WARNING:Avoid IRC #AynRand
Dismuke
oriented IRC channel and wish to expose the matter publicly in order to
prevent others from having a similar experience in the future.
Because of my busy schedule, I rarely have time for IRC. But, once in a
while, I do sign on for a few minutes. By doing so, I have met several
interesting Objectivists. The channels I usually visit are #Geekspeak
and Undernet channel #Objectivism, which is run by occasional hpo'er
Phil Oliver. When I first signed on to #Objectivism sometime in early
to mid-1998, I met and chatted with an individual out of Arizona by the
name of Keith Weiner who went by the nickname "Bearster."
In September of 1998, while on #Objectivism, Weiner and I became
involved in a debate in a private chat window. The conversation was
very difficult and frustrating. First of all, I am a very slow typist
and it was difficult for me to type fast enough to keep up with the
conversation. Second, the conversation started off on a topic that I
had never given much thought to before so it put me in a position of
having to a lot of "multi-tasking" - trying to formulate my thoughts AND
put them into words AND type them out on my keyboard AND follow along
with all of the arguments that Weiner kept interjecting into the
conversation. That alone made the conversation difficult. To make
matters worse, Weiner kept throwing out rebuttals before I even had a
chance to fully clarify my points. Whenever I attempted to respond to
his rebuttals, he would throw out an additional rebuttal before I even
had a chance to finish addressing his previous one.
Now, to be fair, I do not entirely fault Weiner for this. I was
trying to make a point that, if it were being made in a newsgroup
posting, would have taken up several paragraphs. Considering my poor
typing skills and the fact that I was still more or less formulating my
position on the issue under discussion, it would not have been realistic
for me to expect Weiner to silently sit by his computer for minutes at a
time while I typed out my answers. On IRC, one must be able to condense
one's thoughts and express them in a sentence or two - something that,
for various reasons, I was not able to do extemporaneously with the
topic at hand.
What *really* annoyed me about the conversation was the moment when, as
I was attempting to make a point, Weiner flooded the channel by typing
out the exact same question over and over again 5 times in a row.
Before I could even respond, he typed the question a sixth time and then
said that he *insisted* on an answer. Not only did I regard this
behavior as extremely rude, I realized that I was not going to be
allowed to get a word in edgewise. At this point, I informed Weiner
that the conversation was over and exited the channel.
Despite my frustration with the conversation, it did not cause me to
feel any lasting ill will towards Weiner. I recognized that much of my
frustration was centered around the limitations of IRC as a medium of
communicating ideas. While I did not approve of the way Weiner
conducted his end of the conversation, when I looked back at the logs
later that night, I realized that, because I never had an opportunity to
fully complete any of my thoughts, what I had written was not
particularly clear. It occurred to me that the conversation might have
been just as frustrating for Weiner as it was for me. Indeed, until
Weiner reminded me of it the other night - over a year after it had
taken place - I had pretty much forgotten about it.
Earlier this year, somehow or another, I learned that Weiner owned an
IRC channel called #AynRand and decided to check it out. Since August,
I have made 4 visits to the channel - usually while I was simultaneously
logged into #Objectivism. The most recent visit was this past Friday
evening (October 8).
Sunday evening (October 10), out of the blue, I received an email from
Keith Wiener attacking me for visiting his IRC channel when I already
knew I was banned from it and lecturing me on how the channel was his
private property and that Objectivism, above all, respects private
property. Since this was the first I had ever heard of the ban, the
email came to me as quite a surprise. I wrote Weiner back and asked him
what on earth he was talking about. His reply was that he *had* told me
and that his bot had even kicked me out before. This was NOT the case.
Since I had never in my entire life been banned from anything, if
Weiner had indeed told me, I think it would have been something that I
would have remembered. Furthermore, nowhere in my logs can I find an
instance where his bot has kicked me out. I wrote Weiner back insisting
on an explanation. His response was to quote the closing passages of
the chat session that took place 13 months earlier and to cite the
conversation as an example of my "bad thinking."
So, apparently, that is the reason I was banned from the channel: "bad
thinking" in a chat session where, whenever I tried to explain myself,
I was hardly allowed to get a word in edgewise. Now that I actually
know about the ban, I will, of course, abide by it - not that I have a
desire to have anything more to do with that channel anyway. The
channel *is* his and I am not Chris Wolf (who admits to crashing in on
channels where he is banned).
Why am I even bringing this up publicly? Had the matter been nothing
more than some short-tempered little twerp on IRC who, on the basis of
*a single chat session* decided to "condemn me" and have nothing to do
with me, I would have laughed it off and given it no further thought.
Unfortunately, there *is* more to it than that. Mr. Weiner is the
proprietor of an IRC channel that is named after Ayn Rand and is,
therefore, going to attract people who are interested in Objectivism.
Not only do I consider Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me to be rash and
unjust, his email attacking me for not observing a ban that I was not
even aware of is downright irrational. If Mr. Weiner behaves this way
towards *me* - someone who has been actively involved with Objectivism
in one way or another for a number of years and considers himself fairly
knowledgeable about it - God only knows what sort of treatment will be
accorded to some confused newbie who has just become familiar with the
philosophy and who may have errors in his thinking.
To me, what is disturbing is not my being banned from his channel - I
could care less about that - but the fact that such a channel is being
run by a man whose behavior towards me is an embodiment of the sort of
straw man version of an Objectivist that is offered up by the Kelleyites
and others. If this is an example of how Mr. Weiner intends to treat
other visitors to his channel, then he is going to end up helping the
Chris Wolfs of the world achieve far more credibility than they could
ever possibly hope to achieve on their own.
Thus, what we have is a knowledgeable and respected Objectivist being
banned from an allegedly Objectivist IRC channel on the basis of a
*single* chat session - a chat session where he was not even able to
fully clarify his points - and chewed out and lectured to because he
violated a ban that he had never been informed of. No, this is not
something dug up from one of those websites or books that attempt to
smear Objectivism as a cult. This actually happened - to me of all
people. If I did not know better, I would suspect that perhaps Chris
Wolf is going around posturing as an Objectivist in order to provide
"proof" for his arguments.
My advice is for those who are interested in interacting with
knowledgeable and friendly Objectivists to stay clear of #AynRand.
Instead try #Geekspeak or Phil Oliver's #Objectivism. I should also
mention that the same evening that I last signed on to #AynRand, I also
logged on to a channel with a similar name: #Ayn-Rand (note the
hyphen). As no conversation was taking place while I was there, I can
not say anything about it other than the fact that I believe that it is
owned by someone other than Weiner. In no way should people confuse the
two and think that my remarks are directed at the owner of channel
#Ayn-Rand.
|
Dismuke
|
Larson
Dismuke wrote in message <3802CF08...@dismuke.com>...
>Because of my busy schedule, I rarely have time for IRC. But, once in a
>while, I do sign on for a few minutes. By doing so, I have met several
>interesting Objectivists. The channels I usually visit are #Geekspeak
>and Undernet channel #Objectivism, which is run by occasional hpo'er
>Phil Oliver. When I first signed on to #Objectivism sometime in early
>to mid-1998, I met and chatted with an individual out of Arizona by the
>name of Keith Weiner who went by the nickname "Bearster."
>
Consider it an honor to be banned by Bearster who is a truly depraved
individual. You already gave the situation too much thought.
Press on!
-Wolf
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
news:3802CF08...@dismuke.com...
> Thus, what we have is a knowledgeable and respected Objectivist being
> banned from an allegedly Objectivist IRC channel on the basis of a
> *single* chat session - a chat session where he was not even able to
> fully clarify his points - and chewed out and lectured to because he
> violated a ban that he had never been informed of. No, this is not
> something dug up from one of those websites or books that attempt to
> smear Objectivism as a cult. This actually happened - to me of all
> people.
This is an unfortunate situation, clearly a reflection of Weiner's poor
intellectual discussion skills. This reminds me of an even worse case of
intellectual discussion skills as seen in some of Stephen Speicher's posts.
For example, Speicher wrote:
>I would rather suffer the idiocy of a dozen Wrathbones, than the dishonesty
of a single Gibson.
> Wrathbone is an avowed anti-Objectivist, so at least one knows where he
stands. Gibson
>is a pretend-Objectivist, and subverts the philosophy from within. Gibson
lacks the intellectual
>honesty it would take to call his philosophy his own. He seeks to gain the
value of Objectivism,
>simultaneously disagreeing with principles of the philosophy developed by
Rand. Gibson wants
>his Objectivism, and he wants to eat it too.
If there is one thing I am not, it is dishonest. What is a key element of
intellectual honesty? Yes, providing evidence for your beliefs and actually
living by the philosophy you consciously hold. Note that Speicher has never
provided any evidence for this ridiculous smear of my honesty. The fact is,
he'll never find any. And, unless he can come up with some shred of a
reason why he has publicly claimed that I am dishonest, he should simply
have some integrity, live by the philosophy he claims is his, and apologize
publicly. Unfortunately for him, I doubt it will happen.
--
Fred Gibson, Architect
Fred...@gibson-design.com Architecture Designed Objectively
==================================-----------||||||||||||||||||||||
Frederick Clifford Gibson Architect & Associates
1220 14th Avenue Suite 106
San Francisco, CA 94122
415.753.3797 |tel| 415.759.8848 |fax|
(c)1999 http://www.gibson-design.com
EASG: Epistemology-Aesthetics Study Group
http://www.gibson-design.com/philosophy
ART: American Renaissance for the Twenty-First Century
http://www.art-21.org
MSFE2
objectivists who did not automatically take her word or premises as fact. She
would even attack people's objectivist premises if they liked an artist she had
decided had no moral merit, e.g. Beethoven, Shakespeare. It is one of the
dangers of objectivism and only illustrated that even it's founder is not
immune to it.
Dismuke
> This is not dissimilar to the way Rand and her insiders treated
> aspiring
> objectivists who did not automatically take her word or premises as
> fact. She
> would even attack people's objectivist premises if they liked an
> artist she had
> decided had no moral merit, e.g. Beethoven, Shakespeare.
Over the years, I have had the opportunity to speak with a number of
individuals who actually knew Ayn Rand. Based on what they have told
me, Ayn Rand was not like that. There is no doubt that Rand had a
temper - you can hear examples of it in interviews and recorded question
and answer sessions. My guess is that it was probably not very easy for
her to remain patient when she felt that someone was not making sense -
a patience that, while useful in social settings, is by no means a moral
requirement. This is consistent with experiences that Leonard Peikoff
mentions in his essay "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand." But it is
important to note that Peikoff also wrote: "Once I explained that I had
not understood the issue at all, her anger melted and she became intent
on clarifying the truth for me. The anger she felt on such occasions
was mistaken, but it was not irrational. Its root was her failure to
appreciate her own intellectual uniqueness." ("My Thirty Years With Ayn
Rand: in _The Voice of Reason_)
I have heard the stories about Rand attacking and condemning people on
the basis that they enjoyed Beethoven - and I simply do not believe
them. Rand's own stated position was: "Until a conceptual vocabulary is
discovered and defined, *no objectively valid criterion of esthetic
judgment is possible in the field of music* (emphasis Rand's).
> It is one of the
> dangers of objectivism and only illustrated that even it's founder is
> not
> immune to it.
One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
are describing - or to Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me.
Rand's ideas were provocative and, as a result, they continue to ruffle
feathers and engender hostility and hatred from many quarters. There
will always be people who, unable to refute offending ideas, will
attempt to attack their source. That people will attempt to attack Rand
and transform her personality traits into major character flaws is to be
expected. Such stories have to be taken with a large dose of
skepticism. You cannot believe everything you read.
Another sad fact is that there is a tendency for people to judge a
philosophy based on a single negative encounter with one of its alleged
advocates. I once heard about a person who, when the name Ayn Rand came
up, became very hostile. Apparently, the reason for his hostility was
that a former friend of his read several of Rand's books and, soon
afterwards, completely disassociated himself from all of his family and
friends on the basis that they went to church and, therefore, were a
bunch of mystical irrationalists. Such behavior is, of course, bizarre
and is an example of taking the philosophy way out of context.
Nevertheless, because the man's family and friends were previously
unfamiliar with it, Objectivism was what they blamed for the loss of
someone they loved. And considering the man's behavior and the fact
that he probably went around obnoxiously proselytizing to every warm
body in sight, who can blame them?
This is the reason that I have taken the time to write about my
experience on #AynRand. There are already too many people out there
who are smearing Objectivists as nasty, short-tempered, overbearing
jerks whose knee-jerk reaction to every disagreement or misunderstanding
with someone is to "condemn" them. This is simply not the case. Most
Objectivists I know are incredibly benevolent people. The last thing we
need is unpleasant individuals who lend credibility to such attacks.
|
Dismuke
|
Jim Klein
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>Why am I even bringing this up publicly? Had the matter been nothing
>more than some short-tempered little twerp on IRC who, on the basis of
>*a single chat session* decided to "condemn me" and have nothing to do
>with me, I would have laughed it off and given it no further thought.
>Unfortunately, there *is* more to it than that. Mr. Weiner is the
>proprietor of an IRC channel that is named after Ayn Rand and is,
>therefore, going to attract people who are interested in Objectivism.
What a shock, that you and I could have such similar motivations!
>Not only do I consider Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me to be rash and
>unjust, his email attacking me for not observing a ban that I was not
>even aware of is downright irrational.
"Downright irrational" is worth standing forth against, isn't it?
>If Mr. Weiner behaves this way
>towards *me* - someone who has been actively involved with Objectivism
>in one way or another for a number of years and considers himself fairly
>knowledgeable about it - God only knows what sort of treatment will be
>accorded to some confused newbie who has just become familiar with the
>philosophy and who may have errors in his thinking.
Imagine that these very words were written by David Friedman or Chris
Roberson. Both are more than "fairly knowledgeable" about both Objectivism
and philosophy, yet look at how they are treated. Considering their
accomplishments in the field (David's more than Chris's I suppose, since
he's a fair sight older), the treatment they have received from so-called
Objectivists make your treatment trivial by comparison.
How strongly have you stood against _that_?
>To me, what is disturbing is not my being banned from his channel - I
>could care less about that - but the fact that such a channel is being
>run by a man whose behavior towards me is an embodiment of the sort of
>straw man version of an Objectivist that is offered up by the Kelleyites
>and others.
Hmmm...I think I'm one of the "others," yes? It's not a straw man if it's
alive and breathing. If it's common--and it is, whether you acknowledge it
or not--then it reaches the level of "serious problem" IMO.
>If this is an example of how Mr. Weiner intends to treat
>other visitors to his channel, then he is going to end up helping the
>Chris Wolfs of the world achieve far more credibility than they could
>ever possibly hope to achieve on their own.
Indeed, so why not apply this recognition a little more widely? Everyone
here knows Wolf is an idiot with a decided bend toward government apology.
Yet even he is able to produce sufficient facts demonstrating the sorts of
injustices and irrationality engaged in by those who run the ARI. The facts
speak for themselves and are indisputable---that's why they count even
though they're from as weak a thinker as Wolf. He may not have a logical
neuron in his brain, but his credibility as far as the facts are concerned
is very well established.
So now we have the spectacle of someone to whom you feel a duty of
allegiance smearing Wolf in public with nothing but unsubstantiated
accusations. Not only does Wolf deny the accusations, but he has entered
witnesses in support of that denial. Meanwhile the Clown just keeps it up,
stooping to the infantile name-calling that Wolf himself engages in. No
retraction is forthcoming, and no apology is offered.
Sure, this is just Stephen's sick idea of humor but what's your excuse? If
identification, judgement and sanction are so important to you (as
presumably they are, since you consider yourself a "real Objectivist"), then
why are you so silent on an issue like this? This newsgroup is far more
relevant to the spreading and defense of Objectivist ideas in public than
any IRC channel, yet your silence about your clown buddy demonstrates that
some "real Objectivists" hold non-rational allegiance as a higher value than
rational judgement.
Which, of course, is pretty close to what my point has been all along. Is
this the lesson you wish to teach about what Objectivism represents?
IOW, Q.E.D. and a refrain of one of the very first things I ever wrote to an
Objectivist years ago on apo..."Doctor, heal thyself." Rationality is
available to us all, so why not start at home?
Only Wolf himself seems the sort of person that may be hopelessly
irrational, but even if that's the case you've got little to blame than his
early indoctrination by the ARI!
jk
Stephen Speicher
> This is not dissimilar to the way Rand and her insiders treated aspiring
> objectivists who did not automatically take her word or premises as fact.
> She
> would even attack people's objectivist premises if they liked an artist s
> he had
> decided had no moral merit, e.g. Beethoven, Shakespeare. It is one of the
> dangers of objectivism and only illustrated that even it's founder is not
> immune to it.
