SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 80

Saturday, August 6 - 10:17am

Link

Edit

Well, I thought Barbara stopped posting here because she had nothing more to say after the unfortunate way she and James went out the door. I also thought that Linz wanted things to be worked out during his absence if possible and people to stick around. If they are blocked instead of moderated that isn't going to happen.

The false impression was created that Barbara's last posts were her last posts because she had nothing more to say or was embarrassed into silence by the indefensibility of her attitude toward Linz. I am amazed by what is and isn't allowed here subsequent to Joe's policy which might be fair to whom it is directed but not to the rest of us posting away unaware of what is going on or not going on behind the scenes because of it. Joe, you are damaging SOLO in your own way, just as Linz has and, yes, Barbara and James Kilbourne did. If you blocked (banned) them you owed those of us still here talking about them notice that they were blocked.

--Brant

Post 81

Saturday, August 6 - 10:25am

Link

Edit

Even YOU can connect these dots, then, Michael?

(swat)

Gotcha!

Post 82

Saturday, August 6 - 11:19am

Link

Edit

I think it apt that this person has adopted the persona of a hornet--a useless, hive-dwelling creature whose only purpose is to sting and eat garbage.
(Edited by Andrew Bissell on 8/06, 11:22am)

Post 83

Saturday, August 6 - 11:54am

Link

Edit

Andrew,

Just to make the swat clear to everyone:

MagHorny wrote: "But, as I say, those amphibians don't play in my pond."

"Those amphibians" in that context meant people who crusade against the Brandens and deify Ayn Rand.

I wrote back stating (between the lines) that, on the contrary, MagHorny's hidden agenda was a crusade against the Brandens and that said bug was using the present problem on Solo as an opportunity to cash in on it.

MagHorny wrote back: "Even YOU can connect these dots, then, Michael?"

Meaning yes, that was the hidden agenda.

So, by MagHorny's own admission, this bug is either a liar, a hypocrite, an asshole or just plain dumb. At any rate, not serious for any serious discussion.

The readers of this thread can come to their own conclusions from here. I am done for now.

SPLAT

Michael

Post 84

Saturday, August 6 - 12:01pm

Link

Edit

Glad you swatted that one down. I certainly don't want any horny maggots in my kitchen.

Post 85

Saturday, August 6 - 12:07pm

Link

Edit

Hornet, I know the game you're playing, and it's no good. I played it before, came here under a pseudoname and started trouble because I was mad at Objectivism/Objectivists. Called people Randroids, the whole 9 yards. It was very stupid and cowardly. Then I realized that Objectivism wasn't the problem, it was in me. If I had to hide my identity, I was hiding something from myself as well.
But you know what? Solo changed that. Solo kicked my sorry ass back into something called life. Be careful, it might do the same to you. But you can't do it this way. If you're going to do this, come out in the open. Solo's got it's own problems, but it's not hiding them. Joe and Andrew and Linz (and Jeff, the Silent Beatle) are at least doing that right.

Post 86

Saturday, August 6 - 12:12pm

Link

Edit

Maybe the Hornet is James Valliant.

Post 87

Saturday, August 6 - 1:46pm

Link

Edit

DeSalvo,

Just for the record, I was referring to Casey Fahy when I mentioned the anti-Branden crusade. Not that I was a big fan of yours previously.

Post 88

Saturday, August 6 - 2:23pm

Link

Edit

Brant said "I also thought that Linz wanted things to be worked out during his absence if possible and people to stick around."

He did. And they answered that with public accusations of alcoholism, and reaffirmed their positions that they had no intention of staying or trying to work things out. Lindsay's request for them to stick around was not unconditional. It was aimed at trying to find an amicable resolution. When they declared they had no intentions of seeking such a resolution, they rejected his request. They continue to reject his request. Don't pretend otherwise.

I do find the rest of your comments funny. When Lindsay publicly moderated David Elmore, participants screamed in horror that it would be made public, and that the condition for being unmoderated would be mentioned. We were told that it was a horrible thing to do, and that we shouldn't make announcements of that sort of thing. People screamed bloody murder that we addressed it publicly. We did mention at the time that even if we had done it privately, they would have made it public and everyone would scream that we were keeping things from them. Nobody believed us, and asked that in the future we handle it quietly. Thank you for the vindication of our actions, and confirmation that no matter what action we take, somebody somewhere will find a reason to damn SOLO's administration.

Post 89

Saturday, August 6 - 3:52pm

Link

Edit

Sorry, Mr. Schiff, only a worshipper--the one thing that Michael got right.

And, sorry, Michael, for giving you too much credit--keep at it, and you'll connect those dots one day, I have every confidence.

Joe, this handle is much older than SOLO or any Objectivist or pseudo-O. forum, I assure you.

And, guys, who wouldn't enjoy the spectacle of smear-merchants getting perfect justice--again--I ask you?

Post 90

Saturday, August 6 - 4:06pm

Link

Edit

Joe, I don't think I objected to the way the Elmore situation was handled. I certainly disagree with what James and Barbara did.

Still, I think that since you blocked her from posting you should have told us instead of creating the false impression that she had no more to say.

--Brant

PS: Actually, in the Elmore case I was against the public way it was handled, but I don't recall if I posted to that effect. If Barbara and James had been merely moderated too then there wouldn't have been any need for an announcement.

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 8/06, 4:12pm)

Post 91

Saturday, August 6 - 4:15pm

Link

Edit

Scott Schiff:

"DeSalvo,

Just for the record, I was referring to Casey Fahy when I mentioned the anti-Branden crusade. Not that I was a big fan of yours previously."

Then I apologize for my aggressive and insulting post in response. I thought you were squrely referring to me, in a really unfair way.

Sorry you're not a fan. I can be abrasive.

Post 92

Saturday, August 6 - 4:32pm

Link

Edit

DeSalvo,

I'm not a fan either, but I liked your abrasiveness in that instance.

JR

Post 93

Saturday, August 6 - 4:53pm

Link

Edit

Just for the record, I am Scott DeSalvo's NUMBER ONE FAN.

Post 94

Saturday, August 6 - 5:38pm

Link

Edit

Whazzat?

Scott DeSalvo?

Yeah... he'll do in a pinch, I guess, if there is ever a lack of... of... of... whatever...

(I don't even know why I'm writing this. LOLOLOLOL...)

But really, I'm a fan, Scott. A cantankerous fan, but a fan.

Michael

Post 95

Saturday, August 6 - 11:41pm

Link

Edit

Scott, be sure ... you've got fans.

Another,
Ed

Post 96

Sunday, August 7 - 2:42am

Link

Edit

Of course, they're the plug-in kind... :-)

Post 97

Sunday, August 7 - 9:23am

Link

Edit

Mr. R. Malcom, the one with the lovable library;

Well, blow me down! Are you saying that all I do is spin around in circles ... blowing hot air?

Ed

Post 98

Sunday, August 7 - 11:01am

Link

Edit

Oh not at all - just noticing so many interesting observations stem from works lining my walls... you by chance be reading the 'Sparrowhawk' series?

Besides, it 's Scot whose fandom spins, isnt it?

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/07, 4:07pm)

Post 99

Sunday, August 7 - 2:56pm

Link

Edit

Just for the record, I am Michael Kelly's NUMBER ONE FAN (and Scott DeSalvo's #2 fan). Now please try to get along guys. ;-)