Eran, I agree and I think that is implied already.
There may well be some kind of public record aspect to this, but I’m not sure I have granted the forum the right to put my name up in perpetuity under a format that amounts to republishing my essay everyday.
Well, yes, by posting here you did grant that right. It is David’s right, though, to decide whether to continue hosting your writing or not
Eran, I agree and I think that is implied already.
Well, yes, by posting here you did grant that right. It is David’s right, though, to decide whether to continue hosting your writing or not
I wouldn’t be so sure about that implication. The law can be subtle sometimes. And of course the owner of the site has the prerogative to accept for publication or remove whatever he wants.
If my essay is listed in an essay section as a thread in a section that is not an archive section, but is some kind of discussion-in-progress, then I don’t think it’s just a simple matter of saying that David has the implied right to keep publishing my stuff in that format.
Actually, this is probably an area of law that hasn’t been settled.
I just don’t believe that an “anything goes” forum is consonant with Objectivist principles. I realize that David does do some editing and monitoring, i.e., keeping out irrational people, but I still don’t think that’s enough.
Is it your assertion that even though this forum is monitored and edited by David in a manner that (according to you) is not enough, that this is otherwise an “anything goes” forum? What do you mean by “anything goes”?
If I were giving a lecture, the opportunities for people to take the floor would be carefully controlled.
The Member Essay section has a specific subtitling which states: “Submit your essays here for peer review, comments, criticism.” That suggests to me that you should assume that this is not consistent with a lecture environment. So how does your position on lectures relate to the structure of this forum, or more specifically the Member Essay section?
This is tangential and not totally related to the issue at hand, but…
Agreed.
I reassert my opinion that one should strongly consider one’s submissions prior to hitting the submit button. After that, the post becomes part of a historical record, as others have mentioned, and should remain so. No one is forced to submit material to this site, and if one considers some reason why their thoughts or ideas should not remain on here once entered, then they should not post those thoughts or ideas to begin with. That is the most assured way or retaining one’s absolute rights to those thoughts or ideas.
VES
I reassert my opinion that one should strongly consider one’s submissions prior to hitting the submit button. After that, the post becomes part of a historical record, as others have mentioned, and should remain so. No one is forced to submit material to this site, and if one considers some reason why their thoughts or ideas should not remain on here once entered, then they should not post those thoughts or ideas to begin with. That is the most assured way or retaining one’s absolute rights to those thoughts or ideas.
There’s several things happening here all at once, one, figuring out what principles apply to the thread I started on Circular Time in Member’s Essays; two figuring out what principles apply to current and past posts; three. figuring out what should apply to future posts.
Since David already did delete the Circular Time thread per my request, one could argue that I have the prerogative to have it not re-instated (at least as applies to my posts therein).
As for the future, I think the owner(s) of this site should consider a mini-forum where people start a thread and act as editors with the prerogative to accept and delete posts.
As for “anything goes,” you’re right, I should have said “almost anything goes.” Just because a person might be rational doesn’t mean that everything they have to say is edifying to the reader. Oftentimes it is difficult to judge the long-term worth of one’s work, since one is so intimately involved with it.
So, even if David does not allow blatant irrationalism on the site, I still don’t think an “almost anything goes” policy is consistent with Objectivist principles. Granted, the Internet is a new type of communication medium and exact analogies cannot be made with other forums such as lectures or periodicals. Still, human conception is limited. It behooves us present nicely edited intellectual products for the reader’s edification. To allow some participant to post to their heart’s content is to invite an tangled intellectual product to be made.
Individualism is the hallmark of Objectivism, and in my opinion, the best thing the owner(s) of this site could do is to allow the intellectual products created here to be closely monitored and shaped by individuals.
Suppose Ayn Rand printed every letter she received in “The Objectivist Newsletter.” Would that have been edifying? Should Harry Binswanger approve every post that comes in to HBL? I think not.
This site has a tremendous untapped potential which could be unleashed by following my proposal for closely monitored mini-forums.
I have to reiterate, that I have no complaints about “hitting the submit button.” Everything I said in the Circular Time thread still stands. The reason I wanted it deleted is because the thread was quickly becoming a chaotic intellectual product and I did not want to take part in that. I don’t think Ayn Rand would have wanted to take part in such a venture either.
I repeat: everything I said in the thread still stands.
This site has a tremendous untapped potential which could be unleashed by following my proposal …
I would like to suggest to thinkonaut that he unleash this “untapped potential” by starting his own forum and see what value he and his various approaches then bring. thinkonaut has had minimal participation on this ObjectivismOnline forum and has given minimal value to its name. Perhaps he should be less quick to tell others how to run a forum when he himself has had nothing to do with its creation and, in my view, nothing at all to do with its success. Instead of telling everyone here how this forum should be run, and telling us his views on the moral and legal conditions of posting, he should show us by example and create a forum of value by following his own approaches and advice. I would be willing to wager that he could not accomplish more than a pale reflection of the value created here, so perhaps if he chooses to continue to post on this forum we can hear a lot less bluster and a bit more of substance.
Individualism is the hallmark of Objectivism, and in my opinion, the best thing the owner(s) of this site could do is to allow the intellectual products created here to be closely monitored and shaped by individuals.
If a hallmark is a distinguishing characteristic, then the most basic hallmark of Objectivism is objectivity. Individualism is one conclusion reached in the philosophy, not the method that is at the root of the whole philosophy.
Besides, if the owner of a property sets rules – or doesn’t set them in some areas – for the behavior of his guests, is that in any way an abrogation of his guests’ “individualism”?