...name-calling when you are trying to work something out is counter-productive. Or name-calling in lieu of discourse on a topic of diagreement. But from reviewing the thread link you posted, you did not even do that!  Under the circumstances, I do not think you were harsh at all.

"Calling something the name it merits, good or bad, is not only cool, it's morally mandatory in my book."

Good point!

Obviously, I am still 100% unconvinced about the morality or propriety of Joe's choices.  Ethan's (and the other fellows') arguments seem more like excuses than actual rational explanations for honorable conduct.

Hi Lindsay,

Thanks for reloading that thread. Your Olive Branch, which really starts half way through that post sounds ok. The problem was that you said a lot of really harsh things in posts prior to it. You then say, maybe I'm wrong, but the tone is still not to conciliatory, given the earlier part of the post and the prior posts.

In any case. I'm going to step away from this, as you clearly see things one way, and simply repeating the same arguemnts s a waste of our time.

Ethan

Those who are calling me a name-caller here: please be specific. Identify the names I have used. Then tell me which ones I didn't provide backing for.

One thing I disagree with Scott about. He says we're all agreed that name-calling is uncool. Well, I'm not agreed. Calling something the name it merits, good or bad, is not only cool, it's morally mandatory in my book. As long as you can demonstrate the "it merits" bit.

Linz

You're a staunch & good friend.

In light of all the relitigating going on here, I reacquainted myself with the first raising of this matter by Tim Sturm:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/562#comment-4077

I recommend everyone else do the same, paying particular attention to my "olive branch" post & what followed.

Joe has replied to Duncan's private e-mail, demanding we remove the entire SOLOHQ archive. Hahahahaha!

The lesson in all of this: regardless of how well you get on with someone at a given point, get any agreement with him down in writing. That someone may not be the person you think he is at the time. Common sense 101.

Duh-Linz

Ethan:

"As I said, this is the sanction of the victim. Joe had no obligation to continue to support Lindsay after what Lindsay said. Lindsay said Joe is a liar because the site isn't "completely new" [see my arguement above] and that he was dishonest in not having a fixed archive that showed clearly that the older material was from SOLOHQ not RoR. A conversation could have cleared this up."

Except it is not santion of the victim when dishonesty is being exposed, which I am sure is what Linz thought he was doing.

And Joe DID have an obligation--the obligation he made when he and Linz came to terms after the unilateral split.  Joe contracted to do so, and he unilaterally decided that Linz calling him a liar was grounds for reneging on the deal.

A conversation MIGHT have cleared it up--but only Linz wanted one of those.

Well, I can tell you're a lawyer

You said:

1. You do not have an understanding of exactly what was discussed. Does that mean that your understanding of the deal was or was not accurately described below?

My Reply:

I'm saying I've heard things from both sides, but without the full context of the discussion my ability to speak accurately is limited. Using words like "new" site or "completely new" site imply different things. When you lock onto that and then say AHHA! it's just confusing. When someone is angry at someone it tends to make them see every comment in it's worst possible light.

You said:

In fact, if it were you, you would privately contact the former partner to discuss same. But, as you will note per Linz's account, Joe did not want to talk to him--he wanted arms-length, email exchanges, not a conversation. Even if Linz made a bad choice in
making it public, I do not think it changes that the basis of Linz's ire was at least understandable.

My Reply:

I've never said Lindsay's ire was wrong. Given that he thought that a split wasn't necessary and would cause difficulty and harm to "the mission" I think he could quite reasonably be upset. Now, I'm not Joe, and I'm not in the know about every communication and the context over time between Lindsay and Joe. Looking at this on the surface I would say, Gee Joe should have called him about the split. But that hinges on limited knowledge on my part. What's the relationship context. Was Joe comforatble talking to Lindsay on the phone? Does Joe hate talking on the phone (I do?) To much unknown fo rme to say.

You said:

Let's just identify that Joe's action in putting up a blue copy of SOLOHQ after he promised to do something totally different could be interpreted by a reasonable person as not quite kosher.

My Reply:

See my answer to #1. What was said. What was meant. Much of the ire hangs on literal interpretation of what it was we have heard that joe said. Is RoR Just SOLOHQ focussed more on activism and less on the strife in the movement? That's one way of putting it. If Joe wanted to go that route then, by my arguements in my earlier "as I see it" post that was his right. He took the parts that were his from the split and did as he wanted to with them. Joe is being called a liar based on that understandning and interpretation of the split that there would be two completely new sites. Is that what was meant? If Joe wanted to go in a new direction, that is focus more on activism and spreading Objectivist ideas, and turn away from the intra-movement strife that bored him I would say he's done that. Do you see how in posts he is characterized as I liar over this interpretation?

You said:

[lots and lots] By what right or terms did Joe remove SoloP from the Solohq page, once he had initiated the split, agreed to co-promote, and acknowledged that Linz had at least that much coming to him in the old SoloHQ web address?

As I said, this is the sanction of the victim. Joe had no obligation to continue to support Lindsay after what Lindsay said. Lindsay said Joe is a liar because the site isn't "completely new" [see my arguement above] and that he was dishonest in not having a fixed archive that showed clearly that the older material was from SOLOHQ not RoR. A conversation could have cleared this up. Waging a war in the public eye made things worse. Does Joe have a reason why he thinks it's ok for the articles to be listed as they are? Did anyone ask him first? No, because his guilt was already assumed via the "completely new" thing. Given no writen contract of partnership and no written agreement for disolution and given anger, and given possible misunderstanding, and given unclear communication, you have a recipe for what has happened.

I look at this situation and say, gee this is fucked up. It could have gone much smoother, even keeping the idea of a break, it could have gone better. Now we have a public shit storm.

I work in a stressful job. Invariably my work arrives at the end of a project when earlier milestones have slipped and the end deadline has stayed the same. Many people in my job tend towards panic and gloom and doom. I try to stay calm when all around me is madness. When I'm angry and likely to lash out without thought, I pause (most of the time) and evaluate. I look at the whole picture and choose my responses accordinly. When something goes wrong, I look to fix it. When I do something wrong, I appologise for it. In either case I make sure it doesn't happen again by being even more careful and more thoughtful.

A fix for this isn't likely, but we'll see.

1.  You do not have an understanding of exactly what was discussed.   Does that mean that your understanding of the deal  was or was not accurately described below?

2.  We do not know the full context, but you CAN understand how someone might take umbrage.

     In fact, if it were you, you would privately contact the former partner to discuss same.  But, as you will note per Linz's account, Joe did not want to talk to him--he wanted arms-length, email exchanges, not a conversation.  Even if Linz made a bad choice in
making it public, I do not think it changes that the basis of Linz's ire was at least understandable.

    So let's not equate an apparrently-calculated unfair business dealing on one end and a mistake in judgment in airing private laundry publicly--and lets not wipe out the gravity of the first in light of the second.  This leaves aside, for now, the issue of Linz only being able to address the issue publicly because Joe did not want to address it privately.

    Let's just identify that Joe's action in putting up a blue copy of SOLOHQ after he promised to do something totally different could be interpreted by a reasonable person as not quite kosher.

