More thoughts on "infantilism."

Here are forms in which I've seen it here:

1) "There are threads here on subjects that bore me. Waaaa! Waaaaa!"

2) "There are posts here I disagree with. Waaaaaaaa! Waaaaaaaaa!"

3) "Everyone doesn't immediately drop everything and come to attention when I post. Waaaa! Waaaaaaa!"

4) "SOLO hasn't yet transformed the world. Waaaaaaaaa! Waaaaaaaaaa!"

Everyone is free to come and go as he pleases. Except Mistress Phyllis right now. And everyone has a keyboard.

I think we may not be emphasising enough that SOLO is not for passivists. Staff are not here to make a revolution on their own. Every SOLOist, not just staffers, who's here because she agrees with the Credo should be a self-starter in terms of promoting it, and a world that is safe and congenial for the passionately rational and rationally passionate. I guess Objectivists are so used to a party line and a commissariat that they wait to be told everything. Part of what we're up against.

Linz

“…underestimated the Shakespearian perfidy and perverseness of human beings.”

At times like this, the life of Jesus may provide much needed solace.

Deserted by His closest companions, mocked and reviled for holding steadfast to His beliefs, He suffered grievously for our wickedness. But when all seemed lost, He rose triumphantly above His plight and vanquished His enemies.

Alternatively, one could take comfort from the words of that great healer of souls, Ann Landers, who counselled: “This too shall pass”.

"Rick. What the deuce does this mean??"

It means we're not done yet, Claudia.

Our creed is 6 years old, not 10.

Sorry, I was counting the wrong thing. It's a long time, anyway.

It's true that SOLO has yet to conquer the world, but I always gave us to the end of 2008. Plenty of time.

More than ample!

in my naive expectation that SOLO would be all plain sailing, had underestimated the Shakespearian perfidy and perverseness of human beings,..

Nice to see this list out in the open. Such honestly makes Phil's only redeeming feature- the healthy airing out of such poisions- totally redundant, and he with it.

4) Sciabarra's private e-mails about me to Joe Maurone,...

Hadn't been aware of that. Chris is a top bloke. I hope you choose to resolve your differences. Life's too short for burning bridges.

Did he flounce? Is he banned? I must have missed the dramatic defining point either way.

Hi Linz

There's obviously nothing I can do to ease the pain of all that scrofulous treason, but I hope some of these courtroom bloopers crack you up and put a smile back on that dial.

This line from "Risky Business" may be apt to adopt when faced with these dissapointments.

'Joel, you wanna know something? Every now and then say, "What the fuck." "What the fuck" gives you freedom. Freedom brings opportunity. Opportunity makes your future.'

I also found this ironic little joke quite funny when I first ran into it.

"You will be poor and unhappy until you are 45 years old," the fortune teller told the man, who asked, "Then what?" Said she: "By then you'll be used to it."

Remember

"The dogs may bark, but the caravan goes on."

-- Old Arab Proverb

Your understanding is manna from heaven.

I had a singing teacher in Christchurch who introduced me to Invictus set to music. I don't remember the composer and can't find any reference to such, even on wiki (where they report that it was Tim McVeigh's last message—yikes!).

My view of human beings has dimmed since starting SOLO, which wasn't exactly the idea. Aside from the sort of thing I already mentioned, there's such widespread infantilism. So many babies, nursing grudges they don't tell you about lest it remove their rationale for pouting and sulking, disguised as adults! There's none so queer as folk, that's for sure.

The greater the need for SOLO I guess.

Some of that sounds heart-breaking. All I can say is thank Galt we have someone like you at the helm, someone who won't be beaten easily.

I'm reminded of my favourite poem:

INVICTUS (William Ernest Henley).

OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

... that made me realise I, in my naive expectation that SOLO would be all plain sailing, had underestimated the Shakespearian perfidy and perverseness of human beings:

1) Reading Rand's journals in PARC and realising the true unspeakable cruelty of the Brandens' deception, and the sliminess of their attempts to vindicate themselves after her death and ascribe to her their own behavioural traits;

2) Rowlands' getting pissed off with the PARC debate and telling me he was going to close down SOLOHQ and start a whole new site—then just rolling SOLOHQ over and calling that the new site, replete with all the articles that had been written for SOLOHQ;

3) Kilbourne's disgraceful article attacking me for "alcoholism" and Barbara Branden's endorsement of same. In all my years of public life, I'd never personally experienced anything as low as this;

4) Sciabarra's private e-mails about me to Joe Maurone. Short of being lovers, I couldn't have been closer to Sciabarra. Or so I thought. Seeing what he was saying about me when he thought I wasn't looking was gob-smacking. It was all at BB's behest, of course;

5) Barbara's stubborn defence of a low-life Namblaphile, while being inordinately exercised by my "temper." I still find the moral inversion here unfathomable;

6) Tibor's confession to me that Nathaniel had made it a condition of the continuation of their friendship that he stop posting on SOLO. Worse than that was Tibor's capitulation.

