HPO SHOULD BE CLOSED DOWN

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 7:36:46 AM1/8/08
to
HPO readers:

The number of rational contributors to the Usenet discussion group,
HPO, humanities.philosophy.objectivism , is so small and the disruption
to scholarly and moral exchanges by the professed Platonists, Post
Modernists, anti rationals, anti- Aristoteleans, and anti-Objectivists
is so great that no positive gain may be achieved by continuing the
discussion group.

There may be three or four writers who actually have something to say,
however, they have little that is constructive to say to one another.
The disruptors have maintained a front that only engenders a morbid
fascination in the horrors that they speak.

Let rational people find the proper Objectivist web sites that provide
protected forums for their intelligent discussions.

Close HPO.


Ralph Hertle

utabintarbo

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 8:00:00 AM1/8/08
to

"Rational contributors", as determined by who?

:rolleyes:

b
o
t
f
oo
d
.
.
.

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 8:30:29 AM1/8/08
to
u:

utabintarbo wrote:

> "Rational contributors", as determined by who?
>
> :rolleyes:
>

You obviously don't know or even know one.

How would you possibly know who is rational
and who is not?


Ralph Hertle

Bert Hyman

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 9:20:08 AM1/8/08
to
zxcv...@verizon.net (Ralph Hertle) wrote in
news:47836E5A...@verizon.net:

> Close HPO.

You could just stop reading it.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com

utabintarbo

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 9:52:25 AM1/8/08
to

You obviously miss the point.

Who are you to have determined that the "number of rational
contributors...is so small". If this is your contention, you can
simply go away and ignore those of us still so irrational as to
continue on here.

TC

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 10:23:42 AM1/8/08
to
On Jan 8, 7:36 am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
...........

> The disruptors have maintained a front that only engenders a morbid
> fascination in the horrors that they speak.

Was it moi?

Did I push too hard in trying to get Ralph to realize how
philosophically fuddy-duddy he is?

Tom

Brad Harrington

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 12:18:50 PM1/8/08
to
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
> The number of rational contributors to the Usenet discussion group,
> HPO, humanities.philosophy.objectivism , is so small and the disruption
> to scholarly and moral exchanges by the professed Platonists, Post
> Modernists, anti rationals, anti- Aristoteleans, and anti-Objectivists
> is so great that no positive gain may be achieved by continuing the
> discussion group.

> Close HPO.

You are obviously unhappy here, so feel free to depart anytime you like.
Only a closet statist, however, would claim to be a fan of Ayn Rand and
then advocate "shutting down the system" because HE doesn't like it.

Pick up your marbles--such that they exist--and go home, crybaby.
Leave the rest of us alone! You've got a lot of nerve, attempting to decide
for other folks what YOU think THEY should view as a "positive gain."

Ever think of running for public office? Heh heh heh!

Brad Harrington

Evans Winner

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 5:49:30 PM1/8/08
to
Ralph Hertle <zxcv...@verizon.net> writes:

Let rational people find the proper Objectivist web sites that provide

protected forums for their intelligent discussions. [...] Close HPO.


I am not a regular contributor to this newsgroup, but I would prefer
that it not be closed down. The charter for
humanities.philosophy.objectivism (h.p.o) states that ``[d]iscussion on
h.p.o. may consist of attempts to support, elaborate, apply, question,
or refute the tenets of Objectivist philosophy on the part of
participants'' and that ``[t]hose who disagree with these ideas may of
course also post to h.p.o. for the purposes of civilized debate and
discussion of Objectivism.'' [1] Thus, given the original intent of the
forum, you are asking that h.p.o be run in a manner contrary to its
design, for you convenience.

As for fora on the web, while I am surely not aware of all the web sites
for the discussion of Objectivism you mention, most, if not all those of
which I am aware place ideological limits on the content of
contributors' posts. While some such fora may be interesting
occasionally for passive reading, or even useful as pedagogical tools
(though that is questionable), under few circumstances would I want to
actively contribute, because in such fora free intellectual discussion
is by design impossible: if the dices are loaded--if the rules say, yes,
you can discuss Ayn Rand's ideas, but only if you don't say anything
*too* out of line--then you have agreed in advance that some arguments
are lost before they have started--that there are some subject that are
forbidden regardless of truth. You have created a system in which
rational, adult conversation is *in principle* impossible.

