Why is SOLOHQ material not archived on RoR?

Tim S's picture
Submitted by Tim S on Wed, 2006-03-01 00:09

When Joe Rowlands decided to break away from SOLOHQ, he wrote:

"Lindsay will retain the SOLO name brand, and will have a new website where he will present his own goals and direction for the organization. I will step down as Executive Director of SOLO and form my own organization and websites, with a stronger focus on activism. On Dec 1, this site will link to both of the new sites, where you can learn more about where we intend to take them."

Well, I'm still waiting for Joe's "new" site. All I can see is the old site with a new name at the top and different colours. If Joe wanted to use the SOLOHQ software for a "new" site, then fine, I would have no objections. He developed it and he can do what he likes with it.

But he hasn't created a new site. All he has done is change the name at the top of the page and the colour scheme. Crucially, all of the material posted under SOLOHQ now appears under the RoR banner. There is no archive on RoR of material pre-dating 1 December 2005, as there is with the SOLOHQ archive that SOLOpassion links to, there is just a seamless transition from the old material to the new under the RoR banner. Old articles are reprised, or feed in as random articles, all under the RoR banner with not even a hint of recognition for the SOLOHQ name.

I am not happy that the material I contributed to SOLOHQ now appears under another brand name. Unless Lindsay agreed to hand over to Joe the brand rights pertaining to the archived material (which to my knowledge, he hasn't, and I would be disappointed if he had), I don't consider that RoR has any right to co-opt that material under its name. The software and cash and work that Joe contributed to SOLOHQ does not give him any right to co-opt the content. I posted my contributions under SOLOHQ - a brand which was created and driven by Lindsay Perigo - and it was under that vision that I expressed myself.

Joe should do the honourable thing now and remove all of the material prior to December 1 from his site, with a link to a clearly separated archive, just as SOLOpassion has, so that all of the old SOLOHQ material is clearly attributed to its rightful SOLOHQ brand.


( categories: )

Warning: The ideas of the publisher aren't shared by the author!

Robert's picture

No Andrew, if you read the post there are actually several reasons there. True, the emphasis is on the first (custom), so it isn't as crystal clear as I would have liked.

The second point in my previous post (scholarly authority that RoR presents) encompasses several related thoughts:

Some of the authors who submitted articles to SOLOHQ did so because they wanted to support SOLO's credo. When RoR took over it had a different goal, not explicitly endorsed by the authors.

If you want to reprint an author's work ~out of context~ and ~without citation~ (so the interested reader may establish context and check the true meaning of the author's words - leading back to scholarly custom) then IMHO, should seek the author's approval. To not obtain that approval first is to deliberately misrepresent someone and his ideas - that is dishonest and unethical.

Remember that the emphasis of RoR is different to that of SOLOHQ  and that's all well and dandy as far as that goes. But I may not agree with that emphasis and my name is on those articles! All I am asking is that the articles are properly cited. Here the citation serves as a warning. It warns the reader -- implicitly -- that the ideas of the publisher are not necessarily those of the author.

Such a warning was not necessary when I gifted the articles to SOLOHQ. It only became necessary when RoR was formed and Joe et al chose not to cite SOLOHQ articles as such. RoR's transgression may have been small, but it is still a transgression against those who ~gifted~ their work to SOLOHQ. It is also a transgression against the historical record and the reputation of objectivism.

I can sense you lifting an eyebrow upon reading "... the reputation of objectivism." Let me explain my thinking: "A is A" -- as you have said many times. Well SOLOHQ existed! Denying its existance is a violation of A is A, a violation of the law of identity. RoR refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem with this. The word to describe this sort of behaviour from an "objectivist " organisation is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not illegal, just unethical.

So there you are: not illegal, just unethical and on several levels.

The ethical wrong

sjw's picture

Andrew: The question's been answered. The ethical wrong/mistake here is a kind of fraud, RoR presents it as if article writers/posters published under and endorsed that brand when in fact they didn't, they published under and endorsed the old SoloHQ--which RoR isn't, it's not even a continuation of the old SoloHQ, it's entirely different. This is a far bigger deal than mere "scholarly politeness". It's about whether RoR respects authors, and the law of identity. And I wouldn't be so hasty to say this isn't a legal issue, we'd have to ask a lawyer but I can see the potential for a legitimate lawsuit here.

Of course I can't blame you for missing it since I missed Robert's point the first time around too.

Unanswered question

Andrew Bates's picture

I certainly take your point about it being difficult for people to contact authors if the authors do not check the RoRmail accounts made available to them and they didn't put any form of email address in their profiles.

You say "RoR has no legal obligation to do a damned thing about any of this. Ethically? Well that's another thing entirely." That was the question I was asking. In response to the hypothetical I (and Phil) raised, you talked about renamed journals either publishing old articles under the old title or with a note to explain the article was originally published under the old title. You said the reason for this scholarly custom was to avoid confusion relating to dates or confusion and time-wasting relating to trying to contact old authors. These are matters of convenience (you might say scholarly politeness), not ethical right and wrong. I don't believe you've answered my question though it really doesn't need to be. This thread has gone on long enough and you say you shall "say nothing more of [your] greivances." Fine.

Why not use a real example?

Robert's picture

Why not use a real example?

Archiv fur Mikrobiologie and Experimental Mycology were microbiology journals that were rebranded as Archives of Microbiology and Fungal Genetics and Biology respectively.

Articles printed prior to the rebranding are still in the publication databases as being published under the old titles. Any articles republished in the new version would be prefaced by comments to that effect, according to scholarly custom.

The reason for the custom?

To avoid any confusion occuring because article's submission date predates the existence of the rebranded magazine. TO avoid confusing any reader wishing to contact the authors or search for similar articles by them. You can imagine how much time you could waste attempting to contact someone who you think is actively publishing articles in a shiny new magazine but is, in fact, retired or dead. It also makes it easier to find retractions - important if you come across reports by certain South Korean Stem Cell Scientists.

Now observe RoR: Any reference to SOLOHQ now exists only in the text of the articles and text - what the hell is SOLOHQ a newbie might wonder? But wait there's more! Involuntary members of RoR who authored articles for SOLOHQ still have RoR-mail addresses that they no longer check - makes them harder to contact doesn't it? Joe could avoid wasting the a punter's time by merely citing old articles properly.

Joe is a capitalist is he not? I assume the punters matter to him?

RoR wishes to become a repository for scholarly wisdom and social comment does it not?

Is it not to its advantage to behave in a manner befitting a scholarly publication and keep its own records straight? Especially seeing as the target audience must include non-objectivist philosophical scholars if Joe's aims are to be met. Or does objectivism have such an excess of scholarly street-cred that a "major" objectivist organisation can afford to piss it away by behaving like a revisionist historian - a SOLOHQ-denier?

I shall say nothing more of my greivances, other than to point out that I don't even want an apology or an explaination - I just want the damn record to reflect the past correctly! How any objectivist can object to that is beyond me. A is A is it not?

RoR has no legal obligation to do a damned thing about any of this. Ethically? Well that's another thing entirely.

Takeover of material

Andrew Bates's picture

Robert,

As you'll see from that thread at RoR, I wasn't endorsing everything Phil said. I was focussed on the magazine example, as I wrote in that thread.

Let's say all TFR's articles were online and Linz sold it to (uggh!) Fairfax, who changed the name and some editorial policies. Would they no longer be able to show the articles you had posted on their website? I would agree that notice that "articles published before the takeover day were submitted for the new magazine's predecessor" would be nice but would it be necessary?

