Response To Charges Against THE FORUM

Debates
1

At the request of the moderator to keep the original discussion of the Objectivism Research CDROM on topic, I will address Diana Hsieh’s criticism of THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans on this new thread.

Given Phil Oliver’s ongoing participation on The Forum, the prime source of vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivist intellectuals over the past year …

Diana and a some others have been making charges like this against THE FORUM for a while, I, my late husband Stephen, and almost all of the active members of THE FORUM consider the charges unjust and unsupported by facts. In response, we have a thread here addressing those charges and why they are false.

2

I have invited people from ObjectivismOnline.net to THE FORUM to check out whether what Diana Hsieh has said about us is true. In response, Diana has put people on notice that

If you choose to continue posting on The Forum, then however honest and nice you are, please do not post comments on NoodleFood. Do not e-mail me with or for information – or for any other purpose. Do not talk to me at conferences or elsewhere. Just stay away from me.

(Diana’s entire post)

Ah, well! People who violate Betsy’s Law #1* end up with the consequences of Betsy’s Law #2.* Her loss.

My only concern at this point is with those who have no choice about dealing with Diana such as students involved in some ARI academic conferences and OAC. I will understand if, fearing what Diana might do to you, you are now reluctant to post to THE FORUM.

I’ll do whatever I can to help. If you wish, I will set up a brand new anonymous User Name for you on THE FORUM and you can continue to post. Even if you choose not to post to THE FORUM, you can continue to send PMs to me or to other FORUM members and log in anonymously or as a guest to read posts. Also feel free to e-mail me with or for information or for any other purpose, talk to me at conferences or elsewhere, or just hang out in my vicinity. I welcome public exposure and discussion of my statements and actions from anyone because I have nothing to fear or hide or atone for.

* Betsy’s Law #1 - Reality is always the winning side.

* Betsy’s Law #2 - In the long run you get the kind of friends – and the kind of enemies – you deserve.

3

My only concern at this point is with those who have no choice about dealing with Diana such as students involved in some ARI academic conferences and OAC. I will understand if, fearing what Diana might do to you, you are now reluctant to post to THE FORUM.

Reality check, Betsy. Diana isn’t “doing” anything to anyone, nor did she promise to. If one day Diana does teach for the OAC, I’d expect her to be an excellent teacher. We need more Objectivists like her.

Now, perhaps you can explain why someone who likes and respects Diana should post on a forum that features idiotic comments about her like this: “It’s a shame that Ms. Hsieh has seen fit to bring the tactics used by TOC to those who have been long-time supporters of ARI. Dr. Peikoff rightly ignored the slanderous tactics used by that bunch. Ms. Hsieh seems to think that she is now required to be the gatekeeper for Dr. Peikoff, determining who may and may not discuss his latest work.” Link.

Betsy’s Law #2 - In the long run you get the kind of friends – and the kind of enemies – you deserve.

Indeed. Is that why you had to shut down your “Ask the experts” section, and is that why John Lewis’s section has completely vanished? Some of those friends have been posting on NoodleFood.

I will understand if, fearing what Diana might do to you, you are now reluctant to post to THE FORUM.

It’s quite a tragedy that you are now insinuating that Diana is some kind of authoritarian, when you fought so well against similarly unfounded anti-ARI non-sense on h.p.o.

4

Reality check, Betsy. Diana isn’t “doing” anything to anyone, nor did she promise to. ------------

She most certainly did do something. She formulated a new policy for posting on her blog, the standards of her associating with people, and to those with whom she wants to talk.

5

Timeline of posts on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans

October 21, 2006 - Stephen Speicher responds to Peikoff’s 2006 election statement, calling it “outrageous,” “hyperbole,” and “an embarrassment for the same man who wrote OPAR.”

October 25, 2006 - Jack Wakeland thanks Stephen for “so quickly standing up to Dr. Peikoff’s attempt to bully.”

November 5, 2006 - Stephen Speicher characterizes Peikoff’s election statement as a “religious pronouncement.”

November 9, 2006 (after the election) - Jack Wakeland characterizes Peikoff’s election statement as “foolish.” Then he writes: “For Objectivists who voted Democrat, the left who controls the party you voted for will prove your foolishness. You were foolish to join the headlong stampede for retreat from Iraq. You were foolish to follow Dr. Peikoff’s advice–advice that was based on the purposefully manipulated distortion of the events of the world on front page of the New York Times.”

