Watch Stef implode

ianlippert · Number of posts: 7 Registration date: 2007-10-17

Quote:

Are you not doing the same thing that you are criticizing here? We were "out of your life" and we are considered "bad people", yet here you are continuing the debate.

well I dont even know you yet. I just popped in to try and see where you guys are coming from. I dont automatically hate you because you hate stef, im not a stef-bot yet Very Happy

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

I don't "hate" Stef. I am angry at Stef. He would (did) dismiss that anger as a manifestation of my family issues. But even if that were the case, which I would dispute, one might wonder why I'd react to him specifically. What provoked that response? I feel like I can explore that here, and since he booted me out of his forum after I called him on what I thought was an obvious deception, I can't take it up with him anymore.

I am thankful for Stef, actually. He helped me immensely, but, I have seen a trajectory from those first tentative podcasts to his latest tirades that I dislike. I feel disillusioned. And, I want to figure out why, I want to nail it down, so I don't feel like I'm wasting time on a "bad person," but rather tracing an important part of my life and exploring my feelings about it, and more importantly, the facts of it. I hope you stay, and maybe you can contribute to myself and others dealing with our FDR experiences better.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:16 am

ianlippert wrote:

Quote:

well, I think that in those circumstances religion is simply not a major topic for the atheist person disagreeing with his parents. sure, the atheist would say that his parents are irrational and very defensive about this, but it is not likely that they are going to change and there are a lot of good things in the relationship and they (learn) dont bother the atheist with their beliefs, so then it may very well be a good thing to do to leave that topic alone and focus on the good. but I'd be interested to hear a different take on this

If you get value out of your relationship with your parents then you should stay with them. Even if they have crazy beliefs. Nobody can tell you what value is to you, not even stef. So If your parents believe in the easter bunny you can still have a meaningful relationship in other areas.

However, you should confront them with your ideas (not saying you havent) because otherwise you are maintaining a fake relationship. And if they get aggressive ior manipulative then it might be time to leave them. If you cant talk to them about your core values and you have to constantly walk around on eggshells, whats left of your relationship? How many people feel obligated to go to family gatherings and then just end up spending the day talking about useless nonsense?

I get your point and agree with the idea that if you feel obligated to go to family meetings, can't talk about anything meaningful and have to walk on eggshells the relationship likely is quite empty and without value. What I was saying is that there often is a lot of value in other respects than e.g. talking about religion or the state or whatever, and it seems sensible to me to first try to sort out whether there is such value before deFOOing (by taking a break from them for example): the religion or state stuff itself need not be a dealbreaker as long as they don't ridicule or mock you for your beliefs.

I'm in the process of trying to see what is and is not of value in the relationship with my parents (and did so by implicitly taking a break from them. I only visit them say 1/4th of the times that I used to visit them, I dont feel obliged to go to family gatherings and I dont go there (funerals are an exception), and have managed to decrease the nr. of phone calls, and this is a much more relaxed situation for me and so far I like it.

[

Quote:

quote]I can see that and think that is very true, but with e.g. the Ron Paul discussion I was quite openly asking some things that I knew he had not heard as arguments before or that in any case he had not answered before. If then he is dismissive, then I start to think that something else is going on.

I think you admitted to posting in an agressive manner. [/quote]
when or where did I admit this?

I was exactly trying to be open, positive and rational. Only my very last post was somewhat passive-aggressive and that was in response to a whole lot of earlier (passive-)aggressive posts by Stef and others.
I did corner Nathan and Greg before, but I was arguing in a purely rational way and called them on the (moral and intellectual) errors they made and send them private messages to try to talk about the situation.

Quote:

hat style of debating is almost instantly dismissed on FDR because it is seen as unproductive. Especially on the internet where flamewars are common. Its usually good to save yourself the time before you get dragged into one. Being a new user I'm sure you werent aware at all about this and it probably made a bad first impression.

I agree with aggressive posts being unproductive but as I painstakingly try to demonstrate in the 'Stef's Debating Techniques' threads, the aggression pretty much always came from the other side first. And I pointed that out, and the more sophisticated forms of aggression that they used.

Quote:

Another big thing is if you fail to provide evidence but keep making the same assertions. Many former posters were banned for continually making claims that they couldnt back up.

I am not sure about whether this is true. What examples did you have in mind? And would you use the same standard of needing to provide evidence for Stef and others?

Quote:

Admittedly there is a sort of rah-rah anti ron paul attitude over at FDR and I agree the video of random nazi supporting ron paul was complete garbage.

but doesnt that tell you something or make you wonder why Stef would be posting such stuff?