>
Why would you think that "Rand and her insiders" acted the way
you describe? What are these "dangers of objectivism" which you,
presumably, cause such behavior?
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Save the photons--don't look!
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-------------------------------------
Stephen Speicher
>
> This is the reason that I have taken the time to write about my
> experience on #AynRand. There are already too many people out there
> who are smearing Objectivists as nasty, short-tempered, overbearing
> jerks whose knee-jerk reaction to every disagreement or misunderstanding
> with someone is to "condemn" them. This is simply not the case. Most
> Objectivists I know are incredibly benevolent people. The last thing we
> need is unpleasant individuals who lend credibility to such attacks.
>
Your experience does seem quite bizarre. Although I have no
first-hand knowledge of these IRC goings-on, I have recently
heard of similar happenings, with at least one individual being,
like yourself, someone I both respect and trust. It's
unfortunate if this continues, and I'm sorry it happened to you.
Chris Wolf
>So, apparently, that is the reason I was banned from the channel: "bad
>thinking" in a chat session where, whenever I tried to explain myself,
>I was hardly allowed to get a word in edgewise. Now that I actually
>know about the ban, I will, of course, abide by it - not that I have a
>desire to have anything more to do with that channel anyway. The
>channel *is* his and I am not Chris Wolf (who admits to crashing in on
>channels where he is banned).
IRC channels are open to the public. The operator of such a channel has
the authority (and ability) to ban whomever he pleases, but the rest of us
are under no moral obligation to respect such a ban. I cannot be guilty of
trespass on property that is open to the public. The owner of such
property simply has the right to remove me, if he catches me on his
property. Nothing more.
>To me, what is disturbing is not my being banned from his channel - I
>could care less about that - but the fact that such a channel is being
>run by a man whose behavior towards me is an embodiment of the sort of
>straw man version of an Objectivist that is offered up by the Kelleyites
>and others.
There is nothing "straw man" about it. That's how these assholes operate.
>If this is an example of how Mr. Weiner intends to treat
>other visitors to his channel, then he is going to end up helping the
>Chris Wolfs of the world achieve far more credibility than they could
>ever possibly hope to achieve on their own.
Very true. It's almost as good as the ammunition that Stephen Speicher has
placed in my hands, by accusing me of misbehavior, and then totally
refusing to supply any evidence to back up the accusation.
>Thus, what we have is a knowledgeable and respected Objectivist being
>banned from an allegedly Objectivist IRC channel on the basis of a
>*single* chat session - a chat session where he was not even able to
>fully clarify his points - and chewed out and lectured to because he
>violated a ban that he had never been informed of. No, this is not
>something dug up from one of those websites or books that attempt to
>smear Objectivism as a cult. This actually happened - to me of all
>people.
That's what happens when you sleep with Peikoffians. They will turn on
you, and burn you at the stake, just as readily as they will burn any
Kelleyite.
>If I did not know better, I would suspect that perhaps Chris
>Wolf is going around posturing as an Objectivist in order to provide
>"proof" for his arguments.
No, unlike Stephen Speicher, I do not resort to MANUFACTURING accusations
of misconduct against my opponents.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
My Dinner With Andy
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/dinner.html
Dismuke
<A response to my initial posting in this thread>
You know Jimmy, I kind of figured when I put up the posting that it
would probably result in your having an effluvial discharge. I see that
I figured correctly.
> Imagine that these very words were written by David Friedman or Chris
> Roberson. Both are more than "fairly knowledgeable" about both
> Objectivism
> and philosophy, yet look at how they are treated. Considering their
> accomplishments in the field (David's more than Chris's I suppose,
> since
> he's a fair sight older), the treatment they have received from
> so-called
> Objectivists make your treatment trivial by comparison.
>
> How strongly have you stood against _that_?
Exactly how have Objectivists mistreated them? By disagreeing with what
they say? How does disagreement constitute mistreatment? Perhaps you
are calling the fact that some Objectivist forums have membership
restrictions a form of mistreatment. If so, I disagree.
If Mr.Weiner wishes to impose membership restrictions on his channel, I
have no problem with it. My problem is the petty and non-objective way
in which he has done so with me. First, I was lectured about violating
a ban that I was not even aware of. When, after two inquiries asking
for a explanation, Mr. Weiner finally provided one, he brought up a
chat session that took place 13 months earlier and said that I was
guilty of "bad thinking."
It is, of course, his channel and he can do whatever he likes with it.
But if this is the way he is going to run it, it would be more honest
if he were to change the channel's name to #KeithsClub. This is no way
to run a serious Objectivist forum.
If a forum wishes to impose membership conditions based on commonly
shared philosophical views, great. But, if the forum is to be taken
seriously, those conditions should be announced in advance and people
should be banned only if and when they have violated the conditions.
Membership should not be based on the whims of the forum owner - not if
it is to be taken seriously. That is exactly what happened with me. I
was banned based on "bad thinking" in a single conversation during which
I did not even get to finish my thoughts.
I belong to two Objectivist forums that impose membership conditions:
Robert Stubblefield's Objectivist Study Group (OSG) and the Harry
Binswanger List (HBL) Those not already familiar with the OSG contract
may view it at http://www.intellectualactivist.com/osg/contract.html
Note that the terms and conditions are clearly spelled out. The only
thing required to join is one's *word* that he accepts them and will
abide by them.
Apparently, one's word is not good enough in order to participate in Mr.
Weiner's forum. Someone recently sent me the URL to the channel's
website. Today, I visited it and discovered that Mr. Weiner is asking
participants to submit to a *test*. That's right - a test. You may view
it by pointing your browser to:
http://cc431051-a.vron1.nj.home.com/aynrand/quiz.html
The stated purpose of the test is to "to sort out the trolls from the
genuine contributors to the channel." Some of the test's questions
are truly bizarre. For example, one asks "Do you believe in any gods,
demons, devils, heavens, hells, magic, ESP, tarot cards, crystals, or
Psi?" Now, don't you think that someone who has a desire to troll an
Objectivist IRC channel is going to have at least enough knowledge about
Objectivism to be able to answer the questions in such a way as to meet
with Weiner's approval? Surely Weiner does not really think that the
type of person who wishes to become a troll is going to be someone who
is going to answer the questions honestly?
At the top of the test is the following instruction: "Only answer when
certain. You will be judged for saying something which is wrong, but not
for saying "I don't know." Judged? In other words, to participate, you
must first submit to a test so that Mr. Weiner can "judge" you? No
thanks! Not only has Mr. Weiner already demonstrated exactly how he
goes about judging people, the whole notion is bizarre to begin with.
The final question on the test is: "Is there anything in the philosophy
that you disagree with? If so, type in here."
Yeah. Right.
I wonder what happens to those who answer the questions incorrectly.
Are they immediately guilty of "bad thinking" and, therefore, banned?
Or does Mr. Weiner attempt to "reeducate" them - and only if they fail
to be persuaded by his arguments are they guilty of "bad ideas"?
Folks, this is truly whacked out and nutty. *This* is an example of
"crackpot nonsense." Actually, my suggestion is that the channel's
name be changed to #KeithsCult.
This whole situation is like some strange twilight zone in which every
anti-Objectivist straw man has been brought to life.
|
Dismuke
|
Betsy Speicher
> This is not dissimilar to the way Rand and her insiders treated aspiring
> objectivists who did not automatically take her word or premises as
> fact. She would even attack people's objectivist premises if they liked
> an artist she had decided had no moral merit, e.g. Beethoven,
> Shakespeare.
That was the mythological Ayn Rand, not the Real Ayn Rand. Leonard
Peikoff (who studied with Rand for over 30 years, was her designated heir,
and wrote the definitive book on her philosophy) gave plenty of evidence
to the contrary in a live radio interview conducted by reporters for a
local newspaper while he was doing his daily radio show. Here's what he
had to say, transcribed verbatim, from my tape of the interview:
"If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or
would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and
painting, I'd like you to account for my continued existence as a close
friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.
"I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew
perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. [ ...]
"She knew in great detail of the conflicts -- such conflicts or
disagreements as there were -- and as long as you could specify what
you liked in terms that were understandable in reason (and that were
not an assault on reason, as I indicated to you before) there's no such
thing. It's a complete, total lie."
----
As confirmation of this fact, give a listen to Ayn Rand's "Fiction
Writing" course which was taped at her apartment. There is one place
where she discusses four love scenes. After the reading of one she asks:
"Is there anyone who likes THIS?" Her voice is dripping with utter
disgust. There is dead silence on the tape for a while and then you hear
Ayn Rand chuckling and saying, "Leonard, you _would!_"
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Stephen Speicher
> Dismuke writes:
>
> >So, apparently, that is the reason I was banned from the channel: "bad
> >thinking" in a chat session where, whenever I tried to explain myself,
> >I was hardly allowed to get a word in edgewise. Now that I actually
> >know about the ban, I will, of course, abide by it - not that I have a
> >desire to have anything more to do with that channel anyway. The
> >channel *is* his and I am not Chris Wolf (who admits to crashing in on
> >channels where he is banned).
>
> IRC channels are open to the public. The operator of such a channel has
> the authority (and ability) to ban whomever he pleases, but the rest of us
> are under no moral obligation to respect such a ban. I cannot be guilty of
> trespass on property that is open to the public. The owner of such
> property simply has the right to remove me, if he catches me on his
> property. Nothing more.
>
Crackpot nonsense from our resident loony.
>
> >If this is an example of how Mr. Weiner intends to treat
> >other visitors to his channel, then he is going to end up helping the
> >Chris Wolfs of the world achieve far more credibility than they could
> >ever possibly hope to achieve on their own.
>
> Very true. It's almost as good as the ammunition that Stephen Speicher has
> placed in my hands, by accusing me of misbehavior, and then totally
> refusing to supply any evidence to back up the accusation.
>
More crackpot nonsense.
>
> That's what happens when you sleep with Peikoffians. They will turn on
> you, and burn you at the stake, just as readily as they will burn any
> Kelleyite.
>
What a paranoid goofball!
> >If I did not know better, I would suspect that perhaps Chris
> >Wolf is going around posturing as an Objectivist in order to provide
> >"proof" for his arguments.
>
> No, unlike Stephen Speicher, I do not resort to MANUFACTURING accusations
> of misconduct against my opponents.
>
More delusions from our resident crackpot.
Get lost, creep.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Save the photons--don't look!
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-------------------------------------
ftb
ftb
ftb
ftb
ftb
Aaron Davies
> That was the mythological Ayn Rand, not the Real Ayn Rand. Leonard
> Peikoff (who studied with Rand for over 30 years, was her designated heir,
> and wrote the definitive book on her philosophy) gave plenty of evidence
> to the contrary in a live radio interview conducted by reporters for a
> local newspaper while he was doing his daily radio show.
Thanks for injecting a bit of reality into this discussion, but I'm
afraid quoting Peikoff to these people isn't going to help. If there's
one person they hate more than Miss Rand herself, it's he.
--
Aaron Davies, Comp. E. Major, Hacker Wannabe, Marapfhile Extraordinaire
PGP Public Key: http://www.columbia.edu/~agd12/public_key.txt
PGP Fingerprint: 135 45E0 55AD C81E D85B B81D D737 F614 5D16 4893
noi...@home.com
(snip)
>I met and chatted with an individual out of Arizona by the
>name of Keith Weiner who went by the nickname "Bearster."
I think that it is interesting to note Bearster is also an op in
Undernet's #objectivism channel. Here is a brief list of somewhat
relevant addresses as of Oct 12th:
[18:47] -> *w* access #objectivism -min 1
[18:47] -W- USER: DmndWare (*!*dw@*.speedchoice.com) ACCESS: 100 P
[18:47] -W- CHANNEL: #objectivism -- AUTOOP: OFF
[18:47] -W- USER: Bearster (*!*Bearster@*.bbn.com) ACCESS: 100 P
[18:47] -W- CHANNEL: #Objectivism -- AUTOOP: OFF
[18:47] -W- LAST SEEN: 66 days, 19:03:47 ago
(snip)
[18:47] -W- USER: Bearster6 (*!~keith*@*.phoenix.speedchoice.com)
ACCESS: 400 P
[18:47] -W- CHANNEL: #objectivism -- AUTOOP: OFF
(snip)
[18:47] -W- End of access list
Take note that *.speedchoice.com is Bearster's ISP. He is a level 400
operator on Undernet's Objectivism under his current ident, nickname,
and isp address. Here is a /whois of him as of this writing:
Bearster is ~ke...@hybrid-024-221-051-216.phoenix.speedchoice.com *
Keith
Bearster on #Ayn-Rand #AynRand
Bearster using phoenix.az.us.undernet.org [204.181.17.6] AMUG, Phoenix
AZ
Bearster End of /WHOIS list.
Do you still wish to join #Objectivism with this knowledge?
>In September of 1998, while on #Objectivism, Weiner and I became
>involved in a debate in a private chat window. The conversation was
>very difficult and frustrating.
Keith is quite possibly the most eristically adept person I've ever
come across; I only know one other person that can eclipse his
horribly annoying argumentation style. I dread discussions with
anyone like that. Among his tactics are extreme smearing with black
and white or "all-or-nothing" thinking, repetitive jabs demanding
"Answers" to his questions, and what appears to be an inability to see
anyone else's point except his own. He is also very quick to write
off anyone that disagrees with him, no matter how sleightly, (again,
all or nothing thinking) as "not the kind of man" he is looking for.
IRC is a typed medium, and it is difficult to convey voice tone,
inflection, etc., through it. There is far more to a conversation
than typed words. Even the addition of emoticons does not make IRC
remotely close to voice to voice conversation, let alone face to face.
> Second, the conversation started off on a topic that I
>had never given much thought to before so it put me in a position of
>having to a lot of "multi-tasking" - trying to formulate my thoughts AND
>put them into words AND type them out on my keyboard AND follow along
>with all of the arguments that Weiner kept interjecting into the
>conversation. That alone made the conversation difficult. To make
>matters worse, Weiner kept throwing out rebuttals before I even had a
>chance to fully clarify my points. Whenever I attempted to respond to
>his rebuttals, he would throw out an additional rebuttal before I even
>had a chance to finish addressing his previous one.
Because you are an evading Kantian intrinsicist Kelleyite-Brandian
fool that needs no consideration whatsoever. At least, if you
disagree with him, that's some of his choice words to use on you.
>Now, to be fair, I do not entirely fault Weiner for this.
I fault him for it. He has a temper that needs to be cooled. Manners
are not his strong point, and I think that that says a lot about his
inability to think rationally. His frustration probably comes from
him not being able to make you understand instantaneously what he
thinks he already knows and you must agree with, because of his
supreme authority. His first assumption is that he knows everything.
His second assumption is that it is so obvious, that everyone should
see it, too. His third assumption is that whomever does not see it,
is an evader that must be banned.
> I was
>trying to make a point that,
(snip)
>would have taken up several paragraphs.
(snip)
> it would not have been realistic
>for me to expect Weiner to silently sit by his computer for minutes at a
>time while I typed out my answers.
(snip)
If he had any courtesy, he would have suggested that you e-mail him if
the topic was important enough for him to badger you on it. If it
wasn't important enough for him to badger you, then he should have
suggested that both of you drop it.
>What *really* annoyed me about the conversation was the moment when, as
>I was attempting to make a point, Weiner flooded the channel by typing
>out the exact same question over and over again 5 times in a row.
>Before I could even respond, he typed the question a sixth time and then
>said that he *insisted* on an answer. Not only did I regard this
>behavior as extremely rude, I realized that I was not going to be
>allowed to get a word in edgewise. At this point, I informed Weiner
>that the conversation was over and exited the channel.
Good move. If he wasn't an op, I would have asked any ops there (if
they were present) why they did not help maintain any civility in a
discussion channel, e.g., his channel flooding. I would
(snip)
>While I did not approve of the way Weiner
>conducted his end of the conversation, when I looked back at the logs
>later that night, I realized that, because I never had an opportunity to
>fully complete any of my thoughts, what I had written was not
>particularly clear. It occurred to me that the conversation might have
>been just as frustrating for Weiner as it was for me.
(snip)
If he wants less frustration in his discussions then let him learn
civility and patience. If it is too much for him to stop, listen, and
even ask for clarification once in a while, then he has no business
being in a discussion forum of any sort.
>Earlier this year, somehow or another, I learned that Weiner owned an
>IRC channel called #AynRand and decided to check it out.
(snip)
I won't even get into my problem with #AynRand. Suffice it to say
that I lost the channel buffer when I was kickbanned by Bearster, so
the private discussion between Bearster and myself will not make much
sense, and I cannot recreate what was said in channel for all to see.
