Protecting a Red Head - Australian PM Has Difficult Time With Aboriginal Demonstrators! Cannot Tie That Kangaroo Down, Mate!

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Who is being laughed at?

> your audience thinks you're a clown to laugh at [MSK]

Someone is being widely viewed as laughable. That's certainly true, but it is within the 'regulars' on OL.

Not all of them but my "foils" - a pitifully small group - about six or seven people. Those who have more discernment have left. Don't make the mistake of considering Brant, ND, Ellen, J., and maybe three others as "the audience".

Any wider audience insofar as they notice thinks the OL regulars are largely 'clowns'. And they laugh at you and how you dodge and try to sidestep the really good advice I give. Some of the emails I get offlist say things like "Phil, you make sense but you're casting pearls before swine with those people."

The comments I get are that I'm making intellectual mincemeat out of you guys. Just like I did the Wolfpack defending Diana and attacking Sciabarra.

[Philip Coates]

They also think that calling someone a "schoolmarm" for offering criticism or suggestions for change or improvement is the kind of clownlike name-calling that an eight year old (or in some cases a Toohey) would do.

You guys are lucky if the worst thing you are widely thought of as being is clowns.

[Brant Gaede]

Your allies are cowardly not to come here and openly support you. In the meantime, your data are suspect.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

It's hard for me to say someone is lying, but I believe Phil is making up his data.

He's lying, or playing that game where you receive an email from a friend and call it "emails" or a movement.

Seeing as he has been banned from so many other places on the Internet, and his total lack of competence at handling Internet resources (so demographic research is not an option), I don't give him the benefit of the doubt on his integrity right now.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here.

Let me help him out with at least one hard fact. I found someone who did ridicule OL recently.

... outright attacks from Objectivist Living cretins,...

Now where did that come from, I wonder I wonder?

Oh yeah.

Here on Noodlefood--one of the sites that banned Phil.

That lady is presumably including Phil as one of the "Objectivist Living cretins."

Heh.

(I won't say anything about Ms. Nasir except she defended her tribe against perceived enemies like tribe members do by casting stones in the wind, firing guns in the air, burning flags and so on when they get riled up in group. Other than that, I don't know anything about her. And I'm not interested enough to pursue research on her.)

The comments I get are that I'm making intellectual mincemeat out of you guys.

Dayaamm!

That sounds serious.

Michael

[william.scherk]

What a funny thread. As far as I understand things, Grundy has a few bitches. After peeking in at the grumbly old thing I seem to have cornered the issues at question. The bitching and complaining is centred on several notions:

1. Adam's post of the Australia Day Giliard-bundling incident was unwelcome at OL
   
2. Adam posts too much 'political trivia'
   
3. Adam's posts go against the ethos of OL
   
4. All disagreements with Grundy are WRONG
   
5. Adam needs to listen to and obey Grundy from this point on
   
6. Grundy's criticisms need airing
   
7. Grundy has highlighted an important issue
   
8. Grundy says that her POV trumps all other POVs. ALL of them.
   
9. Grundy ...
   
10. Grundy
    

Now, here I am simply going to re-iterate Grundy's points as I see them.

But first, some details of Grundy and The Man (the Man is MSK).

MSK built and maintained "Objectivist Living" in an effort to put up the kind of Objectivish-oriented web forum that he wanted to see created. He ( and Kat, of course) built his own web forum. MSK invited contributors. MSK established (with consultations) a 'filing system.' MSK ran the site with the lightest possible hand on the official tiller, the official Red Button. Compared to other Objectivish web forums, this one, OL, is the free-est. Only one (?) account has ever been banned. MSK welcomes Grundy (in her alter ego Phil Coates) to participate at OL in any way Grundy sees fit.

Grundy has (best evidence shows) done NOTHING to establish her own web forum. Grundy has rejected MSK's open offer for a Corner Of Further Insight on OL. Grundy is BANNED from every other major Objectivish Forum. BANNED from everywhere but OL.

So, to my eyes, Grundy is a parasite (in the same way I, WSS, am a parasite) on MSK's efforts. Grundy has attached herself to OL and considers herself a sage elder -- whereas the opinion of the rest of OL's readers and contributors seems to be overwhelmingly against Grundy's self-appointment as Overseer, Corrector and Conscience.

