Betsy Speicher featured on kelleyite/libertarian web site
bear...@my-deja.com
Betsy Speicher is given the award of "Hero of the Day". The article on
her is complete with web page link, mailto link, and a quote. It's
placed between two articles by Nathaniel Branden, one on why
Objectivism is an "open" system, and the other on "spirituality".
(I should say that I think Emmanuel Foroglou should not be jailed, and
that fighting to help him retain his freedom is not a bad thing to do)
On the left links frame, there are links to Laissez-Faire Books, Reason
Magazine*, Chris Sciabarra, Mimi Gladstein presuming to tell us
everything we need to know about Ayn Rand, David
Kelley, "anarchism 'explained' to Ayn Rand", etc.
Ordinarily, I'd say that this website did this without her consent, but
I must say that I don't know. Betsy may or may not be in good,
tolerant company here.
Perhaps she will feel like explaining this on HPO, or even telling the
tolerationists to count her out, and not link her web page or email
address.
*Bill Brown had placed a link to Reason Magazine from his ARI-
sanctioned local Objectivist club, and Betsy has publicly defended it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tony Donadio
>http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/
>Betsy Speicher is given the award of "Hero of the Day".
>Ordinarily, I'd say that this website did this without her consent, but I
must say that I don't know. Betsy may or may not be in good, tolerant
company here.
This is a despicable and undeserved swipe at a good person, and I think its
motivation is pretty obvious. It certainly isn't motivated by a rational
assessment of facts, since Betsy is not by any means a Tolerationist. It's
just an attempt to make a snyde insinuation about someone the poster bears
personal hostility for. That anyone with an ounce of sense or honor should
know better than this should go without saying. I'm sorry to see that the
poster apparently does not fall into that category.
>Perhaps she will feel like explaining this on HPO, or even telling the
tolerationists to count her out, and not link her web page or email address.
Betsy has nothing to explain. She hardly has any control over what a
Tolerationist e-mag decides to say about her (good or bad), and the poster
knows it.
As for asking the Tolerationists not to mention or link to the Cybernet web
page: I'm not sure I see the problem here. Betsy runs Cybernet as a
business. If someone is pointing potential customers her way, should she
object? Or is it being suggested that she institute a "purity test" for
subscribers to Cybernet? Does the poster really think that a mention like
this will fool any honest people into thinking that Cybernet is friendly to
the Tolerationists? I certainly don't.
--
Tony Donadio
-------------------------
STOP the DOJ's Persecution of Microsoft
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft
Luka Yovetich
A bunch of stuff that implies the The Daily Objectivist is a bad website to
spend time at. He's wrong. And I encourage any reasonable person to see for
themself. There's lots of good stuff there.
Click on the link below if you're interested:
www.dailyobjectivist.com
--Luka
Eric
>
>Betsy Speicher is given the award of "Hero of the Day". The article on
>her is complete with web page link, mailto link, and a quote. It's
>placed between two articles by Nathaniel Branden, one on why
>Objectivism is an "open" system, and the other on "spirituality".
>
>(I should say that I think Emmanuel Foroglou should not be jailed, and
>that fighting to help him retain his freedom is not a bad thing to do)
>
>On the left links frame, there are links to Laissez-Faire Books, Reason
>Magazine*, Chris Sciabarra, Mimi Gladstein presuming to tell us
>everything we need to know about Ayn Rand, David
>Kelley, "anarchism 'explained' to Ayn Rand", etc.
>
>I must say that I don't know. Betsy may or may not be in good,
>tolerant company here.
>
>tolerationists to count her out, and not link her web page or email
>address.
>
>
>
>sanctioned local Objectivist club, and Betsy has publicly defended it.
>
It's only fair to point out that Bearster used to have a link to the LP
party on his webpage with his personal praise for their politics, until I
pointed out the Shwartz piece that had been written. Of course he took off
the link the next day I believe. So he's criticizing someone who had no
control over being at a certain website yet Bearster personally chose to
have a link to the LP party at his website with praise...will Bearster
forgive Betsey if she requests that her name be removed?
-Eric
betsy
> Betsy Speicher is given the award of "Hero of the Day". The article on
> her is complete with web page link, mailto link, and a quote. It's
> placed between two articles by Nathaniel Branden, one on why
> Objectivism is an "open" system, and the other on "spirituality".
>
> On the left links frame, there are links to Laissez-Faire Books, Reason
> Magazine*, Chris Sciabarra, Mimi Gladstein presuming to tell us
> everything we need to know about Ayn Rand, David
> Kelley, "anarchism 'explained' to Ayn Rand", etc.
>
> Ordinarily, I'd say that this website did this without her consent, but
> I must say that I don't know.
They did it without my knowledge, consent, or cooperation.
> Betsy may or may not be in good, tolerant company here.
What are you trying to insinuate?
I welcome judgement for the values I hold and support. I have no
control over the actions of others.
I am known and can be judged for the values I am FOR and the actions I
take on behalf of my values. Unlike SOME people, don't seek my personal
worth solely on the basis of who and what I am against.
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/
Jason Lockwood
"Ordinarily, I'd say that this website did this without her consent, but
tolerant company here."
*Ordinarily*?
What is Mr. Weiner assuming and/or insinuating here? What makes Mr.
Weiner think that something is amiss here?
Personally, if my enemy wanted to praise me for something, my attitude
would be: praise away! I couldn't care less what my enemies think or
say about me, unless it's libelous. To assume consent on Betsy's part
is outrageous, given that Mr. Weiner has no evidence and has not
bothered to ask her.
Gee, does anyone here think that *perhaps* Mr. Weiner's motivation is
less than benevolent?
Jason Lockwood
Brad Aisa
>
> bear...@my-deja.com wrote in message <84utqq$d74$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/
>
>
> must say that I don't know. Betsy may or may not be in good, tolerant
> company here.
>
> motivation is pretty obvious. It certainly isn't motivated by a rational
> assessment of facts, since Betsy is not by any means a Tolerationist. It's
> just an attempt to make a snyde insinuation about someone the poster bears
> personal hostility for. That anyone with an ounce of sense or honor should
> know better than this should go without saying. I'm sorry to see that the
> poster apparently does not fall into that category.
I thank Tony for sparing me the need to spend any time originating a
reply. I agree completely with the above.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@NOSPAMbrad-aisa.com>
http://www.brad-aisa.com/ -- PGP public key available at:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Brad+Aisa&op=index
"The paper wall will be next to fall." -- Brad Aisa
Phil Oliver
> This is a despicable and undeserved swipe at a good person, and I
> think its motivation is pretty obvious. It certainly isn't motivated by a
> rational
> assessment of facts, since Betsy is not by any means a Tolerationist. It's
> just an attempt to make a snyde insinuation about someone the poster
> bears personal hostility for.
I agree with the above, completely.
Phil Oliver
Dismuke
>
>
> Ordinarily, I'd say that this website did this without her consent,
> but
> I must say that I don't know. Betsy may or may not be in good,
> tolerant company here.
>
> Perhaps she will feel like explaining this on HPO, or even telling the
>
> tolerationists to count her out, and not link her web page or email
> address.
>
> *Bill Brown had placed a link to Reason Magazine from his ARI-
> sanctioned local Objectivist club, and Betsy has publicly defended it.
Keith Weiner - you are a truly pathetic creature. Once again, as usual,
your motives are transparently obvious. Get a life.
|
Dismuke
|
p.s. Objectivists in Arizona refer to Weiner as "The Objectivist Church
Lady." I think that something else would be more appropriate: "The
Objectivist Witch Doctor."
bear...@my-deja.com
> "Ordinarily, I'd say that this website did this without her consent,
> but I must say that I don't know. Betsy may or may not be in good,
> tolerant company here."
>
> *Ordinarily*?
Yes, by this I mean: if it happened with anyone else, it would cause no
more than a small flag to pop in my mind.
> What is Mr. Weiner assuming and/or insinuating here? What makes Mr.
> Weiner think that something is amiss here?
In case I was not clear enough: the fact of Betsy's defense of Bill
Brown (to this day Brown defends Reason Magazine) is the reason why I
wondered. As you'll recall, Brown gave a link *to* Reason Magazine
from his ARI-sanctioned web site (so far as I know, they did not link
his site). In this incident, Betsy apparently saw evil in me, and good
in Brown whom she praised as one of the brightest young Objectivist
intellectuals.