Linz...

sjw's picture

It's just a proverb after all, but I was reading "take what comes" as a Buddha-like "accept what comes"--and one should never accept the unjust. Also, when it comes to ethics, I don't merely hope for the best, I expect it.

I think ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Marcus & Shayne must have missed the "prepare for the worst" bit. Smiling Unless they mean it should be "Hope for the best & do YOUR best to make it happen," though I would take that as understood.

Downfall?

Robert's picture

I'm guessing that that depends on your preparations...

Perhaps you aren't aquainted with my ex-alter ego: Defence Spokesperson for the Libertarianz party...

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz...

Good one Marcus

sjw's picture

Right on Marcus, the real proverb should be: "Expect the best, take reasonable precautions in case you don't get it, and always evaluate what comes."

Downfall

Marcus's picture

"I prefer to "hope for the best, prepare for the worst and take what comes" - as the proverb goes."

And that is exactly the type of philosophy that will cause the downfall of the western world!!!

"All you can do is make some

Robert's picture

"All you can do is make some kind of educated guess, never counting on any particular outcome."

I prefer to "hope for the best, prepare for the worst and take what comes" - as the proverb goes.

Irrationality & predictions

sjw's picture

"Someone starts behaves in a dishonest fashion and there isn't a reason to suspect the worst?"

Well you definitely shouldn't expect the best! In mixed people you can never really know how far the irrationality goes, so it's hard to make any predictions at all. All you can do is make some kind of educated guess, never counting on any particular outcome.

If you raised the issue with Joe and the best you got was what we saw over at RoR, you bet you've got a legitimate beef. I'd expect a reasonable answer not that sneering nonsense.

This is a Robert Winefield vs RoR dispute.

Robert's picture

"but that's no reason to start speculating that maybe he's going to start rewording articles."

Someone starts behaves in a dishonest fashion and there isn't a reason to suspect the worst? True, it isn't reason to put a Mafia-contract out on his life, but I'd be bloody silly not to be alarmed and make arrangements to distance myself from the person and his products - at least until I was given reason to trust him again.

In my career it doesn't pay to be careless with what you say on the internet - that includes being careful where you say things on the internet. It's so easy to have your words reported out of context and get your arse fired.

Am I being paranoid? Probably. But an honest organisation preaching objectivism should recognise the validity in my complaint and work with me to fix the error. Wouldn't it? Isn't that what a Hank Reardon would do? It's what honest businesses and businessmen do - and most of them aren't even objectivists.

If I get a money back garuantee on fruit and veges bought from my local supermarket - WTF is so special about RoR that makes it immune from fixing this problem?

And thank you for recognising that this isn't an adjunct to the Linz vs Joe dispute. This is a Robert Winefield vs RoR dispute.

OK--but let's not get paranoid...

sjw's picture

Robert: Joe screwed up and indeed the apologists aren't seeing reason, but that's no reason to start speculating that maybe he's going to start rewording articles.

You do have one thing right of course, the important thing: Inadvertently or not, Joe's made it appear as if article-writers and posters had written under the brand new RoR instead of the old SoloHQ, which is at best a distortion of history and at worst the fraud of making it look like writers supported that site. Joe having rights to use the articles does not give him the right to do that. This isn't the same kind of theft issue that I was originally focusing on early in this thread.

I was missing your point Robert because I thought it would have been far more serious and fundamental that Joe violated Linz's property rights to the content as a whole, so this issue wasn't even on my radar screen, but you're absolutely right, and it goes beyond the "unscholarly" point that Casey and I were agreeing on. Linz's olive branch doesn't really cover for this as many people are involved.

Shayne,

Robert's picture

It is true that the content of my articles have remained the same - for now. The articles appear on RoR as if they were first published on RoR and nowhere else. Thus no one, not even a perspective reader would realize that they weren’t dealing with the original article. Given this, and the issues surrounding the genesis of RoR, I have no confidence that additional changes will not be made to an article that still bears my name.

Observe that RoR and its apologists have made no effort to preserve these articles intact (they are still live) and is vociferously defending this action against heretics like myself - implying that I'm making the argument out of spite for Joe. These are not the actions of an organization that has made an honest mistake and been called on it.

 

Copyright is exactly that. It is the right to copy the article and publish it at will. It doesn't give you the right to alter someone's published words at will and maintain that they those are the words and ideas of the original author.

 

True, Joe et al. haven’t done this yet. However, I’ve never met Joe and so I’m judging him by his actions wrt the genesis of RoR and any reply to the message I sent outlining my concerns and possible solutions.

 

It isn't as if the proper citing of articles is an alien concept – even to RoR. My first article, a tribute to Don Bradman, is cited as having been first published in TFR. Therefore, in effect, all I really want is for RoR to be consistent in the application of its citing-policies.

 

This is the reason why I'm so pissed off at Reverend Coates and his pious little lectures.  RoR-apologists appear to be creating a smokescreen of posturing designed to help them avoid uttering a "Mea Culpa" to those of its “members” who find themselves involuntarily on their books and worrying about what’s coming next.

 

It isn't RoR's shit that stinks; it's their militant refusal to wipe it up. RoR has behaved improperly - for what ever reason. Now they are defending their "right" to continue doing so - even though making amends would cost them nothing.

Wait a minute

sjw's picture

Did I miss something? Were the words of article writers tampered with?

And while we're on the subject: what are the copyright policies on this site? May I suggest:

"Unless otherwise agreed on in writing, each individual owns the copyright to their own posts and articles, and by posting here grants us permission to reproduce (but not alter) them in our forum. Excepting 'fair use', no one else is permitted to reproduce anything here without the copyright owner's explicit permission."

Get real? Get Fucked!

Robert's picture

From the Past hyperlinked in Andrew Bate's last post: "Does that mean you can go back and say "Oh, by the way, I want to go back and delete my work from your historical archives because I don't wish to sanction your present policies"? Get real."

Get real? Get Fucked!

RoR isn't maintaining historically accurate or historically safe archives! The material is still open to manipulation and has already been manipulated by the operators of the new site. To call what RoR has "an archive" (ie a place were documents are preserved as evidence of facts) is to greviously assault the English language.

If Joe et al. want to alter the words I submitted, that's fine! But there is no way I'm going to put up with my name remaining attached to the edited edition! That is the problem I have Bates, and that is why I want to remove my material from the RoR "archives" and leave a link to the historically safe and sound one here at SOLO Passion.

And if that sentiment isn't utterly plain from my previous posts then perhaps both you and Coates should get an MRI to make sure that the dormant squish between your ears still resembles a brain.

If Lindsay is prepared to

Tim S's picture

If Lindsay is prepared to drop the issue of his articles being rebranded, then so am I. My annoyance was not only at my own posts being rebranded, but at the entire SOLOHQ archive being rebranded and integrated into the RoR site, given the injustice I believe that represented to Lindsay.

It is obvious that there were a lot of gaps in the spoken agreement - in particular, in relation to the existing membership and to the way in which the content could be used after the split. Joe simply assumed these rights for himself while making misleading statements to Lindsay about his real intentions, knowing that Lindsay would be aggrieved at the degree of continuity in his use of the SOLOHQ material and membership. The best thing Joe could have done, had he truly been concerned about avoiding a schism or about treating Lindsay fairly, would have been to put himself on the same initial footing as Lindsay. i.e. A clean slate - no direct continuity of the old content and no continuity in the existing membership. That is something everyone would have accepted as fair and reasonable. At the very least he should have been upfront to Lindsay about his intentions.