    If a reasonable person can judge that a reasonable interpretation of an action was that it was less-than-fair, we can at least acquit or give Linz the benefit of the doubt for being upset in the first place.

So we seem to be past my first issue. 

The second main issue seems to be addressed by your #3, so we will keep that numbering.

3.  Linz called alot of names.  Maybe he was slanderous.  Or maybe, he is the type to call it as he sees it.  None of that constitutes breach of contract.

So, was it part of the deal, as you understand it, that, in order to give both new ventures a fair shake, the old SOLOHQ space would remain with a page directing traffic to both new sites.

I wil assume that you rather agree that this was part of the deal, partially evidenced by the fact that this is precisely what WAS happening after the split:  RoR and SoloP were on the old SOLOHQ space.

So the second major issue here is:  Does the fact that Linz reasonable took umbrage, and publicly decried the action (as is consistent with his past history of facing these things head-on) constitute a breach of  contract?  Or, was Joe justified in breaking his deal  of co-promoting both sites  at the old SOLOHQ because he was either or boths: (1) upset that Linz took umbrage;  (2)  Upset with Linz that he made such umbrage public?

My answer is clearly not. Their deal was not "remain silent about one another and the deal holds" as far as any of us have heard.  Their deal was based upon a recognition by both parties that bothcontributed to SOLOHQ and both deserved a fair shot at the membership and goodwill of the old SOLOHQ.

Now keep in mind, one party had time to really think everything through and sort of plan things--and the other (Linz) had all of this thrown at him over a short period of time.  I think that there might be an issue of unequal bargaining power for this reason, and that Joe is technically proficient and understnad the tech much more than Linz does, as well--what is a domain, how does the code work, what is content and what is code, etc.  But we can put that aside for now.

Joe COULD have bargained in an overtly unfair way.  But this would have been obvious, and resulted in sympathy for Linz, so that is a nonstarter for a man with some code looking to tap into his former partner's brand.  So instead, he makes the deal the way he does.

So Joe and Linz each promise a  new site and a new direction, with equal billing at the old SOLOHQ.

Linz gets a new site up.
Joe gets what is largely the same site up.

Equal billing (more or less) is afforded, until an objection is raised.

Then, no billing.

Outside the terms of a contract, there is an issue of good faith:  true honorable businessmen do not behave like lawyers, trying to trick or deceive with a phrase, or hide behind a preposition.  They both understand that in a business transaction, a proper deal is one in which both parties win.  When one parties loses, despite being happy with the terms as agreed, it either means that the unhappy party made a bad deal, or that someone is dealing in bad faith--hiding facts, distorting meaning.

By what right or terms did Joe remove SoloP from the Solohq page, once he had initiated the split, agreed to co-promote, and acknowledged that Linz had at least that much coming to him in the old SoloHQ web address?

I tend to prefer posting here in general. I still post both places but I find myself more identified with this board than RoR.

I've got no strong connection with anyone involved.

I really just see two main issues that could stand as points of contention.

Since Joe developed the code and it's his that's not up for debate.

Linz developed the brand that's not up for debate.

One thing I noted on the old SoloHQ was that all the boards were backwards compatible. You found an entry you liked that preceded the current membership list and set-up you could start or continue a discussion linked dirrectly to the article. I see RoR as an extension of this but I think a fair compromise is a Solo banner appearing on pre-break articles (posts?) and possibly removing certain content directly from the front page and the random content que.

As for the static archive here. Copying the code kind of seems a little just kind of underhanded on the surface, but since it was for the sole purpose of retaining control of property it is understandable (I remember one remark about someone thinking about using the code as the foundation for SOLOpassion which I think would have been inappropriate). Overall I think the action is appropriate but honestly still up for debate.

The main thing I consider to be wrong on the RoR side was moving the accounts over. If the starting over process was meant seriously this should not have been done. I know it was to make things more convienient but I'm kind of curious what anyone on the RoR side of things would have thought if Solo had taken the information from SoloHQ to do this on Solopassion.

I think the only fair action would have been to consider the member list dead on each site if the starting over was to be taken seriously. That is my main complaint.

I'm not directly involved in either site so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

Inking is sexy.

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

Thanks you for your opening comments.

Now your answers.

1) I have no idea exactly what was discussed. I wasn't there and have only seen a portion of an email posted by Lindsay.

2) Since I don't have the full context of the deal, I don't know. But, I do think someone could take umbrage over it. Especially if they judged it on first site and don't follow along and see what's different. Fair enough. If it happened to me, I would contact my former partner privately about the issue. Letting it be aired publically was a bad choice. Even if Tim had posted it on RoR as Lindsay suggested, it was still an ineffective and innapropriate way to go about handling an issue.

3) Calling someone a name or reapeatedly calling them a liar and a thief? Calling someone an asshole is stating an opinion. Calling them a thief and liar in a public forum is potentially slanderous. Calling an Objectivist a liar and thief is pretty damn heavy. What do you think? How far should the Sanction of the Victim go? No one here would defend that position either, in fact they don't. See the Dialectical Dishonesty thread.

I have also not disparraged Lindsay, other than to question what he's said on this matter. Joe had only positive things to say too up until this fracas started.

"If indeed it's a new site, why are all the old SOLOHQ articles, posts & threads still up, LIVE, only with a different banner at the top?"

The dates on the articles remain unchanged. It's no secret that RoR started in December. It says clearly at the SOLOHQ URL that the content from SOLOHQ is at RoR.

Let me ask you something. In the waning days of SOLOHQ there was a large cry about saving the articles. So they are saved. If you are only upset about the fact that they don't have a SOLOHQ note on them them (Free Rads say Free Rad) why didn't you (or Tim) contact Joe about it? Why go right to the public outcry? What were you hoping to acheive? What value were you pusuing and did you choose the right method to acheive it?

"TOC/RoR marriage"

Saying it doesn't make it so. I've been critical of TOC people on several occasions. I've been supportive of reading PARC. I've been in favor of TOC people coming to debate the issues here. I HAVE NOT BEEN SILENCED OR CENSURED in public or private. The marriage is a fable. Read what I write here and there and see.

"As I've said elsewhere, airing of these matters is healthy. And one of the most damaging things to Objectivism, Ethan, is dishonourable behaviour on the part of folk claiming to *be* Objectivists. Think on that."

But I've said just the same thing on RoR as recently as this week. I started a thread on it in fact. My point is that those topics are the dominant ones in your discussion board. Sure, people talk about what they want to. On RoR I said take it to the SOLO threads. Why? Two reasons, I'm tired of hearing about it and the fight is here. The sides should meet on one field and debate. Standing on RoR saying SOLOP and PARC suck etc etc is useless. It SOLVES nothing. Yes, the bad ones harm Objectivism, but it takes a strong stomach to listen to it all the time.

I suspect Joe has little time and was sick of it. He saw only more of it, and he wanted to turn to other pursuits. HE found no value in it, or little enough to merit his time. You have the stomach for it and want to pursue it. That's all. As I said, the two directions are not opposites or mutually exclusive.