Recent posts at OO.net

July 13, 2007 - Diana Hsieh states that The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans is the “prime source of vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivist intellectuals over the past year.”

July 16, 2007 - Betsy Speicher says that Diana’s statement is “unjust and unsupported by facts.”

6

Why is any of this an issue or a problem? Diana’s blog is Diana’s property. She has the right to not associate with people who would sanction attacks against her, such as threads entitled: Shamtistics: A Noodly Approach to Supporting Peikoff’s Thesis. (Diana’s blog is entitled NoodleFood.) This is indeed doing something, i.e. taking action to defend oneself. But it is not doing something to anyone. Big difference.

Betsy asks us to provide information that attacks on O’ist intellectuals have taken place on her forum. Yet that was only part of the original accusation back in October. Yes, other forums have allowed comments insulting to O’ist individuals. But there have been no accusations that they carry out biased moderation and silencing of opposition to their own viewpoints by post deletions, nor a double standard of one way-insults.

I had a post deleted in the Peikoff election thread on the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans last year. The reason given by the moderator (Stephen Speicher) at that time - somewhere around the end of October - was that I made “insulting personal comments” in the offending post, and that if I was willing to remove the comments, I could attempt a repost. I did express astonishment in this post about how people on The Forum in general could be so ridiculously naive about the nature of religion in this day and age. These comments were not personally directed to anyone, although they were directed at the posters in that thread at large. That was the nature of my “insulting personal comments”. So be it. I believe there are many people who ARE blind- willfully or not - to the nature of today’s religion. And I am not sorry for saying so.

Besides deleting one of my posts, Speicher responded - publicly in that thread - to my preceding posts by dismissing my observations as simply a “scary shopping list of interactions with a few religious nutjobs,” and also insinuating that my arugment was concrete bound and not indicative of any important philosophical or cultural change - this despite my vast experience growing up in the movement of the religious right and attending a Christian college at which I took ethics and philosophy classes. Such is the nature of my obviously concrete bound mentality. He also cited in this thread a 2 point drop in a Gallup poll as evidence for his position that America was not becoming more religious - even though we all know that most Gallup polls have up to a 3 point margin of error.

I am trying to locate the text for this deleted post via corresponding with people to whom I sent the text (my account does not automatically save sent emails - such a shame, as it would be very revealing). I currently do not have the text for this post (although I am trying to recover it) because my Forum account was suspended without my request after I indicated over here on the oo.net forum in a parallel type of election thread that I would not post on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans again. I guess Stephen saw fit to make sure that I made good on my promise by suspending my account - with the handy side effect that I would not be able to again gain access to my deleted post, his response, or any of my other personal messages.

You see, it’s rather difficult to provide evidence for some of these things Betsy is asking for when the evidence has been deleted or made unavailable either by her or her husband. As Atlas (above) has pointed out. It’s our word against Betsy’s. Betsy’s Law #2 is correct. You do, indeed, get the friends and enemies you deserve. But unfortunately, Betsy’s Law #1 is not correct, although we may all wish it were. Reality (and reason) is not always on the winning side - at least where history is concerned.

7

Priceless, Mister Swig. Thanks for succinctly illustrating the evidence, from The Forum, of one of the charges against The Forum.

Betsy says, “I welcome public exposure and discussion of my statements and actions from anyone because I have nothing to fear or hide or atone for.”

We are all entitled to our own opinions. But in the words of Shakespeare: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

8

But there have been no accusations that they carry out biased moderation and silencing of opposition to their own viewpoints by post deletions, nor a double standard of one way-insults.

I posted there for a short while and had a similar experience. I was arguing against Mr. Speicher’s position and he deleted a post of mine with a short letter that my post was mostly off topic. (I do not believe it was, but it was contrary to his position) Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I asked in a follow up pm if he could tell me which parts seemed off topic so that I might reevaluate and repost, to which he replied that if it wasn’t obvious to me why it was off topic then he had neither the time nor inclination to explain it. I don’t think of myself as especially obtuse, and so took that as an insulting indication of intellectual dishonesty at worst or lack of class at best.

