Public Information?

[James_S_Saint]

@Only_Humean

@James S Saint

In the middle of the debate that we are having right now, you locked the thread specifically to prevent me from defending myself from a conspicuous personal attack (just look at the thread - no search engine required). You say that it isn’t my job to do such homework as to know what Jakob has or has not said throughout his entire life here and yet you accuse me for doing something wrong that I could only have known to be wrong by doing that homework.

I didn’t lock the thread. I’ve not issued any warnings. You have no warnings on your profile.

FJ stated it as an “official warning”.

@Flannel Jesus

This is an official warning to JSS.

And the moment you step into the thread incorrectly asserting;

@Only_Humean

You can stop blustering as though you’ve done nothing wrong. The evidence is here in the thread.

… instantly the thread is locked; “place blame on him and silence him.” The only alternative is that FJ locked it. Okay, that’s plausible enough (and frankly something I would prefer to believe). But that makes FJ even more guilty.

@Only_Humean

The default assumption of privacy would demand that you didn’t put any private information on the boards without explicit knowledge that it was OK. If you don’t do your homework, you don’t put the information there. If you had, you’d have known not to. It’s fairly straightforward.

A) It was [size=150]NOT PRIVATE INFORMATION[/size]. Get that through your head.
B) YOU stated;

@Only_Humean

It’s not our job to do homework in such cases, nor is it yours.

I had long since done enough “homework” to know that he was NOT hiding his name but rather advertising it. Whether he ever wrote it on this particular website is irrelevant. And if you try to make that the rule, then you instantly get trapped into many, many issues, such as;

@Only_Humean

Jakob’s accusation that you are Sanjay, while miles wide of the mark, is not revealing any personal information about you.

How do you know that it isn’t? YOU are assuming that it isn’t my real name. If I complained, I would have given away the secret that I was trying to use to deceive the members. Being such a deceiver, all I would have to do is lie again and say that it wasn’t my name. Granted you can see how very far off the IP addresses are, so you can find out. But you have to go look first. Did he “do that homework”? He revealed a REAL NAME that I had never written on this site, claiming it to be mine. How is that any different than what I did? I revealed a real name, merely inferring that it was his. And although apparently he hadn’t yet advertised it on this site, he certainly advertised it publicly. He wanted it known. That is why you put your name at the top of a public blog in bold letters. He was even trying to get Wiki to publish an article about him and Value Ontology. I had done “my homework” long ago.

But you say that doing such homework isn’t my job nor yours at the same time that you say that I should do my homework to ensure a privacy issue concerning something that I already knew wasn’t actually private. O_H, that is just flat out stupid.

Oh but he was in the midst of attacking a “chosen enemy” (by his own words). He was in the midst of lying with extreme exaggerations at best, proclaiming grand wrong doings that he could not find the slightest evidence to support. But then he sees that he can make another ridiculous lie and claim that he has been terribly offended by his chosen enemy revealing offending private information that he, himself, had already publicly published. He knew that people like FJ never look into anything before jumping to conclusions and had complained of that before. Now he uses it.

He was very, very conspicuously violating the rules of this site merely by attacking one person with ridiculous accusations. “Ad hom” doesn’t do it justice. He came to this site after ignoring it for a very long time specifically to attack one person, as evidenced by the threads he started concerning that one person, not to mention the content of them. It is unquestionable that HE is guilty. But who got the warning? Who lied and tried to goad the moderators?

Why am I even the topic instead of the one who is very obviously guilty?
I actually know why. But the question is for you, Carleas, and this site.

I have raised the issue here as to whether ILP is going to try to make a rule, as of yet unmade, that will lead ILP into ridiculous conundrums, ie. trying to proclaim privacy concerning public information.

@Only_Humean

Software bugs produce an incorrect or unexpected result - they can do so as a result of human intervention. If I change your username at your request and the software interprets that as me asking to change everyone’s username, or to change yours to something else, or do anything but what I request, that’s a bug.

If it is a software bug (not “glitch” - a sensitivity causing a momentary, inadvertent error), as you describe. Then we know that someone was trying to change a name to “Crack Dealer”. Did he already know of the bug that would cause the more global effect? Probably so. Or was he trying to change someone else’s name?

That is the scenario of the “hacker” - one who takes advantage of network weaknesses to disrupt architectural design intent. It is illegal, although in this case obviously insignificant. The only issue is that it just so happened to have been done at one particularly suspicious moment; while someone was in process of attacking someone else with lies and deceit using those same words. Why isn’t THAT person on trial?

