Have I Been Excommunicated/Unpersoned?

[Jonathan]

I wanted to let fellow OL members know that Stephen Boydstun appears to have had another hissy fit and has deleted material in his "corner" once again. You might remember that a couple of years ago he deleted posts, without warning, on his "Moral and Esthetic Value" thread, which were written by Dragonfly and by me. At the time, Stephen was enraged that Dragonfly had disagreed with his ideas on beauty and harmony in art, and that he had posted example images in Stephen's virtual "living room" that Stephen didn't like. My posts were also deleted simply because I expressed agreement with Dragonfly's position and perplexity at Stephen's uptight reaction.

The thread had become active again lately, and now Stephen has deleted it in its entirety. Again, without warning, and without explanation. My posts are gone, along with those of anyone else who posted (I don't remember who else may have posted on the thread recently other than George).

I sent a private message to Stephen asking him about it, but have received no response, and apparently he has put me on "ignore" (my messenger page says that Stephen has "left the conversation," and I no longer have the option of sending him private messages). I can't begin to imagine what I might have done which would make him so upset with me that he can't even offer an explanation, or what would make him so pissed off that he'd put me on ignore. After all, I was contributing substantive content to the thread, including bringing up issues that Stephen had thanked me for and said that he was going to be addressing in future parts of his essays.

So, WTF? And consider yourselves warned. Any content that you contribute to his "corner" could disappear at whim.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I'd guess, but don't know, that Stephen primarily posts in his corner by way of self-publishing, not the feedback so much. I'm sure he has retained at least his material as files on his computer. It's his corner, afterall. If he didn't have it I'd imagine he'd hardly ever come here. He may want to rewrite or significantly recast his material. The only two well used corners I'm aware of are his and George's. George couldn't care less(?) and Stephen couldn't care more(?) about how a thread of theirs comes down respecting others postings. (George loves a fight. I don't get into fights with George because I respect expertise respecting political philosophy and its history and his knowledge is way beyond mine. I refuse to be stupid with my ignorance, but I want to know more and George can be a one-stop store. George, BTW, is a faux bully. If anyone thinks he is one there's just a misunderstanding of what's going on.)

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

You already know this, but just so new readers are aware:

You are an esteemed member of OL.

Stephen is an esteemed member of OL.

I personally love you both.

When I set up Stephen's corner, I assigned him (as with all authors who have corners) the liberty to run it as he sees fit. That includes deleting stuff.

As for me, I would never delete something by you (or him, or anyone for that matter) without first discussing it, finding out what the problem was, clarifying policy, making warnings, etc.

I hope this blows over soon. You are both great guys.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I'd guess, but don't know, that Stephen primarily posts in his corner by way of self-publishing, not the feedback so much.

If a person were interested in using his corner only for self-publishing, and he didn't want feedback, he could close his threads or ask that others not post on them, no? All of the corners contain the description "Friendly discussions of X's work." If that's not true in Stephen's corner, perhaps he should come up with a description that clearly communicates his intentions and expectations for his corner.

I'm sure he has retained at least his material as files on his computer. It's his corner, afterall. If he didn't have it I'd imagine he'd hardly ever come here. He may want to rewrite or significantly recast his material.

Great. More power to him if he wants to rewrite or recast his material. But is there some reason that common courtesy can't be practiced in the form of an announcement that the material will be removed, and why? If we were in Stephen's real living room, and we saw him throwing out not only the dinner that he had burned but the wine that I had brought and the canapés that you had prepared, then he disappeared into his bedroom and locked the door, would you call him a considerate host?

George, BTW, is a faux bully. If anyone thinks he is one there's just a misunderstanding of what's going on.

I've never seen George as a bully. He doesn't draw first blood.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

You already know this, but just so new readers are aware:

You are an esteemed member of OL.

Stephen is an esteemed member of OL.

I personally love you both.

I love you too, bro, and I like and respect Stephen.

