Why I am here.

[Jonathan]

And let's not forget Newbsie either. He doesn't think for himself. He's Ayn's little bitch. But he doesn't post here regularly anymore. He has flounced, and then come back, only to flounce again. Perhaps he's permanently gone?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, dldelancey said:

No, not at all.  Not to everyone.

Deanna,

Ah, come on...

This guy ain't coming back.

He came here to look at Randian subhumans, rubes and freaks. Except, being online and all, even though the zoo had bars on the cages, some of the animals (like me) looked scary and frightened him. He's gone to greener pastures with abundant wagging tails.

Since you like him, if he ever comes back, I promise to try a little harder to swallow his condescension with more grace.

There.

Satisfied?

  

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

And let's not forget Newbsie either. He doesn't think for himself. He's Ayn's little bitch. But he doesn't post here regularly anymore. He has flounced, and then come back, only to flounce again. Perhaps he's permanently gone?

J

Gone with the flounce.

--Brant

Screen rights, anyone? 

[Peter]

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This guy ain't coming back.

edit

[Peter]

9 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Except for Tony.

J

Tony is a righteous dude.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

Tony is a righteous dude.

Peter,

Agreed.

And so are you.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

20 hours ago, dldelancey said:

No, not at all.  Not to everyone.

He sounds like a kid to me, just starting out intellectually. I was surprised at the immediate and strong attacks on him, which made me think he had to be a recognized and returning known bad actor or some great threat I just wasn’t recognizing. Now that I understand he was not a recognized returning bad actor I do find his shotguns-emptied-on-a-mouse reception here to be rather bizarre.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Now that I understand he was not a recognized returning bad actor I do find his shotguns-emptied-on-a-mouse reception here to be rather bizarre.

Jon,

Well, we can't have bizarreness, can we?

So let me help make this more understandable.

Here'e the opening post.

On 8/31/2019 at 11:01 AM, phantom000 said:

Let me begin with a simple statement. I am not an objectivist. I do not consider myself a objectivist because I have trouble agreeing with Rand on several points. I will be the first to admit that I have not made an exhaustive study of her writings, nor am I a philosophy major. Speaking for myself, however, and what I have read of her work, it seems to range from naive to foolish. Some of it is just confusing, but I did not study philosophy so that might be why.

So why then am I on a forum dedicated to a philosophy I personally do not subscribe to. The simplest answer is that I am trying to 'practice what I preach.'

In the words of a certain general...

So here I am, trying to draw wisdom from a new source. Ayn Rand, in what I have read of her work, does have some good points, but she also seems to have just as many bad points. I also do not believe in the idea that any system, political, philosophical, economic or whatever, must be accepted or rejected in its totality. I think one can find wisdom in objectivism without being an objectivist, just as someone could find wisdom in collectivism without being a collectivist.

I could go a lot deeper than what I am going to do here, but just a few comments on this guy's opening post should suffice. Before I start, take a look at the threads in the Meet And Greet Section. In almost all of them I offer a very warm welcome, praise OL members, and make some friendly banter.

Most people who post on that thread like to tell us something about themselves. Let's see what this guy tells us about himself:

1. He's not an objectivist (lower case "o"), nor could he ever consider himself one. 

2. He is not very familiar with Rand's writings, nor is he deep into philosophy, but he thinks Rand's ideas range "from naive to foolish." However, some of them are just confusing. But that might be on him.

3. He wants to practice what he preaches by coming to OL.

4. To explain that, he provides a huge comic book-like graphic implying that people who study one thing only--like he thinks we do here on OL--become rigid and stale. With the guru dude pointing his finger in admonition and all.

5. Despite him thinking Rand naive to foolish (and confusing), he thinks she has some good points and "just as many bad points."

6. He does not believe in accepting or rejecting any system in totality.

7. He thinks wisdom can be found just as much in objectivism as in collectivism without being a proponent of either.

 

Everything he said is a criticism--overt or implied--of what he thinks we are and think here on OL. There is nothing about him.