There are other examples in her recent behavior to cause me to suspect
that she's a tolerationist including her disapproval of my bans on
people who cannot think their way out of a wet paper bag (whom I won't
name now), her support for #geekspeak, etc.
> To assume consent on Betsy's part
> is outrageous, given that Mr. Weiner has no evidence and has not
> bothered to ask her.
Ironic.
> Gee, does anyone here think that *perhaps* Mr. Weiner's motivation is
> less than benevolent?
The Speichers are your friends, ergo...
You don't plan to ask Stephen Speicher if his false "news" release is
benevolent, do you?
P.S. In answer to Eric's post earlier in this thread, yes I once made
the error of assuming honesty on the part of the majority of libs. I
have corrected my error. See also my reply to Betsy.
bear...@my-deja.com
> They did it without my knowledge, consent, or cooperation.
Ok, thank you.
> I welcome judgement for the values I hold and support. I have no
> control over the actions of others.
Actually, you can ask such people not to link your web site and email
address, if you wish. I advise that you do so.
> I am known and can be judged for the values I am FOR and the actions I
> take on behalf of my values. Unlike SOME people, don't seek my
> personal worth solely on the basis of who and what I am against.
Insinuation and mind-reading
eudai...@my-deja.com
bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
> http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/
>
> Betsy Speicher is given the award of "Hero of the Day". The article
on
> her is complete with web page link, mailto link, and a quote. It's
> placed between two articles by Nathaniel Branden, one on why
> Objectivism is an "open" system, and the other on "spirituality".
This is totally a guilt-by-association argument, the same one you
frequently accuse others of using. She did not place the link and she
has explicitly renounced The Daily Objectivist. This is a low blow
even for you.
> On the left links frame, there are links to Laissez-Faire Books,
Reason
> Magazine*, Chris Sciabarra, Mimi Gladstein presuming to tell us
> everything we need to know about Ayn Rand, David
> Kelley, "anarchism 'explained' to Ayn Rand", etc.
More of the same. Naturally, you wouldn't come out and accuse Betsy of
espousing any of this. Instead you smear her for the beliefs of those
with whom she does not associate. It's analogous to you linking to my
home page. I definitely wouldn't want that, but I couldn't possibly
make you take it down--it's the nature of the Internet.
> Ordinarily, I'd say that this website did this without her consent,
but
> I must say that I don't know. Betsy may or may not be in good,
> tolerant company here.
What a disgusting statement: "I must say that I don't know." Reminds me
of the smear campaign against Rearden Metal by the State Science
Institute in Atlas Shrugged.
> Perhaps she will feel like explaining this on HPO, or even telling the
> tolerationists to count her out, and not link her web page or email
> address.
Uh oh, it's Keith's turn to start making demands.
> *Bill Brown had placed a link to Reason Magazine from his ARI-
> sanctioned local Objectivist club, and Betsy has publicly defended it.
Two smears for the price of one. The link was taken down because the
context could not defend its inclusion. Betsy defended me, not the
link. It was an honest mistake on my part and she does not decry honest
mistakes, unlike you.
Follow Reason,
Bill Brown
Jim Klein
bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
>There are other examples in her recent behavior to cause me to suspect
>that she's a tolerationist...
Could you please define "tolerationist," as precisely as you are able?
>You don't plan to ask Stephen Speicher if his false "news" release is
>benevolent, do you?
Ha...you must not be familiar with the secret 33rd Principle: "That was
then; this is now!"
jk
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
> > I welcome judgement for the values I hold and support. I have no
> > control over the actions of others.
>
> Actually, you can ask such people not to link your web site and email
> address, if you wish. I advise that you do so.
I DON'T wish. I have no interest in dealing with such people unless they
are doing something to harm me or my values. Commending me for something
valuable I have really done, in no way hurts me. Trying to get some
mileage out of my accomplishments, if they don't really value what I
value, won't work. Reality is just.
> > I am known and can be judged for the values I am FOR and the actions I
> > take on behalf of my values. Unlike SOME people, don't seek my
> > personal worth solely on the basis of who and what I am against.
> Insinuation and mind-reading
Some people DO seek self-esteem for what they are NOT or what they DON'T
do, while rational, value-seeking people base it on what they are and do.
This is a fact, not an insinuation, and I have seen many people like this
my entire life.
As for mind-reading, I can't do it. As for your taking my statement so
personally, maybe the process involved is introspection, not mind-reading.
Dismuke
>
>
> There are other examples in her recent behavior to cause me to suspect
>
> that she's [Betsy Speicher] a tolerationist
Betsy a tolerationist? You really *do* have your head stuck up your
butt, don't you?
What's the matter Bumbling Bear? Why the sudden outbursts - especially
when anyone with an ounce of sense who found themselves in your
situation would be doing their darndest to keep a low profile and thus
avoid further embarrassment? Did the fact that you were forced to admit
that you are *not* an authority on Objectivism after all and that you
have not read most of Ayn Rand's non-fiction in over 10 years shatter
your little pretense of grandeur? Is that what's bugging you? Or is it
because you are still upset that the dreams you once had of so-called
"big name Objectivists" someday hosting events on your pathetic IRC
channel went up in smoke as a result of your despicable and irrational
behavior? You just might want to be careful, Bearster. You see,
calling Betsy a tolerationist is so patently absurd that even your
dwindling flock of hard core channel regulars might be able to see just
how much of a kook you really are.
> including her disapproval of my bans on
> people who cannot think their way out of a wet paper bag (whom I won't
>
> name now)
Oh, by all means, please do name names. You see, I find watching you
make an ass of yourself in public to be most amusing!
> , her support for #geekspeak, etc.
Are you saying that anyone who supports #geekspeak is a tolerationist?
>
>
> P.S. In answer to Eric's post earlier in this thread, yes I once made
>
> the error of assuming honesty on the part of the majority of libs. I
> have corrected my error.
I submit that this is hilarious.
What did you do, Bearster, when this happened? Did you ban yourself
because of "bad thinking"? Did you question whether your sense of life
might have been "awry" or that you might have been a "bit
rationalistic"? Perhaps if you spent more time reading Ayn Rand's
non-fiction instead of Bearsturbating with a bunch of confused teenagers
on IRC you wouldn't make such errors!
|
Dismuke
|
Stephen Speicher
>
> You don't plan to ask Stephen Speicher if his false "news" release is
> benevolent, do you?
>
What a truly moronic respose!
Several weeks ago you wrote to a whole group of us, pleading that
these issues not be aired on h.p.o., and further indicated that
publicly doing so on h.p.o. is not any way to "persuade a man to
change his course of action via public ridicule." You capitulated
and put up a substantial disclaimer on your site, and most
decided to let the issue die on h.p.o.
The you waltz in here now, on a kamikaze-like suicide mission,
with a blindsided attack of disgusting innuendo against Betsy,
turning Betsy's event of a true achievement into a circus
revolving around your deluded self. You really are a moron!
My "news" release was a parody of the imbecilic processes which
pass for thought in your mind. It was ridicule, pure and simple,
laughter for us at your expense, in response to your disgusting
attack against Betsy. This is what _you_ chose to do, and I, and
others, will remember that.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Save the photons--don't look!
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-------------------------------------------
John Alway
Dismuke wrote in message <387405EB...@dismuke.com>...
>bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> There are other examples in her recent behavior to cause me to suspect
>> that she's [Betsy Speicher] a tolerationist
>
>Betsy a tolerationist? You really *do* have your head stuck up your
>butt, don't you?
>
>What's the matter Bumbling Bear?
Hey, I like that! Goes with the Teddy Bear's picnic.
Bearster, I have one question for you. From your postings to this
newsgroup, I get the sense that you are not reality directed, but are other
people directed. You seem to have a great deal of self-worth anchored in
what others think of you, rather than being concerned with what you think of
yourself by objective standards. This would explain your lashing out,
your excessive judgementalism, and may be the source of your problems.
Does this ring true to you?
...John
Jim Klein
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>This would explain your lashing out, your excessive judgementalism...
Could you please define, as succinctly as possible, "excessive
judgementalism"? Basically I wonder if it's a qualitative or quantitative
thing to you and if so, what quality or quantity makes the grade. TIA.
jk
Dismuke
> On 6 Jan 2000 bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't plan to ask Stephen Speicher if his false "news" release
> is
> > benevolent, do you?
> >
>
> What a truly moronic respose!