When I set up Stephen's corner, I assigned him (as with all authors who have corners) the liberty to run it as he sees fit. That includes deleting stuff.

As for me, I would never delete something by you (or him, or anyone for that matter) without first discussing it, finding out what the problem was, clarifying policy, making warnings, etc.

That's all that I'm asking.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Get thee to a nunnery, GO!

--Brant

[Selene]

Get thee to a nunnery, GO!

--Brant

If he does he may have a problem "kicking the habit!"

[PDS]

You may have been excommunicated, but I don't think you've been unpersoned.

You still seem very much like a person to me.

I hope Stephen realizes how comical this might seem to someone on the outside looking in.

[PDS]

Get thee to a nunnery, GO!

--Brant

If he does he may have a problem "kicking the habit!"

Best not to kick at all, let alone to the soft area nether region of the habit.

Kicks are highly overrated in close quarters. But then again, I am kenpo/krav maga guy.

I have found, when attacked by nuns in the past, that it is best to "fight on the inside". They are most vulnerable to a ridge hand to the temple, with maybe an eye gouge (except for those who wear thick eye glasses), followed by a foot sweep of some kind. Once on the ground, a hammer fist or a palm heel shot of some kind is usually in order...you know, to finish things off properly.

[Selene]

Get thee to a nunnery, GO!

--Brant

If he does he may have a problem "kicking the habit!"

Best not to kick at all, let alone to the soft area nether region of the habit.

Kicks are highly overrated in close quarters. But then again, I am kenpo/krav maga guy.

I have found, when attacked by nuns in the past, that it is best to "fight on the inside". They are most vulnerable to a ridge hand to the temple, with maybe an eye gouge (except for those who wear thick eye glasses), followed by a foot sweep of some kind. Once on the ground, a hammer fist or a palm heel shot of some kind is usually in order...you know, to finish things off properly.

Excellent approach.

However, don't they rise from the dead on the third day? Or, is that just reserved for the guys? Sexists!

[Jonathan]

I have found, when attacked by nuns in the past, that it is best to "fight on the inside". They are most vulnerable to a ridge hand to the temple, with maybe an eye gouge (except for those who wear thick eye glasses), followed by a foot sweep of some kind. Once on the ground, a hammer fist or a palm heel shot of some kind is usually in order...you know, to finish things off properly.

That sounds fun, but there's really no need for all of that. Back in CCD class I discovered that the best way to deal with attacking nuns was to focus on their specific weaknesses, and they have two: The first is general physical weakness. They're out of shape. When it comes to bullying, they talk the talk, but they really can't walk the walk. The second is that they're mean, and that's not very Christian. So the weapons that you use against them are endurance and shame. When a nun slaps you, you have to get over the bluff of it -- the psychological surprise -- and foucs on recognizing that it didn't really hurt at all. Then you just sit there and take it, letting her see that she's having no effect. When she reaches the point of beathing hard from wearing herself out, you exploit her second weakness by calmly asking, "Is that what Jesus would do? Slap people around?"

J

[PDS]

Get thee to a nunnery, GO!

--Brant

If he does he may have a problem "kicking the habit!"

Best not to kick at all, let alone to the soft area nether region of the habit.

Kicks are highly overrated in close quarters. But then again, I am kenpo/krav maga guy.

I have found, when attacked by nuns in the past, that it is best to "fight on the inside". They are most vulnerable to a ridge hand to the temple, with maybe an eye gouge (except for those who wear thick eye glasses), followed by a foot sweep of some kind. Once on the ground, a hammer fist or a palm heel shot of some kind is usually in order...you know, to finish things off properly.

Excellent approach.

However, don't they rise from the dead on the third day? Or, is that just reserved for the guys? Sexists!

Oft-times, when on the ground, they try to turn the other cheek in your direction...

