Anne la Jordanie

Conrad · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:12 pm

Dylboz wrote:

The stupid "dinner party" is the most tortured metaphor EVAR. I personally would find that kind of stifling environment so oppressive as to never want to go in the first place (and FDR was not like it is now back when I firt started listening). Stef is a fine example of the common criticism of AnCaps made by AnSocs - that we wish only to supplant the authority of the state with our own, to become little Hitlers on our piece of property, freely meeting out force on the grounds of our ownership and right to defense. It is hard to see why our contempt for national boundaries and arbitrary laws should be suspended when the boundary shrinks to our homestead and the arbitrary laws are recast as "rules for our dinner party." What is different about being asked to leave the party and the old statist canard, "my country right or wrong... love it or leave it?" Stef certainly seems to resort to the propertarian justification for his behavior on the FDR boards often, asserting his "right" (derived from ownership) to ban people will-nilly, and he to make rules and police behavior just like a petty dictator, does anyone think he would be any different if he ran a commune or owned an estate where other physically resided? It seems that he chafes under the yoke of state authority not because of it's heavy burden (in fact, he goes on about how easy it is to bear), but because he yearns to carry the whip.

like other people (I think Alex) said: FDR can be seen as Stef's attempt to re-create a family situation, but with him in charge

i think your point about his owning a commune or an estate is correct, but I am not sure what you mean with the 'my country right or wrong... love it or leave it' point since countries typically are not owned by individuals

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Conrad wrote:

...but I am not sure what you mean with the 'my country right or wrong... love it or leave it' point since countries typically are not owned by individuals

And even where they "are," the validity of such a claim seems to me to be highly suspect.

To land on the shore of a "new" continent and claim all that reaches before you to be yours... well, I just kinda question such things. I'm not even sure that I can justify any exclusive "ownership" of land, but then, that is an entirely different argument (or maybe not) and not one on which I can clearly see the demarcations.

- NonE

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Yeah, but at the time I think she expressed some, well, distaste for LiMi, but that may have been due more to peer pressure then any well considered disapprobation of our forum and it's content.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:28 pm

Dylboz wrote:

Yeah, but I think she expressed some, well, distaste for us, but that may have been due more to peer pressure then any real considered disapprobation of our forum and it's content.

I don't get it, we are by far the coolest people on the internets, so what's with the distaste?

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Conrad wrote:

Dylboz wrote:

Yeah, but I think she expressed some, well, distaste for us, but that may have been due more to peer pressure then any real considered disapprobation of our forum and it's content.

I don't get it, we are by far the coolest people on the internets, so what's with the distaste?

HEY! Don't quote me until I'm done fiddling with my language! (see above) Wink

Anywho... I know, we are a seriously tasty bunch!

Conrad · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:35 pm

yeah well, as long as you're fiddling with your language you might want to change it's to its! (cuz it's used in the possessive form and what not)

call me a nitpicker, but never a nosepicker

Nielsio · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:37 pm

Conrad wrote:

I don't get it, we are by far the coolest people on the internets, so what's with the distaste?

_________________
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/ | http://www.youtube.com/Nielsio

Alex · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:43 pm

Dylboz wrote:

[...] a fine example of the common criticism of AnCaps made by AnSocs - that we wish only to supplant the authority of the state with our own, to become little Hitlers on our piece of property, freely meeting out force on the grounds of our ownership and right to defense. It is hard to see why our contempt for national boundaries and arbitrary laws should be suspended when the boundary shrinks to our homestead and the arbitrary laws are recast as "rules for our dinner party." What is different about being asked to leave the party and the old statist canard, "my country right or wrong... love it or leave it?" Stef certainly seems to resort to the propertarian justification for his behavior on the FDR boards often, asserting his "right" (derived from ownership) to ban people will-nilly, and he to make rules and police behavior just like a petty dictator, does anyone think he would be any different if he ran a commune or owned an estate where other physically resided? It seems that he chafes under the yoke of state authority not because of it's heavy burden (in fact, he goes on about how easy it is to bear), but because he yearns to carry the whip.

Beautifully written, and excellent point. It seems nearly impossible for people to "Kill the King, then Kill the King" I don't know if you've heard of that before, but I think it explains itself here. So hard to let freedom truly percolate through all the layers of consciousness and not end up expressing or creating coercive environments when the percolation isn't complete.