It is interesting to note that I got along great with everyone in
#AynRand before Bearster joined, (which was a good 45 minutes, I
figure), and then everything went downhill once he turned his
attention towards me.
(snip)
>- God only knows what sort of treatment will be
>accorded to some confused newbie who has just become familiar with the
>philosophy and who may have errors in his thinking.
I dread thinking about it. This is like a pollution that is difficult
to eliminate; anyone can appear to be an "Objectivist" to a newbie
(snips)
>My advice is for those who are interested in interacting with
>knowledgeable and friendly Objectivists to stay clear of #AynRand.
>Instead try #Geekspeak or Phil Oliver's #Objectivism.
I do not suggest going to #Objectivism so long as Bearster is an op
there. Perhaps many people did not know this until now; but as far as
I am concerned, any channel that treats him as a welcome guest or even
an op is something to be wary of.
> I should also
>mention that the same evening that I last signed on to #AynRand, I also
>logged on to a channel with a similar name: #Ayn-Rand (note the
>hyphen). As no conversation was taking place while I was there, I can
>not say anything about it other than the fact that I believe that it is
>owned by someone other than Weiner. In no way should people confuse the
>two and think that my remarks are directed at the owner of channel
>#Ayn-Rand.
Here is another /whois of Bearster right now:
Bearster is ~ke...@hybrid-024-221-051-216.phoenix.speedchoice.com *
Keith
Bearster on #Ayn-Rand #AynRand
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(emphasis mine)
Bearster using phoenix.az.us.undernet.org [204.181.17.6] AMUG, Phoenix
AZ
Bearster End of /WHOIS list.
While #Ayn-Rand appears to be owned by someone else, it is not a
registered channel with Undernet, (no X or W) and it can be lost if no
one holds operator status in it. I fear to speculate any further
regarding the fate of that channel, I only hope it turns out great,
despite the fact that Bearster is frequenting it.
I second your notion, Dismuke, to avoid #AynRand on Undernet. I think
that Bearster also runs #AynRand on DALnet...which is yet another sad
state of affairs.
But to all of you reading, you can see this for yourself. Join
#AynRand on Undernet and strike up a conversation. Or just sit,
watch, and study. Double click on the channel and pull up the
banlist, it may be interesting. If I could get X to list the bans for
the channel, I would. Even more interesting would be Bearster's IRC
client banlist, I'm sure it is huge.
All of this from the channel that claims to be:
[21:03] -X- Desc: For the Best, Brightest, and Most Active Minds in
the World
[21:03] -X- URL: www.aynrand.nu
Perhaps he should change his channel description to
"For the Best, Fastest, and Most Active Banlist in the World."
robch...@my-deja.com
: Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
::>
::> If Mr. Weiner behaves this way towards *me* - someone
::> or another for a number of years and considers himself fairly
::> knowledgeable about it - God only knows what sort of treatment
::> will be accorded to some confused newbie who has just become
::> familiar with the philosophy and who may have errors in his thinking.
:: Imagine that these very words were written by David Friedman or Chris
:: Roberson. Both are more than "fairly knowledgeable" about both
:: Objectivism and philosophy, yet look at how they are treated.
:: Considering their accomplishments in the field (David's more than
:: Chris's I suppose, since he's a fair sight older), the treatment they
:: have received from so-called Objectivists make your treatment trivial
:: by comparison.
::
:: How strongly have you stood against _that_?
: Exactly how have Objectivists mistreated them? By disagreeing with
: what they say? How does disagreement constitute mistreatment? Perhaps
: you are calling the fact that some Objectivist forums have membership
: restrictions a form of mistreatment. If so, I disagree.
: If Mr.Weiner wishes to impose membership restrictions on his channel,
: I have no problem with it. My problem is the petty and non-objective
: way in which he has done so with me.
I think that Jim is not referring to disagreement, or to membership
restrictions. (Personally, I would be amazed if I _weren't_ banned from an
Objectivist group with membership restrictions.) I think he's referring to
"petty and non-objective" behavior.
Being the target of petty, non-objective behavior from Objectivists
doesn't really surprise or bother me very much, and I don't want to bore
anyone with inconsequential gossip. But yes, I have received a fair amount
of petty, non-objective behavior here on h.p.o. As have many others, I'm
sure.
But it does surprise me to read this (from two different posts)
: To me, what is disturbing is not my being banned from his channel - I
: could care less about that - but the fact that such a channel is being
: run by a man whose behavior towards me is an embodiment of the sort of
: straw man version of an Objectivist that is offered up by the
: Kelleyites and others.
:
: No, this is not something dug up from one of those websites or books
: that attempt to smear Objectivism as a cult. This actually happened
: - to me of all people.
:
: This whole situation is like some strange twilight zone in which every
: anti-Objectivist straw man has been brought to life.
I see not even the glimmer of a realization that some of these "straw men"
could be real men, not straw men. Nor does it seem to have crossed
Dismuke's mind that maybe some of these supposed "smears" are based on
other people's real, lived experience. People have been reporting behavior
like this on the part of self-proclaimed Objectivists like this for years.
Why is this so shocking, then? I would guess (correct me if I'm wrong)
that the previous reports have been coming from the "wrong" people --
"enemies" of Objectivism, people out to "smear" Objectivism, and other
folks of the non-Objective sort. Inherent in all this is the notion that
Those People cannot be trusted to tell the truth about Objectivism: their
irrational hatred is too great.
I don't know what sort of evidence will serve to convince otherwise. Maybe
this incident will contribute to it. Welcome to the twilight zone.
--
Christopher Roberson
Chris Wolf
>>On 12 Oct 1999, Chris Wolf wrote:
>>
>> IRC channels are open to the public. The operator of such a channel has
>> the authority (and ability) to ban whomever he pleases, but the rest of us
>> are under no moral obligation to respect such a ban. I cannot be guilty of
>> trespass on property that is open to the public. The owner of such
>> property simply has the right to remove me, if he catches me on his
>> property. Nothing more.
>Crackpot nonsense from our resident loony.
It's flattering to watch Stephen Speicher attempt to imitate my own
inimitable style of writing, but it's also a bit pathetic. For the truth
is, Stephen Speicher is far too much of a dork to be able to use phrases
like "crackpot nonsense," or "get lost, crackpot," with any degree of
skill, finesse, or humor.
Actually, Speicher is too much of a robot dork to successfully manage such
a thing.
The problem is, in order to work, such statements MUST contain an element
of truth. And anyone who labels my posts as "crackpot," is making a
statement that contains NO element of truth. By contrast, when Jim Klein
writes that a visit by the police, to Bob Kolker's home, constitutes "armed
trespass," that certainly qualifies as "crackpot nonsense," for obvious
reasons.
Watching Stephen Speicher attempt to be funny, or satirical, is like
watching Bill and Hillary Clinton in that commercial, several years ago,
where they attempted to satirize the "Harry & Louise" commercials that the
insurance lobby was using to discredit Hillary's plan for socialized
medicine. It was unbelievably pathetic, watching the Clintons' attempt to
be funny. It's like watching Al Gore try to do stand-up comedy.
Now if you want to see an example of good satire, check out Kendrick
McPeters' current attempts to make fun of me by putting an asterisk * after
every statement he makes about Waco, and then footnoting it at the end of
his post with the sentence, "Get lost Crackpot!" in order to preclude my
own response to it. Now THAT'S funny! It's clever, and it's witty. In
other words, it's everything that Speicher's current attempt is not.
Give it up, Mr. Speicher. It won't work for you. You're such a dorky
tight-ass that we couldn't drag a needle out of your butt, with a tractor.
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
message news:7tvb4r$s...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com...
> > banned from an allegedly Objectivist IRC channel on the basis of a
> > *single* chat session - a chat session where he was not even able to
> > fully clarify his points - and chewed out and lectured to because he
> > violated a ban that he had never been informed of. No, this is not
> > something dug up from one of those websites or books that attempt to
> > smear Objectivism as a cult. This actually happened - to me of all
> > people.
>
> intellectual discussion skills.
My apologies to Keith Weiner for making the above judgment with no
first-hand knowledge of the situation.
What I should have said:
If Dismuke's assertions are accurate, then in this case Weiner is exhibiting
poor intellectual discussion skills.
Owl
> One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
> published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
You don't see any similarity between her constant accusations of
dishonesty, irrationality, and 'evasion' and what Mr. Weiner did to you?
> This is the reason that I have taken the time to write about my
> experience on #AynRand. There are already too many people out there
> who are smearing Objectivists as nasty, short-tempered, overbearing
> jerks whose knee-jerk reaction to every disagreement or misunderstanding
> with someone is to "condemn" them. This is simply not the case. Most
> Objectivists I know are incredibly benevolent people.
This may well be the case. I assume that most of these Objectivists to
whom you refer do not frequent the newsgroups. The ill-temper of the most
vocal objectivists gives a bad reputation to all objectivists -- most of
whom may be perfectly nice.
For what it's worth, based on my experience with Objectivism, and I'm
hardly a neophyte, I was not at all surprised to hear of the treatment you
received.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Give it up, Mr. Speicher. It won't work for you. You're such a dorky
> tight-ass that we couldn't drag a needle out of your butt, with a tractor.
>
Ah, so it _was_ Wolf the other night. That explains the band-aids on
the crackpot's tongue.
bear...@my-deja.com
<<<
When I first signed on to #Objectivism sometime
in early to mid-1998, I met and chatted with an
individual out of Arizona by the name of Keith
Weiner who went by the nickname "Bearster."
>>>
One of the things you managed to communicate to
me, Mr. Michael Duus, was that you were more than
a little paranoid. You made a *big* federal case
of not being called even "Mike" in channel (which
is basically a small private group, especially
compared, e.g. to a public forum like HPO). You
hinted at various horrible things that people
might do to you.
So I was especially surprised to see that you
felt like posting my full name.
Unless you've checked and challenged this false
premise, I must interpet your deliberate post as
an *evil* act. That is, I think you hope someone
will call me with death threats, burn my house
down, etc. And that this will be your "revenge"
for being banned.
Whatever your other premises are, this alone is
sufficient cause for me to want nothing to do
with you.
Feel free to rationalize this, or dissect it in
public, ad nauseum, etc.
P.S. A ban on #AynRand does not always mean that
I think the banned person is a kantian destroyer
of Toohey-like proportions. It sometimes means
the person is a bit rationalistic, or that his
sense of life is awry.
If I am in error, and you did not post my full
name and location to this public forum in order
to cause harm to befall me, I encourage you to
email me (I don't normally read this forum). I
do not promise I will unban you, but I will
reconsider my uncertain (at the moment) premise
that you are evil. As I've said before, a ban
doesn't always mean that I think a person is
utterly evil. However, sometimes when I ban a
person he commits an action which shows he *is*.
P.P.S. This is not an invitation for you to call
me a jerk, a disgrace, or the living embodiment
of every Kelleyite package-deal. Alleging that I
am Chris Wolf or Steve Reed in disguise is Right
Out.
This *is* an invitation for you to clarify an
action which seems, at the moment, to be quite
evil.
-- Keith "Bearster" Weiner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris Cathcart
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> I belong to two Objectivist forums that impose membership conditions:
> Robert Stubblefield's Objectivist Study Group (OSG) and the Harry
> Binswanger List (HBL) Those not already familiar with the OSG
contract
> may view it at http://www.intellectualactivist.com/osg/contract.html
> Note that the terms and conditions are clearly spelled out. The only
> thing required to join is one's *word* that he accepts them and will
> abide by them.
Unfortunately, not all the terms and conditions are clearly spelled
out. In particular, the condition that one not engage in "explicit
sanction of anti-Objectivist activities; e.g., posting to mailing lists
run by Libertarians who "tolerate" Objectivists." Even after extensive
attempts involving much effort at integration and reduction, I have not
been able to make a clear determination as to what the OSG listowner
and others of his persuasion mean *objectively* by terms
like "Libertarian/ism." What attempts I've seen by others typically
involve biasing of terms (e.g. a "Libertarian" is one who believes that
there can be any number of ways to arrive at a conclusion supporting
political liberty) so that -- of course! -- "Libertarianism" and
Objectivism are incompatible and hence by extension Kelleyites are
non/anti/pseudo-Objectivists to be shunned accordingly.
However, I've been over this point countless times and am repeating
what many have already heard. But I do welcome any attempts at
shedding useful light on the subject should any be forthcoming.
--
Chris Cathcart
bear...@my-deja.com
<<<When I first signed on to
#Objectivism sometime in early to mid-1998, I met and chatted with an
individual out of Arizona by the name of Keith Weiner who went by the
nickname "Bearster.">>>
One of the things you managed to communicate to me, Mr. Michael Duus,
-- Keith "Bearster" Weiner
Betsy Speicher
On 13 Oct 1999, Owl wrote:
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote in message
> news:38035D50...@dismuke.com...
> > One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
> > published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
> > are describing - or to Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me.
>
> You don't see any similarity between her constant accusations of
> dishonesty, irrationality, and 'evasion' and what Mr. Weiner did to you?
Here we are dealing with the Mythical Ayn Rand again. I saw her many,
many times in person and I never saw this happening "constantly" or even
occasionally. "Rarely" would be a more accurate term. Also the people
close to her the longest report that she displayed anger occasionally but
that she was almost always positive, enthusiastic, generous, and
benevolent towards people. Read the _Letters of Ayn Rand_ and what you
see, over snd over, is the real Ayn Rand, not the mythical one.
Best premises,
Betsy
be...@speicher.com
http://compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/betsys.html
R Lawrence
>This is not dissimilar to the way Rand and her insiders treated aspiring
>objectivists who did not automatically take her word or premises as fact. She
>would even attack people's objectivist premises if they liked an artist sh
>e had
>decided had no moral merit, e.g. Beethoven, Shakespeare. It is one of the
>dangers of objectivism and only illustrated that even it's founder is not
>immune to it.
This is typical anti-Rand myth-building. There's plenty of reason to
believe that Rand had strong opinions about art and openly expressed them.
But when you look at the first and second hand reports (not third or fouth
hand repetitions like the above), who were the reported "victims" of Rand's
artistic opinions? The Brandens, the Blumenthals, Peikoff -- people who
were very close to Rand, and none of whom were ever rejected as friends
because of those esthetic disagreements. It seems that those who later
attacked her for this took Rand's criticisms in stride, until their
friendships with her ended for other reasons and they were looking for ways
to make her look bad.
============================================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: <http://www.objectivism.addr.com/>
noi...@home.com
>One of the things you managed to communicate to me, Mr. Michael Duus,
>was that you were more than a little paranoid. You made a *big*
>federal case of not being called even "Mike" in channel (which is
>basically a small private group, especially compared, e.g. to a public
>forum like HPO). You hinted at various horrible things that people
>might do to you.
>
>So I was especially surprised to see that you felt like posting my full
>name. Unless you've checked and challenged this false premise, I must
>interpet your deliberate post as an *evil* act. That is, I think you
>hope someone will call me with death threats, burn my house down, etc.
>And that this will be your "revenge" for being banned.
I believe that his posting of your name helps thwart any possible
disguise that you may attempt after you read his post. It is a tactic
that you employ in argumenation, by forseeing an "opponent's" move and
reacting before it becomes an actuality. (c.f., rebuttals before a
counter-point is even made). Unless you have checked and challenged
your false premise, I think that you hope to make him back off of the
points that he has made on you because you would like to brand him as
evil, and you as a victim. You have no sympathy from me.
>Whatever your other premises are, this alone is sufficient cause for me
>to want nothing to do with you. Feel free to rationalize this, or
>dissect it in public, ad nauseum, etc.
Most rational people want nothing to do with you. The main reason
this is being brought to light is the hopes that newbies do not see
you as the standard of "Objectivist."
Freel free to claim me a Platonist for claiming that there is some
"Form" of an "Objectivist", dissect it in public, ad nauseum, etc.
>P.S. A ban on #AynRand does not always mean that I think the banned
>person is a kantian destroyer of Toohey-like proportions. It sometimes
>means the person is a bit rationalistic, or that his sense of life is
>awry.
It also means that you are frustrated with the person who does not
automatically see your supreme reasoning end-results. It also means
that you pick out one single instance of something that you do not
like in order to ban the whole, since you do not accept "Package
Deals", (that is what you write them off as.) You understand that
people are not omniscient, but you want them to conform to your idea
of what a good Objectivist should be, yet you also maintain that you
want no yes-men. Coupled with a ban on "an awry sense of life", this
makes for a very large banlist.
>If I am in error, and you did not post my full name and location to
>this public forum in order to cause harm to befall me, I encourage you
>to email me (I don't normally read this forum). I do not promise I
>will unban you, but I will reconsider my uncertain (at the moment)
>premise that you are evil.