[PDS]

I have found, when attacked by nuns in the past, that it is best to "fight on the inside". They are most vulnerable to a ridge hand to the temple, with maybe an eye gouge (except for those who wear thick eye glasses), followed by a foot sweep of some kind. Once on the ground, a hammer fist or a palm heel shot of some kind is usually in order...you know, to finish things off properly.

That sounds fun, but there's really no need for all of that. Back in CCD class I discovered that the best way to deal with attacking nuns was to focus on their specific weaknesses, and they have two: The first is general physical weakness. They're out of shape. When it comes to bullying, they talk the talk, but they really can't walk the walk. The second is that they're mean, and that's not very Christian. So the weapons that you use against them are endurance and shame. When a nun slaps you, you have to get over the bluff of it -- the psycholoical surprise -- and foucs on recognizing that it didn't really hurt at all. Then you just sit there and take it, letting her see that she's having no effect. When she reaches the point of beathing hard from wearing herself out, you exploit her second weakness by saying, "Is that what Jesus would do? Slap people around?"

J

Don't forget Jonathan: Jesus reminded you to love your enemies; he didn't say not to have any. Sometimes, a little "tough love" requires a good slap.

Just ask Adam!

[Jonathan]

Do you know what's black and white and red all over, and can't turn around in hallways?

[Selene]

Do you know what's black and white and red all over, and can't turn around in hallways?

A nun falling down the stairs with razor blades?

[Jonathan]

That's pretty good, but no, it's a nun with a spear through her head.

[Brant Gaede]

Say something funny someone please!

--Brant

[Leonid]

It seems that whole topic has been deleted. I respect Stephen Boydstun very much and I think that if he did so he has his reasons.

[Jonathan]

It seems that whole topic has been deleted. I respect Stephen Boydstun very much and I think that if he did so he has his reasons.

Whatever you do, don't ask him about his reasons. They're apparently a secret, and being asked about them appears to make Stephen extremely angry.

J

[Jonathan]

Stephen's gotten his panties in a bundle once again. On the "Introducing the Stepen Boydstun Corner" thread, I responded to Roger's post #13:

Roger,

The Objectivist notion of objective judgment is that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following logic and reason using a clearly identified objective standard. If you're claiming that judgments of beauty are objective, please prove it by clearly identifying the objective standards that you use in judging beauty, and explain the process of employing logic and reason that you follow when making judgments of beauty.

Stephen then replied by posting nothing but a link to this post of mine:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13126#entry179654

I replied by asking Stephen if he was implying that my panties were in a bundle. I calmly and politely assured him that my question to Roger was not based in emotion, that I was not in the least upset about Roger's statement, and that I was responding with nothing but a dispassionate, substantive line of questioning which gets to the core of the issue at hand.

Stephen then deleted my posts. Like Comrade Sonia, he seems to react very emotionally to rational arguments that he doesn't like or want to hear. He gets his panties in such a bundle that he censors such arguments rather than responding to them.

Ayn Rand Brand™ panties. Guaranteed to bundle and twist so severely that you'll lose circulation to your brain and act purely on emotion. All while insisting that it is others who have their panties in a bundle, and that you're being very intellectually mature and rational. Order a pair today!

J

[Brant Gaede]

It seems obvious that Stephen considers you an antagonist. Some have no toleration for your type of abrasive approach, whatever the reason. Tibor Machan is another. I don't think Stephen would post here if at all without the editorial power he gets from his Corner. I simply don't care if he deletes anything I write there for my posts tend to be very short and I'd simply repost anything of genius elsewhere on OL. Hasn't happened yet--not the deletion or the other stuff. Now if he were a moderator of OL generally--or someone else--I'd not even be here. You won't find me on O-O.

Now esthetics belongs to esthetics, just like psychology belongs to psychology. The fact one can make objective (true) statements or representations of these subjects--just like in science--doesn't mean esthetics are part of the Objectivist philosophy in spite of anything Rand wrote or said on the subject however interesting and objective. The further one gets from the axiomatic statements the further one objectively gets from absolutism in the philosophy's real-life practical applications, but not Rand who reveled in absolutism and certainty. She greatly avoided this problem in the politics by not spending all that much time there. There is no formally stated Objectivist Politics labled as such, unlike The Objectivist Ethics. It's all a matter of those two Objectivisms I keep referring to: Objectivism and Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. You and Stephen seem to be in two different worlds here.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

It seems obvious that Stephen considers you an antagonist.