Grundy, sadly, stupidly, incessantly and self-thwartingly, attempts to speak with authority, as a Teacher, on Objectivist Living. This stance of Teacher is rejected across the board, not by folks who hate/dislike/reject Grundy utterly. Grundy's self-regard does not match the opinion of other participants. Grundy has ZERO support for her lecturing behaviour (though her points may indeed have value, the points are marred by presentation). Grundy sweeps all objections to her dictates off the table without discussion. Grundy sweeps away Carole's objections and rejoinders (I should mention that Carole herself is a known altruist, a card-carrying Canadian. She posts on subjects such as Canadian politics (trivia?), the great game of Hockey, and other subjects that do not seem to attract the knuckle-rapping attention of Grundy.

I re-stress one point here at the hinge of my argument.

Grundy is completely and utterly convinced of her righteousness and rectitude. ALL other points raised in opposition to her posturing are wrong.

OK, now back to the present situation. Grundy again raises her points on the Gilliard security incident. The points are:

• the Gilliard security incident is trivial, of no proper interest to anyone on the OL forum
  
• the Gilliard security incident rightly ought to have been ignored by Adam (Adam should NOT have posted it).
  
• the Gilliard security incident is not interesting or important
  
• the Gilliard security incident is not interesting or important in Australia
  
• the Gilliard security incident is not interesting or important in the Commonwealth
  
• the Gilliard security incident is not interesting or important to Australians on Objectivist Living
  
• Carole is wrong, completely and utterly
  
• Brant is wrong, completely and utterly
  
• MSK is wrong, completely and utterly
  
• MSK runs his web forum incorrectly
  
• WSS is wrong, utterly and completely
  
• Ninth is wrong
  
• Ellen is wrong
  
• Criticisms of Grundy dating back to 1999 are wrong
  
• Adam posts too much
  
• Brant posts too much
  
• MSK has set up everything wrong, and continues to do everything wrong, and Objectivism is Degenerate
  
• All media is Trash Journalism (according to Grundy)
  
• All media reports on the Gilliard security incident are trashy and yellow and awful and boring and trivial and blah blah
  
• Everything anyone has written on this thread in re Giliard is WRONG
  
• Every point raised in defence of the value of reporting on the Gilliard security incident is WRONG
  
• All mention of the Gilliard security incident is Against Grundy Rules
  
• Everyone is wrong but Grundy
  
• No one will acknowledge that Grundy is right, one hundred percent right
  
• Grundy understands all the arguments and points raised in good faith against her Lesson Plan
  
• Grundy understands that all these arguments are WRONG, completely and utterly WRONG
  
• No one, not one single person on OL, understands Grundy's point
  
• Grundy will reiterate her point until everyone agrees that she is 100% correct.
  

This is not exhaustive. There are some things wrong that Grundy has yet to expose, and subtle variations of You Are All Wrong that I have not teased out.

In the end, what do we have? In my opinion we have a perfect example of self-thwarting online behaviour, an example of cognitive rigidity and amour-propre. Grundy, bless her sweet soul, really wants to be acknowledged as the unquestioned Authority. She feels, I suspect, that this is her due.

Now, to my eyes, Brant said it most clearly: DO NOT TEACH ON ME. And this sheds light on the implacable nature of the conflict between Grundy and others here. Grundy believes that she has the right and the authority to teach up a storm whenever and wherever she wants, on any subject. Various list members reject this stance.

Finally, I notice that Grundy goes against her own precepts in this thread. Disdaining distortion, she distorts other folks' arguments. Against intellectual evasion, Grundy evades any pointed questions to her. By her own rigid rules, she has simly motored through the crowd of sincere, considered, thoughtful and impassioned responses.

Think about that for a minute. Think about the towering disdain and contempt Grundy feels for you and your opinions on the Gilliard affair (the ostensible topic here). Think about that contempt in its raw form, its self-blindedness, its hypocrisy and its self-destructive nature.

I shall add a few topic scrawls to Grundy's enormous blackboard, and append to this message later today.

In the meantime, the most revealing of Grundy's words in this thread, unalloyed.

• It's depressing when a supposed site for intellectuals, for the cultured, for those who supposedly have some interest in ideas, the arts, literature, etc. make the same mistake of "politicization" of their interests that the media is leading them by the nose toward.
  
• on the old OWL or Atlantis lists there were always multiple threads going on technicla issues in philosophy - free will and determinism, etc. My complaint then was the out of balance in the other direction.
  
