Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thoughts on defending Rand against this attack?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since I don't going around trying to "convert" anyone.

Really? Then who wrote this:

"You don't want to make someone stop hearing what you are saying before you even get started. Maybe that is salesmanship. But, there isnt anything wrong with it if it helps people to see and understand Objectivism. I think the religion aspect of Objectivism is a journey that a person who converts ..."

Do you read what you write?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to slow down here. First, to set an immediate context, you should probably say what you mean by "tolerance." It is worth defining, especially for anyone new to Objectivism. If you don't know how to define it, for this context, I recommend saying so and inviting suggestions.

I'll give it a shot (from dictionary.com): "Leeway for variation from a standard". Here, I take it to mean something more like "withholding criticism of one who has been judged to be wrong vis-à-vis the standard". The standard being the value of honesty in this case (because the main issue with thesweetscience was the apparent/admitted deception(s)).

The part of source's post I was thinking of as showing tolerance was:

And instead of referring him to further reading, you whip him for not knowing and thinking wrong. It's like a teacher beating up a first grade student because he can't integrate.

The reason I am thinking of this as tolerance is that in the end I decided that thesweetscience should have been judged negatively, and was. When I tried to go back through the thread and find unfair bias, I could not. Things only got ugly over the capitalization issue and after he got defensive. So source's (and my) call that we should go easy on him reminded me of Kelley's criticism of Objectivists (saying that they were too intolerant).

Parenthetically, this is an issue which has bothered me for some time, and is the one that Peikoff was writing about: the divisions in Objectivism over allegedly unfair intolerance towards transgressors by Objectivists. In the eighties, I was actively involved in Objectivism to the extent of going to Ford Hall Forum lectures, etc. I took a 20-year hiatus (from official functions) due to my disgust over the way people were being treated by the Objectivist "establishment", including Kelley, whose "Evidence of the Senses" I found interesting, and whose career seemed promising as he was teaching at Vassar (i.e. finally Objectivism was breaking in the universities). But after participating in this forum for a while, and examining this premise, I am beginning to see things differently. The connection and its possible meaning just sort of "clicked" for me today as I was writing these posts, hence my questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Then who wrote this:

"You don't want to make someone stop hearing what you are saying before you even get started. Maybe that is salesmanship. But, there isnt anything wrong with it if it helps people to see and understand Objectivism. I think the religion aspect of Objectivism is a journey that a person who converts ..."

Do you read what you write?

Are you really a physics professor? Because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. There is no contradiction between those two statements.

I really have no desire to have any type of discussion or dialogue with you. Why can't you stop worrying so much about me and what I think? I have been directed by others here to the source of the information I need and do appreciate it. You have implied that I am "an enemy of Objectivism". I may be an enemy of Speicher but not Objectivism. Few things are more dear to me than Ayn Rand. But I do have lots of reading to do to catch up.

Bobby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you say that source's call for tolerance (which I was initially agreeing with) is to some extent an instance of subjectivism?

source, please see my post here for the part of your post I was referring to. It also contains my reasons why, and my thoughts on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include sarcastic comments and accusations of irrationality or immorality. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators. Likewise, all posts must add to the discussion rather than merely express agreement or disagreement without explaining the writer's reasons.

Edited by NIJamesHughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I can understand why religion is unacceptable in Objectivism. But, I am still having a hard time understanding why belief in the possibility of God isn't.

"God, whatever one chooses to call God, is one's highest conception of the highest possible. To place one's highest conception above one's own possibilities is to think very little of oneself and one's life." --Kira Argounova

(The quote may not be word for word, I do not have my book to consult. I would very much appreciate corrections.)

If that doesn't point out the Objectivist stand on the existence of God, I don't know what does. But you don't have to accept it on those terms. It is not acceptable to believe that it is *possible* that God exists because there is no hard evidence (in my opinion) that points to his existence. From this premise, I would have no reason to belive that he exists. To say it is *possible* that he does is pointless and gets you nowhere. You make judgements based on the evidence you have, not on the evidence you *might* obtain in the future. This does not mean that if evidence were ever to come out that God exists, it wouldn't be correct to change your mind. However, there is no reason to believe (in my opinion) that there will EVER be evidence that proves God, since that is (ask any science teacher) an unfalsifiable claim. Which means that it can neither be proven nor disproven. However, since the burden of proof rests on the claimant, it does not need to be disproven to be regarded as arbitrary.