Does he play the cello? Who knows? Chess? Total blank. Is he into science? Nothing. Sex? Who knows? Is he a student? Nada. Civil servant or factory worker or academic? Big fat zero. Where did he hear about Rand? Zilch. What does he agree with in Rand's writing? Or disagree with for that matter? Damned if anyone knows. But he knows for sure her writing is naive to foolish.

I could go on, but I've been doing this forum stuff for years. When someone makes a come-on out of the gate like that, saying everything about you but nothing about themselves, they turn out to be one gigantic headache. Don't we already have enough headaches among our insiders? Do you think we need more?  

Well, let's look at it from a different angle. Maybe I overreacted. Could this guy have been an exception? Who knows? Maybe. I have yet to see one like him be an exception, but I admit the possibility--remote possibility, but still possibility. However, I was under an extreme amount of stress at the time, so I just didn't have the patience to test whether a new dog will bark or not. I used my experience of seeing a whole bunch of dogs bark in the past, and I just assumed the new one will bark, too.

btw - I did not attack him. Go back and read what I wrote. I gave him constructive feedback. Maybe a bit coldly, but not with hostility. Let's call it dog training.  

Still, I stopped and went friendly.

On 8/31/2019 at 8:53 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

P,

Now we're off to a better start.

I generally open with, "Hello." Or something like that.

btw - Hello.

Michael

My friendly post ended up being test enough. And guess what? It wasn't enough for this guy to engage further except to ask, disbelievingly, if he really came off the way I said. Then poof. Gone. So I stand by my evaluation that he would have become a gigantic headache--nay, pain in the ass--had I followed his lead.

I also got a private OL message back then from a female I've never heard of bashing me for "back and forth." I don't know if she was a friend or whatever of his, and she didn't even mention what she was talking about on OL, so it might have been simply a weird message out of nowhere. I suspect it was someone known to him, though. Timing and all.

For the record, I don't mind the innocence of youth and their sporadic stomps on their own dongs. God knows I've had my own share. But that was not what this guy was about.

You may disagree, but hopefully, my behavior is no longer bizarre to you.

Also, since I seriously doubt he will be back, I get to have some fun. And if he does come back, it will be even more fun.

    

Michael

[dldelancey]

He's a child or else a very young adult.  The graphic is General Iroh from Avatar: the Last Airbender an anime series that ran from 2005-2008 and is still popular today.  The hand gesture Iroh is making is likely part of a kata as he often imparted wisdom to his grandson while they trained together.  My 15-year-old and I loved that series and quote from it on a semi-regular basis. 

The very next line after the graphic, our mystery poster says, "So here I am, trying to draw wisdom from a new source."

I read him in the same way I would have read my teenage son - more mature and smarter than average, but an awkward communicator and not sure how to convey that he wants to learn something while maintaining that he knows everything.  You know, like a kid would do.

Your experience, MSK, led you to read him differently, and you'll get no judgment from me on that, neither in my response to the poster nor in this response to you.  However, I was compelled to answer honestly his honest inquiry.  No, I did not get the same impression of him as others did.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, dldelancey said:

Your experience, MSK, led you to read him differently, and you'll get no judgment from me on that, neither in my response to the poster nor in this response to you.

Deanna,

Thank you.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Well, we can't have bizarreness, can we?

So let me help make this more understandable.

Here'e the opening post.

I could go a lot deeper than what I am going to do here, but just a few comments on this guy's opening post should suffice. Before I start, take a look at the threads in the Meet And Greet Section. In almost all of them I offer a very warm welcome, praise OL members, and make some friendly banter.

Most people who post on that thread like to tell us something about themselves. Let's see what this guy tells us about himself:

1. He's not an objectivist (lower case "o"), nor could he ever consider himself one. 

2. He is not very familiar with Rand's writings, nor is he deep into philosophy, but he thinks Rand's ideas range "from naive to foolish." However, some of them are just confusing. But that might be on him.

3. He wants to practice what he preaches by coming to OL.

4. To explain that, he provides a huge comic book-like graphic implying that people who study one thing only--like he thinks we do here on OL--become rigid and stale. With the guru dude pointing his finger in admonition and all.