>
> Several weeks ago you wrote to a whole group of us, pleading that
> these issues not be aired on h.p.o., and further indicated that
> publicly doing so on h.p.o. is not any way to "persuade a man to
> change his course of action via public ridicule." You capitulated
> and put up a substantial disclaimer on your site, and most
> decided to let the issue die on h.p.o.
>
> The you waltz in here now, on a kamikaze-like suicide mission,
It is amazing, isn't it? In those letters, Weiner babbled about how
unfair it was for the matter to be discussed in a place such as hpo and
even whined about how I was supposedly out to destroy him. He actually
speculated that I might drive out to Arizona and pump him full of 9 mm
bullets! Now he has come back *deliberately* asking for more!
Those of you who still frequent Weiner's IRC channel, please observe who
started this round and ask yourself if he was correct in doing so.
> with a blindsided attack of disgusting innuendo against Betsy,
> turning Betsy's event of a true achievement into a circus
> revolving around your deluded self.
I disagree. Weiner may have *tried* to sully Betsy's achievement - but
his accusations are so ludicrous that no one in their right mind is
going to buy into them for a minute. As far as a circus is concerned,
it wasn't Betsy's achievement that he has turned into a circus - he has
made a circus out of his own life with good ol' Keith Weiner being the
number one laughingstock.
But I do want to comment on Betsy's achievement. It *was* an
achievement - so much so that even her intellectual opponents were able
to recognize it. Undoubtedly, the editors of The Daily Objectivist know
enough about Betsy to understand the differences in her position and
theirs. Nevertheless, they had the decency and integrity to give credit
where credit was due. Contrast their behavior with Keith Weiner's and
you will see that in this instance, the tolerationists at the Daily
Objectivist exhibited much more character and honor than did Keith
Weiner - though, of course, that is not saying very much.
That Weiner would turn Betsy's achievement into an opportunity to make
bizarre and reckless insinuations about her credibility is very
revealing. It is nothing more than pure, naked hostility. Keith Weiner
is a Wounded Bear lashing out.
> My "news" release was a parody of the imbecilic processes which
> pass for thought in your [Weiner's] mind.
My experience is that intrinsicists have a difficult time understanding
humor. In order to "get" a joke, one must recognize that it *is* a joke
- and that means that one must be able to grasp the context upon which
the joke is based. (There are exceptions - I have met intrinsicists who
enjoyed humor as well as non intrinsicists who did not.) Intrinsicists
have a difficult time grasping contexts other than what is literally in
front of them. Subtlety is totally lost on such people - which is one
of the reasons why they try to turn everything into dogma. Based on
Weiner's reaction to similar parodies that I have put up, it wouldn't
surprise me one bit if he actually believes that Stephen was dead
serious about the press release and was trying spread a vicious lie.
> It was ridicule, pure and simple,
> laughter for us at your expense, in response to your disgusting
> attack against Betsy. This is what _you_ chose to do, and I, and
> others, will remember that.
I know I sure will!
|
Dismuke
|
eudai...@my-deja.com
> Brown (to this day Brown defends Reason Magazine) is the reason why I
> wondered. As you'll recall, Brown gave a link *to* Reason Magazine
> from his ARI-sanctioned web site (so far as I know, they did not link
> his site). In this incident, Betsy apparently saw evil in me, and
good
> in Brown whom she praised as one of the brightest young Objectivist
> intellectuals.
Ugh. I indicated that I read Reason Magazine because I find articles in
it of value. My linking to the magazine's web site was inappropriate
because the context indicated that the site was an Objectivist one,
which it certainly is not. I removed it for that reason. My objection
was not to the suggestion that it was inappropriate but the manner in
which you made it. You said, essentially, "Do it or I'll report you." I
don't believe in threats or intimidation. I indicated that I was
removing the link because it was inappropriate, not because of your
threat.
Betsy, as near as I can tell, thought I was being unjustly persecuted
for an honest mistake. I freely admit that I made a mistake, that the
link didn't belong. I am much more cautious about links now. Your
response was incommensurate with my offense.
You seem to argue that where money or contact occurs, sanction
necessarily follows. Yet you visit web sites that you regard as evil.
Have you banned yourself from #aynrand for such wrongthink?
Stephen Speicher
> In article <850p4q$qef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > As you'll recall, Brown gave a link *to* Reason Magazine
> > from his ARI-sanctioned web site (so far as I know, they did not link
> > his site). In this incident, Betsy apparently saw evil in me, and
> good
> > in Brown whom she praised as one of the brightest young Objectivist
> > intellectuals.
>
> Betsy, as near as I can tell, thought I was being unjustly persecuted
> for an honest mistake. I freely admit that I made a mistake, that the
> link didn't belong. I am much more cautious about links now. Your
> response was incommensurate with my offense.
>
"incommensurate" is too generous a statement. The mistake made
was hardly a capital offense, and was voluntarily corrected when
so understood. The content of Weiner's tirade against Bill has
been published here before, and a disgraceful tirade it was.
What makes such disgraceful actions possible is that Weiner does
not hold these issues as principles in his mind, but as memorized
concretes which he blindly follows. He is truly unable to
distinguish between what is evil, and what is an honest mistake,
because he lacks the understanding of the principles which are
needed to apply.
Every single member of his little cult has here revealed exactly
the same approach, exactly the same epistemologic failure. They
are mindless little sheep who live their lives looking up words
in an Objectivist dictionary to tell them what to think, and to
tell them what to do. Understanding is optional.
Steve Davis
> Betsy a tolerationist? You really *do* have your head stuck up your
> butt, don't you?
Please provide a cite from Ayn Rand where she says that bearster's head is
up his butt.
bear...@my-deja.com
> Why the sudden outbursts - especially when anyone with an ounce of
> sense who found themselves in your situation would be doing their
> darndest to keep a low profile and thus avoid further embarrassment?
That's an interesting error.
You really don't grasp that the evil is powerless, do you? It's why
you daily do "battle" with it, and why you really can't comprehend how
I am handling you.
In this case your error is of broad enough general interest to warrant
a brief post to dissect it.
If the principle is that evil is impotent, then to apply it to this
context, I conclude: there isn't anything you can say that will change
a god-damned thing. And so far, you haven't.
bear...@my-deja.com
> Bearster, I have one question for you. From your postings to this
> newsgroup, I get the sense that you are not reality directed, but
> are other people directed. You seem to have a great deal of self-
> worth anchored in what others think of you, rather than being
> concerned with what you think of yourself by objective standards.
> This would explain your lashing out, your excessive judgementalism,
> and may be the source of your problems.
> Does this ring true to you?
No.
I will say three things in response to this.
1) I have said posted few of my thoughts to this forum. I have not
descended into tit-for-tat with my detractors, nor have I posted any
kind of essay on why I think I am good. For those who care to discover
if I am good, and if so why, they will find no comprehensive
presentation in this newsgroup. This doesn't bother me at all, and
your theory should try to incorporate this fact.
2) I have been the target of a smear campaign. Do you think it's
second-handed to defend one's self at all from such?
3) You don't know much about me if the only things you know about me
come from posts to this forum. If you want to judge me based on this,
go for it. There's a whole reality outside of HPO.
P.S. The word for what you're trying to do is called "psychologizing".
bear...@my-deja.com
> The link was taken down because the context could not defend its
> inclusion. Betsy defended me, not the link. It was an honest mistake
> on my part and she does not decry honest mistakes, unlike you.
Let's be clear on something. *Which* was the honest mistake:
1) Thinking Reason was a good magazine
2) Linking a publication by and for the enemies of Objectivism from an
ARI-sanctioned club web site
3) Having a magazine link in a list of links to other kinds of things
At the time, you said that you intended to renew your subsription, and
even said you'd put the link back up when you had magazines on the site.
To set the record straight: I did not decry your mistakes, nor you the
man until after you whipped out the "church lady" sneer, and posed it
behind the anonymous "friends" who were alleged to have uttered it.
Until that vicious and unjust snipe at me, I was friendly to you.
bear...@my-deja.com
>> You don't plan to ask Stephen Speicher if his false "news" release is
> > benevolent, do you?
>
> What a truly moronic respose!
Your false "news" was not benevolent, and it's not "moronic" to ask the
man who appoints himself malevolency-detector (Jason) if he intends to
police his friends as much as his enemies.
A characteristic of your entire Clan Speicher is the willingness to
overlook grossly, heinously malevolent behavior because they're your
friends. You are all sanctioning behavior which you would not tolerate
in anyone else.