I still wish Joe would archive all of the pre-December 1 material under its original brand in a similar way Lindsay has done and as I outlined in my first post. However I’m not going to pursue the issue if he doesn’t do so. Like Lindsay, I deeply regret the loss of a good friend and the enormous respect I had for Joe in all aspects except this one episode. I'm glad Lindsay has had the chance to air his legitimate grievances, and I would now like to move on.

Changing the name Vs. a new site?

Andrew Bates's picture

Say you own a company that owns a website. The company has contracts with certain people, formed through use of the website and you then change the website to a new one. Does that invalidate your contracts? No. Joe is not attempting to have his cake and eat it too.

I hope it works out

Andrew Bates's picture

There has been something of an airing of grievances from both sides and I hope it works out. Hopefully the barbs people want to stick in won't prevent Linz's olive branch carrying the day.

I understand your complaint about old SOLOHQ material appearing as historical RoR material but ... ARI's scholarly standards are impeccable, by comparison? Can't say I saw Joe make George Reisman disappear or try to edit chapters out of Ayn Rand's books (and don't get the impression I take NB's side of the divide from that!)

I must say that when I replied to Robert Winefield before conceding the legitimacy of his complaint, I hadn't considered a good point Phil raised here: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0806.shtml#3

Good post. Was that your

Landon Erp's picture

Good post.

Was that your first executive order?

---Landon

It all basically comes back to fight or flight.

I agree

Jason Quintana's picture

I'm glad to see that Lindsay is willing to extend the olive branch here. He's taking the high road. I hope that it is accepted and I hope that any hard feelings will come to an end. ROR and SOLO have a similar group of users and a similar purpose. There are certainly reasons for anger between SOLOhq's previous leadership but it isn't in our self interest to carry on a bitter realtionship in the long term. Both sides have said their peace and I hope that both will see that continued bickering will not be productive. I plan on continuing to post over at ROR and I look forward to good relations with ROR members and the ROR staff. With Lindsay's last post I hope that this discussion can now be brought to a close.

- Jason

Joe & I had a brilliant

Ciro D Agostino's picture

Joe & I had a brilliant working relationship for four years & we both owe each other much. It would be a shame to let this episode soil that

Mr. Perigo, bravo!!! you wouldn't wear it on the chin, your intuition is good.

Ciro D'Agostino

Yep

sjw's picture

Finally, something I can agree with Casey on! Hooray!

It's definitely sloppy from a scholarly/historical point of view. Even something simple like a new post being added to each thread that says "Here marks the creation of RoR" would have solved it without compromising his use of the old data.

Given the contract,

Casey's picture

Written or verbal, that the two parties would equally own copyrights to the material, there does not seem to be a legal issue here. Likewise, Joe should not be saying that Linz did not have permission to exercize this right. If Linz just copied it for his new site, then Joe did precisely the same thing, even if it meant simply changing the name of the site. Bot of them copied it for their new sites, and both of them had precisely equal rights to do so, regardless of whatever money, time, or effort either party put into the enterprise.

However, from a scholarly perspective, this material is misrepresented on Rowland's site. The Daily Linz, articles I posted, etc. were originally posted on Solohq, not Rebirth of Reason, and no one would be able to tell this at Rowland's site. For all practical purposes, it appears as though all of this material was posted on Rebirth of Reason. I can imagine the backflips people would be doing if ARI tried misattribution on this scale. By comparison, ARI's scholarly standards are impeccable. Not demarcating what was from Solohq and what is from Rebirth of Reason is inaccurate and misleading from a scholarly perspective.

Also, the fact that the original participants in discussions that took place on Solohq are no longer present on Ribirth of Reason makes the issue of keeping the threads alive stink. That's obvious.

This is not a legal issue, but goes to scholarly standards. Changing the name of the site (and its ethos as has been claimed as the reason for the split in the first place), does not retroactively change the fact that the other material was posted at Solohq and not Rebirth of Reason. And yet no one would know this looking at this material at Rebirth of Reason.

My Response

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Glenn wrote:

What is Joe Rowlands really saying here:

"There is a myth going around that I gave permission to Lindsay's crew to copy the whole SoloHQ site for archiving. In fact, I was not notified. Duncan and Julian had FTP access to my server because I was generously paying for the Free Radical to be hosted on my server. They copied the whole site, including the software and web site format, neither of which they had any right to, all without permission."

I guess he's saying I'm a thief. But I'm not a thief. As Joe acknowledges, the content of SOLOHQ was mine as well as his. I asked the boys to retrieve it & archive it & render it inert, so it was preserved on our new site as a matter of historical record which anyone could access but not activate. I didn't ask Joe's permission since a) as far as I was concerned, I didn't NEED permission to retrieve what was mine, & b) given the hostile &
belligerent attitude he had begun displaying toward me I was pretty certain he wouldn't grant it & I didn't want to get into a shit-fight over it. Moreover, I was fearful, given the mood he was in, the downer he had on the site itself in his private comments to me, that he might destroy it.

Shayne writes:

I wrote before: "Given that there is no agreement between Linz & Joe we don't know about..." And given all the facts we had, I think I was right. But Joe posted this to RoR recently:

"The agreement was pretty simple. Lindsay of course would retain ownership of the name SOLO, as well as the FreeRadical. Jeff and I would retain ownership of the new website, including the software that we were developing. The content was another question. We decided if we ended it that neither party should be left losing out. Both parties would retain copyrights to all of the articles."

If this is true, then it changes things entirely: It would mean that Joe did nothing wrong. The content was his, and Linz's, to each do with what they pleased, where Linz wanted to make a fresh start, while Joe wanted to carry on. If there are no written agreements, then this is a "he said she said" kind of thing.

There WAS no written agreement, & it IS a "he said/she said" kind of thing. But everyone KNOWS what Joe said. He told me, & the world, that he was starting a NEW site. He said he was CLOSING DOWN SOLOHQ—closing it down, note, not carrying it on, not rolling it over with a new name & colour & all the advantages of technological incumbency. Had he told me he was intending to do the latter, as co-owner I wouldn't have agreed (not that I could have stopped him) & I dare say he knew that & didn't tell me for precisely that reason. THAT is why I felt deceived & sickened when I saw what he had done. While my crew were feverishly working on getting a brand spanking new site ready by deadline, I foolishly imagined he & his crew were doing the same. A "new site" is a new site, not the old one in drag. To claim that RoR IS a new site is demonstrably ludicrous. For one thing, if it's a new site, how come (unlike the case with SOLOPassion) you don't have to create a new account to get on to it?

The issue as far as I'm concerned is that Joe said one thing & did another, to the calculated disadvantage of SOLOPassion.

Now, nonetheless, at this point I'm prepared to hold out an olive branch. Before seeing what Joe did, I had it in mind that once our respective new sites had settled in, they would develop & enjoy a relationship of friendly rivalry, cross-fertilising, interacting, mutually humorously piss-taking etc. if & where appropriate, in much the kind of way that the relationship between SOLOHQ/SOLOPassion & TOC was shaping up before all the PARC/Brandens shit hit the fan. I can't speak for the folk like Tim, Robert & Casey who are
legitimately aggrieved that their SOLOHQ articles & posts are now, LIVE, under another banner to which they didn't subscribe. But I'm prepared to recommend to them that they let the matter drop & that we wipe the slate clean. I don't like it that MY stuff is there under that banner, but I'm prepared to let the matter go. I'm prepared to accept that Joe Rowlands is still essentially the person I wrote about in my tribute & that he simply let himself down & acted out of character on this occasion. I'm prepared to accept that he genuinely thinks he didn't even do that & that we simply have to agree to disagree. I'm prepared to say, let's be open to the sort of relationship I envisioned. We both have a job to do that is more important than, & is undermined by, internecine sniping.

