My Dinner with #AynRand
Reel One
where I have come to find others to talk to who understand and
appreciate sincere philosophical discussion.
I usually log in around 6-7, just after my dinner-time, because I've
gotten home from work and had a bit of time to get myself settled for
the evening, and I'm usually stress-free and looking forward to some
entertaining and interesting discourse.
I visit the #AynRand channel on Undernet, to talk to the various
people who speak and listen there. We've talked about many topics
ranging in seriousness from comic-books all the way to monopolies,
from the modern movies all the way to the key issues addressing reason
as man's means for survival.
I have always enjoyed my thoughtful nights spent on this channel, and
I will continue to visit it as long as people of a high intellectual
calibre also visit it.
In my time there, my statements have been judged many times. I didn't
feel threatened or trodden-upon. Even when I came to the channel with
some badly-developed premises regarding what Objectivism is and what
it's about, I never felt like I was being abused or picked-on. I've
never felt anything in the way of fear or hostility toward myself.
Further, when I first arrived on the channel, I was kick-banned after
a short time by a gentleman whose nickname was Bearster. I was asked
some questions about my philosophical leanings, and I answered them.
The kick-ban wasn't because of these questions, because my philosophy
was and is sound.
The upshot of this was that I made some bad comments, and I was judged
on those comments. I was kick-banned.
After being kick-banned, I didn't whine or complain. I was confused.
I tried to understand why I had been kick-banned. I made requests of
people who were on the channel who were willing to talk to me -- which
was their choice entirely. It was volitional. They listened, and I
explained myself. I then listened to them, and they explained
themselves. After a lengthy discourse of about a week, I was
reinstated into the channel.
I've never been kicked off since.
Now, being on or off a given channel of IRC where Objectivists talk
isn't something that really bothers me too much one way or another.
It's not important in the vast number of important things in my life.
But it was a place I've enjoyed talking and listening , and so I'm
glad I took the time to try to get back onto the channel. All I had
to do was explain myself and detail some facts about why I did what I
did and said what I said.
My experience is that real trolls and hostile non-thinkers don't tend
to keep trying after a specific amount of time has passed. They've
got other fish to fry and they move on to #philosophy or #mensa or
#religion to find new people to harass. They change thir nicknames
from "YumFetus" to "KillerMan" and continue down the channel list
until they find a pornography site to "@nuke."
But, not being a troll or a hostile person, I was let back into the
channel after an explanation of an unfortunate misunderstanding.
I'm going to close this note, but before I do there is something I
would like to add because I see some discussion about it on this
newsgroup.
I am homosexual. I'm no more 'openly gay' or 'closedly gay' than a
situation calls for -- in other words, I'm not afraid of saying I
enjoy the company of men, but I'm also not so fragile that I need to
use my sexuality as some kind of Politically-Correct shield against
which to bar all judgments against or for me.
In my tim e on #AynRand, I have had lengthy philosophical discussions
with other people about sexuality -- mine and the general concept of
what sexuality is.
During no moment of that time have I ever felt threatened with
violence or hostility by Bearster or any other of the reasonable
channel operators. I have been treated with respect and dignity
throughout my interactions on ALL subjects. The subjects may meet
with vehement disagreement or may not -- but the tone has alwys been
the civil tone of the civlized individual.
I am posting this note not to condemn anyone or criticize anyone. I
refute this note's use by anyone to critize anyone now or in the
future. It is meant strictly as a note to state that the #aynrand
channel is a source of enjoyment and pleasure for me. I have always
found the subjects illuminating and entertaining, and hope to continue
to do so into the future.
I hope everyone who reads this note takes it in the spirit with which
it is and shall remain intended.
Thank you.
-- TZAnthony
Betsy Speicher
> Further, when I first arrived on the channel, I was kick-banned after
> a short time by a gentleman whose nickname was Bearster. I was asked
> some questions about my philosophical leanings, and I answered them.
> The kick-ban wasn't because of these questions, because my philosophy
> was and is sound.
>
> The upshot of this was that I made some bad comments, and I was judged
> on those comments. I was kick-banned.
What kind of bad comments were they?
> After being kick-banned, I didn't whine or complain. I was confused.
> I tried to understand why I had been kick-banned. I made requests of
> people who were on the channel who were willing to talk to me -- which
> was their choice entirely. It was volitional. They listened, and I
> explained myself. I then listened to them, and they explained
> themselves. After a lengthy discourse of about a week, I was
> reinstated into the channel.
Apparently, there was a difference of opinion in the beginning. How was
it resolved? Did they end up agreeing with you, you with them, or did
everyone agree to disagree?
> I've never been kicked off since.
>
> Now, being on or off a given channel of IRC where Objectivists talk
> isn't something that really bothers me too much one way or another.
> It's not important in the vast number of important things in my life.
Would you consider yourself an Objectivist? Someone interested in
Objectivism? Very knowledgeable about it? The reason I ask is that I
know many, many Objectivists, but I don't believe I've met you yet.
> But it was a place I've enjoyed talking and listening , and so I'm
> glad I took the time to try to get back onto the channel. All I had
> to do was explain myself and detail some facts about why I did what I
> did and said what I said.
Then what happened?
> I am posting this note not to condemn anyone or criticize anyone. I
> refute this note's use by anyone to critize anyone now or in the
> future. It is meant strictly as a note to state that the #aynrand
> channel is a source of enjoyment and pleasure for me. I have always
> found the subjects illuminating and entertaining, and hope to continue
> to do so into the future.
Have you tried #objectivism or #geekspeak or any of the Objectivist
various e-mail lists, or has #aynrand been your only contact with
Objectivists? Have you been on #aynrand long? I haven't seen you post to
h.p.o. before, so I wonder how you found out about this forum and what
motivated you to post.
I don't doubt your experiences, but they are quite different from what
other people have reported, so it does raise some questions.
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/
Dismuke
>
>
> The upshot of this was that I made some bad comments, and I was judged
>
> on those comments. I was kick-banned.
I, like Betsy am curious as to exactly what your "bad comments" were.
You see, just in case you haven't been following this issue since the
beginning, Weiner himself admits that he bans people because they are "a
bit rationalistic" (which I think is hilarious considering the fact that
most of the postings that we have seen by Weiner's channel regulars have
been *far* more than just "a bit" rationalistic) and because their sense
of life is "awry." As a result, "bad comments" in Bearsterspeak can
mean pretty much anything.
In my case, I never was explicitly banned. Instead, one day I suddenly
received an email from Weiner lecturing me on the sanctity of private
property because I ventured onto his channel a few days earlier and
thereby violated a ban that I was never even informed of.
Have you seen Sean Saulsbury's log of his experience with Weiner? You
can read it at:
http://people.we.mediaone.net/saulsbury/bearster_AynRand.html
Question for TZ: Do you sanction Weiner's behavior towards Sean? Is
this how a knowledgeable Objectivist should be treated?
Have you heard about Richard Lawrence's experience on #AynRand? If not,
you may read about it here:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=536531971 Question for TZ: Do
you sanction Weiner's treatment of Richard? Is this how a knowledgeable
Objectivist should be treated?
Have you read about what happened to Stephen Speicher? Stephen heard
about my experience and Sean's experience. Rather than simply rushing
to judge Weiner based on the second-hand accounts of others, Speicher
paid a visit to the channel to see for himself how people are treated
there. You can read the log of Stephen's visit at:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552792726 Question TZ: Do you
think that Stephen Speicher was treated in a manner appropriate for
someone who has read "pretty much everything" written by Ayn Rand? If
someone says that they have read "pretty much everything" by Ayn Rand,
are you more inclined to regard that person as a potential friend or a
potential enemy?
After Speicher posted his experience here on hpo, Weiner responded. One
of the things he said was that he considers a person's use of the word
"just" to be grounds for suspicion. Read it for yourself at:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=536372442 Question
for TZ: Do you think that a person's use of the word "just" reveals
that he has an "alterior (sic) motive"? Also, do you sanction the rest
of Weiner's posting? Do you really believe that, on IRC, trolls
outnumber "Good Guys" by 20 to 1? If someone truly believes that, what
business does he have running an IRC channel? Does it not strike you
that this statement was written by a man suffering from poor social
skills at best or paranoia at worst?
>
>
> After being kick-banned, I didn't whine or complain. I was confused.
> I tried to understand why I had been kick-banned. I made requests of
> people who were on the channel who were willing to talk to me -- which
>
> was their choice entirely. It was volitional. They listened, and I
> explained myself. I then listened to them, and they explained
> themselves. After a lengthy discourse of about a week, I was
> reinstated into the channel.
Well, I am not going to comment on your particular situation until you
tell us more about the nature of your "bad comments." But I will say
that *of course* Weiner will magnanimously let you back in if you grovel
long enough and give him the sanction that he so desperately craves by
begging for his "forgiveness." That is exactly the sort of thing that
power lusters thrive on.
Questions for TZ: Should I have "explained myself" to Weiner after he
chewed me out for violating a ban I did not even know about? Should
Richard Lawrence have attempted to "explain himself" to Weiner? Or
should he have simply written him off as a nut case, as he did? What
has Sean Saulsbury done to warrant a need for him to "explain himself"?
Indeed, Sean **couldn't** "explain himself" even if he wanted to
because Weiner refused to tell him what he had allegedly done wrong
other than have certain unspecified "bad premises."
>
>
> I am homosexual....<snip>....During no moment of that time have I ever
> felt threatened with
> violence or hostility by Bearster or any other of the reasonable
> channel operators.
Like many Objectivists, I do not consider one's sexual orientation to be
a moral issue - so I think it is good that at least Weiner and his
following are not bigots in that regard. But I have another question.
The other day, one of your fellow channel regulars put up a posting in
defense of Weiner and said the following:
There are not different levels of Objectivists, or people who are
half-Objectivists. Just Objectivists, and non-Objectivists. The
rational and
the irrational.