Quote:

But since I have no personal stake in the Ron Paul stuff (im canadian) I dont get as up in arms about it.

well, I wrote in my previous post that the subject matters in themselves were not thorny issues for me. Although I have become quite a lot more positive towards Ron Paul, I have no problem in people having a different view on it.

furthermore, if the nationality of the poster is relevant as you seem to say, then the fact that I am Dutch should matter too

Quote:

Theres a lot of crap on the internet and I can cut stef some slack once in a while.

that's a good point and compared with so incredibly much other stuff Stef provides great value, but I dont think it is respectful to him to compare him with the crap on the internet but with what FDR could be, and in that case there is a lot lacking

Quote:

yeah, i see what you mean, but i think i have cut him a lot of slack (my g/f for example criticised Stef quite severely months before I got critical, and I defended him exactly by cutting him some slack in the way you suggest (I think)), but there is a point where that stops, and on this board you can find a lot of examples of such breaking points.

I think what I'm having a hard time understanding is why you guys would come to this board and continue the debate. Its like you guys are still debating with Stef but he's not here to defend himself. The whole point of his principle of getting bad people out of your life is so that you dont have to waste time with them. All this time you have spent reading and writing about a guy you dont respect. Now I can see the importance if you are trying to clarify your position, but some of the stuff I've seen posted in this thread is not about the FDR that I've been listening to and reading about for the past 2 years.

[/quote]
and I and others have asked ourselves the same question. We even have two threads about exactly this question on the board. So perhaps those are interesting to have a look at for you.

your last remark I understand but I don't agree with it: this to me is the FDR of the past, say, 8 months or so: on the board, and in podcasts (a lot of 'em about the board). Again, you can find countless examples of behaviour that concerns some of us, makes them angry or frustrated.

an example that may be of interest: when Nielsio got banned I sort of agreed with the banning, although I didnt think Stef was being fair on all accounts. But I thought so because I hadnt followed the boards before the banning and was not aware of the pre-history of some relevant aspects. Then by studying it some more, reading Smacksim's excellent analyses of the conflict and listening to the podcasts Stef did about the conflict and comparing them with the evidence, as well as by starting to partiocipate in other threads on the board myself did I start to realize: 'hey, there is something very fishy going on.'

ianlippert · Number of posts: 7 Registration date: 2007-10-17

Dylboz wrote:

I don't "hate" Stef. I am angry at Stef. He would (did) dismiss that anger as a manifestation of my family issues. But even if that were the case, which I would dispute, one might wonder why I'd react to him specifically. What provoked that response? I feel like I can explore that here, and since he booted me out of his forum after I called him on what I thought was an obvious deception, I can't take it up with him anymore.

I am thankful for Stef, actually. He helped me immensely, but, I have seen a trajectory from those first tentative podcasts to his latest tirades that I dislike. I feel disillusioned. And, I want to figure out why, I want to nail it down, so I don't feel like I'm wasting time on a "bad person," but rather tracing an important part of my life and exploring my feelings about it, and more importantly, the facts of it. I hope you stay, and maybe you can contribute to myself and others dealing with our FDR experiences better.

Fair enough. I can definately see if you started listening to the show for more libertarian economics or politics how the current state of the show can turn some people off. It has definately gone off into more of the psychological territory and thats definately not for everyone.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:58 am

I don't think that's what Dylboz said or meant. It is something else that turned him off. As he wrote in an earlier post he ha sbenefited from the psychological part of FDR enormously and so have I. Our concern and frustration is about Stef's behaviour and that of others. And again, there are lots of examples of that documented on this board.

ianlippert · Number of posts: 7 Registration date: 2007-10-17

Quote:

What I was saying is that there often is a lot of value in other respects than e.g. talking about religion or the state or whatever, and it seems sensible to me to first try to sort out whether there is such value before deFOOing (by taking a break from them for example): the religion or state stuff itself need not be a dealbreaker as long as they don't ridicule or mock you for your beliefs.

Stef has always said that you should talk to your family first. So the guy who said his friend just called up one day and said 'I dont think im benefitting from this relationship' and then disappeared to the FDR boards, that guy wasnt really following what stef had proscribed.

I cant speak for stef when you have family that believes in religion ( I can def hear in the back of my head 'but they want you dead!'), but how much of a logic nazi you want to be is totally up to you. You are the only one that can determine the value of your familial relationships. Value is always determined by costs and benefits, so just because there are some costs doesnt mean they neccessarily out weigh the benefits.