7) Sciabarra's attempt to close down the SOLO debate on PARC, on Barbara's behalf, followed by his lie to James that he'd done no such thing. Problem was, we had the e-mail.

8 On the other side, Peikoff's fatwa. Rationalistic nonsense on stilts, which should have been renounced long since;

9) The defence of the fatwa by those who know better, culminating in James' saying fundamentalist Christianity is a "way bigger threat" than Islam right now.

These incidents illustrate the ongoing problem with both sides of the divide, and the need for a "Third Way" that just goes with the truth, unbeholden to tribal allegiances and silly personality politics. But they also derailed the Third Way, as unexpected booby-traps placed on the tracks.

"I love X, but I love the truth more." This we must keep in mind at all times, as we get back on track and resume the steadfast journey towards our goal.

Linz

said, Lindsay.

I find the Credo to be quite inspiring, especially the 'Say what you mean and mean what you say' and 'be true to yourself' parts.

I confess to having spent many years doing neither, preferring to be "diplomatic' and tolerant of a myriad of things I disagreed with.

I was the Grand Master of the meaningless comment, such as "NZ Idol seems very popular" in response to someone asking if I watched it.

About 2 1/2 years ago I decided enough was enough!

I set about a month long programme to 'de-spiv' my life ...eliminating all the Paris Hilton admiring, welfare supporting, popular culture addicted, impecunious , wimpy employee mindless beings and started being brutally honest.

Instead of 'weasel words' I started to honestly say "I think you are a f**king idiot, and here is why...." (before informing various people why their services or presence was no longer required)

However, it is not easy. You can take my word for it!

Brutal honesty, saying what you mean (rather than what people expect to hear), and being true to yourself can lead to all manner of problems...and not for the faint hearted!

Advocating Capitalism, existentialism, rational behaviour, freedom and numerous other matters is rather unpopular....not to mention pointing out the differences between people and the existence of an Elite (that word again!)..and you need to be constantly on your guard against opponents, (including in here)

I must say, however, I have never been happier...and never had more true friends and associates around me!

As for taking it to the common herd, I am all in favour.
Someone needs to come up with $1 million so Solo can hire some staff, engage in education programmes, publish various material and get stuck into changing the World.

(Now there is an idea)

Our creed is 6 years old, not 10. I should know—I wrote it. And have lived up to it. I can't speak for others. If we initially attracted some scumbuckets with hidden agendas, I can't really be blamed for that. I have never deceived, defrauded, backstabbed, connived, betrayed or engaged in any other behaviour the scumbuckets engaged in—behaviour I had thought no one even claiming to be an Objectivist, let alone anyone attracted to SOLO, would contemplate for a second. It took PARC to effect a necessary shakedown. The scumbuckets scarpered of their own volition, guilty as hell. I am proud of the part SOLO played in effecting a seismic shift in perceptions of Rand, once I awoke to the Brandens' racket. The whole furore, which I hadn't remotely foreseen, took a huge toll, no doubt, but the little matter of justice for Ayn Rand was at stake. A little matter to which the Phyllises of this world are entirely indifferent.

I kicked SOLO off because the ARI at that time was rigid, dogmatic and tribalist, while TOC was piss-weak. There's no question that ARI has unbent significantly, and TOC at least pays lip-service to its need to KASS up. Sometimes one's successes are subtle and untrumpeted. It's true that SOLO has yet to conquer the world, but I always gave us to the end of 2008. Plenty of time.

Linz

It's true that we have not become all that we might be, and that our aim is to be more than yet another internet forum. And, a lesser one at that.

Rick. What the deuce does this mean??

And, Mr. Coates was more concerned with writing Solo off more than anything.

Mr Coates was more concerned with SOLO's commitment to its potential than most. Unfortunately it took the form of mere unconstructive criticism.

It's true that we have not become all that we might be, and that our aim is to be more than yet another internet forum. And, a lesser one at that. But it's also true that Philip choose not resolve our difficulties but only to aggravate them.

But let us not pretend that there are no challenges, or that there have not been repeted unfortunate losses in 'human capital' both actual and potential. Against our ambitious 10 year old creed we are often found wanting. But we'll soon fix that, this time.

that is dreadful!

The Free Radical is great! how on Earth could anyone read it and not enjoy it?
I cannot wait for the next issue

Thankfully, and of course, SOLO transcends it. In any event, Phil can crap on SOLO elsewhere from now on. There is criticism and there is trollery. Phyllis is a troll.

I couldn't agree more. He hung around on Solo merely to take cheaps shots wherever he could... reeked of bad-faith to me. The worst one was informing us all how useless Solo and the Free Radical are in the greater scheme of things. Good call Linz.

