Is is altruistic to endure disrespect, even from those you admire most? What is the proper response?

[KacyRay]

I was reading in the 'Nathaniel Branden Corner' all the stories of people who knew Rand from the NBI days and I came aross the story from Tibor Machan on the treatment that he ultimately received from her despite being a fan of hers. His last communication with her involved him attempting to express appreciation for her and what she had accomplished only to be coldly hung-up on.

I am in a profession in which a high premium is placed on respect - not just the respect we treat others with, but the self-respect we convey in our dealings with others.

And I am being very specific with the word "respect". I don't mean some Hollywood version of it where everyone snaps to attention where you walk in the room. I'm talking about a meritocratic environment where all present begin with a mutual respect and appreciation for what everyone else is, wha they do, and what it took to get where they are.

That's why reading this story seemed so foreign to me. The idea of willingly incurring such disrespect, and then upon receiving it, just shrugging it off and chalking it up to someone elses quirky behavior seems abhorrant to me. Respect is such a valuable thing (as a wise man receintly put it - "so hard to earn, so easily burned") that to relinquish it for the off-chance that someone may sprinkle you bits of social pittance, or not to respond in kind when such social injuries are incurred, seems like a psychological self-martyrdom worse than any I can imagine.

Objectivists believe (and I agree) that physical force in justified in retalion to and in order to protect onesself from physical force (or injury). I hold that the same applies to the forceful breach of what ought to be among the most cherished values - one's self respect.

So here's my quesiton: If a person were to contact someone of the status and accomplishment of Rand with the specific intent of expressing grattitude and respect, and is met with an entirely disrespectful response, is one justified in saying "Alright, then, F@#$ you!" and refusing to do anything at all that might afford any value whatsoever to that individual?

If not, what is the proper response?

(For example, when Machan was hung up on by Rand, would he have been justified in proclaiming "I'll never lift another finger to further the Objectivist cause, I'll never advocate for Rand again, I'll never spend a dime on her materials, and I'll never say another good thing about Objectivism in spite of the fact that he may recognize the value of Objectivism and still intend to live his life by those principles for his own sake?)

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Never heard of this event, but I'll attempt to answer your question regardless.

Is is altruistic to endure disrespect, even from those you admire most? What is the proper response? 

It really depends on the situation. I think much is to be considered. For example, to determine if it is altruistic to endure disrespect, one must consider if the disrespect is constant and for what reason is the disrespect being expressed. Another consideration is: Is there any value in associating with the offending person in the future? I'm thinking in terms of net gains here. Offenses may be overlooked if there is value to be gained in the future.

The proper response would be based on the previous assessment of the current and potential value of the relationship.

If the person who received the disrespect thinks there is value to be gained the future, he could just offer a light reproach to the offender and then move on (or no reproach at all depending on the assessment).

I wouldn't sever a potentially fruitful relationship just because someone hung-up the phone on me.

[KacyRay]

I think this will link you straight to the post I'm referring to.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=60#entry1490

But my question is larger than just that story. Reading the stories in that thread, I find myself feeling extremely irritated at the way Rand allegedly treated people. I find it contemptable to fail to grant people a basic level of human decency and respect.

I mean, I get it. To a young intellectual, she was the equivalent of a rock star. And who doesn't wanna buddy up with a rock star, right? I realize that people would tolerate a lot in order to have that privledge. But is that privledge a rational value? More valuable than one's self-respect?

I just don't think so.

[9thdoctor]

Machan blew his chance for a good relationship with Rand much earlier, he got himself on her permanent blacklist, so the fact she only hung up on him, and didn’t tell him off in addition, ought to count for something. Perhaps.

Meanwhile, I don’t get the connection to altruism, I guess you just mean is it moral or not to take crap from someone you regard as a genius. I suppose it is a rational value if you're able to "break through", and if not, what have you really lost?

Also, in a way he did “retaliate” by going public with the story, albeit after she died.

[KacyRay]

"What have you really lost" - Self respect is pretty important. I'd say that it's more important than anyone elses respect. I am suggesting that forfeiting your self-respect for the sake of practically begging for social alms from someone else is pretty self-sacrificial, by definition. It is forfeiting a greater value for a lesser one, or none at all.