(see: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551892178)
Do you agree with this statement? Does it not strike you as being
somewhat bigoted - as well as downright cultish?
> I hope everyone who reads this note takes it in the spirit with which
> it is and shall remain intended.
>
Well, since I can not read minds, I have no way of knowing in what
spirit it is intended. But that's all right. That's why rational
people benevolently operate on the premise that strangers are innocent
until proven guilty. Can you honestly tell me that this is the case
with visitors to #AynRand? And if so, then how do you account for the
treatment of myself, Sean Saulsbury, Richard Lawrence and Stephen
Speicher?
|
Dismuke
|
Brad Wilson
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.3.96.991127...@usr01.primenet.com...
> I don't doubt your experiences, but they are quite different from what
> other people have reported, so it does raise some questions.
Apparently, different people are not allowed to have different experiences
now?
TZAnthony has been around on IRC for 4 years, on all three channels. Given
that you have never been a regular in any of the channels, it doesn't
surprise me that you don't know who he is.
| Brad Wilson, br...@pobox.com | Information on Objectivism: |
| | http://www.aynrand.org/ |
| Living a rational, happy life | Try my CD Player for Win9x/NT/2K: |
| of reason and atheism | http://www.supercdplayer.com/ |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQCVAwUBOECq2XoXhLE7VwZzAQFXHwP/fAw6Grpctjaxwvaj44hy2MKCcaj62Gj4
qcextlCRs1CPTecwjPBM8E3aPRCwwTBmB+5mUUI5PVQdI6nTKoM+cSssyeT7inqV
IB6+bpWyegUg12kNX7ksqCcZb1Y6U4F7tsSw4wTxkb3I/GWPRp3+tqU5y9s4bpKJ
HolTyILIiU0=
=qel4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > I don't doubt your experiences, but they are quite different from what
> > other people have reported, so it does raise some questions.
> Apparently, different people are not allowed to have different experiences
> now?
It amazes me how you form conclusions. Take the sentence above. It is a
total non-sequitur, unsupported by facts. It is also false.
You and Weiner are frequently writing and acting as if you can know other
people's thoughts and feelings better than they can know their own. The
fact is -- you can't.
Stephen Speicher says that he has read just about everything in the
Objectivist literature and Weiner concludes he is a lying troll -- and
he's wrong. You conclude that I think "different people are not allowed
to have different experiences" when I request more information about TZ's
experiences -- and you're wrong. Weiner concludes that Sean Saulsbury has
"bad premises" which Weiner cannot name or prove -- and he's wrong.
Judging other people is a difficult intellectual task because we can't
read anyone's mind but our own. We must infer everything from another
person's outward behavior only, and it takes effort and often considerable
time to properly gather and evaluate the evidence. Those of us who are
conscientious about moral judgement take the time and make the effort.
Then there are those who would rather "mind read" and to hell with effort
and evidence. That's too much trouble. Mind readers want instant,
infallible knowledge of others.
Where do their conclusions _really_ come from?
"Automatic omniscience [is what] a whim-worshipper ascribes to his
emotions."
That quote is by Ayn Rand from her essay "Philosophical Detection" which,
you announced, you will be leading a discussion of on your channel.
Read that essay well.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > I don't doubt your experiences, but they are quite different from what
> > other people have reported, so it does raise some questions.
> TZAnthony has been around on IRC for 4 years, on all three channels. Given
> that you have never been a regular in any of the channels, it doesn't
> surprise me that you don't know who he is.
Be that as it may, I asked questions of TZZnthony, not you. Why are you
taking it upon yourself to answer for him. Won't he be responding for
himself?
Ken Gardner
> I, like Betsy am curious as to exactly what your "bad comments" were.
Me too, and I would also like to know what he said (or had to say) in
order to get reinstated.
Ken
Jim Klein
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>And if so, then how do you account for the treatment of myself, Sean
>Saulsbury, Richard Lawrence and Stephen Speicher?
I'll likely never give you a set-up as choice as this!
jk
Jim Klein
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>Judging other people is a difficult intellectual task because we can't
>read anyone's mind but our own. We must infer everything from another
>person's outward behavior only, and it takes effort and often considerable
>time to properly gather and evaluate the evidence. Those of us who are
>conscientious about moral judgement take the time and make the effort.
>
>Then there are those who would rather "mind read" and to hell with effort
>and evidence. That's too much trouble. Mind readers want instant,
>infallible knowledge of others.
--------------------------------
"Now let me return to the issue of evaluating an idea morally, and
of doing so by means of identifying its cause and its effects. The
crucial point is that such evaluation is not something arbitrarily
added to the judgment of true and false; on the contrary, it is
logically implicit in such judgment. Implicit in saying that a certain
idea is true is a positive moral estimate of the mental processes that
led to it (a credit to the individual for having worked to grasp
reality), and a positive estimate of the existential results to come (a
true idea will have to yield pro-life results when men act on it). The
same applies mutatis mutandis to false ideas. Implicit in saying that
an idea contradicts the facts of reality is a negative estimate of the
processes that led to it, and also of the effects the idea will have in
practice, which have to be harmful. If one's ideas are tied to reality
at all and if one is guided by life as the standard, there is no way to
identify an idea's truth or falsehood without in some form also
making such evaluations.
"There is only one basic issue in philosophy and in all judgment,
cognitive and evaluative alike: does a man conform to reality or not?
Whether an idea is true or false is one aspect of this question
which immediately implies the other aspects I mentioned: the
relation to reality of the mental processes involved and of the
actions that will result. Truth is a product of effort and leads in
action to value(s); hence, one says, the true idea is not only true: it is
also good. Falsehood, assuming it reaches a certain scale, is a
product of evasion and leads to destruction; such an idea is not only
false; it is also evil."
Leonard Peikoff, _Fact and Value_
--------------------------------
>Where do their conclusions _really_ come from?
Gee, that's a tough one. Do you suppose that maybe there's just no
explanation at all?
jk
Brad Wilson
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.3.96.991127...@usr02.primenet.com...
> Be that as it may, I asked questions of TZZnthony, not you. Why are you
> taking it upon yourself to answer for him.
You answer for your husband, and Sean, and Dismuke, and ad nauseum. Hell,
you even presumed to speak on behalf of Dr. Peikoff and Ayn Rand. Who are
you to ask this question? I had the facts at hand, and gave them.
> Won't he be responding for himself?
I have no idea whether or not Anthony is going to answer any of your
questions. He's certainly under no obligation to do so.
| Brad Wilson, br...@pobox.com | Information on Objectivism: |
| | http://www.aynrand.org/ |
| Living a rational, happy life | Try my CD Player for Win9x/NT/2K: |
| of reason and atheism | http://www.supercdplayer.com/ |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQCVAwUBOEE8dXoXhLE7VwZzAQFTpQP/eCOTZkR1xPxAetMIp0LU/rLWaX7g4pz2
KCKvDdFAxYmmhXVdtyZ6yb9nymf7eT85aKKsStvRcShctlqTcxWZsV3/IHTfhdhi
4ro8lKzUYrgUyq2tu35xz/zs6PjD7qXTbUPPh4TTYCbTgKaX61/pU2KpVB21MjHJ
kb8DY1Tuq+U=
=vcY+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Betsy Speicher
> You answer for your husband, and Sean, and Dismuke, and ad nauseum.
> Hell, you even presumed to speak on behalf of Dr. Peikoff and Ayn Rand.
> Who are you to ask this question?
I have a right, and an obligation to myself as a thinking person, to
gather evidence about people and things that impact my life.
> I had the facts at hand, and gave them.
OK, here are some "facts at hand" and some questions I have asked you
THREE times before about _your_ reasons for _your_ judgements. Because of
your refusal, so far, to show why your judgements are based on anything
other than whim, thinking people have reason to conclude your judgements
are unjustified and you wish to evade responsibility for them.
You said every sentence of my husband wrote in his first encounter on
channel #aynrand "seethed hostility." Well, here is _every_ sentence of
his, straight from the channel log. Check it against your own log. It
contains the entire exchange between Keith Weiner (Bearster) and my
husband (ngc3242), does it not?
That being the case, please show us which of these sentences "seethe
hostility."
You will be judged accordingly. (If you snip and ignore this, as you have
three times before, that is significant also.)
*** ngc3242 (~ngc...@calnet16-31.gtecablemodem.com) has joined channel
#aynrand
*** Topic for #aynrand: For the Best, Brightest, and Most Active Minds in
the World
(www.aynrand.nu)
*** #aynrand X 939737657
*** Users on #aynrand: ngc3242 @Slon Bearster aaron42 JamesDL Dragn @BradW
Jasra @X EddieW
*** #aynrand 929474777
*aaron42* i'll see what they require
*Bearster* hello ngc
*ngc3242* hi.
*Bearster* what brings ya here?
*ngc3242* Just curious.
*Bearster* about?
*ngc3242* About what goes on here.
*Bearster* why?
*ngc3242* This is my first time on IRC, and I don't quite know how all
this works.
*Bearster* are you an Objectivist?
*ngc3242* You bet.
Pub: #aynrand ngc3242 @Slon Bearster aaron42 JamesDL Dragn @BradW Jasra
@X EddieW
*Bearster* cool!
*Bearster* what've you read so far?
*ngc3242* Pretty much everything.
*Bearster* ?
*ngc3242* What?
*Bearster* which everythings would those be?
*ngc3242* I assumed you meant Objectivist literature.
*Bearster* cool!
*Bearster* what've you read so far?
*ngc3242* Pretty much everything.
*Bearster* ?
*ngc3242* What?
*Bearster* which everythings would those be?
*ngc3242* I assumed you meant Objectivist literature.
