthodox. What a temper that guy had. He also thought hemophiliacs should be sterilized to improve the gene pool. I didn't think he was much of a libertarian. Evidently not a scientist either because he didn't understand my argument that his plan might have the opposite effect of what he intended. I stopped with the meetings when I met a very nice girl running along the boardwalk and we spent the rest of my time down there hanging out together.

[George H. Smith]

I thought Euoil was a woman,,,, Am I mixed up?

Is Euoil a woman? I have no idea. Are you mixed up? Well, that would require a separate thread to determine. 8-)

Ghs

[william.scherk]

I would add a rider about posters and moderators on highly sensitive forums such as mideast ones on Egypt, Syria etc, I imagine they might be targets of death threats for real.

I agree with your comment, but in such a case a person can explain the compelling reason for anonymity. What I cannot abide are coy games about who a person really is. And that seems to be what is going on here.

George, Carol, I have some experience as reader, comment contributor and moderator at Joshua Landis's blog Syria Comment. Because of the reach and malevolence of Syria's secret services, almost every single person who opposes the Syrian regime uses a pseudonym. On the other side, pro-regime commentators also choose pseudonyms, sometimes for stated reasons. There is an undestandable fear of the loyalists (right or wrong) that they will be targets of harassment or violence. Most of the anti-regime folks (not all) do give a minimum bit of information. For example my friend "Tara" identifies herself as a Damascence-born and bred American. She conceals her profession and city, but mentions children. Another friend, Son of Damascus, spells out with no detailt that he is in Canada, and part of an elite pro-regime-ish family of some business clout in the old country. A pro-regime guy "Norman" allows that he emigrated to American long ago, and that he is a doctor. And so on. This is the best that some (rightfully or wrongfully) fearful people can do.

Beyond that, I have argued at that forum that folks could at the very least declare their citizenship(s) and give a glimpse of their background, even if only to say something like "I am a Syrian. I won't give any details" or "I am an American with an interest in the Middle East."

But, even this bare minimum of self-identification is not the rule. There are several persistent posters who allow absolutely zero information out. We do not know where they hail from, nor where they are now, neither their languages, family, education, nothing.

This leads to much speculation, and a remaining mystery. Why would someone insist on saying nothing at all about what they are (not 'who' they are) and yet pose as an expert? I still do not get it. For example, one lady (I presume, she takes the name Mina) has in two years of posting let slip only this: "an old Maoist." Another, "Ann," posts lengthy excerpts from RussiaToday, Xinhua, PressTV and other even stupider places (globalresearch.ca, voltaire.net, Alex Jones, Above Top Secret, Tony Cartalucci) but has never ever let slip even a hint as to her citizenship or place of residence.

Louie/Eioul's coyness is NOTHING compared to these hooded maniacs. And I can think of at least three (good/bad/middling) reasons why he does not reveal anything about himself personally:

• -- fear of exposure (job, family, professional networks) of his Objectivism. In some milieus, Objectivism is a stain.
  
• -- habit (everyone else does it!). Some forums (like RoR/here/SOLO/Betsy's Litterbox) have a tradition of full names. Others have a tradition common to the internet of nicknames alone.
  
• -- uneasiness with the notion that someone can find him (without getting Syrian paranoiac about it, this is justified, I think). Creeps and weirdoes and obsessive nutcases are common. If only to avoid some nutter tracking down personal information, some folks do not 'play' on the internet with their real identity.
  

Now, in some cases, I would recommend that named people go under a cloak. For example, one of the dimmer bulbs at OO.net (I will not name him) is so wedded to Objectivish things that on his most recent vacation he treated himself to a fresh re-read of Atlas Shrugged. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but he also took the time (on his Facebook pages) to plaintively ask for career advice. He apparently works as a semi-skilled labourer and would like to break out. He would like to find a girlfriend. He would like to use the gifts of Objectivish thinking to enter the glory of Objectivist Manhood.

He is approximately 50 years old. Reading his stuff makes me inexpressibly sad. If I wanted to, I could find out which crappy school he is janitor at, or which plastics factory uses him as robot-feeder. He is broke, lonely, Objectivist, without friends or career, but enthralled with his twenty-odd years of studing Objectivism. Sad sad sad.

In other words, sometimes keeping your identity secret is because identifying yourself would reveal not that you are a writer of some renown or a hockey mom in TO, but a sad sack with zero life accomplishments -- and little practical likelihood of ever rising above the unlovely damp basement suite of the American dream. Those who have 'made it' and would represent a successful (normed) Objectivish fledge, well, they do not post to OO.net.

Further, I would urge all the present moderators there to go under a cloak. Every time I have looked up a named Moderator I have felt very sad. Whether a four-hundred pound lonely sci-fi maven living in a shithole in Kansas, or (I will not say), the revelation of identity is sometimes too pathetic. .

So, Louie/Eioul, I will support you 200% percent if you give a big Fuck You to anyone who wants to know who you are. Sometimes it is better to not give the pricks (like me) an opportunity to investigate.

Edited August 13, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

I thought Euoil was a woman,,,, Am I mixed up?