My head is far from i the sand and I just call it like I see it. I give credit where it's due to all those I interact with, even those whom I don't like. My words here and on RoR, and anywhere else I've posted speak for themselves and my honesty.

...let me say that I am pretty aggressive in my last post, and did not mean to imply that you, Ethan, are a crackpot.  You keep discourse very civil, which is a virtue.  I've seen you post very civilly over the the Autonomist in the light of pretty heinous attacks and misrepresntations.  I'm impressed with your restraint, and wish I was better at the same.

"Is it your contention that Joe (who defended Linz too I might add) should have to keep following along when it was no longer going in the direction he wanted? Should he sacrafice his time to focus on areas he wasn't interested in. How long should that go on? The fight is still happening here and will continue for some time. Should Joe say, Ok I'll keep doing this, though I don't like it?"

No. No. It shouldn't. No.

Civility is no substitute for addressing a straightforward issue, and re-framing a simple question and then speaking on the re-framed topic is not ~really~ an answer.  I think one of the most efficient ways of handling things like this is to take it sort of issue by issue and see where we agree.

So, yes, Linz is a name-caller, and that is not very cool, we agree.  But...

1.  Did Linz and Joe agree that they would both go their separate ways, that Joe wants to start his own, completely different website, and Linz would do the same, and go in a completely diffrent direction? And the purpose of this was so that no one would be mislead about what ahppened to SOLO, or to take one or the other site as the offical, sanctioned successor, over the other?  (Or to your knowledge, does this misrepresent the deal?)

2.  Does opening up the exact same website in form and function, except for blue, violate the mutual promise of each, Linz and Joe, to do the above?  And this is key--does it do so even a little bit--can you see how someone could find what Joe did to have been a clear violation of the spirit of the deal?  I know YOU do not think there was anything wrong with it, and I will hold in abeyance any speculation why that is.  But can you even understand why this would be an issue--why the recipient of the shellacking in this deal might feel betrayed or bamboozled?

3.  Does being called a bad name justify unilaterally breaching a promise to equi-promote both new websites at the address of the old one?  Or, is calling someone a bad name a breach of contract?  Because, oral or not, that is what Joe and Linz had--a contract regarding an equitable division of property. (I can tell you that calling someone a name does not breach a contract).

If Joe is the morally correct party here, and ignoring an adversary to avoid sanctioning his conduct is the highest moral act in this context, and therefore, the most advantegeous, why didn't Joe just continue to ignore Linz?  Did Linz's barbs shock, surprise, and deeply injure his former partner, in light of his former partner's unilateral decision to sever a 4 year relationship?  Joe didn't know that Linz might go volcanic once the magnitude of Joe's "equitable division" became apparrent?

No, Joe decided to add to his violation of the spirit of his "deal" with Linz by breaching it in fact--punishing Linz for his bad words by depriving him his share of access to the SOLOHQ web site address.

So Linz is a volcanic name-caller.  But Joe is a deal-breaker, and takes every opportunity to try to curb speech he does not care for.  It seeths in him, allowing others to take views he does not hold, or having to take any criticism, especially on his own site.  This was pretty transparent at the old SOLOHQ.  He had a strange penchant for allowing any atrange, bullshit article that filled his queue  and helped him reach his goal under the SOLOHQ banner, but dissent on the boards?  He was not pleased.  And because Objectivism has an intellectual legacy of either-or, O'ists have a tendency to pick a side and then defend it to the death.  Which is unfortunate.

At least here, you can call Linz on his volcanic, name-calling ways and he isn't going to moderate you or kick you off or secretly curb your content at the site.  Prove you are a jackass, and all bets are off.  But here, unlike at ARI, TOC, RoR, or OL:  YOU CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUES DIRECTLY, EVEN IF THE ISSUE YOU WANT TO ADDRESS IS THAT THE SITE OWNER IS AN AHS-HOLE. (For our American readers, that's asshole in Kiwi).

A willingness to address issues, even if they upset you or contradict what you herertofore believed, is one sign of an honest, truth seeking intellect.  Look at Linz's initial reaction to PARC, and then after he read and digested it.  Look at his reaction to the revelation re: Dr. Sciabarra.  This is not a delusional, power mad man.  This is a truth seeking and truth-upholding man.  Contrast that with Brandonian haughtiness, statements that they have "earned" certain conduct and a beyond-reproach status.  An Objectivist understand that no one ever reaches the status of--beyond reproach.  Maybe you do when you die--but until then, you are a man on this earth, and the same rules apply to your judgments, and mis judgments, as do anyone, whether they realize it or not.

Some of the drama, I could do without.  But what is Linz to do when betrayals present themselves at his doorstep?  Ignore them, or address them and move on?  When parties dispute facts, you cannot move on--you must determine which facts are true, and make a judgment accordingly. Humans tend to be territorial and loyal to those around whom we hang our hat.  Objectivists are supposed to resist this tendency and ally themselves with honesty and integrity:  not with the guy who gave us a title, or the side we think will win, or the person who is famous in O'ist circles, or the faction with the O'ist heir sanctioned by AR herself.  But with the one supported by the turth, and for me, there is no close second place:  Lindsay Perigo is a lion of a man, is honest, and a truth seeker, despite what must fall by the wayside in its wake.  Flawed, perhaps.  But he has all the right stuff where it counts--truth and integrity.  There is some evidence that these do not exist in his detractors, or are lacking in varying degrees.

It is indeed ridiculous to claim that my primary agenda for SOLO is NOT the spread of Objectivist & capitalist ideas, but IS Drama 101, including what Ethan calls ARI/TOC issues. Fact is, however, those issues *have* become big again, because of PARC, which one side point blank refuses to read, let alone address. Reality. Context. Hello, anyone home? Not at TOC. They're outside with heads self-buried in the ground. Same kind of posture Ethan assumes when he continues to insist RoR is a new site. If indeed it's a new site, why are all the old SOLOHQ articles, posts & threads still up, LIVE, only with a different banner at the top?

I say again, this was never about setting a new direction, unless one calls hopping into bed with TOC a new direction. As it was, we had a working relationship with them of sorts, but Joe's attitude toward them was every bit as scathing as mine regarding their weak points. At least, according to the things he said to me it was. Then all of a sudden he was defending them. Prior to the break, I repeatedly requested to Joe that we try to talk things through by telephone. He refused. That's what told me something was up that he wasn't letting on about. Post-break, with the TOC/RoR marriage, it all became clear.

Now Ethan, as far as your allegation that my top priority is Internecine 101 is concerned, go to the front page. There are three or four internecine threads. These, I note, are the only ones you've posted on. There are also threads on The Romantic Manifesto, "grunt" in classical music, CDs & copyright, concept formation, "platonic" competition (Reisman), an anti-Rand book (Seddon), Beethoven Symphonies, Rousseau & Kant, Mother Teresa, architecture, minor characters in Rand's literature, and more. It's true that these threads are not nearly as popular as the internecine ones. But guess what, Ethan? I don't force folk to post on the internecine ones & ignore the non-internecine ones—that's over to folk! It's pretty much open slather—folk can post what they like where they like. You are free to post on any of the non-internecine threads, Ethan, or start one or twenty of your own! So please don't presume to tell me what my priorities are, or that I'm somehow less committed to the promotion of Objectivism than Rowlands because in the free-flow that is the SOLO board, certain subjects dominate. For your information, Jason Q is bored as much as you by the PARC debates, but he wouldn't presume to say they're unimportant or try to close them down.