I know this olive branch could be used to slap my face with by folk on his side of the divide, & also that some on MY side of the divide will accuse me of offering the sanction of the victim. I don't believe I'm sanctioning anything. I've made my view of what was done perfectly clear. But I'm prepared to accept that Joe holds a different view in good faith & let bygones be bygones. Joe & I had a brilliant working relationship for four years & we both owe each other much. It would be a shame to let this episode soil that. I'm trying to do what's best by Objectivism & by SOLO. If I'm doing the wrong thing, I'll just have to wear that on the chin.

Linz

"Changing the name of the

Casey's picture

"Changing the name of the site did not invalidate our property rights." This is what Joe Rowlands posted over at his site.

He seems to be having his cake and eating it, too, rhetorically. On the one hand, it's a very different site, and one to which some would not have posted (including myself) given its attitude about discussing the Brandens. On the other hand, for copyright purposes, it's the same site and all that was changed was the name. So which is it?

No Writing!?!

Michael Moeller's picture

Linz et al,

You guys undertook a joint venture without a written agreement? Jesus. Obviously issues are going to creep up about who owns which property, and you guys seemed to have contemplated this--so why no written agreement? I hope you changed this policy for SOLO Passion. It may seem like it is time-consuming and unnecessary at the moment; but you don't know what will happen in the future, and it may save a lot of acrimony and disputes.

Michael

Oblivious

Jon Trager's picture

Shayne: "Do you [Jon] not understand the distinction between the technology (which no one is arguing Joe shouldn't be able to keep) and the content? Because it appears from your last paragraph that you are utterly oblivious to this distinction."

I was responding to those who claim that RoR is the same thing as SOLOHQ and not a new website as Joe had promised, and thus all Joe has done is simply take over the old site for himself. In fact, as I've already pointed out, RoR is clearly *not* the same as SOLOHQ except in layout. Other than a change in the name, logo, URL, and other details, RoR also has a very different focus and attitude from SOLOHQ (at least compared to the last months of SOLOHQ's life, which is what spurred Joe to ask for a divorce in the first place).

As for the old articles, as I've also said, I doubt that the idea even occurred to Joe that there would be an outcry about them appearing in the RoR archives. Those who are upset about that, however, should first take it up with *him* politely--not hurl invective and accusations publicly. In other words, Shayne, they should act like adults, not children.

Joe's side

sjw's picture

I wrote before: "Given that there is no agreement between Linz & Joe we don't know about..." And given all the facts we had, I think I was right. But Joe posted this to RoR recently:

"The agreement was pretty simple. Lindsay of course would retain ownership of the name SOLO, as well as the FreeRadical. Jeff and I would retain ownership of the new website, including the software that we were developing. The content was another question. We decided if we ended it that neither party should be left losing out. Both parties would retain copyrights to all of the articles."

If this is true, then it changes things entirely: It would mean that Joe did nothing wrong. The content was his, and Linz's, to each do with what they pleased, where Linz wanted to make a fresh start, while Joe wanted to carry on.

If there are no written agreements, then this is a "he said she said" kind of thing.

What?

Glenn I Heppard's picture

What is Joe Rowlands really saying here:

"There is a myth going around that I gave permission to Lindsay's crew to copy the whole SoloHQ site for archiving. In fact, I was not notified. Duncan and Julian had FTP access to my server because I was generously paying for the Free Radical to be hosted on my server. They copied the whole site, including the software and web site format, neither of which they had any right to, all without permission."

Andrew,

Casey's picture

I'm not saying Joe did it FOR that reason. But it certainly earned him points with TOC, as he was de facto observing the kind of silence on the matter of PARC, and the Brandens and TOC's policy regarding them, which Linz was warned by TOC about criticizing. Coincidence? You be the judge. The fact that Joe winds up attending the TOC conference with the Brandens is just the way it goes, now, no matter what he felt about them in the first place. I'm not saying he wanted to be with them. I'm just saying that he's going to be with them whether he wants it or not. Others have opted against that now, and I salute them for it.

Joe's audience

Andrew Bates's picture

Joe did not take possession of it all and claim it for himself - how were Julian P and Duncan able to get hold of all the archives?! Joe didn't simply boot Linz off SOLOHQ and take over the running of the site, as your post seems to suggest; he got a new website, a new colour scheme and logo and went through a truckload of code making changes to change the name. This was a mammoth job I imagine and, consequently, these are still incomplete.

Granted, Joe benefitted from his association with Linz but Linz benefitted from his association with Joe - the appeal of SOLOHQ derived from credo-inspiring traits of Linz and the fun-loving, sassy people that attracted and the great software that Joe and Jeff contributed that made the articles and forums appear so well (to say nothing of Joe's and Jeff's writing talents or the people they attracted!). Both enjoyed greater growth rates in their audiences due to their interactions with the other.

Membership. FFS!!! I can't believe this is being discussed. If you don't like it, don't go back. If you don't want your membership data there, delete it. What would you have Joe do? Delete every member (with whatever software foulups that would cause) then add a shipload of them back on as they asked for it (inconveniencing all those who didn't want their membership data deleted). Seriously! Think about what you're saying.

TOC/Brandens. And here is where you really lose it. Joe couldn't give two shits about the Brandens. He openly said that having Barbara on SOLO was a distraction, that Linz shouldn't pay so much attention to her, that SOLO was about living Objectivism not relitigating its history. And as for what he's said about TOC - flaccid is putting it mildly. To suggest that Joe axed Linz (before things came to a head between Linz and TOC) to gain the favour of TOC or the Brandens is beyond absurd.

Personally,

Casey's picture

I don't like the fact that postings I made are still being commented on after the end of Solohq. My understanding was that those threads would become part of both sites' archives and since I have no intention of supporting Joe Rowlands' site I don't like that those threads are ongoing there while being archived here.

And it is rather ungracious and opportunistic that Rowlands would take possession of all of it and the existing membership since that was clearly driven by Linz's presence, energetic efforts and reputation. For Joe to take all of that away from him and claim it for himself was not just. But then, TOC has given Joe a slot at this year's summer seminar. So I guess that Branden-saving maneuver, whether that was the PURPOSE of that purge or not, had its rewards: getting some quality time with the Brandens themselves this summer, for one! Congratulations, Joe! As Linz learned, less profitably because of his big mouth, silence is golden...

Confused

sjw's picture

Jon:

So you like my little insult did you? Well here's another: I think a child could understand the issue here, but shockingly, you don't, yet.

It appears to me that you are confused by the technology and therefore cannot grasp it. Do you not understand the distinction between the technology (which no one is arguing Joe shouldn't be able to keep) and the content? Because it appears from your last paragraph that you are utterly oblivious to this distinction.

A little context

Andrew Bates's picture

First, RoR is a new site. Joe didn't keep the site at the old URL, notwithstanding the URL redirecting to a page that gives people the choice to visit RoR and SOLOP. The change of URL, the colours, logo and name far outweigh the technology (which he has a right to retain) remaining the same and integrating with the old pages.