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

beach7125 · Number of posts: 2 Registration date: 2008-01-26

So, it's been several weeks, but I've decided to post these gold forum posts that I received pertaining to the Anne controversy. They are posted in their completeness. They are here reposted in temporal order. A peek into the world of gold plus.

Posted By: admin in Gold+ Discussion Forum
Subject: a chat with a friend of anne's about her...
__________________________________

in thailand doing taebo with bow ties: I just saw that Anna left.. what happ'd? If someone could tell me the story briefly.

Greg: do you know anne?

in thailand doing taebo with bow ties: Not personally.. I remember enjoying her posts and now see that she's gone.

Stef: sadly, she decided to leave

in thailand doing taebo with bow ties: Without an explanation?

Galt7125: You could message her and ask her. I'm sure she'll respond.

Stef: she disliked it when someone said that one of her arguments smacked of fundamentalism

Galt7125: Can you provide a quote to that effect?

in thailand doing taebo with bow ties: Can you link me to that?

Stef: it's probably better to discuss it with her

Stef: I wasn't there, so I wouldn't want to over interpret.

Greg: she has all the documentation anyway

Stef: yes, she saved a copy of the chat log, I'm sure she can send it to you if you're interested

in thailand doing taebo with bow ties: I don't really have a desire to talk to her.. Only to know why she left. If that makes sense.

Stef: sure

Stef: well nobody was abusing her, and she certainly wasn't abusing anybody else

Stef: if that helps

in thailand doing taebo with bow ties: That is the most important thing.

in thailand doing taebo with bow ties: Thank you.

Stef: you're more than welcome -- how are you these days?

Galt7125: I believe Anne would disagree with your assessment.

Stef: well unfortunately I'll never know...

Stef: but I certainly do wish her all the best

Galt7125: You could ask her. She did say she was likely to respond.

Stef: No, if she's decided to leave, she's decided to leave

Stef: I'm too busy to go chasing after people

Stef: I'm sure she knows what is best for her

Galt7125: But...the first line of her conclusion indicates that she felt abused

Stef: but again, I'll never know, because she's not returning

Stef: and certainly the chat log itself did not indicate any form of verbal abuse

Stef: name-calling, swearing etc.

Galt7125: ";but you are deliberately evading that for a reason. It's like how fundamentalists like to hear part of an evolution argument then mischaracterize it and attack the straw man. Never curious about evolution at all.";

Galt7125: I would deem that name-calling

Stef: yes, I did read it

Stef: that is not name-calling at all

Stef: i.e.

Stef: "bastard asshole bitch" etc

Galt7125: I see

Stef: saying that an aspect of her approach was like a 'fundamenalist' is not abusive

Stef: it may be incorrect, but it is not abusive

Stef: I use exactly that argument against minarchists in a variety of podcasts and books

Galt7125: Alright

Stef: I do think that the characterization 'deliberately evading' is a stretch

Stef: insofar as it is not established to the satisfaction of both parties

Stef: but that is pretty mild stuff

Stef: if that makes any sense

Greg: essentially, logical or debating errors

Greg: right?

Stef: well, if I am accused of being evasive, I ask for evidence

Stef: because of course it could always be the case that I am being evasive, and don't know it, because it is unconscious or something like that

Stef: but if I just leave, I'll never know for sure

Greg: good point.

Galt7125: But if you ask, and the other person does not explain how you're being evasive. What then?

Stef: well in this case, we'll never know

Galt7125: Excuse me?

Stef: but in general, if someone accuses me of being evasive, and has no actual evidence, then he must withdraw the accusation of course

Stef: if he doesn't withdraw the accusation, then I would simply discount having a sensible debate with that person

Galt7125: Alright

Galt7125: I believe I can pull a previous instance where Nathan accused Anne of being evasive, and did not explain the accusation when Anne asked. Should he have to withdraw the accusation? Since he didn't, was not Anne in the right?

Stef: well I would say that Nate would be in the wrong in that situation

Greg: but, at this point, the accusation isn't the problem - it's whether or not he can provide evidence, right?

Stef: and if Annie had found Nate to be an unjust or a rational debater, then of course she is perfectly free to refrain from debating with him…

after this, Galt said that he was satisfied with the interaction and had no more question...

