SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 20

Friday, August 5 - 11:20am

Link

Edit

You all seem to be on a more inside loop on this matter than I am, but from the outside, I'm astounded by the bickering here, the nosiness, intrusiveness, and defensiveness. I don't see why Linz having or not having a personal problem is even an issue here. It's his business; concerned personal friends can take it up with him privately.

All these threads and one-liners indicate to me this is an emotionally charged issue about which the discussions and points have already been made, or never existed in the first place. Barbara and James staying, leaving, or coming back is equally their business and no one else's. Why not let all people stand by their decisions, as they should, take the consequences (good or bad), let reality be the judge, and leave "I told you so's", trampled feelings and recriminating remarks at the door, where they belong.

Soapbox is now stowed. Fire away.

Katie

Post 21

Friday, August 5 - 11:32am

Link

Edit

Katherine-

Why not let all people stand by their decisions

Stand by their decisions, or force them to stand by their statements?

Post 22

Friday, August 5 - 11:57am

Link

Edit

Jody,

This site is private property. The owners set the rules and participaters play by the rules set. Being private property they are free to set, change, clarify, add, or remove rules as they see fit. If I don't agree I can say so, and if they choose to they can change the rules. If I still don't like the rules I can choose to leave. What I can not do is dictate the use of the private property to the owner. My participation here, no matter how voluminous and enlightening, does not entitle me in one ioata to dictate terms to the hosts. If there is an issue: I can debate with them, I can be banned by them, or I can leave of my own free will. No matter how I feel about this situation with Linz, Barbara, and James, I will never expect my desires to trump that ownership.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 8/05, 11:58am)

Post 23

Friday, August 5 - 12:26pm

Link

Edit

Jody,

I said "let," not force. Letting people experience the consequences of their actions by not interfering in their matters is not force - it's justice. And just like consequences, justice can result in desirable or undesirable outcomes. I have no way of determining what those outcomes will be; probably no one can. I just say, regardless of the outcome, justice is the way to go.

Katie

(Edited by Katherine Brakora on 8/05, 12:30pm)

(Edited by Katherine Brakora on 8/05, 12:31pm)

Post 24

Friday, August 5 - 12:36pm

Link

Edit

Ethan-
You addressed me, but you created your own argument party. I don't need a definition of private property nor a list of associated tautologies. I don't agree with them and I'm saying so. I believe they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths and I am asking them to explain. I would hope there are others here who also think an explanation is due and that they will come forth. The owners of this site can do what they wish with me or the site.

Post 25

Friday, August 5 - 12:41pm

Link

Edit

Katherine-
"Letting people experience the consequences of their actions by not interfering in their matters is not force..."

How is actively blocking them to be considered "not interfering"?
Of course "justice is the way to go." Why are objectivists always so prone to stating truisms?

I do not think justice was served. That is my point.

Post 26

Friday, August 5 - 12:48pm

Link

Edit

I have been extremely busy these last few days with personal matters so I have been out of it a little. I would like to repeat what I said before, which is my own independent evaluation.

I hope there will be a reconciliation. This is a misunderstanding between giants.

Michael

Post 27

Friday, August 5 - 12:48pm

Link

Edit

Jody, you said:

Stand by their decisions, or force them to stand by their statements?

You imply that there is some imoral or hypocritical force in action when Barbara and James are moderated. Since you implied this I felt you needed to understand Joe's stated position and the nature of property rights. If your going to throw around terms like "force" expect to hear about it.

Ethan

Post 28

Friday, August 5 - 12:52pm

Link

Edit

Ethan-
If I own a business I have every right to lock the door to keep you out. However, by doing this would I merely be allowing you to not enter my business.

Post 29

Friday, August 5 - 12:58pm

Link

Edit

The truth is being a tease here. Here's what we know:

1. James, Barbara and Linz were/are taking shots at each other.

2. Linz is a hot-head and goes a bit overboard about once a month.

3. Linz felt that James and Barbara were threatening him with their departure from SOLO. It's unfair to threaten that. I want Barbara and James to stay but if they want to go they should just go. Make it clean as Jason Dixon did. Joe and co. are right to moderate/ban them at this point. I hate to apply the word "ban" to them. If they were interested in being a part of SOLO again I'd be the first one to welcome them back.

I have no idea if Linz has a drinking problem. Those who know him well say not. It'd be almost impossible to do the quality work he does at SOLO with a serious drinking problem. But then, why on earth would James write an article like that out of thin air? I would never ever ever write something like that without verifying it. Would James? I met Linz in Vancouver and he had been in the bottle but that proves nothing because so had I!

Whatever the reasons, Linz, James and Barbara aren't getting along and it has become personal. It doesn't appear to be something they can work out.

