SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 20

Friday, September 16 - 2:02pm

Link

Edit

Brant & Michael,

All I'm doing is piping in with my observation, for what it's worth, that Hardin's hit piece is more targeted than Linz may appreciate. If there is an attempt to tear down Linz in his own house, his guests might want to do him the favor of denouncing it. This isn't a matter of personalties clashing. It's a matter of opposing an injustice that all good men should support regardless of relatively inconsequential disagreements on the Rand-Branden divide.

So I'm not lumping you in with people like Hardin who have a nefarious agenda. Even if you are soft in your judgments of Barbara Branden's conduct that led to her exit from this forum, I have read nothing from either of you that suggests you have daggers under your cloaks. You both made it plain you think the assaults on Linz's character stink. So I don't think there'll be an Ides of March moment with Linz uttering, "Et tu, Michael?" ;-) None of us have any basis for believing that.

Andy

Post 21

Friday, September 16 - 5:39pm

Link

Edit

Andy,

With all due respect, I am not sure that Brant was addressing you. I know I wasn't.

I appreciate your comments, thank you. Still, I have no problem at all in being understood as to where my position is. God knows I keep posting it often enough.

I also maintain very warm and cordial contact with both Linz and Barbara, both of whom have earned my love and respect. (You want to try something fun? Try keeping that up in the present context!)

I am attempting to keep rational perspective in public view and defend two people I love who are feuding. Also keep the level of a forum I love high - meaning arguing A LOT to help avoid it degenerating into a lynch mob. Nothing more.

During Drooling Beast, I was divided and Linz had many posters coming out for him. Had no one come out, I most certainly would have (as I have done so often before and since). Barbara practically has no one right now. Brant. Me. One or two others pop up once in a while. (The stronger ones kept insisting on infringing the rules of Solo and getting themselves moderated or kicked off.)

Do I want to be in this position? No? Do I agree with all of what she did with Drooling Beast? No?

But do I agree with the other 99.99% of what she wrote on Solo? Yes.

Will I stand by and see that 99.99% forgotten because her greatest enemy, James Valliant, now posts here and is treated cordially (even by me)? No.

Would I allow this to happen with Linz if the tables were reversed? No.

About Dennis, you don't need to be the word's greatest genius to see that Dennis attacked Linz. I wrote what I thought of that. (It still makes me crack up. Dayaamm!)

Whether or not Barbara had anything to do with that post is anyone's guess, but my own opinion is that she did not. She might have been made aware of it right before it went out, but that is pure speculation from me. This is my opinion and I will add to it a big, "So what if she was made aware (which, I stress, I do not know)?"

Dennis's words are not her words. In all of my dealings and correspondences with Barbara, including what I have read on Solo and in other places, I don't remember her discussing post modern - she might have, but I sincerely don't remember.

She has issues with Linz, as he does with her. I have never seen either so pissed. But post modern has never been an issue with them on either side. I sincerely don't believe it is right now, either. Frankly, they don't have any lack of issues to fight over so that they need to be making up stuff like that.

I believe that Dennis might have as much esteem for Barbara as I do, but I also believe that he stands alone on the Linz Pomo issue. I know I don't stand there and my opinion is that I sincerely doubt Barbara does either. Her issues with Linz are others. (I am speculating, so I might be wrong - but everything inside me, and there's a lot of living there, is backing my opinion.)

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/16, 5:56pm)

Post 22

Friday, September 16 - 8:54pm

Link

Edit

"Linz had many posters coming out for him. Had no one come out, I most certainly would have (as I have done so often before and since). Barbara practically has no one right now...Me. One or two others pop up once in a while..." [MSK]

I don't believe the purpose of an Objectivist forum is to attack or defend *people* (whether Linz, Barbara, Kelley, Peikoff, Rand, Rand's husband, or other members of the forum). It is to defend and explore *ideas*.

Michael, you and others are, of course, free to engage in as many of these bitter, personal wars as you want if that is how you want to spend your precious days. But, with extremely rare exceptions, they are a complete waste of time. Moreover, being about complex or removed events - not all of which one is privy to, they are normally never resolved provably or objectively.

Phil

Post 23

Friday, September 16 - 9:21pm

Link

Edit

Well said, Phil...

Post 24

Friday, September 16 - 10:14pm

Link

Edit

Phil,

Believe it or not, I basically agree with you. I would love to keep the focus on ideas.

If it weren't for all those damn people... //;-)

Still, sometimes events occur where you have to stand up for the ideas and/or the people you believe in because they are attacked - in many manners. I stand up. Others don't. Doesn't matter to me. I defend what I love.