5. Despite him thinking Rand naive to foolish (and confusing), he thinks she has some good points and "just as many bad points."

6. He does not believe in accepting or rejecting any system in totality.

7. He thinks wisdom can be found just as much in objectivism as in collectivism without being a proponent of either.

 

Everything he said is a criticism--overt or implied--of what he thinks we are and think here on OL. There is nothing about him.

Does he play the cello? Who knows? Chess? Total blank. Is he into science? Nothing. Sex? Who knows? Is he a student? Nada. Civil servant or factory worker or academic? Big fat zero. Where did he hear about Rand? Zilch. What does he agree with in Rand's writing? Or disagree with for that matter? Damned if anyone knows. But he knows for sure her writing is naive to foolish.

I could go on, but I've been doing this forum stuff for years. When someone makes a come-on out of the gate like that, saying everything about you but nothing about themselves, they turn out to be one gigantic headache. Don't we already have enough headaches among our insiders? Do you think we need more?  

Well, let's look at it from a different angle. Maybe I overreacted. Could this guy have been an exception? Who knows? Maybe. I have yet to see one like him be an exception, but I admit the possibility--remote possibility, but still possibility. However, I was under an extreme amount of stress at the time, so I just didn't have the patience to test whether a new dog will bark or not. I used my experience of seeing a whole bunch of dogs bark in the past, and I just assumed the new one will bark, too.

btw - I did not attack him. Go back and read what I wrote. I gave him constructive feedback. Maybe a bit coldly, but not with hostility. Let's call it dog training.  

Still, I stopped and went friendly.

My friendly post ended up being test enough. And guess what? It wasn't enough for this guy to engage further except to ask, disbelievingly, if he really came off the way I said. Then poof. Gone. So I stand by my evaluation that he would have become a gigantic headache--nay, pain in the ass--had I followed his lead.

I also got a private OL message back then from a female I've never heard of bashing me for "back and forth." I don't know if she was a friend or whatever of his, and she didn't even mention what she was talking about on OL, so it might have been simply a weird message out of nowhere. I suspect it was someone known to him, though. Timing and all.

For the record, I don't mind the innocence of youth and their sporadic stomps on their own dongs. God knows I've had my own share. But that was not what this guy was about.

You may disagree, but hopefully, my behavior is no longer bizarre to you.

Also, since I seriously doubt he will be back, I get to have some fun. And if he does come back, it will be even more fun.

    

Michael

I really am sorry, but you made the effort to write the above so I feel I should give an honest response.

It is just some socially awkward kid and your and other responses were beyond bizarre. Peter no doubt believes I am the reason more are not here at OL, trying to have conversations!  It’s bizarre and comical and sad and much more, too.

And it’s ok. I still like you. Not Peter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - Just for the record (this is for readers), nobody I know of around here thinks Ayn Rand's ideas range from naive to foolish.

According to some around here, that was just some kid mouthing off.

And whoever thinks otherwise, well, that's just bizarre, nay, so much more.

 

OK... An awkward kid... Could be...

It would be nice to know his age and condition of awkwardness. If I have stepped in it, of course I will be gracious should an opportunity arise. But for now, since all is speculation, things are what they are.

btw - My stepson is on the autistic spectrum. I have become a kind of expert in awkward communication. What's worse, I now speak the language fluently.  Sean told Kat once I know how he thinks better than anyone else. For as much as one can, I believe I do. Makes me think I'm lightly on the autistic spectrum, too.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... I was under an extreme amount of stress at the time...

For further context, outside of that stress, the new members who signed up prior to Phantom and engaged with folks were William's meatballs. They came here to teach us rubes all about the truthy true science of climate change and when I banned one for excessive snark right out of the gate, he bragged to his peeps on Twitter about vanquishing his first enemy or something like that.  

Add that to three years of daily "Muh Russians!" hoax in the news and online (and all the other fake news crap), and it's easy to get touchy about the intentions of newcomers who communicate as poorly as this one did.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, dldelancey said:

... to answer honestly his honest inquiry.

 

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

... I should give an honest response... 