Am I the only one who cringes at the thought that people would ask Rand honest questions, only to be humiliated and publicly lambasted, then just sit down and lick their wounds? At the idea that she was able to weild this cruel hammer of disrespect toward anyone she pleased while simultaneously demanding complete respect from all she associated with? Am I the only one who feels that capitulating that power to another human being is one of the most selfless things one can do?

Capitulating that power is the altruism I speak of.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Again, I'm not certain of some of these events you are referencing (the link you provided is noted).

Self-respect can't be taken or given by anyone. It is gained only by one's assessment of one's self and actions. If the assessment is positive, self-respect is gained.

I agree with you, self-respect is a prime value. However, others may not consider it to be a prime value. They may be perfectly willing to sacrifice self-respect for a greater value. It depends on one's value hierarchy.

[caroljane]

This issue seems to resemble a little the discussion on coercion on another thread. If you are coerced into an activity, do you hate the activity as well as the coercers? If you are disrespected by a person representing an activity, do you hate or disrespect the activity, or just the person?

[KacyRay]

"Self-respect can't be taken or given by anyone. It is gained only by one's assessment of one's self and actions. If the assessment is positive, self-respect is gained."

Exactly. And would someone who assesses the degree of respect they deserve to be healthy subject themselves to disrespect just to gain someone elses favor? (Hint: Would Ayn Rand have done that?)

"I agree with you, self-respect is a prime value. However, others may not consider it to be a prime value."

The same could be said of any value, including the value of rational self-interest.

"They may be perfectly willing to sacrifice self-respect for a greater value. It depends on one's value hierarchy."

And what I'm asserting is that there is no one alive who *gaining favor with* is objectively a higher value than *ones own self respect*. This is my contention.

Sorry for not having yet firgured out the blockquote feature... I know how to push the "quote" button, but I don't know how to break that quote up into bite-sized pieces.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry for not having yet firgured out the blockquote feature... I know how to push the "quote" button, but I don't know how to break that quote up into bite-sized pieces.

Kacy,

This is a new "improvement" from the forum software upgrade. (Long story...)

To work around it, after you push the quote button, turn the WYSIWYG editor off (see an image of how to do that here). You'll have to copy the open and close tags for each block of the quote you want to respond to, but at least it works. Then you can turn the WYSIWYG editor back on before you post just to make sure everything is in order.

Michael

EDIT: In fact, I copied part of that post over to here:

Here is a screenshot. It turns the WYSIWYG editor on and off, which includes the formatting buttons.

WYSIWYG = What You See Is What You Get.

The button to the right of the eraser is called "Special BBCode." (It's the second to the right of the one I circled.) I fiddled with it a little, and I suggest you do, too, if you need the resources it provides.

It's not as clear as it could be, so fiddling with it seems to be the only way to learn it.

[Brant Gaede]

 

I was reading in the 'Nathaniel Branden Corner' all the stories of people who knew Rand from the NBI days and I came aross the story from Tibor Machan on the treatment that he ultimately received from her despite being a fan of hers. His last communication with her involved him attempting to express appreciation for her and what she had accomplished only to be coldly hung-up on.

I am in a profession in which a high premium is placed on respect - not just the respect we treat others with, but the self-respect we convey in our dealings with others.

And I am being very specific with the word "respect". I don't mean some Hollywood version of it where everyone snaps to attention where you walk in the room. I'm talking about a meritocratic environment where all present begin with a mutual respect and appreciation for what everyone else is, wha they do, and what it took to get where they are.

That's why reading this story seemed so foreign to me. The idea of willingly incurring such disrespect, and then upon receiving it, just shrugging it off and chalking it up to someone elses quirky behavior seems abhorrant to me. Respect is such a valuable thing (as a wise man receintly put it - "so hard to earn, so easily burned") that to relinquish it for the off-chance that someone may sprinkle you bits of social pittance, or not to respond in kind when such social injuries are incurred, seems like a psychological self-martyrdom worse than any I can imagine.

Objectivists believe (and I agree) that physical force in justified in retalion to and in order to protect onesself from physical force (or injury). I hold that the same applies to the forceful breach of what ought to be among the most cherished values - one's self respect.

So here's my quesiton: If a person were to contact someone of the status and accomplishment of Rand with the specific intent of expressing grattitude and respect, and is met with an entirely disrespectful response, is one justified in saying "Alright, then, F@#$ you!" and refusing to do anything at all that might afford any value whatsoever to that individual?