I think as a moderator, justice would demand that one be very careful about deleting posts of your opponents in discussions you are involved in, and perhaps even ask another moderator not involved in the discussion to make that sort of determination, if it is a concern of yours.

This happened to me and it seems that it also has happened to many others. It has the unfortunate effect of making it seem as though one party to a debate had nothing more to say, or that their arguments and thoughts are a good deal less continuous and reasoned then they actually are. Perception doesn’t make reality, but it sure can affect the relationships of the observers of it.

I stopped reading the site because I have very little interest in such a disingenuous debate. Of not knowing whether something is settled or deleted. I don’t need my reality filtered and can decide for myself if something is off topic or ad hominem. I even possess the good taste to point out why something is off topic or illogical, publicly, in the context of the debate itself. I trust my own judgment and recommend anyone who trusts theirs to spend little of their precious time reading conversations engineered to make heroes of some and villains of others. Much better novels can be found then the ones made on that site.

I had been content to let the little faux pas go since I don’t care to argue against people who can no longer defend themselves, but since Mrs. Speicher saw fit to make an issue of it on this board continuing this process of intellectual obfuscation, I think it necessary to make my experience, opinion, and judgement on the matter, known.

Regarding the discussion linked to at the top, I noted in reading the discussion that most people there had had their posts deleted for a number of reasons, but were all fine with it. This should come as no surprise since anyone not ok with having their missing posts indicate acquiescence, would have left long ago. Might as well conduct a poll of whether or not a restaurant has good food and use the regulars at a restaurant as your sample.

9

Timeline of posts on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans

October 21, 2006 - Stephen Speicher responds to Peikoff’s 2006 election statement, calling it “outrageous,” “hyperbole,” and “an embarrassment for the same man who wrote OPAR.”

October 25, 2006 - Jack Wakeland thanks Stephen for “so quickly standing up to Dr. Peikoff’s attempt to bully.”

November 5, 2006 - Stephen Speicher characterizes Peikoff’s election statement as a “religious pronouncement.”

November 9, 2006 (after the election) - Jack Wakeland characterizes Peikoff’s election statement as “foolish.” Then he writes: “For Objectivists who voted Democrat, the left who controls the party you voted for will prove your foolishness. You were foolish to join the headlong stampede for retreat from Iraq. You were foolish to follow Dr. Peikoff’s advice–advice that was based on the purposefully manipulated distortion of the events of the world on front page of the New York Times.”

Recent posts at OO.net

July 13, 2007 - Diana Hsieh states that The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans is the “prime source of vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivist intellectuals over the past year.”

July 16, 2007 - Betsy Speicher says that Diana’s statement is “unjust and unsupported by facts.”

In fairness to The FORUM (where I freely admit I am a member), none of the quoted statements represent a “vicious attack on Dr. Peikoff or other Objectivist intellectuals”, but rather an attack of one of Dr. Peikoff’s ideas. Not a moral judgement or disparaging remark, but a (imnsho honest) disagreement with a complex philosophical statement. People here have disagreed with me or with statements with which I agree, and yet no one could say that I have been attacked. The exceptions to my above statement are the “bullying” comment and the “purposeful manipulation” comment, which, while I think went a bit far, especially the one attributing malicious motives to Dr. Peikoff, were still only referring to that one statement and not an attack on Dr. Peikoff himself. I would also like to add that there are examples of those who support Dr. Peikoff’s statement on The FORUM, and statements here which, if I recall correctly, suggest, among other things, that Dr. Peikoff’s statement was due to his age and his probable senility, which were far more out of line than any of the quoted FORUM posts. I would finally like to add that disagreement with a satement of Dr. Peikoff does not imply disagreement with his character or status, disagreement with Objectivism, disagreement with ARI, irrationality, or dishonesty. While I do not like to speak for others, I think it is safe to say based on his position, the philosophy he represents, and his previous statements that Dr. Peikoff would rather those who weren’t convinced by his statement remain against it until and unless they honestly accepted it rather than following it blindly (not that I am implying that anybody who agrees with it has done that). I would like to end this lengthy post by requesting that people judge the facts for themselves, provide evidence when making claims, and, except in the face of overwhelming evidence, attack individual ideas, not individuals (and even with the overwhelming evidence, a forum post about a specific topic, say ‘‘the coming election’’, is not a place for personal attacks, even if Kant himself drops by to give his two cents).