As has already been pointed out, if you don't like h.p.o, you are free
not to read it. But, despite the fact that you are right--most of the
content here *is* rubbish--it is also the last place of which I am aware
that encourages *free* discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas with only social
pressure, argumentative power, and (at least in theory) moderation for
blatantly uncivilized behavior as the means of maintaining the
``intellectual purity'' you appear to desire. I wouldn't trade it for a
thousand `objectivismonline.net's.

There is of course no reason why those who want to manage or participate
in such fora shouldn't be able to do so if they want, and by any rules
they can dream up. But it is a mistake to think that such places allow
adults to have rational intellectual conversations. They are, in my
opinion, primarily places where those with little true intellectual
self-confidence can engage in mutual pack-pattery--and sport in the
abuse of new contributors. Personally, I am too proud to post to a web
forum in which my words are subject to the whims of some snot-nosed
college student who read Atlas Shrugged once. If the users of online
Objectivist fora truly have the wit, let them come here in the full
gladiatorial light of day and make their cases, and let them face the
brunt of real attack from those who need not fear secret moderatorial
reprisal.

Let them step up, and pet the pony.


Footnotes:
[1] See the h.p.o charter at
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/hpo/hpo.charter

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 7:25:04 PM1/8/08
to
Evans Winner wrote:
> Ralph Hertle <zxcv...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Let rational people find the proper Objectivist web sites that provide
> protected forums for their intelligent discussions. [...] Close HPO.
>
>
> I am not a regular contributor to this newsgroup, but I would prefer
> that it not be closed down. The charter for
> humanities.philosophy.objectivism (h.p.o) states that ``[d]iscussion on
> h.p.o. may consist of attempts to support, elaborate, apply, question,
> or refute the tenets of Objectivist philosophy on the part of
> participants'' and that ``[t]hose who disagree with these ideas may of
> course also post to h.p.o. for the purposes of civilized debate and
> discussion of Objectivism.'' [1] Thus, given the original intent of the
> forum, you are asking that h.p.o be run in a manner contrary to its
> design, for you convenience.
>

You said it right there: "for the purposes of civilized debate and
discussion of Objectivism."

Most of the posts made during the last months or years have been made by
who were not intending such "civilized debate." Several posters have
stated that they were not only opposed to "discussion of Objectivism,"
they wanted to bring down and discredit the philosophy.

Note that fallacies, and not facts and logic, are used in the extreme to
misrepresent the ideas of Objectivism and of its adherents.

At one time the moderator of HPO banned NeoCon for its anti-rational and
aggressive behavior, and sometimes one or two individuals are banned for
some technical reasons. Not enough.

HPO is not now a place of civilized debate.

> As for fora on the web, while I am surely not aware of all the web sites
> for the discussion of Objectivism you mention, most, if not all those of
> which I am aware place ideological limits on the content of

> contributors' posts. . . .
[text omitted]


That's right. Limited to discussions that are related to Objectivism or
that may be evaluated in terms of facts and logic.

The sense of "limits" has one meaning in the Platonist interpretation,
that is of prohibition, and alternatively, in the sense of meaning say
of the US Constitution, it means limited to the continuation and
actualization of certain moral principles, and not to their opposite.

If you want to read or participate in discussions that are at that time
made possible by mostly persons using reason the moderated Objectivist
web sites with discussion forums are a better place to post. There are
also sites where you may simply post blogs, and some where readers may
post replies.

The Usenet format, and especially using Mozilla Thunderbird for
reviewing, writing, organizing and archiving files, is an excellent
technical platform for open discussions. In terms of ideas and morality,
it is a manifestation of a Platonic philosophical hell. Newbies are a
great psychological risk by participating with any of the several well
schooled intellectually destructive anti-Objectivist morons who dominate
the space.

You may pick a place that has mostly destructive or mostly constructive
evaluations of ideas and discussions.

Recently, I got my password working at one of the moderated Objectivist
forums.

Ralph Hertle

Ray

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 7:27:17 PM1/8/08
to
"Evans Winner" <tho...@timbral.net> wrote in message
news:86zlvgq...@timbral.net...