Is Euoil a woman? I have no idea. Are you mixed up? Well, that would require a separate thread to determine. 8-)

Ghs

lol, I guess if it is Louie it is not a woman. Maybe I am thinking of an Overture ...I Aam pretty sure Wotan is a guy though.Really, Oonline should pay Michael for all this free publicity. But I don't know who its owner is, or its webmaster ... I guess is ARI in some corporate license form.

Full disclosure, I have recently returned from Taste of the Danforth, a street and eatfest here attended by tourists from as far away as Buffalo, NY! I met up with my son Andy, dog Bodie and latest gf Holly, and am full of kalamari and goodwill.

[caroljane]

Bill,

have I told you lately that I love you?

Widely-thought, great-hearted, beautifully humane post.

And "the damp basement suite of the American dream" is quite simply literature.

Waving a cold squid tentacle towards the Left Coast,

[Eiuol]

Let me put it this way: In the absence of a compelling and explictly stated reason for remaining anonymous, the presumption should be against a person who won't reveal his or her identity. It should be assumed, in other words, that the person is not being forthright about other matters. But this is a defeasible presumption; over time, as noted before, the person may gain the trust of other members.

I suppose I have to leave it at "I need to gain trust". I have no particular credentials to present anyway, so I'd be needing to gain trust in any case. I understand taking a presumption.

[George H. Smith]

Creeps and weirdoes and obsessive nutcases are common. If only to avoid some nutter tracking down personal information, some folks do not 'play' on the internet with their real identity.

If anyone should be concerned about this, it is someone who has written three books with the word "atheism" in their titles. And, yes, I've gotten my fair share and crank letters and emails over the years, and I still do. But that's the nature the beast.

So, Louie/Eioul, I will support you 200% percent if you give a big Fuck You to anyone who wants to know who you are. Sometimes it is better to not give the pricks (like me) an opportunity to investigate.

Louie/Eioul has already given the big 'Fuck You" to OL members. That's my problem with him. He's playing a game I have seen many times before.

Ghs

[caroljane]

Hey, wow I just noticed... I thought I might have built some writing renown on OL, Quantity not Quality being my motto...But I had no idea George was interested in hockey!

[Brant Gaede]

Let me put it this way: In the absence of a compelling and explictly stated reason for remaining anonymous, the presumption should be against a person who won't reveal his or her identity. It should be assumed, in other words, that the person is not being forthright about other matters. But this is a defeasible presumption; over time, as noted before, the person may gain the trust of other members.

I suppose I have to leave it at "I need to gain trust". I have no particular credentials to present anyway, so I'd be needing to gain trust in any case. I understand taking a presumption.

The "credentials" of a moderator are who the f___ you are. Real name not really required. Tell us, please, why the f___ are you a moderator? Where the f___ did you come from with that? What's your motivation to moderate? What are the standards you use? The only moderation here is by the owner. His is a light hand. He doesn't moderate posts so much as first put someone on moderation then he deletes posts he had warned would be deleted, only the moderated almost invariably just leave. If there was anyone on OL doing what you do on OO I'd be gone, George H. Smith would be gone and others would be gone, gone, gone. And this OL culture would not exist. I refuse to post and wonder about some asshole deleting any post of mine. There is no asshole here doing that. As far as I'm concerned you are a horrible, stinking presence wherever you go deleting others' posts and nobody knows who the fuck you are, etc., etc. As far as I'm concerned take your moderating personality and get the fuck out of Dodge. Leave. Please leave. You are nobody to me except somebody I have no use for. In the name of God, for all the good you have done, GO!

--Brant

[Selene]

Louie? Really well hidden...

Lol - Mikee - sure and that is what he/she wanted you to think!

Surely you understand that each of the letters in reverse represent pages of an aesthetic critique which are represented by the number that the letter is replaced by!

Geez...cryptology 101...

[william.scherk]

George, you are in that class of humanity called Writer. If I may say so, A Great and Good writer. Writers need to use their names. It is the one sure way to hang all their earlier work around their necks. Those who do not intend to be remembered or cited have no use for it.

I had a friendly chat with the Louieeiuol fellow over at OO.net`s chat room (by chance, I saw him and MikeE on the board while checking up on Jonathan's scrivenings). He is young, and in the first flush of enthusiasm. As OOnet moderators go, he is about as good as they get. Recorded history shows no OOnet moderator ever publicly admitting error, so ... with a bit of good humour and understanding of the Recent Convert Syndrome, we can return to the usual bovine placidity of discourse we so cherish here.

Carol, you caught me in mid-edit, with the basement metaphor. It is even sadder than that. The fifty-something friendless Objectivist Janitor on Vacation gave a play-by-play of his re-read of Atlas Shrugged on his Facebook page. Dailly. At length. It was like watching someone who had read the bible fifty times cracking it open for a Fresh Look and telling about the Good Parts. All of them. Beyond sad, and into the twilight zone. Using Rand as crack.

Basement-dwelling non-achievers, arise and reject your pension! Objectivish Valhalla awaits you.