All in all, until you come up with some hard evidence proving the existence of God, I do not think he exists.

Thesweetscience wrote:

I do not mind being called wrong, I do mind being attacked. Speicher strikes me as the angry sort of narrow minded person who I have been dealing with in society all of my life.

Nothing about him makes me feel he is enlightened or any different than mystics or collectivists that attack anyone who doesnt think the same way they do.

I am sure he knows every word of what Ayn Rand has written and his knowledge of physics would make Einstein proud. But, if that is the model human being, then that is not who I want to be.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is 1) a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself;...

www.wikipedia.org

2) Using attacks against Stephen to try (unsucessfully) to invalidate his argument instead of actually pointing out any flaws in his argument.

Thesweetscience wrote:

I reserve the right to believe in god (although I don't now), because I don't believe in "guessing"...
See my above long-winded explanation. I will also ask: How is refusing to belive in unsubstatiated claims "guessing."

Guessing is, according to dictionary.com:

1. a)To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.

b)To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.

2.To form a correct estimate or conjecture of: guessed the answer.

3.To suppose; think: I guess he was wrong.

None of these definitions apply to what you are saying.

Thesweetscience wrote:

If a person tells you to reject religion they are instant enemies. I don't believe in HIDING Rand's opinion of Religion. I just think it should not be the first part of Objectivism that is explained.

There is a difference between not starting off a conversation on Objectivism by pointing out that is is atheistic, and avoiding telling someone that fact in the course of the conversation. If the person you are talking to is in any way religious, then it stands to reason that they should know that Objectivism is atheistic and why. Either way, since you haven't read any of Rand's non-fiction, might I suggest that you refer people who are interested to her books, rather than try to give more than a (very general) overview yourself. It is always best to learn first-hand anyway. "Consider the facts that made us certain, but if you are not convinced, ignore the fact that we are certain..."--Atlas Shrugged

etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add to my previous post that Thesweetscience you should also read up on Rand's non-fiction as others have suggested. It would be hypocritical of me to say that you should refer the people you are trying to teach without following the same rule myself, since I am no expert either. So, "Don't believe me. Make me prove everything I say."--Ayn Rand ;)

Edited by me to delete a repeated word and to add:

Or just read all of Rand's books and decide for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that characterization of what I said. What I have said and keep saying is that I don't believe that certain people will listen to the concept of Objectivism if you tell them they can't believe in God. Therefore it should be in Chapter 3 instead of Chapter 1 for CERTAIN PEOPLE.

No, what you said was:

I am agnostic at best and my motives for saying that religion is not unacceptable to an objectivist lie in the fact that if someone tells a mystic that belief in god is bad,
Not some mystics, "a mystic" which implies any or all mystics you come across. First you blanketly determined that no mystic is going to listen to a rational argument against a belief in the existence of a god, but then you say the only practical experience you have in your methodology is your wife. Is your wife your sole proof you have to back up the first statement?

However, even if you reserve this deceptive practice for "some" mystics, do you believe that justifies the practice? Or put another way, do the ends justify the means to you?

Since I don't going around trying to "convert" anyone. The only practical experience I have is watching the growth of my wife who would have never read Atlas Shrugged had she known the author was an atheist.

None of my posts ever addressed the frequency with which you used your methodology or theory if you prefer. However, that you said you have a motive which logically implies you have either utilized this practice or that you intend to. In either case the principle is the same. You appear to find it acceptable to deceive a person or people when persuading them to look into Objectivism. This is at the root of what has offended me and a couple of other people.

Lastly, does anyone else see what appears to be a contradiction between these two statements;

I am agnostic at best and my motives for saying that religion is not unacceptable to an objectivist lie in the fact that if someone tells a mystic that belief in god is bad,
and this;

I do acknowledge being wrong about an Objectivists potential to believe in God.

??

The first statement, early in thread, appears as though you have already concluded that a belief in a god is "bad" as you say, or incompatible with Objectivism. Then much later in thread you apologize for not knowing this. Which is it?