> Ralph Hertle <zxcv...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Let rational people find the proper Objectivist web sites that provide
> protected forums for their intelligent discussions. [...] Close HPO.
>
>
> I am not a regular contributor to this newsgroup, but I would prefer
> that it not be closed down. The charter for
> humanities.philosophy.objectivism (h.p.o) states that ``[d]iscussion on
> h.p.o. may consist of attempts to support, elaborate, apply, question,
> or refute the tenets of Objectivist philosophy on the part of
> participants'' and that ``[t]hose who disagree with these ideas may of
> course also post to h.p.o. for the purposes of civilized debate and
> discussion of Objectivism.'' [1] Thus, given the original intent of the
> forum, you are asking that h.p.o be run in a manner contrary to its
> design, for you convenience.
>
>
[Snipped good stuff]

Yes, you don't have to read the posters you find objectionable.
Some anti-O's are just here 'to pull the chain of the O's', so to speak.
But, sometimes I wonder if HPO isn't already dead.
Many Objectivists have left it long ago.
Seems that the only defenders of Objectivism that still post here tend
to become virulent when debating certain issues.

**I can do without those who wish death on their opponents**
or tell you to go away.

Ray of Sunshine (really)


Charles Bell

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 8:25:51 PM1/8/08
to
On Jan 8, 7:27 pm, Ray <ro...@embarqmail.com> wrote:

> **I can do without those who wish death on their opponents**
> or tell you to go away.

Why?

What is the difference to you between the man who wishes you a good
day and a man who wishes you a bad day? Now, to you, what is the
difference between the man who wishes your neighbor, whom you do not
know, a good day and the man who wishes your neighbor a bad day?

TC

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 9:43:27 PM1/8/08
to
On Jan 8, 7:25 pm, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:

> You may pick a place that has mostly destructive or mostly constructive
> evaluations of ideas and discussions.

What good are constructive evaluations of erroneous ideas?

Tom

TC

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 9:52:29 PM1/8/08
to

It just occurred to me.
Constructive evaluations of erroneous ideas are criticisms.

Tom

Evans Winner

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 10:23:45 PM1/8/08
to
Ralph Hertle <zxcv...@verizon.net> writes:

You said it right there: "for the purposes of civilized debate and
discussion of Objectivism."

I would much prefer a forum in which some uncivilized debate fell
through the cracks (even a good deal) than one in which no real debate
was possible at all.



Note that fallacies, and not facts and logic, are used in the extreme
to misrepresent the ideas of Objectivism and of its adherents.

As is the case in most open debates. At some point you have to simply
decide to trust that there is some basic rationality in some of your
audience; that at least some of them some of the time are capable of
making such judgements for themselves. Without this premise, discussion
is largely not worth it, and civilization probably does not advance.

I don't deny that h.p.o has its share of silliness, but in addition to
what I have already mentioned, it has the virtue of being on Usenet.
Web-based threaded fora are, in my rather strong opinion, inherently
broken. I know gnus has some kind of kludge to let you read some subset
of them; I don't know which, if any, other news readers even try to do
that. Web interfaces are crude, inflexible, slow and poorly integrated
with intelligent text processing tools. Partly because of this, though
mostly I do just skim subject lines for things that look potentially
interesting (mostly things related to aesthetics), I continue to regard
h.p.o as a minor value and will post my opinion when it looks as if
someone would do it harm.

But even so, hypothetically deciding to agree that h.p.o ought to be
shut down, I suspect it might be a difficult job. How many system
administrators would you have to convince to stop carrying the group
before you could consider it officially shut down? There is not (or at
any rate didn't used to be) any single authority who runs, authorizes or
is responsible for newsgroups. Perhaps if you could convince Tom
Skirvin [1] that h.p.o is an evil entity and could somehow get him to
drop all context, maybe he could pull some strings for you.



At one time the moderator of HPO banned NeoCon for its anti-rational
and aggressive behavior, and sometimes one or two individuals are
banned for some technical reasons. Not enough.

Then perhaps the real issue is that the moderation at h.p.o is too
hands-off in style. If the complaint is against clearly uncivilized
behavior, then perhaps you should contact the moderator, as that
prohibition, by whatever definition, *is* in the charter.