Posted By: rich in Gold+ Discussion Forum
Subject: Re: a chat with a friend of anne's about her...
__________________________________

Looked up Galt, and it is Mixy:

http://freedomainradio.com/board/members/Galt7125.aspx

Posted By: EdgeOfForever in Gold+ Discussion Forum
Subject: Re: A recent chat transcript and reaction
__________________________________

If I had to make a guess....I have to say I think she's been looking for an excuse to leave. If one person says one thing on a chat, even if it really is unwarranted,and then all the sudden decides to leave, I think its fairly safe to say she has wanted to leave. I have been insulted or put off at times by some members here, doesnt mean I throw out the whole conversation. If she really fealt it was wrong of nathan to make that remark...why not respond with "Nathan I'm not sure I agree with your statement, could you possibly step me through how you came to that conclusion?" Why would she storm off if she didnt feel it was true at least in some way?

Posted By: chewgarus in Gold+ Discussion Forum

Subject: Re: A recent chat transcript and reaction
__________________________________

EdgeOfForever:
If I had to make a guess....I have to say I think she's been looking for an excuse to leave. If one person says one thing on a chat, even if it really is unwarranted,and then all the sudden decides to leave, I think its fairly safe to say she has wanted to leave. I have been insulted or put off at times by some members here, doesnt mean I throw out the whole conversation. If she really fealt it was wrong of nathan to make that remark...why not respond with "Nathan I'm not sure I agree with your statement, could you possibly step me through how you came to that conclusion?" Why would she storm off if she didnt feel it was true at least in some way?

Those were exactly my feelings when I read what happened.

Though my experience of her was limited, my impression is that she was often snippy when she disagreed with someone. Her tone on several occasions in posts or chats told me this. Am I alone in this or did anyone else notice this as a problem?

It's also not unprecedented for Nathan, when he dislikes someone's attitude or otherwise, to say what's on his mind - even if not fully reasoned in presentation. I doubt it was Nate's fault, even if he was in the wrong for what he said. It appears she was ready for an incident to get righteous and storm off.

Posted By: Nathan in Gold+ Discussion Forum

Subject: Re: a chat with a friend of anne's about her...
__________________________________

I believe I can pull a previous instance where Nathan accused Anne of being evasive, and did not explain the accusation when Anne asked. Should he have to withdraw the accusation? Since he didn't, was not Anne in the right?

Ha! No he can't, I've never accused Anne of anything until this particular instance. If she were to ask me to step her through to my conclusion, I'm pretty confident I could. Unfortunately she "harumpheddoorslammed" which is clear enough indication to me that I was correct.

Posted By: EdgeOfForever in Gold+ Discussion Forum

Subject: Re: A recent chat transcript and reaction
__________________________________

If it was me, and Nathan said something similar, while I might be offended, I'd at least ask for his reasons. What part of that conversation, or any other conversation gave her the indication that she couldn't simply ask why Nate said what he said. Nate has never struck me as a mean person, I would think most people would be pretty open to asking him for clarification. Well, at least the ones who are really trying to live with integrity.

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

hmf..I read and understood she was IP banned and her post deleted. Seems there is deception in the land of gold.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:33 am

I thought her account wasn't deleted but she was just not supposed to post anymore or something. it is quite disingenuous how Stef here claims that Anne didnt want to explain herself anymore, since as Galt says she did offer to answer questions, but I could be wrong.

EdgeOfForever seems to have mastered the FDR-thang quite well

Conrad · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:33 am

beach, are you still in contact with Anne? any idea how she feels about it?

Conrad · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:34 am

and welcome to LM btw!

what prompted you to post this now, after several weeks?

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Conrad wrote:

I thought her account wasn't deleted but she was just not supposed to post anymore or something.

I believe when all that was going on she had to come back to clarify under a new identity and noted she was IP banned. The post was soon deleted (me thinks) on fdr. Stef said she called out members by name or something similar and that was behavior he chose not to support. Hopefully Anne has the answer. I would love to hear her perspective.

edit: I read back and that is almost accurate insofar as stef said he moved the post to the gold forum. Though according to the chat above I would suspect it was deleted as those in gold had no idea as to what when on.

yes chew/edge/greg have the fdr down...and nathan is as ever: an idiot

mike barskey · Subject: Re: Anne la Jordanie Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:23 am

Beach, welcome to LiMi. I won't get involved in this discussion about FDR (but hope to see you post regarding other topics!), but I do remember some of Anne's posts there and thought she was quite an open-minded, rational, person. If you still have a way to contact her, I would appreciate it if you let her know there is at least one person here that would like to converse with her (actually I'm pretty sure there are others here that would like to talk with her, but I'm only speaking for myself).

eddie3