10

I had been content to let the little faux pas go since I don’t care to argue against people who can no longer defend themselves, but since Mrs. Speicher saw fit to make an issue of it on this board continuing this process of intellectual obfuscation, I think it necessary to make my experience, opinion, and judgement on the matter, known.

I don’t enter into such discussions lightly when one of the parties is deceased and no longer around to defend himself. I never met Stephen Speicher, and although my interactions with him on The Forum were mixed, I have been silent on this issue for some time because I just want to be a generally polite individual and let bygones be bygones. Frankly, I don’t care that much about this issue since anyone is free to visit the Forum, OO.net, NoodleFood, etc. to examine evidence for the claims of either party. Why should anyone be afraid of the truth, if they are honest?

But, you are correct. Since Betsy is in fact inviting the discussion, I see no problem with giving her what she she is requesting in this venue and providing evidence for charges against The Forum in a neutral setting, since posts are commonly deleted on The Forum, which results in very one-sided views. (I am not sure whether this is still policy over there.) I have seen evidence from anothers’ deleted post indicating that when the information was contrary to Stephen’s own views, a cursory excuse was made to delete the post. I cannot post that evidence here as it would be a violation of that individual’s privacy. That person does not wish to get publicly involved in this dispute.

I do not think it is necessarily wrong to delete posts, or for a moderator involved in a discussion to delete posts, espeically when it is occurring on the private property of said individual. But it does require that the individual in question try their utmost to maintain objectivity. I recently deleted a comment on my blog, and it was done in haste. The software I have does not allow me to make changes in moderation to a comment that I have already decided on. There is no question that I had the right to do it, as it is my property. But sometimes, we make mistakes. There should be no problem in admitting that.

11

Regarding the discussion linked to at the top, I noted in reading the discussion that most people there had had their posts deleted for a number of reasons, but were all fine with it. This should come as no surprise since anyone not ok with having their missing posts indicate acquiescence, would have left long ago. Might as well conduct a poll of whether or not a restaurant has good food and use the regulars at a restaurant as your sample.

The Forum was heavily moderated when Stephen was running it. That was his way, which sets up the environment the way he prefers it. Nothing wrong with that, and I think his method has resulted in some higher quality posters. I’ve posted to Usenet groups where you can go wild, and to strictly moderated groups like The Forum, both have their value.

As to my postings there, the ones that I had rejected were all rejected for technical reasons: once because I responded in a thread where responses weren’t allowed, another time because my quotes were messed up. Those were the sort of problems I had.

As to the disagreements with Dr. Peikoff, if you’ll remember, he made some very dramatic claims, and he offered very little in the way of explanation. This shocked many people, and angered quite a few, including on this forum. So, you have to throw that into the equation when judging this entire thing. I personally was taken aback by what Peikoff said, but over time I realized I had to give Peikoff the benefit of the doubt on the matter, and so studied it. Frankly, in retrospect, Peikoff’s shocking statement was a value to me, because it made me investigate the matter all the more, and I listened to his entire DIM lecture on the web.

12

I have just been able to retrieve the full text of my deleted post in the Peikoff election thread on The Forum, and will be posting it on my blog shortly (see below). If you would like to see the text and the stated reason it was deleted, feel free to visit my website. Let any and all determine whether my reply, or the comment of the person I was replying to, was insulting. It should be read in the context of the rest of the content of the Peikoff thread on The Forum, which is linked above.More information can be found hereas to others’ experience on The Forum. This is taking up too much of my time, and this is all I will have to say on the matter here at OO.net.Thales - just so you know, I just attended Peikoff’s DIM lectures at OCON. They are significantly different, IMO, from his online course. He has significantly refined his DIM hypothesis (he acknowledges it is a hypothesis, not a thesis, and that it might yet be proven wrong) and has acknowledged that it does not apply to non-intellectual individuals. Therefore, most citizens cannot be classified under the DIM categories.

13

Reality check, Betsy. Diana isn’t “doing” anything to anyone, nor did she promise to.