If not, what is the proper response?

(For example, when Machan was hung up on by Rand, would he have been justified in proclaiming "I'll never lift another finger to further the Objectivist cause, I'll never advocate for Rand again, I'll never spend a dime on her materials, and I'll never say another good thing about Objectivism in spite of the fact that he may recognize the value of Objectivism and still intend to live his life by those principles for his own sake?)

He cold-called her at her home, therefore I've not much inclination to knock her about this incident. There were other incidents, of course, but I've always discounted this one. The same thing happened to Nathaniel Branden about 37 years ago. I discounted that too respecting a negative for her.

This personal stuff as time goes on should be much less important to newbies than to those as myself with direct experience with those people and events now decades past and gone. "The Break" of '68 was very traumatic to almost all of us. It was akin to an explosion ripping through our lives. It was also inevitable and necessary for there was something very wrong while also very right if not necessary about that Objectivist culture put out by NBI, Rand and her books. As a snake sheds its skin to grow so too Objectivism, but it didn't, only people did--if they did.

--Brant

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Exactly. And would someone who assesses the degree of respect they deserve to be healthy subject themselves to disrespect just to gain someone elses favor? (Hint: Would Ayn Rand have done that?)

Maybe, it depends on their value hierarchy.

Would Rand do it? Rand wasn't very concerned with currying favor with anyone so I doubt she would.

And what I'm asserting is that there is no one alive who *gaining favor with* is objectively a higher value than *ones own self respect*. This is my contention.

Aren't there? You may argue whether it is good or not for someone to sacrifice self-respect for someone else's favor, but to say that no one holds "favor" as a higher value than self-respect is a little far fetched. There are plenty of people who may temporarily sacrifice self-respect for "favor".

Context is vital when judging someone else's values.

[Serapis Bey]

Kacy, I think you are conflating the concepts "respect from others" vs. "self-respect". They're related of course, but it is still useful to keep the distinction in mind.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As to the substance of this thread, I'm not on board with Rand's rudeness to people of good will.

It's not a good side of her.

But grumpiness is not a fatal sin.

I've known some hard-core ciminals--actual killers--who were rude like that. Rand was a pussycat by comparison.

Even with her, I've learned that the best thing to do with people who have a bug up their rear end is to keep a distance. You can't always do that, but if you have your own stuff to do, it's silly to let yourself get sucked into their story. That will only consume your time, energy and serenity over nothing.

Michael

[KacyRay]

This is a new "improvement" from the forum software upgrade. (Long story...)

To work around it, after you push the quote button, turn the WYSIWYG editor off (see an image of how to do that here). You'll have to copy the open and close tags for each block of the quote you want to respond to, but at least it works. Then you can turn the WYSIWYG editor back on before you post just to make sure everything is in order.

Michael

Ah, thanks! Much better.

[KacyRay]

He cold-called her at her home, therefore I've not much inclination to knock her about this incident. There were other incidents, of course, but I've always discounted this one. The same thing happened to Nathaniel Branden about 37 years ago. I discounted that too respecting a negative for her.

Okay, then maybe the Machan example isn't the finest, but I'm less concerned with his example than with the overall point - that toleration of disrespect for the sake of seeking social pittances from someone else is a self-destructive act. I haven't yet heard an argument attempting to discredit this proposition. Instead what I'm hearing is "Well, maybe self-respect isn't as important to everyone as it is to some." And that may be true, but I am also proposing that self-respect is value objectively greater than any value gained by the approval of anyone else. And I'm using Rand as an example of someone who exemplified that.

Sadly, while she serves as a prime example of someone who valued their own self-respect supremely, well above the value of anyone elses approval (which is very much right), she also refused to grant a degree of respect to anyone who did not fit her mold (which is very much wrong).

This personal stuff as time goes on should be much less important to newbies than to those as myself with direct experience with those people and events now decades past and gone. "The Break" of '68 was very traumatic to almost all of us. It was akin to an explosion ripping through our lives. It was also inevitable and necessary for there was something very wrong while also very right if not necessary about that Objectivist culture put out by NBI, Rand and her books. As a snake sheds its skin to grow so too Objectivism, but it didn't, only people did--if they did.