[iambiguous]

In my own personal opinion, James loves this sort of exchange. Why? Because it allows him to complain that HERE – just as out THERE – there are people in power who are trying to silence him.

RM/AO is the most rational TOE, but the scientific community out THERE refuses to own up to it. And now the authorities HERE are trying to shut him up too.

In my view, it is all part and parcel of the objectivist frame of mind.

Now, there are arguments going back and forth about the ethics of revealing an ILP member’s “real identity” – if the member him/herself has not chosen to reveal it. That is, has not chosen to reveal it here.

And, as with all such “conflicting goods”, reasonable arguments can be made from both sides such that the other sides argument [or parts of it] do not really go away.

But James, as with all objectivists, will never, ever concede that any argument other than his own is the most rational.

There is what he believes is true and then there is hammering the exchange into that – or else you are wrong.

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

In my own personal opinion, James loves this sort of exchange. Why? Because it allows him to complain that HERE – just as out THERE – there are people in power who are trying to silence him.

RM/AO is the most rational TOE, but the scientific community out THERE refuses to own up to it. And now the authorities HERE are trying to shut him up too.

In my view, it is all part and parcel of the objectivist frame of mind.

Now, there are arguments going back and forth about the ethics of revealing an ILP member’s “real identity” – if the member him/herself has not chosen to reveal it. That is, has not chosen to reveal it here.

And, as with all such “conflicting goods”, reasonable arguments can be made from both sides such that the other sides argument [or parts of it] do not really go away.

But James, as with all objectivists, will never, ever concede that any argument other than his own is the most rational.

There is what he believes is true and then there is hammering the exchange into that – or else you are wrong.

Once again, another strawman liar. I never made such claims. And once again, off topic and ad hom. But he continues to do this and degrade the site because mods do nothing about it, so it grows like weeds in a garden.

[phoneutria]

Look at the goddamn “What are you doing” thread already. The conversation about being a crack dealer is right there on the last page. FUCK.

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

Once again, another strawman liar. I never made such claims. And once again, off topic and ad hom. But he continues to do this and degrade the site because mods do nothing about it, so it grows like weeds in a garden.

Enough said as far as I am concerned. How is a post that clearly makes reference to the OP – posting Jacob’s “real identity” here: right or wrong? – “off topic”. I am merely putting it into what I construe to be the larger context of the “objectivist mind”. And I did express it to be only my own personal opinion.

But I can only try to imagine what my fate would have been here had James been made a moderator on the Religion and Spirituality forum. I’d probably be a sock puppet now, right?

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

@James S Saint

Once again, another strawman liar. I never made such claims. And once again, off topic and ad hom. But he continues to do this and degrade the site because mods do nothing about it, so it grows like weeds in a garden.

Enough said as far as I am concerned. How is a post that clearly makes reference to the OP – posting Jacob’s “real identity” here: right or wrong? – “off topic”. I am merely putting it into what I construe to be the larger context of the “objectivist mind”. And I did express it to be only my own personal opinion.

But I can only try to imagine what my fate would have been here had James been made a moderator on the Religion and Spirituality forum. I’d probably be a sock puppet now, right?

Doing the right thing once (bothering to at least mention the OP) certainly does not negate the very many times (within the same post) one does the wrong things - constant, repetitious ad homs and lies.

And yeah, as a mod, I probably would have told you to put a “sock” in it, but merely because you say almost nothing else at all and say it on every thread you bother to post on disregarding the OP topic. You have proven to be a very disingenuous proselytizer of one particular thought - hopelessness (and apparently obsessed with attacking “James”).

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

And yeah, as a mod, I probably would have told you to put a “sock” in it, but merely because you say almost nothing else at all and say it on every thread you bother to post on disregarding the OP topic. You have proven to be a very disingenuous proselytizer of one particular thought - hopelessness (and apparently obsessed with attacking “James”).

Nothing to say? James, surely you would not argue that my Philosophy in Films and mundane ironist threads reflect someone who has nothing to say. Not to mention all of the other threads I have created over the years.

But the fact is that here I would prefer that my “real identity” not be revealed. Not if I have not disclosed it myself at ILP. Though I have revealed it on other internet sites. But the contexts there are completely different.

And since my “philosophy of life” often disturbs folks [and not just idioticidioms] it ought to be obvious why I prefer it that way.

And I wonder what percentage of my 10,000+ posts here have been devoted to attacking you? And over and again I make it clear that I react to you only because you seem to embody what I construe to be “the objectivist mind”.

But what I have never been able to understand is how you intertwine science, philosophy, RM/AO, the Real God and objectivity relating to the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

I’m sorry, but that sort of stuff has always fascinated me.