• the -content- of some of those threads can often tend to be numbingly boring and repetitious
  
• thread about the Australian P.M. losing her shoe is even less relevant
  
• Because brouhaha and embarrassment in Australia is directly relevant to American national interests (sarcasm).
  
• Why not start a thread on when a Burmese general fell down the steps of his airplane ladder?
  
• Don't knock contemporary yellow journalism.
  
• I'm ready to start an entire thread just to post a video I have of the leader of South Korea picking his nose.
  
• you and your "snark pack" brothers need to learn to accept when someone 'teaches at you'** with important lessons about character, conduct, reading skills, thinking and fallacies.
  
• My purpose in the second part of the post was to teach like a schoolmarm, to instruct or explain to the recalcitrant.
  
• Sometimes with the obstinate you have to use "Scherckian" over-the-top language.
  
• to get people to see that how they are behaving like people they would not admire.
  
• The comments I get are that I'm making intellectual mincemeat out of you guys.
  
• calling someone a "schoolmarm" for offering criticism or suggestions for change or improvement is the kind of clownlike name-calling that an eight year old would do.
  

Edited January 27, 2012 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Amy's out of Chicago. Just like the President, BTW. Is it a coincidence or is it Chicago or is it in the water?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone is interested, I just checked the stats. Since Dec. 27, we've had 7,945 Unique Visitors (total of 84,048 Pageviews).

I'm absolutely sure these people are coming here for Coates enlightenment and to laugh.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Balance: I don't need no stinkin' "balance"!

--Brantzapa

[william.scherk]

Why -- it occurs to me -- why should anyone accept Mrs Grundy's position as self-appointed arbiter? What has Grundy done in her own name in the wide field of Objectivish things?

Let me ask Phil: Phil, my friend, what gives you the right to perch ABOVE all other folks on this list (especially when you have done fuck all in the following areas)?

1. Published an article (no)
   
2. Established your own blog or website (no)
   
3. Written a book (no)
   
4. Established a reputation as a fair-minded analyst (nope)
   
5. Collaborated with another Objectivish person in present-day project (no)
   
6. Accepted critical corrections to style and focus of your own comments (rare to vanishing)
   
7. Explained why you returned to posting on a site (OL) that you have previously denounced (nope, never)
   

See where I am going with this, Phil?

Here is my summary judgement: you will NEVER get satisfaction from your teaching efforts here, because no one wants you to be their teacher. You have thus far destroyed your own influence and ability to inform and persuade.

What have you done, my friend, to allow you to dominate and direct discussion?

If you could entertain this question, and understand the implications, you might break free of behaviour that only damages and subverts your own stated interests and goals. This is for me the horrible centre of your frustration with Others. This is why you give Lesson Plans to others, and not to yourself. You seem immune to the self-same lessons you demand Others apply. This, and this alone, prevents you from realizing your goals.

You might surprise me (and others) by answering any one or two of my numbered notes above. I suspect you will not -- because it seems to me that you are locked-in to habitual reactions, utterly unable to confront your own errors and misapprehensions. In ordinary terms this is hypocrisy. In your case it is so deeply embedded in your behaviour that you cannot see it. My heart aches for you, Phil, it really does. You damage yourself ...

I say again that I feel sorrow for you, for your self-blindedness. It is (within the parameters of your own life and love and satisfaction) your tragedy. It is awful. It is instructive. It is deeply saddening. It is so ingrained, so central to your self-concept, so self-destructive that it seems it will never end until you die ... this brings me to the point of tears for you, Phil, it really does. I worry for you, I wish you only the best and only for personal happiness in your life. That you will trundle to the grave without self-correction strikes me deeply. It makes me very depressed at myself, my futility, my failure to help. It hurts, Phil. You hurt yourself, and I feel it.

Why can't you accept reality, Phil, and learn from it? You will not get the respect you crave by continuing your self-destructive path of Schoolmarmery.

Edited January 27, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Subject: Who is being laughed at?

> your audience thinks you're a clown to laugh at [MSK]

Someone is being widely viewed as laughable. That's certainly true, but it is within the 'regulars' on OL.

It could be because, in notable contrast to the other O-sites I have read, the regulars address serious subjects not only with deadly seriousness but also with humour (good humour, Phil), wit, and occasional satire. You do it yourself. They also banter for the pleasure of it and introduce irreverent frivolity (gasp) outside the LOLOL thread.