As I've said elsewhere, airing of these matters is healthy. And one of the most damaging things to Objectivism, Ethan, is dishonourable behaviour on the part of folk claiming to *be* Objectivists. Think on that.

Linz

I did answer your question, in detail in fact. I adressed the color, content, direction, etc. Read again.

As for you last part. No Linz didn't choose to be called an alchaholic. I defended him on that very issue. Did he want to follow the fight with PARC ARI TOC Brandens? Yes. I also said that there is no problem with this. Not my cup of tea, but valid never-the-less.

For Joe though, it clearly was an issue. Though valid, the fights over the issues that Linz was pursuing (again, valid) were consuming the site. Linz wanted to fight those fights, Joe didn't. Joe wanted to focus on activism. He does now.

Is it your contention that Joe (who defended Linz too I might add) should have to keep following along when it was no longer going in the direction he wanted? Should he sacrafice his time to focus on areas he wasn't interested in. How long should that go on? The fight is still happening here and will continue for some time. Should Joe say, Ok I'll keep doing this, though I don't like it?

I read RoR everyday, so I see the difference. Do you? You say nothing has changed but the color, that this violates the spirit of the deal. Spend a month reading and posting on RoR and then go back and look at the SOLOHQ forum as it was before the split. You'll notice a difference.

Is it Lindsay's Choice to fight this fight? Yes. Is it worthwhile? Yes. Should he have had to give it up so Joe could have things his way? No. The split worked from a direction stand-point.

Do you get to vote on what Joe is allowed to do with his time and property?

Did you read Lindsay's Olive Branch to Joe. Does it sound like an Olive branch or an ultimatum?

The split didn't surprise me. I didn't know about it beforehand, but it's what kept me in the online community of Oists.

..posited in my post, you said you would.

Evidently (as I gather from what you did post), you think that a new website and a new direction means changing orange to blue.  I do not believe that you see nothing wrong with this.  You REALLY, REALLY do not, nothing at all, no violation of the spirit of the deal, nothing? Like most of the nut jobs, you seem to be picking a position and then pretending like no other contrary position could ever be held.  ARI does it, TOC does it, OL does it.  It drives me nuts, and is a real failing of otherwise reasonable and intelligent people.

Wasn't the idea that they would both go off and do completely new things? 

It would be like to the 2 owners of a business severing the partnership and agreeing to open completely different businesses in completely different location.  One honois the baragain and the other opens the exact same store across the street.

In blue.

An what's with this:

"As time wore on one could see a big difference in goals between Lindsay and Joe though. Lindsay’s interest appeared to become increasingly focused on issues of personality within Objectivist circles. Certainly the publication of PARC and the Peron and Drooling Beast episodes served to further turn his focus to getting at those issues that have dogged the movement for years."

One could see a split?  Is that why no one was surprised by the split?  Or was everyone completely floored by it?  Except for Joe.  Was it really Linz's GOAL to turn SOLOHQ into Drama 101?  Or were issues regarding the Brandens and their betrayals coming to light, and issues of truth and integrity of all involved parties being sorted out?

Are ideas completely divorced from their proponents? Should it matter to an Objectivist whether its inventor was a raging lunatic bitch?  Or whether her critics are themselves lunatics?  Is it a valid issue to address an entire O'ist organization which is closing its eyes and ignoring PARC?  Is that what an Objectivist does, closes his eyes to evidence?  And what of these direct attacks on Linz in Drooling Beast--just let that slide?  Linz CHOSE to be called an alcoholic, did he?  He was supposed to roll over?  And if he doesn't, he isn't interested in a focus of advancing O'ism, instead, he wants O'ism to be reduced to pissing match of the week?

I happen to be exhausted by all the factionalism.  Truth be told, Linz has my sanction because he is the most honest of the bunch.  The Brandens are doddering authoritarians who make people disappear. 

Joe is the ruthless type of character who foisted a carefully worded deal on his partner when all along he knows he is intending on violating the spirit of the deal, and then fucks you over on the rest of the deal when you object and call him what he is.   He is a man who can talk himself into anything.  And evidently has.  Ruthless.

A least Linz holds out olive branches and invites his detractors to debate.  Joe unilaterally stos honoring a deal if he doesn't like what you are doing, and the Brandens attack your friends and evade.  And people wonder why non-O'ists think we are all nuts, or are fascists...

I read that Lindsay. In fact I read it again just now.

I disagree with what you said.

You have not addressed my arguemnts and in your mentioned post you are saying it's up to Joe to make a good faith gesture to get things rolling. Why?

You say all of my latest post was answered. I disagree. Your answers, given in the ealier post, hinge on the acceptance of Joe's guilt and evil which you have not proven.

I'm sorry you're angry, but calling me fucking dense is not a refutation of any of my arguments.

Ethan

(Not fucking mad)

Can't you fucking read?

Which part of my much earlier post, What Is To Be Done? is unclear to you?

All of it, it would seem.

I'm not going to waste time answering this latest post, since everything in it was already answered. You're either fucking dense or fucking bad.

Linz

Fucking mad.

The SOLOHQ Split

SOLOHQ was:

Lindsay, Joe, and Jeff had an informal partnership. There were no written agreements, to my knowledge, regarding the deal. Joe and Jeff brought there interest in spreading Objectivism and their experience in site coding due to their work on importanceofphilosophy.com. Linz brought his reputation in Objectivist circles and NZ media, the membership of his SOLO list, and a boat load of passion. All in all, a great combination.

So why split?

It’s clear that progress had been made at SOLOHQ. In a day to day way Lindsay was a powerhouse writing articles and involving himself in discussions. Joe and Jeff provided improved code and features, as well as lots of great articles. As time wore on one could see a big difference in goals between Lindsay and Joe though. Lindsay’s interest appeared to become increasingly focused on issues of personality within Objectivist circles. Certainly the publication of PARC and the Peron and Drooling Beast episodes served to further turn his focus to getting at those issues that have dogged the movement for years. A valid concern, I hasten to add. Joe’s interests are more towards the spread of Objectivist and Capitalist ideas. Equally valid, and certainly more in my area of interest

These two areas are not mutually exclusive. In fact they both have a general track towards spreading Objectivist ideas. I’m guessing that the problem for Joe is that his precious spare time away from work was drawn further and further from activism as he became involved in dealing with the latest fallout on the SOLOHQ forum. This fallout was part of the whole track that Lindsay considers of prime importance. It was unavoidable in pursuing years of issues going back to Rand and the Branden’s that there would be many heated debates. This came to consume most of the time on the forum.

So Joe decides to have a break. Did this need to happen? Obviously, Joe felt so, and thought it was in his interest. In any event, it did happen. There are bound to be hard feelings in this situation, especially where Lindsay felt that the break was unnecessary. That’s understandable. The first issue that arises is, who gets what.