Technically, I'm just the messenger. Stephen's true antagonist is reality.

Some have no toleration for your type of abrasive approach, whatever the reason.

Are you saying that the following is abrasive?

Roger,

The Objectivist notion of objective judgment is that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following logic and reason using a clearly identified objective standard. If you're claiming that judgments of beauty are objective, please prove it by clearly identifying the objective standards that you use in judging beauty, and explain the process of employing logic and reason that you follow when making judgments of beauty.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could find the above to be abrasive.

Tibor Machan is another.

I thought that Tibor had a very high tolerance for abrasiveness. That or he can be a bit unaware of his surroundings. I remember that several of us questioned or made fun of the fact that he was still posting at SOLO and tolerating Pigero's abuse long after everyone else had left.

I don't think Stephen would post here if at all without the editorial power he gets from his Corner.

I get the same impression. Like a lot of Objectivish types, Stephen appears to have appointed himself to a certain status of authority. He will accept praise, and he will field easy quesions, but not difficult ones. Difficult questions are apparently rude and abrasive. Like Comrade Sonia, Stephen demands a one-way relationship: He is to teach, and we are to learn.

I simply don't care if he deletes anything I write there for my posts tend to be very short and I'd simply repost anything of genius elsewhere on OL.

I'm not complaining about Stephen so much as spotlighing his behavior. Don't you find it odd and interesting? Nothing could be more relevant to the topic of judgments of beauty than my comments to Roger, yet Stephen wishes to evade them by attempting to erase them from existence.

Hasn't happened yet--not the deletion or the other stuff. Now if he were a moderator of OL generally--or someone else--I'd not even be here. You won't find me on O-O.

Yes, many of the people at OO share the mindset that they are to teach and others are to learn. To them, people are being abrasive and getting their panties in a bundle if they dare to disagree with the authorities and intellectual giants at OO and inform them of anything that they didn't know, or to ask any questions that they can't answer.

Now esthetics belongs to esthetics, just like psychology belongs to psychology. The fact one can make objective (true) statements or representations of these subjects--just like in science--doesn't mean esthetics are part of the Objectivist philosophy in spite of anything Rand wrote or said on the subject however interesting and objective.

I disagree, and I think we've had this discussion before. I think that the Obectivist Esthetics is a part of the Objectivist philosophy. In a way, it's the starting point of the philosophy. Where Objectivism doesn't have answers, but only overconfident assertions, it's really just offering up an aesthetic view that hasn't been fleshed out with proof. (In some cases, proof will eventually be discovered, in others, not.)

J

[Guyau]

.

Guy who posted this is guy not welcome in my Corner. Keep out of that one. Plenty of other space here.

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, J, you are very abrasive. I can understand why it doesn't seem that way to you. I can understand how the way I write may offend some without my being actually self-aware of it. As for teaching it isn't that some are here to teach and some aren't for there are differing ratios between teaching and learning in all of us varying item to item or subject to subject. And I can think of one not-yet-mentioned poster who disingenuously pretends to want to learn but is only trolling. There is another troll just shovelling it on disingenuously pretending to teach. Neither has the ratio I mentioned. They're just antagonists.

--Brant

Stephen doesn't have to put up with you nor you with him and that is what you are both doing--this is the nature of freedom on the personal level and in the context of OL his Corner is his corner

[Jonathan]

Yes, J, you are very abrasive.

I didn't ask if I'm abrasive. I asked if my comment to Roger was abrasive. Obviously it was not abrasive. Stephen simply doesn't like the substance of that comment. He wants to wish it out of existence.

J