Senseless arguments continue as long as moderators don’t actually moderate to actual open rules.
This has been becoming an anti-philosophy site for several years.
Purposely?
You are part of the senseless argument. You make it continue.
Why are you here?
James,
Maybe it is time for you to leave HERE and go out and stake your claim THERE. I mean, can it really be any worse?
And now, so are/do you. That is how easy it gets going. The question is, who starts merely attacking someone instead of defending or questioning a hypothesis? Once someone is attacked, it either merely stops totally or drifts into ad homs.
I could ask the same of you (or Bigus).
The question isn’t why am I here. The question is why is this site here? If it presumes no purpose, then it collects nothing but the most childish, ranting, faggoting social scourge. Having a purpose means having a direction for moderating decisions. When decisions aren’t made, it means there is no purpose, no direction, no “soul”. Why call it “Philosophy” at all?
Philosophy implies a reasoning behind a thought that can be supported with other reasonings. “I wanna Believe” is not a reason. “Your an idiot!!” is not a reason. “That guy is the Devil. Never listen to anything he says!!” is not a reason. “Oh!! I am OFFENDED!!” is not a reason. Yet those are about the most common responses given … because that is what is accepted, un-moderated.
At every turn, one always has the option of coming to sense and seeking mutual understanding. If you cannot will that end at this point in time, my recommendation is to stop talking and campaigning against each other until you can. Nothing can be gained except a political (PR) kind of victory and easy friends.
Accidentally, it is the moral paradigm to hold back the heavy hand against the weak minded.
A fool is allowed to be a fool, and to believe in falsity in lies. The best you can do is to keep pushing truth, and repeating it.
How I wish for you Wizard to go deep deep deep into the saints holy theory of affectance which equals existence, for years and years until its genius begins to dawn on you!! That would make me tremendously happy. Same for all who question my intentions.
Please just be honest and DO IT.
Perhaps there are some thirteen year olds here that ive addressed as adults. Of course the stopped clock thread isnt for children.
Go at it! Love James!! Also: do please deeply scorn me and value ontology. It is time for the camps to assemble abd the lines to be drawn.
Since Saint is here on this site the decay he speaks of has been perceivable. He has by far the most posts of anyone and all are made in this period of decay. It proves he is a good man, and honest to the bone. Trust him. TRUST JAMES S SAINT. Revile value ontology. Please do. It is not for you. It is bad for you. Yours is RM.
It is yours to engage. Stop being an absolute coward; wizard mithus and all those who cuddle up to James without looking him in the eye.
JSS - what was your reason behind using Jakob’s surname, given that he’s never used it here, nor that anyone else has used it, and given the tone of your post?
Humean, keep Jakob in check - he’s acting crazy.
No offense, but I trust James. Jakob you haven’t really presented your objection very clearly here.
And why is this a public dispute rather than a private one? Jakob are you being dramatic?
Jakob,
you can call me as many names as you like. You can’t provoke me, because I perceive you as an unstable person who has obviously a problem with himself. That’s not my business.
I don’t need to defend James by attacking your VO. That is currently your method, not mine (and also not James’, btw.).
All what counts for me is that you didn’t show the slightest evidence for your claims and insults. And nothing of that what you showed explains your rage. You turned a personal issue into a public issue, now you play the role of the victim. And you can be sure of the gleefully support of all those brave people, who always wanted to attack James but didn’t dare to do it by themselves. Well done, you work for the media, right?
And Jakob, I’d rather have a ‘small mind’ which is reasonably straight than having a big brain whose parts don’t seem to cooperate at times.
[size=150]CARLEAS!!![/size]
I never asked a mod to put the words CRACK DEALER under my username!!!
Who else has the ability to change my profile here ???
I want to have this cancelled immediately.
Actually, if you want to attack James, all you need do is to ask him to explain how RM/AO has any substantive/substantial relevance to human interactions out in the world that we live in.
In particular when they come into conflict.
Instead, as with almost all objectivists, James has concocted this elaborate analysis of “reality” wherein the “truth” of it revolves almost entirely around you agreeing with the assumptions and the premises that he constructs the analysis out of.
In other words, it all begins and ends with the definitions that he gives to the words he uses in the argument itself.
In fact, one can ask Jakob the same question regarding VO. After all, on this site alone we have come across dozens and dozens of folks who all claim that there is in fact an objective reality; and then they proceed to tell us what it is.
And yet if there is indeed an objective reality only one of them can be right. If, in fact, any of them are.
Which is why I always make the distinction between those things that we can demonstrate to others as transcending any particular individual’s point of view…and those things that are instead rooted subjectively [or intersubjectively] in a particular historical, cultural and experiential vantage point.