Newbies are a great psychological risk by participating with any of
the several well schooled intellectually destructive
anti-Objectivist morons who dominate the space.

(I assume you mean *at* great... risk.)

But we are not our newbies' keeper. Such is the nature of all free
intellectual discourse: enter at your own risk. If your concern is for
the newbies, then either stand and state your arguments or don't
participate at all. Or post a warning about h.p.o on your web site, or
on all the web sites that will allow you to. If your interest is in
promoting Objectivism, then perhaps the approach to take is the old `all
publicity is good publicity' motto. On the other hand, if your worry is
that h.p.o is really damaging to Objectivism (whatever that might mean)
and thus a danger to one of your values, then perhaps the answer is to
withdraw your sanction, and look elsewhere. Or you could make a point
to answer all the irrational posts here with a citation from Rand's
work, that could be useful for newbies.

To put it bluntly, though really not meaning it in an unfriendly way,
perhaps you should either do something constructive about it, or go on
your merry way.



Recently, I got my password working at one of the moderated
Objectivist forums.

I am not sure what the precise nature of that would be, but it sounds
like one of at least two possible solutions [2] to the problem that I
can think of that have been used in the past. One is rather than to
artificially limit the content of discussion to instead limit the
membership. In other words, only invite the people you like to the
party, kick out those you don't. There is no reason for someone not to
do that if that's what they want, and if they own the mechanism of the
forum. Of course, if your friends are all too much in agreement about
too many things, the conversations tend to get dull after the initial
mutual admiration phase.


Footnotes:
[1] Moderator of h.p.o, as I believe you know; his homepage:
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/

[2] The other solution that comes to mind, by the way, is peer review,
which is complex, fraught with problems, and again, only appropriate in
a forum in which some one or organization owns the communication channel
(as with a publishing house).

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 7:37:51 AM1/9/08
to
Ray:


Ray wrote:
[...]


> Yes, you don't have to read the posters you find objectionable.


That they do.


> Some anti-O's are just here 'to pull the chain of the O's', so to speak.


That seems to be their goal, and sometimes their expressed intention.


> But, sometimes I wonder if HPO isn't already dead.


A certain structure is necessary. For example, if you presented a
scientific paper to a scientific journal, included near the top of the
document would be a statement of what the purpose of the work is, then a
description of the prior art, and then certain key definitions that
haven't been in print recently or that need redefining - and so on. The
structure permits an evaluation and understanding of the material in
order that the material may be checked, demonstrated, and tested. Or
even integrated into scientific work of one's own.

I don't know what structure or rules would be appropriate for HPO. I
have seen that some common denominator defacto rules seem to have been
evolved. For example.

1. No top posting. Except where there is not quoted material, and in
that instance, the rule is a moot point.

2. Bottom posting preferred. Where there is quoted material the replies
would be placed below.

3. Interspersed posting is permissible. For example, the format of,
would you believe, quotation - reply, quotation - reply seems to work.
That's a form of bottom posting. The attempt at interspersed top posting
of the form of, reply - quotation, reply - quotation, simply made all
discourse impossible to comprehend and even the surrealist wackos had a
problem with that.

Thus, defacto rules came to be a Usenet practice.

More is needed, however. Moderator involvement where there is any ad
baculum or ad hominem sorts of fallacies is needed.

The use of anti-concepts has to be banned, and a list of unacceptable
terms should be in place.

> Many Objectivists have left it long ago.

One cannot deal with the wackos without being diverted from one's own
philosophical purposes.

A few year ago I tried to break away from the HPO morosity, and I
subscribed to HBL. I was so happy to be able to say my ideas, or read
and comment on the works of others. I mean that I was happy to be able
to post in the same forum as other Objectivists. I posted 2 or 3 items.
I got up some moxie and ventured forth with a slightly bigger piece. To
my surprise the moderator had clipped off the last part, and that was
the part that had the conclusion, or the main idea, of the piece.
Additionally, also prior to publication the moderator had done a little
snipping, and had [brazenly] added his own remarks. At least let a
person post, and then evaluate and reply. I didn't last at that forum,
and I was terribly disappointed. Hello HPO.