This makes me smirk. There is no prize in being able to join
#AynRand, so the lack of promise in your voice to unban Dismuke is
silly. I also think it is funny that you are offering this almost as
a trade consession to get him off of your back--you answered none of
the points that he made, and you countered with your own paranoia that
he posted your name and general location in order to sic the dogs on
you.
>As I've said before, a ban doesn't always mean that I think a person is
>utterly evil. However, sometimes when I ban a person he commits an
>action which shows he *is*.
Is this statement to mean that you find out *after* you ban them that
they show that they *are* evil? Maybe you've never thought about
something called resentment.
Perhaps you have a very different idea of what an IRC channel is for
vs. everyone else's idea.
Discussion is the primary reason behind most channels I've ever seen,
except for channels that trade binaries. As #AynRand is meant to be a
discussion channel, I understand that it is moderated to keep things
on topic. But it is your moderation and/or general attitude that
makes me sick. You are a walking talking ignoratio elenchi,
rationalist, intrinsicist, authoritarian, and frustrated operator of a
channel that is named after who is the greatest woman in the world.
This representation makes all rational people disgusted, as we can
imagine how many people you are upsetting and picking apart in the
hopes that will only find those that are willing to sit next to your
side like a loyal dog, yet proclaim that they aren't dogs.
>P.P.S. This is not an invitation for you to call me a jerk, a
>disgrace, or the living embodiment of every Kelleyite package-deal.
>Alleging that I am Chris Wolf or Steve Reed in disguise is Right Out.
I guess it is too late for me to not call you something bad. You seem
to use the word *evil* with no regard for certainty, so why should
anyone be certain of your evilness before they claim that you are
evil, too?
Actually, I am certain that you are evil; the name of Ayn Rand is
being smeared by one of the biggest jerks I've ever come across on
IRC. You are a jerk. You are a disgrace. You are the living
embodiment of a paranoid irrational dictator that rules over his
"kingdom" with an iron fist, stinking drunk on his own ability to
pronounce others to be evil or "good and loyal, but not a yes-man."
If you could dance in an Endzone after a ban, I'll bet that you would
do it.
>This *is* an invitation for you to clarify an action which seems, at
>the moment, to be quite evil.
Would you care to clarify (m)any of your bans on #AynRand by posting
logs and commenting on them? I would think that *that* is the issue
that was being discussed here, not your own paranoia, or Dismuke's
paranoia, or who is going to sic whom with some terrorists. I know
that seems to be a popular topic here with the other posts, but I
don't think that is what is intended on this thread.
Again, your tactic was to make yourself out to be a victim; you claim
that having your name and general location posted means that everyone
is automatically going to try and burn down your house or issue death
threats. Your second tactic was to go to private e-mail with Dismuke,
since you are probably worried about the shedding of light upon your
attitude on IRC. Not without good reason, I might add; bringing your
attitude out into the public and exposing you for who you are will
help crush your precious little IRC kingdom, which I am sure you will
miss dearly. Your third tactic could be to never answer any points
that anyone has brought up, we'll see if you even bother.
I doubt it, since you'll easily write anyone who brings points against
you off as (a)/(an) ___________
Kelleyite
Kantian
Intrinsicist
Brandian
*EVIL*
"awry in the Sense of Life department"
>-- Keith "Bearster" Weiner
Have fun, if you are capable of it.
Stephen Speicher
>
> P.S. A ban on #AynRand does not always mean that I think the banned
> person is a kantian destroyer of Toohey-like proportions. It sometimes
> means the person is a bit rationalistic, or that his sense of life is
> awry.
>
Well, I am not rationalistic, and my sense of life is just fine,
thank you, and last night you banned me!
After reading Dismuke's story, on the heels of a similar story
from another I respect, I decided to see for myself. I have never
been on IRC before, so for my first time I logged on to #aynrand
with my astronomical nickname, ngc3242. Within a minute or so of
connecting, I had the feeling that I was being isolated, with a
light shone in my eyes, as if I was being interrogated. I can
understand your desire to filter out those who are unwanted for
your private channel, but rather than doing so in an open,
friendly manner, it was done in a suspicious and confrontational
way. Personally I have lost nothing by being banned from this
channel, but I do feel sorry for anyone new to Objectivism who
might think that such a rationalistic and confrontational
attitude as was expressed by you, is in any way representative of
those who really _are_ Objectivists.
Frankly, I am disgusted that you choose to use Miss Rand's name
as a designator for your channel, and hope you will have the
decency to call it by your own name, so that you neither attract
people to, or cash-in on the name of Ayn Rand, or Objectivism.
Dismuke, and others, deserve an apology, not a rebuke.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Save the photons--don't look!
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-------------------------------------------
John Alway
Owl wrote in message <7u113s$a0r$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote in message
>news:38035D50...@dismuke.com...
>> One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
>> published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
>> are describing - or to Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me.
>You don't see any similarity between her constant accusations of
>dishonesty, irrationality, and 'evasion' and what Mr. Weiner did to you?
What is vital here are not the similarities, but the differences.
The difference is that Ayn Rand made sense when she did it. That's
one thing I always loved about her. She would level somebody, and nobody
could do it as well as she, and then she'd always have a crystal clear and
sensible reason for doing so.
...John
MSFE2
>one thing I always loved about her. She would level somebody, and nobody
>could do it as well as she, and then she'd always have a crystal clear and
>sensible reason for doing so.
I think that increasingly she beleived that the fact that she was Ayn Rand was
enough "sensible reason" for her to "level" somebody, she stopped examing her
premises. I am a great admirer of her intellect and fiction and non-fiction,
however if you read her biography, you will see tremendous contradictions in
her own "physcho-epistomology" and will see that there were tremendous dangers
in the application of objectivism run as a totalitarian state, and you will see
that it posed many dangers for people who took *everything* she said as gospel
without examining *her* premises. Forget reading her biography, as great as
her works are, it is all there for you to see.
Stephen Speicher
This is the same nonsense you spouted before, still without
explanation or justification. _Anyone_ who takes _anything_ as
gospel is in trouble, but where do you see in the philosophy of
Objectivism the idea or suggestion to do so? You seem to think
"it is all there for you to see", and therefore requires nothing
further as justification. Perhaps what you 'see' is not what is
there, which would explain why you just assert, rather than
prove.
Also, what the heck is "the application of objectivism run as a
totalitarian state" supposed to mean? You say you admire Ayn
Rand's work, but you seem to demonstrate little understanding of
it.
Dismuke
> So I was especially surprised to see that you
> felt like posting my full name.
>
> Unless you've checked and challenged this false
> premise, I must interpet your deliberate post as
> an *evil* act. That is, I think you hope someone
> will call me with death threats, burn my house
> down, etc. And that this will be your "revenge"
> for being banned.
And you say that *I* am paranoid?
I think this is one more instance where my guilt is my lack of
omniscience - just like I was guilty of having disregard for private
property by violating a ban that I did not even know about.
In the conversation you are referring to, you wrote:
<Bearster> everyone on IRC knows my name, email, and www site
<Bearster> do a /whois bearster
Also, in a previous conversation, you stated:
<Bearster> we dont use last names in channel
<Bearster> though mine is not a secret
On top of that, when I gave you my reasons for wishing to be referred to
as 'Dismuke' on the channel, you seemed to express disagreement. So how
on earth was I supposed to know that you would interpret my mentioning
your name here as an "evil act"?
<cue the "Twilight Zone" theme song sound clip>
> P.S. A ban on #AynRand does not always mean that
> I think the banned person is a kantian destroyer
> of Toohey-like proportions. It sometimes means
> the person is a bit rationalistic, or that his
> sense of life is awry.
"A bit rationalistic"??? Has the concept of "honest error" totally
escaped you? Besides, if that's your standard, you should at least be
consistent and ban yourself!
"His sense of life is awry"??? Please show me where anyone has detailed
whatever it is that constitutes a "non-awry" sense of life. Don't
bother looking because you won't find it. A person's sense of life is
influenced by a number of factors - many of them completely optional. A
person should be judged by his *explicit* ideas and actions, not by his
emotional responses - and even then, one must factor in the possibility
of honest error. What you are really saying is that you ban people from
your channel because YOU do not care for their sense of life. If
that's what you wish to do, that's your business. But, if so, please
change the name of your channel to #KeithsClub and let someone who
actually gives a damn about Objectivism run #AynRand.
My guess is that, if she were still alive, *Ayn Rand* would probably be
banned from #AynRand for being insufficiently knowledgeable about
Objectivism and for having an "awry" sense of life.
Since I put up my original posting in this matter, a number of people
have contacted me and told me that my experience with Weiner was
anything but unique. One person wrote:
I hear you, bro. Similar has happened to me, too, as well as to
many,
many newbies, as I saw when I frequented the channel a couple years
ago. Bearster's behavior is shameful.
More then one person has described going on to the channel for the first
time and being immediately subjected to an overbearing and accusatory
interrogation. If visitors do not answer the questions to Weiner's
satisfaction, or if they protest the way they are being treated, they
are immediately kicked off and banned. Furthermore, Mr. Weiner does not
always deem it necessary to tell people why they are being banned. I
seem to have been one of the lucky ones because, after I asked him two
times, he finally told me. I know of at least one instance where Weiner
refused to provide an answer.
In #AynRand, there is a potential evader lurking under every rock and a
Kelleyite hiding behind every tree. Weiner's role is to do whatever it
takes to sniff them out and ban them - and if honorable people get
eliminated in the process, so be it.
When a stranger comes along and says "I like Ayn Rand," one's default
reaction should be positive and benevolent. The person should be
regarded as a potential friend and ally. Not so on #AynRand. Such a
person is automatically considered suspect and must prove himself
innocent by subjecting himself to Mr. Weier's purity test.
Perhaps, in some twisted way, Mr. Weiner is well intentioned. Perhaps,
based on a massively intrinsicist misinterpretation of the Objectivist
position on sanction and moral judgment, he regards himself as an
intransigent defender of the good. If so, he needs to do some major
premise checking. On the other hand, perhaps Mr. Weiner is using the
philosophy as a club to beat over people's heads in order give himself a
sense of superiority over others. If so, he needs to see a therapist.
Either way, he needs to stop what he is doing.
I am all in favor of pronouncing moral judgment. But doing so is a
serious matter. It requires that one approach the issue with fairness
and objectivity and make an attempt to take the individual context into
consideration and allow for the possibility of honest error.
I am all in favor of Objectivist forums banning those who are hostile to
the philosophy or its advocates. But, just because a person does not
understand or agree with every aspect of Objectivism, it does NOT
automatically mean that he is hostile.
I am in all in favor of Objectivist forums excluding avowed
tolerationists. But there is no valid reason to conduct a witch hunt.
Furthermore, it is *highly* inappropriate to force the issue on
Objectivist newbies. Most newbies are NOT in a position to make a
judgment on the issue and should not be expected to do so. Eventually -
yes, sooner or later they will need to make a decision. The issue is
far too important to allow perpetual fence-sitting. But in order to
make a decision, a person must first understand the issue - and there is
no way that a person can have a proper understanding the Peikoff-Kelley
controversy without first understanding the Objectivist position on
other, more fundamental ethical and epistemological issues. The issue
is not self-evident. A newbie needs to be given time to learn the
philosophy - and some people require more time than others. To expect a
person to make a decision before they have had a chance to educate
themselves on the issues is to expect them to decide on the basis of
someone's say so - i.e. faith. Obviously, that is *not* an effective
way to promote a philosophy of reason.
The very first thing people wanting to interact with Objectivists on IRC
are going to look for is a channel named after Ayn Rand. When they find
it, instead having a pleasant experience, they will be treated to a
malevolent encounter with a nasty, arbitrary man who will subject them
to interrogation and kick them off of the channel because he does not
like how they answered one of his questions or because he does not
approve of their sense of life.
Mr. Weiner: you claim to be someone who loves and supports
Objectivism. Please realize that by treating visitors to your channel
the way that you do, you are *hurting* Objectivism. I have been told
that you frequently go on and on about how much you despise David
Kelley. Fine. Please realize that your channel is going to drive
newbies into Mr. Kelley's direction by the dozens. By virtue of the
fact that you own a channel named after Ayn Rand, you have - whether you
like it or not - put yourself in a position where you will by viewed
others as a representative of Objectivism. If you are not willing or
able to deal with the responsibilities that come along with that
position, you need to step aside and make room for someone else who is.
Otherwise, there is no way that you can claim that you are a friend of
Objectivism.
I consider Mr. Weiner's behavior to be far worse than that of any
anti-Objectivist on the Internet. As long as he continues to do what he
is doing, I will have no dealings with him whatsoever. I encourage
other Objectivists to investigate the situation for themselves and
consider doing likewise.
|
Dismuke
|
bear...@my-deja.com
> Well, I am not rationalistic, and my sense of life is just fine,
> thank you, and last night you banned me!
You told me you were "just" here to see what goes on.
As a brief aside, I've discovered that the word "just" conceals an
alterior motive; the person using it wants the listener to think that
the situation is plain and simple, when it's not. It turns out I was
correct: the truth is that you wanted to enter, anonymously, to judge
how I judge people. But I didn't know this last night (obviously).
The good people almost always say things like "to meet other
Objectivists", or "I've just read Atlas and it's so exciting".
Then I asked what you've read, and you said "pretty much everything".
At least three times you insisted it was entirely clear, when I
insisted that it said nothing. I promised I would explain my remark,
after you answered. I am sorry that my explanation has to be here.
I can recall scores of trolls over the years who have claimed they've
read everything Rand wrote, and who either:
1) lied
2) read two novels
I ask what a person has read because I want to learn about his context
of knowledge. Some errors are perfectly innocent from someone who's
read only 20 pages of Anthem, which are gross evasion from someone
who's read everything Rand wrote.
I'd like to discuss some of the broader context here.
The channel receives about 2 or 3 newcomers per day, on average. Most
of them don't even claim to be Objectivists. Of those who do, some are
liars, some are fools (they've read Fountainhead, and now they're
Objectivists, uhuh, right). Some of them actually *are*. Of those,
not all of them seem friendly, or earnest, or good to me.
I don't know what they conceal behind their anonymous nicks, and I
don't make much effort to determine it; I have to judge by what I see,
at face value.
You had an alterior motive not to answer my question. I could not but
guess at this when you joined (and I didn't try). I only knew that
*for some reason* you refused to answer. When you told me it was my
problem, I banned. I don't think that, in an environment, where
everyone is anonymous and trolls outnumber Good Guys at least 20 to 1,
probing to get to the specifics is my problem.
#AynRand is unlike any other forum extant.
The reason is that I attempt to personally get to know each person who
enters, learn their premises, see how they interact, etc.
Some people do not want to reveal any of this, and they are banned. In
some cases, perhaps a few good ones get banned this way. Obviously you
fall into this category.
> I can
> understand your desire to filter out those who are unwanted for
> your private channel, but rather than doing so in an open,
> friendly manner, it was done in a suspicious and confrontational
> way.
The suspicion came when you said you were "just" here to see what goes
on, and later when you refused to say what you'd read.
> Frankly, I am disgusted that you choose to use Miss Rand's name
> as a designator for your channel, and hope you will have the
> decency to call it by your own name, so that you neither attract
> people to, or cash-in on the name of Ayn Rand, or Objectivism.
I am sorry you feel this way, but I think you have nowhere near the
evidence required to judge me, including the context of UnderNet
channels.
Case in point: the channel is a forum for serious Objectivists to
discuss and explore and inquire and learn about our philosophy, i.e.
Objectivism.
Many times in a discussion, there is no easy answer, or no one in the
channel has one. I want a forum devoid of people who will just
expectorate what they feel, and consisting only of people who know what
they know and what they don't know. This is an exceedingly high
standard, and much higher than that of any other forum of my
acqaintance, much less places like HPO where those openly hostile to
Objectivism and Objectivists can chronically pollute the air with their
malevolence and pure viciousness.
I don't know whether you think such a forum would offer value to you,
but I cannot even imagine what would motivate you to say that it
disgusts you.
Dismuke
>
>
> You had an alterior motive not to answer my question. I could not but
>
> guess at this when you joined (and I didn't try). I only knew that
> *for some reason* you refused to answer. When you told me it was my
> problem, I banned. I don't think that, in an environment, where
> everyone is anonymous and trolls outnumber Good Guys at least 20 to 1,
>
> probing to get to the specifics is my problem.
Hey, Bearster!
Sounds to me like you need to go out and find yourself one of those
self-sufficient, armed-to-the-hilt hideaways in the backwoods of
Montana. And you know, you couldn't ask for better timing. After all,
in a few months, the Y2K panic will be over and the prices of things
like hideaways and one year supplies of dried beans and rice will drop
like a rock. You might even be able to get yourself a good deal on
night vision binoculars so that you can more quickly spot any trolls and
anonymous trespassers who might decide to trek across the wilderness
in the middle of the night and offend you with their rationalistic
thinking and awry senses of life.