Regarding who gets what

1) SOLO: SOLO is Lindsay’s property. It existed prior to the partnership so obviously he gets the “brand.”

2) SOLOHQ: SOLOHQ was a combination of SOLO and Joe and Jeff’s Objectivism Headquarters site idea. Joe had registered and paid for the SOLOHQ site since it’s inception. The URL name was fairly his. He set up a pointer to both RoR and SOLOP after the split directing people to both new sites.

3) The Site Code: The website code that formed the actual SOLOHQ website belongs to Jeff and Joe. They built it and are free to use it as they will.

4) Articles and posts: The articles and posts that were added to SOLOHQ fall under the legal notification that went along with the site. That legal notification makes clear a distinction between three groups: SOLO, SOLOHQ, and the Free Radical. It has been argued here in previous discussion that both Joe and Linz have the right to use the material from the old SOLOHQ site. Since Linz owns SOLO and Joe owns the SOLOHQ site. This was discussed in an earlier thread, and as far as I know, folks accept that Joe has a right to use the archived material as well.

Regarding Lindsay and his work in particular

Several people have mentioned that SOLOHQ only grew as it did because of Lindsay. He was the prime mover and force behind everything that happened at SOLOHQ. Since Lindsay is leaving he and SOLOP get the benefit of himself. But what of the work he did for SOLOHQ? That work, articles, and all that happened under the partnership is shared. Just as a recording artists work is shared with his or her record label. The artist may leave, but access to their work remains to their old label and its subsidiaries.

Regarding a new site new direction

It has been said that RoR is nothing more than SOLOHQ without Linz, the Credo, and a new color scheme. It has been said that Joe lied about making a new site or completely new site, or various other statements. Not being party to the discussions of the split I’m going to address the issue of new site as I see it with the information I have.

Is the site code and content from SOLOHQ essentially unchanged, except for color and what not? Yes, it’s the same code and the same content. Joe had the rights to the code, so why rebuild it from scratch, especially given his limited time? He had no reason to.

What about the carried over content? Joe had a right to use this content, as I established earlier. This includes all articles and posts.

What about user accounts? Carrying over the accounts is a minor issue. It made it easier for returning people to just continue their membership. A few people have contacted Joe to have their accounts removed as they do not want to associated as a member of RoR. These people’s accounts have been removed.

Was it easier for Joe to use this to start RoR? Yes. Did Lindsay and his team have to start their site code from scratch? Yes. They did a fine job too.

Was this fair? That is established by who owns what and who has access to what of the old SOLOHQ. The answer is yes.

SOLOP has Lindsay, who by many people statements was the only reason SOLOHQ grew. He also has equal access to articles and posts from SOLOHQ. He should be viewed as coming out with the good end of the deal.
What about the direction? RoR has indeed changed direction from SOLOHQ and SOLOP. Most of the focus has been directed at activism and spreading Objectivism and Capitalism. The behind the scenes talk as well as the article and forum content have mostly focused here. SOLO is mainly focused on the TOC/ARI split and various aspects of that. Two sites focusing on two different areas, but with similar end goals I would say.

It has been said that Joe merely wanted to take SOLOHQ and get rid of Lindsay. Again, if SOLOHQ was driven by and mostly a product of Lindsay, then Joe is shooting himself in the foot. He gets some songs, but the singer has moved on. I’ve shown that, given the split and given the proper division of property and access to articles, Joe should be seen as getting a bad deal by the very arguments of those people attacking him.. Certainly, Lindsay might have a grievance that he was inconvenienced by the move, but in the end, he should be seen as having come out better for it. I’ve also shown how there is a new direction at RoR, despite the same site and old content.

What about a fixed archive of SOLOHQ stuff? The old SOLOHQ address makes it clear that SOLOHQ was closed and everything there is at RoR. RoR’s front page notes it’s start date as being December of 2005. All the old articles are still dated from the SOLOHQ days, and those mentioning the site in particular reference SOLOHQ, not RoR.
Tim Sturm’s piece on this that started this whole argument was posted on his blog on SOLOP. If you want to discuss something with someone, I recommend contacting them privately. If you choose to stand in a public place and attack their integrity, don’t be surprised when you don’t get the response you are looking for. There was a huge turd throwing storm before anyone bothered to contact the very person whom they were accusing. The court of public opinion is a bad place to make your case. Usually its for those who have little evidence or a weak case. If a resolution was the desired outcome, then the course taken was wrong. Why was this path chosen first?

What about the removal of the SOLOP link on SOLOHQ.com. This removal happened after a few quiet months when Lindsay called Joe a liar and a thief on SOLOP. Quite a few nasty pieces of invective were hurled. Joe, feeling no need to sanction these attacks in any way removed the link from the URL. Is this fair? Yes. Given the attacks made on him, which he says are untrue, he is under no obligation to support in any way SOLOP. There has been much defense on SOLOP recently of people breaking spoken agreements due to the bad conduct and bad faith of one of the people involved. I direct readers to the Dialectical Dishonesty thread to see this. This is the same thing. Joe is under no obligation to support someone calling him a liar and a thief. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.

What about silence about PARC, ARI/TOC, and the Branden’s. Does this constitute being allied with TOC? Given the greater focus on activism and spreading ideas I have encouraged posters on all sides to take their arguments and discussions of this to the SOLO site, rather than filling up RoR’s forum. Why? Because the fight is at SOLO. Why split the argument into camps where people sit on a forum and hurl turds at their “enemies” on another site? I encouraged the TOC people who post on RoR to take the fight to SOLO. Make an argument I said. I even came to SOLO and posted my condemnations of Robert Campbell’s efforts in this area. A few posters have continued to discuss the issue on RoR’s forums. What does this say about RoR? Nothing. What does it say about those who choose to do this. Something.

What about Lindsay “Olive Branch? Why did Joe not answer it. When that is back on the SOLOP website I encourage you to read it. It amounted to, “Put the link back on SOLOHQ, I won’t say anymore about you, you thieving liar. This is not an Olive Branch. This is a public demand for a sacrifice on the part of Joe. Again, if the goal was a resolution of issues caused by the split, why not talk directly to Joe first? The methods used were akin to taking a paper bag, crapping in it, lighting it on fire, and hurling it at Joe. One may not then expect to be treated civilly by your target.

So what will be the resolution of this? Will hatchets be buried? Will real discussion and olive branches be offered? This remains to be seen. Attempts to categorize and marginalize individuals and appeals to emotion and moral denunciations have a way of hardening hearts. My mind will remain free and open to thinking about all ideas and sides critically.

In the end, I’m not at all ashamed to be associated with Joe and RoR. I’m quite happy with it.

Scott,

I have no problem addressing that issue. I will do so when I have time later today in my longer format post. It's an issue I have addressed here previously on another thread, so I'm on familiar ground with it. My post will try to cover the whole issue in a clear and reasoned way. That way we can resolve this without resorting to useless one liners and fragmentary responses.

