Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[caroljane]

* see corrected post # 523 above...

Goshdurn yer corrections, If we all drink everything at the rate we drink beer, we'll be alright. Hic.

[caroljane]

Could you clarify this for me? I do not read the political threads there, though I know LP writes "international Op-Eds" but I assumed his focus was NZ politics, why would he get worked up over the US election?

Oh......something like the fate of the world depending on it?

Honestly, the question leaves me feeling, Where to begin? I guess you don't know much about the long, long history of Linz having extremely strong views on world politics and on what the US ought to do and on the importance of the US doing what he thinks the US ought to do (if only we'd all listen to him, what a wonderful world it would be, that sort of self-assessed significance placed on his own views). Plus he has this thing about "loyalty." Being disagreed with about politics by persons he considers -- or formerly considered -- friends gets him, if anything, even more worked up into a rage than being challenged on aesthetics.

Ellen

Good grief. I have read some of his aesthetics stuff and it was so overwrought, at first I thought it was parody. If the politics are worse i will just keep avoiding.

I said I would avoid the politics over there, but I could not help reading the descriptions of candidates, one is an evil lunatic and another is a totalitarian nightmare, plus the previous idiot, and those are just the Republicans. What does he expect the US to do? Blow itself up in a tantrum?

[Selene]

This is what goes through Pigero's mind when he comments on world politics:

//

[caroljane]

This is what goes through Pigero's mind when he comments on world politics:

//

lol "Everyone would have a new song to sing" and if it wasn't one of Lanza's greatest hits they would not be singing long!

That Slobba lady looks like one of my buds down at the Hag & Sporran. Life of the party type.

[seymourblogger]

Could you clarify this for me? I do not read the political threads there, though I know LP writes "international Op-Eds" but I assumed his focus was NZ politics, why would he get worked up over the US election?

Oh......something like the fate of the world depending on it?

Honestly, the question leaves me feeling, Where to begin? I guess you don't know much about the long, long history of Linz having extremely strong views on world politics and on what the US ought to do and on the importance of the US doing what he thinks the US ought to do (if only we'd all listen to him, what a wonderful world it would be, that sort of self-assessed significance placed on his own views). Plus he has this thing about "loyalty." Being disagreed with about politics by persons he considers -- or formerly considered -- friends gets him, if anything, even more worked up into a rage than being challenged on aesthetics.

Ellen

Good grief. I have read some of his aesthetics stuff and it was so overwrought, at first I thought it was parody. If the politics are worse i will just keep avoiding.

I said I would avoid the politics over there, but I could not help reading the descriptions of candidates, one is an evil lunatic and another is a totalitarian nightmare, plus the previous idiot, and those are just the Republicans. What does he expect the US to do? Blow itself up in a tantrum?

Now stop. LP just knows how to name call with over the top adjectives. Just like Michael Stuart Kelly. Realy there is so little difference , well, maybe they don't look alike.

[seymourblogger]

Could you clarify this for me? I do not read the political threads there, though I know LP writes "international Op-Eds" but I assumed his focus was NZ politics, why would he get worked up over the US election?

Oh......something like the fate of the world depending on it?

Honestly, the question leaves me feeling, Where to begin? I guess you don't know much about the long, long history of Linz having extremely strong views on world politics and on what the US ought to do and on the importance of the US doing what he thinks the US ought to do (if only we'd all listen to him, what a wonderful world it would be, that sort of self-assessed significance placed on his own views). Plus he has this thing about "loyalty." Being disagreed with about politics by persons he considers -- or formerly considered -- friends gets him, if anything, even more worked up into a rage than being challenged on aesthetics.

Ellen

Good grief. I have read some of his aesthetics stuff and it was so overwrought, at first I thought it was parody. If the politics are worse i will just keep avoiding.

Glad I have missed the aesthetics. What a blessing. Please don't tell me where they are.

[seymourblogger]

That Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo would get all wound up over this dude "plagiarizing" a quip is a hoot.

"[D]o you believe your consciousness will survive the death of your brain (I confess to finding the evidence that this has already occurred quite strong)?"

So Jabba booted this guy for repeating back at him a putdown that Jabba had just used? On the grounds that he didn't give attribution? If you say to me "Yo mama", and I reply "nah, yo mama", that's plagiarism? Jeez.