Speaking for myself, I can attest to the patience of Stephen Speicher in face of honest inquiry, even when I continued to put forth flawed arguments. On a couple of occasions, I have had to swallow my pride and admit my errors on this forum. There was no reason for Mr. Speicher to have given me anymore latitude than he did you, and I have at times been very argumentative with him. However, Stephen always knew that my inquiries were genuine, that if I was shown to be wrong I would admit it, and that deception was not acceptable to me.

I have addressed all I intend to at this point. When you realize that deception is unacceptable to Objectivists, perhaps then you can learn something from some of the more knowledgeable people on this board. And no, I don't even include myself in that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I am thinking of this as tolerance is that in the end I decided that thesweetscience should have been judged negatively, and was. When I tried to go back through the thread and find unfair bias, I could not. Things only got ugly over the capitalization issue and after he got defensive. So source's (and my) call that we should go easy on him reminded me of Kelley's criticism of Objectivists (saying that they were too intolerant).

Parenthetically, this is an issue which has bothered me for some time, and is the one that Peikoff was writing about: the divisions in Objectivism over allegedly unfair intolerance towards transgressors by Objectivists. In the eighties, I was actively involved in Objectivism to the extent of going to Ford Hall Forum lectures, etc. I took a 20-year hiatus (from official functions) due to my disgust over the way people were being treated by the Objectivist "establishment", including Kelley, whose "Evidence of the Senses" I found interesting, and whose career seemed promising as he was teaching at Vassar (i.e. finally Objectivism was breaking in the universities). But after participating in this forum for a while, and examining this premise, I am beginning to see things differently. The connection and its possible meaning just sort of "clicked" for me today as I was writing these posts, hence my questions.

Whatever it was that "clicked" in place for you, you have not communicated it (if that was your intention). I don't see what prompted you to think of tolerance. My call was for justice because moral judgment was passed too quickly, at least in this case, without sufficient evidence to remove all reasonable doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, since you asked the question. How about honesty! You don't make something that which it is not. Rationality for the thinking involved in seeing the nature of actions through analyzing them objectively.

So "to lay out proudly and explicitly" means "to practice"? I thought it means "to explain."

I was actually referring to thesweetscience on that. But, since you want it...

I have. You are a pragmatist. Whatever your focus is on, it is not about truth. My proof is your last post to me (and the others). Now, for once, don't focus on the messenger, but at least take a glance at the message.

Because of your last sentence, I was actually thinking about not dignifying your "calling an error" with a response. I spent quite a lot of time analyzing Stephen's responses and the posts he responded to, and he could have been anyone else, I would have responded in the same manner.

I'm afraid, however, that to answer your statement, I will first have to learn more about pragmatism. I've never studied it and basically, I don't know what your charges are about. However, right now, I don't have the time. Holidays are over and my lessons at college start tomorrow, ant studying that takes priority over this.

I'm only going to say that the way you are going to word the warning I mentioned above is up to you.

And if the error which I made is really the one you identified, which I will know eventually, although not yet, then - thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give it a shot (from dictionary.com): "Leeway for variation from a standard". Here, I take it to mean something more like "withholding criticism of one who has been judged to be wrong vis-à-vis the standard". The standard being the value of honesty in this case (because the main issue with thesweetscience was the apparent/admitted deception(s)).

This thread is developing very quickly. Your question shouldn't get lost in the stampede. You might do a search for earlier threads on "tolerance," or start one, if you want more discussion at this time. Perhaps others on this thread can point you in the right direction, to earlier threads devoted to that topic alone, if there are such.

My understanding is that the term "tolerance," in general usage (outside of Objectivist society) has two meanings:

1. POLITICAL: Accepting the fact that some individuals live in ways we might not like but are otherwise peaceful and honest and therefore should not be subject to legal penalties. This is the meaning that arose in the 1600s and later, dealing with religious divisions. This is the "good" meaning of tolerance.

2. PERSONAL-ETHICAL: Passively and nonjudgmentally accepting immoral behavior. This is the "bad" meaning of tolerance. I hear this from liberals in the form of, "Anything they say or believe is fine with me because ..." (and then some egalitarian or multiculturalist rationale follows). This is akin to the message I have heard personally from the Kelleyites, the "moral tolerationists" (whose mission, by the way, seems to be to make Objectivism into a philosophy more acceptable to leftists).