> Seems that the only defenders of Objectivism that still post here tend
> to become virulent when debating certain issues.
>


Safe to say. What is morbid fascination called? Its like watching
chromed aluminum auto wheels roll by. Or reading Architectural Digest.

> **I can do without those who wish death on their opponents**
> or tell you to go away.
>
> Ray of Sunshine (really)

That prohibition must be in the written posted rules, and all violations
should be subject to prompt dismissal.

HPO has no structure that enables rational participation, philosophical
give and take, and interaction. HPO is, for all intents and purposes,
rule-less.


Ralph Hertle

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 7:47:34 AM1/9/08
to
Tom:


Now that is an item.

Common usage too often equates criticism with destructive criticism, and
that is a problem for persons with low self esteem.

There a case for constructive criticism to be named in certain contexts.

Sometimes, just the addition of a supporting fact or example may be
treated as destructive criticism by a person with low self esteem, when,
in fact, the gist and intent of the extra discourse is the opposite.


Ralph Hertle

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 7:58:32 AM1/9/08
to
Tom:

Now that is an item.

Common usage too often equates criticism with destructive criticism, and
that is a problem for persons with low self esteem.

There is a case for constructive criticisms to be named in certain contexts.

Sometimes, just the addition of a supporting fact or example may be

treated as a destructive criticism by a person with low self esteem,

TC

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 8:18:39 AM1/9/08
to
On Jan 9, 7:47 am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
> TC wrote:

> > It just occurred to me.
> > Constructive evaluations of erroneous ideas are criticisms.

> Now that is an item.

> Common usage too often equates criticism with destructive criticism, and
> that is a problem for persons with low self esteem.

You somehow did not notice or choose to notice the
phrase "erroneous ideas."

Since you have raised psychological issues, what sort of
person do you think clings to outmoded, disproven ideas
in the face of all evidence?

Tom

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 9:21:12 AM1/9/08
to
Tom:

TC wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:47 am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>

>>> It just occurred to me.
>>> Constructive evaluations of erroneous ideas are criticisms.
>
>> Now that is an item.
>

>> Common usage too often equates criticism with destructive criticism, and
>> that is a problem for persons with low self esteem.
>
> You somehow did not notice or choose to notice the
> phrase "erroneous ideas."
>


The adjective, erroneous, is true, just as the substitute term, true,
would be true, however, the general statement,
"Constructive evaluations of ideas are criticisms, "is true. Similarly,
"Destructive evaluations of ideas are not criticisms," whether or not
the ideas are erroneous. The latter holds because in logic you cannot
disprove a negative, and you can only identify the existing.


> Since you have raised psychological issues, what sort of
> person do you think clings to outmoded, disproven ideas
> in the face of all evidence?
>
> Tom

The mystic. For example the mystic could say, for example, that nothing
is something, or iterate that celestial space has whatever properties.

My cat used to say, by implication, that only some play is work, and
that all play is play.


Ralph Hertle

TC

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 10:20:00 AM1/9/08
to
On Jan 9, 9:21 am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
> TC wrote:

> >>> It just occurred to me.
> >>> Constructive evaluations of erroneous ideas are criticisms.

> >> Common usage too often equates criticism with destructive criticism, and


> >> that is a problem for persons with low self esteem.

> > You somehow did not notice or choose to notice the
> > phrase "erroneous ideas."

> The adjective, erroneous, is true, just as the substitute term, true,
> would be true, however, the general statement,
> "Constructive evaluations of ideas are criticisms, "is true. Similarly,
> "Destructive evaluations of ideas are not criticisms," whether or not
> the ideas are erroneous. The latter holds because in logic you cannot
> disprove a negative, and you can only identify the existing.

Apparently your retro-Aristotleian logic has your mind twisted
into knots. This makes no sense.

Is not the constructive thing to do when faced with error,
to attempt to remove/correct it?
Is not one method to attempt such a removal/correction
to criticize the error?

Hence criticism of error is constructive.

> > Since you have raised psychological issues, what sort of
> > person do you think clings to outmoded, disproven ideas
> > in the face of all evidence?

> The mystic. For example the mystic could say, for example, that nothing


> is something, or iterate that celestial space has whatever properties.