>
>
> #AynRand is unlike any other forum extant.
Thank God for that!
|
Dismuke
|
Larson
bear...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7u2ni1$7l4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>The channel receives about 2 or 3 newcomers per day, on average. Most
>of them don't even claim to be Objectivists. Of those who do, some are
>liars, some are fools (they've read Fountainhead, and now they're
>Objectivists, uhuh, right). Some of them actually *are*. Of those,
>not all of them seem friendly, or earnest, or good to me.
>
This Bearshit clown has been around for years now banning people who
disagree with him. He banned me a long time ago for asking questions about
anarchism I believe. After this episode someone forwarded me his homepage
and guess what link he had on his webpage.? A link to the Libertarian party
with high praise for their philosophy. I emailed him privately asking me if
he had read the Shwartz piece and a few days later the link was gone.
Apparently he can make evil mistakes like this but others are beyond
redemption.
Wolf
Chris Wolf
>In article <3803B4D8...@dismuke.com>,
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>
>> I belong to two Objectivist forums that impose membership conditions:
>> Robert Stubblefield's Objectivist Study Group (OSG) and the Harry
>> Binswanger List (HBL) Those not already familiar with the OSG
>contract
>> may view it at http://www.intellectualactivist.com/osg/contract.html
>> Note that the terms and conditions are clearly spelled out. The only
>> thing required to join is one's *word* that he accepts them and will
>> abide by them.
>Unfortunately, not all the terms and conditions are clearly spelled
>out. In particular, the condition that one not engage in "explicit
>sanction of anti-Objectivist activities; e.g., posting to mailing lists
>run by Libertarians who "tolerate" Objectivists." Even after extensive
>attempts involving much effort at integration and reduction, I have not
>been able to make a clear determination as to what the OSG listowner
>and others of his persuasion mean *objectively* by terms
>like "Libertarian/ism."
The answer is very simple. Creeps like Stubblefield don't WANT it to be
perfectly clear as to what constitutes a "violation" of their "contract."
They WANT the conditions to remain murky, and unclear, so they will always
have an excuse to kick out someone they don't like.
"Explicit sanction of anti-objectivist activities" ranks right up there
with the "restraint of trade" language in the anti-trust laws.
Stephen Speicher
many times. If one can apply the idea of a sense of life to a
philosophy, Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth, and
as such it contains a most benevolent nature. I am but the latest
in a line of people who have told Keith that he acts contrary to
that nature, but it apparently has no effect.
I think Dismuke identified it well, in seeing Keith as being
overly suspicious of everyone, with the thought of evil lurking
in every stranger. Such an attitude results not in greeting a
stranger with the benevolence due man, but rather it projects a
malevolent approach. Each newcomer is a threat and must be
interrogated, lest some evil be let inside. That such an
attitude is rationalized as the need to set standards, is a
disgrace to the sense of life of the philosophy which set those
standards.
A stranger need not be confronted to learn how he thinks, such
can be learned equally well (nay, better) in a friendly and open
way. A malevolent approach towards people, an approach which
assumes they are bad, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Taking Keith
at his word, I have no doubt he thinks he is weeding out the bad
to get at the good. The problem is, with a confrontational,
rationalistic, and overly moralistic attitude, you never get to
know the difference between good and bad, and usually wind up
just with people who act the same.
I care not at all that I will not use his channel, but I care for
known Objectivists, such as Dismuke, who have been so badly
treated. But even worse, I care for the new Objectivists who
stumble onto his channel because of the Ayn Rand name, and come
away with a sense that fairness and benevolence is absent; these
people are victims.
I will not bother with most of what Keith wrote, but I will take
one little snippet as an example which might be revealing.
On 13 Oct 1999 bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Then I asked what you've read, and you said "pretty much everything".
> At least three times you insisted it was entirely clear, when I
> insisted that it said nothing. I promised I would explain my remark,
> after you answered. I am sorry that my explanation has to be here.
>
> I can recall scores of trolls over the years who have claimed they've
> read everything Rand wrote, and who either:
> 1) lied
> 2) read two novels
>
So, when Keith asks someone, "What have you read of Objectivism",
and they respond "pretty much everything", it is natural for him
to assume they don't mean what they say. Rather than learn of a
person's thinking by the ideas he expresses in a conversation,
Keith wanted me to enumerate every book I read. Keith's implicit
assumption (as he states above) was that I was either lying, or
exaggerating, and that right after answering his question that
yes, I was an Objectivist, the next thing I must do is list all
the books I read. The words "pretty much everything" wasn't
sufficient for him, and I needed to be pursued to justify my
claim.
Now me, personally, I would be delighted to meet someone who has
read "pretty much everything" of Objectivism, and would
immediately go on to talk of interests and ideas. Keith, on the
other hand, said that "pretty much everything" told him nothing,
and demanded that I enumerate the books. Is it any wonder that
upon first meeting one would feel a sense of being interrogated
in a confrontational way? Keith even wanted to know by what
'principle' I didn't want to enumerate. My answer was "unit
economy", which apparently went over his head, since he still
persisted in his interrogation.
In other words, one is not greeted and welcomed into a friendly,
benevolent, world, but rather one is assumed bad and interrogated
in order to prove to Keith that one is a 'worthy' Objectivist.
This is not Objectivism, but this is what those new to
Objectivism get when they innocently log on to #AynRand.
Lavos999
>As a brief aside, I've discovered that the word "just" conceals an
>alterior motive; the person using it wants the listener to think that
>the situation is plain and simple, when it's not. It turns out I was
>correct: the truth is that you wanted to enter, anonymously, to judge
>how I judge people.
Even if true, why are you afraid of that? Remember "Judge, and expect to be
judged"?
----------
"As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any
man's *demand* for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is *his*
property."
- John Galt
Chris Wolf
>>On 13 Oct 1999, Chris Wolf wrote:
>>
>> Give it up, Mr. Speicher. It won't work for you. You're such a dorky
>> tight-ass that we couldn't drag a needle out of your butt, with a tractor.
>Ah, so it _was_ Wolf the other night. That explains the band-aids on
>the crackpot's tongue.
Well, Betsy said she was getting tired of doing it, and it WAS your
birthday.
baz...@my-deja.com
bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Unless you've checked and challenged this false
> premise, I must interpet your deliberate post as
> an *evil* act. That is, I think you hope someone
> will call me with death threats, burn my house
> down, etc. And that this will be your "revenge"
> for being banned.
Whoa. What was that somebody said about "paranoid"?
Do you smoke tons of marijuana, or is your paranoia due to some genetic
defect?
> Whatever your other premises are, this alone is
> sufficient cause for me to want nothing to do
> with you.
Keith dear, you want nothing to do with anyone who doesn't kiss your
ass and lick your boots. Your personality makes you ideally suited to
be an SS officer.
> P.S. A ban on #AynRand does not always mean that
> I think the banned person is a kantian destroyer
> of Toohey-like proportions. It sometimes means
> the person is a bit rationalistic, or that his
> sense of life is awry.
Oh my god, someone isn't Perfect According To Keith, and must be
ostracised! Leper! Outcast! Unclean!
Look in a mirror lately?
> If I am in error, and you did not post my full
> name and location to this public forum in order
> to cause harm to befall me
Oh please. This is a spew of unjustified self-importance the likes of
which I haven't seen in years.
You are such an important person and fountain of Objectivist thought,
Keith, that people who you have banned from your channel must
necessarily feel murderous rage towards you and want to hunt you down
and kill you? Pardon my language, but give me a fucking break!
> P.P.S. This is not an invitation for you to call
> me a jerk, a disgrace, or the living embodiment
> of every Kelleyite package-deal. Alleging that I
> am Chris Wolf or Steve Reed in disguise is Right
> Out.
You're not a jerk. You're a moron who clearly gets some sort of
deranged pleasure from the power-trips you perpetrate on your channel
in the name of Objectivism.
Chris Wolf has nothing on you. Chris Wolf can't touch Objectivism from
the outside - but you're doing a fine job of destroying it from the
inside, by misrepresenting everything the philosophy stands for and is
supposed to achieve (remember that word 'benevolence'?)
Everyone: I apologize for the seeming lack of patience exhibited in
this missive. I long ago lost all patience with Keith "Bearster"
Weiner, whose name and location is blatantly obvious all over the damn
Internet.
Chris Wolf
>Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote in message
>news:38035D50...@dismuke.com...
>> One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
>> published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
>> are describing - or to Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me.
>You don't see any similarity between her constant accusations of
>dishonesty, irrationality, and 'evasion' and what Mr. Weiner did to you?
Excellent point. Creeps like Weiner see how Rand behaved in real life, and
then try to imitate her.
Owl
news:7u1ab5$59s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> involve biasing of terms (e.g. a "Libertarian" is one who believes that
> there can be any number of ways to arrive at a conclusion supporting
> political liberty) so that -- of course! -- "Libertarianism" and
> Objectivism are incompatible and hence by extension Kelleyites are
Wait, that's supposed to be incompatible with objectivism? Objectivism
holds that false premises can never lead to a true conclusion?
Chris Wolf
>Owl wrote in message <7u113s$a0r$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote in message
>>news:38035D50...@dismuke.com...
>>> One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
>>> published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
>>> are describing - or to Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me.
>>You don't see any similarity between her constant accusations of
>>dishonesty, irrationality, and 'evasion' and what Mr. Weiner did to you?
> What is vital here are not the similarities, but the differences.
>
> The difference is that Ayn Rand made sense when she did it. That's
>one thing I always loved about her. She would level somebody, and nobody
>could do it as well as she, and then she'd always have a crystal clear and
>sensible reason for doing so.
Well, not always. For example, here is what Rand had to say about Ronald
Reagan, when he was running for President:
"Worse than Mr. Buckley, in a way, as a public figure, is Mr. Reagan. That
cheap Hollywood ham, who never was much good, who wasn't even a star. It
would be a good idea to see some of his old movies if they still show them
on television. He always played idiotic parts in very cheap grade B
movies. Now that isn't the fault of an actor, but the lesson there is
this: Reagan fitted those movies. He wasn't a victim towering over his
material. He fitted right in, so that if you want to see the soul of that
man, see his early movies when he was young. It is disgusting what he has
permitted himself to do in this election.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, in 1980, if any of you would compromise with that
monster, or help him, or vote for him, I would place on you the equivalent
of what a religious person would call a damnation. Unfortunately there is
no such equivalent in Objectivism, except moral damnation. I hope to be
dead by then, because I wouldn't want to see such a thing. What Reagan has
done should not be forgiven, because it's you who will be the victims.
The next four years will probably be hell. I dread to think in what form.
This is the time when I've heard people say, "I'm glad to be old." I join
them in that feeling."
Pretty nasty, huh? This is a pretty good example of Rand's behavior at her
worst, and an example of just how irrational she could be. So as you can
see, Mr. Weiner had a pretty good role model to emulate.
Stephen Speicher
> Owl writes:
>
> >Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote in message
> >news:38035D50...@dismuke.com...
> >> One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
> >> published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
> >> are describing - or to Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me.
>
> >You don't see any similarity between her constant accusations of
> >dishonesty, irrationality, and 'evasion' and what Mr. Weiner did to you?
>
> Excellent point. Creeps like Weiner see how Rand behaved in real life, and
> then try to imitate her.
>
This is a real eye-opener for me. Sometimes it takes me a bit
longer than others to catch on to some ideas.
The Wolf's in the world are themselves powerless--it is the
Weiners who give them power. By responding to Wolf I give him
credibility which he doesn't deserve, and which just about no one
otherwise grants. On his own he is nothing, but I make him
something by treating him as someone worthy.
No more. As far as I am concerned, Wolf no longer exists, which,
as far as values are concerned, was already true.
Chris Wolf
>P.S. A ban on #AynRand does not always mean that
>I think the banned person is a kantian destroyer
>of Toohey-like proportions. It sometimes means
>the person is a bit rationalistic, or that his
>sense of life is awry.
So this loony bans people for being a "bit rationalistic," or having a
sense of life that is "awry"?
Crackpot alert!
R Lawrence
>Since I put up my original posting in this matter, a number of people
>have contacted me and told me that my experience with Weiner was
>anything but unique.
Just a quick followup with my own story, which is brief. I rarely go on IRC
anymore. But a while back I downloaded some new software and connected. To
make sure I understood the software, I made a couple of "quick stops" by
channels that I knew of from the days when I did frequent IRC. One of these
was #AynRand. Since I was just trying to get used to the software and its
functions, I entered the channel and quickly exited it, without saying
anything. Then a couple of minutes later I went back in. Well, I can only
guess that popping in and out was considered unacceptable, because upon my
return I was summarily kicked (by Bearster), with the pithy message, "Get
out."
I didn't ask for explanations. No IRC channel is worth the bother.
Chris Wolf
>On 13 Oct 1999, Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> Owl writes:
>>
>> >Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote in message
>> >news:38035D50...@dismuke.com...
>> >> One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
>> >> published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
>> >> are describing - or to Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me.
>>
>> >You don't see any similarity between her constant accusations of
>> >dishonesty, irrationality, and 'evasion' and what Mr. Weiner did to you?
>>
>> Excellent point. Creeps like Weiner see how Rand behaved in real life, and
>> then try to imitate her.
>This is a real eye-opener for me. Sometimes it takes me a bit
>longer than others to catch on to some ideas.
Yeah, we've noticed that.
>The Wolf's in the world are themselves powerless--it is the
>Weiners who give them power. By responding to Wolf I give him
>credibility which he doesn't deserve, and which just about no one
>otherwise grants. On his own he is nothing, but I make him
>something by treating him as someone worthy.
Talk about delusional!
Here's a new strategy for you, Stephen. Don't respond to ANYONE on this
newsgroup. That way you'll leave us all powerless!
>No more. As far as I am concerned, Wolf no longer exists, which,
>as far as values are concerned, was already true.
Unfortunately Stephen, you can't just walk away from this one. You're on
record as having accused me of serious misbehavior (attending an elegant
banquet, dressed in rags and smelling like a pig). You claimed to have
spoken to witnesses who saw my misbehavior. You went on and on, at great
length, about my alleged misbehavior. You then failed to do either of the
following:
1. Provide some evidence to support your claims.
2. Withdraw the claims and apologize.
This leaves you in a VERY bad position. It makes you look like a totally
dishonest asshole, who makes accusations without a shred of evidence. It
also makes you look like a fucking liar. And that's what people who read
the details are going to think about you, Stephen; that you're dishonest,
and that you're a liar. And they're going to have plenty of opportunity to
read about it, because it will be posted, rather prominently, at my web
site, and included in my .sig. Every message that I post from now on, will
include a link to the "Dishonesty of Stephen Speicher" page. It will be
right up there with the "My Dinner With Andy" link.
So I hope you enjoyed your little game, Stephen, because it's going to cost
you a great deal of credibility. You can't engage in the sort of grossly
unjust behavior that you have exhibited, and then just walk away from it as
though it never existed.
Not this time.
Chris Wolf
>Mr. Weiner: you claim to be someone who loves and supports
>Objectivism. Please realize that by treating visitors to your channel
>the way that you do, you are *hurting* Objectivism. I have been told
>that you frequently go on and on about how much you despise David
>Kelley. Fine. Please realize that your channel is going to drive
>newbies into Mr. Kelley's direction by the dozens.
By the hundreds. Keep up the good work, Weiner! Please let me know if
there is anything I can do to assist your efforts.
I know! I'll put a link to Weiner's IRC channel on my web site. Then when
people visit my web site to see what's REALLY wrong with Objectivism, I can
direct them to a real-time example.
What a great idea! Thank you Mr. Weiner. And thank you, Dismuke, for
bringing this looney to my attention.
Dismuke
> Well, I can only
> guess that popping in and out was considered unacceptable, because
> upon my
> return I was summarily kicked (by Bearster), with the pithy message,
> "Get
> out."
>
I wonder what he says to telemarketers who call and interrupt his
dinner!
|
Dismuke
|
John Alway
Chris Wolf wrote in message <387c1d24....@news.supernews.com>...
>John Alway writes:
[...]
Regarding Buckley, I used to have respect for Buckley and didn't
understand Ayn Rand's dislike of him, until I saw that obituary he did of
Ayn Rand, which was unconscionably dishonest. Not to mention his sanction
of the Chamber's review, which was mindless and cowardly. I really have no
respect for him whatever now and realize he isn't an upright individual at
all. Reagan she had very good reason for condemning. Notice the
religious right is a powerful destructive force in the republican party
today, just what Ayn Rand feared he would make possible.
