Why do we need to be polite

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim; Do you understand what the problem we have with Lindsay is? I agree that more exciting speakers would be a great idea but I don't want to feel being attacked.

I understand your perspective. I think people should see the whole program before making an up or down decision and announcing what they are going to do. More information is better.

Jim

[Newberry]

Jonathan chased Michael Newberry away...

Jim

Jim,

Oh, it is nothing like that.

It's the rest of you.

Taken for granted is not the exact idea but close. Here, on my site, in my studio I open up the world of art--of passion, independence, vision--carving out my own path. When it is the arts, and it's benevolent in nature, it is simply a gift from me for you to contemplate, experience, and perhaps learn from. That is the nature of art.

What do I get in return? A shining achievement that I can admire, which gives me a wonderful sense of living in my world? A brilliant, hard working person who gives me this and collects my work with pride? Like Ciro, Stephen Hicks, or Ginnie for example. That is the greatest interaction I have with friends. From there, different levels of respect come through but opinions online are closer to having less and less real value, especially when they descend into ravings or silence.

Peter Cresswell posted this:

"Integrity is loyalty to one's convictions

and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one's values,

of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality."

- Ayn Rand.

Integrity: Some have it, most don't. Sadly, that's life.

That becomes it in nutshell. Most of the online posters want their posts to transcend their actions in practical reality. And they spend a great deal of time and energy trying to re-figure integrity to mean what they say and not what they do. Read all the people that want credit for fields outside their work! Gosh that list is huge! Starting with Perigo, I bet we could get to a 100 in a flash. What do I have to gain from that? Zero.

A benevolent humanity will move forward by people who do. As far as what they say matches that, it's icing on the cake.

Best wishes for a productive 2008.

Bye for now,

Michael

[cjsmall]

Jim; Do you understand what the problem we have with Lindsay is? I agree that more exciting speakers would be a great idea but I don't want to feel being attacked.

Exactly. Lindsay has been abusive to so many people, and in such crude ways, that he has made himself into an offense for many people, me being one. I'm content to leave him to his own sandbox, but I am not happy about having him thrust center stage into the world I inhabit, and I'm astonished that the people at TAS didn't recognize that this was the case for many people whom they have cultivated over the years - and there is really no excuse for not knowing.

Let me make another comparison. Do you remember the day Leonard Peikoff issued his famous polemic stating that he (and Objectivism) had no need for any of us who disagreed with any pronouncement he issued regarding the philosophy? He then told us to all go take a hike. How did that make you feel about Leonard and the Objectivist movement? Well, Lindsay's behavior affects me in a similar manner. Whatever his positive traits, I find his abuse, insensitivity, cruelty, back-stabbing and general dismissivness of honest differences in others to be repugnant and as a result, I want nothing to do with him personally When TAS decides that he represents the face of Objectivism that they want to present, then it further demoralizes me with respect to the Objectivist movement.

I believe that the key determining where people come down on this issue has to do with where you rank basic human civility and empathy in your hierarchy of values. For some of us, these attributes rank higher on the scale as we evaluate the value of another person. When I look at Nathaniel or Barbara Branden, despite whatever faults they may have, I see people who demonstrate that they have the capacity to genuinely understand and care about other. I appreciate this about them and consequently, I would be happy to associate with either. I'm convinced that if we were to establish a relationship, I could speak to either of them about important subjects and they would exercise some care to not ridicule or belittle me, even if we were to disagree. Because I value these traits highly, I really have no problem with their presence as speakers at any event I might attend. None of what I've said about the Brandens pertains to Lindsay Perigo. He has demonstrated over and over again that he will happily insult you to your face and betray any illusion of loyalty and friendship at a moment's notice. That's not something I'm willing to subject myself to voluntarily. People can argue all they want as to why it is sensible to include Perigo as a TAS speaker, but I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to understand why many of us are shocked by the idea.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jonathan chased Michael Newberry away...

Jim

Jim,

Oh, it is nothing like that.

It's the rest of you.

Taken for granted is not the exact idea but close. Here, on my site, in my studio I open up the world of art--of passion, independence, vision--carving out my own path. When it is the arts, and it's benevolent in nature, it is simply a gift from me for you to contemplate, experience, and perhaps learn from. That is the nature of art.