Are you a mystic then?
You can't be referring to me since I have never said that
"nothing is something" even though your "iterate .."
(insinuate?) phrase seems to allude to out GTR discussions.
I have said that space is a dynamic existent, but that
is saying that space is something. You seem to think
that space is nothing and can be nothing for some apparently
archaic reason.

> My cat used to say, by implication, that only some play is work, and
> that all play is play.

Are you a cat???

Tom

Brad Harrington

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 10:37:42 AM1/9/08
to
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
> More is needed, however. Moderator involvement where there is
> any ad baculum or ad hominem sorts of fallacies is needed. The use
> of anti-concepts has to be banned, and a list of unacceptable terms should
> be in place.

It should be interesting to determine who gets to determine what
constitutes an "anti-concept." If a poster replies to a post, and employs
the use of an "anti-concept," should that post be deleted without being
viewed by the original author, or the others in the group? Or should
the "anti-concept" merely be edited out?

And what terms do you consider to be "unacceptable"? For someone
who just said, a few graphs back, that he "doesn't know what structure
or rules would be appropriate for HPO," you sure are generating a
substantial number of them. <very large grin>

> A few year ago I tried to break away from the HPO morosity, and I
> subscribed to HBL. I was so happy to be able to say my ideas, or read and
> comment on the works of others. I mean that I was happy to be able to post
> in the same forum as other Objectivists. I posted 2 or 3 items. I got up
> some moxie and ventured forth with a slightly bigger piece. To my surprise
> the moderator had clipped off the last part, and that was the part that
> had the conclusion, or the main idea, of the piece. Additionally, also
> prior to publication the moderator had done a little snipping, and had
> [brazenly] added his own remarks. At least let a person post, and then
> evaluate and reply. I didn't last at that forum, and I was terribly
> disappointed. Hello HPO.

Guess what? That's what happens when you don't "toe the party line,"
whatever the party line might be for whatever forum you care to name.
What probably happened, I would guess, is that the final conclusion of
your post contained an "anti-concept" most likely, and the moderator
acted in the way you just advocated one should act a few minutes ago.
<very huge grin>

> HPO has no structure that enables rational participation, philosophical
> give and take, and interaction. HPO is, for all intents and purposes,
> rule-less.

Pretty much, and that is PRECISELY what gives it its unique flavor.
Attempt to moderate that, or edit it, or ban it, or regulate it, and you
will
inevitably end up with "toeing the party line." In the same way that liberty
and statist controls cannot exist for long in the same country, and end up
becoming consistently one or the other, any attempt to "fine-tune" HPO
will destroy it. Yet it is exactly its freewheeling nature that makes it
palatable to individuals such as myself who don't toe anybody's "party
line."

And, further, I would disagree that HPO's freewheeling nature neccesarily
prohibits "rational participation" or "philosophical give-and-take"; it
simply
means that having a thick skin sure helps--and that, like everything else,
nine-tenths of it is crud. The beauty of HPO is that YOU get to define the
"crud" instead of having someone else spoonfeed it to you. Take what you
like and leave the rest...unless you PREFER having others tell you what
to think!

Brad Harrington

"I swear, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson--

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 9:17:25 PM1/9/08
to
HPO:

I placed my first post on the web-based discussion forum,

objectivismonline.com ,

and that is a blog called, USA MOON.

OOC is a surprisingly rich place to write. The password and
graphic web site structures are a little intimidating at first,
however, once one starts exploring, there are many more
possibilities for posting. One may upload external blogs,
images, animations and videos, as well as to reply to all chat,
posts or blogs.

A concerned moderator is evident.

Ralph Hertle

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 9:22:01 PM1/9/08
to
HPO:

I placed my first post on the web-based discussion forum,

objectivismonline.com ,

and that is a blog called, OIL PRICES.

Ray

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 10:20:43 PM1/9/08
to
"Ralph Hertle" <zxcv...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4785814...@verizon.net...
Good luck there, but don't completely forget HPO.
At least their rules enforce courteous behavior.
_____
Ray of Light has discovered that some Objectivists wish other
Objectivists to go away and die.

David Buchner

unread,
Jan 11, 2008, 10:47:10 AM1/11/08
to
Ralph Hertle <zxcv...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Let rational people find the proper Objectivist web sites that provide
> protected forums for their intelligent discussions.