Your suggested and appropriate definition of "leeway for deviation from a standard" is basically the same as number 2 above. Here the standard is Objectivist morality. Dishonesty is immoral. Asking for acceptance of dishonesty (if that is what happened here), even for the short-term, would indeed be an instance of tolerance (in the second, bad sense).

It is also true that the virtue of justice requires gathering sufficient facts as a basis for a conclusion. Where sufficient facts are not available, further inquiry -- for example, through asking questions of a suspected person -- is appropriate before making judgment. But once that judgment is made, there is no reason, in normal circumstances, for holding it back.

P. S. -- Note that honesty is a virtue rather than a value. You might look up "Virtue" and "Value" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon to see the difference between them, as well as their relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever it was that "clicked" in place for you, you have not communicated it (if that was your intention). I don't see what prompted you to think of tolerance. My call was for justice because moral judgment was passed too quickly, at least in this case, without sufficient evidence to remove all reasonable doubt.

source, what "clicked" was that I realized that what I had initially seen as arbitrary and unjust criticism of thesweetscience was in fact true and just. Additionally, I made the connection between this and the way I thought Kelley was unjustly treated. The impetus for this was the fact that I was challenged to provide evidence, and could not, so I was forced to conclude that the charges, and thesweetscience's treatment, were justified.

While I still agree with the general principle that new users should not be penalized because of their lack of knowledge, I think you should reconsider your viewpoint regarding this particular user and set of events. This was not merely an error of knowledge, it was deception, which is wrong regardless of one's level of knowledge. Had he not stubbornly clung to his deceptions, and come clean, and been open to admitting his mistakes, it might have turned out differently, but as it happened, I think he deserves the treatment he got, and I don't think moral judgment was passed too quickly (for the reasons already stated above by myself and other posters).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"God, whatever one chooses to call God, is one's highest conception of the highest possible. To place one's highest conception above one's own possibilities is to think very little of oneself and one's life." --Kira Argounova

(The quote may not be word for word, I do not have my book to consult. I would very much appreciate corrections.)

I now have my book so I will make my own corrections. The quote from Kira should read:

Because, you see, God--whatever anyone chooses to call God--is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life.
I would also like to add this quote:

So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do--then I know they don't believe in life.

The first quote is Kira's explanation for the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P. S. -- Note that honesty is a virtue rather than a value. You might look up "Virtue" and "Value" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon to see the difference between them, as well as their relationship.

You've recommended the ARL on at least 2 occasions I've seen. Sounds handy, I should pick it up.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sweet science, I am seeing alot of questions that paralleled the ones that I had when I was still in a transitionary period from Christian mysticism to Objectivist rationalism. I remember my transitionary period well enough (and I assume that there are people here who remember it as well, which gave me somewhat of a bad rap) so maybe my perspective can give you the answers that you seek.

I am trying really hard to leave this board. But, I keep feeling the need to type when I should just walk away. My knowledge of Objectivism was formed by the books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I have also seen the "Sense of life" Doumentary.

Everything else is from another member of this forum who I have known for the past 12 years. It is he that told me that belief in god was acceptable in Objectivism if based on reason. If he wants to make himself known then that is his decision. 

I can understand why religion is unacceptable in Objectivism. But, I am still having a hard time understanding why belief in the possibility of God isn't.

I think the question you are asking is this (and do correct me if I am wrong):" Maybe there is a God, we only do not possess the technological means of observing him"

the reason that Objectivists do not accept this is because the question itself is not based on any scientific evidence, it is based on faith. In science, when one makes a hypothesis, one first has to make an Observation "since X occured, I hypothesis that the reason X happened is Y." That IIRC is the proper method for using the scientific method. Asking the hypothesis "Does God exist" however, is not founded upon any scientific observation. If i make the claim "I hypothesis that there are weightless pink elephants dancing right outside my door, we merely do not possess the means of seeing them" is silly, but in the end, carries the exact same amount of scientific weight that the question "does God exist" does. This is where Objectivist Epistemology comes into play. You must base your ideas on concrete scientific proof, taking faith as an absolute is not condusive to Objectivist Epistemology.