Back in December I had discussions with some of the posters here (albeit ever-so-briefly with Tim) about what had happened. At another time it had been emphasised to me that the split should retain an amicable appearance and looking back at cross posts and well wishes on both sites it seems that is what people wanted. Some of the speculation as to Joe's motives/personality that came up was quite horrid. What they said in those conversations had not been brought up here when I posted (some of it now has). I didn't bring it up in my post to keep what was said in confidence and to try to prevent this schism turning into a public spat.

That said, I inadvertently addressed two of those arguments in my post (1. that Joe ought to have handed over the technology, 2. having obtained the value of a wide audience through partnering with Linz, Joe booted Linz out taking from Linz the value offered for the partnership). Characteristically (as Linz & PC would agree), I was heading off arguments I could see being raised before they were actually raised.

I said I didn't give a damn that my old articles/posts would appear to those ignorant of the split to be part of RoR and that I liked the integration of the other site. I don't accept the 'Joe ripped Linz off and thus Joe is evil' argument but I now accept that those who feel this way and contributed posts/articles to SOLOHQ have a valid complaint about their contributions appearing as RoR history. Until reading Robert's post, the point did not occur to me even as a triviality.

That said, it was not one of the gripes raised with me by the people I discussed the matter with in December. That's why I point out that this is only just being raised now - people can't think of this now and raise it as a major issue now while expecting Joe to have anticipated their complaints at the time of the split. Thanks to Jon for pointing this out.

People can be annoyed with Joe for wanting to split (while I haven't heard from Joe why he thinks he had to go his own way, I didn't think it was necessary or something that a serious discussion could not have fixed) and be grumpy that they don't still have the benefit of that software but they do not have reason to believe a major injustice has occurred. To say that I am morally equating the victim and the perpetrator, you have to show evidence of some moral wrong-doing (and a gross one, to justify this level of outrage).

Indubitably Ghastly

Jon Trager's picture

Shayne: "Take your pacifier and go crawl back to you mother away from cruel harsh reality and leave this to the grown-ups, you poor little unprincipled children!"

You should think hard about what Lance said earlier about your words, Shayne. At first I was taken aback by your often nasty demeanor, but now it's just kind of funny. From reading other recent threads, it seems that anyone who disagrees with you on a topic is bound to get a barage of insults hurled at them eventually. I'm a New Yorker though, so keep 'em coming.

Tim: "The reason I haven’t said anything about this publicly before now is precisely that Linz has never done so. That is why I raised the issue with Linz first (one does these things for people one respects you see, Jon Trager)."

Huh? I asked whether you had raised the issue with Joe first. What you should have done was simply email Joe and say something like, "Joe, my articles that are archived under RoR were written to appear under the SOLO brand. I'd really like for them to be linked to a separate SOLO site or for you to take them down completely. Thanks!" If Joe refused that reasonable request, which Robert recently made, then I'd be arguing against him right now.

When SOLOHQ was dissolved and Joe said he was going to create a new site, did he have a duty to scrap the software he created and start all over from scratch? I don't think so. He got the design he created, Linz got the SOLO brand he created. And I don't understand what the huge advantage of the existing membership was. Members don't pay any fees or get any mail, and anyone can cancel at any time, which is probably what Joe figured they'd do if they didn't want to be there.

Thank you Linz

Robert's picture

That gives me the information I needed to understand the motive behind the crime. I agree, the guy is a thieving arsehole and I want even less to do with him than before.

Shayne and Tim

JulianD's picture

Thank you for stating in the most clear and precise terms my thoughts. It was so bloody clear what happened and I could see that at 1 minute after midnight on 1 Dec. And yet some just refuse to face the facts and when the facts are presented they paint the victim and messenger as guilty and the perpetrator as the victim. Disgusting.

If you are an honourable person, then you can have no greater friend in this world than Lindsay. Most people who only know him via the internet might not fully understand that. You might even have a different philosphical belief, yet if you are a person of integrity and honour, then Lindsay will be your greatest friend. I have seen him defend people who he considered friends when they were attacked by others and Lindsay would alway join them down in the trenches like a true comrade. (I include Joe Rowlands and Barbara Branden as two people who he has defended in the past).

And then a friend - a partner - whom he admired and defended - undermines a dream and a project he has had for years. How would you feel? Justice demanded that some of the facts were known. I applaud Tim for doing that.

Solo Passion is going from strength to strength. But we can only make a positive difference if integrity and honesty are made non-negotiable.

Julian Darby

Talking about principles ...

Tim S's picture

Shayne, once again I take my hat off to your crystal clarity. All of the arguments presented in defence of Joe’s actions have dealt with non-essentials or distractions from the point that is dead obvious from Linz’ first post – Joe misled Linz about the division of assets.

Nothing more should need to be said!

Bates tried to claim it shouldn’t matter. Well I dealt with that earlier and I’m very glad Ciro has resiled from that view. In the pocket of sincerity and decency that Linz is trying to create, these things do matter very much.

Bates claims that we are not giving Joe credit for the money and work he put in and for the technology. Again, a distraction from the central issue. As Shayne pointed out, no one is disputing Joe’s right to the technology, but neither is anyone disputing that there was a partnership between Linz and Joe over SOLOhq. What either of them brought to the partnership is more or less irrelevant – the fact is it was a partnership and Joe misled Linz over the division of the assets. What is certainly true is that Linz put his heart and soul into SOLO, not to mention his reputation and his enormous talent, and did not deserve to be treated like crap.

And the biggest distraction, made by several people, is to question my motives or ask why we are creating another schism – as if its all our fault (!). My first reaction is to throw that straight back at these people – why do you respond to a series of facts by attacking the person who is laying them out in front of you?

The only one worth answering (since this issue isn’t about me) is Ciro’s post about the way one should treat one’s friends. Ciro, you are dead right about that, but wrong that I am not looking out for Linz. The reason I haven’t said anything about this publicly before now is precisely that Linz has never done so. That is why I raised the issue with Linz first (one does these things for people one respects you see, Jon Trager). The issue of SOLOHQ posts appearing under the RoR banner hadn’t occurred to Linz before, and he gave me the go-ahead to raise it publicly.

You will note as well that I initially focused on the ongoing issue with RoR, rather than the initial split. But again, since Linz himself went straight into the initial split with his first post, there was no need for me to hold back on the reasons why I don’t like my material appearing under RoR.

Ghastly indeed ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I endorse everything said by Shayne. What Joe said he was going to do & what he *did* do were two different things. That was deception. To characterise someone who points this out as "going overboard" is disgraceful.

Joe wanted to wrest control from me of SOLOHQ. He thought I was taking SOLO in the wrong direction (whatever that was). He said my status as Founder, Principal & co-owner would impede him in his goals, and asked that I step down and transfer all ownership to him. He said he wanted the SOLO brand because of its obvious advantages. He said that he realised that I was unlikely to comply and so would venture off on his own. Now, taking our existing venture (with the huge advantage of its existing membership), giving it a new colour & a new name & claiming it as one's own is not venturing off on one's own; it's expropriation. And it was fraud practised on those who found themselves involuntarily signed up to a new banner. Whether they mind is beside the point, but they are fully entitled to protest if they do.

I kept my side of the deal—started a new site from scratch. As I've said, when I saw what *he* had done I felt sick, & haven't visited the site since.

What makes me feel sick now is the spectacle of folk making excuses.

Actually ...