*Bearster* yes
*Bearster* I did mean that
*ngc3242* So did I.
*BradW* He's asking for specifics, ngc.
*aaron42* i believe he wants specific titles
*Bearster* thanks guys :)
*ngc3242* That's silly.
*Bearster* if you tell me which titles you've read, I promise to prove why
it's not silly.
*ngc3242* But I already said, pretty much everything.
*Bearster* that says, pretty much nothing.
*ngc3242* Is this an interrogation?
*Dragn* Heh
*Bearster* is this defensiveness?
*ngc3242* Why would I be defensive? I just logged on to see what goes on
*ngc3242* here and I answered a couple of questions rather simply and
straightforwardly, but it doesn't seem to satisfy.
*Bearster* I just asked what you've read
*Bearster* why would you not want to answer?
*Bearster* you didnt answer
*Bearster* "most of them" tells me nothing
*ngc3242* But I've said, now for the third time, pretty much everything.
*Bearster* "pretty much everything" tells me nothing
*Bearster* I have no idea if you've read any particular book
*Bearster* what "principle" are you applying in your refusal to enumerate
the books?
*ngc3242* The principle of unit economy.
*Bearster* you have a choice:
*Bearster* 1) tell me which books
*Bearster* 2) tell me that you refuse to say
*ngc3242* How much clearer can it be. I have read just about everything.
*ngc3242* Is this a test?
*aaron42* no, but there's one of those online at www.aynrand.nu\
*Bearster* ngc: you could be clear by stating which books you've read. I
insist: "just about everything" tells me exactly zero.
*Bearster* I will explain this remark when you've answered.
*ngc3242* 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.
*Dragn* Heh
*Dragn* Oh well.
*** Mode change "+o Bearster" on channel #aynrand by X
*** Mode change "+b *!*@*.gtecablemodem.com" on channel #aynrand by
Bearster
*** You have been kicked off channel #aynrand by Bearster (sneering
whim-worshipper.)
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> >Judging other people is a difficult intellectual task because we can't
> >read anyone's mind but our own. We must infer everything from another
> >person's outward behavior only, and it takes effort and often considerable
> >time to properly gather and evaluate the evidence. Those of us who are
> >conscientious about moral judgement take the time and make the effort.
> >Then there are those who would rather "mind read" and to hell with effort
> >and evidence. That's too much trouble. Mind readers want instant,
> >infallible knowledge of others.
> [Klein included a quote from Peikoff's "Fact and Value" on the
> relationship of moral judgements to factual judgements.
> >Where do their conclusions _really_ come from?
Since "mind readers" don't base their moral judgements on the facts, they
are practicing the _exact opposite_ of what Peikoff advocates.
Brad Wilson
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.3.96.991128...@usr08.primenet.com...
>> You answer for your husband, and Sean, and Dismuke, and ad nauseum.
>> Hell, you even presumed to speak on behalf of Dr. Peikoff and Ayn Rand.
>> Who are you to ask this question?
>
> I have a right, and an obligation to myself as a thinking person, to
> gather evidence about people and things that impact my life.
So you have a right to speak for Rand and Peikoff? Do you think the Estate
would agree with you on that? How about Peikoff himself?
The truth is: I did not speak for Anthony. I answered a question about which
I had the facts at hand. _You_, on the other hand, presumed to "answer" the
quiz on _behalf_ of Rand and Peikoff, and point out where they would have
"failed and been banned" (a statement which is in direct conflict to
reality, though it doesn't seem like reality is all that important to you,
just repeating your second hand assertions ad nauseum).
> You will be judged accordingly.
Should I be scared of this? If I'm judged, does that mean I have to forfeit
my life or something? You know, I'm not the one afraid to be judged here.
Your "crew" -- the second handed house of cards that feed off one anothers
egos, regardless of any relation to reality or reason -- is.
Your judgment of me has no effect on me. I have no desire to placate you,
nor appeal to you, as if you were some kind of value to me. If others choose
to judge me negatively on this basis, that is their right. I will not
placate, or appeal to them either.
| Brad Wilson, br...@pobox.com | Information on Objectivism: |
| | http://www.aynrand.org/ |
| Living a rational, happy life | Try my CD Player for Win9x/NT/2K: |
| of reason and atheism | http://www.supercdplayer.com/ |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQCVAwUBOEFYknoXhLE7VwZzAQEx5wQAj9vjpczN0vYYsWNRvMMHzje3h6upvFDo
t4fUnK+lOcmPuIpJpcEgla1181I7A5V/YwOOhIEMaDCgnbRQQW7Pce5ChQkXOOE1
F/gxOOEqu6GObaYT1Alzsph/3E8DxilmHLuTujk4fljZYghI0orlzDXjaCc8NAha
RVHlqTgfako=
=DxSC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dismuke
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSI.3.96.991127...@usr02.primenet.com...
>
> > Be that as it may, I asked questions of TZZnthony, not you. Why are
> you
> > taking it upon yourself to answer for him.
>
> You answer for your husband, and Sean, and Dismuke, and ad nauseum.
I do not recall an instance of Betsy ever "answering for" me. She has,
on a number of occasions, taken my side on a particular issue - but that
is not the same as answering for me.
Nor do I presume to answer for Betsy - so therefore, what follows is
pure speculation on my part. I *suspect* that what Betsy was saying was
something along the lines of: "I asked TZAnthony and not you. After
your evasiveness and the postings that you have put up, your credibility
is shot and I don't give a darn what you have to say." If I am
mistaken, Betsy is more than welcome to zap me on it.
> I have no idea whether or not Anthony is going to answer any of your
> questions. He's certainly under no obligation to do so.
True, he is under no sort of legal obligation to answer any questions -
and my guess is that you would prefer that he not answer them. But if
TZAnthony expects his testimony to be taken seriously here, then he
needs to answer the questions.
First off, by not specifying the "bad comments" that got him banned, Mr.
Anthony, perhaps unintentionally, left out crucial and highly relevant
information. That is what Betsy's questions address.
I asked Mr. Anthony some additional questions.
Over the past month or so, we have been treated to a number of wide-eyed
"Religious Testimonials" from people who have come forward to gush about
how wonderful Keith Weiner is, what a helpful, knowledgeable Objectivist
he is, and what a chummy place #AynRand is. In each instance, these
people - every one of whom has demonstrated that they have nothing more
than an elementary grasp of Objectivism at best - danced around or
ignored the serious evidence that has been raised here and ended up
crawling back to their holes with their tails between their legs after
just a few postings.
In light of all the evidence that knowledgeable and credible
Objectivists have provided against Weiner and #AynRand, it is simply
*impossible* for someone to refuse to address that evidence and expect
to be taken seriously. Mr. Anthony's posting seemed a bit more reality
oriented and less zombie like than the previous testimonials - so I, for
one, am still giving him the benefit of the doubt. But if he fails to
address the reasonable and relevant questions that he has been asked,
then his posting will become yet another Testimonial with absolutely no
more cognitive credibility than the kind you hear on Pat Robertson's 700
Club.
|
Dismuke
|
Jim Miller
>In my time there, my statements have been judged many times. I didn't
>feel threatened or trodden-upon. Even when I came to the channel with
>some badly-developed premises regarding what Objectivism is and what
>it's about, I never felt like I was being abused or picked-on. I've
>never felt anything in the way of fear or hostility toward myself.
>
>Further, when I first arrived on the channel, I was kick-banned after
>a short time by a gentleman whose nickname was Bearster. I was asked
>some questions about my philosophical leanings, and I answered them.
>The kick-ban wasn't because of these questions, because my philosophy
>was and is sound.
>
>The upshot of this was that I made some bad comments, and I was judged
>on those comments. I was kick-banned.
In other aspects of life, when you join a group of people for some
activity, whether as an organized, formal group or not, do you put up
with being presumed guilty and being made to explain yourself after a
very short time? Do you think that other philosophical groups
interrogate interested people to make sure they have the "correct"
leanings? Do you think that other groups would eject you from the
group so readily because of some "bad" comments not made in a
malicious manner? Do you always give other people the power to decide
what you say is "bad"?
I'm a veteran of internet chat groups, including IRC, and I know that
part of this is the usual power-trip bullshit mistreatment that people
frequently get online. But combining this with a mindset as rigid,
judgmental, and cliquish as Rand admirers, it's no wonder you're
getting treated this way.
-Jim
Dismuke
> I'm a veteran of internet chat groups, including IRC, and I know that
> part of this is the usual power-trip bullshit mistreatment that people
>
> frequently get online. But combining this with a mindset as rigid,
> judgmental, and cliquish as Rand admirers, it's no wonder you're
> getting treated this way.
>
Jim - I think the rest of your posting is excellent and very much on the
mark. I especially liked your question:
In other aspects of life, when you join a group of people for some
activity, whether as an organized, formal group or not, do you put
up
with being presumed guilty and being made to explain yourself after
a
very short time?
But I take exception to your last paragraph. I admire Ayn Rand and I do
not treat people that way. I can say the same for a great many other
people that I know. Indeed, please note that the reason that I and
others have been speaking out against Weiner's behavior is precisely
because we *do* admire Ayn Rand. Were it not for the fact that Weiner
is using Ayn Rand's name as bait to lure in his victims, his behavior
would not be worthy of mention. He would be nothing more than just
another petty jerk with a fragile ego.
|
Dismuke
|
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>
> > I have a right, and an obligation to myself as a thinking person, to
> > gather evidence about people and things that impact my life.
>
> So you have a right to speak for Rand and Peikoff?
I am speaking on behalf of MY philosophy (which is the same as theirs) and
MY values (which include Rand and Peikoff) because I believe both you and
Weiner are misrepresenting my philosophy and, if you are not called to
account for the actions you take in Ayn Rand's name, may hurt my values.
> Do you think the Estate would agree with you on that? How about Peikoff
> himself?