What's all this honesty business all of a sudden?

Has that become the exception that suddenly needs emphasis for correct identification?

Do people write and respond dishonestly as their norm?

Harrumph!

Honestly!

   

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It would be nice to know his age and condition of awkwardness. If I have stepped in it, of course I will be gracious should an opportunity arise. But for now, since all is speculation, things are what they are.

On August 31 (on page 1), "Phantom000" wrote - bold emphasis added:

Quote

 (Oh I love this! It's like being back in English Composition. I write a statement to convey something and when you show me how far off I was I have to go back and rework it to get closer to my actual meaning. It's kinda Socratic in a way.)

I have this habit of trying to imagine a conversation before it actually happens. In the case of writing, trying to see through my readers' eyes and how they would respond, what questions they will be asking. This probably got reinforced as I was working on my Bachelor's of Arts in Journalism. My instructor told me that when you conduct an interview for a news story you are standing in for your audience asking the questions that they can't. So a good reporter has to get into the minds of their audience and anticipate what concerns they will have.

One reason I enjoy posting on forums like this is it makes me think long and hard about what I am going to write. Although I suppose I am not thinking long or hard enough...

If he has a B.A. in Journalism, he isn't a teenage kid.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

If he has a B.A. in Journalism, he isn't a teenage kid.

Ellen,

How on earth did I miss that?

Bizarre, huh?

So, based on his approach, maybe he's studying for a degree in Fake News.

 

Thanks for the find.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

That prof was full of Peter Keating shit.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So, based on his approach, maybe he's studying for a degree in Fake News.

I had a similar thought, that he's a candidate for a Fake News team - if even they want someone so poor at communicating.

 

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

That prof was full of Peter Keating shit.

--Brant

He isn't a "prof," just a college graduate.

He was nebulous in his first post as to whether he was still in college or had finished undergraduate work:

Quote

I have not made an exhaustive study of her writings, nor am I a philosophy major. Speaking for myself, however, and what I have read of her work, it seems to range from naive to foolish. Some of it is just confusing, but I did not study philosophy so that might be why.

"...nor am I a philosophy major" indicates someone still in college.  "I did not study philosophy" indicates someone who's finished college.  The "B.A." degree  affirms the latter.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Note that we're all assuming a "he."

The poster does sound male to me - from  more subtle signs than I want to try to explain.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

29 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Note that we're all assuming a "he."

The poster does sound male to me - from  more subtle signs than I want to try to explain.

Ellen,

Including the bearded old-man image and the sheer size of the comic in relation to the post text. That kind of emphasis smacks of male and hits the underbelly of the mind.

Apropos, we can have some more fun.

Anybody have an idea for new text? I scaled the image down a bit to keep it from being overbearing, but if we get something good and funny, I will make it happen.

Here is my suggestion, which is not all that good. But it serves as an example.

Upper blurb: It is important to identify correctly before judging.
Lower blurb: If we only see the story in our head, our eyes become rigid and stale.

     

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

If he has a B.A. in Journalism, he isn't a teenage kid.

 

19 hours ago, dldelancey said:

He's a child or else a very young adult.
. . .
You know, like a kid would do.

Deanna,

Do you still believe he's just a kid?

I'm not asking out of hostility. It's the identify correctly to judge correctly thing.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

Yeah, because our point rested entirely on his precise age, not his obvious awkwardness and general immaturity.

You guys are all being severely fucking weird if you ask me, and you look like assholes, but carry on ,..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Yeah, because our point rested entirely on his precise age, not his obvious awkwardness and general immaturity.

Jon,

And of course being bullied, right? That's the subtext everyone is responding to.

And that's rich coming from you. Since when do you stand up for social justice warriors, anyway?

Talk about weird and bizarre.

You wanna do tough-guy talk, tough guy?

Here's some tough talk.

Tone it down. I mean it.

My patience is wearing thin.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

He isn't a "prof," just a college graduate.  

I was referring to his "instructor."

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Jon likes to plant them so he can harvest them. Sorta like "Motel Hell." This guy didn't get planted.

--Brant