The way you phrase your question (yes or no) is not useful as the answer requires context to do it justice. Especially in adsressing some of your adverbs.

Ethan

It was my recolection that Tim said he was taking umbrage for Lindsay in the thread he started. If I have recalled that incorrectly, I will appologise. When you guys get the server move done and that thread gets reposted, I will check what is said there. If I'm wrong on this point I will post to that effect here.

Ethan

... Tim's account. When he approached me about this, he was pretty pissed (US). He was pissed on his own behalf, that his SOLOHQ contributions now appeared under a banner he hadn't subscribed to, without his being consulted, let alone giving his consent. He wanted to raise it on the TOC Frord Board itself. I requested that he raise it on SOLO instead, so as not to grace the frords with a quality presence like his which they didn't deserve. Ethan, Tim was not taking umbrage on my behalf, though he certainly holds in contempt the manner in which I was deceived.

Linz

I did not take umbrage on anyone else's behalf.

I spoke up because I was annoyed to see my posts seamlessly integrated into a site I didn’t sign up to (not to mention the fact that Lindsay’s articles headed up the front page of that site - and still do). I merely agreed with Linz’ wish, out of respect for him and since the issue was more personal to him than to me, to post my comments on SOLO instead of ror.

My views on the rights and wrongs of the division of assets haven’t changed.

"To those who roar about RoR and try to stretch it to fit your two camp concept, I say this: wishes won't make it so, and those who fail to see individuals as individuals and research things for themselves will be doomed to ignorance."

That is what the above is.

I'm not talking about who, what, where, them, us, me, you, him, his, our.

I gave you a pretty simple, straightforward reason (the first one on my list) for my postiion that Joe was deceptive.

You ignored it, rather than addressing it.

Display your integrity by answering whether Joe's "new" website is a completely new website going in a completely new direction. Or whether it is the axact same website using the exact same code (except for color) at a new web address?

You can choose not to, but what message is that sending to your putative audience, "who wish to think about the issue for themselves."

Who was sick of Tim Sturm taking umbrage on Linz' behalf in his original thread?

Tim was praised for defending his friend by many.

Turnabout is fair play, but,I'm doing this for me, not for Joe. I pay for my cake and eat it.

Ethan

Here, there, us, them, they, we, etc.

I thought I commented on the useless nature of such conceptual constructs. Some of the people on RoR's forum have no interest or refuse to read PARC. I commented on my opinion, which anyone can read there. Responses are varied, as one would suspect of many different individuals with differing viewpoints. Some are honest some are not. Some are good and some are bad. Some are just confused. Some have other priorities.

To those who roar about RoR and try to stretch it to fit your two camp concept, I say this: wishes won't make it so, and those who fail to see individuals as individuals and research things for themselves will be doomed to ignorance.

I (yep, just me the individual again) have an argument to make in reply to various posters here. But it's going to have to wait until tomorrow. All I'll say for now is that I'm not ashamed as Lindsay thinks I should be, and with good reason I think. I expect my argument to change not one mind that has already been made up, but will just serve to inform those who wish to think about the issue for themselves.

Lindsay,

Yes. To clarify *that*:

- Yes, the only evidence I have that Joe intended to hand over the content was his claim, *after* we had mirrored the content here, that he had planned to. There was nothing from him whatsoever prior to that to indicate he would.

- Yes, as far as I'm concerned, the content stays there regardless of what Joe says. Why I am asking for clarification is because I'm sick of people like Ethan taking umbrage on Joe's behalf.

But who was the deciever by taking the old, popular SOLOHQ format and web address as his own, when that was not the deal--the deal was for two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT websites.

Exactly. Joe said he was going to create a new website. That was a lie. L-I-E. Lie. New site, old software—no problem. Old site simply rolled over with new colour & title & Linz' Credo removed—problem.

So Joe pooped on Linz.

Linz took one look & decided to put the lying Rowlands & his "new" site out of his mind for ever & say nothing.

Months later, some folks told Linz it rankled that their SOLOHQ posts were appearing under the RoR banner: a facet of the lie. Linz gave them the go-ahead to raise the matter, & subsequently broke his own silence as well. Does that constitute Linz poopin' on Joe? Retaliatory poopin' maybe. But Linz held out an (undeserved) olive branch at the same time. Joe's response? To delete the link to SOLOPassion on SOLOHQ leaving only the RoR one intact.

It was never about creating a new site or setting a new direction, as it turns out. It was about Joe taking complete control AND jumping into bed with TOC. He went from speaking more vitriolically about them even than I, wanting to crush them & have them beg for mercy, to being their poodle in a matter of days. It was about shutting down the PARC debate. He called the book "stupid" without having read it. TOC folks are like that.

Clarifying a couple of things from Duncan's post—it was *not* Joe's intent, as far as I know, to pass on the SOLOHQ material, which was my property as well as his. I'm pretty sure, the mood he was in, he would have refused had I asked. That's why I asked the boys to retrieve it anyway, & archive it, dead. Theft? It's hardly theft to take what's yours to begin with. I don't care what Joe says now, if anything, in response to Dunc, the archive remains. Theft, or more precisely, fraud, comes into it when Joe doesn't archive the old material on his "new" site but turns it *into* his site.

In these instances, at least, Joe was a liar & a fraudster. You, Ethan, are an accomplice. Shame on you.

Linz

I praised you because I have always found you to be a very honest person.  And I am not sure, after thinking about it, whether we cannot just agree to disagree as to whether there is an integrity/honesty/fair-dealing issue with Joe, re: this topic.

Is RoR really a completely new web site?

Or is a more fair description that it is a renamed web site using a different color, but mimicing the look and feel of SOLOHQ?

Yes, we agree--it was at a different web address.  Yes, we agree, it is blue, not orange.

But be fair.  Is it the same site in a different color, or what?

Could I take the code from McDonald's website, put it up as my own, and call it a new website?

Or a completely new website?

What happened to Joe's 'completely new direction'?

Was it fair to remove SOLOPassion from the SOLOHQ page, when the agreement was to keep links to RoR and Solopassion?

You know, if you look at some posts of Joe's at RoR, he doesn't exactly leave Linz and SOLO alone.  He does his share of shitting, even from the limited look I took.  So Linz might have used flowery name-calling, and Joe did not.  Joe never has been a name-caller, to his credit, ever.  Or at least that I have ever seen evidence of. 

So Linz pooped on Joe and Joe pooped on Linz and SOLO.

But who was the deciever by taking the old, popular SOLOHQ format and web address as his own, when that was not the deal--the deal was for two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT  websites.

Ethan,

> Let us not forget the site code that is Joe's property taken by Linz
> and maintained on this very site in the SOLOHQ archive. That has been
> justified on rather flimsy grounds.

As one of the people involved in this (taking the old SOLO code, and archiving it), I take offense at your characterisation of it.

I'm pretty sure I've said this elsewhere, but ...