I am in no way a representative of the Estate, but I am on friendly terms
with Peikoff and with other representatives of Ayn Rand's Estate. We
often communicate by e-mail and in person concerning matters involving the
Estate and its rights.
> > You will be judged accordingly.
... which I said in reference to your failure to address and to justify,
with evidence, why Stephen Speicher was banned from #aynrand as a
"sneering whim-worshipper," based on his behavior there.
You are still failing to address that channel log. Is there any reason
WHY you are not dealing with that fact, OTHER than evasion?
> Should I be scared of this? If I'm judged, does that mean I have to
> forfeit my life or something? You know, I'm not the one afraid to be
> judged here. Your "crew" -- the second handed house of cards that feed
> off one anothers egos, regardless of any relation to reality or reason
> -- is.
Brad, I suggest you look up the term "projection" in any elementary
psychology book.
reas...@my-deja.com
<Pine.BSI.3.96.991128...@usr06.primenet.com>,
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 28 Nov 1999, Brad Wilson wrote:
> I believe both you
and
> Weiner are misrepresenting my philosophy and, if you are not called to
> account for the actions you take in Ayn Rand's name, may hurt my
values.
Betsy,
Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure what you mean here.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tym Parsons
> Like many Objectivists, I do not consider one's sexual orientation to
> be a moral issue - so I think it is good that at least Weiner and his
> following are not bigots in that regard.
Actually they ARE bigots in that regard. That's one of the areas of
disagreement that I had with Weiner in the past, such that he banned me
from #objectivism. When I pointed out to him that even _Peikoff_
doesn't consider homosexuality to be a moral issue, he accused me of
"appealing to authority". Which in fact I was; and it's a perfectly
valid thing to do, so long as Peikoff's credibility as an authority on
Objectivism is not in question. But apparently Keith doesn't consider
Peikoff an authority.
Of course that makes sense coming from someone who claims that he only
knows for certain of four bonafide Objectivists in existence: he and his
spouse, and another infamously psychotic powerluster on IRC named
Jasmine, and her spouse. He didn't know for sure about Peikoff,
Binswanger, and other leading Objectivists!
I can only surmise that disagreeing with Weiner about homosexuality is
"OK" if you're a newbie; for a knowledgeable Objectivist to do so is
inexcusable in his eyes. It was precisely this kind of attitude that
alienated an impressive number of people on #geekspeak during the time
that Weiner was there, and earned him the derisive sobriquet "The One
True Objectivist".
Weiner's clique bears a fascinating similarity in miniature with the
oppressive atmosphere around Nathaniel Branden back in the day, that
Betsy Speicher describes. I'm really glad that Phil Oliver has come to
realise what a pernicious influence Weiner was and banned him from
#objectivism. As others have noted, it's a much friendlier place
nowadays.
Tym Parsons
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote [in response to Brad
> Wilson]:
> > I believe both you and
> > Weiner are misrepresenting my philosophy and, if you are not called to
> > account for the actions you take in Ayn Rand's name, may hurt my
> > values.
> Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure what you mean here.
There is much too much to go into here, but you will find most of the
reasons by checking www.deja.com for "#aynrand".
The bottom line is that Keith Weiner has:
1) Attracted people to his channel, often those new to Objectivism and/or
to IRC, using Ayn Rand's, name and then treated them unjustly. I value
people who value Ayn Rand and I don't want them to be abused. To do so in
Ayn Rand's name is obscene.
2) On the channel and on his website (www.aynrand.nu) he has claimed that
represents Ayn Rand's philosophy ("The Home of Objectivism on the
Undernet"), while Weiner actually disagrees with Rand on major and
essential points like certainty and volition.
If Weiner wants to run an IRC channel or a private group, I don't have a
problem with it. When he claims to represent Ayn Rand's philosophy or
trade on her name while, in fact, giving comfort to Objectivism's enemies
by perpetrating irrationalities in her name, I will draw the line.
Dismuke
>
>
> Of course that makes sense coming from someone [Weiner] who claims
> that he only
> knows for certain of four bonafide Objectivists in existence: he and
> his
> spouse, and another infamously psychotic powerluster on IRC named
> Jasmine, and her spouse. He didn't know for sure about Peikoff,
> Binswanger, and other leading Objectivists!
I have heard essentially the same thing from someone else who has had
dealings with Weiner. Binswanger's name did not come up - but a number
of other well-known Objectivists were mentioned.
Like I said in my previous posting, as bizarre as it may seem now, Dr.
Kelley may yet have a flock of "homeless Objectivists" knocking on his
door.
|
Dismuke
|
Shawn Huckabay
> not treat people that way.
---
"Would you guys quit it? I hate having to download this useless crap!"
Then don't download it. Just get the hell off of hpo and that should
solve your problem.
---
Yeah, you're such a nice guy.
Dismuke
>
>
> Yeah, you're such a nice guy.
Thank you. And you are a wide-eyed, zombie-like cultist!
|
Dismuke
|
no...@nowhere.com
ree...@mindspring.com wrote:
[...] I
> refute this note's use by anyone to critize anyone now or in the
> future. It is meant strictly as a note to state that the #aynrand
> channel is a source of enjoyment and pleasure for me.
You mean you _refuse_. Sorry, your refusal is not accepted.
You were kicked out for no reason at all. You were undeservedly treated
like shit. You groveled and pleaded to please please please be let in
again, as if those people had the right to treat you like shit. And now
that they have let you in again, you are delighted. Man, that is really
sad. You are an Uncle Tom.
--
Ivan Ordonez
iord...@columbus.rr.com
reas...@my-deja.com
<Pine.BSI.3.96.991128...@usr01.primenet.com>,
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 28 Nov 1999 reas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote [in response to Brad
> > Wilson]:
>
> > > I believe both you and
> > > Weiner are misrepresenting my philosophy and, if you are not
called to
> > > account for the actions you take in Ayn Rand's name, may hurt my
> > > values.
>
> > Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure what you mean here.
Your response did not answer the question I was trying to ask, let me
rephrase it to be more precise. How does someone misrepresenting Ayn
Rand's philosophy hurt your values? This is what I do not understand.
I have substantial first hand knowledge of Mr. Weiner, I just do not
understand why he is in any way relevant to anyone but his clique. I am
confused why you, and some others here, would spend so much of your time
and energy on him. You state that he "may hurt [your] values" and I am
curious what power he has to do so.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt
reas...@my-deja.com
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Of course that makes sense coming from someone who claims that he only
> knows for certain of four bonafide Objectivists in existence: he and
his
> spouse, and another infamously psychotic powerluster on IRC named
> Jasmine, and her spouse. He didn't know for sure about Peikoff,
> Binswanger, and other leading Objectivists!
Hey Tym,
Since I have never met you before and posted about me (I would be the
spouse of "another infamously psychotic powerluster on IRC named
Jasmine"), I thought I would correct you. Mr. Weiner does not consider
myself nor my wife Jasmine objectivists.
I am interested on how you know anything about me at all or how you know
Mr. Weiner considers me an Objectivist. Please elaborate.
Tym Parsons
> Since I have never met you before and posted about me
Have you ever been on #Geekspeak? There used to be someone with the
nick "Reason" there at one time. I've been a regular on there, have
been a channel op, and have hosted some of the scheduled discussions.
> (I would be the
> spouse of "another infamously psychotic powerluster on IRC named
> Jasmine"), I thought I would correct you. Mr. Weiner does not consider
> myself nor my wife Jasmine objectivists.
Weiner told me that he did as of a few years ago. I know for a fact
that I've seen Jasmine on Weiner's channel on and off since then.
Tym Parsons
Betsy Speicher
> Your response did not answer the question I was trying to ask, let me
> rephrase it to be more precise. How does someone misrepresenting Ayn
> Rand's philosophy hurt your values? This is what I do not understand.
It depends on how he does it. There are some people who misrepresent Ayn
Rand in a way that _misleads_ people who genuinely value Ayn Rand and her
ideas into thinking that Ayn Rand and her supporters advocate false or bad
things when, in fact, they do not.
Most critics misrepresent Ayn Rand, but that is usually not a problem
since people understand that critics may have a reason to distort the
ideas they criticise.
When someone claims to _advocate_ my ideas, however, people normally
assume that he values those ideas _because_ he understands them and thus,
they give him credence.
When someone speaks as an authority on a subject, one would assume he
knows more about the subject than most people and that his representation
is more accurate.
When someone claims association with another person or with an
institution, there is an assumption that the person has the approval of
that person or institution.
> I have substantial first hand knowledge of Mr. Weiner, I just do not
> understand why he is in any way relevant to anyone but his clique.
I'll give you one reason straight off your own "Why I am not an
Objectivist" web page. <http://blatt.org/reason/not_oist.html> Weiner has
not only mislead quite a few people about Ayn Rand and Objectivists; he's
also mislead YOU.
On that page you find yourself at odds with "Objectivists" who make
arbitrary, intrinsic, contextless "judgements" of people and decide that
people that do that -- like Weiner -- are Objectivists and people who take
context into account are not. In fact, it is just the opposite. You have
been deceived.
> I am
> confused why you, and some others here, would spend so much of your time
> and energy on him. You state that he "may hurt [your] values" and I am
> curious what power he has to do so.
The power Weiner has is the assumption people make that he understands Ayn
Rand and represents Objectivism or Objectivists. It is the people who have
been deceived by Weiner, like you, who have been damaged. Some of the
people he decived are people I value. That's why I give a damn.
bear...@my-deja.com
> .. as if you can know other people's thoughts and feelings better
> than they can know their own. The fact is -- you can't.
> ... and Weiner concludes he is a lying troll
Today must be National Irony Day; Stephen's post was also ironic.
