This is NOT the actual Galt's Gulch. It is not hidden from those who would be left out of such a project, like barnacles scraped off of a ship hull.
It is a public forum and as such each of us has the option to join in a variety of ways:

Receiving: passively observing
Comfort Participation: here as long as it doesn't get uncomfortable - who needs that?
Constructive Participation: here to change things for the better which means conflict automatically.

TruthFreedom1 owed nothing. Nor do any of us.
This is not a tragedy or a success. It is a simply choice for his purposes and THAT I support. He chose. He did not sit in the middle and make excuses, delay, dawdle and wait. He chose.

However, three things are mentioned in addition to a simple "goodbye", and they are mentioned in relation to the "goodbye" as if they are causes.

1) Suggesting someone may not be Objectivist because they don't have an open mind to redefining Objectivism, a suggestion clearly indicated by bringing up Leonard Peikoff's and David Kelley's disagreement, is a pre-emptive assumption sans premises to support it.

The idea that Objectivism is a philosophy that can grow and change and transcend it's founder's idea of it is blatantly an attempt to create something other than Objectivism - which is perfectly acceptable - but don't call it Objectivism. We've seen that attempt many times, usurping a name or idea and changing it.

2) Respect: That's a buzz word with lots of explosive attached. When it means: "listen to what I say and don't argue" it may mean someone is in the wrong forum at Galt's Gulch. If it means: "Deal with the topic and argument, leaving out the personal insults to evade the argument" then it clearly is an appeal to use logic.

However, clearly the site doesn't pass the threshold of a set number of people who use logic and reasoning and avoid personal insults to satisfy TruthFreedom1 and those that do do not carry enough of a majority for him to remain.

That's a perfectly reasonable choice.

It's just odd since most of Rand's novels are about overwhelming odds and those whose Objectivist approach caused them to stand their ground.

It is also appropriate to respect the wishes of one's hosts (the moderators, in this case) and to that end, thank you for the forum - I do not know TruthFreedom1 well and will encourage people to look at the whole issue, not just one post by someone who left, to judge the "justice" of the situation.

That's where the freedom of competition comes in. TruthFreedom1 can always start their own forum accordingly.

Choice. No judgment required.

OK... Good bye.

no - we I prefer that you do not. This site to me is a haven of thought provoking discussions and I enjoy reading and pondering the contributions of yourself and all who write in the context of Ms Rand.

Belief......... BS.......... There's a difference? ;-)

To be respected, one must do something respectable.

Logic was the study of reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, or as in Aristotelian logic, a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference.
It has been more generalized in the public to mean "reasoning" itself.

The issue is confusing belief with truth (and fact). By definition, a belief is not a truth; if it was, it would be self evident to all. By definition, a belief is not a fact; if it was, it would be provable to all. When someone promotes their truth as fact and without evidence, it is a belief. Beliefs are powerful, but..........

khallimg:
>>"People who have closed minds to the opinions of other and who don't show respect for those opinions (agreed or not) are destined to wallow in a stagnant world, but hey who am I to pass judgement. Its to bad the moderators of this site don't do something about such things"<<
Respect is something to be earned, not demanded or assured by a moderator.
>>"a moderator could expose those people who can't stay on point and try to embarrass them as much as possible."<<
Doesn't sound like the free exchange of ideas and opinions to me.
>>"I too have found myself wondering about the moderators of this site. apparently there is no one."<<
Personally, I enjoy the site and the freedom the moderators allow as well as their input to the discussion.
>>"That comment needs to be dealt with"<<
Looks to me like the comment gets dealt with adequately by replies. This isn't grade school, I hope. Many times I even look at the deleted comments.
There are times that people get off track on the issue of the post that can be frustrating, but dealing with that frustration is good for the soul and valuable exercise of a rational mind.
In this case's reference we have indeed learned from repliers that there does exist some basis for the original upsetting comment. It might hurt (OOH OOH weoww) our sensibilities and it might not fit the issue being discussed, but it's an important reality for all of us to realize - what people in our own government are capable of.
The only dealing with comments we need to do is to try to determine facts, exaggerations, non-facts.

Malevolence.