Principles and values are as important to us newbies as they are to you. The situation being used as an example may not be as personal to someone like me as it is to someone like you (and I fully appreciate your position), but the lessons to be extracted from it are actually quite important to me. I wouldn't be sitting here discussing them if they weren't.

I'm very surprised that no one else agrees that, "Yeah, no one's approval is worth tolerating disrespect from them." That seems to me like something most reasonable folks would agree on.

[KacyRay]

Kacy, I think you are conflating the concepts "respect from others" vs. "self-respect". They're related of course, but it is still useful to keep the distinction in mind.

Not at all. In fact, I havne't once referred to respect from others. Instead, I've been referring to seeking the approval of others".

To seek someone elses approval by tolerating disrespect from them (aside from being self-defeating) is irrational and indicates a manifest lack of self-respect. And when one fails to achieve that approval, it erodes what self-respect one does have to begin with.

[KacyRay]

So... can you give me a quick "Who's wh?" at OL? I gather that Michael Kelly is the forum owner. I assume no relation to David Kelley (last name spelled different, right?) Who are the admins? Is there already a pinned post that tells me all this?

[anthony]

I think this will link you straight to the post I'm referring to.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=60#entry1490

But my question is larger than just that story. Reading the stories in that thread, I find myself feeling extremely irritated at the way Rand allegedly treated people. I find it contemptable to fail to grant people a basic level of human decency and respect.

I mean, I get it. To a young intellectual, she was the equivalent of a rock star. And who doesn't wanna buddy up with a rock star, right? I realize that people would tolerate a lot in order to have that privledge. But is that privledge a rational value? More valuable than one's self-respect?

I just don't think so.

Yes: self-respect is numero uno. There's some balancing of respect for others, and their respect

for you - and if it's not forthcoming, it is necessary to walk away from. Before one begins

obsessing over why's and wherefore's. That's irrational. As is anything beyond one's control.

Not that they cease to exist, or that they are not worthy any longer. Separation of the person from their brilliant output, and how it can aid one, is key.

One of the best insights in this link to opinions of Ayn Rand, came from Robert Hessen

writing to Barbara: "It is time to separate her personality from her intellectual creations.

Indeed, it is something i believe she would have wished."

Well said.

I must say it endorses what I've been thinking a long while, but this came from someone who

knew her.

[Serapis Bey]

"Not at all. In fact, I havne't once referred to respect from others. Instead, I've been referring to seeking the approval of others".

Well, yes. You've been referring to "seeking the approval of others"...in the face of perceived disrespect from those selfsame others. (Is your issue, then, with "seeking approval" -- as such -- , or is it "putting up with bad behavior"? I thought it was the latter )

For instance, upthread Kyle said, "Self-respect can't be taken or given by anyone. It is gained only by one's assessment of one's self and actions."

You replied, "Exactly. And would someone who assesses the degree of respect they deserve to be healthy subject themselves to disrespect just to gain someone elses favor?"

You usage of "deserve" here suggests you are referring to the actions of OTHERS in relation to YOU, not your own self-respect. To repeat what Kyle said, "Self-respect can't be given or taken by anyone." Regardless of one's own self-concept, the unpredictability of life and people ensures we will always have curveballs thrown at as. To get bent out of shape everytime someone or something doesn't go as we decree it "should", is a recipe for a pinched and constrained existence.

That said, I think you are stacking the deck here when you characterize the issue as one of seeking "social pittance", "social alms", "currying favor","approval from others", etc. The example given seems to show Machan originally requested Rand's participation in a project of his. Later, he called her up simply to express his gratitude, out of a sense of magnanimity I suppose. In the case of questionners at Ford Hall forums, the individuals were seeking knowledge. These are all objective values being sought, values which benefit the seeker concretely. None of this should be characterized as some social-metaphysical "oooooh, like me! please please like me!" as you have done here.

I understand the overall point is not about Rand or Machan, so lets imagine a neutral situation where the same dynamic occurs. Take a man who has to work to support himself, but is supervised by some asshole middle manager. Let's say the middle manager is a power-tripping Tiny Tyrant who ameliorates his unhappiness by being a prick to his underlings. A common situation. Is it "altruism" as you put it, for the employee to bite his toungue and be a good boy, in order to keep his job, in order to be self-sufficient? That answer depends on who you ask. It's obvious that many many people continue to endure such disrespect for the sake of whatever values they deem worthwhile. On the other hand, I am sure there are individuals who would say, "take this job and shove it" and strike out on their own. That's because people are different and have different value heirarchies (not to mention, different circumstancial contexts). There is no "right" answer here. To attempt to derive a one-size-fits-all principle out of the chaos is not objectivity, it's intrincism.