Post 30

Friday, August 5 - 12:58pm

Link

Edit

Jody,

As I said, you imply force and do so with a negative connotation. Locking me out of your business is preventing me from entering. There is nothing wrong with that. You are implying the owners did something wrong and then you're playing word definition games to make it seem like you didn't not. Please don't do that with me, I find it iritating. I've explained that what was done was not a special case and that the owners aren't talking with forked tongues. You want to bandy about definitions to make me seem like I'm arguing with something you didn't say, but it's not working.

If you'd like to clarify what you said instead of trying to hide behind your hair-splitting dictionary, I'd be glad to continue with this debate. Otherwise......

Ethan

Post 31

Friday, August 5 - 12:59pm

Link

Edit

...force them to stand by their statements.

This makes it sound like they do not want to stand by their statements any longer.

Jody why not just post James' response to you?

If he/ they wanted to post it on SOLO anyway, he/ she should not mind.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 8/05, 1:20pm)

Post 32

Friday, August 5 - 1:08pm

Link

Edit

Ethan-
I'm sorry my dictionary is not ambiguous enough so I suppose "otherwise...".

Post 33

Friday, August 5 - 1:19pm

Link

Edit

Marcus-
This is what she sent in response to me questioning James(as I did throughout the entire Linz debate).

Jody, you asked James: "Then what exactly is your quarrel James?" Here is the response he attempted to post, but his posts are not being accepted (nor are mine):

"James Kilbourne
x 8Member Number 406
535 posts August 2 � 8:35pm
Extended Profile
"Jody, I thought that was very clear. The personal attacks that Linz has directed towards many people are completely unjustified. Civilized people do not talk to other civilized people that way. I could not believe that Linz is really the kind of person who addresses people, particularly those who are his allies in the fight for freedom, in such a manner. After wrestling with the problem for most of a year, I came to my conclusion as to why this behavior kept re-occurring.
"I understand that many don't agree with my conclusion, although I am somewhat amused at the number of people who have said one thing publically here and something entirely different to me in private.
Whether my analysis is right or wrong, once I realized that it wasn't going to change, I realized I couldn't stay."

You may be interested to know that James several times over the last months raised with Linz, in private conversations and e-mail, the issue of alcoholism.

Barbara Branden

Post 34

Friday, August 5 - 1:22pm

Link

Edit

The moderation policy (if that is what is going on) is not specific to Barbara and James. I seem to remember it being stated as policy that *anyone* who said they were leaving would be placed on moderation. This seems entirely appropriate to me.

Michael thank you for being a voice seeking reconciliation. It is far easier (I have done it) to fuel an argument, than to resolve conflict.

John

Post 35

Friday, August 5 - 1:28pm

Link

Edit

I'll chime in (again) as being one for reconcilliation.

I have issues with Lindsay's "outbursts," at least when they are directed against allies. He is, however, entitled to behave however he wishes, and benefit or suffer from the consequences of that behavior.

Ethan

Post 36

Friday, August 5 - 1:29pm

Link

Edit

Thanks Jody.

It is not worth discussing James' response, because he is not here to defend it anyway.

The only one that can refute or explain those specific claims is Linz himself, and whether or not he wishes to do so publicly is his business.

However, I do not believe that Linz is an alcoholic - and I have met with him in person on three separate occasions - and I definitely have not said anything different in private to anyone.

Post 37

Friday, August 5 - 1:37pm

Link

Edit

Hmm....this was Lindsay's last post on Solo.

I'm glad to see everyone's still here today, at least.

I've just been talking by telephone with Chris Sciabarra. He & I disagree on everything, yet somehow manage to remain friends & soulmates. In the course of our conversation, I hit on this idea: that I shall absent my incendiary self from SOLOHQ for a couple of weeks just to direct some clear thought at some of the matters raised here & give us all a chance to take time out. I'll be in touch with some of you privately, but this will be my last public post on any thread till August 14. (On that day SOLOHQ will be publishing Chris's Russian Radical 10th anniversary article from the current FreeRad. Naturally I'll have to come on & say something disagreeing with it.)

I would ask that those of you contemplating departure at least defer it till my return. Whether you comply, of course, is over to you, but I hope you do.

Linz

Considering that Lindsay asked Barbara Branden and James Kilbourne to defer their departures until his return, it seems strange that they would have been blocked before his return.

I wonder if Lindsay, having said this, knew about the decision to block them.

Post 38

Friday, August 5 - 1:44pm

Link

Edit

Considering that Lindsay asked Barbara Branden and James Kilbourne to defer their departures until his return, it seems strange that they would have been blocked before his return.

They did not respond to his request, at least not publicly.

Post 39

Friday, August 5 - 1:46pm

Link

Edit

I consider myself just the average member here. But I swear to God this bickering is absolutly useless. What the hell are ya'll trying to accomplish here? Nothing good can come from this type of talk except to piss people off, and when that happens we all lose.

One of the reasons I joined SOLO was because Ms. Branden was here. James and Jason were cool too, and they were driven off as well. Now I don't have any problems with the people here (rather the people left) but please just try to think about what y'all goals are and don't let this bullshit (thats exactly what this is) get in the way.