That's just the precipitating straw culminating a long history. Plus, I suspect that Linz is in a generally worked-up mood because of anger at what persons he once considered friends are saying on the multiple active threads about the coming US presidential election.

Either way, this Darren guy's clearly a complete asshole.

I don't agree that he's an "asshole." A provocateur. Very smart, prodigiously well-read, and with an eye for genuine problem areas. A shame, imo, he doesn't write up his critiques in essay form instead of employing his talents irritating posters on web lists. I guess he does his schtick just for amusement.

Ellen

darren doesn't irritate me. Definitely NOT an asshole. Maybe it's just that most of the rest are wondering how many angels can daunce on the head of a pin.

He's a post modern writer Ellen. If the world is non linear then why should writing be in linear essay form? He's following Nietzsche. Does he know it? Dunno.

[seymourblogger]

This would be easy to resolve if we knew the real name of the poster on Solo, as we do the one on OL.

Both "Darren" on SOLO and "AristotlesAdvance" on OL indisputably argue for Intelligent Design. I'll document re "Darren" in the next post.

The OL poster with the screen name "AristotlesAdvance" gives as his full name "Aristotle Economides." Have you ever heard of anyone with such a last name? It sounds made up to me. I suspect it's a reference to Darren's profession. If I remember correctly, Darren said on his SOLO user profile that he's a financial analyst. He gave "Darren Wrede" as the full name, a name which rings real. The photo might even be a real photo of the poster, but if Darren indeed was an usher at Peikoff's 1976 course, as he's claimed somewhere in his SOLO posts to have been, then the photo -- which is of a young man -- has to be numerous years out of date.

Ellen

This would be easy to resolve if we knew the real name of the poster on Solo, as we do the one on OL.

Both "Darren" on SOLO and "AristotlesAdvance" on OL indisputably argue for Intelligent Design. I'll document re "Darren" in the next post.

The OL poster with the screen name "AristotlesAdvance" gives as his full name "Aristotle Economides." Have you ever heard of anyone with such a last name? It sounds made up to me. I suspect it's a reference to Darren's profession. If I remember correctly, Darren said on his SOLO user profile that he's a financial analyst. He gave "Darren Wrede" as the full name, a name which rings real. The photo might even be a real photo of the poster, but if Darren indeed was an usher at Peikoff's 1976 course, as he's claimed somewhere in his SOLO posts to have been, then the photo -- which is of a young man -- has to be numerous years out of date.

Ellen

Ellen, this is so funny. Where I live Greek names are a norm ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was filmed nearby) and I did not give his stated real name here a second thought,

but I did wonder why a Greek guy would call himself "Darren" on Solo!

Maybe for no reason at all! You all remind me of the rob Pattinson fangirls wondering why he just cut his hair, or why he wore that Viet Nam jacket to the Berlin film festival, or how come he is stil smoking, or is he going to do Child 44 next, or or or or

You are as stupid as they are.

[caroljane]

Ellen, this is so funny. Where I live Greek names are a norm ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was filmed nearby) and I did not give his stated real name here a second thought,

but I did wonder why a Greek guy would call himself "Darren" on Solo!

Maybe for no reason at all! You all remind me of the rob Pattinson fangirls wondering why he just cut his hair, or why he wore that Viet Nam jacket to the Berlin film festival, or how come he is stil smoking, or is he going to do Child 44 next, or or or or

You are as stupid as they are.

Good catch, Seymour! On the royal clothes & jewels fansite I am deeply involved in debate on whether the Duchess of Cambridge should wear her hair up more often, and what tiaras the Queen ought to lend her. Don't know about Ellen though, she seems to be more intelleckshewal than me.

[Xray]

[commenting on Darren]:

A provocateur. Very smart, prodigiously well-read, and with an eye for genuine problem areas.

I agree with your assessment. Darren is a very astute type, who instantly spots the weak points in a debate opponent's argumentation.

His 'emotional' intelligence seems to be somewhat underdeveloped though. He kept insulting LP, with the insults increasing in coarseness as the debate progressed. No forum owner would have tolerated that. Darren was downright cruising for being banned.

[Xray]

but I did wonder why a Greek guy would call himself "Darren" on Solo!

Maybe for no reason at all!

Janet,

Everything we do has a reason.

Let's do the test and see if Rand's "check your premises" works here.

If the "Greek" guy suddenly switched to such an un-Greek poster name, one gets a contradiction.

Contradictions rest on at least one false premise. What could the false premise be?

Most likely the premise that this is a "real Greek" guy is false.

Supporting evidence: the artificially sounding Artistotle Economides in his OL profile. (See Ellen's comment upthread on the name).

So what we wrongly peceived as the "Greek" guy may just have been an admirer of Aristoteles.

Switching from Aristoteles to the unspectacular English "Darren" tips the scale toward "Darren" being his real name.

Possible reason for his switching to the first name "Darren": he may have wanted to come across as a more 'real' person (the picture he put up supports this as well).

As Ellen pointed out, the photo may have been from his younger days, and again, one can think of a reason why he did this.

I'm not saying these are the real reasons, it is mostly speculation.

But what is not speculation, but reality: all our actions have reasons, without exception.

As goal-seeking entities, we are firmly planted in the realm of causality and finality; in case you now say that "postmodernists" deny this, I invite you to a debate where you can play "postmodernist advocate" if you like.

On the royal clothes & jewels fansite I am deeply involved in debate on whether the Duchess of Cambridge should wear her hair up more often, and what tiaras the Queen ought to lend her.

Carol, remember that simply awful hat Fergie's daughter Beatrice was wearing at the Royal Wedding? This is among the most hideous headgear I've ever seen!

http://nowmagazine.m...-Beatrice15.jpg

Janet would probably call it a "postmodern" hat ...

[PDS]

That Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo would get all wound up over this dude "plagiarizing" a quip is a hoot.

"[D]o you believe your consciousness will survive the death of your brain (I confess to finding the evidence that this has already occurred quite strong)?"

So Jabba booted this guy for repeating back at him a putdown that Jabba had just used? On the grounds that he didn't give attribution? If you say to me "Yo mama", and I reply "nah, yo mama", that's plagiarism? Jeez.

That's just the precipitating straw culminating a long history. Plus, I suspect that Linz is in a generally worked-up mood because of anger at what persons he once considered friends are saying on the multiple active threads about the coming US presidential election.

Either way, this Darren guy's clearly a complete asshole.

I don't agree that he's an "asshole." A provocateur. Very smart, prodigiously well-read, and with an eye for genuine problem areas. A shame, imo, he doesn't write up his critiques in essay form instead of employing his talents irritating posters on web lists. I guess he does his schtick just for amusement.

Ellen

darren doesn't irritate me. Definitely NOT an asshole. Maybe it's just that most of the rest are wondering how many angels can daunce on the head of a pin.

He's a post modern writer Ellen. If the world is non linear then why should writing be in linear essay form? He's following Nietzsche. Does he know it? Dunno.

If you only have a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. Right?

No, SM-Blogger, I don't think Darren is a post modern Nietzche fellow. I went and read through his stuff. At least most of it.

My primary diagnosis: he is a thorough-going agnostic who is highly irritated by the "faith" others have in evolution, and the mental laziness his O'ist adversaries have about the subject. Secondary diagnosis: he is a lapsed randian, well-read in the reasons the movement has been spinning its wheels in the ditch for 40-plus years, and likes to amuse himself by sticking it to people who drove the car in said ditch.

He also holds his booze pretty well, but that's when some nastiness slips out.

[caroljane]

On the royal clothes & jewels fansite I am deeply involved in debate on whether the Duchess of Cambridge should wear her hair up more often, and what tiaras the Queen ought to lend her.

Xray said,

Carol, remember that simply awful hat Fergie's daughter Beatrice was wearing at the Royal Wedding? This is among the most hideous headgear I've ever seen!

http://nowmagazine.m...-Beatrice15.jpg

Janet would probably call it a "postmodern" hat ...

lol it was nonlinear for sure!

[caroljane]

On the royal clothes & jewels fansite I am deeply involved in debate on whether the Duchess of Cambridge should wear her hair up more often, and what tiaras the Queen ought to lend her.

Xray said,

Carol, remember that simply awful hat Fergie's daughter Beatrice was wearing at the Royal Wedding? This is among the most hideous headgear I've ever seen!

http://nowmagazine.m...-Beatrice15.jpg

Janet would probably call it a "postmodern" hat ...

lol it was nonlinear for sure!

X, if you get a kick out of Hideous Royal Fashion there is great stuff on the Royal Order of Sartorial Splendour, one of my fave brain relaxer sites, along with watching national anthem singings at sports events and great hakas

You would simply not believe some of the stuff Queen Margrethe of Denmark wears in her hair. Let alone some of the dresses which she designs herself. She is an "arty" type queen.