Edited August 13, 2012 by william.scherk

[9thdoctor]

The fifty-something friendless Objectivist Janitor on Vacation gave a play-by-play of his re-read of Atlas Shrugged on his Facebook page. Dailly. At length. It was like watching someone who had read the bible fifty times cracking it open for a Fresh Look and telling about the Good Parts. All of them. Beyond sad, and into the twilight zone. Using Rand as crack.

I think I know just who you mean. I explained to him once how he was misquoting and/or misinterpreting Kant on esthetics, and his retort: "may you be damned!"

Basement-dwelling non-achievers, arise and reject your pension! Objectivish Valhalla awaits you.

Join the strike! Don't be a scab!

[Eiuol]

If there was anyone on OL doing what you do on OO I'd be gone, George H. Smith would be gone and others would be gone, gone, gone.

Oh, now I'll throw out my True Word of Ayn Rand guidebook, the one all of us moderators get.

[Dan Haggerty]

What is with the tone in this conversation? I would think a mod showing up from another forum to explain and apologize to a person for an unfortunate incident would be a good thing.

[anthony]

I notice some 'moderating of the Moderator' going on, which has quite taken me aback.

Louie has been invited here by a member to state his case; he did so, respectfully and honestly.

It would be valuable to hear more from him - I think.

I've seen really mischievous characters enter here, and be granted more benefit of the doubt than

he. (How it should be, I think, and all credit to MSK and senior members.)

If you bear in mind that on a more youthful, 'entry-level' forum like O.O, this sort of mischief

is more common-place - perhaps closer moderation and occasional deletion,

to head off nasty battles, is necessary. Perhaps. All I know is I've been quite ouspoken there,

and been deleted once, when I accepted it was a fair response to heated remarks I'd made.

I believe O.O was never an ARI affiliate, although its members were for a while more influenced

by the Institute. That is changing - to some degree by the effort of older Objectivists

there, to which I was made privy, once. To my knowledge there is no dominant policy there now.

Deriding the Ortho's, and cherry-picking the sillier posts from thousands, demonstrates

nothing of the greater good being accomplished on that forum. It only destroys potential bridges

within O'ism. Or maybe few care about that?

[Brant Gaede]

I notice some 'moderating of the Moderator' going on, which has quite taken me aback.

Louie has been invited here by a member to state his case; he did so, respectfully and honestly.

It would be valuable to hear more from him - I think.

I've seen really mischievous characters enter here, and be granted more benefit of the doubt than

he. (How it should be, I think, and all credit to MSK and senior members.)

If you bear in mind that on a more youthful, 'entry-level' forum like O.O, this sort of mischief

is more common-place - perhaps closer moderation and occasional deletion,

to head off nasty battles, is necessary. Perhaps. All I know is I've been quite ouspoken there,

and been deleted once, when I accepted it was a fair response to heated remarks I'd made.

I believe O.O was never an ARI affiliate, although its members were for a while more influenced

by the Institute. That is changing - to some degree by the effort of older Objectivists

there, to which I was made privy, once. To my knowledge there is no dominant policy there now.

Deriding the Ortho's, and cherry-picking the sillier posts from thousands, demonstrates

nothing of the greater good being accomplished on that forum. It only destroys potential bridges

within O'ism. Or maybe few care about that?

He's welcome to learn something. His vacuity led to my pulling a two-by-four out of my tool box and whacking him over the head with it. It may or may not have worked as a lesson--good or bad--learned. It's true that I don't care about bridges within O'ism. I care about forthrightness, honesty, courage and ideas--those sorts of things. The contrary, time-wasting sorts--well, life's too short to sort it out. When you're young you think you have all the time in the world, which is a great delusion. I had it when I was young. It's true I have traduced courtesy, a secondary virtue of value to those who appreciate it for more than a buffer or facade in social interactions, but everything costs something. I actually wish the guy well, whoever he is, wherever he goes--whatever--but the only thing I know about him is he's a moderator. Talk about coming on with something that by itself is a negative! His real context could have balanced it out to a general positive and even justified what he does with it.

--Brant

still pissed off at Jimmy Wales

[Selene]

What is with the tone in this conversation? I would think a mod showing up from another forum to explain and apologize to a person for an unfortunate incident would be a good thing.

Agreed...

[Jonathan]

There may be exceptions, of course. I don't have a problem with Jonathan because, as you say, he has demonstrated himself to be a "real person" over time. But this is a rare exception, in my book.

When I read George's post, my reaction was, "Huh? What's George talking about? Sure, my screen name is just "Jonathan," but I've identified myself by my full name many times, and long ago I updated my OL profile to include my surname. WTF?"

Then I looked at my profile page and saw that I was still just "Jonathan." Oops! But I've updated it now. Not that "Jonathan Smith" sounds any more real, but whatever. (Maybe I should go by "Nate Smith." That might be less generic, no? Or maybe "J. Ronald Smith"? My birth father's last name was Larson, So I could go with Larson Smith. That kind of has a nice, uppity-intellectual, artsy sound to it, doesn't it? "Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Mr. Larson Smith and his Laser Hologram Smell-O-Vision Radio Show!" What do ya think?)

J