[Brant Gaede]

 

This is a new "improvement" from the forum software upgrade. (Long story...)

To work around it, after you push the quote button, turn the WYSIWYG editor off (see an image of how to do that here). You'll have to copy the open and close tags for each block of the quote you want to respond to, but at least it works. Then you can turn the WYSIWYG editor back on before you post just to make sure everything is in order.

Michael

Ah, thanks! Much better.

Or do what I do and quote the whole damn thing only and not learn this crap.

It's not only that life is too short, but that crap is crap and the idiots who keep making these upgraded downgrades should go dig ditches instead.

--Brant

technology has to catch up to me; I'm not going backwards to it: the last time I did that was when I mastered the VCR

[Brant Gaede]

So... can you give me a quick "Who's wh?" at OL? I gather that Michael Kelly is the forum owner. I assume no relation to David Kelley (last name spelled different, right?) Who are the admins? Is there already a pinned post that tells me all this?

Michael is God and I'm Jesus. Keep that in your head and you won't go wrong on OL.

--Brant

tell all your friends

[KacyRay]

What do the $$$$'s over people's handles signify?

[Mikee]

What do the $$$$'s over people's handles signify?

Average number of drinks before posting.

[Brant Gaede]

He cold-called her at her home, therefore I've not much inclination to knock her about this incident. There were other incidents, of course, but I've always discounted this one. The same thing happened to Nathaniel Branden about 37 years ago. I discounted that too respecting a negative for her.

Okay, then maybe the Machan example isn't the finest, but I'm less concerned with his example than with the overall point - that toleration of disrespect for the sake of seeking social pittances from someone else is a self-destructive act. I haven't yet heard an argument attempting to discredit this proposition. Instead what I'm hearing is "Well, maybe self-respect isn't as important to everyone as it is to some." And that may be true, but I am also proposing that self-respect is value objectively greater than any value gained by the approval of anyone else. And I'm using Rand as an example of someone who exemplified that.

Sadly, while she serves as a prime example of someone who valued their own self-respect supremely, well above the value of anyone elses approval (which is very much right), she also refused to grant a degree of respect to anyone who did not fit her mold (which is very much wrong).

This personal stuff as time goes on should be much less important to newbies than to those as myself with direct experience with those people and events now decades past and gone. "The Break" of '68 was very traumatic to almost all of us. It was akin to an explosion ripping through our lives. It was also inevitable and necessary for there was something very wrong while also very right if not necessary about that Objectivist culture put out by NBI, Rand and her books. As a snake sheds its skin to grow so too Objectivism, but it didn't, only people did--if they did.

Principles and values are as important to us newbies as they are to you. The situation being used as an example may not be as personal to someone like me as it is to someone like you (and I fully appreciate your position), but the lessons to be extracted from it are actually quite important to me. I wouldn't be sitting here discussing them if they weren't.

I'm very surprised that no one else agrees that, "Yeah, no one's approval is worth tolerating disrespect from them." That seems to me like something most reasonable folks would agree on.

Oh, in regard to your last point, of course I agree. I don't think Rand's a good example, however. She and her life were much too complicated and good and bad examples of her behavior to others abound. But remember, approval is both acute and/or chronic. One doesn't express approval disrespectfully, so there might be a bait and switch going on. You can get approval trapped and become like an approval junkie putting up with disrespect, implicit and explicit, just to get another approval fix and to avoid being cut off from the approval tit by banishment. As long as you're not banished there is still some approval there. The problem is partially one's addiction. The dealer has different problems, one of them keeping the addicted addicted. Nevertheless, the addict is the consumer.

--Brant

each post containing a quote makes me do at least two edits because of this damn software (eleven--I'm going irrational, I know--here so far because I'm fighting the automatic formatting)

Edited February 14, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So... can you give me a quick "Who's wh?" at OL? I gather that Michael Kelly is the forum owner. I assume no relation to David Kelley (last name spelled different, right?) Who are the admins? Is there already a pinned post that tells me all this?