Duncan Bayne's picture

We got the code from Joe's site running after one evening's worth of hacking it to work on the new server. We decided against using it, however, out of respect for the fact that the code was Joe & Jeff's work & property: we modified it so that archived material couldn't be edited, moved it to solohq.solopassion.com, and started afresh with Drupal.

FWIW, I was surprised & disappointed to see the RoR site being effectively the old SOLOHQ site turned blue. "Not to fear, two new sites have been created" my arse.

That said, it doesn't bother me too much - I think SOLOPassion is better than RoR from a content and a technical perspective; and our choice of the Drupal CMS gives us the opportunity to add new features quickly, securely, and easily (for the most part).

I'm okay with my articles featuring on both sites, as I contributed them to SOLO when it was a joint venture between Lindsay & Joe - so it's only fair that both of them continue to use them.

However, I would have preferred it if the old content had been archived in the same way we did; the current appearance is that I participated in the RoR site, which is not the case.

But what the hell, life's too short anyway: I'd rather put the time & effort into making SOLOPassion the best it can be, than bitching to Joe about how he's using my old articles.

Ghastly

sjw's picture

The number and loudness of the unprincipled masses in this forum is obscene. Learn to think in principle!

This is not a complex issue. Given that there is no agreement between Linz & Joe we don't know about, clearly what they had was a partnership in the old SoloHQ. That Joe owned the technology outright hasn't been disputed (though even that could be I suspect). The issue is about who owned SoloHQ. No one here seems to dispute that indeed Joe & Linz owned it, it was a partnership. And yet without Linz's consent, Joe completely co-opted the whole thing for his own purposes, only making superficial stylistic changes and calling it something else.

And there is really nothing else to say. You unprincipled children bring up issues like "Oh, maybe Joe's going to transition later ..."--that is utterly beside the point! He already TOOK it. And there are no other words for it: whether intended or not, it's fraud because he said SoloHQ was shutting down and he was making a new site; and it's theft because he just plain TOOK Linz's half of SoloHQ for himself.

You don't like the harsh words? Take your pacifier and go crawl back to you mother away from cruel harsh reality and leave this to the grown-ups, you poor little unprincipled children!

Something worth repeating

Robert's picture

I've banged on enough about this today and probably for ever. But I just want to repeat something I said earlier.

"I don't want to be caught unawares and dragged along as an unwilling participant in Joe's next great leap. If he makes a product worthy of my support, I will give it after - and only after - I've had time to consider it. Not before!

This attitude isn't silly or presumptuous. It is common sense and exactly what objectivism means when it teaches you to plan for the future and not to be swept along with the tide."

To me, this is perfectly clear and reasonable. Yet none of Joe's defenders has acknowledged - clearly and unequivocally - that this part of the genesis of RoR was utterly improper.

Jon

Robert's picture

"Have Tim or Robert contacted Joe to kindly request that their articles not appear under the RoR banner?"

Robert certainly has.

I did so yesterday. If I don't hear anything by the end of March, I intend to go onto RoR and delete my articles and comments manually - leaving only a link to the SOLO-passion SOLOHQ archive. I will then ask to be deleted from their member-database.

I think that is fair. It doesn't damage Joe's new site and points any reader to an archive that hasn't been altered in any way.

Fraud?

Jon Trager's picture

"No one should attempt to belittle the harm caused by a fraud or a theft."

That's a serious accusation to make against a fellow Objectivist, Tim. And I think it's wrong.

Joe said he wanted to start a new site that exclusively focused on philosophical ideas and activism. And I think that's what he did. The fact that RoR is esthetically (almost) identical to SOLOHQ doesn't mean it's the same thing. As I already pointed out, the overall content and atmosphere of the site is palpably different from what immediately preceded it. You might not prefer that milieu, but that's a different issue.

I doubt Joe anticipated objections to past articles appearing under RoR, as long as he left them entirely intact. Have Tim or Robert contacted Joe to kindly request that their articles not appear under the RoR banner? If not, then this is just one more case of O'ists airing grievances publicly without first attempting to resolve them privately. That's just bad form.

Back in Dec, I wrote: "In

John M Newnham's picture

Back in Dec, I wrote: "In the context of SOLOHQ and the reasons given for the split, I found it strange that the new site ROR is identical (at time of this writing) to the old SOLOHQ"

At that time I adopted a wait and see attitude. I am finding this new info disturbing. (Linz, you know that I am a little slow to see some peoples true colours).

John

The facts in evidence

Robert's picture

"I predicted Joe's bashing couple of months ago. It is starting now!!!"

Q: Did he roll over all the members to his new site without inviting them to join first?
A: Yes.

Q: Am I allowed to say where and what my name is associated with?
A: Yes.

Q: Did Joe retitle the articles and commentary that I wrote for SOLOHQ?
A: Yes.

Q: Am I entitled to ask that he - at minimum - cite them as being first published on SOLOHQ, in keeping with the most basic rule of scholarship that everyone is taught in Junior High School?
A: Yes.

Q: Have I written him a polite letter asking him to fix these errors and offering to fix them myself if he is busy?
A: Yes.

Q: Given my paultry contribution to SOLOHQ, is this an unreasonable request?
A: IMHO, No.

Q: Have I ever accused Joe of being the anti-Christ?
A: No.

Q: Have I ever wished that RoR fails and burns in Hell?
A: No.

Q: Do I read RoR?
A: No.

Q: Am I missing out on something good?
A: Probably.

Q: Do I have time to read every Objectivist Website under the sun?
A: No.

Q: Should I have to in order to ensure that words I have written stay as they were written?
A: No.

Q: Am I motivated by my own selfish interest to set my own record straight.
A: Yes

Q: Is this slightly anal?
A: Probably.

Q: Should my being slightly anal have anything to do with this argument?
A: No.

pure presumptuous silliness

Robert's picture

Tell me that when your credit-card company sells or gives your membership data (without your permission) out to other companies and you get bombarded with spam, junk mail and unsolicited phone calls.

Or better still, wait and tell me again that I am being silly, the next time a University employee is diciplined or fired because of something he was associated with on the internet.

When I finally get to the point where I run my own business and not have to tug my forelock to people with grandiose titles who have control of my US-VISA - then I'll agree with you Ciro.

The facts brought to light so far show that Joe is not above doing things without consulting is closest "business" partners and members.

OK, that's not illegal or even - in general terms - immoral. (NB: I know next to nothing about the specifics of this case so I'm reserving judgement on it).

However, I don't want to be caught unawares and dragged along as an unwilling participant in Joe's next great leap.

If he makes a product worthy of my support, I will give it after - and only after - I've had time to consider it. Not before!

This attitude isn't silly or presumptuous. It is common sense and exactly what objectivism means when it teaches you to plan for the future and not to be swept along with the tide.

I predicted Joe's bashing

Ciro D Agostino's picture

I predicted Joe's bashing couple of months ago.

It is starting now!!!

Ciro D'Agostino

This is pure presumptuous

Ciro D Agostino's picture

This is pure presumptuous silliness

 

Ciro D'Agostino

“people going overboard”

Robert's picture

Two of the minute number of things I own free and clear are my own name and the reputation attached to it. And there is no way in hell I'm going to let anyone, regardless of their credentials, borrow that name without my permission and link it to something they have created. I take my reputation seriously.

I'm happy to be pilloried for things that I have said, but I'm not going to stand for having the record of my words and comments altered in any way.

And when Joe R changed to RoR he changed those words and comments. Granted he didn't change the content, merely the banner they were published under. But, and here's the thing that really pisses me off, he made those changes and rolled my membership data over to his new site without asking my permission first.

I know nothing about the conflicts & contracts between Joe and Linz, so I'm neutral on that.

Joe owns RoR. He doesn't own my name. And as a publisher of archived material (that is available for perusal on the internet at any time now and in the future) he has an obligation to ensure that the material is either destroyed or archived in such a way that the context in which it was published remains unchanged.

Those are the principles I'm fighting for. They are the same ones I would take up with the publishers of PNAS, Structure, and (hopefully) Fungal Genetics and Biology were my professional scribblings handled in such a manner.

I would have asked for my RoR membership to be deleted before now but I've been mulling over how to sort out the problem of my contributions. I may have to accept defeat and leave them as they are. But, I reserve the right to protest the situation!

I own my own name and I have a right to defend that name against anyone who misuses it. So you can take your "people are going overboard" comment and shove it up your arse.

Tim: I can forgive Ciro for

Ciro D Agostino's picture

Tim: I can forgive Ciro for that – maybe he doesn’t know the magnitude of the battles Linz has fought, the successes and failures he’s had, and what the SOLO vision means to him and many of the rest of us

 

Tim, Ok, I am sorry, I didn't mean to offend you.

 

After I read your message today, while driving to go to the gym, I was thinking about what you have written, and I though that this  kind of posts are destructive for Linz image, and for his own health too. I think that as a Linz's friend, you should handle matters professionally with out causing so much noise, and ALSO don't let Linz know about it.  When I was younger, I had close friends who would report to me every thing, every little thing about my enemies and competitors. But they would never do anything about it, until I told them to fuck off or do something about it.

 

They were killing me with all the fights they would prepare for me to fight. If you love Linz, be his shield, filter all the pain before reaches him, unless is something that the master needs to handle. That’s what I would call a true friend.

CD

No presumptions

Tim S's picture

I was going to answer some of Bates’ points later when I have time, but there is one thing that can’t be just left here to stand unanswered.

No one should attempt to belittle the harm caused by a fraud or a theft. Only a fucking forum? I can forgive Ciro for that – maybe he doesn’t know the magnitude of the battles Linz has fought, the successes and failures he’s had, and what the SOLO vision means to him and many of the rest of us. Joe certainly knew it, and I suspect that goes a long way to explaining why he conducted his split as a dawn raid (his “swift and sure” action), giving Linz no time to find out what his real intentions were, as opposed to what he was actually telling Linz at the time – that there was going to be a “new” site.

Bates you have no excuse, and it’s particularly insulting of you to head your post “people going overboard” when you know full well what all of this means to the people involved.

I would ask anyone who wants to post on this issue to stick with the facts and the justice of the matter. Do not presume to know what harm has been caused.

Andrew, bravo.These are the

Ciro D Agostino's picture

Andrew, bravo.

These are the kind of posts that teach people how to be civil and just.

It is only a fucking forum guys!!!!

Stop being so stupid!!!

D'Agostino

People going overboard

Andrew Bates's picture

FFS!

Do you guys not remember that people were screaming out not wanting the old archives to be lost. While Joe and Jeff made the pages available to Julian P and Duncan to download, they too wanted to make sure those archives were preserved.

While Shane raises a good point - that Joe/Jeff could set up RoR such that it did not integrate with the old site - why the hell should he? He carried the cost of the old site for long enough - why carry two sites' costs?! I for one am glad for the integration, for the fact that I can access old material more quickly on that site. It should be said that people are taking for granted the amount of work Jeff and Joe put in splitting things up anyway - and it still isn't seemless; some links have SOLOHQ in them and folders are still called /SHQ/. Thus, I don't give a damn that my SOLOHQ articles now appear as SOLO articles in SOLOPassion's archives and RoR articles on that site - it would be a technical pain in the arse to have old material differently branded.

While SOLO was founded by Linz, SOLOHQ was a partnership without a partnership agreement that stipulated dissolution procedures. Thus, when Joe and Linz split up (to say nothing of Jeff), Joe was left to take back what he had contributed. Without meaning to in any way belittle the talents of Duncan and Julian, I don't know how easily the technology could have been handed over had Joe been willing to relinquish it.

People point out that Joe benefitted from Linz's personality and the people that attracted. In fairness, both benefitted from what the other brought to the partnership. The audience Joe enjoys now is increased because of the increased number of people that he was exposed to through working with Linz. That said, the greatness of the old technology increased the number of people wanting to get on board the SOLO community. Both Joe and Linz enjoyed greater audience growth rates than they would have had they not worked together, Joe arguably more so. Now that they have split, the people who were attracted to Linz's attributes have come here, ditto for Joe's attributes (including, for his sins, MSK and Roger Bissel) and those of us who like both visit both. 

Finally, why only bring this up now? Tim raised his annoyance with me before. It seems this has only just occurred to him and given him (and others) new reason to gripe. In the spirit of saying what one means and meaning what one says, let's all keep in mind the well wishes placed on both sites following this amicable announcement: http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/Announcements/42.shtml

Thanks Lance

Jon Trager's picture

I'm glad you chimed in, Lance. Joe obviously wasn't satisfied with SOLOHQ, but it also seems to me that he handled the situation in a mature fashion.

Based on the content of RoR vs. SOLOHQ, I think I understand why he wanted to dissolve the latter project. I believe he was genuinely disturbed by a perception that too much of the discussion for a while before the SOLOHQ's retirement had been focused on personalities--not on philosophy.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that SOLOHQ *never* dealt with technical questions or offered practical advice for communicating ideas. I'm saying that SOLOHQ didn't deal with such things *nearly all* of the time. That's what RoR appears to be doing. The structure of the site may not be different, but to me the atmosphere there is much different from what existed before.

Tim, I hope before you posted this piece that you had the decency to contact Joe. I doubt he'd refuse to grant a polite request that he not archive the articles you wrote for SOLOHQ under the RoR name. Then again, politeness doesn't seem to be a strong suit of too many people in the online O'ist community.

Information

Lanza Morio's picture

Perhaps some here have more information than I do.

I'm going to wait and see if Joe R. was earnest in wanting to go in a different direction. If the ROR site remains as it is then I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong.

It's obvious

Tim S's picture

Shayne and Julian - both of you are bang on the money.

Shayne wrote:

"The thing advertised by Joe was that SoloHQ was being shut down, and two new sites created. But from looking at the site, what really happened is that Joe took complete ownership of SoloHQ, merely changing the name and effectively booting Linz, all the while feeding us false information about what was really going on.

It is plainly obvious that that is exactly how it was.

Joe should certainly remove all of the old SOLOHQ material from his site. That would be a minimum requirement if he has any integrity at all. But it still wouldn't erase the fact that he has been free riding on Lindsay's baby - articles, membership, the lot - through the start up phase of his "new" project.

As far as I'm concerned, RoR was tainted by dishonour from its inception. I hope for Joe's sake it was worth it.

Well said Shayne

JulianD's picture

I remember sitting in London on 1 December, looking at the RoR website, and thinking that a big injustice had been done. I might have even told Tim my thoughts about this at the Christmas party of SOLO UK.

I will only associate myself with honorable people, people who possess courage and integrity. That is why I am here on Lindsay's site because of Lindsay's vision (to use your description) of the way the Objectivist philosophy should be integrated into our lives. I have no intention of being involved with Rebirth of Reason. However according to Google I am. When I google my name I get the following.