I do not mind being called wrong, I do mind being attacked. Speicher strikes me as the angry sort of narrow minded person who I have been dealing with in society all of my life.

Nothing about him makes me feel he is enlightened or any different than mystics or collectivists that attack anyone who doesnt think the same way they do.

I am sure he knows every word of what Ayn Rand has written and his knowledge of physics would make Einstein proud. But, if that is the model human being, then that is not who I want to be.

I would like to point out something. Dr. Speicher has been an Objectivist longer than most of us have been alive. I think he may find your "finessing" insulting, because you are implying that there is something shameful about Objectivism, and that people can only discover the truth after they have been "indoctrinated into the cult." Objectivism is Objectivism, I used to be a religious nut, and I knew about the atheism of Objectivism from the start. Granted it took me a bit of research and mental excersize to finally accept the fact, but the fact remains that if these people you are trying to make Objectivists are truly capable of being Objectivists, there should be no reason for you to be an apologist about it.

Echoing what has been said before, Objectivism is not a religion, because Religion requires faith. An Objectivist should not accept everything Ayn Rand says as truth simply out of faith, but it is through our capacity to reason that we understand the self-evident truths she unveiled.

I reserve the right to believe in god (although I don't now), because I don't believe in "guessing". The true origin of this universe is not known to me or anyone else. If there is ever proof there was a creator then I will listen. Otherwise I will base my belief on all available data. Isn't that what Objectivism is? We are not talking about Judeo-Christian mythology here.

the statement you made is that I will base my belief on all available data, and if you were to do that, you would have to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, since there is not a shred of evidence that points to his existence. Do remember that the burden of proof falls on the person who made the hypothesis. In the physical sciences, you wouldn't say "I observed X, so I conclude that it happened because of Y. Now prove me wrong" so the common christian ethos that there is no proof of God's non-existance is irrelevent. I would encourage you to read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", because in my own transitionary period I found it quite enlightening.

and of course you reserve the right to believe in God. No one is forcing you to to reject him. But we reserve the right to express our opinion that God does not exist.

I am more than willing to listen to anyone elses opinon and if they can show me where I am wrong... I love to learn, especially about Objectivism.
BS is the lubricant of human interaction, good thing there isn't a shred of BS in Objectivist thinking. :thumbsup:

I live in Oklahoma, the middle of the "bible belt". I know the culture of the people around me and the way I myself was raised. If a person tells you to reject religion they are instant enemies. I don't believe in HIDING Rand's opinion of Religion. I just think it should not be the first part of Objectivism that is explained. Hence my explanation of "finessing". If that is wrong I don't see why. Just setting someone on the path to understanding these concepts for themself instead of telling them the hardest parts for them to accept upfront is not really dishonest.

I hope I am making sense and do not get accused of something else now.

Bobby

I went to school at a christian high school, where I was an outcast because they were Chuch of Christ christians (an extreme offshoot of southern Baptists) and I was a Catholic, which in their eyes was a sin. Similarly, Atheists were regarded as the scum of the Earth, and great lengths were made by the faculty to make their life hell. You are not alone when you say you are living in an irrational society.

But I would ask you to recall Howard Roark's character. Remember early in the book, when he was still a struggling architect, he got one final commission to build a building, and everything was to his specs with the exception of a few minor Doric designs on the front? Roark said no way and was out of a job. He had prescribed to himself a life of backbreaking labor as a manual laborer simply because he refused to compromise his principles an inch. That is the attitude that I feel Objectivists should have. If these people can not accept you as you are, then you really have no business being around them. I know that I have had more than one person refuse to be my friend because of my atheism, but to hell with them, that doesn't confront me, because in the end, reason always triumphs over blind faith.

This was my way of thinking for a long time, that we as Objectivists need to activly "spread the word of Ayn Rand", but Objectivism is not a cult, it is a philosophy of life that deals with individualism. Be open about your philosophical convictions, but do not flaunt it. The reasonable will follow, and the faith will die out, as it has been for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sweet science, I am seeing alot of questions that paralleled the ones that I had when I was still in a transitionary period from Christian mysticism to Objectivist rationalism. [...]