That was on fRoRd. Sorry, didn't make that clear. I was curious to see how fast Phil would start crying foul.

The funny thing is, I don't actually see a whole lot of sympathy for his plight there either. Evidently he's been behaving the same way over there if Luke's assessment is accurate.

"Phil Coates is disgusting."

I've never met him in person so I'll reserve judgement. Certainly his internet persona is f---ing tiresome. And his behaviour towards Diana H strikes me as being a tad stalker-like.

Somehow I think SOLO will be the better for his departure.

Anyway, according to Phil you are a "subjectivist buffoon" and Diana H* is an "intrinsicist fanatic."

Such name-calling!

I take it this rant is on Frord, whose owner lied through his teeth to me about his intentions?

What does that mean to Phil? Nothing! What do honesty, integrity and honour generally mean to Phil? Nothing! He is an apologist for the Brandens contra Rand, for instance, without even having read them, or PARC.

Honesty and sincerity, SOLO's bedrocks, count for nothing; calling a sanctimonious, hypocritical twat "Phyllis" for good reason is the major sin. This, from someone who lacks the rudimentary breeding to know how to respect decent limits in someone else's house in which criticism of the landlord is allowed and routinely comes from all directions. By "limits" I mean such conduct as refraining from lies about the site on which one is posting being a cesspool of abuse when a simple reading of said site provides all the empirical evidence one needs that it simply ain't so.

Phil Coates is disgusting.

Linz

"Now you can tell the pholk at PhRoRd and PhLying, yet again, what a phwightful Phuehrer I am."

Your wish has been granted. Phil has graciously conceded your right to run SOLO as you see fit, but calls you a hypocrite for not blithely tolerating his eternal belly aching or persistant criticism in his words...

Trouble is I can't remember when Phil last contributing something positive to SOLO, and Luke Stelzer has questioned the existance of Phil's positive contributions to RoR.

Anyway, according to Phil you are a "subjectivist buffoon" and Diana H* is an "intrinsicist fanatic." It isn't easy being a mild mannered opponent of Objectivist Rage!

*Not sure why Diana H ended up copping a serve in Phil's rant about how you banned him... Maybe he's besotted!

Your phetid and inphinite phlatulence has phinally phorced me to phlick you ophph SOLO. I've had enuphph oph your bad phaith pharting. I look phorward to phresher air around here in phuture. Now you can tell the pholk at PhRoRd and PhLying, yet again, what a phwightful Phuehrer I am. Do phorgive the rest oph us phor getting on with phiner things.

Phlinz

Phil says I embody the behaviour that has held Objectivism back. I say he does. I could name two archetypes that give Objectivism a bad name: The Jerk and The Jerk-Off. In the first category are the haughty, conscientiously obnoxious types like Binswanker who think their obnoxiousness elevates them to Galt-like status; in the second are cheap imitations of Narcissism like Bidinotto and Phyllis. These two archetypes represent the retentive/incontinent dichotomy. Thankfully, and of course, SOLO transcends it. In any event, Phil can crap on SOLO elsewhere from now on. There is criticism and there is trollery. Phyllis is a troll. Or rather, was.

Brilliant Glenn!

Rain Coates

cannot imagine whom I was referring to as "Girly Men" ....

However, I think Solopassion is doing very well

There is a great deal of activity on the site, with people all over the World!

On the subject of 'breeding' ...ill breeding is when a chap cannot take a joke, moves from defending his corner to being a bore and a myriad of other things unheard of in educated, wealthy, elitist circles some of us move in ...(not to mention petty deceitfulness of the "I am setting up an entirely new website" variety)

As far as Solo goes in New Zealand, in the words of President Reagan "You ain't seen nothing, yet"

"...Solo is not successful, not large, not expanding..."

Unlike yourself, of course?

How about you make SOLO one fewer, and SOLOists much happier, by voting with your feet?

PC

> a lack of breeding to rain on other people's parades.

What -is- a lack of breeding is to withhold criticism when criticism is due.

The phrase 'rain on people's parade' is a loaded, distorted one which properly applies to withholding praise when someone is successful.

Solo is not successful, not large, not expanding . . . and it is EXACTLY my criticisms which explain why.

Just the facts, Objecto-babe.

they all just seem to have one thrust - but it's never stated boldly.

The James Valliant and Ayn Rand's "No-one ever helped me" thread.

Which one, they all kind of mesh into one in my mind when I happen to think about them.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

But you do parade-poop every single time! It's a constant from you.

Just look at my "Objectobabes" thread. As soon as I saw your name there on a post, I predicted what you would say, that somehow the girls had been chased away by incivility. And I was right. And you were wrong, as Kelly tried to make you see. You can't hide behind generalisations this time because I addressed the Objectobabes by name. It was clear to whom I was speaking... and clear whom you were speaking about.

When I grew up - and I grew up in a fairly civilised home, it was considered a lack of breeding to rain on other people's parades. It denoted small mindedness, envy, pessimism and ill-will. You Phil do it all the time, but I notice you are quick to try to rebuke others when it suits you, like you did Jennifer on Neil Parille's tedious thread.

Once again, Linz, a series of posts with a long string of anti-concepts or insults and misused terms:
-incontintent,
-party-pooper,
-Brandroid,
-Hsiehkovian,
-schoomarm,
-Phyllis

....and a failure to use a term in the intended sense (civility) and instead inflating it to fit whatever you object to.

Thereby deflecting a criticism by sliming the criticizer. What Lindsay Perigo too often seems to do best.

Actually I do.
Which is why on the rare occasion I use an epithet, everyone who is looking for any excuse to dodge the need to be civil crows about it.
And points to it as a reason why they don't need to practice it.

You don't practise it. Morbid, gratuitous parade-pooping is not civil, Phil. It's incontinent boorishness. It betrays lack of breeding. And politeness that is a sugar-coat for poison is not civility, either Phil. Nor is pointing out the poison INcivility, except for Brandroids like you.

(Your second point is false - I've already pointed out why on other threads and see no need to endlessly repeat things to you.)

Why Phyllis, how uncivil of you. Waaaaaa! Waaaaa!

And you've done nothing on other threads about this except evade.

> You don't practise it yourself

Actually I do.

Which is why on the rare occasion I use an epithet, everyone who is looking for any excuse to dodge the need to be civil crows about it.

And points to it as a reason why they don't need to practice it.

(Your second point is false - I've already pointed out why on other threads and see no need to endlessly repeat things to you.)

[Phil] needs to explain...with what manual of politeness endlessly crapping on one's host is reconcilable...[He] will never be civilised
Linz, I just realized the contradiction in your comment above: You have complained many times that there is something wrong with my criticizing you [or Solo, or how Solo is run] on your own website.

I note that the bit about "Shithead" has disappeared into the ellipses. But no, you are free to criticise, as you well know, since you take full advantage of it. When the criticism is as repetitive as it is inaccurate, and when it constitutes the bulk of your contributions here, then it's just possible your lack of basic potty training will be pointed out. Your crapping on Mitch's staff appointments parade was a last-straw demonstration of just how incontinently ill-mannered and mean-spirited you are, Phyllis.

Two things about your plea for "civility," Phil—1) You don't practise it yourself; 2) The issue is small change compared to the enormity of the moral wrongs by your pin-ups that you're prepared to look past. Which is why you and your pin-ups (and Hsiekovians when it suits) make it such an issue.

And folk can do what they like on other websites. But if they have some problem with SOLO and/or me and don't raise it here when they're at perfect liberty to then, yes, they're gutless in my book.

Linz

> [Phil] needs to explain...with what manual of politeness endlessly crapping on one's host is reconcilable...[He] will never be civilised

Linz, I just realized the contradiction in your comment above: You have complained many times that there is something wrong with my criticizing you [or Solo, or how Solo is run] on your own website.

But on other times, you have complained that people don't have the courage to come here and engage you or Solo. That they sneak away and attack or criticize on other websites. As if it's "behind your back" or something.

So, can I assume that you think any attack is improper if it's *here* and it's improper if it takes place *elsewhere*, on another logical place – a website where Oists congregate to discuss such things?

I noticed Phil use that particularly unimaginative invective also and thought exactly the same thing. Tut tut... very locker room indeed. I think he should sign up for lessons on how to insult with KASS - it will set him free! Inside that repressed, cauliflowered trichotomy there's a bitch troll mistress from hell screeching to get out.

Haaaaa!!

Thanks for slapping the namby-pambies.

I just saw Phyllis call someone "Shithead" on another thread. Now, if I call someone a name, such as "Mistress Phyllis," I make sure there's a point to it which is easy to work out if I don't explicitly define it myself (I doubt that anyone has trouble figuring out "Mistress Phyllis"). I would never repair to a gratuitous bar-roomism like "Shithead." Phyllis needs to acquire a better class of "insult." He needs to explain how "Shithead" is compatible with "civility." And with what manual of politeness endlessly crapping on one's host is reconcilable. But let's not hold our breaths. Phyllis will never be civilised, and Linz will never be Phyllisised.

is a wonder some chaps are not more thick skinned.

Let's have a group hug.

The trading of insults and invective is what Solo has largely become about. And then the exchange becomes about "you started it...and I'm just paying you back."

This is just rubbish. There are many issues being debated on this site all the time. Sure, insults are traded here and there, but to state that Solo is "largely about" insults and invective is grossly misleading.