What do I get in return? A shining achievement that I can admire, which gives me a wonderful sense of living in my world? A brilliant, hard working person who gives me this and collects my work with pride? Like Ciro, Stephen Hicks, or Ginnie for example. That is the greatest interaction I have with friends. From there, different levels of respect come through but opinions online are closer to having less and less real value, especially when they descend into ravings or silence.

Peter Cresswell posted this:

"Integrity is loyalty to one's convictions

and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one's values,

of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality."

- Ayn Rand.

Integrity: Some have it, most don't. Sadly, that's life.

That becomes it in nutshell. Most of the online posters want their posts to transcend their actions in practical reality. And they spend a great deal of time and energy trying to re-figure integrity to mean what they say and not what they do. Read all the people that want credit for fields outside their work! Gosh that list is huge! Starting with Perigo, I bet we could get to a 100 in a flash. What do I have to gain from that? Zero.

A benevolent humanity will move forward by people who do. As far as what they say matches that, it's icing on the cake.

Best wishes for a productive 2008.

Bye for now,

Michael

Nice post and a good reminder, Michael!! Are you on the program for Portland? I hope I haven't given you cause to feel taken for granted. As much as I'd like to show you a semiconductor factory (it would blow your mind), when you type at your computer, I hope you'll think of me.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim; Do you understand what the problem we have with Lindsay is? I agree that more exciting speakers would be a great idea but I don't want to feel being attacked.

Exactly. Lindsay has been abusive to so many people, and in such crude ways, that he has made himself into an offense for many people, me being one. I'm content to leave him to his own sandbox, but I am not happy about having him thrust center stage into the world I inhabit, and I'm astonished that the people at TAS didn't recognize that this was the case for many people whom they have cultivated over the years - and there is really no excuse for not knowing.

Let me make another comparison. Do you remember the day Leonard Peikoff issued his famous polemic stating that he (and Objectivism) had no need for any of us who disagreed with any pronouncement he issued regarding the philosophy? He then told us to all go take a hike. How did that make you feel about Leonard and the Objectivist movement? Well, Lindsay's behavior affects me in a similar manner. Whatever his positive traits, I find his abuse, insensitivity, cruelty, back-stabbing and general dismissivness of honest differences in others to be repugnant and as a result, I want nothing to do with him personally When TAS decides that he represents the face of Objectivism that they want to present, then it further demoralizes me with respect to the Objectivist movement.

I believe that the key determining where people come down on this issue has to do with where you rank basic human civility and empathy in your hierarchy of values. For some of us, these attributes rank higher on the scale as we evaluate the value of another person. When I look at Nathaniel or Barbara Branden, despite whatever faults they may have, I see people who demonstrate that they have the capacity to genuinely understand and care about other. I appreciate this about them and consequently, I would be happy to associate with either. I'm convinced that if we were to establish a relationship, I could speak to either of them about important subjects and they would exercise some care to not ridicule or belittle me, even if we were to disagree. Because I value these traits highly, I really have no problem with their presence as speakers at any event I might attend. None of what I've said about the Brandens pertains to Lindsay Perigo. He has demonstrated over and over again that he will happily insult you to your face and betray any illusion of loyalty and friendship at a moment's notice. That's not something I'm willing to subject myself to voluntarily. People can argue all they want as to why it is sensible to include Perigo as a TAS speaker, but I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to understand why many of us are shocked by the idea.

Regards,

--

Jeff

Jeff,

You are someone I very much respect and the degree to which Lindsay has alienated you, he is poorer for it. In my experience, I've learned that sometimes people chase you away by the external bluster. I don't Lindsay very well. I've never met, never exchanged emails. That's part of the point. When I have a problem with someone, I try to address it with them directly. Lindsay is bearing the cost of his outbursts and the cost is that many good people like you don't want to associate with him. Where I feel sad is that you would transfer this revulsion to TAS, which includes Ed Hudgins, Robert Bidinotto, Will Thomas and David Kelley. Robert is on vacation right now, but when he gets back I hope you'll take it up with him. He's always been very responsive in addressing my concerns with TAS.

Jim

[Robert Campbell]

Jim,

Robert Bidinotto opposed the decision to bring Mr. Perigo in.

Will Thomas even told me that Robert B "justly" wanted nothing to do with Mr. Perigo, who had purposely distorted some of Robert B's statements in one of his public outbursts.