[william.scherk]

[commenting on Darren]:

A provocateur. Very smart, prodigiously well-read, and with an eye for genuine problem areas.

I agree with your assessment. Darren is a very astute type, who instantly spots the weak points in a debate opponent's argumentation.

His 'emotional' intelligence seems to be somewhat underdeveloped though. He kept insulting LP, with the insults increasing in coarseness as the debate progressed. No forum owner would have tolerated that. Darren was downright cruising for being banned.

It struck me that Claude/Aristotle/Darren did show a kind of bad faith. Whatever his smarts and his immersion in topics of interest, he did not engage with the front-line. His sneers about evolution were not delivered to evolutionists, and his epic fails in supporting design arguments come precisely from his insults and refusal to engage with those actually debating such issues.

He haunts the Objective-ish purlieus but even there he does not do what many others like me do, identify himself.

So now, like Janet, he is reduced to five posts a day here, to Dissent at RoR if not banned, at SOLO, unlike Janet, he is no more. Having myself been made no more at SOLO a couple of times, may he suffer the pain well ... if anything may soothe him is that although he is excluded from the "most open" site in the objectivish universe, he still has the real world open to him. He can join ongoing ruckuses at all manner of places where ID idiocies abound or are eviscerated, whether Uncommon Descent, Panda, Pharyngula, or the hundreds of other forums devoted to arguing the fine points of dreary ID.

The cloak is what annoys me. If he was always Darren from Greektown, why did he not name himself in RoR as later at SOLO? And if he indeed is the Mystery Greek Aristotle of OL, then why did he not self-identify as aka Claude Shannon. So many of us here use our real identities (or like 9th and Jonathan, explain their akas), it seems strange to not only evade identifying oneself, but using guises. What point?

Why should an Objectivish person have to go toe to toe with an ID adherent. The real opponents who put in the labour are at other places. "Darren" rarely quotes from rebuttals or critical responses to hoary old ID bullshittery, nary a word taken from real arguments is quoted beyond a soundbite, so I long ago looked past the arch and sneering tone.

Of course, Lindsay tolerated him for a long long time, as he was often a very engaging debater offside his obsessions and nastiness of approach. I personally do not like to engage with folks as nasty and abrasive and chauvinist as Darren. I considered him one of the obsessed one-eyed kooks of SOLO, albeit one with a large cerebral cortex, verbal facility, and rightfully proud of some success in the world, and for some success in pricking a few balloons on some subjects.

Ultimately, the behaviour of Darren/Aristotle/Claude is under someone's control, and it is not us. I find the implacable chauvinism of a Darren to be uncongenial, always in a tone of attack and rather relishing denigration and insult for its own sake.

So, I hope if Darren is represented here in one already standing account or another, I hope he takes the opportunity to enter discussions that interest him -- if not to answer questions about the Evul of SOLO or the Awfulness of the tormenters and censors. Better yet if he takes his learning and immersion in ID issues to places where he can get a strong argument back.

Too bad he finally descended into nastiness and subverted his own message and platform. If indeed it was bad faith to go after Perigo in such personally-denigrating terms, then who can say he did not bring it on himself.

Funny how all the mini-purges and exclusion zones in the Objectivish online worlds commands attention. Does it put any Objectivist principles in action or is it just housekeeping?

I don't think Darren is a post modern Nietzche fellow. I went and read through his stuff. At least most of it.

My primary diagnosis: he is a thorough-going agnostic who is highly irritated by the "faith" others have in evolution, and the mental laziness his O'ist adversaries have about the subject. Secondary diagnosis: he is a lapsed randian, well-read in the reasons the movement has been spinning its wheels in the ditch for 40-plus years, and likes to amuse himself by sticking it to people who drove the car in said ditch.

He also holds his booze pretty well, but that's when some nastiness slips out.

Some of what must attract some folks to Rand -- her polemical writing passages, her tone of righteous anger and a certain pointed and oft-powerful vituperative edge -- some of this is ugly in the hands of a fan or former fan. Taking her outrage and insulting asides made against Mystics and Dewey and other devuls on the one hand -- stirring, satisfying punctuation on a ruthless argument against that which she finds odious -- this is good stuff, as they say.