Stef is just some guy on the internet, his word isnt gospel. If you feel the need to change some of his ideas to better fit in with your life then go for it.

Quote:

I think you admitted to posting in an agressive manner.
when or where did I admit this?

Sorry if I responded this to you. I think it was the guy who was lurking to see what his former friend was up to.

Quote:

I agree with aggressive posts being unproductive but as I painstakingly try to demonstrate in the 'Stef's Debating Techniques' threads, the aggression pretty much always came from the other side first. And I pointed that out, and the more sophisticated forms of aggression that they used.

Its going to be pretty easy to find this stuff when you have a person with as much out there as stef and a bunch of guys on a msg board picking through everything hes written.

I dunno to me I'm not interested if stef is 100% consistant all the time. If I had that attitude I would never read any philosopher. And on a historical scale stef is much more consistant, self aware, and self critical than any other political/philisophical commentator Ive ever listened to, past or present. He's not perfect, but when hes on his game he's probably one of the best.

Quote:

I am not sure about whether this is true. What examples did you have in mind? And would you use the same standard of needing to provide evidence for Stef and others?

Well im not going to name names, but one of the first prolific posters to be banned caused a huge shit fest like this too. The same things were said about stef, and 6 months later the poster got banned from another msg board for exactly the same stuff. It wasnt simply that he was making assertions it was that he was spamming his assertions to the forums. Eventually people just got sick of him.

To a certain degree I do see stef do this. Spamming the pro RP nazi girl I agree was really low. But what can you do? Its stefs board. So you either simply avoid that sort of nonsense or you leave the board. Much like I posted above, stef isnt 100% in my books but on a cost benefit analysis the good far outweighs the bad. I'm not going to DeStef just because of a few irrational arguements he makes. I just dont engage in the discussions that I think are going to be unproductive, much like an above poster said he wasnt going to engage his parents much in religious debate once each parties view is known.

Quote:

but doesnt that tell you something or make you wonder why Stef would be posting such stuff?

I'm Canadian so I care little for RP. I basically agree with stef on the political issue as I didnt vote in the recent election up here. I think he came to his point of RP rationally but then occasionally posts anti-RP stuff in an irrational manner. Same with them posting a lot of stuff about police. If the issue is closed in their minds I dont see why that have to keep proving it over and over. I agree with you to an extent but I just find that It doesnt affect me as much and so I can ignore it more easily. YMMV.

Quote:

furthermore, if the nationality of the poster is relevant as you seem to say, then the fact that I am Dutch should matter too

I'm not really talking about you specifically but RP supporters in general. They get really defensive about this stuff. And I dont get it because RP is not going to win the election.

Quote:

that's a good point and compared with so incredibly much other stuff Stef provides great value, but I dont think it is respectful to him to compare him with the crap on the internet but with what FDR could be, and in that case there is a lot lacking

FDR is only ever going to be as good as Stef can make it. There has always been aspects of the show that havent personally appealed to me, but you have to take what you can from the show.

Quote:

an example that may be of interest: when Nielsio got banned I sort of agreed with the banning, although I didnt think Stef was being fair on all accounts. But I thought so because I hadnt followed the boards before the banning and was not aware of the pre-history of some relevant aspects. Then by studying it some more, reading Smacksim's excellent analyses of the conflict and listening to the podcasts Stef did about the conflict and comparing them with the evidence, as well as by starting to partiocipate in other threads on the board myself did I start to realize: 'hey, there is something very fishy going on.'

See im not really interested in getting into the minutae of internet drama. From msg boards to wow, I've learned that its a waste of time. The ideas that Stef puts across are whats important to me. If his motives arent consistant and hes somehow trying to undermine truth it will show up in the podcasts. So far it hasnt IMO.

wilheldp · Number of posts: 191 Registration date: 2007-10-12

ianlippert wrote:

Sorry if I responded this to you. I think it was the guy who was lurking to see what his former friend was up to.

You're talking about me, and I suspected as much in your original post. And if you go back and re-read what I wrote, you will see exactly what I explained on FDR after it occurred. I was not being agressive. I was being sarcastic. My first ever interaction with Stef was something that I found very dismissive, offensive, and hypocritical. I responded with my normal sarcasm, and that's when he shut me out. What you are probably referring to in my LM post is that I decided to "have some fun" with the situation. By that, I did not mean "go on a rampage of agressive posting"...I just started pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the way Stef handles his posts on the forums. Apparently, I wasn't alone in those feelings because there are several people here who share that view, and they have been banned for the same "agressive" behavior.

ianlippert wrote:

So the guy who said his friend just called up one day and said 'I dont think im benefitting from this relationship' and then disappeared to the FDR boards, that guy wasnt really following what stef had proscribed.