Actually, I was surprised at the sheer amount of time you spent on
your "news" article. Your rationalizations do not lessen the intensity
of your dedication to the pursuit of disvalue. Or the obvious hatred
dripping from your not-so-subtle expression of your desire to see me
tortured to death in a prison.
> Several weeks ago you wrote to a whole group of us, pleading that
> these issues not be aired on h.p.o., and further indicated that
> publicly doing so on h.p.o. is not any way to "persuade a man to
> change his course of action via public ridicule."
You seem to be saying that this principle does not apply to your
actions (because the principle is wrong?) But now intend to trot it
out to apply to mine--dropping the context that you have set the
precedent. In other words "this is pretty much what you deserve" to
paraphrase your own words.
> You capitulated
> and put up a substantial disclaimer on your site,
In other words, your various attempts at legal argument were shown to
be utterly without merit. I am not violating any intellectual property
rights and you (now) know it.
Fact: I put up a legal disclaimer. If it makes you feel powerful to
claim that you made me do it, then far be it from me to disabuse you of
the notion.
> and most
> decided to let the issue die on h.p.o.
Ironic. This was shortly after Duus swore to never let it drop on the
principle that new crowds were gathering around daily to hear his rants.
> The you waltz in here now, on a kamikaze-like suicide mission,
> with a blindsided attack
Nice analogy, by the way. Very vidid. I may plagiarize it if I see an
appropriate circumstance. :)
> of disgusting innuendo against Betsy,
The fact remains: she has publicly expressed toleration for a man who
links Reason Magazine from an ARI-sanctioned club website, defeneded
#geekspeak whose ops include pot-smokers, feminists, and hysterical
Peikoff-haters. Tolerationist is not a charge I level lightly (though
Mike and you will spend a few hours each writing "satire" to mock it),
but it's based on an integration of a broad context containing numerous
incidents over a long period of time. Sorry.
Let's hear from some of your other friends on the merits of #geekspeak,
Reason Magazine (and Bill Brown), Tym the pot-smoker, etc. As of
October, several of your friends shared these opinions with me. Let
them stand forth, if they have the courage.
> turning Betsy's event of a true achievement into a circus
I thought I was explicit, but in case I was not: I think it's good that
Emmanuel Foroglou is out of jail, and I sincerely hope that he wins his
appeal and is granted citizenship. I think military conscription is a
monstrous injustice, much less torture in jail for the thought-crime of
opposing it. I did not want to focus on the issue of Foroglou, nor of
Betsy's support of his case, but rather that the tolerationsist website
appeared to have Betsy's consent. As it turns out, the presentation
was misleading (i.e. they had a quote from her which seemed given to
their interviewer). In any event, I am more than a bit surprised that
a woman who has been as prolific as Betsy for so long would be possibly
viewed as a friend by *any* tolerationist.
> revolving around your deluded self. You really are a moron!
And yet you love to devote time and effort to me. Interesting.
> My "news" release was a parody of the imbecilic processes which
> pass for thought in your mind.
You don't think I am an imbecile; you want everyone else to think it.
The more honest of my detractors do not resort to that kind of history
revisionism.
> It was ridicule, pure and simple,
Neither pure, nor simple. It was a confession of a serious degree of
hatred. You surprised me with that, and I mean this literally; I am
not using this is a persuasive device nor as mockery.
bear...@my-deja.com
> Could you please define "tolerationist," as precisely as you are able?
As with the word "Rationalist", there are several definitions.
The formal definition of Tolerationist, as precisely as I am able to
state it is:
A man who holds that ideas are neither good, nor evil, and on
principle welcomes friendship and discource with men of all kinds of
ideas.
As with any false principle, it's not consistently usable in practice.
I believe it was Betsy who noted that tolerationists don't typically
want to tolerate--they want to be tolerated.
I used the word primarily because I've observed her fault me for moral
judgements on a few men in particular whom I've concluded are anti-
rational (this refers to some people from #geekspeak plus Mike Duus--it
does not refer to the entire list of people whom I've banned from
#AynRand; as I've said before she even persuaded me to unban one).
It's not my intent to rehash the reasons for my conclusions, but merely
to note that my (still tentative) conclusion of her (perhaps leaning
towards) to toleration was based on a great deal more than a link from
TDO.
Stephen Speicher
"The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action."
---Ayn Rand, Galt's speech.
Stephen Speicher
And _this_ is how Weiner "dissects" an "error"???????????????
Such a wonderful example of "high-level" philosophic detection,
and such penetrating analysis to reveal fundamental flaws.
<snicker>
The one part Weiner got right is that "there isn't anything you
can say that will change a god-damned thing." The reason this is
correct is because Weiner is an unprincipled dolt, an ignorant
and stupid paranoiac who is completely incapable of grasping
principles. Weiner spits out words as memorized slogans never
really grasping how and if they apply.
Weiner is, simply put...a loony.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > What a truly moronic respose!
>
> Your false "news" was not benevolent, and it's not "moronic" to ask the
> man who appoints himself malevolency-detector (Jason) if he intends to
> police his friends as much as his enemies.
>
A moron is a very stupid person, one who is slow of mind, one who
makes unintelligent decisions and acts. 'moronic' was an apt
description of your inability to distinguish between your own
attack on Betsy of slanderous innuendo, and my parody of you in
response.
"moronic" is also an apt description of your attempt to
characterize Jason as a "malevolency-detector", when such is a
defining essential of your own character, and a projection of
that on to him.
> A characteristic of your entire Clan Speicher is the willingness to
> overlook grossly, heinously malevolent behavior because they're your
> friends. You are all sanctioning behavior which you would not tolerate
> in anyone else.
>
Oops, Weiner's "malevolency-detector" just went off.
> Actually, I was surprised at the sheer amount of time you spent on
> your "news" article.
It didn't take long at all. Capable people such as myself can
accomplish valuable things quickly, but you wouldn't know about
that. In fact, I rather enjoyed doing it, which is the main
reason I did do it. It was very clever and funny, and I got a big
laugh out of it, at your expense.
> Your rationalizations do not lessen the intensity
> of your dedication to the pursuit of disvalue.
I'm sure you feel this is a very deep statement, and somewhere in
that flux of emotions which pass for thoughts in your brain, it
must feel right to you.
> Or the obvious hatred
> dripping from your not-so-subtle expression of your desire to see me
> tortured to death in a prison.
>
Weiner, you really are one sick little puppy. You need to take
yourself and your paranoia to get psychiatric help.
> > Several weeks ago you wrote to a whole group of us, pleading that
> > these issues not be aired on h.p.o., and further indicated that
> > publicly doing so on h.p.o. is not any way to "persuade a man to
> > change his course of action via public ridicule."
>
> You seem to be saying that this principle does not apply to your
> actions (because the principle is wrong?) But now intend to trot it
> out to apply to mine--dropping the context that you have set the
> precedent. In other words "this is pretty much what you deserve" to
> paraphrase your own words.
>
Your inability to grasp ideas is truly astounding. I was setting
the context to illustrate your moronic behavior. First you ask us
all not to discuss you and your issues on h.p.o., and then you
"waltz in here now, on a kamikaze-like suicide mission, with a
blindsided attack of disgusting innuendo against Betsy, turning
Betsy's event of a true achievement into a circus revolving
around your deluded self."
I know you probably experience it as pain when you actually
attempt to think, but in spite of the pain, try doing it once in
a while.
> > You capitulated
> > and put up a substantial disclaimer on your site,
>
> In other words, your various attempts at legal argument were shown to
> be utterly without merit. I am not violating any intellectual property
> rights and you (now) know it.
>
I know no such thing, but not being the owner of the property
rights, it is not for me to decide on any action. Regardless,
that is not, and never has been the main issue to me. As I have
stated repeatedly, the main issue is a moral one, not legal, one
in which you cash in on Ayn Rand's name in attracting people to
your channel, and then pervert the philosophy which she
developed. You are utterly immoral, regardless of any legal
rights.
>
> > The you waltz in here now, on a kamikaze-like suicide mission,
> > with a blindsided attack
>
> Nice analogy, by the way. Very vidid. I may plagiarize it if I see an
> appropriate circumstance. :)
>
I'm sure you will, since that is what you do with everyone else's
ideas.
> > of disgusting innuendo against Betsy,
>
> The fact remains: she has publicly expressed toleration for a man who
> links Reason Magazine from an ARI-sanctioned club website,
You are a liar! Here you attempt to create the impression Betsy
is sanctioning some on-going process which is against ARI policy.