I face down people and I face down mobs if they attack and I know I'm right.

Solo has a wonderful, solid and growing readership. I stand up to be heard - by those I know, respect and value (consider yourself included) and by that swelling body of those who are just lurking. My particular message is not to trounce this person or that. Why bother? However, when some idea or person I hold dear comes under serious attack (even me at times), my message is to state VERY LOUDLY, "What I love matters." Even in heated acrimony, my foundation is love based on reason.

Only if a person gets really nasty, I do too. I hold great value for cordiality and nothing pleases me more than to return the cordiality I receive. (Have you noticed, for example, the civility with which I conduct my posts with James Valliant and Casey Fahy? That is because, despite HUGE disagreement, they are civil. The exchanges get heated, but never nasty. I almost hate to say it, but truth is truth. They have a rather high level of class. I respond in kind. We stay on the ideas - that is until one of them runs off to avoid discussing an issue...)

You will find among my posts a huge amount of information, bantering, interesting topics, anecdotes, exotic stories from Brazil, in depth discussion of Objectivist ideas and how to apply them in many areas of life, quotes from all over the place, in short, oodles of stuff not involving personal disputes. These fights simply come with the territory on Solo sometimes. If that's the way it is, well that's the way it is. Pepper makes the steak taste better.

Show me a more exciting forum on Objectivism than Solo. I have yet to see one.

I just had a curious thought. If you don't stand up to a person, what on earth do you stand up to?

Just say, "Pretty please, stop attacking?" Or monologue yourself to tears of boredom? Or simply leave? None of that's me - nor will it ever be.

Anyway, got any ideas regarding this particular thread (the one you just posted on) that you would like to discuss? I'm game.

Or were you just standing up to me?

//;-)

Michael

Post 25

Friday, September 16 - 10:33pm

Link

Edit

You got a "bonk" from me for that one, Michael. I appreciate the elevated level of discourse from you, even on this incendiary subject.

Casey

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 9/16, 10:37pm)

Post 26

Friday, September 16 - 10:16pm

Link

Edit

I couldn't have done a better review, Phil. It's over. Linz can do and say what he wants. I'm out of the loop.

--Brant

Post 27

Saturday, September 17 - 4:39am

Link

Edit

Michael-

Still, sometimes events occur where you have to stand up for the ideas and/or the people you believe in because they are attacked - in many manners. I stand up. Others don't. Doesn't matter to me. I defend what I love.

Well said. Bonk.

Post 28

Saturday, September 17 - 7:32am

Link

Edit

Hi Michael,

>"You will find among my posts a huge amount of information, bantering, interesting topics, anecdotes, exotic stories from Brazil..."

That's true. I've seen you make quite a few good or interesting points over time.

> "I face down people....If you don't stand up to a person, what on earth do you stand up to?"

Usually when someone is shouting loudly or abusively or insultingly or making unwarranted attacks at me or another person (or the heat to light ratio is too out of balance in a more philosophical discussion), I just walk away. Silence does not constitute assent and the person's charges, if they are irrational or poorly constructed, will fall from their own weight. Really thoughtful or influential or intelligent people will not listen usually because they have higher standards. Most importantly, there are other and more important battlefields.

> "Anyway, got any ideas regarding this particular thread (the one you just posted on) that you would like to discuss? I'm game."

At this point, I'm no longer reading threads very carefully, just skimming them. (Only if the level stays philosophical or intelligent, rather than descending into the personal after the fifth post will it seem likely that -my- posts would be focused on, rather than the personal stuff. And only then would I be likely to get substantive as opposed to -this- kind of procedural discussion: at least on this list.)

This particular thread? It started out with a too overstated, too hyperbolic demonizing of Linz by Mr. Hardin and then a too overstated, too hyperbolic retaliatory demonizing of Mr. Hardin. I have zero interest in it.

I'm sorry if this seems condescending, too negative, boring, or cranky. Arrogant as it may be, I have *extremely* high standards for the kinds of conversations I want to participate in or benefit from. Been there, done that.

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 9/17, 7:38am)

Post 29

Saturday, September 17 - 8:29am

Link

Edit

Phil,

I agree with you in general about involving oneself in these 'pissing' contests. But this was, as someone cleverly remarked "a drive by shooting". Surely one should take the time to condemn it, if nothing more.

Post 30

Saturday, September 17 - 10:02am

Link

Edit

I just wish Linz and Barbara would call a truce at this point.