Do you ever notice how hard on each other politicians are? You have to be positively thick-skinned and tough to survive a day in parliament. Perhaps because Lindsay has been predominantly a political journalist and broadcaster, he has a tough-minded mentality that matches that profession. I am sick of hearing him criticised for it - especially by namby pamby civility-at-all-costs-girly-men who have achieved little by way of comparison.

Man up.

> there is one thing that consistently amazes me on SOLO: Meanness of spirit.... [It] seems to be a common theme running through many of the threads, whether it be surlyness, rudeness, or just downright nastyness. ... the other major problem that I see on SOLO is the ultra-quick taking of umbrage. I can't for the life of me see WHY these instances keep occuring. I suspect some of it may have to do with the "culture" (I use that word very reluctantly) difference between Kiwis/Americans/Brits etc... [Mitch]

Mitch, it -is- culture, but not the culture of a nation. Once an institution (such as this website) develops a culture or a personality, it attracts those who like or don't object much to that culture. Solo has become a place where you slime and slander and vilify your opponents.

That is not likely to change because it's owner doesn't particulaly mind that or grasp that it is destructive, unless it is directed at those he agrees with on a particular issue. It's what Linz does as a "personality", a caricaturist, a journalist.

And he doesn't see that what works in what we in America call a "shock jock" or entertainment or broadcast environment, doesn't work in building a close-knit community for a common purpose or around a common philosophy.

> I believe these issues are holding SOLO back from becoming the utopia and fountains of ideas that it will eventually become . . .

Very true, but how can it become that? You think people are going to want to work together (or get together socially in a Solo Conference) after they have spent all year publishing their mutual contempt and ridicule for each other.

Didn't work in high school.

Ain't gonna happen as adults.

You would have to reverse the culture of insult. Instead, it will continue to be riven by faction, by insult, by ad hominem, by angry departure and by irate and ineffectual -- and mean-spirited -- threads.

The trading of insults and invective is what Solo has largely become about. And then the exchange becomes about "you started it...and I'm just paying you back."

And then you nurse your resentment for months and lay in the weeds and see if you can "get" the person who dissed you in the NEXT thread.

You can scream and call me names and make long eloquent posts pounding fists in disagreement.

But that's the way it is.

that the gorgeous Claudia doesn't have balls -- but her right hook would most certainly shatter the glass jaws of all the girlie-men present.

As well as the "Waaaaa!" Award we could set up SOLO-Waaaaaaaa for the girlies in our midst! They could offer mutual counselling and leverage each other's grievances to get a positive outcome going forward.

Seems to me some of the actual girls here, like Claudia, have more balls than many of the "men" combined.

I agree Mitch. I don't have time to worry about other people's feelings constantly -- especially those who are quick to question my good faith or to take offense. I'm offended by the offended!

Wm

“CROWD: "Oh shut up, Brendan!!”

Now you’re sounding like Mr Thompson on a bad day.
The fact that one person is acting as both player and referee creates at least a potential conflict of interest. Closing your ears doesn’t alter that fact. In effect, Mitch has used his executive capacity to settle a personal dispute.

Rand had a saying to the effect that anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today. What we have “today” is cronyism and the demonisation of a minority viewpoint. That’s not a good foundation for the future, and in the wider scheme of things, no better than average.

Brendan

I find myself continuously thinking about how my 'monthly message' has managed to generate so much controversy.

I know I've not been around here for as long as some of you, so I may not know the full history of different relationships, but there is one thing that consistently amazes me on SOLO: Meanness of spirit.

It was the LAST thing I expected when I joined SOLO, but this meanness of spirit seems to be a common theme running through many of the threads, whether it be surlyness, rudeness, or just downright nastyness. Unfortunately, many posts that have been written in good faith are now being interpreted as though there was a "mean" agenda. I count my post as an example.

It has been assumed that my post was designed to "get back" at certain people, also that I had a "personal vendetta" against an "enemy". I can assure you all that this was the furthest thing from my mind. I was incredibly surprised that anybody would suspect me of nastyness when writing my "monthly message", and in good faith I attempted to explain that this was not the case, even though I found the entire suggestion to be laughable.

I hope that most of you saw my 'monthly message' for what it was attempted to be; a humourous update of the month's activities, designed to stimulate a bit of friendly discussion.

Ironically, the other major problem that I see on SOLO is the ultra-quick taking of umbrage. I say it is ironic because most of the umbrage-taking occurs in response to a post made in good faith!

I can't for the life of me see WHY these instances keep occuring. I suspect some of it may have to do with the "culture" (I use that word very reluctantly) difference between Kiwis/Americans/Brits etc, but I think most of it remains an individual issue.

I believe these issues are holding SOLO back from becoming the utopia and fountains of ideas that it will eventually become, and I will be doing my best to see them eliminated. To all our newer members who are wondering (as I did) why everyone keeps abusing each other, I say: "never fear, Mitch is here"

Below, in the crowd, a lone voice bleats through the majestic reveille...