Betsy defended a man who made a mistake--and corrected
it--against your usual "church lady" tirades of paranoic rants
ferreting out malevolent evil wherever you find it, which is
everywhere. As we all learned yesterday, you yourself had a link
to the Libertarian Party until someone told you about Peter
Schwartz' article, and then you took it down.
> defeneded
> xxxxxxxxxx whose ops include xxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx, and xxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
That's what I think of your comments.
> Tolerationist is not a charge I level lightly
Oh, bull! Charges of evil from you come at the same rate as
bullets from a fully-loaded machine gun. The main difference
is...bullets are real.
> but it's based on an integration of a broad context containing numerous
> incidents over a long period of time. Sorry.
>
More bull! Like everything else with you, its based on your
feelings and your distorted and perverted sense of life.
> > My "news" release was a parody of the imbecilic processes which
> > pass for thought in your mind.
>
> You don't think I am an imbecile; you want everyone else to think it.
You are an imbecile, and a deeply psychologically disturbed one
at that. Everyone else knows it too, including you and your
little cult.
> > It was ridicule, pure and simple,
>
> Neither pure, nor simple. It was a confession of a serious degree of
> hatred. You surprised me with that, and I mean this literally; I am
> not using this is a persuasive device nor as mockery.
>
I hate what you do to the name of Ayn Rand. I hate how you treat
innocent people who come to your channel because of Ayn Rand. If
you changed your channel name to #weiner, instead of #aynrand,
I'd never think of you again.
Dismuke
>
>
> That's an interesting error.
>
> You really don't grasp that the evil is powerless, do you?
But of course I do. That's why I think you are so pathetic. It is also
why you are so absolutely *perfect* as an object of ridicule!
> It's why
> you daily do "battle" with it, and why you really can't comprehend how
>
> I am handling you.
You think you are "handling" me? That's quite funny, Bearster Boy. At
this point, you aren't even fully capable of handling yourself. That's
why, the other night, your simmering hostility got the best of you and
made you post your baseless and outrageous insinuations about Betsy
Speicher - despite the fact that you knew you what you were saying was
absurd and that it would only dig you deeper in the hole.
> In this case your error is of broad enough general interest to warrant
>
> a brief post to dissect it.
>
> If the principle is that evil is impotent, then to apply it to this
> context, I conclude: there isn't anything you can say that will change
>
> a god-damned thing. And so far, you haven't.
Oh, really? I - and all of the others who exposed you for what you are
- haven't changed anything so far? Let's examine that for a moment.
The simple truth is, Keith, that you are a fraud. For whatever reason,
you have tied your self image and self worth to being a "somebody" and
an "authority" within the Objectivist movement. The fact that you had
but a superficial understanding of the philosophy did not deter you.
You admit that you have not read much of Ayn Rand's non-fiction in over
ten years. You also admit that you have not even bothered to take the
time and effort to read Dr. Peikoff's _Objectivism: The Philosophy of
Ayn Rand_. Nevertheless, you went out and found a small pond - IRC -
where you could be a big fish. You then proceed to pronounce moral
judgment allegedly using as your standard a philosophy that you did not
even bothered to take the time to study. You demanded that people
submit to an online Purity Test based on a philosophy you have not even
bothered to study. You used Ayn Rand's name and her philosophy that you
have not even bothered to study to draw people to your channel so that
you could use your "authority" to get a cheap power luster's thrill out
of being abusive to them. Those who did not kiss your ass and cater to
your whims were denounced and banned as "sneering whim worshippers."
Those who bit their tongue, those who stoked your ego, those who
themselves got power kick out of banning and "condemning" people, and
those who simply did not know any better were allowed to remain.
Not only are you a fraud but, deep down, you have known that you were a
fraud all along. That is one of the reasons why you have always taken
such delight in pointing out deficiencies in others, either to their
face through your ban list or behind their backs in conversations where
you try to impress others by proclaiming various Objectivists who belong
to the same discussion groups that you do as "pseudo-Objectivists." By
focusing your attention on the alleged inadequacies of others, you felt
that you could detract it away from your own. As long as you had an
audience - as long as you had a fresh supply of suckers to ban or to
become your loyal, unprotesting channel regulars - as long as decent,
knowledgeable Objectivists treated you as an equal - you were able to
fool yourself into believing that no one knew that you were a fraud and
therefore it made no difference.
Then one day, the game was up. Someone came along and shined a bright
spotlight on your murky small pond and everyone realized what a
pitifully small fish you really are. For two months here on hpo, I and
about a dozen others documented your shameful behavior in gory detail.
You were unable to answer the charges. The grand climax came when the
Cornered Bear was forced to admit in front of a number of people that he
was, in fact, NOT much of an authority on Objectivism and that he had
not even read much of Ayn Rand's non-fiction in over ten years.
Now - let's fast forward to the present and your posting. You say that
the words of myself and others here have so far not changed "a
god-damned thing." In one sense, you are absolutely correct. You were
allowed to keep your channel. True, you were forced to put up a
disclaimer - but virtually every Objectivist oriented organization out
there has a similar disclaimer, so it was no big deal. You are still
able to use Ayn Rand's name in order to lure in innocent suckers. You
are still able to ban to your heart's content. That much has not
changed.
But somehow, in this last month, everything has changed, hasn't it? You
are still the big fish in your small pond - but now everybody knows the
pond for the mud puddle that it is. People *know* what you are all
about - it has been revealed to the entire world in gory Technicolor
courtesy good old hpo! Six weeks ago, you denounced hpo and the
unfairness of your being made the center of attention in a forum that
you considered to be thoroughly evil and corrupt. Yet you now jump in
and *make* yourself the center of attention in that same forum. Six
weeks ago, you denounced the attacks against you - but you now have all
but invited us to take aim at you a second time. Why? I think I might
have a pretty good idea why: you are desperately wanting a second
chance. You did not like the outcome from before - the outcome that you
claim changed nothing. You are hoping that, if you reopen the whole
matter, somehow, someway you will do *something* that will change the
outcome and make things the way that they were before. You want to put
the genie back in the bottle. You will not succeed. The truth is a
genie that can never be put back in the bottle.
Look in the mirror, Keith.
|
Dismuke
|
Dismuke
> Or the obvious hatred
> dripping from your [Stephen Speicher's] not-so-subtle expression of
> your desire to see me
> tortured to death in a prison.
>
This is almost as funny as the one about me driving to Arizona in order
to pump Bearster Boy full of 9 mm bullets!
|
Dismuke
|
Dismuke
>
>
> 2) I have been the target of a smear campaign. Do you think it's
> second-handed to defend one's self at all from such?
Give us a break. You had your chance to defend yourself against the
mountain of charges and evidence that was presented here over the course
of two months. You posted a few half-crazed rationalizations.
Subsequently, you evaded the whole matter.
Smearing Betsy is NOT a defense against an alleged "smear campaign" that
was, in fact, well documented by a number of individuals.
|
Dismuke
|
Dismuke
>
>
> To set the record straight: I did not decry your [Bill Brown]
> mistakes, nor you the
> man until after you whipped out the "church lady" sneer, and posed it
> behind the anonymous "friends" who were alleged to have uttered it.
>
> Until that vicious and unjust snipe at me, I was friendly to you.
Bearster, the day that the psychological hell you are enduring now will
go away will be the day that you finally realize that the so-called
"church lady" sneer was, in fact, accurate and just.
|
Dismuke
|
Tom S.
"Dismuke" <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote in message
news:387563A6...@dismuke.com...
Tom Scheeler
--
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Dismuke
>
>
> You don't think I am an imbecile; you want everyone else to think it.
Somebody's been watching the videotape of Ayn Rand's appearance on the
Tom Snyder Show! Real original, Keith!
|
Dismuke
|
Brad Aisa
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: (protected and logged)
X-Trace: 2-00155f292d10ceb264796132481e47e0c88a8b6129cd869035e0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 01:06:43 EST
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 01:04:03 -0500
bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> P.S. The word for what you're trying to do is called "psychologizing".
No it isn't.
Making a reasonable hypothesis of a person's motives for performing some
action, based on clear evidence, is not "psychologizing." (for anyone
interested in this topic, see Rand's essay "The Psychology of
Psychologizing", in The Objectivist)
"Psychologizing" is attributing some form of motivation to persons, *in
the absence of* sufficient evidence or in contradiction to existing
evidence.