• The content was Lindsay's to archive on this site. No-one, including Joe, disputes that.
• Joe was planning on offering us the raw data, so we could archive it.
• In the meantime, we took the old SOLO code, and copied it onto our servers. I then went in and tweaked it, to prevent any logins or additional comments being added. The effect was to produce a static archive of the site, unchanging.
• This was done out of respect for Joe's work on, & ownership of, the original SOLO code. We didn't want to ride on his coat-tails - we kept to the spirit of the agreement between Joe & Lindsay, which was to go our separate ways, creating two sites. Hence the move to the Drupal CMS, away from the old SOLO code.

If this really bothered Joe, well, he knew my email address. He could simply have sent me an email requesting that I stop.

But he didn't.

The first I heard of the objections to our archiving the code was second-hand, from someone reporting here on an RoR thread. Which, for what it's worth, captures the essence of the manner in which a large portion of this debate has proceeded - second hand, through reposts & rumours.

So, to put a stop to this once-and-for-fucking-all, I have sent Joe a RoR mail, asking him for clarification on this issue:

Hi Joe,

Once again, the issue of the static SOLO archive at http://solohq.solopassion.com/ has come up for discussion at SOLO (this time at http://www.solopassion.com/node/642).

Although no longer a SOLO webmaster, I'd greatly appreciate some kind of clarification of your position on this matter, as I was one of those instrumental in creating teh now-contentious archive. Do you object to it & want it taken down, or are you okay with it remaining?

Yours,
Duncan Bayne

Perhaps we could agree to put this discussion on hold until I hear back from Joe?

Scott,

You said "And let's just be clear. He evidently dealt behind Linz's back for a TOC alliance, and made a carefully worded deal with Linz, so that he could break the spirit of the deal, misused content, and then, later, blatantly broke the deal by removing the link to SOLOPassion from SOLOHQ. He has continued to trade on the SOLO name, a name which he concedes is Linz's property."

I think this is NOT the case. I encourage you to read my arguments in Tim Sturms thread, when they are put back online after server migration. I agrue these points specifically, with the exception of the "TOC" alliance thing.

TOC people post on RoR. They used to post here too. They choose not to for their own reasons I'm sure. Joe is speaking at Summer Seminar, but Linz was going to do that too. RoR is RoR, not TOC, no matter what anyone wishes to beleive.

I think you'll find me completely honest, scott. If I thought what Joe did was wrong, I wouldn't have anything to do with RoR.

The link to SOLOP was removed after Linz called Joe a thief and disparaged him all on several threads here. Are you arguing for Sanction of the Victim? On this same site, Diana Hsieh has argued that she has broken a spoken agreement with Chris Sciabarra due to his supposed lies. If Joe feels that Linz is spreading lies about him, then the same satandard should apply. Yes?

Let us not forget the site code that is Joe's property taken by Linz and maintained on this very site in the SOLOHQ archive. That has been justified on rather flimsy grounds.

Make no mistake about my honesty. I don't let my errors go unmentioned and unappologised. I suggest you read my earlier arguements when they are re-posted soon.

Ethan

When you meet a person, you get what I describe as a feeling or impression of them.  You observe them, witness their dealings with people, things like that.  This isn't mysticism, its a mental impression of a person based upon the evidence you possess.

Is Joe a bastard?  I do not think so.

Do you have to be a bastard to do what he did?  No.

And let's just be clear.  He evidently dealt behind Linz's back for a TOC alliance, and made a carefully worded deal with Linz, so that he could break the spirit of the deal, misused content, and then, later, blatantly broke the deal by removing the link to SOLOPassion from SOLOHQ.  He has continued to trade on the SOLO name, a name which he concedes is Linz's property.

I told Linz around the time of the break:  HE is SOLO, not Joe.

ROR is a rudderless ship.

But it is a rudderless ship IDENTICAL to the old SOLOHQ--is that a 'new' website in a 'new' direction?

It's fucking deception, is what it is.

Except for the color blue, the shade of which is even uglier than that adobe fucking orange or whatever it is called...ugh.

No, Joe is not a bastard.

But he is a conniver, and he stabbed Linz, a partner of his, in the back to assure his 'organization's' existence.

He is also a creep.  Bad apples all eventually are revealed.

Ethan, I am honestly sad that you are taking the positions which you are, because I always enjoy your posts.  You seem like a really reasonable fellow.

I do not believe that you can honestly hold the opinion that Joe is faultless in his handling of a split he demanded.

Ciro,

My point about smears remains the same even if the specifics of Barbara -v- Linz are unclear. My perception on the matter is what I noted.

Re: Shooting the Guard: I've heard that one too many times. Dagny was justified completley in her action given the context of the siutation. If you care to debate that let's do it via email so as not to hijack a thread.

Ethan, my opinion is that when Linz published the article, she assumed that it was true. And so she congratulated Linz on his courage, and  she wished him well.  Linz himself never made clear when Barbara offended him. I called Linz once for this reason, but I could not  figure out much. I didn't want to lose my politeness while talking to him and going on personal matters. His kindness and his voice didn't allowed me to do so. I like Linz. 

Objectivists fight and talk a lot, but the only true crime was commited only by Dagney when she killed the guard.

   Ciro D'Agostino

Ciro,

I should be clear, it was actually James Kilbourne who first said this in his article Drooling Beast. Barbara then posted in one thread suggesting all SOLOsist read this article and then posted in the article thread that she beleived that it was true.

To say Barbara started the rumor was an error on my part.

From her posts she clearly knew what James was going to write and then supported his article on SOLO and from outside SOLO. It is my opinion that she was complicit in the article beforehand, given the content of some of her posts/comments, but that is just my opinion.

Ethan, I reread all  Barbara's posts on solohq, I could not find any single post where she accuses Linz of being an alcoholic. Can you please show me where e when Barbara made such accusation. I am sorry for my bad influence on you for misspelling words.

Ciro D'Agostino

There's nothing in your post worth arueing with. It's tone simply suggests that Joe is wrong and bad and I'm bad too as I must be taking his side against Linz for no other reason than the arbitrary.

There's no argument to change the mind of someone who beleives as you do. So I won't waste my time.

Ethan

"then why does Linz bother posting further inflammatory challenges and demands on a web page?"

The memory of the last "deal" he did with Joe behind closed doors for one thing.

As you said, actions have consequences. One of those consequences appears to be that Linz probably won't sign off on anything with Joe without witnesses present. And who could bloody blame him (except you of course)?

Like I said before. You and some others are operating under the belief that Joe is guilty and rotten. I don't share that belief.

you may not like some things he's done, but I've seen no evidence of him commiting the horrid acts he's accused of. Out of context excerpts from personal private emails posted by one of the belligerent parties to support a crap hurling campaign don't do much to convince me.

You want to beleive Joe is guilty. Fine. Just don't expect me accept it on the word of those who publically assault someone and demand that he hand over rights and property. I hold a higher standard for a burden of proof.

If there was a case to be made it should have been between two people in private. The choice to go on this route was made here. You may not like where it's going, but there it is.

ho! that, sorry I forgot!!!

Ciro D'Agostino

Ciro,

Barbara's public accusation that Linz was an alchaholic was a smear campaign. Whatever else you may think of her, she did that and never appologised that I'm aware of.