There is an implication here of Ayn Rand's wonky theory of what should be laughed at and what shouldn't, which is an interesting subject, if you care to note it.

Carol

Proudly laughable

[9thdoctor]

Published an article (no)

Ahem, lest we forget:

http://www.theatlasp...g-community.php

The article that led us to discover just how wide ranging Phil’s vocabulary is! Want to see the “C” word? Just roll out the “H” word. I dare ya, I double dare ya!

Some of the emails I get offlist say things like "Phil, you make sense but you're casting pearls before swine with those people."

Does Phil have some imaginary friends? I wonder if they look like gargoyles.

[william.scherk]

Published an article (no)

Ahem, lest we forget:

http://www.theatlasp...g-community.php

Hmmm.

I did not describe what I meant by published, so certainly I will accept an op-ed at the Atlasphere. It was a not bad article (for those who do not care to read it, the link leads to an article "Using the Atlas movie to meet people.")** Moreover, since Atlasphere has a reputation as a place to find properly Objectivish people to take to bed or the altar or to a rapt group listen to old Peikoff LPs, I think it is safe to assume that Phil has followed his own advice and opened up a new chapter in his personal relationships. It can't be easy to find Objectivish friends in the Tampa area, I suppose.

Mind you, there are (I looked) a number of Objectivish groupings in the metropolitan area. It would sure be interesting, psychologically, to discover if Phil had any success implementing his Meet People strategy ...

Phil, can you up the tone of this whole sprawling mess? Could you open a separate thread relating the thrills and spills you have had socially in the Tampa area since your column at the Atlasphere? That was in April 2011. It is now 2012. Surely you can report on the success of your Plan. It must have paid huge dividends, given that you The Teacher almost guarantee that if the fucking degenerates here would follow the Lesson Plan, they too could be as happy, accomplished and sexually/socially/emotionally satisfied as you are.

So, did you at least get laid, or what?

____________

** in fairness to Phil/Mrs Grundy, I have missed several items of published output. I offer my sincere apologies to Phil and Ninth for the error.

Here is what the Author Note at Atlasphere had to say about Phil on that same page cited above (emphasis added):

Philip Coates

is an educator who currently teaches history, literature, and thinking skills at the Challenger School, and in the past has been an instructor at the New School for Social Research and a departmental guest lecturer at UCLA.

His articles have appeared in professional and academic journals and magazines, including The Independent Review, Reality, Objectivity, and the Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery

. Also, he has been

editor and publisher of Classics Review

, a book review newsletter on timeless and classic books.

Edited January 28, 2012 by william.scherk

[9thdoctor]

Mind you, there are (I looked) a number of Objectivish groupings in the metropolitan area. It would sure be interesting, psychologically, to discover if Phil had any success implementing his Meet People strategy ...

Uh-oh, I think you forgot how the story played out. Notice how I mentioned the “H” word? I admit that was too obscure. “H”, as in hypocrite. Far as we OLers know, Phil never went to see the movie. This fact prompted Ellen to say “money where mouth is”, so Phil called her a bitch, then she called him a hypocrite, then he called her a cunt. The “C” word. This led to his too brief hiatus from OL, so if he saw the movie at some point we haven’t heard about it.

[william.scherk]

Uh-oh, I think you forgot how the story played out. Notice how I mentioned the “H” word? I admit that was too obscure. “H”, as in hypocrite. Far as we OLers know, Phil never went to see the movie.

Right. I forgot the denouement. How embarrassing.

This fact prompted Ellen to say “money where mouth is”, so Phil called her a bitch, then she called him a hypocrite, then he called her a cunt. The “C” word. This led to his too brief hiatus from OL, so if he saw the movie at some point we haven’t heard about it.

Right. How deeply depressing.

However, I think that Phil must have attended the movie, even if he was not able to do so on the opening weekend(s). Somewhere on the internets we might find his review of the movie.

[Philip Coates]

Well, I go away for most of the day and I'm impressed by the enormous variety of responses to my last post(s) : they range from dumb to really dumb. (There was one that was intelligent but mistaken.)

This is what those 7k unique visitors and bots see when they visit...and go away without wanting to join up and post. That's why OL seems to be fairly widely laughed at. Yes, there are good posts as Daunce points out, but the Snark Pack - J, ES, ND, B, etc. - tend to drown them out by taking elephant turds in the middle of the room.

Oh, I forgot to mention there -are- good threads on OL.