But when nasty lesser lights get down to and below Rand's occasional excesses of condemnatory rhetoric, ugly minds and hearts show ugly results.

Not that Darren gets belligerent and nasty when drunk (as once was said about the Emperor hisself) but that he plays with folks he considers stupid kids, zombified also-rans, addled fools under tutelage, third-rate minds trapped in ordinary bodies plagued by dreams of superhumanity.

If Darren was and is so grand and correct on certain themes, why harry only the Objectivish? and why should the Objectivish carry the load of response for the entire scientific community that finds Darren arguments specious, uninformed, avoidant of counter-arguments.

On the whole, I found Darren like a lifeguard at the toddle pond all angry at the waterwinged screamers. If he didn't like the water and the talent there, surely he could get a better gig at a bigger and smarter and more challenging adult beach.

Edited February 26, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

<p>

</p>

<p>

[commenting on Darren]:</p>

<p>A provocateur. Very smart, prodigiously well-read, and with an eye for genuine problem areas.

</p>

<p>I agree with your assessment. Darren is a very astute type, who instantly spots the weak points in a debate opponent's argumentation.</p>

<p>His 'emotional' intelligence seems to be somewhat underdeveloped though. He kept insulting LP, with the insults increasing in coarseness as the debate progressed. No forum owner would have tolerated that. Darren was downright cruising for being banned.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It struck me that Claude/Aristotle/Darren did show a kind of bad faith. Whatever his smarts and his immersion in topics of interest, he did not engage with the front-line. His sneers about evolution were not delivered to evolutionists, and his epic fails in supporting design arguments come precisely from his insults and refusal to engage with those actually debating such issues. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>He haunts the Objective-ish purlieus but even there he does not do what many others like me do, identify himself. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>So now, like Janet, he is reduced to five posts a day here, to Dissent at RoR if not banned, at SOLO, unlike Janet, he is no more. Having myself been made no more at SOLO a couple of times, may he suffer the pain well ... if anything may soothe him is that although he is excluded from the "most open" site in the objectivish universe, he still has the real world open to him. He can join ongoing ruckuses at all manner of places where ID idiocies abound or are eviscerated, whether Uncommon Descent, Panda, Pharyngula, or the hundreds of other forums devoted to arguing the fine points of dreary ID.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The cloak is what annoys me. If he was always Darren from Greektown, why did he not name himself in RoR as later at SOLO? And if he indeed is the Mystery Greek Aristotle of OL, then why did he not self-identify as aka Claude Shannon. So many of us here use our real identities (or like 9th and Jonathan, explain their akas), it seems strange to not only evade identifying oneself, but using guises. What point?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why should an Objectivish person have to go toe to toe with an ID adherent. The real opponents who put in the labour are at other places. "Darren" rarely quotes from rebuttals or critical responses to hoary old ID bullshittery, nary a word taken from real arguments is quoted beyond a soundbite, so I long ago looked past the arch and sneering tone. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Of course, Lindsay tolerated him for a long long time, as he was often a very engaging debater offside his obsessions and nastiness of approach. I personally do not like to engage with folks as nasty and abrasive and chauvinist as Darren. I considered him one of the obsessed one-eyed kooks of SOLO, albeit one with a large cerebral cortex, verbal facility, and rightfully proud of some success in the world, and for some success in pricking a few balloons on some subjects. </p>

<p><br />

Ultimately, the behaviour of Darren/Aristotle/Claude is under someone's control, and it is not us. I find the implacable chauvinism of a Darren to be uncongenial, always in a tone of attack and rather relishing denigration and insult for its own sake.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So, I hope if Darren is represented here in one already standing account or another, I hope he takes the opportunity to enter discussions that interest him -- if not to answer questions about the Evul of SOLO or the Awfulness of the tormenters and censors. Better yet if he takes his learning and immersion in ID issues to places where he can get a strong argument back. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Too bad he finally descended into nastiness and subverted his own message and platform. If indeed it was bad faith to go after Perigo in such personally-denigrating terms, then who can say he did not bring it on himself. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Funny how all the mini-purges and exclusion zones in the Objectivish online worlds commands attention. Does it put any Objectivist principles in action or is it just housekeeping?</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>

I don't think Darren is a post modern Nietzche fellow. I went and read through his stuff. At least most of it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My primary diagnosis: he is a thorough-going agnostic who is highly irritated by the "faith" others have in evolution, and the mental laziness his O'ist adversaries have about the subject. Secondary diagnosis: he is a lapsed randian, well-read in the reasons the movement has been spinning its wheels in the ditch for 40-plus years, and likes to amuse himself by sticking it to people who drove the car in said ditch. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>He also holds his booze pretty well, but that's when some nastiness slips out.

