ObjectivismOnline Objectivist Opposes Objectivism!

[Brant Gaede]

Try Jonathan Swift.

--Brant

[caroljane]

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

Oh I think Psmith would do quite nicely,

- Aunt Agatha, Lady Rubbleheap

[PDS]

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

Next thing you know Jonathan is going to tell us that picture in the upper left corner of his posts isn't a faithful depiction either.

[PDS]

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...

Agreed.

[Brant Gaede]

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...

Agreed.

It wasn't set up very well. It wasn't explained very well. It wasn't done very well. There are moderators and there are moderators. Some are necessary and some aren't. Some are good at what they do and some aren't. It's up to lists' owners. This is the only Objectivist list I can breathe on, except, ironically, SOLOP, where I hardly go any more though. I'm not moderated. I'm not worried some kid for some reason known only to him and God might push a button and one of my posts disappears. I can't stand the thought. Without this safe feeling I'd simply stop posting. I might start my own list but that'd be me, myself and I. I do know that if Michael does delete one of my posts it'd be to save my butt about something or it'd be an accident. Fix it up later.

There's a bigger issue with what is going on in my personal life that exacerbates all this with me. I'm not characteristically this nasty. There's some PTSS which I didn't bring home from war, but which I now have. Some, not much.

--Brant

[anthony]

Brant: "I care about forthrightness, honesty, courage and ideas..."

Is about the best exposition of 'character' - I've heard. These aren't only pretty words to you,

and it shows throughout.

(At times it's a little scary how 'visible' we become to the masses of people in cyberspace; it does

give me pause every so often - then I think: What the hell! - and carry on.)

[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.

Agreed...

Agreed.

It wasn't set up very well. It wasn't explained very well. It wasn't done very well. There are moderators and there are moderators. Some are necessary and some aren't. Some are good at what they do and some aren't. It's up to lists' owners. This is the only Objectivist list I can breathe on, except, ironically, SOLOP, where I hardly go any more though. I'm not moderated. I'm not worried some kid for some reason known only to him and God might push a button and one of my posts disappears. I can't stand the thought. Without this safe feeling I'd simply stop posting. I might start my own list but that'd be me, myself and I. I do know that if Michael does delete one of my posts it'd be to save my butt about something or it'd be an accident. Fix it up later.

There's a bigger issue with what is going on in my personal life that exacerbates all this with me. I'm not characteristically this nasty. There's some PTSS which I didn't bring home from war, but which I now have. Some, not much.

--Brant

Baggage is a bitch, I more than understand.

[caroljane]

There's a bigger issue with what is going on in my personal life that exacerbates all this with me. I'm not characteristically this nasty. There's some PTSS which I didn't bring home from war, but which I now have. Some, not much.

--Brant

Bloody life,it just keeps on happening doesn't it.

We'll do our best here to try and cheer you up.

[caroljane]

Two Senegalese bartenders walked into a Tabernacle....

[caroljane]

I

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

is more common-place ...

Yes, OO is more youthful and entry level. OL is more like a grad lounge or - I like WSS's metaphor better - a friendly saloon with Michael and Kat in benign control. Newcomers are always welcome and the few who become unwelcome, seldom have to manhandled off the premises. They mostly just drink up and leave.

[PDS]

I

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

is more common-place ...

Yes, OO is more youthful and entry level. OL is more like a grad lounge or - I like WSS's metaphor better - a friendly saloon with Michael and Kat in benign control. Newcomers are always welcome and the few who become unwelcome, seldom have to manhandled off the premises. They mostly just drink up and leave.

Which remnds me, whatever happened to That Guy at the corner of the bar--who only drank his Objectivism "neat," whilst on his favorite linoleum stool only slightly torn at the edge--constantly hectoring other patrons about civility?

I hope he didn't drive into a ditch somewhere.

[9thdoctor]

Which remnds me, whatever happened to That Guy at the corner of the bar--who only drank his Objectivism "neat," whilst on his favorite linoleum stool only slightly torn at the edge--constantly hectoring other patrons about civility?

Tread lightly, be careful what you say...