People believe all sorts of hopelessly conflicting and contradictory things “in their head”. But then what are they able to show us that might compel all rational human beings to accept it in their own heads too?
If you wish to understand more fully the objectivist mind set, I always suggest that folks start here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Since you hadn’t noticed, despite the relevancy, there has only been one “campaigning against”.
I didn’t go around spewing the evils of VO or Jakob. I didn’t go around making false accusations about he or his crew. I did not seek to fool the moderators into thinking that Jakob was doing evil things.
This is HIS crew;[tab]
[/tab]
Who’s doing the active campaigning? Who is playing the victim and lying?
And again, Why is that kind of a post perfectly acceptable?
“James S Saint, who is apparently some sort of cyberterrorist - I’ve heard some ghastly stories about him, but only started realizing the possible truth of them quite recently.”
“…sociopathic or professional saboteur JamesSSaint /“Sanjay” - - my advise to everyone is just to ‘add to foe list’ and never reveal anything personal to him in PM’s.”
“…SEXUAL-PREDATOR-HUNTER-IPREDATOR”
And:
“internet anonymity for 14 years. That is over now”
Yet he posted his name on his blog himself only 2 years ago.
Who’s doing the smear campaigning?
I seriously doubt that it would take Wiz even half as long as you took in order to get twice as far. MM had to do most of the work for you and he couldn’t keep it straight; one day has a part right, the next day that part jumbled up and some other part right, the next day has the first one right again but jumbled up other parts. The last exchange we had on the subject, when I was just starting to feel pretty confident that he was finally getting it settled, he revealed that he had even the most fundamental issue confused again (gravity). And that is when his bout of mania popped up and I just stopped talking to him until he showed sense of maturity again.
First answer these:
) What makes you think that he had never used it?
) How is anyone supposed to know that he has NEVER used it?
) Why do you issue punishments without even asking the question you just asked?
Frankly, you should be banned for a short while merely for misusing your authority in such a manner, but then you and FJ are hardly ever around anyway. I don’t really blame the Jakob crew for FJ and O_H making fools of themselves by such a simple trick. Anyone can be tricked, but when they don’t even try to prevent it, the guilt is on them, not the snake.
I have known his name for so long I don’t even remember where I first heard it, but I know that it wasn’t in a PM. The simple truth is that he has his own website boasting his name associated with his effort at a new religion, “Value-Ontology”. It is certainly no secret and hasn’t been for years. The mod squad have merely made fools of themselves … again (as Jakob has pointed out himself many times). When people in authority are so very willing to be fooled, I can understand how tempting it would be.
As for the intent of my wording, I could, and am tempted, to just say, “It’s none of you damn business”. But frankly, Its hard for me to believe we are even discussing it, although I have to admit some of the most simple minded things seems to fly well over your head. So let me spell it out for you;
That was the first use of the name in my post (that he HAS USED HIMSELF NOW). It was inspired as a means to draw attention to the fact that he is at least supposed to be an adult, “MISTER Milikowski”. People are all too easily drawn into the urges of their childlike online personae.
The only other use;
Again, drawing attention to the fact that Jakob isn’t a kid anymore and needs to wake up to his age. He is at that stage wherein how he behaves online becomes permanent within him. And this is what was deemed such a grand threat??? That I, the great evil one, have now cursed him with becoming an old man and dieing of old age? OOOoooo… better hope you don’t ever get that curse on you. 
And now I see another related issue has come forth. Jakob had, in one of his spews, accused me of being a crack dealer or crackhead and suddenly several people defending me have “crackhead” placed into the avatar. There are only two ways to accomplish that, one is literally illegal and the other implies betrayal and misuse of authoritative privilege.
Carleas, I suggest that you fix it, either way.
JSS wrote;
I would like to know who did this.
Initially full of bravado and now not wanting to own up, that in itself is cowardly and they call themselves philosophers.
Pathetic!
ILP has a search function.
The default assumption should be that one keeps personal information out of the forum unless one is quite sure it’s OK with that poster.
That’s a bizarre question and subsequent demand, considering neither FJ nor I issued any punishment. Frankly.
We are discussing it because you created this thread in order to justify using Jakob’s surname.
There are a couple of other simple explanations: It could have been an honest mistake or a software bug.
Mithus said “All users who have less than 500 posts are ‘crack-dealers’ now, you can also see it in old threads from 2002.”
I noticed that Mithus’s status was actually fixed before you even posted about the issue.
Let us assume that this was just a coincidence and concentrate on the OP.