</p>

<p>Some of what must attract some folks to Rand -- her polemical writing passages, her tone of righteous anger and a certain pointed and oft-powerful vituperative edge -- some of this is ugly in the hands of a fan or former fan. Taking her outrage and insulting asides made against Mystics and Dewey and other devuls on the one hand -- stirring, satisfying punctuation on a ruthless argument against that which she finds odious -- this is good stuff, as they say. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>But when nasty lesser lights get down to and below Rand's occasional excesses of condemnatory rhetoric, ugly minds and hearts show ugly results. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not that Darren gets belligerent and nasty when drunk (as once was said about the Emperor hisself) but that he plays with folks he considers stupid kids, zombified also-rans, addled fools under tutelage, third-rate minds trapped in ordinary bodies plagued by dreams of superhumanity. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>If Darren was and is so grand and correct on certain themes, why harry only the Objectivish? and why should the Objectivish carry the load of response for the entire scientific community that finds Darren arguments specious, uninformed, avoidant of counter-arguments. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>On the whole, I found Darren like a lifeguard at the toddle pond all angry at the waterwinged screamers. If he didn't like the water and the talent there, surely he could get a better gig at a bigger and smarter and more challenging adult beach.</p>

<p> </p>

<div id="-chrome-auto-translate-plugin-dialog" style="opacity: 1 !important; background-image: initial !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-color: transparent !important; padding-top: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; position: absolute !important; top: 0px; left: 0px; overflow-x: visible !important; overflow-y: visible !important; z-index: 999999 !important; text-align: left !important; display: none; background-position: initial initial !important; background-repeat: initial initial !important; ">

<div style="max-width: 300px !important;color: #fafafa !important;opacity: 0.8 !important;border-color: #000000 !important;border-width: 0px !important;-webkit-border-radius: 10px !important;background-color: #363636 !important;font-size: 16px !important;padding: 8px !important;overflow: visible !important;background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right bottom, color-stop(0%, #000), color-stop(50%, #363636), color-stop(100%, #000));z-index: 999999 !important;text-align: left !important;">

<div class="translate"> </div>

<div class="additional"> </div>

</div>

<img onclick="document.location.href='http://translate.google.com/';" src="http://www.google.com/uds/css/small-logo.png" style="position: absolute !important; z-index: -1 !important; right: 1px !important; top: -20px !important; cursor: pointer !important;-webkit-border-radius: 20px; background-color: rgba(200, 200, 200, 0.3) !important; padding: 3px 5px 0 !important; margin: 0 !important;" /></div>

This is very to the point. We all contain " multitudes within us" and the[ parts of the we choose to display, we display.

[Selene]

Carol:

You need to edit post # 541 - you repeated the info six (6) times!

[Ellen Stuttle]

So what we wrongly peceived as the "Greek" guy may just have been an admirer of Aristoteles.

What Carol wrongly perceived as the "Greek" guy. I thought the name was fake right off. I also suspected that the poster was the same person who had previously used "Claude Shannon" on RoR, that name being an obviously fake one referring to the information theory Claude Shannon.

As to why Darren switched to what I suppose is his real name on SOLO (after posting there for a bit as "AristotlesAdvance" and I think -- I'd need to double check this -- getting banned under that name), because Linz is hard on fake identities and will hound someone he suspects of using a fake identity. Plus, judging from the material Darren then got into, Darren wanted to argue other issues from the perspective of his own history with Objectivism. (He's said enough on that subject, and consistent enough, I'm convinced he really does go back to while AR was still alive, though there are conclusions he came to with which I disagree. Indeed, my first run-in with him was over one of those, whether she'd read Darwin's Origin and rejected the theory but kept her reasons quiet for fear of looking like a closet creationist.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

My primary diagnosis: he is a thorough-going agnostic who is highly irritated by the "faith" others have in evolution, and the mental laziness his O'ist adversaries have about the subject. Secondary diagnosis:  he is a lapsed randian, well-read in the reasons the movement has been spinning its wheels in the ditch for 40-plus years, and likes to amuse himself by sticking it to people who drove the car in said ditch.