BRENDAN: "... There is an inherent conflict of interest in a situation where a person who takes part in general debates also holds a position that enables him to comment and make judgements on others in an ‘official’ capacity."

Suddenly the trumpets silence and Lord Lees appears high upon the 'official' turret, breaks open the 'official' seal on the 'official' scroll, unrolls it and reads aloud in an 'official' voice...

LORD LEES: "Highly Commended—Mistress Phyllis, for not delivering a sermon for 3 whole weeks."

All the people roar with laughter — all bar one...

BRENDAN: "The temptation in that situation is to use one’s position to settle personal scores, and in fact--"

CROWD: "Oh shut up, Brendan!!"

Jameson: “Two words for you, Brendan: Glasshouse. Stone.”

“Vitriolic” because that describes the context of the awards. If the debates had been more benign, the awards would have been in keeping with the context.

OK, my words were a bit strong. I wrote in the heat of the moment. In my defence, the decibel level on SOLO is pitched pretty high anyway, so in context I don’t think my comments were out of place.

But my main point is about a principle, not specific personalities. There is an inherent conflict of interest in a situation where a person who takes part in general debates also holds a position that enables him to comment and make judgements on others in an ‘official’ capacity.

The temptation in that situation is to use one’s position to settle personal scores, and in fact, Mitch says “there was an element of truth to the award…” So it looks very much like he was carrying over a personal vendetta into his capacity as the SOLO administrator.

Brendan

It's been fascinating as a snapshot and an object lesson. A snapshot of the shortage of Nems in the world, even here. The pettiness, the meanness, the smallness, the funless spiritual dwarfism, the stupid testosteronery displayed here, are testament to why the world needs oases like SOLO ... and that even oases can get polluted. And they're testament to my own failure to get the message across as to what SOLO is all about.

I'm leaving Jose at the top of the homepage for so long for this reason. There for all to see in living breathing flesh is a real-life hero, a Nem Writ Large, one beautiful, fabulous human being. Anyone unmoved by that is a waste of space, a non-human in my book. What is SOLO all about? Watch that interview! See the Credo come to life, even if Jose drops one hell of a soul-body clanger right at the start. (Just goes to show that folk with the right explicit philosophy can still be shitheads, and folk without it can still be heroes.)

The importance of bigness of spirit. On SOLO, size matters.

Linz

Storm. Teacup. Rick the cause of.

Just history repeating itself.

PC

At least Rick got 'services to Islam' and not 'services to Islamism'.

you think SOLO is a battle of personalities rather than ideas? That's sad, mate... because even if it was you'd lose that contest too.

Brendan: (to Mitch) "You and several others have had more than one vitriolic run-in with Rick over Islam."

Brendan: (about Mitch) "... cowardly and corrupt, especially when you know you have the support of the pack..."

Two words for you, Brendan: Glasshouse. Stone.

Two words for you, Rick: Stick. Stone.

And here's a couple for you, Ross: Mellow. Stone.

“I did not single Rick out for attack, how many awards were there?”

You and several others have had more than one vitriolic run-in with Rick over Islam. In your monthly round-up, you award the highest accolades to a couple of Rick’s bitterest opponents – your mates – while dumping on Rick.

Perhaps you weren’t aware of the implications of what you did, but one of your friends certainly understood the weapon you were handing him, and was quick to wield it.

There is an inherent conflict of interest for you between your SOLO position and your participation in debates. How you handle that is up to you, but cronyism and feeding the pack is probably not the best way to go.

Brendan

"For good measure he tries to play Mitch off against me as well."

What?? Umbrage-taking, now paranoia? Goodness. Have a glass of wine... or two. Relax.

I'm bouncing around North America. Go figure!

Secondly, the award is not an attack on your work.
Disagreeing with your views
and giving you an award because of it is NOT attacking your work. Agreed?

Quite agree. Nobody suggests otherwise.

Perhaps my point is too subtle for you, Mitch. Because it is not my work that is in question here- it is yours.

Counter to Ross' suggestion I'm not going to speak my mind because that would undermine your position.

Responding to your little joke would involve counter-attacking you in the capacity of your role on SOLO. I would be attacking your work- furiously.

There's been plenty of cursing and abuse at my expense here (esp Glenn, lately) and elsewhere over the Islam issue. I've looked past it, except in this case because this time it's actioned as offical SOLO business- you're responsible beyond your usual careless self for those you talk down to from this pulpit.

Were I to reply in kind I would not be replying to Mitch the individual, but Mitch the SOLO Executive. I'd be attacking you and your work- despite our 'standing orders' I'd either have to, or else take a whipping in silence. For me to reciprocate woul (and yet may) have me evaluating your choice of words here, your failures, and your ability so far to deliver on the arrangements you've promised to keep these past two months. But, as I say, I'll let this one slide.