Ayn Rand took ideas seriously.
Btw, can you give me a cite for that quote?
...John
Chris Wolf
>>On 13 Oct 1999 bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> P.S. A ban on #AynRand does not always mean that I think the banned
>> person is a kantian destroyer of Toohey-like proportions. It sometimes
>> means the person is a bit rationalistic, or that his sense of life is
>> awry.
>Well, I am not rationalistic, and my sense of life is just fine,
>thank you, and last night you banned me!
Hee! Hee! There is a God!
I love it!
>After reading Dismuke's story, on the heels of a similar story
>from another I respect, I decided to see for myself. I have never
>been on IRC before, so for my first time I logged on to #aynrand
>with my astronomical nickname, ngc3242. Within a minute or so of
>connecting, I had the feeling that I was being isolated, with a
>light shone in my eyes, as if I was being interrogated. I can
>understand your desire to filter out those who are unwanted for
>your private channel, but rather than doing so in an open,
>friendly manner, it was done in a suspicious and confrontational
>way.
That reminds me of one of the times I sneaked onto the #aynrand channel.
This was several years ago, and Betsy Speicher was on the channel then.
She immediately started firing questions at me, to make certain that I was
the sort of person they wanted on the channel (and to make certain that I
wasn't that sonofabitch, Chris Wolf). I don't remember exactly what the
questions were, but naturally I gave her the answers she was looking for,
and after a few minutes, she welcomed me to the channel.
Chris Wolf
>>On 13 Oct 1999, Owl wrote:
>>
>> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote in message
>> news:38035D50...@dismuke.com...
>> > One of the dangers of Objectivism? I am not aware of anything in Rand's
>> > published writings that supports or can lead to the kind of behavior you
>> > are describing - or to Mr. Weiner's behavior towards me.
>> You don't see any similarity between her constant accusations of
>> dishonesty, irrationality, and 'evasion' and what Mr. Weiner did to you?
>Here we are dealing with the Mythical Ayn Rand again. I saw her many,
>many times in person and I never saw this happening "constantly" or even
>occasionally. "Rarely" would be a more accurate term. Also the people
>close to her the longest report that she displayed anger occasionally but
>that she was almost always positive, enthusiastic, generous, and
>benevolent towards people. Read the _Letters of Ayn Rand_ and what you
>see, over snd over, is the real Ayn Rand, not the mythical one.
That's how Ayn Rand looks to Betsy, through her rose-colored glasses. But
here's an example of just how nasty Ayn Rand could be:
"Worse than Mr. Buckley, in a way, as a public figure, is Mr. Reagan. That
cheap Hollywood ham, who never was much good, who wasn't even a star. It
would be a good idea to see some of his old movies if they still show them
on television. He always played idiotic parts in very cheap grade B
movies. Now that isn't the fault of an actor, but the lesson there is
this: Reagan fitted those movies. He wasn't a victim towering over his
material. He fitted right in, so that if you want to see the soul of that
man, see his early movies when he was young. It is disgusting what he has
permitted himself to do in this election.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, in 1980, if any of you would compromise with that
monster, or help him, or vote for him, I would place on you the equivalent
of what a religious person would call a damnation. Unfortunately there is
no such equivalent in Objectivism, except moral damnation. I hope to be
dead by then, because I wouldn't want to see such a thing. What Reagan has
done should not be forgiven, because it's you who will be the victims.
The next four years will probably be hell. I dread to think in what form.
This is the time when I've heard people say, "I'm glad to be old." I join
them in that feeling. I'm glad that I won't have too much to see of the
kind of world that Mr. Carter will attempt to make, but you are young
enough, and you don't want that kind of unspeakable, cheap, small-town,
peanut power luster to rule your life. A man who's already talking about
how he is looking forward to Air Force One. He sees himself flying in that
plane. That's a man who says he has a vision of rebuilding America, and
great leadership, and morally worse, the contempt for people that that man
shows, is something totally new in American Politics. He really doesn't
believe that people can remember his statements from day to day, and that
he can lie his head off, sit on every fence, and nobody will notice."
The above quote is from Ayn Rand's answer to a question, during a Q & A
session, during Peikoff's 1976 lecture series on the philosophy of
Objectivism.
The truth is, Ayn Rand DID make constant accusations of dishonesty,
irrationality, and evasion. These are a matter of public record. You
might say it was her stock-in-trade. Worshippers like Betsy simply refuse
to face these facts.
Chris Wolf
>Chris Wolf has nothing on you. Chris Wolf can't touch Objectivism from
>the outside - but you're doing a fine job of destroying it from the
>inside, by misrepresenting everything the philosophy stands for and is
>supposed to achieve (remember that word 'benevolence'?)
Chris Wolf is not trying to "touch" Objectivism from the inside OR the
outside. Chris Wolf is simply trying to show what's wrong with the current
crop of so-called Objectivists, like Keith Weiner, who are giving the
philosophy of Objectivism a very bad name.
Betsy Speicher
> > The difference is that Ayn Rand made sense when she did it. That's
> >one thing I always loved about her. She would level somebody, and nobody
> >could do it as well as she, and then she'd always have a crystal clear and
> >sensible reason for doing so.
>
> I think that increasingly she beleived that the fact that she was Ayn
> Rand was enough "sensible reason" for her to "level" somebody, she
> stopped examing her premises.
You think that? On the basis of what first-hand evidence? How many times
did you observe her in person? Did she share her thought processes with
you on the phone or by mail?
Or did you hear it second-hand from people who weren't in contact with her
either because they broke with her under non-friendly circumstances? Or
did you hear that third or fourth-hand from someone who heard it
second-hand?
> I am a great admirer of her intellect and fiction and non-fiction,
> however if you read her biography,
HER biography? Oh you mean Barbara Branden's book!
Did you know that, except for a few hours on one day, Barbara Branden had
absolutely NO contact with Ayn Rand from the time of the break in 1968
until her death in 1982? All of her "information" came second-hand from
people who split with Ayn Rand on unfriendly terms and none of it from any
of the people who were close to her through all those years.
> you will see tremendous contradictions in her own "physcho-epistomology"
> and will see that there were tremendous dangers in the application of
> objectivism run as a totalitarian state, and you will see that it posed
> many dangers for people who took *everything* she said as gospel without
> examining *her* premises.
Like Barbara Branden? Probably so, but not everyone took Objectivism that
way, you know.
I've been involved with the philosophy since 1962 and I took all the NBI
courses. I remember Nathaniel Branden as unfocused, sneering, and rude
and Barbara Branden as a distant and aloof ice princess. Ayn Rand, on the
other hand, was warm, alert, alive, and gracious with an almost
old-fashioned formality.
Nathan encouraged people to be like him, and I got the worst of it from
him and his followers. As one uptight gal at the lectures chastised me,
"The problem with you, Betsy, is that you ask too many questions and you
smile too much." During the split, that gal sided with Nathan.
After the split, it was as if a weight had lifted. People weren't afraid
to say what they really thought anymore. I wasn't the only person asking
questions and smiling.
It kind of makes you wonder WHO was trying to run Objectivism like a
"totalitarian state."
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher wrote:
> >
> > I've been involved with the philosophy since 1962 and I took all the NBI
> > courses. I remember Nathaniel Branden as unfocused, sneering, and rude
> > and Barbara Branden as a distant and aloof ice princess.
>
> The trouble with adjectives is they don't really convey any
> information.
>
> Can you give some concrete *examples* of Nathaniel being "unfocused,
> sneering, and rude"; and, in what way was Barbara a "distant
> and aloof ice princess?" What did she *do* to give you this
> impression of her?
The above was my overall impression based on everything I saw of those
people and, even if I did give concrete example, it would be hearsay and
second-hand for anyone who wasn't there to accept my point of view on my
say-so.
In _Judgement Day_, however, Nathan does own up to being arrogant and rude
to people (which he blames on Ayn Rand who wasn't arrogant and rude to
people), and in her book Barbara Branden discusses how she stifled and
repressed her own values (because she wanted to please Ayn Rand). This
may account for the fact that, although I took two complete NBI courses
with Barbara Branden and saw her on other occasions, I never once saw her
smile nor had any indication that she had any personal values of her own.
Chris Wolf
>On 13 Oct 1999, MSFE2 wrote:
>
>> > The difference is that Ayn Rand made sense when she did it. That's
>> >one thing I always loved about her. She would level somebody, and nobody
>> >could do it as well as she, and then she'd always have a crystal clear and
>> >sensible reason for doing so.
>>
>> I think that increasingly she beleived that the fact that she was Ayn
>> Rand was enough "sensible reason" for her to "level" somebody, she
>> stopped examing her premises.
>You think that? On the basis of what first-hand evidence? How many times
>did you observe her in person? Did she share her thought processes with
>you on the phone or by mail?
>
>Or did you hear it second-hand from people who weren't in contact with her
>either because they broke with her under non-friendly circumstances? Or
>did you hear that third or fourth-hand from someone who heard it
>second-hand?
Or you can hear it first-hand, from Rand herself. For example, here is
what Rand had to say about Ronald Reagan, when he was running for
President:
"Worse than Mr. Buckley, in a way, as a public figure, is Mr. Reagan. That
cheap Hollywood ham, who never was much good, who wasn't even a star. It
would be a good idea to see some of his old movies if they still show them
on television. He always played idiotic parts in very cheap grade B
movies. Now that isn't the fault of an actor, but the lesson there is
this: Reagan fitted those movies. He wasn't a victim towering over his
material. He fitted right in, so that if you want to see the soul of that
man, see his early movies when he was young. It is disgusting what he has
permitted himself to do in this election.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, in 1980, if any of you would compromise with that
monster, or help him, or vote for him, I would place on you the equivalent
of what a religious person would call a damnation. Unfortunately there is
no such equivalent in Objectivism, except moral damnation. I hope to be
dead by then, because I wouldn't want to see such a thing. What Reagan has
done should not be forgiven, because it's you who will be the victims.
The next four years will probably be hell. I dread to think in what form.
This is the time when I've heard people say, "I'm glad to be old." I join
them in that feeling."
Pretty nasty, huh? Rand couldn't confine herself to simply criticizing
Reagan's philosophy; she also had to insult his acting ability. This is a
pretty good example of Rand's behavior at her worst, and an example of just
how irrational she could be.
This is the sort of Rand behavior that Betsy regularly evades.
Chris Wolf
>On 18 Oct 1999, John Sloan wrote:
>
>> Betsy Speicher wrote:
>> >
>> > I've been involved with the philosophy since 1962 and I took all the NBI
>> > courses. I remember Nathaniel Branden as unfocused, sneering, and rude
>> > and Barbara Branden as a distant and aloof ice princess.
>>
>> The trouble with adjectives is they don't really convey any
>> information.
>>
>> Can you give some concrete *examples* of Nathaniel being "unfocused,
>> sneering, and rude"; and, in what way was Barbara a "distant
>> and aloof ice princess?" What did she *do* to give you this
>> impression of her?
>The above was my overall impression based on everything I saw of those
>people and, even if I did give concrete example, it would be hearsay and
>second-hand for anyone who wasn't there to accept my point of view on my
>say-so.
What a cop-out! If Betsy saw it, first-hand, then it's eyewitness
testimony, which is accepted in any court in the land. If we choose to
believe Betsy's eyewitness testimony, and repeat it, what WE say is
hearsay. But ANYTHING that is not eyewitness testimony, is, by definition,
hearsay.
To refuse to give eyewitness testimony, because the rest of the world
wasn't there to see it also, is absurd nonsense.
Looks like Betsy is taking lessons from her husband, Stephen.
Brad Wilson
and
> then try to imitate her.
I'm sure he takes that as a compliment, coming from you.
objec...@my-deja.com
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> I hear you, bro. Similar has happened to me, too, as well as to many,
> many newbies, as I saw when I frequented the channel a couple years
> ago. Bearster's behavior is shameful.
That's pretty odd, given that Bearster has only run #AynRand for about
9 months at the most. If you're going to invent lies, at least make
them consistent with reality.
Dismuke
> In article <3804D921...@dismuke.com>,
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>
> > I hear you, bro. Similar has happened to me, too, as well as to
> many,
> > many newbies, as I saw when I frequented the channel a couple years
> > ago. Bearster's behavior is shameful.
>
> That's pretty odd, given that Bearster has only run #AynRand for about
>
> 9 months at the most. If you're going to invent lies, at least make
> them consistent with reality.
First off - if you are going to take issue something that is said in a
newsgroup posting, be damned sure that you get straight who said what.
I made it very clear that the quotation that you are referring to was
sent to me by someone following the thread. If you wish to dispute its
accuracy, fine. But you should have indicated *very* clearly that it
was written by "the person Dismuke quoted." ( I did not name the person
because the comments were sent to me privately. My assumption was that,
if this person wanted to make his comments known publicly, he would have
done so by putting up a posting.)
Second - what motivation would this person have to send me a private
email lying about the matter? In order to make me think bad things
about Weiner? I don't think so. I had already made my negative opinion
of Weiner's activities publicly known. So again I ask: why would he
intentionally lie about the matter?
I have no idea how long Weiner has run #AynRand. I personally became
aware of the channel only a few months ago. Even if what you say is
true, my guess is that the writer probably made a factual *error*
recalling channel names and dates.
Weiner may have only operated #AynRand for nine months - but he has been
on IRC for much longer than that. I also know that he has, in the past,
been an op on other channels. My original negative encounter with
Weiner did not take place on #AynRand. It took place in a private chat
window opened when we were chatting in another channel. This happened
in September 1998. Weiner's demeanor during that conversation
ultimately became very obnoxious. If he was that way with me, in light
of what I have subsequently learned about him, I do not think it
unlikely that he was that way with others at that time.
If you wish to come to Weiner's defense, by all means try. But you are
going to have a difficult time doing so by calling me a liar. You are
going to end up having to call all sorts of people liars - people who
are more than able to back up what they say with channel logs.
Even Weiner did not dispute the accuracy of the charges leveled against
him in my initial posting on the matter. Nor did he dispute the
accuracy of Stephen Speicher's account of his misadventure on the
channel. I certainly am not going to lie about my own dealings with him
as I know for a fact that he still has copies of the relevant channel
logs. Indeed, all you need to do is look at Weiner's two postings on
this issue to see that, instead of denying such treatment of newbies, he
actually attempts to defend it.
So again I ask you - what motive would this person have to deliberately
lie? If you automatically jump to the conclusion that all factual
errors are lies - well, objec...@my-deja.com - it seems to me that
you will fit in just fine on Weiner's channel.
|
Dismuke
|
Betsy Speicher
> In article <3804D921...@dismuke.com>,
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>
> > I hear you, bro. Similar has happened to me, too, as well as to many,
> > many newbies, as I saw when I frequented the channel a couple years
> > ago. Bearster's behavior is shameful.
>
> That's pretty odd, given that Bearster has only run #AynRand for about
> 9 months at the most. If you're going to invent lies, at least make
> them consistent with reality.
That's funny. Bearster wrote to me:
"There are approximately 1500 bans on the bot. Assuming perhaps half
of those are repeat trolls with lots of ISP accounts, that leaves me
with the burden to recall more than 700 people over a period of
almost 4 years."
I take that to mean that whether Bearster has been officially "running"
the channel for only 9 months or not, he has been actively involved in
banning people for 4 years by his own statement.
Dismuke
> On 18 Oct 1999 objec...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <3804D921...@dismuke.com>,
> > Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I hear you, bro. Similar has happened to me, too, as well as to
> many,
> > > many newbies, as I saw when I frequented the channel a couple
> years
> > > ago. Bearster's behavior is shameful.
> >
> > That's pretty odd, given that Bearster has only run #AynRand for
> about
> > 9 months at the most. If you're going to invent lies, at least make
> > them consistent with reality.
>
> That's funny. Bearster wrote to me:
>
> "There are approximately 1500 bans on the bot. Assuming perhaps half
> of those are repeat trolls with lots of ISP accounts, that leaves me
> with the burden to recall more than 700 people over a period of
> almost 4 years."
>
> I take that to mean that whether Bearster has been officially
> "running"
> the channel for only 9 months or not, he has been actively involved in
>
> banning people for 4 years by his own statement.
>
Here is something interesting.
The person who accused me of being a liar on this matter posted under
the name objec...@my-deja.com. If you take a look at the headers,
you will see that the IP address the posting originated from was
209.151.91.83 The ISP that this IP address is assigned to is called
Internet Express. A DNS lookup resolves it to port83.den1-dsl.iex.net -
though this latter information does not show on the posting itself
because it was posted via DejaNews.