I doubt that Robert B can do a damn thing about it.

The matter is in Ed Hudgins' hands. As I expected, Ed was cc'd on Will's reply to me.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

No one has yet noted a major irony in Allan Blumenthal's decision to leave IOS, as it was then known.

Dr. Blumenthal's latter-day judgment of Ayn Rand's personality is substantially harsher than Barbara Branden's. Arguably harsher than Nathaniel's, as well.

And Dr. Blumenthal is harder for the religionists to Satanize, because he wasn't publicly anathematized when he and his wife decided they could no longer put up with Ayn Rand.

What kinds of roaring would we hear about TAS being a den of "Rand-diminishers," if Dr. Blumenthal were still playing a prominent role in the organization?

Robert Campbell

[cjsmall]

Where I feel sad is that you would transfer this revulsion to TAS, which includes Ed Hudgins, Robert Bidinotto, Will Thomas and David Kelley. Robert is on vacation right now, but when he gets back I hope you'll take it up with him. He's always been very responsive in addressing my concerns with TAS.

Jim:

Thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, I'm not revulsed by TAS, I'm just profoundly disappointed with their decision. TAS itself has been the brunt of considerable vitriolic abuse by Lindsay over the past year or two. Even if the leaders there didn't understand how many of us feel personally regarding Lindsay, I cannot fathom how they could deal with him directly while he continues to spit in their face (calling them the KASSless Society is just one example). I don't see how any benefit regarding Lindsay's contribution to the Seminar event could compensate for the lack of self-respect required to associate with him when he has exhibited no remorse over his past actions and shows no signs of any deeper understanding regarding his negative impact on others.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Newberry]

Jim

Are you on the program for Portland?

Nope, and I didn't apply either. ;) The generic salutation, "Dear To Whom it Concerns" or whatever it said, didn't send a good signal.

I hope I haven't given you cause to feel taken for granted. As much as I'd like to show you a semiconductor factory (it would blow your mind), when you type at your computer, I hope you'll think of me.

I am sure the factory would be awesome, but I do thank you and the hundreds of thousands of people who create the value of my computer by buying it and using it. That is my side, what is yours? When you figure that out you can always contact me.

I will not be posting here for awhile.

Michael

[Jonathan]

[....] The point is not Lindsay, although I have argued for Lindsay, but he is an example of it. TAS needs a Summer Seminar with energy. Bring back David Ross and some of the other good lecturers who can energize people. Perhaps Marty Lewinter and we can have an exciting math double. Larry Sechrest comes to mind. TAS needs to review the participant ratings cards and see what worked before. If you don't like Lindsay, bring in another terrific esthetician like Kirsti Minsaas to talk about Literature.

Jim, the point IS Lindsay.

And even speaking of Kirsti Minsaas as "another [my emphasis] terrific esthetician" -- as if Linz WERE such; Kirsti is -- is a horrible insult to the whole realm of art.

Maybe you had best just stay out of it, huh? You obviously do not understand why people object to Linz's being invited.

Take care,

Ellen

Ha, ha ha!! Well I guess we are on a different wavelength and I'm wearing plaid and striped lines. Jonathan chased Michael Newberry away, Lindsay's out, Kirsti's out. Okay, I'll quit when I'm ahead or behind or whereever it was and finally remember this was a thread about being polite

Jim

Jim, you seem to have misunderstood Ellen's comment on Minsaas. Ellen is saying that Minsaas IS a terrific esthetician. Your listing her as "another" terrific esthetician next to Linz -- implying that Linz is a terrific esthetician -- is an insult to Minsaas and all other "terrific estheticians."

In order to qualify as a "terrific esthetician," Linz would have to reveal that his disagreement with Objectivism (Objectivist Esthetics holds that Romantic music is NOT objectively superior) is based on some secret scholarly research that he's done which has allowed him to discover and define, per Rand's requirements, a conceptual vocabulary of music. Failing that, he'd be left with the option of intelligently demonstrating why Rand's requirements were wrong.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that he'll do neither, but will instead resort to his typical bluff and bluster -- which might make him a terrific entertainer, but by no means a "terrific esthetician."

As far as chasing Newberry away, I'm not sure what you mean. Away from me? Away from OL? From the Objectivist movement? From speaking at TAS events?

Anyway, Newberry probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for me attracting him in the first place. He followed me here. You see, I politely commented on what appeared to be a double standard in his method of judging his own art versus others', and he showed up to use diversionary tactics to avoid explaining how it wasn't a double standard. It's too bad that others aren't as fixated on me as Newberry is or we might also have Pigero, Cresswell, Rowlands, Kamhi and Torres, ARC's Fred Ross, Richard Lack, Stephen Gjertson and others joining us, since I've been critical of some of their views as well.

J

Edited January 8, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One of the planned Perigo speeches will be "Why Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)."

Hmmmmmm...

Beer-barrel marches don't qualify as Romantic Music. Rand loved beer-barrel marches. She called them her "tiddleywink music" to separate them from romantic art with a capital "A." I wonder if the speech will explain why Rand needed to act and feel like a moron (according to the standard presented in the title) in choosing beer-barrel marches over Romantic Music when she felt like listening to them...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

In the now somewhat notorious DVD about his life, Leonard Peikoff tells of a nifty Christmas present he gave Ayn Rand one year.

One of her favorite tiddlywinks was a peppy little number called "Mucki aus Amerika." She'd never been able to find a recording of it. So Lenny tracked down the sheet music, tried to wake up his dormant piano technique, and after practicing the number enough not to make a fool of himself on it, booked 30 minutes at a studio next to Carnegie Hall. He presented her with a 78 rpm lacquer consisting of one take on each side. She loved it.

You can hear some of it on the soundtrack. Rachmaninoff or Puccini it wasn't.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ha, ha ha!! Well I guess we are on a different wavelength and I'm wearing plaid and striped lines. Jonathan chased Michael Newberry away, Lindsay's out, Kirsti's out. Okay, I'll quit when I'm ahead or behind or whereever it was and finally remember this was a thread about being polite

Jim, you egregiously misunderstood my remark about Kirsti. (I see that Jonathan has already corrected you, but I'll correct you, too.)

Here is the remark again:

'And even speaking of Kirsti Minsaas as "another [my emphasis] terrific esthetician" -- as if Linz WERE such; Kirsti is -- is a horrible insult to the whole realm of art.'

The point is that Kirsti really is a terrific aesthetician; Linz doesn't come near to qualifying. For you to describe Kirsti in the same breath as Linz as ANOTHER terrific aesthetician is an insult to the field of art. Maybe you'll understand if I make this analogy: Suppose someone were to describe Richard Feynman as ANOTHER great lecturer on physics, along with David Harriman: Would you get what was wrong with this description? (And Dave Harriman comes closer to knowing some physics than Linz comes to knowing from a hole in the ground what aesthetics is, so the comparison between Kirsti and Linz is even more out of whack than that between Feynman and Harriman.)

Ellen

___

Edited January 8, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ha, ha ha!! Well I guess we are on a different wavelength and I'm wearing plaid and striped lines. Jonathan chased Michael Newberry away, Lindsay's out, Kirsti's out. Okay, I'll quit when I'm ahead or behind or whereever it was and finally remember this was a thread about being polite

Jim, you egregiously misunderstood my remark about Kirsti. (I see that someone down the thread has corrected you, but I'll correct you, too.)

Here is the remark again:

'And even speaking of Kirsti Minsaas as "another [my emphasis] terrific esthetician" -- as if Linz WERE such; Kirsti is -- is a horrible insult to the whole realm of art.'

The point is that Kirsti really is a terrific aesthetician; Linz doesn't come near to qualifying. For you to describe Kirsti in the same breath as Linz as ANOTHER terrific aesthetician is an insult to the field of art. Maybe you'll understand if I make this analogy: Suppose someone were to describe Richard Feynman as ANOTHER great lecturer on physics, along with David Harriman: Would you get what was wrong with this description? (And Dave Harriman comes closer to knowing some physics than Linz comes to knowing from a hole in the ground what aesthetics is, so the comparison between Kirsti and Linz is even more out of whack than that between Feynman and Harriman.)

Ellen

___

Ok, now I don't feel so off your wavelength. Anybody who is not wowed by Kirsti is nuts. I also definitely used the wrong term inclusively. If I stay at this site long enough I shall get many raps with the corrective ruler. An aesthetician does imply a scholarly knowledge of the subject.