[zinnat]

I do not know what happened between James and FC/Jacob but one thing is for the sure that the disclosure of the identity cannot be the real issue between the two. There must be something else which caused all this confrontation to this extent. It cannot be merely posting the real name of FC/Jacob. My little common sense is not ready to buy this argument.

Secondly, I am a bit curious whether posting under two different user IDs is allowed at ILP or not!

with love,
sanjay

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

But the fact is that here I would prefer that my “real identity” not be revealed. Not if I have not disclosed it myself at ILP. Though I have revealed it on other internet sites. But the contexts there are completely different.

Have you made concrete links between any particular thing that you associate with your identity here and also your real name anywhere else?

In comparison, Jakob has tied his name and his thesis, Value-Ontology, concretely together both here as “Jakob” and on his blog site as “Jakob Milikowski”. He is obviously advertising. He wants the association. He doesn’t have the choice to say, “well, I only want some people to read my blog site, but no one from here”. That would be pretty stupid.

So what I am asking is whether there is a similar concrete association that ties your real name with what you preach here? If so, then you do not have the right nor ability to prevent your real name from following you. It is merely a matter of personal consideration or politeness if others don’t make it more obvious than you already have. If you create, or “choose” in Jakob’s case, enemies, it is up to them whether they choose to also be your enemy and return your attack upon them.

@zinnat13

Secondly, I am a bit curious whether posting under two different user IDs is allowed at ILP or not!

It is allowed.

[phyllo]

But I can only try to imagine what my fate would have been here had James been made a moderator on the Religion and Spirituality forum. I’d probably be a sock puppet now, right?

It must be obvious that James does not evaluate the posts objectively. He takes these discussions personally and reacts emotionally. He is unable to admit any personal error.

Just look at the Stopped Clock Paradox threads or the Blue Eyed Islanders discussion in the Math Fun thread. He will endlessly (literally endlessly) promote his opinion in the face of any argument. Even when his position is absurd, his ego will not let him concede.

[James_S_Saint]

@phyllo

But I can only try to imagine what my fate would have been here had James been made a moderator on the Religion and Spirituality forum. I’d probably be a sock puppet now, right?

It must be obvious that James does not evaluate the posts objectively. He takes these discussions personally and reacts emotionally. He is unable to admit any personal error.

Just look at the Stopped Clock Paradox threads or the Blue Eyed Islanders discussion in the Math Fun thread. He will endlessly (literally endlessly) promote his opinion in the face of any argument. Even when his position is absurd, his ego will not let him concede.

Your own reflection, easily objectively determined by the fact that you could never find anything wrong with the logic involved. You agree all the way up to the final, obvious conclusion, then go “emotionally” ballistic and just start spouting names, distracting, and dodging. You proved the Stopped Clock Paradox issue yourself, by your own reactions to it. But after that, still others have seen the inevitable conclusions.

You join with those who assign their own guilt onto their chosen adversary.
What do you kids say, “Bounces off of me and sticks to you”?
Evidence makes the difference.

[phyllo]

Your own reflection, easily objectively determined by the fact that you could never find anything wrong with the logic involved.

I found many things wrong with your logic and I said as much.

You join with those who assign their own guilt onto their chosen adversary.

You must have said this at least a hundred times on this site. It’s never James, it’s always the other person who has a fault.

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

But I can only try to imagine what my fate would have been here had James been made a moderator on the Religion and Spirituality forum. I’d probably be a sock puppet now, right?

It must be obvious that James does not evaluate the posts objectively. He takes these discussions personally and reacts emotionally. He is unable to admit any personal error.

Just look at the Stopped Clock Paradox threads or the Blue Eyed Islanders discussion in the Math Fun thread. He will endlessly (literally endlessly) promote his opinion in the face of any argument. Even when his position is absurd, his ego will not let him concede.

Well put. I simply focus more on the manner in which objectivism seems to be rooted in a [psychological] yearning for equilibrium/equanimity. The kind that flows from a “wholistic” understanding of reality.

[zinnat]

@James S Saint

@zinnat13

Secondly, I am a bit curious whether posting under two different user IDs is allowed at ILP or not!

It is allowed.

It should not be. It is intellectual cheating in my opinion.
One can use it to fool other members by presenting discussion using his two IDs that a very hot or intellectual deabte is going on.

I request to the Mods that they should not allow one member having two IDs at the ILP.

with love,
sanjay

[James_S_Saint]

@phyllo

Your own reflection, easily objectively determined by the fact that you could never find anything wrong with the logic involved.