Now take a look at the previous posting in the thread that was put up 24
minutes earlier. It too originated from IP address 209.151.91.83
Indeed if you look in the headers on the line called
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host, you will see the following:
port83.den1-dsl.iex.net You will also see Internet Express on the
X-Organization line. This posting was put up by Mr. Brad Wilson - a
person who, I am told, is a regular on Mr. Weiner's channel.
Mr. Wilson, if you wished to accuse me of being a liar, why did you not
do so using the email identity you were using just a few minutes
earlier?
|
Dismuke
|
Sean Saulsbury
BEARSTER>>>><bear...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7u2ni1$7l4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You told me you were "just" here to see what goes on.
>
> As a brief aside, I've discovered that the word "just" conceals an
> alterior motive; the person using it wants the listener to think that
> the situation is plain and simple, when it's not. It turns out I was
> correct: the truth is that you wanted to enter, anonymously, to judge
> how I judge people. But I didn't know this last night (obviously).<<<<<<
Just curious, but doesn't the part about "to see hat goes on" -include- how
you judge people?
Curiously,
Sean Saulsbury
se...@saulsbury.nu
P.S. My alterior motive for using the word "just" in the above sentence is
to show how much of an *ass* this Bearster character is.
Jawaid Bazyar
actually have been from either of them (if you hop on undernet and /whois
BradW, you'll see the same IP/host name that Dismuke uncovered).
But in the absence of other evidence, everything I know tells me I must
assume that Brad Wilson is the author of the post.
I begin:
Whoa!
There are liars, there are damned liars, and then there are people like
Wilson who intentionally distort reality in order to win points in an
argument. At least I have some understanding of why someone would lie to
falsely gain a value. But what value is defending Weiner? (Hm, sanction
perhaps?)
Wilson would have us believe, indeed makes a -strong implication- backed by
calling another a LIAR, that since Bearster has only "run" #AynRand for
"about" 9 months, that he had no power to ban anyone on any IRC channels
anywhere.
HOLY NON-SEQUITUR BATMAN!
In reality, in published, factual, documented reality, in reality witnessed
and probably verifiable by persons such as Betsy Speicher, in January 199*8*
Keith "I'd change my name but it's terribly apt" Weiner moderated and hosted
a discussion on #AynRand. The log of that discussion is posted at
http://www.aynrand.nu.
Now for those of you who are competent to do simple date calculations
(apparently Wilson is NOT!), the difference between today and January 1998
is almost two years. Not 9 months.
I believe it is telling that the same lack of proper conceptual foundations
are used by Wilson as by Weiner. There is no possibility in Wilson's mind
that perhaps the poster was exaggerating a bit (9 months IS almost a year).
When casually remembering events, it is not atypical for a period of 9
months to be remebered as a "year", especially when you aren't counting
seconds.
There is no possibility that perhaps the poster was mis-remembering. The
poster is simply a "LIAR", according to Wilson.
Now, I point out again that Weiner has clearly been active and of some power
on #AynRand for AT LEAST TWO YEARS. And I know he was active on forums other
than #GeekSpeak before that. (I will surely disappoint those who think I'm
obsessed with Weiner, in my lack of record-keeping about his daily
activities).
SO THE -LIAR- HERE IS WILSON. Wilson is merely making up stories and
spouting them in public -- I will note, JUST LIKE WEINER, though not as
creative as Weiner's burning-house paranoias. And I substantiate my claim
that he's a liar, since he had every resource available to him to determine
the truth - i.e., Weiner himself, those logs, anecdotal evidence, his own
memory; yet went ahead and publicly posted a falsehood anyway.
Further, the poster says "Bearster's behavior is shameful.". This is as true
now as it was two years ago on #GeekSpeak. I would be stretching credulity
to know firsthand that Bearster's behavior on #GeekSpeak IRC was shameful,
but believe he was a perfect angel on other channels. Thus, if the poster's
primary judgement is that "Bearster's behavior is shameful", then it is
really -irrelevant- whether or not he "ran" the channel to know that he was
perfectly capable of harassing and interrogating people in his SS-like
manner.
Wilson believes that it is merely enough to pull a 9-month number out of
thin air, AND to pull a context-switch and claim that "running" the channel
has something to do with anything, and spew the mix into a post along with a
claim that another person is a liar, in order to "defend" Weiner against
what is clearly overwhelming evidence proving Weiner's head is up his ass.
Nice try, but no cookie for you!
I can safely conclude then that Wilson fits in Weiner's Reich quite well (or
is that "The Weinar Republic"?). Which is all fine and dandy, since Weiner
can feel righteous about banning people from IRC, and Wilson can feel
righteous about wanting to bomb millions of people into oblivion. I'm not at
all certain which is the bigger scoundrel.
p.s. Wait, I must have missed the toleration - i.e., avoidance of
judgement - in this post somewhere! Could someone help me find all this
toleration Weiner says I have? Oh, I know! It's one of those codes! Maybe if
you take the first letter of each word above it will spell out "TOLERATION".
Or something.
objec...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ug7j5$76s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <3804D921...@dismuke.com>,
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>
>> I hear you, bro. Similar has happened to me, too, as well as to many,
>> many newbies, as I saw when I frequented the channel a couple years
>> ago. Bearster's behavior is shameful.
>
>That's pretty odd, given that Bearster has only run #AynRand for about
>9 months at the most. If you're going to invent lies, at least make
>them consistent with reality.
>
>
>
Stephen Speicher
>
> p.s. Wait, I must have missed the toleration - i.e., avoidance
> of judgement - in this post somewhere! Could someone help me
> find all this toleration Weiner says I have? Oh, I know! It's
> one of those codes! Maybe if you take the first letter of each
> word above it will spell out "TOLERATION". Or something.
>
Well, the night after the #AynRand incident, I was curious so I
connected to #geekspeak, where I _was_ subjected to this
toleration. Several people said hello without questioning my
motives, and no one even interrogated me. It was just terrible
being subjected to that. :)
Jawaid Bazyar
channel #Objectivism. the time-frame is correct, however.
I reiterate that the important thing is not whether Weiner has "run" or
"owned" any particular channel - it is that he was positions of authority
where he was allowed to behave exactly as he does today.
(I won't even get into why a log from #Objectivism, the operator of which
says Weiner is no longer welcome, is published on the web site for
#AynRand).
Jawaid Bazyar wrote in message ...
Stephen Speicher
> The log of that discussion is posted at http://www.aynrand.nu.
When I connect to this URL, I just get a blank screen. Is the URL
correct?
Dismuke
> On 19 Oct 1999, Jawaid Bazyar wrote:
>
> > The log of that discussion is posted at http://www.aynrand.nu.
>
> When I connect to this URL, I just get a blank screen. Is the URL
> correct?
>
The URL is correct - but it is simply forwarded to a different
location. The reason you get the blank screen is because the location
it is forwarded to is down.
For example, one of the pages on the website is the strange "purity"
test I mentioned the other day where visitors are supposed to answer an
assortment of questions so that Mr. Weiner can "judge" them. Its
underlying URL is:
http://cc431051-a.vron1.nj.home.com/aynrand/quiz.html Right now, as
I write this, all I get when I type it in is "contacting host" and an
eventual time out. If my memory is correct, when the site was still
working, all one had to do is take out the "quiz.html" in order to
access the website's homepage.
Weiner's site has been down since shortly after I mentioned the quiz in
one of my postings and published its location. Whether there is a
connection or if it is a mere coincidence, I have no idea.
|
Dismuke
|
objec...@my-deja.com
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> Mr. Wilson, if you wished to accuse me of being a liar, why did you
not
> do so using the email identity you were using just a few minutes
> earlier?
Michael Duus (aka, "Paranoia"),
I did not hide my identity. There is a simple reason for my moving to
deja.com to post: the new server on iex.net only had 3 (!) messages in
this thread.
Sorry, I'm not the CIA operative you're afraid of.
objec...@my-deja.com
100...@usr08.primenet.com>,
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> That's funny. Bearster wrote to me:
>
> "There are approximately 1500 bans on the bot. Assuming perhaps half
> of those are repeat trolls with lots of ISP accounts, that leaves me
> with the burden to recall more than 700 people over a period of
> almost 4 years."
>
> I take that to mean that whether Bearster has been
officially "running"
> the channel for only 9 months or not, he has been actively involved in
> banning people for 4 years by his own statement.
No, most of those bans are from #Objectivism.
objec...@my-deja.com
Lavos999 <lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL> wrote:
> Even if true, why are you afraid of that? Remember "Judge, and expect
to be
> judged"?
He was not, and is not, afraid to judge. I believe he is pointing out
the _irony_ of someone who claims they were judged too harshly, when
they themselves were there for the sole purpose of judging.
objec...@my-deja.com
100...@atlantis.compbio.caltech.edu>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@atlantis.compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Keith Weiner just doesn't get it, no matter who says it, or how
> many times. If one can apply the idea of a sense of life to a
> philosophy, Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth, and
> as such it contains a most benevolent nature. I am but the latest
> in a line of people who have told Keith that he acts contrary to
> that nature, but it apparently has no effect.
Translation: "I wanted toleration, but Keith judged me! Waaaaah! Can't
we all just get along?"
Stephen Speicher
> In article <380BF042...@dismuke.com>,
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Wilson, if you wished to accuse me of being a liar, why did you
> not
> > do so using the email identity you were using just a few minutes
> > earlier?
>
> Michael Duus (aka, "Paranoia"),
>
> I did not hide my identity. There is a simple reason for my moving to
> deja.com to post: the new server on iex.net only had 3 (!) messages in
> this thread.
>
> Sorry, I'm not the CIA operative you're afraid of.
>
Which is, of course, why you proudly signed your name to the end
of your post. Ooops, did I miss that?
Stephen Speicher
Of all the things this Brad Wilson could have said in response,
this has got to be the most inane, and simultaneously the most
revealing possible--of Brad Wilson.
Here Wilson equates benevolence with 'toleration', clearly
indicating that he does not grasp the difference. Wilson takes my
criticism of Weiner--lacking a benevolent approach to
strangers--as a tolerational request to ignore who or what others
are. What an incredible distortion is necessary to filter what
was actually said, into what Wilson wants to hear.
This is _exactly_ the kind of non-intellectual, purely emotional,
overly moralistic, distorted judgment which has become associated
with Weiner and his channel. It is little wonder that Wilson is
entrusted with the judgmental ability on #AynRand, in Weiner's
absence. They are, apparently, cut from the same cloth.
Stephen Speicher
> In article <19991013173636...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
> Lavos999 <lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL> wrote:
>
> > Even if true, why are you afraid of that? Remember "Judge, and expect
> to be
> > judged"?
>
> He was not, and is not, afraid to judge. I believe he is pointing out
> the _irony_ of someone who claims they were judged too harshly, when
> they themselves were there for the sole purpose of judging.
>
Do you just make this up as you go along. He was pointing out
_irony_? He said:
"As a brief aside, I've discovered that the word "just"
conceals an alterior motive; the person using it wants
the listener to think that the situation is plain and
simple, when it's not. It turns out I was correct: the
truth is that you wanted to enter, anonymously, to
judge how I judge people. But I didn't know this last
night (obviously)."
Perhaps _you_ want to point out irony, but _he_ did not. _He_ was
just revealing his own paranoia, and how a single adverb, 'just',
conveys an entire set of ideas, values, and emotions for him,
upon which he is not afraid to act. He makes this quite clear
later on, detailing all the ways which strangers supposedly
conceal, and then reveal to him, their evil souls.
Can't you, Brad Wilson, get any of this right?
Dismuke
>
>
> I did not hide my identity. There is a simple reason for my moving to
> deja.com to post: the new server on iex.net only had 3 (!) messages in
>
> this thread.
Which I am somehow supposed to know? Its not like you are a regular
poster here. Keep you called me a liar - on very flimsy grounds at
that.
|
Dismuke
|
Dismuke
>
>
> Translation: "I wanted toleration, but Keith judged me! Waaaaah! Can't
>
> we all just get along?"
And you are either evading or choosing to ignore the context here.
Keith judged Speicher on the basis of nothing more than the fact that he
used the word "just" and refused to subject himself to Weiner's
interrogation. One *should* judge people. But one must base one's
judgments on *rational* reasons - not arbitrary whim. Remember that
fundamentalist preachers also judge people.
Implying that Stephen Speicher is a tolerationist is laughably absurd.
If you wish to do so, go right ahead. It is your credibility that is on
the line - a credibility that has already been pretty near shot by your
lame attempts to defend Weiner and by calling me a liar.
|
Dismuke
|
Dismuke
> No, most of those bans are from #Objectivism.
>
>
Does the fact that they occurred on #Objectivism make them any better?
If you ask me, it makes them worse. At least on #AynRand he is acting
like an ass and defaming Objectivism on his *own* channel and not
someone else's.
|
Dismuke
|
Dismuke
>
>
> He was not, and is not, afraid to judge. I believe he is pointing out
> the _irony_ of someone who claims they were judged too harshly, when
> they themselves were there for the sole purpose of judging.
Again, you are either evading or ignoring context.
Stephen Speicher went to #AynRand because he read my posting about my
bad experience with Weiner and because someone he knows was arbitrarily
banned from the channel. Rather than take my word for it or this other
person's word for it, Speicher went to the channel to judge for
himself. In other words, by going there, he was giving Weiner the
benefit of the doubt.
Weiner, on the other hand, banned Speicher from his channel because he
used the word "just" and because he refused to subject himself to
Keith's bizarre little interrogation. This is a person you wish to
defend?
In my case, I received a nasty email from Weiner lecturing me about
violating a ban that I was not even informed of. This is a person you
wish to defend, Brad?
Here is something else for you to defend. It was sent to me by a reader
the other night:
I don't normally read hpo, but I happened to browse it today and
found your
post about indignities inflicted by Keith Weiner on his IRC
channel. For
whatever it's worth to you, I have a story too. I hope I don't
presume too
much by telling it to you as a stranger.
About a year ago, I was getting familiar with mIRC and went to
#Objectivism. Bearster was an op. I was immediately confronted
with the
question, "What's humanism?" (I was on another channel with that
name at
the time). I confessed that I didn't know what humanism was, but I
had
heard that it was Aristotelian and so I was checking it out for
myself.
Then I was asked to confirm that I was from Arizona, which began to
give me
the creeps, as I had been on many channels and had never been
examined this
way by *anybody*. Then I was asked if there was anything in
Objectivism
that I disagreed with.
I truthfully said no, and by this time I was becoming deeply
suspicious. I
have not been an Objectivist for a great length of time, and have
always
been (still am) hungrily searching for people to hold common ground
with.
I assume other Objectivists will have a similar disposition, and I
was
flabbergasted that I would meet someone on #Objectivism whose first
impulse
is to look for something to fight about.
Next he told me his name is Keith, and asked me for mine. I told
him that
I preferred to remain anonymous (the internet being what it is, and
my name
being my own property). At this point he displayed all the
information he
had been able to dig up about me to the group at large, including
parts of
my e-mail address. He said, "Your name can't possibly tell me more
about
you than this." I took this as an intimidation tactic, and did not
give my
name. I was kicked with the message "Come back when you're ready
to tell
me your name."
My judgment at the time, based on this and other experience, was
that Keith
was acting on the ridiculous assumption that it's possible to
brow-beat
others into rational or principled behavior (or his vision
thereof). It
was more than enough for me to be sure I wanted nothing to do with
him,
ever. But I now believe I was mistaken, and that his behavior is
not the
means to an end. For him, bullying and intimidating people is an
end in
itself. Notice how he told me I could come back under a certain
humbling
condition. Notice how he also invited you (in his newsgroup post)
to come
back and submit yourself for his approval once more. I'm thinking
that he
would _love_ to have someone come back and grovel before him, and
that once
in a while it happens, reinforcing his behavior. God help the
newbies -
'cause #aynrand won't....
[Note: while the writer mentions that this occured on #Objectivism, he
also told me that the channel's owner was NOT present at the time of
Weiner's behavior.]
Care to defend that, Brad?
The tolerationists and others spend a lot of time smearing Objectivism
by saying that it leads to dogmatic, unjust, arbitary and indiscriminate
moralizing. It does not - Objectivism is a philosophy that upholds
*reason* - but your buddy Keith sure seems intent on demonstrating
otherwise.
Most Objectivists *encourage* people to have an interest in the
philosophy - not chase them away like your pal does. The person who
wrote the above comments is absolutely correct: your little Bearster
buddy is a nasty, malevolent individual who gets a second-hander's
thrill out of throwing around his weight and exercising his "authority"
over others. And he is doing it on a channel named after Ayn Rand.
|
Dismuke
|
Epiphany
No wonder I stopped watching this forum...
Erica
Brad Wilson wrote in message <7ug6mg$4lb$1...@news.iex.net>...