I never said that she did, but it is a fact that after her statement I received e-mails and PMs from FORUM members saying they feared what Diana might do to them if they posted on THE FORUM.

Now, perhaps you can explain why someone who likes and respects Diana should post on a forum that features idiotic comments about her like this: “It’s a shame that Ms. Hsieh has seen fit to bring the tactics used by TOC to those who have been long-time supporters of ARI. Dr. Peikoff rightly ignored the slanderous tactics used by that bunch. Ms. Hsieh seems to think that she is now required to be the gatekeeper for Dr. Peikoff, determining who may and may not discuss his latest work.” Link.

That quote was from OldSalt, a respected member of THE FORUM and of OO.net as well, and I suggest people read the entire posting to set the context. If that upsets those who like and respect Diana, it’s a good thing they didn’t see the posts I deleted!

Indeed. Is that why you had to shut down your “Ask the experts” section, and is that why John Lewis’s section has completely vanished? Some of those friends have been posting on NoodleFood.

“Had to shut down?” I suggest you read the actual reason we gave for closing that section and check with ALL the experts on THE FORUM before speculating and insinuating.

As for posting on NoodleFood, I used to post on NoodleFood myself (until Diana told me to leave) despite my disagreements with and doubts about her. I give people the benefit of the doubt and see anyone who might be fact-centered and value-oriented as a potential friend, regardless of where they choose to post, who they may associate with, or what disagreements we may currently have. If reality is the ultimate arbiter, these differences and problems can be eventually resolved.

It’s quite a tragedy that you are now insinuating that Diana is some kind of authoritarian

I am not insinuating anything. I am reporting the concerns expressed to me by some FORUM members.

when you fought so well against similarly unfounded anti-ARI non-sense on h.p.o.

I am the same staunch supporter of facts, values, Objectivism, and Ayn Rand that I have been for the past 45 years – and proud of it. I haven’t changed at all, while others have changed and still others should have changed.

14

There is no question that I had the right to do it, as it is my property.

It was certainly his right to do so, but it does not follow that it was the right thing to do.

15

The Forum was heavily moderated when Stephen was running it. That was his way, which sets up the environment the way he prefers it. Nothing wrong with that, and I think his method has resulted in some higher quality posters. I’ve posted to Usenet groups where you can go wild, and to strictly moderated groups like The Forum, both have their value.

I disagree that dishonesty makes for better posters and discussions. And I believe the usenet vs forum comparison to be a false dichotomy. Nothing at all wrong with moderation. Deleting spam and insults is fine, deleting posts which disagree with your own views is not behavior indicative of virtue or value.

16

Timeline of posts on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans

There were hundreds of posts during the election debate and not just the few briefly excerpted here.

October 21, 2006 - Stephen Speicher responds to Peikoff’s 2006 election statement, calling it “outrageous,” “hyperbole,” and “an embarrassment for the same man who wrote OPAR.”

Yes he did. On the very next day, the owner of this forum opined (click here)

With all due respect, I think Dr Peikoff is losing his grip on reality

and another member of OO.net concurred (click here)

He’s in his mid-70’s after all…it’s about the right time for him to start suffering from dementia and senility.

It appears Stephen wasn’t the only one upset with Dr. Peikoff’s election recommendation but at least he was taking issue with Dr. Peikoff’s statements and not attacking Dr. Peikoff personally.

October 25, 2006 - Jack Wakeland thanks Stephen for “so quickly standing up to Dr. Peikoff’s attempt to bully.”

November 14, 2003 - Stephen writes (click here)

Though I try hard to make sure that posts on THE FORUM adhere to our guidelines, I do not always succeed. In this post on the current thread, a member refers to “Dr. Peikoff’s attempt to bully.” This speaks to Peikoff’s motivation, and therefore was not appropriate. The thread has evolved too far to now go back and delete that post, but I do want to acknowledge that the comment was something I should have caught.

November 5, 2006 - Stephen Speicher characterizes Peikoff’s election statement as a “religious pronouncement.”

Two words out of context convey a different impression than the whole post (click here).

November 9, 2006 (after the election) - Jack Wakeland characterizes Peikoff’s election statement as “foolish.”

Blasphemy! At least making a foolish statement isn’t quite as bad as losing one’s grip on reality or being senile.