Ethan

It seems that the Brandens are to objectivists like Satan to catholics. Every time something goes wrong the first thing we hear is: Guess what, Joe? it was the Branden's fault. Adam was the first full of shit who wasn't man enough to admit that he liked the apple, and that he was as much as guilty for eating it, but instead, he blamed Eva. What a pussy.

Ciro D'Agostino

I can imagine Ethan scolding Galileo for daring to hurl his "buckets of crap" at the Catholic church as he rots under house arrest. Actually, I think I have heard of people who criticize Galileo exactly that way, complaining that he should have known better than to defy the Church, that he asked for what he got.

It's a good thing for freedom that men like Galileo, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson were willing to thumb their noses at the people I imagine Ethan would ask us to appease. I for one would rather die like Socrates than live like that.

This is a smear campaign. STOP Read that again. Smear campaign. I would think that Linz would think better of doing to others what was done to him by Barbara Branden.

Ethan

Ethan, Barbara Branden has nothing to do with this.

 I like you, but when you write things like these I lose respect for you.

Ciro D'Agostino

Let's be clear: Linz and some others hear flung a huge bucket of crap over the wall at Joe, and then said olive branch, peace, let's skip it.

Joe never said........anything. No truce acceptance. No bucket hurled back after the truce offer. He then edited out the link.

Perhaps folks here thought everything was peace loving and nice. I guess Joe just waited and considered his response.

Now we hear. Horror of horrors, we had a truce! You bastard you can't do that.

This is a lesson. You don't like what happened after the truce? You should make sure there is a truce then. In fact it should have been thought of before hurling the crap bucket.

I must be crazy to see it this way.

When you start hurling crap, expect to get covered in it. If you don't like being covered in crap, don't hurl it. Drop your buckets and say "Sorry Joe!" Have Linz go to Joe after that and deal with whatever greivances he has.

Ethan you need to separate your beef with Linz and those with the indepedent people who post here. They don't speak for him and he doesn't speak for them.

The last action Linz took before this one was to call for a cease fire. You don't like how he put it--but the fact is he was done. Joe's response to Linz was to delete the link to solopassion.com from solohq.com. Joe was the one who escalated the hostilities between Linz and Joe.

You're OK with this exceedingly hostile ACTION by Joe, a direct and material attack on solopassion.com, but instead of recognizing that obvious fact you've got a lot of heartburn because Linz said some harsh words about that action. And here we see the hypocrisy of people who incessantly chatter about getting their poor little feelings hurt because somebody else had the audacity to evaluate something they DID. It's exactly like modern liberals, who engage in direct material attacks on our property but get all huffy and indignant if you call them on it (e.g., see how the teachers unions responded to John Stossel's latest special on them).

Sure, but they were reprised on site and not in some fixed archive. I don't have a problem with that. Use it as you will. My point is that both sites are using the material. You have an issue with the way RoR uses it, but contend that they can use it. Others here think differently and Linz has talked about a fixed archive as well. It's not clear what people are talking about from one post to the other as they overlap. Linz should have contacted Joe and said I have issues with XYZ lets work them out. He said in the other thread that he didn't care to. He wouldn't give Joe the time of day he said. Joe did disgusting and deceptive things he said.

Most people here seem to buy into the idea that Joe sucks. The tone of the posts and the "deal" and the "olive" branch all dripped with this type of talk. DOES ANYONE WONDER WHY JOE WOULDN'T WANT TO LISTEN TO THIS? People here predicate their posts on the assumption that Joe is wrong and bad and evil. I havn't seen more than hearsay on that point, and am not willing to buy it.

This is a smear campaign. STOP Read that again. Smear campaign. I would think that Linz would think better of doing to others what was done to him by Barbara Branden.

Ethan

If you are so keen on a resolution, then why does Linz bother posting further inflammatory challenges and demands on a web page? Everyone posting here seems to have settled on the idea that Joe is a bastard. He's been called quite a few rotten names and a general nasty campaign run on these two threads. All the talk of olive branches, peace deals, and offers on the table have been posted here on these same threads. You say you guys are sincere about it, but given the context, I'm not convinced. Convince me, better yet deal with Joe.

As for an offer being on the table and silence over at RoR, we aren't an armed camp holding debates on offers and treaties either on the forum or anywhere. If you want to send a deal to Joe, contact Joe. If you want to keep posting nastiness and calling it deal making, have at it.

Ethan

I'm begining to think that a amicable resolution to this current issue was never desired. Tabloid style rants sell well on the net.

Ethan, that's utter and complete bollocks, & the more I dwell on your accusation, the more incensed I become. I know I am very keen to see a resolution to this issue - and I'm damned sure Lindsay & the other staff are too.

The kind of stunt that Joe pulled causes us to waste time that could be spent on other, more productive, projects - and does nothing to improve the reputation of our philosophy amongst non-Objectivists, who're by now all too used to this kind of infighting.

Now, as far as an amicable ("characterized by or exhibiting friendliness or goodwill; friendly") resolution goes, I don't think that's possible at this point. A final, binding, mutually beneficial resolution however is - if Joe wants it.

The offer is on the table - and isn't it interesting to note the deafening silence on this issue over at RoR?

"SOLO-P has reprised a few of the articles too."

And if you read carefully, all are cited as being first published on SOLOHQ. And if any of mine aren't, I'll apologise and correct that omission straight away.

You might yawn at this issue Ethan, but I doubt that Joe would if the word copyright were replaced with patent and RoR were some licensee infringing on Joe's patents the way Joe is infringing on my material.

But then we'd be talking royalties instead of recognition then wouldn't we - and that makes all the difference... Yeah, right!

Ethan, what you see as a "tabloid-style rant" and a "further reason not to deal with him" is one important reason why I am here: Linz deals with these things in the open because he has nothing to hide, he has no hidden motives or agendas.

New purpose, new direction, same package.

Joe had the right to use the material.

As for a fixed archive aspect. The articles remain unchanged. The "About" section of the site and the SOLOHQ.COM page make it clear the RoR is new after Dec 1st and that SOLOHQ preceded it. The previous articles are dated prior to the change-over. SOLO-P has reprised a few of the articles too.

This whole sematic new-not-new liar angle is bogus in my opinion.

As for ownership of SOLOHQ, apparently my post about keeping such negotiations between the relevant parties and not just poting things on open forums was ignored. That's sad, as Linz's demand letter below amounts to a further reason not to deal with him, at least I would view it that way.

I'm begining to think that a amicable resolution to this current issue was never desired. Tabloid style rants sell well on the net.

Yes, Shayne, you are correct on all counts.

I just wanted to add that Jennifer's legal identification, if correct, is just a different aspect of the same thing that's been seen from various angles by various people: That Joe should have left the original SoloHQ as an archive and actually started something new.

At least there's a lesson in metaphysics and epistemology that can be learned from all this

Grateful thanks to Robert, Tim, David, Casey, Shayne, Lance, John, Glenn, James & Holly for upholding honour & decency on this thread.

Linz

Well so much for a solution

I could make some humorous paraphrases, but what's the point?

I don't know what Joe will say, but I could tell you what I'd say.

But, I'm not going to