I realize that there are some unresolved issues and they are not about to kiss and make up at this point. Unfortunately, I don't think Barbara will ever return to Solo. I hate seeing this bitterness between these two wonderful people that I love and admire greatly. I am proud to call both of them my friends.

Dennis' post is shameful and disrespectful to both sides. The fact that Linz is suddenly embracing Valliant's book and posting quotes from it disgusts me. Both Linz bashing and Branden bashing bother me greatly, here or anywhere else. It's ugly and I don't like seeing it, especially here.

Linz and Barbara need to be able to deal with this privately and on their own time as they so choose. Please, everyone on both sides, stop the feuding, sniping and drive-by shootings. * TRUCE *

Kat

Post 31

Saturday, September 17 - 10:11am

Link

Edit

Has Linz posted any quote from Valliant's book?

Post 32

Saturday, September 17 - 11:56am

Link

Edit

Yeah, Lindsay posted a quote from Valliant's book yesterday, I think, or a couple days ago.

http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0815.shtml#0

Just out of curiosity, why does Casey's post # 31 have two Atlas icons worth of sanctions? Not that it isn't, you know, a wonderful post.

(Edited by Daniel O'Connor on 9/17, 11:57am)

Post 33

Saturday, September 17 - 12:04pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for pointing that out, Daniel. I hadn't seen that.

As for the Atlas points, they seem rather unwarranted now. Can I give them back?

Casey

Post 34

Saturday, September 17 - 1:34pm

Link

Edit

"This was, as someone cleverly remarked "a drive by shooting". Surely one should take the time to condemn it.." [Robert]

If you reread the original article, "drive by shooting" here is just a clever, emotional, exaggerated, oversimplified metaphor applied to someone who had actual arguments to offer (whether or not they were overstated or mistaken). Had it been an -actual- instance of physical force in which someone is physically injured, the situation would be radically different.

Robert, I don't mean to pick on you based on only one post, but this is in large measure directed (as an illustration) at a far wider audience: You can't think or analyze situations using emotional or overhyped metaphors. You have to go back and actually look at the situation which is EXACTLY as I described it. There is a logical place for caustic metaphor. This is not it.

The fallacy is one of substituting slanted language for precise argument, or of 'emotionalism' ... something which for some reason seems to be becoming a steadily worse problem among many Soloists.

Phil

(PS, Note that this is not another 'civility' post. The topic is intellectual precision, logic, and emotionalism - Although the topics can overlap.)

Post 35

Saturday, September 17 - 2:02pm

Link

Edit

Out of over 30 posts, instead of (or -at least- in addition to) attacking Dennis Hardin's motives and integrity, someone who wanted to respond should have written a post in rebuttal to his five points.

Not a single person has said a single word!

Instead they have talked about how bad one person is or his opponent, or each other, or how much contempt they are feeling right now.

Or worked to come up with the best zingers or put downs or one-liners.

Emotionalism.

To say: (1) "I don't have to answer this" when someone presents an intellectual argument & (2) "I will always 'stand up' and answer this" when someone makes an insult or a personal attack, is to diametrically reverse what one should be focused on in life and in discussion and writing.

Philip Coates

Post 36

Saturday, September 17 - 2:30pm

Link

Edit

Well said, Phil - and this is how religion got started, taking an analogy or other metaphor and emotionally consider it as an actual, disregarding the origin which started it all... and we're supposed to be lots smarter and rational than our forebearers...

Post 37

Saturday, September 17 - 2:46pm

Link

Edit

Tim, more reverence for that benevolent and brilliant post 5 of yours ... [belated bonk]

Ed

Post 38

Saturday, September 17 - 4:22pm

Link

Edit

Phil-Amen! All of you with some kind of pro- or anti-Linz dog in this fight, step up and MAKE YOUR CASE. Stop name-calling. M. Hardin has made his, now make yours, or shut up.

Post 39

Saturday, September 17 - 4:54pm

Link

Edit

Believe it or not, I reserve the right to post a quote from any book I damn well please, here on my own turf.

Next thing, someone'll be telling me what I may & may not write here lest I upset a certain person (oh, wait, already happened).

What is truly disgusting is the acquiescence to the moral equivalence fallacy being displayed by the usual suspects. The quote spoke to precisely such moral marshmallows.

And if anyone thinks I'm going to waste a second of my time "rebutting" the excrement that started this thread, he's hallucinating. The content is as unconscionable as the act of posting it.

Linz

SOLO or POMO?