We all know who you mean.

[caroljane]

I

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

is more common-place ...

Yes, OO is more youthful and entry level. OL is more like a grad lounge or - I like WSS's metaphor better - a friendly saloon with Michael and Kat in benign control. Newcomers are always welcome and the few who become unwelcome, seldom have to manhandled off the premises. They mostly just drink up and leave.

Which remnds me, whatever happened to That Guy at the corner of the bar--who only drank his Objectivism "neat," whilst on his favorite linoleum stool only slightly torn at the edge--constantly hectoring other patrons about civility?

I hope he didn't drive into a ditch somewhere.

If he did, I'm sure it was volitionally.

Carol

Still not improiving at table hockey

[PDS]

Which remnds me, whatever happened to That Guy at the corner of the bar--who only drank his Objectivism "neat," whilst on his favorite linoleum stool only slightly torn at the edge--constantly hectoring other patrons about civility?

Tread lightly, be careful what you say...

We all know who you mean.

I think it fair to say that Ghs bears a striking resemblance to any random Founding Father in the picture above.

Further, the picture reveals that, notwithstanding the shenanagains going on literally at his feet, Founding Father Ghs's presumed soliloqoy on the limitations of Locke's Second Treatise--apparently taking place at one of those Constiutional Convention "breakout sessions"--is proceeding apace. It is clear that Ghs is not easily distracted.

In any event, well played, sir. I am half tempted to award you some of my John Galt bonus dollars above my avatar. Value for value and all that. May I send a carton of cigarettes instead?

[Eiuol]

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.

I find it interesting to point out that you actually visit and post on OO and OL, yet aren't being hostile towards me. GHS and Brant have been hostile, yet don't visit OO. Jonathan visits both, accepted my apology, and moved on. As far as I see, the hostile people misunderstand entirely what the point of moderation is on OO. It is only about civility, which is apparently harder to get around here - even though I explicitly gave an apology for a specific action which was *accepted* by the person whom the apology was directed at.

Your post is very good, whYNOT.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eiuol,

Civility-wise, some posters are Grundy-shell-shocked from a few Grundies who haven't been around much (one in particular), but once were. And we have had our share of trolls posting under pseudonyms--one recent post-modern fanatic comes to mind.

So some people are a little bit tired of mind-games when all they want to do is relax and think and discuss and do some friendly bickering over politics and banter. Using pseudonyms falls into that impatience, not because of you, but because many people who use them hide behind them to disrupt good things.

Give it some time. Nothing happens in a vacuum. There are great people around here. And I suspect you are one, too.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I think it fair to say that Ghs bears a striking resemblance to any random Founding Father in the picture above.

Mostly Ben Franklin, I'd say.

And the demon looks like a cross between Old Hickory and Beavis.

J

[PDS]

I think it fair to say that Ghs bears a striking resemblance to any random Founding Father in the picture above.

Mostly Ben Franklin, I'd say.

And the demon looks like a cross between Old Hickory and Beavis.

J

No shit! And if you squint, you can see The Hermitage in the distance.

[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.

I find it interesting to point out that you actually visit and post on OO and OL, yet aren't being hostile towards me. GHS and Brant have been hostile, yet don't visit OO. Jonathan visits both, accepted my apology, and moved on. As far as I see, the hostile people misunderstand entirely what the point of moderation is on OO. It is only about civility, which is apparently harder to get around here - even though I explicitly gave an apology for a specific action which was *accepted* by the person whom the apology was directed at.

Your post is very good, whYNOT.

"Civility" is what Jimmy Wales used to destroy the old Atlantis. If it's only some kind of "only," why do it at all? "Civility" is for children in the presence of adults, like in grade school.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

I am half tempted to award you some of my John Galt bonus dollars above my avatar. Value for value and all that. May I send a carton of cigarettes instead?

I appreciate the gesture, but what are you thinking of? Shipping tobacco across state lines? That's got to be a serious felony, maybe even a death penalty offense by now.

Give it some time. Nothing happens in a vacuum. There are great people around here. And I suspect you are one, too.

Aww...