Recent posts at OO.net

July 13, 2007 - Diana Hsieh states that The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans is the “prime source of vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivist intellectuals over the past year.”

July 16, 2007 - Betsy Speicher says that Diana’s statement is “unjust and unsupported by facts.”

Don’t forget -

July 15, 2007 - Betsy Speicher says “I invite Objectivists to see for themselves, first hand, whether there really are “vicious attacks” on THE FORUM or simply occassional questions and polite, factual, reasoned disagreements.”

Betsy Speicher

17

I was arguing against Mr. Speicher’s position and he deleted a post of mine with a short letter that my post was mostly off topic.

[…]

This happened to me and it seems that it also has happened to many others. It has the unfortunate effect of making it seem as though one party to a debate had nothing more to say, or that their arguments and thoughts are a good deal less continuous and reasoned then they actually are. Perception doesn’t make reality, but it sure can affect the relationships of the observers of it.

[…]

Regarding the discussion linked to at the top, I noted in reading the discussion that most people there had had their posts deleted for a number of reasons, but were all fine with it.

[italycs added by me for emphasis]

At the beginning of this post, you imply that Mr. Speicher deleted only posts that disagreed with his position, making the argument one sided. But then you admit that most people on the forum report having their posts deleted for a number of reasons–i.e., people on all sides of the debate. It was my experience in posting on that forum when Stephen ran it that he would delete posts which he believed to violate the stated forum rules regardless of whether he agreed with the overall intended position or not.

Personally, I’ve been disappointed about the personal remarks made against Objectivist intellectuals at OO.net and THE FORUM. But, as Betsy pointed out, the ones made against Dr. Peikoff in this forum during the elections were worse. And many if not most personal remarks at THE FORUM are deleted. I just usually try to avoid discussions where personal attacks are flying around. (I’m making a brief exception in posting on this thread!)

I’ve never seen a message board that didn’t have some controversial threads and many views expressed by many members with which I disagreed. As long as the problem seems more or less confined to a few threads, if I think it’s necessary to remove my sanction, I’ll stop participating in those threads, but I don’t understand the reason for boycotting an entire forum because of the controversial threads, while continuing to support other forums with just as many if not more controversial threads.

I suppose I do understand why someone would boycott a website that he thought was continually attacking him personally. But to cut all ties with anyone who participates in that forum, even those who disagree with the attacks or who do not participate in those discussions, when the attacks (if that’s what they are) originate from a small minority of posters, seems like it would be unnecessarily limiting.

18

Timeline of posts on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans

October 21, 2006 - Stephen Speicher responds to Peikoff’s 2006 election statement, calling it “outrageous,” “hyperbole,” and “an embarrassment for the same man who wrote OPAR.”

October 25, 2006 - Jack Wakeland thanks Stephen for “so quickly standing up to Dr. Peikoff’s attempt to bully.”

November 5, 2006 - Stephen Speicher characterizes Peikoff’s election statement as a “religious pronouncement.”

November 9, 2006 (after the election) - Jack Wakeland characterizes Peikoff’s election statement as “foolish.” Then he writes: “For Objectivists who voted Democrat, the left who controls the party you voted for will prove your foolishness. You were foolish to join the headlong stampede for retreat from Iraq. You were foolish to follow Dr. Peikoff’s advice–advice that was based on the purposefully manipulated distortion of the events of the world on front page of the New York Times.”

Recent posts at OO.net

July 13, 2007 - Diana Hsieh states that The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans is the “prime source of vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivist intellectuals over the past year.”

July 16, 2007 - Betsy Speicher says that Diana’s statement is “unjust and unsupported by facts.”

Vicious: 1 : having the nature or quality of vice or immorality, 4 a : dangerously aggressive : SAVAGE b : marked by violence or ferocity, 5 : MALICIOUS, SPITEFUL 6 : worsened by internal causes that reciprocally augment each other

Now that we know what the concept means, how do your quotes provide evidence that they fit the definition and the referent involved in the disagreement? Your quotes are statements of opinion about a specific idea expressed by an individual. How are they vicious attacks on a person?

Please explain.

19

OK guys. Why is this thread even here? Here we are dredging up old arguments the renewal of which are neither merited by Diana’s comment, and the continued discussion of which will not be productive.