Kacy,

Kat and I own the forum.

I basically run it--sort of like a traffic cop. I try to make sure things are moving along and that nobody hogs the forum with excessive preaching, trolling, spam and so forth. No explicit porn, either..

There is no protection of Rand's honor or anything like that here. No adherence to a party line. For instance, we even have a few socialists who are interested in Rand who regularly post. (They're great people, too. They even put up with me. )

There is something that looks like an exception, but it's really not. I have a very soft spot for Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden. During the publication of Valliant's boneheaded book against them, a small group of true believers haunted everywhere on the Internet the Brandens were mentioned and flooded each place with snarky derogatory statements about them--reams and reams of convoluted, eye-glazing hair-splits to prove Rand was pure and the Brandens were contaminated. ("Moral hygiene" was even a popular phrase back then. But soapbox on a bubble is the image that comes to my mind. )

So I made a rule here that there was one place on the Internet--other than the Brandens' own sites--where that would not happen. It's OK to disagree with them, even criticize them if it's respectful. But no ham-handed character smears.

The reason I say this isn't an exception is that OL is not a vehicle for any ham-handed character smears of anyone. I just had to be extra-clear in this case because of the excessive enthusiasm of the zealots.

There are certain authors I believe should have a place to present their work before the targeted audience of OL, so I set up "Corners." Generally, these authors have moderating privileges within their respective Corners. Some are more tolerant of comments than others. Each decides according to his or her convenience.

Other than that, there is no hierarchy. People come and go as they please. My attitude is that what is good for each individual posting-wise is good for OL. So you won't see here the comical swan songs of people leaving and long threads of others begging them to stay that you can see elsewhere. It's either give and receive value, or the person is free to pursue a different audience and community elsewhere. Cliques and power games don't flourish well here.

We do have a group of regular posters and I love each one. But they are here by their own free choice. Just as I am, for that matter.

No peer pressure. No lockstep. People speak for themselves and no one speaks for "Objectivism" or Rand or anything resembling an organized ideological hierarchy. There are standards, of course. And there is flexibility.

Another point is that OL is not part of the "Objectivist movement," whatever the hell that is. It is not a place to preach, but instead, work through ideas. All of the regulars (and I believe a good portion of the lurkers) have come to Rand's ideas because of something in them that strongly resonated. However, each person brings a different history and a different context. Some people are faster and some are slower. Some are more abstract and some are more image and example oriented. Some are storytellers and others are science people. Some like to gossip and others... er... scratch that. EVERYONE likes to gossip.

Each person has something different to get out of the ideas, too. There is no law requiring that everyone go into the Rand sausage machine and come out a perfectly formed O-weiner at the other end.

I frame it like this. In most Internet places where Objevtivism is treated prominently, Objectivism and Rand are the end points. You go there to absorb the ideas (or bash them for the hostile sites)--to learn what is right and wrong according to authority figures--and interact with others who are doing the same.

Most of the discussions at these places have the subtext that Rand is right and her enemies are both wrong and evil. Or that Rand is wrong and her followers are pathetic deluded idiots, and the true authority is [FILL IN THE BLANK]. Two different flavors, but the same substance. Depending on the venue, this subtext even permeates the words "and" and "if."

Here on OL, Objectivism and Rand are starting points. We are attracted to each other because we have a common interest that has impacted our lives in varying degrees of importance, but each person's life and goals are the end points--for them. People determine their values, not a philosophy. Mutual respect for these differences is the only way I have found to make a rich form of interaction and growth work.

If independent thinking is the major frame, then working through ideas is a messy experience, not a neat and tidy one commanded from on high. And OL is a place where we foster independent thinking. What's the use of truth if you have to blind part of your mind to see it? So messy it is--within reason, of course.

When things get too messy and the mess starts hogging the virtual thoroughfares, I step in. But ask around. That's pretty rare. And even then, there's a lot of flexibility. Before I ban or moderate, I generally throw someone's crap in the Garbage Pile and say what's wrong with it. And I try to be open to correction if I screw up.

I personally believe that an independent mind seeking enlightenment through honest, first-hand, personal initiative, even when wrong, is the most precious thing on earth.

That's what OL is all about.

Michael