User Info Page
Julian Darby. Send me a RoR Mail Atlas Count 19 19 Atlas Points Number of Posts: 14 View all posts by this user: here Num Gallery items: 2 ...
rebirthofreason.com/Users/160.shtml - 11k

If you google "Lindsay Perigo" then you will I get a link to his user profile on RoR.

Like Lindsay, I don't think about or visit RoR. I just think the point raised by Tim illustrates quite well what I think happened on 1 Dec 2005.

Lance: The issue is not that Joe R. has not said one bad word about Linz. The issue is what it appears he actually DID on Dec 1.

Julian Darby

Clarity

sjw's picture

Lance: The element of truth in what you said made me laugh. However I greatly prefer a clarity that sometimes gets proportion wrong than being so calculated for the touchy-feely people that you distort your message and no one knows just what it is you're thinking. Also it takes effort to calculate for this kind of effect, and it detracts from the effort you could have spent on your logic. On the other hand, it's better to get the logic *and* the proportion right, and I try to even though I screw it up (and I didn't screw it up here--I meant exactly what I said).

What you seem to not realize is that technically, it'd have been trivial to make a clean break--leaving all the old SoloHQ stuff as is and unmodifiable--and creating a new one for RoR based on the same technology but without the content. And that would have left a pretty empty site for RoR--just like Linz started with here. But unlike Linz, Joe would still have all his technology, the "geeks" at RoR had it easy when it came to transition. So your speculation about Joe doesn't fly.

But why speculate? How about you just ask Joe what's up? The answer might be interesting if nothing else.

Shayne, that's strong language

Lanza Morio's picture

"Disgusting" - "maybe Joe is too dumb to see the meaning of his actions" - "rub his nose in it"

Shayne, what kind of language do you use when people really piss you off? I like your thinking on a lot of the recent threads but responses of this kind make you impossible for me to work with. You have no sense of proportion. Zero flexibility. It's a shame because you have a lot of good qualities.

As to the point, my speculation (and it is only speculation) is that Joe is still working toward building the new website. He had to get out of SOLOHQ for reasons of his own and now he's trying to figure out what's next. ROR as it is not a finished thing. My guess is that it's more of a place-holder. He might scrap the whole thing and go in another direction entirely. It takes time to build a vision (and an elaborate website to go with it).

Disgusting either way you look at it

sjw's picture

The thing advertised by Joe was that SoloHQ was being shut down, and two new sites created. But from looking at the site, what really happened is that Joe took complete ownership of SoloHQ, merely changing the name and effectively booting Linz, all the while feeding us false information about what was really going on.

I don't assume malice on Joe's part, maybe he didn't mean it and is just too dumb to see the meaning of his actions without someone rubbing his nose in it. In which case somebody who's fond of Joe (like you Lance) should rub his nose in it so he can fix it--I can see why Linz would be too disgusted to want to deal with him.

This seems wrong...

Lanza Morio's picture

Well, we have a new Objectivist schism to entertain ourselves with (that's heavy sarcasm).

As I understand it Joe R. handled the transition from SOLO to ROR rather well. He became fed up with something (I don't know what) and/or wanted to go in a different direction. His action was swift and sure. And he did it without name-calling.

It didn't seem to be a move to get rid of you, Linz. Tho maybe that's how you feel about it. Or maybe that's exactly what it was and I just don't know it yet. I've never heard Joe R. say a bad word about you Linz so I don't think there's any malice involved. He seems like a good guy.

Has he broken a contract?

Ugh!

Robert's picture

" Personally I've no intention of doing a thing. I don't want to know. "

I don't think that there is a hell of a lot you could do anyway! If appeals to Joe's sense of ethics don't work, you're screwed. I only hope that RoR sticks with the reason side of it's moniker and doesn't become something I'm going to regret being linked to in the future...

About the only thing an individual could do would be to go on RoR and delete all of his posts and articles as Orion Reasoner did when he left SOLOHQ.

It's a childish solution to be sure. But seeing as there is probably no real legal recourse in the event that Joe et al. dig their toes in, it's probably the only thing you can do other than write RoR and it's owner off all together.

solohq links

Phil Howison's picture

Links to SoloHQ articles now redirect automatically to the RoR archive. Here's an example.

Tenya

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I wouldn't ask Joe the time of day. On Dec 1, the day of the launch of the two "new" web sites, I visited RoR, saw what he had done, felt sick, left—& haven't been back since. I wasn't even aware the old SOLOHQ articles were now tagged as RoR, though if I'd given it a moment's thought I would have realised that must have been happening. As it is, I only became aware of it this morning when Tim drew it to my attention. I felt sick again. Personally I've no intention of doing a thing. I don't want to know. Folk can see what happened & what it constitutes. If the perpetrators wish to keep perpetrating it, & their sanctioners wish to keep sanctioning it, nothing much I can do.

Tim and/or Linz

Tenyamc's picture

I am surprised that you and Joe can't work this out to your mutual satisfaction. I assume one or both of you has already contacted Joe about your concerns, and I'm guessing his response did not put those concerns to rest? If this is accurate, would you mind sharing the gist of that response with the rest of us? Since I have so much respect for all 3 of you, I am very concerned about this dispute.

Tenya

Linz...

Robert's picture

I have done as you suggested.

Now may I propose that we (those of us who are irked by this) approach Joe and politely suggest that he re-tag SOLOHQ articles as SOLOHQ articles?

I for one did not give my permission for the Victor Borge article - IMHO, one of the best I have ever written - to be retagged as a Rebirth of Reason article.

It was published explicitly for SOLO because I wanted to contribute to the "Sense of Life" on that site.

I was not consulted about whether or not I wanted my name associated with RoR and what RoR stands for. I mean no insult by that.

My objection is made on principle: I submitted the article in good faith and the publisher (assuming Joe holds the copyright) should continue that good faith when he republishes the article. He should, at minimum, acknowledge the context in which the article was first published - that includes stating that this was originally a SOLOHQ article.

I'm not suggesting that Joe was being malicious. How would I know? I've never met him. But this is an error (probably committed in the rush to setup RoR before the deadline) that needs to be fixed.

Robert ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If they were published they should already be in the SOLOHQ archive here on Passion. If they weren't, submit them here on your personal SOLO blog. If they were & you want to retrieve & revive them, be my guest! Smiling

Free Radical Articles?

Robert's picture

What of the Free Radical Articles linked to the ex-SOLOHQ site? Are they too being branded as RoR-owned?

...

And the answer is that they are linked to the TFR site - Good!

So if we want to repost articles from SOLOHQ to SOLOPassion, what is the procedure. I recall that Joe considers material posted to SOLOHQ to be the property of SOLOHQ. Fair enough, but SOLOHQ is no more and I submitted the three articles I submitted in support of Linz's vision of SOLO.

I agree too

sjw's picture

There should have been a clean break, even of Joe retained the old Solo technology the RoR content should have had a clean break with the old SoloHQ--even just for historical accuracy if nothing else.

I agree.

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Tim—you are correct. I didn't hand over branding rights to the SOLOHQ material. My understanding was that Joe was creating a *new* site, not rolling over the existing one with new colours and a new name (and of course, all the existing membership). If you go to SOLOHQ right now you will see that two *new* sites are promised. That was written by Joe, and was consistent with what he'd told me about his intentions. That's not what happened. There's a word for that kind of behaviour.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing I wrote for SOLOHQ should be considered part of RoR, even though it appears as such.

Linz

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.