O-Lying and why that's just lame.

[Rich Engle]

Please, let's not pull the string in front of the cat, Ethan. I can run standard Objectivist drilldowns just as well as anyone.

And, surely, Joe wants to associate with people who think like him, and better yet who are influenced by him. He just has a funny way of going about it. It's not unlike the kid in the playground who stops the game by taking his bat and ball home when things don't go his way. No problem, really, not for anyone other than Joe, really. You either put up with that kind of control thing, or you don't.

[ethan_a_dawe]

Please, let's not pull the string in front of the cat, Ethan. I can run standard Objectivist drilldowns just as well as anyone.

And, surely, Joe wants to associate with people who think like him, and better yet who are influenced by him. He just has a funny way of going about it. It's not unlike the kid in the playground who stops the game by taking his bat and ball home when things don't go his way. No problem, really, not for anyone other than Joe, really. You either put up with that kind of control thing, or you don't.

You don't have to answer my question if you don't want to.

Ethan

[Rich Engle]

It's a silly question to ask an adult.

[ethan_a_dawe]

It's a silly question to ask an adult.

I would think so, but given your comment about "luciousness" I think it's valid.

[Rich Engle]

OK, Ethan, we'll play, then.

Why, yes indeedy there are people I don't associate with. For instance, I stay away from militant skinheads, what with all the beatings and hate propaganda they put out. So there's an entire group right there. It would be fair to say that I inevitably would have nothing to do with a real, practicing skinhead, because they are by creed dangerous, hateful people.

Another, narrowed example? I have a close friend who was seriously taken advantage of by someone else, to the point that he was grifted out of just about everything he owned. Without doubt I would not associate with this person, because, for one, I despise grifters in general, and for two, in this case I'm not sure I'd be able to stick to my own code, and not beat him silly were I to lay eyes on him.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that as one goes through life, there come into it people that one is better off avoiding. But we all knew that, didn't we?

It would have been easier if you just stated your point. My point was that it looks strikingly like Joe feels the need to create an intellectual space where he can streamline most everything into his general lines of thinking, which are largely moving targets, and might even have more to do with tones and personalities than anything else.

I think we've flogged this one, don't you? Like you said, time will tell for him. I hope someday he reconsiders his approach.

[ethan_a_dawe]

It would have been easier if you just stated your point. My point was that it looks strikingly like Joe feels the need to create an intellectual space where he can streamline most everything into his general lines of thinking, which are largely moving targets, and might even have more to do with tones and personalities than anything else.

My point is that we all choose who we wish to associate with in life. How we choose those assocaitions differs from context to context, or situation to situation if you will. Joe wants to promote activism and Objectivism, so he crates a site for doing that. He then decides that some of the people who come to his site are not adding value or are just plain rude so he moderates them. Some others offer some value but are, in his opinion, detracting from the main part of the site, so he moderates them to a specific section. The moderation is based on ideas and attitude. This is the same as you chosing in your life who you associate with. You are free to disagree with his evaluation of the individuals he chooses to associate with and you are free to associate with them. Calling this contrived is bogus in my opinion.

[Rich Engle]

I said contrived because I think that most run-of-the-mill intellectual forum poster types don't run into those kinds of layers. It's usually somewhere on either the side of full moderation, or wide open. What you don't expect is to have the site owner pruning the thing like a danged shrub- he's turning into Edward Scissorhands over there! I've seen some foul bastards go on Joe's site, for sure- I think once I even let him know about one of the malicious spammer types before he got wind of it. And the thing about people being "promoted" to the dissent section. I mean, c'mon- "promoted"? It's pretty easy to spot a flat-out anti-O'ist dissenter, doncha think? What, afraid one of them might "pass" for the real deal? Corrupt the kiddies?

And then you look at some of the folks that got schlocked in there... tell me Jonathan and Cal/Dragonfly aren't exceptionally well-read, invested in Rand's ideas. But not in the manner that Joe wants, apparently, and he doesn't hold back from micromanaging them into the box.

Contrived, because he gives a sense of freedom there that does not exist- you can get alien abducted whenever he gets a wild hair. Ideas and attitude, yes indeed. Like I said, I think he's written some darned good stuff. But as a businessman, I see moves out of him that make him ideal for a career in middle-management.