The example Rand gave was Rearden with respect to Lillian. He kept
trying to believe she really loved him, and was acting out of pain,
rather than simply accepting the most straightforward hypothesis: that
she was a twisted bitch who hated him.
According to your implicit definition of "psychologizing", Rearden
wouldn't have been able to make *any* hypothesis about the cause of
Lillian's actions. That would be stupid -- we have to make such
judgments about other people all the time.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@NOSPAMbrad-aisa.com>
http://www.brad-aisa.com/ -- PGP public key available at:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Brad+Aisa&op=index
"The paper wall will be next to fall." -- Brad Aisa
Fake Name
All I can say is....Thanks Bearster!
I needed some more entertainment ont his forum, and your posts had
dried up after you probably put Dismuke in your killfile so that his
logic wouldn't be so damaging to your personality. It's nice to see
you sit back and stew your ever so powerful (in your own mind)
thoughts and seek revenge by posting one of the absolute lamest and
implicitly reasoned pseudo-attacks I've ever seen!
This thread is gonna be hilarious, I can tell. I hope BradW joins in
on the fun, too.
>http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/
>
>Betsy Speicher is given the award of "Hero of the Day". The article on
>her is complete with web page link, mailto link, and a quote. It's
>placed between two articles by Nathaniel Branden, one on why
>Objectivism is an "open" system, and the other on "spirituality".
(tons of stuff snipped but read and saved for psychological evaluation
later)
>*Bill Brown had placed a link to Reason Magazine from his ARI-
>sanctioned local Objectivist club, and Betsy has publicly defended it.
John Alway
bear...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8535qn$ilk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>John Alway wrote:
>
>> Bearster, I have one question for you. From your postings to this
>> newsgroup, I get the sense that you are not reality directed, but
>> are other people directed. You seem to have a great deal of self-
>> worth anchored in what others think of you, rather than being
>> concerned with what you think of yourself by objective standards.
>> This would explain your lashing out, your excessive judgementalism,
>> and may be the source of your problems.
>> Does this ring true to you?
>No.
>I will say three things in response to this.
>1) I have said posted few of my thoughts to this forum. I have not
>descended into tit-for-tat with my detractors, nor have I posted any
>kind of essay on why I think I am good. For those who care to discover
>if I am good, and if so why, they will find no comprehensive
>presentation in this newsgroup. This doesn't bother me at all, and
>your theory should try to incorporate this fact.
The problem I'm having is that I've read much of your postings to this
forum, and I've read the criticisms of you. There were legitimate charges
put forward against you, with IRC transcripts use as evidence of your
dialogs. You even agreed with the veracity of the transcripts.
One of your views that I thought was highly suspect was your claim that
the use of the word "just" means that someone is "awry". Can you explain
this? If not, why not?
>2) I have been the target of a smear campaign. Do you think it's
>second-handed to defend one's self at all from such?
Well, to smear is to make false and malicious claims about someone. Has
that been done to you? A specific example would be needed here.
>3) You don't know much about me if the only things you know about me
>come from posts to this forum. If you want to judge me based on this,
>go for it. There's a whole reality outside of HPO.
I do judge people based on their postings all of the time. Yes,
usually I only get a very small part of another person's character from such
judgements, and sometimes I get a very large part.
...John
Ken Gardner
> The problem I'm having is that I've read much of your postings to this
> forum, and I've read the criticisms of you. There were legitimate charges
> put forward against you, with IRC transcripts use as evidence of your
> dialogs. You even agreed with the veracity of the transcripts.
I fully agree. I don't know the guy from Adam except from what I have
seen in his posts here and especially in those IRC transcripts. But his
posts and the transcripts paint a compelling picture. Keith is the
poster child for every non-Objectivist and anti-Objectivist troll who
posts on HPO.
Ken
Mark A. Peters
Stephen Speicher <s...@atlantis.compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.05.100010...@atlantis.compbio.caltech.edu..
Mark A. Peters
<bear...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8537ls$jvt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [...B.S, lies, ravings, evasions and miscellaneous other garbage
deleted...]
Hot stock tip for HPO readers: buy up as many shares of Merriam-Webster as
you can, because there's going to be a huge demand for dictionaries with
this "bearster" guy's picture next to the word "clueless".
Mark Peters
reas...@my-deja.com
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > > I am known and can be judged for the values I am FOR and the
actions I
> > > take on behalf of my values. Unlike SOME people, don't seek my
> > > personal worth solely on the basis of who and what I am against.
>
> > Insinuation and mind-reading
>
> Some people DO seek self-esteem for what they are NOT or what they
DON'T
> do, while rational, value-seeking people base it on what they are and
do.
> This is a fact, not an insinuation, and I have seen many people like
this
> my entire life.
Now I am confused. Why did you capitalize "SOME" if you did not mean to
insunate the person you were responding to? Please explain.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > > > I am known and can be judged for the values I am FOR and the
> > > > actions I take on behalf of my values. Unlike SOME people, don't
> > > > seek my personal worth solely on the basis of who and what I am
> > > > against.
> > > Insinuation and mind-reading
> > Some people DO seek self-esteem for what they are NOT or what they
> > DON'T do, while rational, value-seeking people base it on what they
> > are and do. This is a fact, not an insinuation, and I have seen many
> > people like this my entire life.
> Now I am confused. Why did you capitalize "SOME" if you did not mean to
> insunate the person you were responding to? Please explain.
That was an invitation to Weiner to disown such people and their
anti-value approach to life.
Instead he took it personally and got defensive.
If the shoe fits ...
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/
No Idea
>John Alway wrote:
>
>> Bearster, I have one question for you. From your postings to this
>> newsgroup, I get the sense that you are not reality directed, but
>> are other people directed. You seem to have a great deal of self-
>> worth anchored in what others think of you, rather than being
>> concerned with what you think of yourself by objective standards.
>> This would explain your lashing out, your excessive judgementalism,
>> and may be the source of your problems.
>> Does this ring true to you?
>
>No.
What he answered is one thing. What is true is another.
>I will say three things in response to this.
>
>1) I have said posted few of my thoughts to this forum. I have not
>descended into tit-for-tat with my detractors, nor have I posted any
>kind of essay on why I think I am good. For those who care to discover
>if I am good, and if so why, they will find no comprehensive
>presentation in this newsgroup. This doesn't bother me at all, and
>your theory should try to incorporate this fact.
I would ask you just (oops...) where could someone find a
comprehensive presentation as to why you are "Good", if it doesn't
ever seem to come from the Chickster's mouth? Everyone that joins
#AynRand gets kicked out after they play 20 questions with your
troll-casting, coupled with such great one-liners as "That was
amazingly fucking rationalistic!" or "Sneering whim-worshipper!"
>2) I have been the target of a smear campaign. Do you think it's
>second-handed to defend one's self at all from such?
If someone is smearing you, then do you "defend yourself" from it by
attacking one of the so-called smearing person's wives as a tu quoque,
or do you try to answer their "smears" head on?
>3) You don't know much about me if the only things you know about me
>come from posts to this forum. If you want to judge me based on this,
>go for it. There's a whole reality outside of HPO.
Maybe he should have you take an H.P.O. purity test and then he'll
have all of the answers he'll ever need to judge you forevermore.
>P.S. The word for what you're trying to do is called "psychologizing".
P.S. The words you need to try and do are called "premise-checking".
No Idea
>"Dismuke" :
>
>> Betsy a tolerationist? You really *do* have your head stuck up your
>> butt, don't you?
>
>Please provide a cite from Ayn Rand where she says that bearster's head is
>up his butt.
Maybe it was Dismuke who said that, and not Ayn Rand?
No Idea
>
>A characteristic of your entire Clan Speicher is the willingness to
>overlook grossly, heinously malevolent behavior because they're your
>friends. You are all sanctioning behavior which you would not tolerate
>in anyone else.
Oh, now we get this great "Clan Speicher" collectivistic viewpoint
foisted upon us.
It sounds like there is a concerted attack of plaid kilt-wearing
Bravehearts against English invaders or something. Beware of Clan
Speicher, Longshanks!
>Actually, I was surprised at the sheer amount of time you spent on
>your "news" article.
Chickster, I'm surprised at the sheer amount of time you spent on
attacking Betsy in your post. What also astonishes me is, you can
spend all of that time insinuating things in a doubtful way, but
nowhere did you ever doubt your own premises long enough to just stop
and say, "Oh man this is so amazingly fucking rationalistic!" and then
cancel the post.