There is a *big* difference between:
1) Demonstrate to me your worthiness to be in my channel
2) I think all newcomers to my channel are liars
(Whatever you think of quizzes, and proofs, you have to acknowledge the
vast difference between these two)
In any event, Stephen declared "that's your problem..." when I asked
him for some corroborating evidence. You'll note that this is when I
banned him.
You don't think that every attempt to ask for evidence is a hidden
presumption that someone is lying, so please don't presume that *my*
every request for more information is a presumption on my part that I
am dealing with a liar.
> Weiner concludes that Sean Saulsbury has "bad premises" which Weiner
At the time, it was a guess. I didn't remember why I'd banned him--as
I admitted at the time. In fact, thinking about it now, I don't know
that *I* banned him at all. At various times, several others have had
the access to make bans on my bots. I have no records of any ban being
created.
I know that I don't ban (and didn't ban) without reasons, so ONCE A MAN
HAS BEEN BANNED, I REQUIRE A REASON TO UNBAN HIM. Sean did not provide
me with such a reason.
Let's also not forget entirely that I did agree to unban him, but when
I told him, he said I shouldn't unban him because he was only here to
sneer at me and he posted publicly to denounce me. That you were
willing to vouch for his character was a reason.
Since then, I've seen at least two bad premises in action:
1) That I must, on *principle*, unban every last userid@host which I
can't recall
2) That sanctioning your husband's smear campaign is good
> Judging other people is a difficult intellectual task because we can't
> read anyone's mind but our own.
How is it, then, that your husband presumes to say that I lust for
power (or anything else)?
> ... properly gather and evaluate the evidence.
Evidence has been sorely lacking on the part of those accusing me of
all manner of horrendous things.
> Those of us who are
> conscientious about moral judgement take the time and make the effort.
I hope you don't think you're speaking for Stephen Speicher, Sean
Saulsbury, or Mike Duus?
These people have all demonstrated a reckless disregard for
conscientiousness. Right here on HPO!
P.S. You may want to insure that your own house isn't made of glass
before casting stones, eh?
bear...@my-deja.com
> When I pointed out to him that even _Peikoff_
> doesn't consider homosexuality to be a moral issue, he accused me of
> "appealing to authority".
I've since learned what Dr. Peikoff thinks by listening to his tape on
sex and romance. It's safe to say that you were mis-stating his
position then. I have no idea how you feel about it now.
Given your grasp of philosophy, you would do well to never try to
summarize what others have said--you always come off as presuming.
> he accused me of "appealing to authority". Which in fact I was; and
> it's a perfectly valid thing to do, so long as Peikoff's credibility
No it's not. The reason *why* men such as you appeal to authority is
because you don't understand the issues yourself. And then, you mis-
state the authority so that he appears to agree with you.
> Of course that makes sense coming from someone who claims that he only
> knows for certain of four bonafide Objectivists in existence: he and
> his spouse, and another infamously psychotic powerluster on IRC named
> Jasmine, and her spouse. He didn't know for sure about Peikoff,
> Binswanger, and other leading Objectivists!
don't you allow for a man's context of knowledge? Did you really
expect me to say I was sure that people whom I didn't know were
Objectivists?? Are you the sort of man who gives this kind of blank
check--or expects one?
You may rest assured that since our last discussion some years ago, I
have learned enough about Dr. Peikoff and Dr. Binswanger to be sure
that they are indeed bona fide Objectivists--unlike those fools who
presume to speak in their names.
(By the way, it's been a long time since I've learned that Jeffrey and
his wife are not Objectivists. So, apparently, have they; nowadays,
they don't claim to be.)
> It was precisely this kind of attitude that
> alienated an impressive number of people on #geekspeak
By the way, you were never impressive, and neither was #geekspeek. For
a while, it fooled me into thinking it was good (but then, so did the
libertarians).
> I'm really glad that Phil Oliver has come to
> realise what a pernicious influence Weiner was and banned him from
> #objectivism. As others have noted, it's a much friendlier place
> nowadays.
Unless he's changed his opinion of you, you'll find no welcome in his
channel. I was not the only man on earth to see that your view of
evasion was the same as David Kelley's.
P.S. Do you recall arguing with me, when you *insisted* that my being
overweight was *not* evasion--while I continued to insist (and to this
day maintain) that it was evasion? What a pretentious fool you were--
all just to avoid checking your bizarre premises on evasion...
Tym Parsons
> I know that I don't ban (and didn't ban) without reasons, so ONCE A
> MAN HAS BEEN BANNED, I REQUIRE A REASON TO UNBAN HIM. Sean did not
> provide me with such a reason.
How Kafka-esque. "Prove to us that you are _not_ a witch."
Tym Parsons
reas...@my-deja.com
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> reas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Since I have never met you before and posted about me
>
> Have you ever been on #Geekspeak? There used to be someone with the
> nick "Reason" there at one time. I've been a regular on there, have
> been a channel op, and have hosted some of the scheduled discussions.
I have been on #Geekspeak 2 or 3 times since it was created. I don't
believe I ever talked there, or at least not that I recall. I have
never been to any scheduled discussions.
> > (I would be the
> > spouse of "another infamously psychotic powerluster on IRC named
> > Jasmine"), I thought I would correct you. Mr. Weiner does not
consider
> > myself nor my wife Jasmine objectivists.
>
> Weiner told me that he did as of a few years ago. I know for a fact
> that I've seen Jasmine on Weiner's channel on and off since then.
A few years ago? OK. That might make sense. about 2-3 years ago, I
could see him say that. He was new to IRC then. He would never make
that claim now. You have not ever seen Jasmine on any Bearster channel
though, she is banned on sight for over 2 years.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt
reas...@my-deja.com
100...@usr07.primenet.com>,
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> I'll give you one reason straight off your own "Why I am not an
> Objectivist" web page. <http://blatt.org/reason/not_oist.html>
Weiner has
> not only mislead quite a few people about Ayn Rand and Objectivists;
he's
> also mislead YOU.
Actually, while Keith Weiner was one of the people I had in mind when I
wrote that essay 6 months ago; I quit calling myself and Objectivist,
for the reasons I gave in that essay, while I was friends with Keith
Weiner nearly 2 years ago. While I do not want to name names of
specific people, Keith Weiner had nothing to do with me leaving
objectivism at all. It was not until later that I realized he had the
same traits that I quit associating with him.
If your point is that I left the objectivist philosophy because of
people like Keith Weiner, then I will point you back to my essay again,
my philosophy has not changed. I still agree with Ayn Rand. I just
think most objectivists I have met are vindictive, unhappy people, with
a child's view of reality. So, other than a label, people like Keith
had *no* effect on me.
I am happy you have read my essays though.
> In fact, it is just the opposite. You have been deceived.
Assuming for a minute that I have been deceived, lets look at the
ramifications.... I can not think of one. Please tell me what the
ramifications are to me? What are the ramifications to you that I am
deceived? I can not think of one there either.
> The power Weiner has is the assumption people make that he
understands Ayn
> Rand and represents Objectivism or Objectivists. It is the people who
have
> been deceived by Weiner, like you, who have been damaged. Some of the
> people he decived are people I value. That's why I give a damn.
OK. So the reason you care is because you are afraid that people who
base their ideas of Objectivism on second hand information will get the
wrong second hand information. That is how I understood your statement.
If I am misrepresenting you, can you clarify why I am incorrect.
Tym Parsons
> > When I pointed out to him that even _Peikoff_
> > doesn't consider homosexuality to be a moral issue, he accused me of
> > "appealing to authority".
>
> I've since learned what Dr. Peikoff thinks by listening to his tape on
> sex and romance. It's safe to say that you were mis-stating his
> position then. I have no idea how you feel about it now.
What's there to mis-state? Peikoff doesn't consider homosexuality to be
a moral issue.
> Given your grasp of philosophy, you would do well to never try to
> summarize what others have said--you always come off as presuming.
What astonishing projection! This from the creature who has been the
subject of so much indignation here on HPO, for that very fault!
> > he accused me of "appealing to authority". Which in fact I was; and
> > it's a perfectly valid thing to do, so long as Peikoff's credibility
>
> No it's not.
Actually yes it is. In fact Peikoff spoke about that very subject: when
it's legitimate to appeal to authority.
> The reason *why* men such as you appeal to authority is
> because you don't understand the issues yourself. And then, you mis-
> state the authority so that he appears to agree with you.
More baldly unsupported assertions.
> > Of course that makes sense coming from someone who claims that he
> > only knows for certain of four bonafide Objectivists in existence:
> > he and his spouse, and another infamously psychotic powerluster on
> > IRC named Jasmine, and her spouse. He didn't know for sure about
> > Peikoff, Binswanger, and other leading Objectivists!
>
> don't you allow for a man's context of knowledge? Did you really
> expect me to say I was sure that people whom I didn't know were
> Objectivists?? Are you the sort of man who gives this kind of blank
> check--or expects one? You may rest assured that since our last
> discussion some years ago, I have learned enough about Dr. Peikoff and
> Dr. Binswanger to be surthat they are indeed bona fide
> Objectivists--unlike those fools who presume to speak in their names.
Lessee. You were first exposed to Objectivism in 1988? It was only
maybe three or four years ago that you told me there were only four
bonafide Objectivists that you knew of for certain. And at this time
you BOASTED that you were more "highly integrated" in your grasp of
Objectivism than I was. I've studied Objectivism for DECADES, and it
didn't take me very long to figure out that Peikoff et al knew whereof
they spoke. What was your problem?
<snip>
> > It was precisely this kind of attitude that
> > alienated an impressive number of people on #geekspeak
>
> By the way, you were never impressive, and neither was #geekspeek.
The feeling is mutual sweetie.
> > I'm really glad that Phil Oliver has come to
> > realise what a pernicious influence Weiner was and banned him from
> > #objectivism. As others have noted, it's a much friendlier place
> > nowadays.