I found many things wrong with your logic and I said as much.

Never. Find whatever topic and thread and let’s go look at it. Try again, as often as you like. But try to follow the logic, one step at a time (which ever topic you are referring to) and try NOT to go psycho or run away soon as you get trapped.

[phoneutria]

@iambiguous

In my own personal opinion, James loves this sort of exchange. Why? Because it allows him to complain that HERE – just as out THERE – there are people in power who are trying to silence him.

RM/AO is the most rational TOE, but the scientific community out THERE refuses to own up to it. And now the authorities HERE are trying to shut him up too.

In my view, it is all part and parcel of the objectivist frame of mind.

Now, there are arguments going back and forth about the ethics of revealing an ILP member’s “real identity” – if the member him/herself has not chosen to reveal it. That is, has not chosen to reveal it here.

And, as with all such “conflicting goods”, reasonable arguments can be made from both sides such that the other sides argument [or parts of it] do not really go away.

But James, as with all objectivists, will never, ever concede that any argument other than his own is the most rational.

There is what he believes is true and then there is hammering the exchange into that – or else you are wrong.

LOL spot on.

[Ben_JS]

@O_H

If it was caused by a flaw in the hammer, you could say so.

In this situation, PHP - which I don’t think was at fault.

@phoneutria

Bennypoo, this doesn’t matter at all.
All that matters is that there was no intent.

You’re not the dictator of relevance, phon.

What’s irrelevant to you, can be relevant to others.

I personally do not like the way they’ve described the situation. - If they said, ‘Oh sorry, that was a hiccup on our part when we were editing variables’, then I’d be perfectly comfortable.

However, they describe it as some software error - devoid of human interaction. Scapegoating their tools for their own mistakes.

==

But it’s over now, so w/e.

[phoneutria]

And why does that matter? Were you in the phpbb dev team that it bothers you so much that the tool is taking the blame?
The reason I say only the intent matters is because whether this was a human accident or a computer process accident, it was an accident.
If even courts of law are more lenient in cases of accidents, why can’t you?
Where’s the love, brother?

[zinnat]

@iambiguous

But James, as with all objectivists, will never, ever concede that any argument other than his own is the most rational.

imb, please do not twist the definitions.

Objectivism merely means that there can be one absolute perfect perception on any issue. It does not mean that James or anyone else must be right or should be considered perfect by default. That is open to challenge and discussion and we all are doing that on various issues.
Objectivism does not restrict its followers to concede to other’s opinions.

Whether James or anyone does that or not is an entirely different issue.

[b]On the other hand, relativism says that all this exercise is useless as there cannot any single perfect solution. And, also remember that relativism does not suggest that there cannot any objectivism. It merely says that there must be many objective absolutes, instead of a single one.

Objectivism denies relativism but relativism does not deny objectivism. Relativism merely says that is incapable to decide the best of the many objective perceptions offered. [/b]

with love,
sanjay

[Ben_JS]

@phoneutria

Where’s the love, brother?

FC / Jakob is launching a ‘war’ against other people here.

This is his language.

The result is the person he’s attacking being given a warning.

FC has multiple accounts, and actively engages in ‘questionable’ if not downright dishonest behaviour. He’s made a posse of friends who he encourages to act like assholes because of his warped ‘philosophy’, which is primarily snippets of other people’s philosophy with some crap of his own spewed in there somewhere. - The crap of his own is what he uses to justify being an asshole, and the shit he takes from other people is how he persuades them.

He’s manipulative, dishonest, egotistical and power hungry.

I’ve seen Fixed Cross use this very subreddit posing as a person with authority, mocking and calling out Stuart. Only to be backed up by other members of this forum. This lasted for a day or two, before the thread was edited and Fixed Cross went without any warning.

He’s a straight up piece of shit, and I wouldn’t put it past someone as intellectually dishonest as him, to abuse the website for his own agenda.

When questioned about what happened, the Mods / other members go immediately to scapegoating the website, as though it just randomly gives people offensive titles out of the blue.

They could at least give an honest, open and direct explanation - but that’s expecting too much from them, I suppose.

I’m glad James called him out by his name. Jakob’s own ego bit him on the arse. Jakob preaches about power, but then is shown how vulnerable he is. That maybe he should treat others with respect, instead of trying to bully others like the bitch he is.

I restate, I hope FC isolates himself to his string of forums he’s made over the years, because by himself, he produces nothing but noise and the people that once respected him will see through the bullshit and notice someone without anything of substance to offer.

Many people have seen through his bullshit, and have left his side. The more the merrier.