> Your rationalizations do not lessen the intensity
>of your dedication to the pursuit of disvalue. Or the obvious hatred
>dripping from your not-so-subtle expression of your desire to see me
>tortured to death in a prison.
What the...? Tortured to death? In prison? What the hell did I miss?
>> Several weeks ago you wrote to a whole group of us, pleading that
>> these issues not be aired on h.p.o., and further indicated that
>> publicly doing so on h.p.o. is not any way to "persuade a man to
>> change his course of action via public ridicule."
>
>You seem to be saying that this principle does not apply to your
>actions (because the principle is wrong?) But now intend to trot it
>out to apply to mine--dropping the context that you have set the
>precedent. In other words "this is pretty much what you deserve" to
>paraphrase your own words.
Chickster, "this is pretty much what you deserve" tells me exactly
zero. What did you deserve?
(snips)
>> The you waltz in here now, on a kamikaze-like suicide mission,
>> with a blindsided attack
>
>Nice analogy, by the way. Very vidid. I may plagiarize it if I see an
>appropriate circumstance. :)
Why plagiarize it when you can act it out more vividly? Hope you save
up enough money to buy a vintage Japanese warplane. You can save a
little money and skip the helmet, too (why DID kamikaze pilots wear
helmets? I've never figured that out...)
>> of disgusting innuendo against Betsy,
>
>The fact remains: she has publicly expressed toleration for a man who
>links Reason Magazine from an ARI-sanctioned club website, defeneded
>#geekspeak whose ops include pot-smokers, feminists, and hysterical
>Peikoff-haters. Tolerationist is not a charge I level lightly (though
>Mike and you will spend a few hours each writing "satire" to mock it),
>but it's based on an integration of a broad context containing numerous
>incidents over a long period of time. Sorry.
Oh my alert the press...we have a POT SMOKER that is an operator in an
IRC channel! Be warned that this is a drug that makes people want to
take it easy, eat sweets, and laugh at everything. That is so
damaging...! Everyone KNOWS that the only *proper* way to be an
operator in an IRC channel is to be an INtolerant asshole that sneers
and bans anyone and everyone for whatever reason the op sees fit!
Here's what I don't understand about Chickster and any other
INtolerant jerk off.
All moral flaws are not to be tolerated
Here is a person with a moral flaw
-------------------------------------------------------
This person isn't to be tolerated.
Anyone see something wrong with this argument?
>Let's hear from some of your other friends on the merits of #geekspeak,
>Reason Magazine (and Bill Brown), Tym the pot-smoker, etc. As of
>October, several of your friends shared these opinions with me. Let
>them stand forth, if they have the courage.
The best thing you can come up with against Tym is that he is a pot
smoker? You are exemplary because you don't "tolerate" such an evil
act in him--yet you can easily brandish your seething hatred on
#AynRand and that IS to be tolerated?
Sorry but I don't get it.
>> turning Betsy's event of a true achievement into a circus
(snips)
>> revolving around your deluded self. You really are a moron!
>
>And yet you love to devote time and effort to me. Interesting.
You have no clue just how hilarious we all find you. It's worth it.
>> My "news" release was a parody of the imbecilic processes which
>> pass for thought in your mind.
>
>You don't think I am an imbecile; you want everyone else to think it.
>The more honest of my detractors do not resort to that kind of history
>revisionism.
>
>> It was ridicule, pure and simple,
>Neither pure, nor simple. It was a confession of a serious degree of
>hatred. You surprised me with that, and I mean this literally; I am
>not using this is a persuasive device nor as mockery.
Chickster, you are just a worthless liar.
You are just an imbecile...
I heard those lyrics in some song recently, I catch myself singing
them here and there.
reas...@my-deja.com
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> > Now I am confused. Why did you capitalize "SOME" if you did not mean
to
> > insunate the person you were responding to? Please explain.
>
> That was an invitation to Weiner to disown such people and their
> anti-value approach to life.
>
> Instead he took it personally and got defensive.
I did not take it that way. I took it to mean that you implied Keith
Weiner was that way. His defensiveness seemed appropriate to me because
I do not think he considers himself that way.
To see if perhaps I was mistaken as well, I have had 5 other people read
your post and asked them what this particular sentance meant. All 5
thought the same as Keith and myself (that you were implying that Keith
seeks his personal worth on who or what he is against).
This no way implies that you are lying, just that, to a general audience
your intent was unclear and it is understandable that Keith Weiner to
react as he did.
(To help fend off any claims that I am using appeal to authority here, I
will state that I asked 5 people to read the post to see if my
interpretation of Betsy's sentance was a general one or one tainted by
my reading of this discussion over time. It was not meant to imply a
truth or an intent in Betsy's mail, as group polling can never do that.
It can tell if the interpretation of a sentance is a general one.)
Stephen Speicher
> On 6 Jan 2000 23:22:19 GMT, bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >A characteristic of your entire Clan Speicher is the willingness to
> >overlook grossly, heinously malevolent behavior because they're your
> >friends. You are all sanctioning behavior which you would not tolerate
> >in anyone else.
>
> Oh, now we get this great "Clan Speicher" collectivistic viewpoint
> foisted upon us.
>
> It sounds like there is a concerted attack of plaid kilt-wearing
> Bravehearts against English invaders or something. Beware of Clan
> Speicher, Longshanks!
>
I have no idea who 'NoIdea' is, but he is one funny guy.
Thanks for the laughs!
Dismuke
>>You [Keith Weiner, a.k.a. The Bearsturbator] have no clue just who
hilarious we all find
>>you. It's worth it.
No kidding! Weiner is just *perfect* as an object of ridicule and as
the butt of jokes! At this, he is almost as good as Bill and Hillary
Clinton!
>
>
> What the...? Tortured to death? In prison? What the hell did I miss?
Yes - isn't that incredible? You know, a little over a month ago, he
speculated about the possibility that I might drive out to Arizona in
order to shoot him full of 9 mm bullets. Now he says that Stephen
Speicher wants to see him tortured to death in a prison. Of course, No
Idea, the next thing Weiner will do is come up with some sort of
dastardly fate that *you* wish to see happen to him. Why not spare him
the effort and just put up a posting saying that you would like to see
him deported to Communist Cuba or something?
> !
>
> Here's what I don't understand about Chickster and any other
> INtolerant jerk off.
Correction: Weiner's not a jerk off. He's a Bearsturbator!
>
>
> All moral flaws are not to be tolerated
> Here is a person with a moral flaw
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This person isn't to be tolerated.
>
> Anyone see something wrong with this argument?
Hmmmm. Sounds pretty good to me, actually!! And since plenty of
evidence has been posted proving that Keith Weiner is chock *full* of
moral flaws, that means that we should not tolerate him. Therefore, I
propose that he be banned from hpo and deported to Communist Cuba where
he can be placed in prison and be tortured by pot smoking tolerationist
prison guards who, when they are finished, will shoot him full of 9 mm
bullets!
There! Now that I have said the above, the next time that Keith Weiner
wishes to wallow in self-pity and indulge himself in "everyone is out to
persecute me" fantasies, he will at least have *something* in reality to
base them upon!
> The best thing you can come up with against Tym is that he is a pot
> smoker? You are exemplary because you don't "tolerate" such an evil
> act in him--yet you can easily brandish your seething hatred on
> #AynRand and that IS to be tolerated?
Actually, one might be able to have a higher opinion of Weiner if *he*
was a pot smoker. At least then he would have some sort of excuse for
his incoherent postings here on hpo! If he wrote his postings without
being under the influence of *some* sort of drug - well, that's pretty
scary!
|
Dismuke
|
harv...@my-deja.com
<Pine.LNX.4.05.100010...@atlantis.compbio.caltech.edu>,
> > >
> > >A characteristic of your entire Clan Speicher is the willingness to
> > >overlook grossly, heinously malevolent behavior because they're
your
> > >friends. You are all sanctioning behavior which you would not
tolerate
> > >in anyone else.
> >
> > Oh, now we get this great "Clan Speicher" collectivistic viewpoint
> > foisted upon us.
> >
> > It sounds like there is a concerted attack of plaid kilt-wearing
> > Bravehearts against English invaders or something. Beware of Clan
> > Speicher, Longshanks!
> >
>
>
part. Based on his replies, I have to imagine that the entrance to the
Bearster Compound displays (in place of the usual warnings against
solicitation):
NO SNEERING
and under that in smaller letters
-Introspection Not Allowed-
I certainly have to wonder if his wife is required to submit to a quiz
each time she enters the bedroom. I can only sumise what the contents
of that quiz would be...