Third, I didn't reply to your e-mail for the same reason I didn't want to reply to this post. You've blown this out of all proportion and I didn't feel it warranted a response.

As you can see, trusting to your feelings to contain this has been a great failure. Next time you feel like ignoring a conflict you can reflect on this lesson and instead use your brains to decide what not to fuck with.

It's not as if I didn't try to be able to talk about this sort of thing in email or text messages. You didn't want to talk.

I trust there wont be a next time. Not at my expense or anyone elses'. I'm dropping it, but I hope the hint is not too subtle that if you do otherwise we'll see you don't have a monopoly on this kind of "humor."

ps Delighted to see it's open season on publishing private emails. That'll serve me well just in case.

Now, let's get on.

The private message that Rick is referring to was sent to all of us. Here is the relevant part:

ps Not thrilled to find that SOLO has awarded me the
disgrace of being a servant of Islam

pps If SOLO is employed to do this then our 'standing
orders' disarm staff members from making a proportionate
response in their own defense

pps Suggest SOLO awards not be exercised so as to put staff
in this compromising position, or that leave be granted to
"trash" such abusive "work" whenever it is so unwisely
exercised

I read it, thought "he's blown this way out of proportion," and thought nothing more of it, as I assume everybody else did.

As you know, the standing orders are: one staffer cannot trash the work of another in public. I imagine this is a fairly common rule. The orders don't say you can't criticise another staffer's views. That would clearly be ridiculous.

Again, this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion, and I can't believe I am having to justify my position like this.

BTW, where is Rick? He's started a fire on this thread, is he not going to put it out?

I'm wondering if there's a contagious type of male menopause going around?!

First, we have Rick's grandstanding. Really, nothing new or surprising in that. Going back years he's had a seemingly incurable urge to denigrate those who give him a platform. I'm the only one muggins enough to continue to put up with him. Then we have Ross doing his Mistress Phyllis impersonation, when even the real Mistress Phyllis took these awards in the spirit in which they were bestowed. For good measure he tries to play Mitch off against me as well. Then we have Menstrual Maurone doing his Hsiekovian flounce on the God thread, blathering about something I said about jazz that I've long since forgotten that supposedly proves Linz is a hypocrite. Then out of the blue I get an IM from someone I'd not previously thought to be unhinged saying "Take me off SOLO. Your website makes me sick." Before I can say so much as "Huh?" he's flounced off AIM, leaving me wondering, what the fuck was that about?! I still don't know! Now Brendan posts something so ludicrous it's self-lampooning. Brendan's a pomowanker, so I expect nothing better, but you other guys ... honestly, you're supposed to be for reason and freedom. Did the reason bit escape your notice? Do you think infantile foot-stomping = passion?

I'm thinking of a "Waaaa! Waaaaa!" Award for the next update. Problem is, with so many crybaby contenders with unimpeachable credentials, it'll be bloody hard to pick a winner.

Galt give me strength!

Grow the fuck up!

Linz

“…especially because those we are fighting against (along with a few others) HATE its use.”

How does this statement classify Rick as the enemy???

"Using your SOLO position to single out one member for attack is cowardly and corrupt"... "Now you hide behind the defence of ‘humour’."

WTF???

I did not single Rick out for attack, how many awards were there? And I am not NOW hiding behind the defence of humour. The whole bloody article was written in the spirit of humour, as Ross pointed out. How about you re-read the original post?

"your enemy is apparently bound to silence by a rule of collective responsibility or ‘democratic centralism’."

Firstly, Rick is not my enemy. Secondly, SOLO staff have been instructed not to criticise the WORK of others on the public message board, as it is unprofessional and unhelpful (see the "Site Upgrade Complete" thread). That's all. There is no rule preventing Rick from having a cry about being given a humourous award. If I had given him an award for "Shitty Podcast Production" (which I wouldn't do because I like the Podcast AS I MENTIONED), THAT would have been criticising his work, and therefore out of line. As I pointed out previously, Rick's views on Islam have nothing to do with his work for SOLO.

Brendan, you have misinterpreted not only what I have written, but the spirit in which it was written. And good on ya for overreacting and chucking in the "cowardly" and "corrupt" insults. I actually think it says a lot more about you than me.

"Actually, what bothered me the most about your post is that you appear to be encouraging Rick."

I took Rick at his word. If he's asked you, privately, about something that he's got a concern about, and you feel it's beneath you to reply, then I guess he's got no choice but to raise it publicly. And he said he was uncomfortable doing that.

That's why I suggested he say what's on his mind.

And I'm glad you weren't offended by my comments, unlike Lindsay who took enough umbrage for both of you.

What's preventing Rick from his right to reply? This is an open forum, no?

I hardly think Mitch is cowardly, corrupt or, as you've implied, a second-hander. You might want to get your facts straight before you mouth off with your vile rhetoric.