>
> Unless he's changed his opinion of you, you'll find no welcome in his
> channel.
That's funny. I'm on #objectivism right now. Phil and I have agreed
that we share the same philosophy, even if we've agreed to disagree
about other things. The same can't be said for you.
> I was not the only man on earth to see that your view of evasion was
> the same as David Kelley's.
Oh this is truly rich. More unsupported nonsense from the
Bearsterbator.
> P.S. Do you recall arguing with me, when you *insisted* that my being
> overweight was *not* evasion--
I don't recall it that way. As I recall it, going on what you said, I
didn't *know* that it was evasion.
> while I continued to insist (and to this day maintain) that it was
> evasion?
Well, every person knows themself best *shrug* If the shoe fits...
> What a pretentious fool you were--all just to avoid checking your
> bizarre premises on evasion...
Projecting again I see. I've never known ANYONE that's as obsessed with
evasion as you are Keith. The word comes too readily to your lips.
Tym Parsons
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > I'll give you one reason straight off your own "Why I am not an
> > Objectivist" web page. <http://blatt.org/reason/not_oist.html>
> > Weiner has not only mislead quite a few people about Ayn Rand and
> > Objectivists; he's also mislead YOU.
>
> Actually, while Keith Weiner was one of the people I had in mind when I
> wrote that essay 6 months ago; I quit calling myself and Objectivist,
> for the reasons I gave in that essay
Your complaint was that Objectivists don't take context into account when
judging, but real Objectivists DO.
> If your point is that I left the objectivist philosophy because of
> people like Keith Weiner, then I will point you back to my essay again,
> my philosophy has not changed. I still agree with Ayn Rand.
So do real Objectivists.
> Assuming for a minute that I have been deceived, lets look at the
> ramifications.... I can not think of one. Please tell me what the
> ramifications are to me?
For one thing, you may be cutting yourself off from the company of real
Objectivists who can add a lot to your life.
> What are the ramifications to you that I am deceived? I can not think of
> one there either.
I don't know you well, so I cannot say. I do know it breaks my heart to
get e-mail from a high school kid whose friend /joined #aynrand only to
have Weiner call his friend a "second-hander" for having the effrontery to
ask Weiner to define his terms. I get angry when Weiner presumes to
give a teenager unsolicited and unwelcome advice on how to conduct his
love life. I see injustice when a fine young friend of mine is banned
from the channel for no reason that Weiner can state and, when he politely
requests to be unbanned, Weiner curses him out and calls him a "f*cking
rationalist." I value these people and it hurts me to se Weiner treated
like that.
> OK. So the reason you care is because you are afraid that people who
> base their ideas of Objectivism on second hand information will get the
> wrong second hand information. That is how I understood your statement.
I am saying that people who trust Weiner or give him the benefit of the
doubt (which is a reasonable thing to do -- especially if you are a
teenager and new to Objectivism) are often deceived and abused.
Betsy Speicher
On 29 Nov 1999 Keith Weiner <bear...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I know that I don't ban (and didn't ban) without reasons,
You MAINTAIN bans without reason.
> so ONCE A MAN HAS BEEN BANNED, I REQUIRE A REASON TO UNBAN HIM. Sean
> did not provide me with such a reason.
You were demanding he prove a negative!
What business does a person who is so ignorant of basic epistemology have
running a channel called #aynrand and setting himself up as an authority
on Objectivism?
Ken Gardner
> You were kicked out for no reason at all. You were undeservedly treated
> like shit. You groveled and pleaded to please please please be let in
> again, as if those people had the right to treat you like shit. And now
> that they have let you in again, you are delighted. Man, that is really
> sad. You are an Uncle Tom.
For once, I fully agree with you. The guy [reelone] should be
embarassed.
Ken
Ken Gardner
> At the time, it was a guess. I didn't remember why I'd banned him--as
> I admitted at the time. In fact, thinking about it now, I don't know
> that *I* banned him at all. At various times, several others have had
> the access to make bans on my bots. I have no records of any ban being
> created.
> I know that I don't ban (and didn't ban) without reasons, so ONCE A MAN
> HAS BEEN BANNED, I REQUIRE A REASON TO UNBAN HIM. Sean did not provide
> me with such a reason.
Let me get this straight. You cannot say whether you banned Sean, much
less why you banned him -- yet you require a reason to unban him? Not
exactly my idea of justice or even plain good manners.
When Stephen Speicher answered that he had read "pretty much everything"
of Rand's works, what part of "pretty much everything" didn't you
understand?
Ken
Betsy Speicher
> > What are the ramifications to you that I am deceived? I can not think of
> > one there either.
> I don't know you well, so I cannot say. I do know it breaks my heart to
> get e-mail from a high school kid whose friend /joined #aynrand only to
> have Weiner call his friend a "second-hander" for having the effrontery to
> ask Weiner to define his terms. I get angry when Weiner presumes to
> give a teenager unsolicited and unwelcome advice on how to conduct his
> love life. I see injustice when a fine young friend of mine is banned
> from the channel for no reason that Weiner can state and, when he politely
> requests to be unbanned, Weiner curses him out and calls him a "f*cking
> rationalist." I value these people and it hurts me to see Weiner
> treat them like that.
Phil Oliver
> That's funny. I'm on #objectivism right now. Phil and I have agreed
> that we share the same philosophy, even if we've agreed to disagree
> about other things.
To be exact, I disagree with Tym in a number of ways and I don't
know him well enough to say "Tym is an Objectivist" (I'm concluding
that's actually a difficult thing to say with certainty), though I am
aware of a number of posts he's made which are reasonable and
consonant with Objectivism -- though I would not have him
moderate an intellectual discussion. I don't consider Tym
to be the evading demon that Keith made him out to be --
as Keith does with far too many people. Tym is civilized on IRC,
friendly, and not an advocate of Kelley or the Brandens, and he
is therefore welcome on the channel, disagreements or not.
Phil Oliver
Betsy Speicher
> In any event, Stephen declared "that's your problem..." when I asked
> him for some corroborating evidence. You'll note that this is when I
> banned him.
According to the log, Weiner said "you could be clear by stating which
books you've read. I insist: "just about everything" tells me exactly
zero," to which Stephen replied "Well, I'm afraid that is your problem,
not mine."
Failure to understand simple English WAS Weiner's problem, and Stephen was
banned for telling the truth.
Weiner is free to run his IRC channel any way he pleases, but he has no
moral right to use the name "Ayn Rand" to do things like that.
reas...@my-deja.com
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 30 Nov 1999 reas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> Your complaint was that Objectivists don't take context into account
when
> judging, but real Objectivists DO.
My essay states that it is my experience that Objectivists do not. This
is not based on 1 or 2 people but virtually all the people I have met
over the course of 6 years as an Objectivist. Keith Weiner was just one
of literally hundreds of people I saw such behavior in. Perhaps I met
the wrong people all the time. I can only go from my first hand
experience. My point is that while the people on #objectivism at the
time (one of whom was Keith Weiner) played a fairly large roll in me
writing this essay, Keith Weiner played a fairly trivial, if not
non-existant, part in me forming these conclusions. As I said before, I
was on friendly terms with him when I quit calling myself an Objectivist
and I broke ties with him, not the other way around.
> For one thing, you may be cutting yourself off from the company of
real
> Objectivists who can add a lot to your life.
Possibly. However, I am on this forum now because I was doing a search
for Capitalism on Alta Vista when I came across some post on this. I
started reading. At first I was quite vehemently on the side of the
people against Keith, as I have seen him do alot of the things he is
accused of. And then I began to notice a commonality among the posts.
It appears to me to not be a quest for justice but an attempt to get
people to hate Keith Weiner on second hand information. In a recent look
at your posts in particular, nearly 70 out of your last 100 posts on HPO
have been about how evil Keith Weiner is. Some of the posts I have read,
and not all of them yours, require mind reading, assume alot
from very little evidence. Any person who dislikes Keith Weiner
over what is said here, is second handed. In fact, I think that
Keith Weiner had behaved admirably in the face of the attacks
here. A couple times he showed himself to be angry, but as far
as I have read (and I have not read everything) I have only
seen him post to factual corrections. Honestly, I see little difference
between what you folks are doing and what you are accusing Keith of. I
do not mind being cut off from that.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt
P.S. I am in no way a supporter of Keith Weiner or #AynRand. I probably
have more reason to dislike Keith Weiner than anyone here, and I quite
frankly do not have any feelings towards him one way or the other
because he does not matter in any way to my life. Perhaps others here
should re-evaluate if he matters as much as the energy you are expending
on him.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > Your complaint was that Objectivists don't take context into account
> > when judging, but real Objectivists DO.
>
> My essay states that it is my experience that Objectivists do not. This
> is not based on 1 or 2 people but virtually all the people I have met
> over the course of 6 years as an Objectivist. Keith Weiner was just one
> of literally hundreds of people I saw such behavior in.
I know hundreds of Objectivists myself, and that has not been my
experience (over the course of 37 years) -- at least not since the NBI
days. Sure there are some people passing through Objectivism who act like
that, but they generally don't last. My own view of how Objectivists
_should_ judge is found in Ayn Rand's essays and in Peikoff's course on
"Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic" available from SRB.
> > For one thing, you may be cutting yourself off from the company of
> > real Objectivists who can add a lot to your life.
>
> Possibly. However, I am on this forum now because I was doing a search
> for Capitalism on Alta Vista when I came across some post on this. I
> started reading. At first I was quite vehemently on the side of the
> people against Keith, as I have seen him do alot of the things he is
> accused of. And then I began to notice a commonality among the posts.
The commonality is that almost all the posters have had unpleasnt,
_first-hand_ experience with Keith Weiner and are seeking justice.
> It appears to me to not be a quest for justice but an attempt to get
> people to hate Keith Weiner on second hand information. In a recent look
> at your posts in particular, nearly 70 out of your last 100 posts on HPO
> have been about how evil Keith Weiner is.
Most have been filled with questions and uncontested facts. I have done
little in the way of expressing my own opinion, because the facts speak
for themselves.
My motive, besides redressing the injustice done to people I value, is to
stop Keith Weiner from using the name "Ayn Rand" on his channel. Once he
does that, or even makes his channel "invite only," I'll probably shut up
and not mention it here any more.
> In fact, I think that Keith Weiner had behaved admirably in the face of
> the attacks here. A couple times he showed himself to be angry, but as
> far as I have read (and I have not read everything) I have only seen him
> post to factual corrections.
I suggest you "read everything." Some of Keith's "factual corrections"
contradict some of his earlier statements.
Check deja.com for the full story.
Brad Wilson
news:81vpdg$2dl$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> To be exact, I disagree with Tym in a number of ways and I don't
> know him well enough to say "Tym is an Objectivist" (I'm concluding
> that's actually a difficult thing to say with certainty),
That's funny. You said it to me after an hour's worth of disagreement about
what you (claim you) considered a "tangential, science fiction" issue. Have
you changed your mind about how quickly you want to make that claim, now?
> Tym is civilized on IRC,
> friendly, and not an advocate of Kelley or the Brandens, and he
> is therefore welcome on the channel, disagreements or not.
That's funny. You banned me for our disagreement on the issue, even though
I said not a _single_ bad word about you as a result. You stewed for a
week, couldn't stand being confronted on a moral issue, and then banned me.
You're coming off quite hypocritical.
Betsy Speicher
> Phil Oliver <MyN...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Tym is civilized on IRC,
> > friendly, and not an advocate of Kelley or the Brandens, and he
> > is therefore welcome on the channel, disagreements or not.
>
> That's funny. You banned me for our disagreement on the issue, even
> though I said not a _single_ bad word about you as a result. You stewed
> for a week, couldn't stand being confronted on a moral issue, and then
> banned me.
>
> You're coming off quite hypocritical.
He's coming off as someone who has changed his mind about how to treat
people on IRC and has modified his channel policies accordingly. Some
people are able to learn from their mistakes, correct them, and move on.
That's honesty and maturity, not hypocrisy.
Dismuke
> .
> It appears to me to not be a quest for justice but an attempt to get
> people to hate Keith Weiner on second hand information.
Excuse me - but do you consider Sean Saulsbury's log of his conversation
with Bearster
( http://people.we.mediaone.net/saulsbury/bearster_AynRand.html ) to be
"second hand information"? It is anything *but* second hand
information. There, people can see the bastard in action for
themselves.
Do you consider Stephen Speicher's log of his being banned by Weiner (
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552792726 ) to be "second hand
information"?
Do you consider Weiner's postings to hpo to be "second hand
information" In these postings, among many of the half-crazed
absurdities he has uttered, Weiner says that he considers the use of the
word "just" to be grounds to regard a person as suspect. Weiner also
put up a posting in which he admitted that he bans people because they
are a "bit rationalistic" and because their sense of life is "awry."
What about the posting that Weiner put up in which he accuses Sean
Saulsbury of being an anarcho-capitalist? See it for yourself at:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=539349287 Is this what you call
"second hand information"?
The simple fact is that hpo has been chock full of first hand
information about this goon.
> Any person who dislikes Keith Weiner
> over what is said here, is second handed.
That is simply not true. There has been plenty of evidence provided
here - a great deal of it by Weiner himself.
> In fact, I think that
> Keith Weiner had behaved admirably in the face of the attacks
> here.
He has has behaved evasively and has dodged all of the essential issues
that have been presented.
> A couple times he showed himself to be angry, but as far
> as I have read (and I have not read everything) I have only
> seen him post to factual corrections.
Calling Sean Saulsbury an anarcho-capitalist is "factual"?
In one of my postings, I made a tongue in cheek remark wondering **IF**
Weiner would subject visitors to a body cavity search if he ever hosted
a live Objectivist event. Subsequently, Weiner attempted to
misrepresent my comments and alleged that I said that he **DID** subject
people to body cavity searches. Do you call this a "factual
correction"? You can see Weiner's first attempt to misrepresent this
and my response at: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551909483
> Honestly, I see little difference
> between what you folks are doing and what you are accusing Keith of.
Then you are blind. Weiner behaves irrationally and treats people
unjustly. Personally, if that was all there was to it, I could care
less. It is he, not I, who has to live his miserable little life. But
there is much more to it than that. Weiner is doing so under the banner
of Objectivism and is obscenely exploiting Ayn Rand's name in order to
lure in his victims. I think Betsy said it best:
When he claims to represent Ayn Rand's philosophy or
trade on her name while, in fact, giving comfort to Objectivism's
enemies
by perpetrating irrationalities in her name, I will draw the line.
To those are tired of reading this thread, I am sorry if it bothers
you. But the simple fact is that what this man is doing needs to be
exposed and hpo is the most appropriate place to do it. I know that
some will counter by pointing out that a great deal of what is being
said has been rehashed over and over again. That's true. Please
realize that there are far more lurkers out there than posters - and
that this audience is not static. Not everybody reading this thread
today has been with it since the beginning. I *do* agree that the issue
should, as much as possible, be kept out of other threads. I, for one,
will do my best to attempt to do so - and will appropriately change the
subject headers of my postings when necessary. That way, people who
wish to ignore the thread may do so.
But I, for one, am not going to simply let this matter go. Until Weiner
changes the name of his channel or I become convinced that there is not
a single decent Objectivist left who does not have the evidence of what
this man has been up to, I am not going to drop it.
|
Dismuke
|
Shawn Huckabay
And he was sure to MSG me some sneering remarks about how I should just go
ahead and go back to my church group.
Mature individual indeed. This was a week ago at most (I can't remember an
exact date).
Betsy Speicher
Despite what you may hear elsewhere, people cannot read minds. If you
want to be understood, you have to provide some context.
Which "he" are you referring to? What were you banned from?
Shawn Huckabay
Phil Oliver
> On 1 Dec 1999, Shawn Huckabay wrote this and ONLY this:
> > He banned me for disagreeing about Keith Weiner.
"He" is probably me. Huckabay asked me some questions
about what was going on -- I answered -- he left in a huff
saying "And you call yourself an Objectivist" (after which
I msg'ed him that he should go back to his church.) I don't
think I banned him from the channel, but he can consider
himself banned -- I don't need incoherent, hostile, dishonest
airheads around.
Phil Oliver
reas...@my-deja.com
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> Excuse me - but do you consider Sean Saulsbury's log of his
conversation
> with Bearster
> ( http://people.we.mediaone.net/saulsbury/bearster_AynRand.html ) to
be
> "second hand information"? It is anything *but* second hand
> information. There, people can see the bastard in action for
> themselves.
Yes I do. I was not there, I do not know Sean Saulsbury and do not know
if the log is modified or not. Therefore, the log could not be necessary
information for me to claim to know anything at all. If I post a log of
an IRC session where you called me every name in the book, would that be
first hand information for everyone else? Of course not.
Note: Ad Hominem #1 : "bastard"
> Do you consider Stephen Speicher's log of his being banned by Weiner (
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552792726 ) to be "second hand
> information"?
Yes, for the same reason I gave above.
> Do you consider Weiner's postings to hpo to be "second hand
> information" In these postings, among many of the half-crazed
> absurdities he has uttered, Weiner says that he considers the use of
the
> word "just" to be grounds to regard a person as suspect. Weiner also
> put up a posting in which he admitted that he bans people because they
> are a "bit rationalistic" and because their sense of life is "awry."
No. I consider Keith Weiner's actual words on HPO to be first hand
information.
Note: Ad hominem #2 "half-crazed absurdities he has uttered"
> What about the posting that Weiner put up in which he accuses Sean
> Saulsbury of being an anarcho-capitalist? See it for yourself at:
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=539349287 Is this what you call
> "second hand information"?
It is first hand information that he said that (although I did not check
the link to verify). It would be second handed of me to accept it, or
assume Sean Saulsbury is not an anarcho-capitalist, on Keith Weiner's
word.
> The simple fact is that hpo has been chock full of first hand
> information about this goon.
Chock full?. I speculate (from the number of 70 in the last 100 posts of
Betsy Speicher I counted the other day) that roughly 200 posts have been
written about this in the last month, assuming that 50% are in favor of
Keith Weiner, roughly 100 posts have been negative. Of that 100, 2 are
logs (Keith's posts being in the positive side). Of Keith Wiener's posts
(15 in the last month) if I assume that 1/3 are lunacies (half of the
one's I have not read) That means that 7 out of 200 were what you call
first hand information. I doubt that 3.5% of any thread would be "chock
full" by anyone's measure. Check your premises.
Note: Ad hominem #3 "goon"
> That is simply not true. There has been plenty of evidence provided
> here - a great deal of it by Weiner himself.
The numbers are not with you on that conclusion. Unless you consider 7
posts out of 200 plenty.
> He has has behaved evasively and has dodged all of the essential
issues
> that have been presented.
Blatt's laws of human nature:
1. People tend to agree with people they like or admire.
2. People tend to disagree with people they do not like.
I think that conclusion is based on Blatt's second law of human nature,
as it does not agree with what I have read on this forum. Now, I openly
state that I have not read everything on this thread, I am inducing from
what I have read.