Dismuke
> *sigh* Hi Brad. I heard about the farce and came to see.
>
> No wonder I stopped watching this forum...
>
> Erica
>
Question for Erica: How did you score on Weiner's on-line purity test?
(The test, by the way, along with the rest of the website, disappeared
right after I wrote about it and revealed its location).
|
Dismuke
|
Stephen Speicher
> I have not been an Objectivist for a great length of time, and have
> always been (still am) hungrily searching for people to hold common
> ground with. I assume other Objectivists will have a similar
> disposition, and I was flabbergasted that I would meet someone on
> #Objectivism whose first impulse is to look for something to fight
> about.
>
THIS is the biggest reason for my concern. If the person who
wrote this-- the one who sent his story to Dismuke--is still
reading this forum, and if you are reading this now, _I_ want to
apologize to you, in the name of everything I value, for the way
you were treated, and dearly hope you do not expand such
treatment as applying to Objectivists in general. I apologize to
you, not because I am culpable in any way for how you were
treated, but because I am truly shamed by those who, while
calling themselves Objectivists, act in this way.
If, as you say, you are still "hungrily searching for people to
hold common ground with", please write to Dismuke, or to me at my
address below, and either of us will be delighted to point you to
a private list of people who will give you what you want, on a
daily basis. This list has, I believe, a free trial period; if
afterwards you find the value in this list that I think you will,
I will be happy to pay the $50 for half of your first year's
subscription, as my way of saying I am sorry for what you went
through.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Save the photons--don't look!
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-------------------------------------
p.s. It is my understanding that Keith Weiner is no longer associated with
#Objectivism, and in fact has lost his privileges on that channel.
Weiner's channel, #AynRand, should not be confused with #Objectivism,
which is owned and operated by an Objectivist with a much more
benevolent bent.
Tony Donadio
>the _irony_ of someone who claims they were judged too harshly,
>when they themselves were there for the sole purpose of judging.
There is a difference between being judged *harshly* and being
judged *inappropriately*. As I read Stephen's remarks, he's not
complaining about "being judged too harshly." He's judging the
parties involved as being jerks who practice hostility (which is
not a virtue) and judge irrationally.
--
Tony Donadio
-------------------------
STOP the DOJ's Persecution of Microsoft
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft
Tony Donadio
>Translation: "I wanted toleration, but Keith judged me! Waaaaah! Can't
>we all just get along?"
Oh, please.
Betsy Speicher
> In article <19991013173636...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
> Lavos999 <lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL> wrote:
>
> > Even if true, why are you afraid of that? Remember "Judge, and expect
> to be
> > judged"?
>
> He was not, and is not, afraid to judge. I believe he is pointing out
> the _irony_ of someone who claims they were judged too harshly, when
> they themselves were there for the sole purpose of judging.
The problem wasn't that he was judged harshly, but that he was judged
arbitrarily.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> > That's funny. Bearster wrote to me:
> >
> > "There are approximately 1500 bans on the bot. Assuming perhaps half
> > of those are repeat trolls with lots of ISP accounts, that leaves me
> > with the burden to recall more than 700 people over a period of
> > almost 4 years."
> >
> > I take that to mean that whether Bearster has been
> > officially "running"
> > the channel for only 9 months or not, he has been actively involved in
> > banning people for 4 years by his own statement.
>
> No, most of those bans are from #Objectivism.
I didn't say WHERE he was banning people, just that he was doing so for 4
years. In that time, he managed to accumulate a ban list of 1500. That's
pretty "active" if you ask me.
Aaron Davies
Come on, now who's spouting conspiracy theories? (BTW, I'm currently
withholding comment on this situation in general after the general
reaming I got from Stephen, some of which I agree with. I'm not going to
say anything substantive until I have the time to go back on #AynRand
and watch the channel in action some more. I just couldn't resist
pointing out the similarities here.)
--
Aaron Davies, Comp. E. Major, Hacker Wannabe, Marapfhile Extraordinaire
PGP Public Key: http://www.columbia.edu/~agd12/public_key.txt
PGP Fingerprint: 135 45E0 55AD C81E D85B B81D D737 F614 5D16 4893
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
news:Pine.LNX.4.05.9910201646320.4727-
> This is _exactly_ the kind of non-intellectual, purely emotional,
> overly moralistic, distorted judgment which has become associated
> with Weiner and his channel. It is little wonder that Wilson is
How is this different from your behavior on HPO? (See the Speicher and
integrity thread)
The evidence is now pointing to hypocrisy - how can Speicher rationalize
scolding others for behavior he exhibits himself?
--
Fred Gibson, Architect
Fred...@gibson-design.com Architecture Designed Objectively
==================================-----------||||||||||||||||||||||
Frederick Clifford Gibson Architect & Associates
1220 14th Avenue Suite 106
San Francisco, CA 94122
415.753.3797 |tel| 415.759.8848 |fax|
(c)1999 http://www.gibson-design.com
EASG: Epistemology-Aesthetics Study Group
http://www.gibson-design.com/philosophy
ART: American Renaissance for the Twenty-First Century
http://www.art-21.org
SMR
> Stephen Speicher <s...@atlantis.compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > Keith Weiner just doesn't get it, no matter who says it, or how
> > many times. If one can apply the idea of a sense of life to a
> > philosophy, Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth, and
> > as such it contains a most benevolent nature. I am but the latest
> > in a line of people who have told Keith that he acts contrary to
> > that nature, but it apparently has no effect.
>
> we all just get along?"
This is a disturbing interpretation of what Stephen wrote. It seems
you have conceded the Tolerationist's premise by equating toleration
with benevolence.
By accepting their premise, you become the flip side of the
Tolerationist coin. One side is subjective and holds off making moral
condemnation at all cost. The other side is intrisicism and believes
that moral judgment can be made on the basis of words like "just."
Neither have anything to do with Objectivism.
**Sean
Dismuke
>
>
> This is a disturbing interpretation of what Stephen wrote. It seems
> you [Brad Wilson] have conceded the Tolerationist's premise by
> equating toleration
> with benevolence.
>
> By accepting their premise, you become the flip side of the
> Tolerationist coin. One side is subjective and holds off making moral
> condemnation at all cost. The other side is intrisicism and believes
> that moral judgment can be made on the basis of words like "just."
>
> Neither have anything to do with Objectivism.
>
Sean - you have hit the nail right on the head and have exactly
identified the essence of what is wrong with Weiner's approach. If
Weiner and Wilson have an ounce of honesty left within them, they should
take very careful note of your posting and do some major premise
checking.
If Weiner has any genuine respect at all for Ayn Rand, he should do one
of two things - either turn #AynRand over to someone who has the
appropriate knowledge and demeanor to run it properly or, at the very
least, make the channel "invitation only" so that people seeking
friendly interaction with Objectivisits do not accidentally stumble
across it and become targets for his abuse.
|
Dismuke
|
David Friedman
<st...@jetson.uh.edu> wrote:
> By accepting their premise, you become the flip side of the
> Tolerationist coin. One side is subjective and holds off making moral
> condemnation at all cost. The other side is intrisicism and believes
> that moral judgment can be made on the basis of words like "just."
>
> Neither have anything to do with Objectivism.
Are you really claiming that David Kelley (to take the obvious example)
"holds off making moral condemnation at all cost"? It would seem to follow
that he has never morally condemned anyone. Is that true? If it is false,
should you say it?
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
Architect" <Fred...@gibson-design.com> wrote:
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.05.9910201646320.4727-
> > This is _exactly_ the kind of non-intellectual, purely emotional,
> > overly moralistic, distorted judgment which has become associated
> > with Weiner and his channel. It is little wonder that Wilson is
>
> How is this different from your behavior on HPO? (See the Speicher and
> integrity thread)
Speaking as an outside observer (i.e., someone who thinks the views of all
parties to both disputes are to a considerable degree mistaken), I think
the two case are quite different. What the Speichers are claiming about
Bearster (although not quite in so many words) is that he is nuts--that in
identifying enemies, he is irrational and paranoid.
Chris doesn't think Stephen is irrational and paranoid to identify Chris
as an enemy; Chris is his enemy. Chris is an outspoken critic of the ARI,
of which both Speichers are loyal supporters, and he doesn't like Stephen
much either--or most other people, so far as one can tell by behavior
here. Chris's complaint, if I understand it correctly, is that having
correctly identified Chris as an opponent, Stephen then tries to impress
third parties by telling lies about him.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
objec...@my-deja.com
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> (The test, by the way, along with the rest of the website, disappeared
> right after I wrote about it and revealed its location).
Sorry, Michael, the hosting site went down. It's in the process of
being moved. Your paranoia fails you again.
objec...@my-deja.com
100...@mattcom.speicher.com>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
> It is little wonder that Wilson is
> entrusted with the judgmental ability on #AynRand, in Weiner's
> absence. They are, apparently, cut from the same cloth.
Thanks!
objec...@my-deja.com
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> Stephen Speicher went to #AynRand because he read my posting about my
> bad experience with Weiner and because someone he knows was
arbitrarily
> banned from the channel. Rather than take my word for it or this
other
> person's word for it, Speicher went to the channel to judge for
> himself. In other words, by going there, he was giving Weiner the
> benefit of the doubt.
Michael:
You don't have the context, because you weren't there. I was. If you
want the log of the entire discussion, unedited, I'm sure it is
available (I don't know if I was logging then; I'm sure someone else
was, and would be willing to provide them at my request).
Stephen walked into the channel in disguise. He then proceeded to act
like a spoiled, beligerant 10 year old ("I don't have to you what I've
read! That's your problem!"). He was summarily removed for this
behavior.
If his attempt was to emulate how newbies act, he failed miserably. He
acted like a trolling child, and got treated like one. Now he claims
his treatment was "arbitrary".
Stephen has never attemped direct, honest communication with Keith. I'm
sure Keith would be more than willing to lay out the rules for the
channel, since it's his to run as he sees fit. If Stephen chooses to
make his decision based on your word and his one strange encounter in
the channel, then that's his right. And it's mine to call him out on it.
> Weiner, on the other hand, banned Speicher from his channel because
he
> used the word "just" and because he refused to subject himself to
> Keith's bizarre little interrogation. This is a person you wish to
> defend?
No, Weiner became suspicious of him because of the word "just". He
kicked him because of his actions.
The fact that we rigorously screen the people on channel is no secret.
I defend it, I perform it, I support it. Get over it.
Chris Wolf
>Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.05.9910201646320.4727-
>> This is _exactly_ the kind of non-intellectual, purely emotional,
>> overly moralistic, distorted judgment which has become associated
>> with Weiner and his channel. It is little wonder that Wilson is
>
>How is this different from your behavior on HPO? (See the Speicher and
>integrity thread)
>The evidence is now pointing to hypocrisy - how can Speicher rationalize
>scolding others for behavior he exhibits himself?
Evasion?
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
My Dinner With Andy
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/dinner.html
objec...@my-deja.com
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> Which I am somehow supposed to know? Its not like you are a regular
> poster here. Keep you called me a liar - on very flimsy grounds at
> that.
I normally don't read this because previous experience with this
newsgroup shows it to be a cesspool of bad people and bad ideas. There
are probably some few good people here, and (most of) my posts were in
hopes of defending a good person, in the hopes that the few good people
left will come to #AynRand and make a decision on their own.
After this round of posts, I'll probably read responses to mine, to see
if anyone says anything blatantly contradictory, but otherwise, I feel
I have had my say and don't need to say any more.
objec...@my-deja.com
> Which I am somehow supposed to know?
Something else. For someone who craves anonymity to the point of being
paranoid, you sure seemed to relish the idea of uncovering mine, even
though I was not making any attempt to hide it.
Anyone who wants to know my name is free to ask it. I'm not too
paranoid to tell people who I am.
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
news:ddfr-21109...@ddfr.vip.best.com...
> In article <7ulskc$a14$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>, "Frederick C. Gibson,
> Architect" <Fred...@gibson-design.com> wrote:
>
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.05.9910201646320.4727-
> > > This is _exactly_ the kind of non-intellectual, purely emotional,
> > > overly moralistic, distorted judgment which has become associated
> > > with Weiner and his channel. It is little wonder that Wilson is
> >
> > How is this different from your behavior on HPO? (See the Speicher and
> > integrity thread)
>
> parties to both disputes are to a considerable degree mistaken), I think
> the two case are quite different. What the Speichers are claiming about
> Bearster (although not quite in so many words) is that he is nuts--that in
> identifying enemies, he is irrational and paranoid.
Speicher is accusing Wilson of "non-intellectual, purely emotional, overly
moralistic, distorted judgment". This is exactly Speicher's method of
dealing with my posts on h.p.o. - without reference to context facts and
evidence. See the early posts in the "Speicher and Integrity..." thread.
In other words, I think Speicher is the "pot calling the kettle black".
Hence, my statement "The evidence is now pointing to hypocrisy - how can
Speicher rationalize scolding others for behavior he exhibits himself?"
Betsy Speicher
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>
> > (The test, by the way, along with the rest of the website, disappeared
> > right after I wrote about it and revealed its location).
>
> Sorry, Michael, the hosting site went down. It's in the process of
> being moved. Your paranoia fails you again.
Making a one-sentence statement of an undeniable fact is "paranoia?"
I question the judgment of someone who pronounces a sweeping negative
assessment on the basis of so little evidence.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Stephen walked into the channel in disguise.
>
Do you mean disguise in the same way that you post here as [talk
about misnomer] 'objec...@my-deja.com'? I have a separate
account under the astronomical designation ngc3242 (a planetary
nebula known as the Ghost of Jupiter). Am I disallowed by you in
using it? As I have stated before, after hearing all these
reports, I wanted to experience, first-hand, how a stranger is
treated, and learn what actually occurs on that channel. Had I
used my well-known sjs account, I would have been immediately
treated to a slap on the back and welcomed into the club. If
anyone actually asked for my real name, I would never say I was
someone else.
> He then proceeded to act like a spoiled, beligerant 10 year
> old ("I don't have to you what I've read! That's your
> problem!").
How incredibly deceitful of you! Just as Weiner tried to do in
his previous post, you make it appear as if there was a beginning
and an end, but no middle. What you characterize of what I said
[what I actually said was: "Well, I'm afraid that is your
problem, not mine. I just came here to listen in on the talk, and
see what goes on, not to satisfy your every desire."] was the
VERY LAST thing I said, not the first thing after I "walked into
the channel". This was said after being subjected to an extended
confrontational grilling, the content of which I have previously
posted here on h.p.o. And that _is_ the whole point isn't it,
that you and Weiner are unable to objectively see your own
behavior.
I was just the last in a long line of people who have been
reporting mistreatment on that channel. As I have also said
before, it is not that my treatment was _that_ bad, but it was
consistent with the kind of behavior reported by others who have
been treated much more poorly.
>
> If his attempt was to emulate how newbies act, he failed
> miserably. He acted like a trolling child, and got treated like
> one. Now he claims his treatment was "arbitrary".
>
Is there ever a point where you run out of excuses and
manufactured characterizations in your attempt to explain away
the behavior of those on that channel? Apparently not, but I
note that you did not even attempt to do so for that very sad
story (posted by Dismuke) of an innocent soul subjected to what
is, evidently, characteristic abuse through inquisition. Not
surprisingly, I am now learning from those who know Weiner
personally (from where he lives) that he is known by many
Objectivists as the "Church Lady" of Objectivism. Since Wilson
has just recently proclaimed himself proud to be cut from the
same cloth, I'm sure he has earned a vaulted position in the
Church.
> Stephen has never attemped direct, honest communication with Keith.
Oh, so according to Wilson, not only am I a "spoiled, beligerant
10 year old", but my communication on the channel was not
"honest". Wilson bandies words about without ever grasping their
meaning, nor caring for what they actually refer to in reality. A
"Church Lady", indeed.
> I'm sure Keith would be more than willing to lay out the rules
> for the channel, since it's his to run as he sees fit.
Do those rules preclude a sense of benevolence, and require a
"Church Lady" inquisition?
> If Stephen chooses to make his decision based on your word and
> his one strange encounter in the channel, then that's his
> right. And it's mine to call him out on it.
>
My one "strange encounter" would, by itself, have simply been
enough for me to realize that I have no value to seek on that
channel. However, my public denouncement was based on _many_
other accounts of much worse a nature than I experienced. It was
Weiner's own 'defense' of his position which sealed the issue in
my mind, as it has with Wilson's distortions.
>
> The fact that we rigorously screen the people on channel is no
> secret. I defend it, I perform it, I support it. Get over it.
>
"Screen" is Wilson's euphemism for the confrontational,
inquisitional, paranoic weeding out of the evil lurking behind
every stranger.