Mostly I take it in stride. Occassionally it gets a little nervey but it's one of the purposes of PM. You got a problem with me? Let's take it out of the post. :)
Then there is the second concern. Posts that begin to dominate the board which are meant to drive an agenda not consistent with the purpose of the site. If it gets to the level of driving participants away -that's. Something we
should look at. We tolerate quite a bit,
And we wont always agree, but shouldn't we have some baseline for posting? Its the discussion right now

there are or have been many participants whose comments are meant to offend. To the point of manevolence in some cases. I have been the recipient of most types. I handle it on my posts, but others are put off by the lack of civility and pull back their participation. It makes the site less fun when that happens. We discuss serious stuff here. It doesn't mean the diologue need devolve into name calling or abuse.

There are some interested in converting not conversing. I'm not sure here but obviously several others were. The voting allows for limited moderation. There are many divergent views on the site. Many I disagree with. I rarely exercise down voting. I mostly upvote when I'm disagreeing in a conversation to keep it going. I 'be been here quite awhile, and it's true people have left or participated less. I would like to know why and in the meantime I am going to use the the voting feature more than I currently tend to do.

khalling; No, I haven't seen it flying yet. Maybe some odouring. And I'm sincerely sorry that you've had to put up with what you describe. I hope you didn't have to put it with such for long. And the things you're asking are not in any way unreasonable.
I fully agree with you.

WillH; Can't say that I disagree with anything you''re saying.

I'll take a swing at that, if you don't mind.

Logic is the process through which data is analyzed. Reason is the application of the results of a logical process. Think of it as a mathematical process. In order to arrive at the solution of a trigonometric problem (a reasoned mathematical process), one must first be able to operate in the world of Algebra (logical process).

Re: MattFranke, claims about torture of children.

Your link does not provide proof of "torture by the CIA or any other government organization of the U.S. It does refer to claims and provides a statement supposedly made by George Bush without quotation marks indicating that at best it is some sort of paraphrasing. it is the obligation of anyone making claims of that sort to provide the proof. Not for the person questioning the claims to search the globe for such proof. we all know that there are plenty of governments that have infact tortured people, usually their own citizens first.

In the U.S. we have had many arguments as to what torture really is and I don't believe that I have ever seen a government document that affirms the legitimacy of "torture" with a definition that we can all agree on. For example, the often argued about accusation of water torture, commonly called water boarding in my opinion is not physical torture and perhaps not even psychological torture. It does instill the fear of the unknown. However its use has been very limited and arguably led to the discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden. Hopefully we can all agree that was a good thing. Of course the present administration has not and never will acknowledge that “enhanced interrogation was what led us to the useful information used to find bin Laden.

I surely hope and believe that we have not engaged in officially sanctioned “torture” at least not as I would define it and I believe to be a moral person in coming to such a conclusion. On the other hand, I would find it difficult to object to what some might call a torturous interrogation if all other facts point to a weapon of mass destruction or even a plot to kill one child were planned to take place in 30 minutes and I know for a fact that the person in custody had that information. He has two choices, talk this very second or if not the next step would be final and irreversible. It is a very tough decision but I would make it without hesitation at that point.

Ironically, it would be an easier decision for me if it was your child rather than mine. In the former it would be saving a life without a personal connection to influence my decision.

Respectfully yours,

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

Re: khalling,

Yes, your name is already out there as you state and it causes me to have greater respect for your opinions. i think of names in the sense of video tape where politicians and talking heads can no longer claim to not have said something that they now take a 190 degree position on because it's convenient for them to do so.

As to your suggestion about an outline of how a moderator should moderate, I will consider expanding on the suggestion or two I've made on a couple of previous posts.

Fred speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

Re: Zenphamy,

Since you're quoting me, I would hope that you would at least do so within context. It does seem to be a favorite ploy for some here to quote people out of context and thereby try to support their own arguments.

When I spoke of moderators as a good idea and perhaps even needed, it was in the context of keeping on point and move the debate forward. My understanding of these types of sites is to keep debates within the framework of the founders of the site. In this case it happens to be believers in Ayn Rands philosophy on economics, politics man and his freedoms and sometimes her personal atheism. frankly the atheism of the 40's and 50's are greatly different of today.

Without a doubt you have greatly misunderstood my beliefs and my desire to further any debate and sometimes it just ends in having to agree to disagree. In such an event it is not about who wins and who looses, but has been the most logical presentation of facts that are to the point.

My desire is to always further any discussion along, hopefully to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. It's not about win or loose, but about learning new ways to look at something, or the proverbial open mind that you so disdain as your "joke" clarifies. Maybe sometimes the mind needs to dump out some things that may not be accurate despite our beliefs. Try not being the smartest guy in the room, and try to be the guy that asks the smartest question.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

+1