But most of them seem to have been started by me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Have you noticed that these are the same people you have engaged on several other forums over the years, actually for more than a decade?

Is that a coincidence or is that your community of choice?

(It just keeps getting worser and worser...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

One has to assume Phil gets what Phil wants, the proof is he keeps doing the same thing over and over again getting the same responses over and over again. We must love him, sort of.

--Brant

[Mikee]

Cancer cells are pretty much immortal aren't they? At least until the host dies.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Respect for Facts, Getting them Straight in Argument

> Have you noticed that these are the same people you have engaged on several other forums over the years, actually for more than a decade? [MSK]

Michael, it's amazing how intellectually sloppy you are: Different people not the same ones at SoloP like Fred Stitt, Linz, Diana, and the four or five grad students in philosophy and a bunch of New Zealanders. Different people again at RoR (Bill Dwyer, Robert Malcolm Ed Thompson, Steve Wolfer, and many more.) Another whole group of people at OWL and Alantis.

Other than the SoloP group, the regulars at the other three sites were more civil, more thoughtful and more interested in ideas than ND, J, Brant, and Adam (in topics other than politics that is). And no I wasn't "kicked out" of any of those three forums:

Another example of what Rand would call "intellectual hooliganism". But I'd just call the sloppiness and disregard for facts oy you and the other most frequent posters here.

I took a few minutes to correct two of your misstatements - same people & kicked out. But will you acknowledge and say 'whoops'? Or just shift to another line of attack? Or just try to find a 'yes but' loophole? (There was also the silly statement by someone that I had never published...but why add more factual errors...)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Yawp yawp yawp.

XYZ posted, say, on RoR, and this is supposed to mean that the people here weren't posting there while you were posting.

Gimmee a break!

Intellectually sloppy? What makes you think I'm trying to do anything intellectual when I address your neurotic crap?

You've been preaching BS for so long I am starting to think you truly believe in your own BS.

Here's a clue from earth calling Phil. The fundies won't have you because when fundies shun, they do it for real. People on our side of the divide are a hell of a lot more benevolent. The people here on OL may throw tomatoes and rotten eggs at your schoolmarm persona (which you luuuuuuuv for some damn reason), but the truth is they are the only ones who put up with you. As they have for years.

I certainly don't see you active anywhere else.

Dayaamm!

Michael

[caroljane]

One has to assume Phil gets what Phil wants, the proof is he keeps doing the same thing over and over again getting the same responses over and over again. We must love him, sort of.

--Brant

Yup, we must. The House that Mike Built here he built as a community, not an MSK podium or an ARI or TAS communication arm. And every community has its Cranks and its Old Miseries as well as its Sages and Wiseacres, and the usual assortment of humanithy,

Your comment made me think of my favourite song in Fiddler ."After 25 years....do you love me?"

[william.scherk]

I spoke to an old friend on the phone today. Not a friend of long-standing, but married to the man that made my musical career. The conversation, at times sad, was a good one. We exchanged vows of mutual assistance and cooperation. She will get my help writing a proposal, and I get her help in editing a brief memoir.**

It made me think of crazy-seeming things that are profoundly sane, somehow.

In that spirit, and in the spirit of a thread filled with irrelevant delights and videos, here is another offering. It has absolutely nothing to do with any theme in this thread -- and yet somehow (Saussurean flux?) it is all about Phil.

____________

** I might be in another movie! Not as a performer, but as a character. I say might be, because, well, although I am in the book that the movie is based on, there are no guarantees that the memoir as published will feature all of us stray ravers from the Old Days.

Here's a link that covers the movie news. It wil be of interest probably only to Carol (whom I will beseech to stalk the production once it begins filming (if it shoots in Toronto). I want to be in control of stories of my life, and so the reason for me to get that memoir of those times done before the premiere ....

Edited January 29, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

The fun continues in TV studios in the Arab world. This is again concerning Syria, but the venue is the program Al-Ittijah Al-Mu`akis on Aljazeera Arabic. The combatants again a Lebanese supporter of the Syrian regime and an opponent of the Syrian regime.

[BaalChatzaf]

The fun continues in TV studios in the Arab world. This is again concerning Syria, but the venue is the program Al-Ittijah Al-Mu`akis on Aljazeera Arabic. The combatants again a Lebanese supporter of the Syrian regime and an opponent of the Syrian regime.

Islam. The religion of Peace.

Ba'al Chatzaf