It might not be so funny but Mr. Weiner seems so completely humorless as
to have declared war on language itself. His anger at those labelling
him Church Lady and others for use of the word "just" is especially
funny, since his response is to give those people the label :
"Sneering Whim-worshipper" If giving someone a label makes one a
"sneering whim-worshipper", wouldn't his labeling of them make him one
as well?
Well, back to the pit, sneering is such a strenuous occupation.
-H30
harv...@my-deja.com
bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Let's hear from some of your other friends on the merits of
#geekspeak,
> Reason Magazine (and Bill Brown), Tym the pot-smoker, etc. As of
> October, several of your friends shared these opinions with me. Let
> them stand forth, if they have the courage.
I don't think in your position I would be leveling challenges. Had I
the same flair for humor as Speicher, Dismuke or No Idea, I might try my
hand at taking you up on it. As it is I don't want to detract from the
great stuff, already said. I wish I had storage space to archive all
these posts, (and not for any malicious reasons like plans to put people
in prison). I can't remember seeing such all around humor in a thread
before.
Chris Wolf
>Why plagiarize it when you can act it out more vividly? Hope you save
>up enough money to buy a vintage Japanese warplane. You can save a
>little money and skip the helmet, too (why DID kamikaze pilots wear
>helmets? I've never figured that out...)
To keep their heads warm. It's cold high up.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/
The Dishonesty Of Stephen Speicher
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/speicher.html
bear...@my-deja.com
> Ugh. I indicated that I read Reason Magazine because I find articles
> in it of value.
You said a great deal more than that; you know it, I know it, and a few
other people know it. Most people don't, so I quote from your email:
BB> In short, I give it a qualified rousing endorsement.
> My linking to the magazine's web site was inappropriate
> because the context indicated that the site was an Objectivist one,
> which it certainly is not. I removed it for that reason.
You even said you'd put it back someday:
BB> I promise you, though, if I ever create a more comprehensive link
BB> list (say, including Magazines or News), it will be re-placed.
> My objection
> was not to the suggestion that it was inappropriate but the manner in
> which you made it. You said, essentially, "Do it or I'll report you."
I did not threaten any such thing. At the end, after your church lady
outburst, I *did* report you.
It's important to note, so long as we're on the topic of the manner of
my suggestion, that it was made in private email. A private email is
not designed to humiliate a man for being wrong, and it's the most
respectful way of offering constructive criticism to a man whom you
expect to accept it rationally. A public denouncement, on the other
hand, will rarely have any constructive effect--and then not due to any
virtue on the part of the one issuing it.
If my email raised your dander in anger, then that was entirely your
problem and nothing for which you ought to blame me.
After you called me the church lady, I sent an email to various people
including those club members whose email addresses I had, Betsy
Speicher, and the ARI. I do not know what any of them said to you. I
know I received more than one angry reply defending you, and attacking
me for saying that Kelley and his Libertarianism were not compatible
with Objectivism (I did not hold you guilty by association; I held you
guilty by your own words.)
Incidentally, I did not begin an HPO campaign to smear you with the
goal of getting every club member to renounce his membership. I said
my piece, and I was done. Whatever has become of your club today is of
no concern to me.
> I don't believe in threats or intimidation. I indicated that I was
> removing the link because it was inappropriate, not because of your
> threat.
So that's the real reason...
> Betsy, as near as I can tell, thought I was being unjustly persecuted
> for an honest mistake.
I am glad to see you admit to a mistake; at the time, no such admission
was forthcoming.
> Your response was incommensurate with my offense.
At the end if this post, I shall paste the relevant sections of our
email exchange (feel free to paste more if you feel it will help your
case). Everyone reading this is free to judge whose response
was "incommensurate".
> You seem to argue that where money or contact occurs, sanction
> necessarily follows.
In only seems that way because you have your notion of what I consider
sanction from others (my detractors). You can read what *I* have said
about the principle of moral sanction on www.aynrand.nu. I wrote an
essay to introduce the topic, and moderated a discussion. Ironically,
Betsy Speicher was a participant in that discussion, and did not say
that she thought my views were wrong, much less twisted and evil or a
formula for denouncing everyone and everything.
> Yet you visit web sites that you regard as evil.
A visit of a website is not a sanction. A link to a website is. Get
it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A brief email exchange:
KW>Bill,
KW>
KW>I checked out the www site [for the club], and it looks pretty cool.
KW>
KW>First, a request. Can you add "DiamondWare's homepage" under
KW>businesses and maybe also under my homepage? :)
KW>
KW>Second, you should be aware that Reason magazine is
KW>kelleyite/libertarian.
[You can see here the incommensurate tone of overwhelming
defensiveness, hostility, and self-righteous condemnation of evil, eh?]
BB>I am aware that Reason is a libertarian magazine. Also, insofar as
BB>Kelley supports the libertarian movement, Reason is affiliated with
BB>Kelley. However, one cannot say that Reason is a "Kelleyite"
BB>publication.
BB>...
BB>P.S. I will put your website under Personal Home Pages, but it is
BB>not an Objectivist business per se.
KW>Ok, Reason is a Libertarian magazine which sanctions Kelley and his
KW>thuggish right-hand-man Robert Bidinotto. And they sanction
KW>Nathaniel Branden, David Freedman, etc. And they sanction Kelley's
KW>premise that his kantian philosophy is Objectivism.
KW>Between Kelley, Bidinotto, and Branden, more damage is done to
KW>Objectivism than by all the liberals, christians, and overt marxists
KW>in the world.
KW>In any event, I find it wholly inappropriate for any kind of www
KW>site dedicated to Objectivism to link a Libertarian or a Kelleyite
KW>site.
...
KW> BB>P.S. I will put your website under Personal Home Pages, but it
KW> BB>is not an Objectivist business per se.
KW>Actually, if you're going to keep the link to Reason, then please do
KW>not link DiamondWare. I am happy to take a link on a page chock
KW>full of software companies which may or may not be marxists, but not
KW>on an "Objectivist" page which sanctions a man doing his worst to
KW>destroy Objectivism.
KW>Also, in that case, please remove my name from the mailing list.
KW>And please notify Betsy Speicher and ARI that you are giving a link
KW>to Reason magazine on from the Students of Objectivism club web site.
KW>Please let me know either way. Thanks.
BB>I am sorry if I have offended your delicate sensibilities by even
BB>considering moving my eyes towards a magazine on the Index, much less
BB>linking to it.
...
BB>I honestly never thought I would say this, but Kelley had a
BB>point about dogmatism in Objectivism. I have met individuals whose
BB>first concern was ideological purity, rather than living life.
BB>Never, though, have I met anyone as obsessed with it as you are.
BB>You, sir, are the Objectivist equivalent of Torquemada. I agree with
BB>what I have heard others call you: the Objectivist Church Lady, who
BB>can find Kelley in anything just as Carvey's character could see
BB>Satan's handiwork everywhere.
BB>Do not misinterpret my position. I am wholly in favor of not
BB>sanctioning evil. I am totally in favor of ideological purity.
BB>However, these are not my first concerns. In every experience with
BB>you I have come across, these are your's; it is sad. I want nothing
BB>further to do with you.
KW>The issue isn't my "sensibilities", delicate or otherwise. The
KW>issue is one of sanction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some things to notice:
1) Yes, this really does present the essence of the incident
2) I never threatened Bill Brown
3) I never condemned him (though my withdrawal of sanction was evident)
4) I never abused him or said anything "incommensurate" with the offense
5) Brown was ruled by his emotions in his final reply
6) My position has not changed since then (Oct 1998)
7) Whatever you feel like.
My post is not going to change the opinions of the men who have posted
in defense of Brown, or used this incident to condemn me. Y'all have
taken your positions, and stated them forcefully. This was for the
benefit of disinterested observers.
Jim Klein
bear...@my-deja.com wrote:
>BB>I am totally in favor of ideological purity.
I think that's Ideological Purity. Otherwise, you're saying you're in favor
of a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist or a devout Catholic.
It's a _particular_ ideological purity of which you guys are in total
favor. And as we know, all faiths are not the same!
jk
Stephen Speicher
>
> It's important to note, so long as we're on the topic of the manner of
> my suggestion, that it was made in private email. A private email is
> not designed to humiliate a man for being wrong...
Yes, Keith Weiner is correct.
Rather than in private e-mail Weiner prefers to humiliate himself
in public.