BTW, Brendan, you're right: Islam is a codeword for filth, and Rick is the enemy within. Feel free to persuade us differently.

Mitch: “…especially because those we are fighting against (along with a few others) HATE its use.”

So Rick is now the enemy? Using your SOLO position to single out one member for attack is cowardly and corrupt, especially when you know you have the support of the pack and your enemy is apparently bound to silence by a rule of collective responsibility or ‘democratic centralism’.

Around these parts, Islam is a codeword for filth and squalor, so your attack was made in the full knowledge of its impact. Now you hide behind the defence of ‘humour’. If you want to duke it out with Rick, step outside of the pack and go at it one-to-one.

Brendan

that you won't be changing your tone next month. The awards were FUN... and right on the ball. Mayhem of the month is perfect for me. My month has been mayhem and I guess my cup runneth over.

Actually, what bothered me the most about your post is that you appear to be encouraging Rick. Or was that sarcasm?

I'm not going to give it a rating, but I can't say the rest of it bothered me too much at all, and it's unlikely to make me change my tone next month. Sorry mate.

After all, humour is one of the most valuable weapons we have, especially because those we are fighting against (along with a few others) HATE its use.

And I wasn't being flippant.

Enough is enough mate.

Firstly, even Phil (no offence intended Phil) took this as the joke it was intended to be. While there was an element of truth to the award (given the crap you've been spouting on this issue), the award was an attempt (in my view good, in your view bad) at humour.

Secondly, the award is not an attack on your work. The paragraph just above the SOLO Awards is all about the Podcast, in which I said:
"SOLO Podcast 3 was released in July...I was impressed, and I highly recommend it...It has been very well put together by Rick Giles."

Did you miss that?

If I had said "the Podcast is shite", that would be attacking your work. Disagreeing with your views on Islam (not your work) and giving you an award because of it is NOT attacking your work. Agreed?

Third, I didn't reply to your e-mail for the same reason I didn't want to reply to this post. You've blown this out of all proportion and I didn't feel it warranted a response.

Not particularly happy about having to do this in public, but if I don't it appears I'm being "secretive" or something.

"Hey - leave my mate Rick alone! This award is just not right! He should have been recognised for his unwavering Services to 'Criminals'."

It was all just a laugh ...(despite the Working Class wording)

Other chaps should calm down a bit and accept Mitch intended to be amusing.

Tell me, what do *you* think of my reply to Rick's comments? On a scale of 1 to 10--1 being unperturbed and 10 being disgusted--what's your reaction?

... a new band: Mistress Phyllis and the Anals. Lead vocals: Rick and Ross. First single: "I'm hoping the tone will be improved next month."

Carry on, Mitch. For mine, the tone was just right, the awards were a huge giggle, and you're doing a great job. I'm proud of you.

Linz

...just say what's on your mind.

For mine, when I first read Mitch's monthly report, I, like a few others no doubt, felt it was a tad too flippant considering its supposed status. I'm hoping the tone will be improved next month, but I catch your drift.

I have sought advice from Mitch and his SOLO staff in private email on how to reply to this.

Since no apology or advice or reply has come I'll assume it's seemly to reciprocate such public attacks by SOLO with public attacks upon SOLO. That'll be fun.

This, despite the fact that all we SOLO staff (that's me too) are under standing orders not to attack one another's work.
I don't want to be unprofessional, but what's one to do when that "work" consists of attacking one's staff members and then hiding like a chicken?

Strike 3, Lees.

they omitted this one: "Lip Service to Islam - Kenny"

My suggestion is "Services to fascism - SOLO apologists for Dubya and supporters of Guiliani." There are no prizes for guessing who the winners, sorry losers, are.

Services to Islam—Rick Giles

Can we change that to services to liberty?

No, I didn't think so.

I did not realise!

A friend of mine gets very angry with me whenever he uses moronic terms like "bling", "homies", "Yo", "Cool" or other nonsense-speak and I get up and walk out with a "you know the rules, Stephen, I am not listening to idiocy".

It's Negro American!!!

That would imply that they work

as part of a jokesy message I have absolutely no idea what the following means ...

Hey homies, now we've pimped da crib we can do heaps more cool shit dat'll get yous all pumped and postin'!!"

(can someone translate as I do not speak 'Working Class')

tell me you're all taking the piss!? Like I was!

Galt! I thought it was obvious!

PC, I'm actually quite pissed off at leaving "moving forward" out. Watch out for that next month

Thanks to Jameson for the NZQA approved translation:

"Hey homies, now we've pimped da crib we can do heaps more cool shit dat'll get yous all pumped and postin'!!"

P.S. OK, so I play soccer. At least I'm not vegetarian

Didn't think he'd fool Irishman though!

We nearly made a Longest Period Award to the obvious candidate, but thought we'd wait to see if it was actually menopause.