He also holds his booze pretty well, but that's when some nastiness slips out.

The first paragraph is pretty much what I think, too.

[Edit: See qualification in post #553.]

But where do you get the idea that Darren's a boozer? Are you partly mixing him up with Brant, who sometimes posts on SOLO while drinking (but who, on the other hand, I wouldn't describe as ever becoming nasty).

Ellen

Edited February 27, 2012 by Ellen Stuttle

[caroljane]

Carol:

You need to edit post # 541 - you repeated the info six (6) times!

Adam, I am sorry, it is my keyboard, dead but it wont lie down.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I fixed it.

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol,

I fixed it.

Michael

Thank you Michael, comme toujours.

[Selene]

Carol:

You need to edit post # 541 - you repeated the info six (6) times!

Adam, I am sorry, it is my keyboard, dead but it wont lie down.

Carol:

It is time to shoot the keyboard and pick up a new one.

Please, I do not want to send the North Carolina dad on an undercover mission to execute your keyboard...

we might hit the damn cat...

[caroljane]

[commenting on Darren]:

A provocateur. Very smart, prodigiously well-read, and with an eye for genuine problem areas.

I agree with your assessment. Darren is a very astute type, who instantly spots the weak points in a debate opponent's argumentation.

His 'emotional' intelligence seems to be somewhat underdeveloped though. He kept insulting LP, with the insults increasing in coarseness as the debate progressed. No forum owner would have tolerated that. Darren was downright cruising for being banned.

It struck me that Claude/Aristotle/Darren did show a kind of bad faith. Whatever his smarts and his immersion in topics of interest, he did not engage with the front-line. His sneers about evolution were not delivered to evolutionists, and his epic fails in supporting design arguments come precisely from his insults and refusal to engage with those actually debating such issues.

He haunts the Objective-ish purlieus but even there he does not do what many others like me do, identify himself.

So now, like Janet, he is reduced to five posts a day here, to Dissent at RoR if not banned, at SOLO, unlike Janet, he is no more. Having myself been made no more at SOLO a couple of times, may he suffer the pain well ... if anything may soothe him is that although he is excluded from the "most open" site in the objectivish universe, he still has the real world open to him. He can join ongoing ruckuses at all manner of places where ID idiocies abound or are eviscerated, whether Uncommon Descent, Panda, Pharyngula, or the hundreds of other forums devoted to arguing the fine points of dreary ID.

The cloak is what annoys me. If he was always Darren from Greektown, why did he not name himself in RoR as later at SOLO? And if he indeed is the Mystery Greek Aristotle of OL, then why did he not self-identify as aka Claude Shannon. So many of us here use our real identities (or like 9th and Jonathan, explain their akas), it seems strange to not only evade identifying oneself, but using guises. What point?

This annoys me also, because although ideas are free and anonymous, those who uphold them must be identifiable, as single individuals who hold the ideas they say they hold. Multiple identities might work in primary votes or opinion polls, but not in one-on-one conversations.

[PDS]

My primary diagnosis: he is a thorough-going agnostic who is highly irritated by the "faith" others have in evolution, and the mental laziness his O'ist adversaries have about the subject. Secondary diagnosis: he is a lapsed randian, well-read in the reasons the movement has been spinning its wheels in the ditch for 40-plus years, and likes to amuse himself by sticking it to people who drove the car in said ditch.

He also holds his booze pretty well, but that's when some nastiness slips out.

The first paragraph is pretty much what I think, too.

But where do you get the idea that Darren's a boozer? Are you partly mixing him up with Brant, who sometimes posts on SOLO while drinking (but who, on the other hand, I wouldn't describe as ever becoming nasty).

Ellen

Ellen:

I come from a household (and generations) of boozers, and, from an unfortunately young age, have long had a radar for these things--albeit a not infallible one, so I may be missing the mark.

My experience in life is that someone that smart is not usually that nasty, or at least not that gratuitously nasty in such an uneven and patchy way, without outside influences, such as booze. For intance, his calling you a gossip-monger and likely therapy candidate back in the day was entirely gratiuitous and out of proportion to anything to anything warranted by your comments. I also seem to noticed his making a reference to Brant in a manner that a boozer might do...So, assuming he is a boozer is actually more benevolent than the alternatives.

That being said, I got a kick out of watching the back and forth. The dude is wickid smart, and that makes up for a lot.