That was without a doubt the most educational thing I have read so far in this forum. I thank you very much for taking the time to write it. I can definately see your points and I agree with you. Let me just clarify that I do not currently believe in god. But, I had said that I reserve the right to believe in the possibility of his existence if the data changes. Your analogy about the elephants completely explained to me the problem with that line of thinking.

Thanks again!

Bobby

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've been thinking about the conversation in this thread while reading the chapter "Virtue" in OPAR. It made me identify what it was exactly that made me conclude that stephen was too harsh on thesweetscience. Stephen's act of judgement, as I see now is justified, but incorrect. There is a more fundamental issue here, which has to do with focus.

The normal state of man's mind is focus. However, the default state is non-focus. One must learn to concentrate one's mind on a single idea (to get into the state of full focus) and think about it and act accordingly. People accept things on faith when in state of non-focus - they don't think about them, they don't integrate them, they just accept them or reject them arbitrarily - if they feel good about them.

In the state of non-focus, morality is like a distant haze. The actions of an individual are the result of some flitting sensations and being honest or dishonest is all the same, especially in such seemingly trivial issues of whether one will say "Objectivism is atheistic," or "Objectivism holds true anything that can be proven, which means if the existence of god is proven, then Objectivists will believe." (I hope I got the "finesse" part thesweetscience was referring to right). In a blur of non-focused vision, even the sharpest edges seem to disintegrate and mix with the surroundings.

In effect, thesweetscience's proposal was dishonest, but the thing he's really guilty of is - not thinking. Thinking properly has to be learned. For that, I suggest OPAR - the rest of the ARL can be read later. When I started reading OPAR, I thought "THIS is the proper way to begin explaining a science - from its fundamentals, then build upon them." And this is exactly the reason why I suggest OPAR to any beginner in Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include sarcastic comments and accusations of irrationality or immorality. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators. Likewise, all posts must add to the discussion rather than merely express agreement or disagreement without explaining the writer's reasons.

Edited by NIJamesHughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source,

I'm confused: how can an act be justified, but incorrect? Are you trying to say that "some" action was justified, but Stephen just picked the wrong one to take? But since you identify the action taken very specifically as "Stephen's act", how can that be? Just wondering...perhaps you meant, "action was justified, but Stephen's was incorrect"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused: how can an act be justified, but incorrect? Are you trying to say that "some" action was justified, but Stephen just picked the wrong one to take? But since you identify the action taken very specifically as "Stephen's act", how can that be? Just wondering...perhaps you meant, "action was justified, but Stephen's was incorrect"?

Hah! How predictable of you. I should have known. I knew that Stephen would comment on this little error (which he did), but I had no idea someone would post a follow-up. (I'd have corrected it after proofreading, but one more minute and I'd have been late for college)

Anyway, this was intended to be:

Stephen's act of judgement, as I see now is justified, but his verdict (judgement) incorrect.

Does that shed some light?

And to the rest of you who think I have a "grudge" against Stephen (Stephen not included) - I admit that my posts in the past have been erratic, but this is not your excuse to commit the same error you are accusing me of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include sarcastic comments and accusations of irrationality or immorality. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators. Likewise, all posts must add to the discussion rather than merely express agreement or disagreement without explaining the writer's reasons.

Edited by NIJamesHughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include sarcastic comments and accusations of irrationality or immorality. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators. Likewise, all posts must add to the discussion rather than merely express agreement or disagreement without explaining the writer's reasons.

I would like to know what stephen_speicher's original reply was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I remebered them verbatim. We shall probably never know now because Mr. Speicher has left and it is my understanding that it is not possible to retrieve the original post once it has been edited. I am very hesitant to say what I remeber of the posts because I do not want to put words in Mr. Speichers mouth that he did not say, which is the cause of this problem in the first place. I would PM the moderator who changed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I remebered them verbatim. We shall probably never know now because Mr. Speicher has left and it is my understanding that it is not possible to retrieve the original post once it has been edited. I am very hesitant to say what I remeber of the posts because I do not want to put words in Mr. Speichers mouth that he did not say, which is the cause of this problem in the first place. I would PM the moderator who changed it.

I just hope that this issue with the moderators can be resolved quickly and efficiently and that Mr. Speicher can be persuaded to return.

Thank you for your reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...