Pussy.

Ralph Hertle

unread,
Jan 11, 2008, 11:21:08 AM1/11/08
to

You disapprove.

Bob Vogel

unread,
Jan 11, 2008, 12:21:11 PM1/11/08
to
On Jan 9, 7:37 am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> The use of anti-concepts has to be banned, and a list of unacceptable
> terms should be in place.
>

But if anti-concepts are banned, how would you go about demonstrating
their use? All the behavior you find repugnant is, sad to say,
philosophically relevant!

You should embrace dissenters; Many scientists, for example, welcome
dissent because it makes their science stronger ... of course, if it
survives the trial of scrutiny! Shouldn't objectivism exhibit a
similar confidence in its precepts? But wait! Isn't what I'm saying
buttressing what you're saying - that scientists never say "Fuck you,
asshole, I reject your bass-ackwards notions" to each other as a
legitimate objection?

Well, too bad that philosophy is not science. Sorry, I don't have any
empirical evidence to back that up, I just know it's true. I'm sure
there were times when Ayn Rand found virulence and verbal abuse to be
philosophically necessary.

Besides, if you got what you asked for, YOU might end up getting the
short end of the stick when you want to speak freely. Just look at
your experience with HBL.

This is a ridiculous line of argument here, Ralph, so why don't you go
underground with the rest of the objectivists who have abandoned HPO
in favor of the warm, plush comforts of their online echo chambers
where you can nod in agreement with everyone around you, as long as
you spout the party line?

Of course, I say that in the most respectful and civilized tones.

Bob Vogel

unread,
Jan 11, 2008, 12:40:59 PM1/11/08
to
On Jan 11, 10:47 am, David Buchner <buch...@wcta.net> wrote:

Be careful, under Ralph's Rules, the word "pussy" would be on the List
of Naughty Words, and would be replaced with the term "kitty."

And I'd just like to say that not only am I yanking Ralph's chain at
this moment, which wouldn't be allowed under Ralph's Rules, I am
making a point, which would be lost on the cutting floor for my wise-
cracking transgression, and others might not benefit from my infinite
wisdom.
.
.
.


Brad Harrington

unread,
Jan 11, 2008, 1:21:51 PM1/11/08
to
> Bob Vogel wrote:
> This is a ridiculous line of argument here, Ralph, so why don't you go
> underground with the rest of the objectivists who have abandoned HPO
> in favor of the warm, plush comforts of their online echo chambers
> where you can nod in agreement with everyone around you, as long as
> you spout the party line?

Well, whaddaya know. We actually agree on something!!

Hey, even a blind squirrel trips over an acorn every now and then.
<hoot>

Brad Harrington

Jim Klein

unread,
Jan 12, 2008, 1:10:26 AM1/12/08
to
On Jan 11, 12:21 pm, Bob Vogel <bobvogel2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is a ridiculous line of argument here, Ralph, so why don't you go
> underground with the rest of the objectivists who have abandoned HPO
> in favor of the warm, plush comforts of their online echo chambers
> where you can nod in agreement with everyone around you, as long as
> you spout the party line?

I find Ralph's used of "protected forums" interesting. The whole
reason
hpo was set up in the first place was as a protection against the
you-know-whoers. So now, it's not /enough/ protection.

Ultimately, such forms of "protection" are meant to be a physical
impasse to one sort of speech or another. That in itself is no
great evil, except the speech in question here is speech which
presumably seeks to find the truth. This is so for everyone here,
or ought to be, and I suppose it was the case for the you-know-whoers
too. I'd think the idea that there should be a physical impasse
for /any/ speech which seeks to find and/or describe the truth,
would be an immediate non-starter for anyone who himself was
honestly trying to find the truth.

And speaking of "bedrocks" of Objectivism, I'd think that this
principle--really a meta-principle--would almost qualify for
that. Which is why I said before, and would say now, that
someone who seeks such protection undoubtedly is not
really seeking the truth, but is seeking something else.

Bedrock or not, I'd say it's pretty clear that someone who
does wish to limit their ingestion of alternative ideas, is
anything but an Objectivist. And to do it in the /name/ of
Objectivism---well, I could hardly imagine a clearer Inversion.


jk

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages