Queen Victoria on Solo

[Ellen Stuttle]

OK, Roger, let me try that one again. I used the wrong word. I was writing late at night, after a couple beers, and was "off-key" myself, though not trying to be there. Yeah, sure, a skilled musician can deliberately play wrong notes or in the wrong key spoofing. There are even compositions in which as a musical take-off, the performer plays off-key. Suppose I'd used the word "ineptly" instead, then would you accept the statement?

The point I'm making is that if someone is trained as a musician, he/she doesn't succeed at sounding like a bad musician. Likewise, I think that someone who is in fact knowledgeable in an area won't succeed for long at a pretense of being someone who knows from nothing. There will be slips revealing that really the person does know.

For example, consider the Helena Handbasket spoofs of Ellen Moore back on Old Atlantis. I thought it was obvious that whoever was writing those was a very much better thinker than Ellen Moore, though he/she (to this day I don't know who it was) was skilled at imitating her. Or consider your own recent Artemis Kerridge posts. By the second or third one you'd given away that your knowledge of epistemology was far beyond that of the presenting persona.

As to Penelope, I would be very surprised if she turns out to be someone spoofing. I think she sounds too genuinely inept at philosophy. Of course, she could be a he in disguise, or a she who's using a picture of someone else. But I don't think Penelope is a good logician posing as a bad one.

Ellen

___

[Roger Bissell]

Ellen, I agree that trying to sound or appear inept usually breaks down before very long. It's easy to do it briefly, for an effect -- but to sustain it is difficult.

I wasn't trying to make Artemis sound dumb, just more folksy and easy-going and yet serious-minded than I usually come across. I ended up getting carried away with the ideas and blew my cover.

I don't know for sure who Helena Handbasket was, but I always assumed it was George Smith.

I take Penelope to be an intellectual light-weight and wannabe attention-seeker, who is getting plenty of undeserved attention because of her willingness to step up and present her opinions in a brash, free-wheeling way. She and Diana seemed for a brief while to be in a contest as to who could be cruder...

REB

[Barbara Branden]

Roger: "She and Diana seemed for a brief while to be in a contest as to who could be cruder."

They both won.

Barbara

[Ellen Stuttle]

Roger, we're on the same page then about the faking ineptitude issue. Re Helena you wrote:

I don't know for sure who Helena Handbasket was, but I always assumed it was George Smith.

Couldn't have been just in terms of timing. I'm just about certain Helena had stopped posting -- "she" only posted for a brief while -- before George ever joined Atlantis. And I don't think it would have been possible stylistically for George to write those posts. George has one of the quickest wits, maybe the quickest wit, of anyone I've ever encountered. But there are specific features of what Helena did that I don't think George could have done. This isn't something I could prove to you. It's a connoisseur's reaction based on my years of working with authors and acquiring sensitivity to small details of personal writing style.

Ellen

___

[Rich Engle]

Again- Google "Penelope Beach" and see what you see. Adhering to the beloved rules of evidence, it means only a couple of things.

1. It is a coincidence, the name is real (I find this difficult after doing the Google search- the name is too unique)

2. It is a fake name (seems more likely), but she/he/it uses a pseudonym for personal safety reasons or such.

3. There is no Penelope Beach, it is all or partly a scam.

[Dragonfly]

What I also find rather ironic is that she's wearing a "peace" shirt, not something I'd associate immediately with an orthodox Objectivist. On the photo she looks more like the typical fanatical, skinny, leftist activist. Oh well, perhaps the difference isn't that great - les extrêmes se touchent. Or someone is having a good joke.

[Rich Engle]

I also notice our little cupcake has become incredibly quiet, as of late. I guess that Objectivist Rage<tm> piddled out on her a bit.

[gary williams]

typical fanatical, skinny, leftist activist.

Ahhhh.......That explains all the screeching & hissing!

gw

[Ellen Stuttle]

People, a word of caution: Suppose I'm right that Penelope is just an enthused neophyte who's wandered in over her head -- and suppose she's reading the stuff said about her here -- isn't a bit of charity in order? If I'm right, do you want to dump on her with quite the ferocity being displayed by some?

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Charity? Come on! If she is real, it is her own responsibility if she's reading such an evil site as OL, I think she's had enough warnings from her buddies about the horrible monsters that reside here. She should just remain in the benevolent atmosphere of Solo, where she can safely call other people "slippery fuckers" for example and everybody is oh so nice to her.

[gary williams]

Deguello!

gw

[Rich Engle]

Ellen-

Maybe. But he/she/it is an adult. Volition, choices- that appears to be the stance. Although, I suppose he/she/it might be eligible for some slack to allow for Randroidism/conditioning.

Or not. :-({|=

I don't think it would be a bad thing to read any of this. Castor oil has its uses.

rde

Next time maybe the old bread/liver/bread technique.

[Roger Bissell]

Yes, I agree, Dragonfly and Rich.

I also cordially invite readers -- including the Humorless Beech -- to check out the new post on "Out of the Mouths of Reptiles" in the Humor folder.

REB

[Rich Engle]

Well, she either went on vacation, her PC blew out, or she simply imploded from all that fury, poor thing.

[Barbara Branden]

Speaking of "suboptimal." someone recently pointed me to a statement Hseih made in an article about assisted suicide -- a statement that appalled me more than anything else she has said:

<<As for the sick and aged who would allow themselves to be pressured into suicide by others, so long as they're competent adults, that's entirely their own damn fault. And they will pay the ultimate price for that last act of spineless second-handedness, pathetically enough.>>

What kind of creature is this?

Barbara

[Dragonfly]

A very sick one. But we knew that already, didn't we?

[Rich Engle]

A kind of person that has never experienced major tragedy, or a person who simply doesn't feel.

Compassion is something that is felt, not reasoned.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Speaking of "suboptimal." someone recently pointed me to a statement Hseih made in an article about assisted suicide -- a statement that appalled me more than anything else she has said:

<<As for the sick and aged who would allow themselves to be pressured into suicide by others, so long as they're competent adults, that's entirely their own damn fault. And they will pay the ultimate price for that last act of spineless second-handedness, pathetically enough.>>

What kind of creature is this?

Barbara

Isn't Diana's comment just a more extreme version of the remarks four of you have made in response to my suggestion of extending a bit of charity to Penelope?

There are readers of SoloP and OL who say that there isn't that much to choose between the two in terms of viciousness displayed to the opposition. I sometimes think those readers are right.

I take the opportunity to post a remark Fred Weiss made. I've been thinking that this remark well encapsulates his general approach. But it also zeroes in on a basic attitude Objectivism encourages:

Fred wrote

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1147:

Objectivist rage is half the fun of being an Objectivist.

The other half is figuring out what to be enraged about.

Ellen

___

[Mike Hardy]

I take the opportunity to post a remark Fred Weiss made.  I've been thinking that this remark well encapsulates his general approach.  But it also zeroes in on a basic attitude Objectivism encourages:

Fred wrote

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1147:

Objectivist rage is half the fun of being an Objectivist.

The other half is figuring out what to be enraged about.

Ellen

___

Those who think that Objectivism encourages this attitude are hereby sentenced to dea...

oops .... I meant .... Well, it sometimes happens that people have learned everything they know about a certain subject from one writer whose writes about it passionately and excitingly. It's not only Ayn Rand. Some of you have heard me say that the same thing applies to the physicist Edwn Jaynes' writings on probability theory. He wrote brilliantly and makes important fundamental points, and often misunderstands those who disagree with him, and invents his own terminology at variance from what is conventional. And some physicists have learned all they know about probability theory from his writings. They're just like Randroids (and by "Randroids" I _do_not_ mean well-read advocates of Ayn Rand's philosophy, even if they are passionate supporters of it). Should we say that Jaynes encourages this attitude, or just that it naturally arises under those circumstances? -- Mike Hardy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

In essence, I agree with your attempts at extending good will. I live this way. However, you might notice that on OL, several months passed where people on SLOP were rarely mentioned, much less in a demeaning manner. Yet the contrary was not true.

I don't know if you have looked at the little list I started on Feb. 18 of the names I have been called and OL has been called. It was about half size back then, as I add to it when new names crop up.

After the Sciabarra smear, the gloves came off. People on OL are having a bit of fun right now. I don't think this is a phase that will last. After months of being called scumbag, etc., in public, I say let folks let off a little steam.

I am confident that the spirit that pervades here on OL will ensure that this is temporary. Notice that posters are not at each others throats here, although there have been a few flare-ups. Still, OL posters have shown enough good will to resolve their differences amicably when things have heated up.

People are essentially good. I believe this with all my heart.

(Except on SLOP and Noodletown... oops... sorry... )

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Should we say that Jaynes encourages this attitude, or just that it naturally arises under those circumstances?

I am not familiar with Jaynes' work, or the persons you've described. In regard to Objectivism, I think the answer is both: the characteristics naturally arise among enthusiasts of a belief system, and Objectivism encourages the attitude, even requires it, if adopted in toto. See stuff I wrote on the Objectivism's plague question asked by Barbara in the articles forum. And other stuff I've said, here, there, and everywhere. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Ellen:

Isn't Diana's comment just a more extreme version of the remarks four of you have made in response to my suggestion of extending a bit of charity to Penelope?

In the same sense that an atomic bomb is just a more extreme version of a lighted match.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Just to be absolutely clear, I don't think the lampooning done by OL members of the SLOPPERS and POO-POODLERS has been done in the name of purifying the philosophy or any other vestige of a belief system. I think people just got tired of being called foul names and witnessing gross hypocrisy held up in public as the good.

In fact, from what I have seen, I think this attitude has had very little to do with Objectivism at all. It appears to me to have more to do with common decency.

One of the most admirable characteristics of the folks around here is that they hold their own mind above that of anybody else, including Rand's (and this applies especially to you). And that's as it should be.

Michael

[L W HALL]

Objectivist rage is half the fun of being an Objectivist.  

The other half is figuring out what to be enraged about.  

Since he just accounted for 100% of the fun in being an Objectivist and by that I am going to *assume* he means an Objectivist of the ARI variety I am just beside myself with excitement at what the future holds.

NOT!

L W

[C. Jordan]

Ellen Stuttle has brought up a difficult issue. Should we respond in kind to the Sisters Sans Mercy?

This seems the appropriate time to mention that I have exchanged, at present, 5 E-mails with Diana Xie (or Hsieh, if you prefer.)

The first was in reference to her insistence that Barbara Branden's evil was obvious to all. I asked her politely to explain what she meant.

At this stage, if I were Diana, I would be reproducing her responses. I would re-print her E-mails, in excerpts, with the intention of insulting her as much as possible. Particularly the last one.

Because I hope never to be mistaken for her, which I will simply paraphrase: due to her busy schedule, she hesitated to explain to me what she meant; then she read something I posted here, and decided I would not believe her explanation.

I have already decided to behave differently from Diana, or for that matter Penelope. I have been tempted to respond to her on another forum. I badly wanted to respond. Then I changed my mind. I had nothing to say to her, that she would be willing to hear.

(That sounds like Diana's attitude towards me.)

Perhaps I should thank Ms. Hsieh and Ms. Beach for a lesson. In both women I have observed an ill-trained anger, straining at its leash, all too ready to attack at the slightest provocation. The responses of both ladies to Phil, on another forum, is very informative.

I could not but observe, that what brought about their anger was to have Phil make jokes about "Þ®€mã†û®€ €jà¢ú£å†ïøñ" (Diana's comment) or about "$£¡ÞÞ€®ÿ fü¢k€®" (Penelope's comment). When Phil dared to behave as they did, this provoked outrage.

What does it mean, that they dislike for other people to behave as they do? What does this imply for their self-esteeem?

I am not saying that the Sisters Sans Mercy don't deserve a reply in kind. Quite the opposite. When Penelope makes the statement that "Barbara Branden has no experience with Objectivists," she becomes too easy a target. The same for Diana refusing (for whatever may be her reason) to explain her denunciations.

To paraphrase Frank O'Connor, "Sister, you asked for it."

Anyone here who wishes to respond in kind does not need my blessing. Nonetheless, you may have it.

My policy shall be, to respond to them in a different manner than she responds to others. Instead of attacking the Sisters personally, I will limit my commentary to their ideas. No, I do not expect they will reciprocate. I don't think they'll respect my politeness. They may very well interpret me as being weak. Keep in mind, attempting courtesy does NOT mean yielding to them.

However, they aren't the reason for my decision. I simply don't want to behave as they do. Years from now, few of us will care how many zingers the Sisters made, and all of us will have to face our own egos. How Diana Hsieh will feel about herself, is her business. How Penelope Beach will feel about herself, is her business. I'm not even comparing myself to them. I only wish to feel proud of my own rôle in these matters.

Of what value would it be, for me to be "prouder of myself" than they are of themselves — if that means that they hold themselves in contempt, and being "prouder" means I have somewhat less self-loathing? On the other hand, should I be proud of myself, and learn that they are "prouder of themselves," that would be no skin off my knees. My self respect is not diminished in any way by their feelings.

I should reiterate a point: Diana Hsieh does visit this Forum. She said so in her last E-mail to me, which I could reproduce should anyone have reasonable doubts about my honesty. She is free to read anything and everything I have written here, and to judge me however she wishes. She may attack me in any way she likes. Her words will speak for themselves. Her words have already spoken for her, eloquently so.