He did not call me and say 'I dont think im benefitting from this relationship'. He was posting on another message board of which I'm a member. There were several other members of that board that were not willing to change their way of thinking, and he just decided that he was wasting his time preaching to them. There was one other member of that board that has joined FDR, and has seemingly flourished there, but the rest of us miss Rod's insight. So basically, I was never really deFOOed...my entire message board was.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:38 am

okay, thanks for the reply, we may not be that far apart from one another

ianlippert wrote:

Quote:

What I was saying is that there often is a lot of value in other respects than e.g. talking about religion or the state or whatever, and it seems sensible to me to first try to sort out whether there is such value before deFOOing (by taking a break from them for example): the religion or state stuff itself need not be a dealbreaker as long as they don't ridicule or mock you for your beliefs.

Stef has always said that you should talk to your family first. So the guy who said his friend just called up one day and said 'I dont think im benefitting from this relationship' and then disappeared to the FDR boards, that guy wasnt really following what stef had proscribed.

I cant speak for stef when you have family that believes in religion ( I can def hear in the back of my head 'but they want you dead!'),

and i think just this week (or before, I can look it up if you like) he literally said that we should get people like that or who believe in the state or other irrational stuff, out of our lives, that that is the only way 'we' are going to change the world (and ourselves foremost)

I mean, that is pretty hardcore stuff. And I agree with you 'take the good you can get out of it and decide for yourself' but Stef does have considerable emotional influence on quite a few board members and can 'make' them take steps that they may seriously regret later.

Quote:

but how much of a logic nazi you want to be is totally up to you. You are the only one that can determine the value of your familial relationships. Value is always determined by costs and benefits, so just because there are some costs doesnt mean they neccessarily out weigh the benefits.

Stef is just some guy on the internet, his word isnt gospel. If you feel the need to change some of his ideas to better fit in with your life then go for it.

well, good, that's exactly one of the things we're trying to do here, seperate the good from the bad in FDR. obviosuly doing so on FDR itself is not possible.

Quote:

I think you admitted to posting in an agressive manner.
when or where did I admit this?

Sorry if I responded this to you. I think it was the guy who was lurking to see what his former friend was up to.

okay, that's fine then.

Quote:

I agree with aggressive posts being unproductive but as I painstakingly try to demonstrate in the 'Stef's Debating Techniques' threads, the aggression pretty much always came from the other side first. And I pointed that out, and the more sophisticated forms of aggression that they used.

Its going to be pretty easy to find this stuff when you have a person with as much out there as stef and a bunch of guys on a msg board picking through everything hes written.

I think it is worse than that though: pretty much every single time somebody no matter how friendly or open he is, questions Stef on one of the topics that are his 'hot buttons' so to speak, Stef will get defensive and increasingly hostile. This doesnt happen at random and it happens a lot.

Quote:

I dunno to me I'm not interested if stef is 100% consistant all the time. If I had that attitude I would never read any philosopher. And on a historical scale stef is much more consistant, self aware, and self critical than any other political/philisophical commentator Ive ever listened to, past or present. He's not perfect, but when hes on his game he's probably one of the best.

I agree wholeheartedly with the last sentence. And as I've told him in private after I got banned, I want him to be on his best but now he is heading in the wrong direction and is heading for a big fall, and it is such a waste... He could have been the new Murray Rothbard

Quote:

I am not sure about whether this is true. What examples did you have in mind? And would you use the same standard of needing to provide evidence for Stef and others?

Well im not going to name names, but one of the first prolific posters to be banned caused a huge shit fest like this too. The same things were said about stef, and 6 months later the poster got banned from another msg board for exactly the same stuff. It wasnt simply that he was making assertions it was that he was spamming his assertions to the forums. Eventually people just got sick of him.

yeah, I also want to be careful in making the distinction between people who were just behaving rudely, insulting, who were flaming and whatever and the people who had more meaningful types of conflicts with Stef such as some of the people on this board. People of the former group are rightly banned, of the latter the only justification is that it is Stef's board and that he can do what he wants, and that's fine but then he shouldnt pretend that he's banning for objective moral reasons.

Quote:

To a certain degree I do see stef do this. Spamming the pro RP nazi girl I agree was really low. But what can you do? Its stefs board. So you either simply avoid that sort of nonsense or you leave the board. Much like I posted above, stef isnt 100% in my books but on a cost benefit analysis the good far outweighs the bad. I'm not going to DeStef just because of a few irrational arguements he makes. I just dont engage in the discussions that I think are going to be unproductive, much like an above poster said he wasnt going to engage his parents much in religious debate once each parties view is known.

okay, I dig. and agree though i think there is an important difference between a religious parent and Stef in this regard. the parent does not pretend to be a (moral) philosopher or to be open to discussion and willing to be corrected. Stef does... and if somebody like that has blind spots for his own behaviour and ideas, it may imply some things about the ideas that do seem sensbiel at first sight. that is one of the tasks i am undertaking now, re-evaluating what i have learned from stef

Quote:

but doesnt that tell you something or make you wonder why Stef would be posting such stuff?

I'm Canadian so I care little for RP. I basically agree with stef on the political issue as I didnt vote in the recent election up here. I think he came to his point of RP rationally but then occasionally posts anti-RP stuff in an irrational manner. Same with them posting a lot of stuff about police. If the issue is closed in their minds I dont see why that have to keep proving it over and over. I agree with you to an extent but I just find that It doesnt affect me as much and so I can ignore it more easily. YMMV.

well, we disagree then about how rational or strong stef's position againmst RP and other political means is. I'd be happy to discuss the topic with you

Quote:

furthermore, if the nationality of the poster is relevant as you seem to say, then the fact that I am Dutch should matter too

I'm not really talking about you specifically but RP supporters in general. They get really defensive about this stuff. And I dont get it because RP is not going to win the election

I think at least some of 'em like David Heinrich got frustrated or angry for the same reasons that I did: the behaviour in the debates, not so much the RP issue itself

Quote:

that's a good point and compared with so incredibly much other stuff Stef provides great value, but I dont think it is respectful to him to compare him with the crap on the internet but with what FDR could be, and in that case there is a lot lacking

FDR is only ever going to be as good as Stef can make it. There has always been aspects of the show that havent personally appealed to me, but you have to take what you can from the show.

yep
it's just such a shame that therefore FDR could be so much better if Stef had been less defensive

Quote:

an example that may be of interest: when Nielsio got banned I sort of agreed with the banning, although I didnt think Stef was being fair on all accounts. But I thought so because I hadnt followed the boards before the banning and was not aware of the pre-history of some relevant aspects. Then by studying it some more, reading Smacksim's excellent analyses of the conflict and listening to the podcasts Stef did about the conflict and comparing them with the evidence, as well as by starting to partiocipate in other threads on the board myself did I start to realize: 'hey, there is something very fishy going on.'

See im not really interested in getting into the minutae of internet drama. From msg boards to wow, I've learned that its a waste of time. The ideas that Stef puts across are whats important to me. If his motives arent consistant and hes somehow trying to undermine truth it will show up in the podcasts. So far it hasnt IMO.

[/quote]
well, for many of us following all that board stuff was hella fascinating and we think that things have shown themselves in podcasts. but okay.

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

Conrad wrote:

ianlippert wrote:

FDR is only ever going to be as good as Stef can make it. There has always been aspects of the show that havent personally appealed to me, but you have to take what you can from the show.

yep
it's just such a shame that therefore FDR could be so much better if Stef had been less defensive

OK, here's my beef, or one of them. FDR should be as good as the "conversation" is, as good as the community can make it (and don't peg me as collectivist, he's the one who called it a "conversation" from the start). As long as it's organized around Stef as not just the guiding force or center of intellectual gravity, but rather as a sort of dictator who decides who can play and who can't, who's ideas are valid and who's aren't, and most importantly, as long as he continues to reflxively exercise his banning power (predicated solely on his property rights, not on any moral or ethical grounds) when questioned, he'll never benefit from the challenge of a vigorous and principled defense of his ideas, he'll never have any error corrected, because he does not acknowledge error, or even the capacity for it, nor does he accept the possibility that he might learn from anyone else. He just says, "you can talk about this after you've gone through therapy, deFOOed, written a book and done 800+ podcasts," and simply dismisses others, often with sighs or laughter to boot.

He could have been, should have been, the next Rothbard, but the more followers, the more donations and the more exposure he got, the less humble, the less empathetic, the less curious he became. Since he went full time, his attitude is even worse, since now he can't afford any seed of doubt to sow dissention in the ranks, that could cost him his livelihood. That's why he created the premium section and the levels of membership for donators. It's a way of selling access and prestige in the group, and it creates an aura of mystery around Stef while signaling who's in his inner circle.

Hence, he'll go down as the internet's Ayn Rand. And without a movie deal either.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:40 pm

Dylboz wrote:

Conrad wrote:

ianlippert wrote:

FDR is only ever going to be as good as Stef can make it. There has always been aspects of the show that havent personally appealed to me, but you have to take what you can from the show.

yep
it's just such a shame that therefore FDR could be so much better if Stef had been less defensive

OK, here's my beef, or one of them. FDR should be as good as the "conversation" is, as good as the community can make it (and don't peg me as collectivist, he's the one who called it a "conversation" from the start). As long as it's organized around Stef as not just the guiding force or center of intellectual gravity, but rather as a sort of dictator who decides who can play and who can't, who's ideas are valid and who's aren't, and most importantly, as long as he continues to reflxively exercise his banning power (predicated solely on his property rights, not on any moral or ethical grounds) when questioned, he'll never benefit from the challenge of a vigorous and principled defense of his ideas, he'll never have any error corrected, because he does not acknowledge error, or even the capacity for it, nor does he accept the possibility that he might learn from anyone else.

again, very well put (tell me when i should stop saying that all the time. i do mean it everytime though). stef has stopped being open to being corrected, esp. since he went full time, because nowadays it is about propagating his beliefs, not about forming them, having them scrutinized and learning from that. he likely thinks he will lose his power as a propagator when he is corrected at times, but that simply is not the case at all. How wonderful would it be to have somebody with such a radical but important and to a large extent true message, reaching so many people, still being open to correction and to learn! in that case he would practice what he preaches thereby making his message only stronger!

Quote:

He just says, "you can talk about this after you've gone through therapy, deFOOed, written a book and done 800+ podcasts," and simply dismisses others, often with sighs or laughter to boot.

He could have been, should have been, the next Rothbard, but the more followers, the more donations and the more exposure he got, the less humble, the less empathetic, the less curious he became. Since he went full time, his attitude is even worse, since now he can't afford any seed of doubt to sow dissention in the ranks, that could cost him his livelihood. That's why he created the premium section and the levels of membership for donators. It's a way of selling access and prestige in the group, and it creates an aura of mystery around Stef while signaling who's in his inner circle.

yeah, the Premium section, that really is full of the secret truths that only the few can and are allowed to leanr. conveniently enough that also means he wont be criticised on his ideas there. it's almost a standard step in the formation of a cult.

Quote:

Hence, he'll go down as the internet's Ayn Rand. And without a movie deal either.

yeah, it's such a shame ('cept for the movie deal)

mike barskey · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:54 pm

Conrad wrote:

How wonderful would it be to have somebody with such a radical but important and to a large extent true message, reaching so many people, still being open to correction and to learn!

I think we do have somebody like that here: you, and some of the rest of us, and certainly anyone who wants to participate in such a role (extoller of ideas who is willing to be corrected and to learn).

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:57 pm

mike barskey wrote:

Conrad wrote:

How wonderful would it be to have somebody with such a radical but important and to a large extent true message, reaching so many people, still being open to correction and to learn!

I think we do have somebody like that here: you, and some of the rest of us, and certainly anyone who wants to participate in such a role (extoller of ideas who is willing to be corrected and to learn).

ah, you're just saying that because you know I can ban you in the blink of an eye.
I must say though that I am overwhelmed and overjoyed by the great great posts and writing and openness and sympathy on the board, and almost all of the people I didnt even know before. very very cool. LiberatingMinds is really becoming what the introduction envisions

sutible4livestok · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:54 am

Zebra Foal wrote:

mike barskey wrote:

Here's a thread on FDR talking about (again) whether Stef's view on drugs is correct. Someone named Spaghettim0nst3r (can someone invite him/her to LM?) seemed very formal, polite, lucid, and learned, but after correcting Stef a few times, Stef's response was:

Quote:

Please stop posting on this Board.

They never even responded to Spaghettim0nst3r's post, as usual.

wow, this was downright insane and pathetic. Mr. C.'s post was just godawful and Spaghettimonster's response was just the thing Stef needed to ban him. God, they are a sad bunch. and yeah would be very nice to invite him, but I think his account will have been blocked by now so that he wont be able to check his PMs

So, what you forget is MR.C is a donator and spaghetti monster is not