  1. Betsy has her own board on which to post rebuttals. Yes, Diana posted her comment here, but it warranted no rebuttal, and frankly posting a link that dredges up an entire feud that is irrelevant to her point in the first place only serves to dredge all this stuff back up again. If you were going to repond here, then a direct citation would have been appropriate, not a “read about our ongoing arguments here” link.

  2. Lets look at the statements context. Diana’s key points were:

a. “Phil Oliver’s ongoing participation on The Forum”

b. the Forum as the “prime source” of attacks on Objectivist intellectuals “over the past year”

I don’t give a rat’s *ss who said what in the days after Peikoff’s statement and its irrelevant to the statement. Notice she’s not implying that other boards haven’t had similar posts, she directly stating that The Forum has had continued disagreements with Objectivist intellectuals in the intervening time. That can’t really be said of any other forum, including this one. If those two facts are true (Phil’s participation and The Forum’s continuing disagreement with Peikoff on his key positions) then Diana’s conclusion, that it would be valid reason for sanction of hte CD-ROM to be pulled, is completely valid.

That’s it. That’s all there is. Betsy if you and the main members of the forum have reversed your position and no longer hold strong disagreements with the Objectivist intellectuals in question then that would be news to me and that would have been the way to deflate Diana’s statement in one sentence.

  1. Betsy, your 2nd postin this thread is really out of line. The inuendo about what intentions Diana might have regarding her dealings with any Forum members in the future is crass. Since you’re addressing it to Forum members, why post it here? (oh wait, could it be because such psychologizing is not in line with the Forum guidelines, and you’d have trouble passing the red face test?). Finally, the common motivation that is used for stuff like this, the “Oh, I’m only thinking of the Objectivist ‘baby chicks’ who might be hurt in the fallout” is tiring. It’s partronizing to those you’re addressing, and you certainly haven’t gained my respect by portraying yourself as the Objectivist Mother Hen. How would Diana be able to damage anyone in any way significant in either ARI, and OAC functions without having proved herself to people who have a lot more say in those organizations than you do? It is a ludicrous proposition, and you should be ashamed of yourself for insinuating it in the way that you do.

By the way, Betsy, Betsy’s Laws cut both ways. They’re my laws too. They’re laws of reality. By stating them as your laws, you seem to be insinuating that reality is on your side. Luckily, they’ll function in either direction regardless.

Guys, drop this nitpicking about old fueds. PLEASE!. It’s unwarranted, and it’s unbecoming of this Forum. Take it to her forum if you’d like.

20

I never said that she did, but it is a fact that after her statement I received e-mails and PMs from FORUM members saying they feared what Diana might do to them if they posted on THE FORUM.

OK. Technically, you suggested she would, or might. Insignificant difference. All Diana said was, “Leave me alone.” How many people? Who? Is it the same people posting on that thread now? The same people who think Diana’s abandonment of TOC was ungenuine? They’re already gone, so it doesn’t surprise me that they are now paranoid.

I am not insinuating anything. I am reporting the concerns expressed to me by some FORUM members.

These are the SAME underhanded tactics you used to fight against. WHO? How MANY? What did they SAY? Of course, you won’t tell us, but you’ll say just enough to make it look like people are afraid of Diana. And of course, it’s not YOU saying that Diana is authoritarian. It is unnammed others. How is this different than Chris Sciabarra claiming that unnamed “scores” of people emailed him about the oppressive attitute of ARI?

You don’t have the courage to come out and say what you think of Diana yourself. So you’ve cloaked it in the annonymous testimony of whomever.

There were hundreds of posts during the election debate and not just the few briefly excerpted here.

SO WHAT? Did those following posts apologize for over reacting?

Also, you left out the fact that Dave, OO owner, recanted after saying that he thought the issue over and concluded that Peikoff is basically correct.

At the beginning of this post, you imply that Mr. Speicher deleted only posts that disagreed with his position, making the argument one sided. But then you admit that most people on the forum report having their posts deleted for a number of reasons–i.e., people on all sides of the debate.

That makes it WORSE. That gave Stephen the ability to rationalize his unjust moderation, claiming that he was deleting disrespectful posts. After all, he deleted disrespectful posts all the time!