[Xray]

"Civility" is what Jimmy Wales used to destroy the old Atlantis. If it's only some kind of "only," why do it at all? "Civility" is for children in the presence of adults, like in grade school.

Jimmy Wales? THE 'Wikipedia' Jimmy Wales?

[Brant Gaede]

"Civility" is what Jimmy Wales used to destroy the old Atlantis. If it's only some kind of "only," why do it at all? "Civility" is for children in the presence of adults, like in grade school.

Jimmy Wales? THE 'Wikipedia' Jimmy Wales?

Si, senorita! He even asked me for ideas on how to revive the corpse as I was going out the door.

--Brant

pre-Wikipedia

[Jonathan]

More Objectivist nanny lunacy at OO:

A few of the anonymous moderators over there have been having fits again recently about my participation. One moderator, "softwareNerd," posted his opinion that "libertarianism does not have much of an underlying philosophy." I asked him which works by which libertarian philosophers he has read, and my doing so apparently really pissed off members of the anonymous moderating team.

I was told that my post was "not on topic," and therefore in violation of the forum rules. Your read that right: after a moderator brought up the topic of libertarianism not having much of an underlying philosophy, I was publicly warned of having strayed off topic when I responded to a topic of his choosing which received no such warning!

It gets better. In discussing the issue further, I received warnings, from "SapereAude," a moderator who was participating in the discussion with me, that she would not tolerate my further breaking of the forum's rules.

Her judgment of my participation seemed to be quite emotional, irrational and exaggerated. She seemed to be taking everything too personally and as an "attack." So I politely suggested that I thought it would be a good policy at OO that moderators should not be acting as moderators on threads on which they are participating. They shouldn't have the power to delete discussion opponents' posts, but that such actions should be left up to neutral moderators.

She responded by saying, publicly, "I do not take moderator action when I am personally engaged in an argument."

She then proceeded to immediately remove my next post from the thread! She removed it so quickly that I thought it was a software glitch and I reposted it, only to have her remove it again just as quickly. She removed both so quickly that she could not possibly have had time to read the post in its entirety and comprehend and weigh the arguments and evidence that I had provided (in my post, I provided a link to this OL thread -- the one that you're currently reading -- as a typical documented example of how my posts have been removed by moderators at OO despite their not containing anything offensive, insulting, impolite or untrue, and despite the fact that they accurately present and defend Rand's views).

Then she sent me a private message in which she tried to rationalize her action and claim that it didn't technically count as her taking a moderator action on a thread on which she was participating! She explained that she only removed my post from the thread, but that she didn't delete it. It still existed, somewhere, and she would leave the decision to delete it to another moderator! She believed that her moderator action of merely "removing" my post didn't qualify as a moderator action!

When I pointed out the dishonesty and faking of reality of her position, she stated that she was tired of listening to my crazy talk.

Remember that we're talking about a person who professes to believe in and practice Objectivism, a philosophy which focuses on honesty, adherence to reality, etc.

This is the current and future face of Objectivist activism.

J

[9thdoctor]

More Objectivist nanny lunacy at OO:

It sure gets pretty schizophrenic over there sometimes. But I gotta give 'em some credit, they let this post stand:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24789entry304688

It's a straight out attack on Comrade Sonia, and they even let me get away with calling her a chick-chick-chicken for not engaging critics without being able to delete their posts. I had a feeling I was pushing it when I posted that. Maybe if I hadn't put in the last part, where I ask you what's the big deal about the Joan of Arc painting...

I was actually having a nice enough conversation with Sapere Aude on the currently active Christianity thread.

[9thdoctor]

I was just over yonder, ruminating on whether I should bother replying to a tedious Hickman post (directed at me), when I noticed that 'ruveyn1' has been banned! Who was that, and why should OLers care? Well, it was really obvious to anyone who's spent time in Rand-land that ruveyn1 was our very own Bob Kolker, aka Ba'al Chatzaf. As I recall he reported having been banned before, so I'm curious if he got the boot simply for signing on again under a different name, or if he posted something that offended the powers/moderators that be.

C'mon Bob, inquiring minds want to know!