Jim

[Chris Grieb]

Jeffrey Small; Thank you for making my point better than I did. Jim;

Why don't you start using a few of Lindsay's milder expressions in your daily speech. Tell us I quickly you have make an appointment with the dentist to have your teeth fixed?

[Philip Coates]

> speaking of Kirsti Minsaas as "another [my emphasis] terrific esthetician" -- as if Linz WERE

ellen you're nitpicking the choice of a single adjective in an informal post

[Neil Parille]

No one has yet noted a major irony in Allan Blumenthal's decision to leave IOS, as it was then known.

Dr. Blumenthal's latter-day judgment of Ayn Rand's personality is substantially harsher than Barbara Branden's. Arguably harsher than Nathaniel's, as well.

And Dr. Blumenthal is harder for the religionists to Satanize, because he wasn't publicly anathematized when he and his wife decided they could no longer put up with Ayn Rand.

What kinds of roaring would we hear about TAS being a den of "Rand-diminishers," if Dr. Blumenthal were still playing a prominent role in the organization?

Robert Campbell

Dr. Campbell,

I have made this point a few times with Mr. Valliant. Mr. Valliant is of the strange position that Dr. Blumenthal's disagreement with Nathaniel Branden is apparently proof that he is, uh, in cahoots with "the Brandens."

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

Well, then I guess Allan Blumenthal and Nathaniel Branden's mutual dislike, going back to their boyhood days, is proof of their secret collusion.

I've seen arguments in defense of the old John Birch Society Master Conspiracy Theory that made more sense than this...

Robert Campbell

[Roger Bissell]

Who stated this?

The MSK crowd, by contrast, are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.

1. Diana Hsieh

2. James Valliant

3. Lindsay Perigo

4. Who cares?

[sjw]

Who stated this?

The MSK crowd, by contrast, are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.

1. Diana Hsieh

2. James Valliant

3. Lindsay Perigo

4. Who cares?

Has to be Hsieh, but I'll pick 4.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a gem from Perigo just now:

The MSK crowd, by contrast, are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.

I am not interested in keeping up a process of interforum potshots, but this quote represents the essence of the whole controversy in three simple principles:

1. The collectivist/tribalist mindset. There is no such thing as "the MSK crowd." There exists a group of individual people who, in the main, think for themselves and they like to post here in order to interact with others who like to think for themselves. The concept that there is no tribe, that there are only individuals who are associating by free will, does not enter into the worldview of this guru wannabe. He ONLY thinks in terms of groups, despite his blustering lip service to Rand.

2. All of the individuals (to my knowledge) who post here on OL are productive individuals with careers and lives that merit pride. They are good people who provide value and exchange it for value on the open market. They are not whiners. They are responsible individuals in the highest meaning of the term. There is nothing at all rotten about this. On the contrary, this is virtue in practice, not just theory or rhetoric. I respect and admire every single one of these people (even JHN, despite his lapses). A person who calls that rotten has no understanding of Objectivist values.

3. The following is not a principle, but the plain truth is that I don't want to be talked about in good terms by Perigo. I don't ever want anyone to think that I am something a contemptible little man like that approves of. I am pleased beyond words to be cussed by one who embraces the opposite of the good because he loves power and an unearned reputation more. I don't expect everyone to share my sentiment, but those who don't will not have much of a choice about being cussed. This dude is going to do it and wallow in spite regardless. That's all he knows how to do. And besides, he likes it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Here is a gem from Perigo just now:

The MSK crowd, by contrast, are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.

MOI?

--Rant, rotten rant

[Robert Campbell]

I knew it was Lindsay Perigo because "the MSK crowd are rotten" is a British construction.

As in "[Company name] apologise for the inconvenience" (an inscription found on many a construction barrier, in countries where people drive on the left).

In American English, it would normally be "the MSK crowd is rotten."

But forget all this subject-verb agreement stuff.

Is Will Thomas paying any attention to what Mr. Perigo puts on his site? Ed Hudgins? Anyone in the TAS office?

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

No one has yet noted a major irony in Allan Blumenthal's decision to leave IOS, as it was then known.

Dr. Blumenthal's latter-day judgment of Ayn Rand's personality is substantially harsher than Barbara Branden's. Arguably harsher than Nathaniel's, as well.

And Dr. Blumenthal is harder for the religionists to Satanize, because he wasn't publicly anathematized when he and his wife decided they could no longer put up with Ayn Rand.

What kinds of roaring would we hear about TAS being a den of "Rand-diminishers," if Dr. Blumenthal were still playing a prominent role in the organization?

Robert Campbell

The longer you stuck around Ayn Rand the more you resented her, I guess, that that is essentially all. Except for LP who thinks of himself as the E.W. of Objectivism--I mean, look, I never understood how the Blumenthals never gave AR any slack in her old age except that they saw her and NB as part and parcel of the same package in spite of "The Break." In any case, where is the public statement? Joan made something of one in a "Full Context" interview I can't get my hands on right now, but I remember it as rather mild compared to this implication. I will also say this: If you think you are a victim you empower your victimzer. It would be very easy for the Blumenthals to leave a short, factual statement for posterity. If they don't, it must be because they only see Objectivism as "self-psychotherapy" for Ayn Rand and of NO particular value to themselves.

--Brant

BTW, Robert, I've never come across any AB references about his own harsh judgment about AR. Could you give one to us? All I've heard over the years are second-hand implications or representations.

[studiodekadent]

Here is a gem from Perigo just now:

The MSK crowd, by contrast, are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.

I am not interested in keeping up a process of interforum potshots, but this quote represents the essence of the whole controversy in three simple principles:

1. The collectivist/tribalist mindset. There is no such thing as "the MSK crowd." There exists a group of individual people who, in the main, think for themselves and they like to post here in order to interact with others who like to think for themselves. The concept that there is no tribe, that there are only individuals who are associating by free will, does not enter into the worldview of this guru wannabe. He ONLY thinks in terms of groups, despite his blustering lip service to Rand.

2. All of the individuals (to my knowledge) who post here on OL are productive individuals with careers and lives that merit pride. They are good people who provide value and exchange it for value on the open market. They are not whiners. They are responsible individuals in the highest meaning of the term. There is nothing at all rotten about this. On the contrary, this is virtue in practice, not just theory or rhetoric. I respect and admire every single one of these people (even JHN, despite his lapses). A person who calls that rotten has no understanding of Objectivist values.

3. The following is not a principle, but the plain truth is that I don't want to be talked about in good terms by Perigo. I don't ever want anyone to think that I am something a contemptible little man like that approves of. I am pleased beyond words to be cussed by one who embraces the opposite of the good because he loves power and an unearned reputation more. I don't expect everyone to share my sentiment, but those who don't will not have much of a choice about being cussed. This dude is going to do it and wallow in spite regardless. That's all he knows how to do. And besides, he likes it.

Michael

Michael,

I certainly agree that it is completely shocking that Perigo will judge every single member of this website as "stinkingly rotten" (and multiple permutations thereof), ignoring all differences between the members of this website! The members here have multiple differring views, and putting us all in a single box is an epistemological screwup beyond words.

This "MSK Crowd" idea is insane. I do not consider myself part of your "crowd." I am a member of your forum because it provides a haven for the nontribalist, noncultist Objectivists to discuss Objectivism in a civilized and mutually respectful manner. What I can say about this forum, without any reservation whatsoever, is that unlike "Objectivism Online," I do not feel that every time I make a post, I am being interrogated by the Stasi for signs of doctrinal impurity. I feel comfortable here, and have no reservations about airing my "heresy" out in public view. This is the reason I like to talk here, not because of any agreement or disagreement with you or any other forum member here.

Assuming that members of SOLOP are actually reading this thread, I would not be surprised if they use the above comment as some sort of "evidence" that an "MSK'er" likes this site because its "full of moral tolerationist skeptics." Of course, I will sincerely hope that they restrain themselves from committing such a heinous distortion of my statement.

Its strange how the Objectivist community is splintering off into smaller and smaller groups, each 'headed' by someone with a self-promotion complex (this place is a welcome exception, since a variety of Objectivist viewpoints are discussed and debated, with no overall doctrinal pressure exerted, and MSK does not have a self-promotion complex, Barbara Branden simply wants a place to discuss without being assailed by idiots etc.). Look, all of us want to be recognized as Objectivist philosophers with important points that need to be discussed (indeed, we could all enjoy some time being hero-worshipped!), but there is a difference between "wanting the value of one's work acknowleged" and attempting to carve out one's own sect of followers. One wonders when we will have Kool-Aid parties in Valiantown.