> In one of my postings, I made a tongue in cheek remark wondering
**IF**
> Weiner would subject visitors to a body cavity search if he ever
hosted
> a live Objectivist event. Subsequently, Weiner attempted to
> misrepresent my comments and alleged that I said that he **DID**
subject
> people to body cavity searches. Do you call this a "factual
> correction"? You can see Weiner's first attempt to misrepresent this
> and my response at: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551909483
I would be much more likely to call it a misinterpretation, or a
misread. Given your tendancy towards ad hominem attacks (3 in this post
so far) it is not a big stretch to think he misunderstood. (Again, I did
not follow the link to view what happened, regardless it would require
mind reading on my part to know what happened in Keith Weiner's mind at
the time). I have done similar things before and had others do the same
to me. It is fairly common in written forums for misunderstandings of
jokes.
> Then you are blind. Weiner behaves irrationally and treats people
> unjustly. Personally, if that was all there was to it, I could care
> less. It is he, not I, who has to live his miserable little life.
But
> there is much more to it than that. Weiner is doing so under the
banner
> of Objectivism and is obscenely exploiting Ayn Rand's name in order to
> lure in his victims.
Just being objective really. I am not saying that Keith Weiner does not
treat people badly, etc. I am saying that you, Betsy, and a few others
are spending alot of your life and productive energy on Keith Weiner.
Reading your posts and your ad hominem attacks, you are not acting
rationally about it either. I do not think ad hominem attacks ever add
to a discussion.
> To those are tired of reading this thread, I am sorry if it bothers
> you.
It does not bother me, nor am I tired of it. I find it quite
eluminating.
> But the simple fact is that what this man is doing needs to be
> exposed and hpo is the most appropriate place to do it.
> I know that
> some will counter by pointing out that a great deal of what is being
> said has been rehashed over and over again. That's true. Please
> realize that there are far more lurkers out there than posters - and
> that this audience is not static. Not everybody reading this thread
> today has been with it since the beginning. I *do* agree that the
issue
> should, as much as possible, be kept out of other threads. I, for
one,
> will do my best to attempt to do so - and will appropriately change
the
> subject headers of my postings when necessary. That way, people who
> wish to ignore the thread may do so.
So, you plan to rehash this, for the sake of others, until Keith Weiner
gives up #AynRand? Do you realize that is what you said?
> But I, for one, am not going to simply let this matter go. Until
Weiner
> changes the name of his channel or I become convinced that there is
not
> a single decent Objectivist left who does not have the evidence of
what
> this man has been up to, I am not going to drop it.
Check your premises.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt
Betsy Speicher
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> > Excuse me - but do you consider Sean Saulsbury's log of his
> > conversation with Bearster
> > ( http://people.we.mediaone.net/saulsbury/bearster_AynRand.html ) to
> > be "second hand information"? It is anything *but* second hand
> > information. There, people can see the bastard in action for
> > themselves.
>
> Yes I do. I was not there, I do not know Sean Saulsbury and do not know
> if the log is modified or not. Therefore, the log could not be necessary
> information for me to claim to know anything at all. If I post a log of
> an IRC session where you called me every name in the book, would that be
> first hand information for everyone else? Of course not.
Keith Weiner never disputed the accuracy of the log. Instead he defended
every word he said including the absurd demand that Sean prove a negative.
It is all on deja.com. First-hand, undisputed evidence. Read it in
Weiner's own words <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=539349287>.
> Note: Ad Hominem #1 : "bastard"
That's an insult, not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be, "What Weiner
says is false, because he's a bastard."
> > Do you consider Stephen Speicher's log of his being banned by Weiner (
> > http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552792726 ) to be "second hand
> > information"?
> Yes, for the same reason I gave above.
Keith Weiner never disputed the accuracy of the log. Instead he defended
every word he said including the claim that my husband use of the word
"just" hid an "alterior" motive. Weiner also said he assumed that my
husband was a lying troll _because_ he said he was an Objectivist who has
read pretty much everything in the Objectivist literature." It is all on
deja.com. First-hand, undisputed evidence. Read it in Weiner's own words
<http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=536372442>.
> > Do you consider Weiner's postings to hpo to be "second hand
> > information"
> No. I consider Keith Weiner's actual words on HPO to be first hand
> information.
Please read the above two cites.
> Note: Ad hominem #2 "half-crazed absurdities he has uttered"
That's an evaluation. Read his postings. You may agree.
> > What about the posting that Weiner put up in which he accuses Sean
> > Saulsbury of being an anarcho-capitalist? See it for yourself at:
> > http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=539349287 Is this what you call
> > "second hand information"?
> It is first hand information that he said that (although I did not check
> the link to verify). It would be second handed of me to accept it, or
> assume Sean Saulsbury is not an anarcho-capitalist, on Keith Weiner's
> word.
Sean can't prove that he is not an anarcho-capitalist and he can't prove
that he's not a Martian. NOBODY and prove a negative and it is invalid to
ask them to.
Please read what Weiner wrote and you'll see why people who value Ayn
Rand's good name don't like the way Weiner is using it.
Dismuke
>
>
> Just being objective really. I am not saying that Keith Weiner does
> not
> treat people badly, etc. I am saying that you, Betsy, and a few others
>
> are spending alot of your life and productive energy on Keith Weiner.
Keith Weiner is not worth a second of my time or energy - except for the
entertainment value that is derived from laughing at him and his
pathetic little flock.
What *is* worth an investment of my time and productive energy is trying
to stop the good name of a lady I admire and who has taught me a great
deal from being defiled by creeps like Weiner.
> Reading your posts and your ad hominem attacks, you are not acting
> rationally about it either. I do not think ad hominem attacks ever add
>
> to a discussion.
Well, after reading your posting, I am inclined to think that, by your
standard's, *any* effort to expose a person's bad character would be
classified as an "ad hominem."
>
>
> > To those are tired of reading this thread, I am sorry if it bothers
> > you.
>
> It does not bother me, nor am I tired of it. I find it quite
> eluminating.
You know, the one thing I like about Bearsterites (or, in your case, a
former Bearsterite) is the fact that my occasional spelling mistakes are
*nothing* compared to theirs! "Eluminating" "Alterior Motive."
>
>
> So, you plan to rehash this, for the sake of others, until Keith
> Weiner
> gives up #AynRand? Do you realize that is what you said?
For the sake of others? No. I plan to do it for very selfish reasons.
> Check your premises.
Same to you!
|
Dismuke
|
Ken Gardner
> > Note: Ad Hominem #1 : "bastard"
> That's an insult, not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be, "What Weiner
> says is false, because he's a bastard."
THANK YOU. I wish more people understood the difference between an ad
hominem and an insult. :)
Ken
reas...@my-deja.com
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> Keith Weiner never disputed the accuracy of the log. Instead he
defended
> every word he said including the absurd demand that Sean prove a
negative.
> It is all on deja.com. First-hand, undisputed evidence. Read it in
> Weiner's own words <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=539349287>.
It is not important that it is not disbuted. I do not assume such things
are true as I do not have full context without having witnessed it
myself.
> > Note: Ad Hominem #1 : "bastard"
>
> That's an insult, not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be, "What
Weiner
> says is false, because he's a bastard."
It would be my contention that the ad hominem you named would be his
implication. He is not talking to Keith Weiner directly, but about him
and why he is wrong. In that context, insults are ad hominems. If he had
said to Keith Weiner "You are a bastard!" I would agree. However, the
context was similar to "I do not trust anything the
bastard does," in which case bastard is supporting evidence for why
the speaker does not trust him.
> Keith Weiner never disputed the accuracy of the log. Instead he
defended
> every word he said including the claim that my husband use of the word
> "just" hid an "alterior" motive. Weiner also said he assumed that my
> husband was a lying troll _because_ he said he was an Objectivist who
has
> read pretty much everything in the Objectivist literature." It is all
on
> deja.com. First-hand, undisputed evidence. Read it in Weiner's own
words
> <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=536372442>.
That does not disbute my point really. A log of a conversation I do not
have the full context of, can not be first hand information. Secondary
posts from Keith Weiner are a different matter. I already agreed that
Keith Weiner's posts are first hand information.
> > > Do you consider Weiner's postings to hpo to be "second hand
> > > information"
>
> > No. I consider Keith Weiner's actual words on HPO to be first hand
> > information.
>
> Please read the above two cites.
Why? I am not defending Keith Weiner. I was disbuting that logs of a
conversation that I was not a part of are first hand information.
Perhaps someone can define first hand information for me and explain why
a log of IRC meets that definition.
> > Note: Ad hominem #2 "half-crazed absurdities he has uttered"
>
> That's an evaluation. Read his postings. You may agree.
I do not agree that it is only an evaluation. It is emotional language
meant to get an emotional response. Perhaps, appeal to emotion would be
more accurate. I called an ad hominem because it appeared to be an
insult given with the intent to support Keith Wiener as wrong.
> Sean can't prove that he is not an anarcho-capitalist and he can't
prove
> that he's not a Martian. NOBODY and prove a negative and it is
invalid to
> ask them to.
I never asked him to. I stated that I have no idea if it is true or
false as I do not know Sean. Nothing more. If you can show anywhere
where I have ever asked anyone ever to prove a negative, I would be most
interested.
reas...@my-deja.com
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> Well, after reading your posting, I am inclined to think that, by your
> standard's, *any* effort to expose a person's bad character would be
> classified as an "ad hominem."
Then you might want to read it again. Show me anywhere where I said or
implied that. I stated that you were using name calling as supporting
evidence. If you had left off the name calling, I would not have brought
it up.
> > It does not bother me, nor am I tired of it. I find it quite
> > eluminating.
>
> You know, the one thing I like about Bearsterites (or, in your case, a
> former Bearsterite) is the fact that my occasional spelling mistakes
are
> *nothing* compared to theirs! "Eluminating" "Alterior Motive."
So, you personally attack me as a former Bearsterite (never been called
that before) and for my spelling. How does that information have
anything at all to do with the points I was making. Please explain as I
do not see how the above paragraph has any worth in a rational debate.
BTW, if someone else knows the answer I would be most interested.