The point was that the "What does this post have to do with Objectivism, AR, or AS? " question did not seem to apply to that post, but to some others. That was the start of this issue. Your voting is particularly interesting BTW...

In the short time I have been here I have observed that Admin is loathe to block anyone's account.

khalling, that is fine, I have no issue with any posts. My opinion is I am not going to be an arbiter of whether something meets the test or not. I am not going to argue the merits of the graduation question, because it seems to be a muddy wadi that is not needed, or serving of any good debate. I can see it frome both sides of the coin, but only if it was just the "be with their friends" only and no one objected. Since there is not enough facts, in fact there seems to be conflicting facts, I cannot make the argument any longer.

"I am sharp, clear, brilliant , and focused". I agree 100%, and that's why I commented earlier that your comments are valuable, Winterwind. I have never seen you be rude.

I am glad you are here Nick and I have enjoyed discussions with you. Hiraghm crossed some lines to make a point. He was highly offensive. Admin blocked his account immediately upon seeing those comments. It 's one reason we have a flag feature now. There were phone calls and lots of discussion. He was told that he needed to apologise and assure the group he would not make those kinds of comments. (This had not been the first time.) That 's what needs to happen for him to be unhidden.

I suppose one could make a case that if a poster has no interest in Rand or was not a fan of the movies, what would be the motivation for posting to begin with? The article is whiny in my opinion. There is criteria for graduation and the student did not meet it. He can cheer his friends on from the stands.

I 'm not sure how I got drug into this, but I posted that particular article because lots of Os are praising and interested in seeing that particular movie. They appreciate Bird's work. I sided with gulchers who think actors like Clooney are so politically noxious, they shouldn 't be supported at the box office. On an earlier post about this movie I discussed capitalism as a moral system and that we can withold trade as a moral option. But I agree. Posts do not have to be about Objectivism.

Ok, so, to place us on an even keel, this is my understanding:
"All he wants is to walk with his friends," she said. "It's never been about the diploma. I just want to say, 'Look, give him a certificate of completion that he's completed a year here, and let him walk.'" I interpreted that as meaning he was not asking for a diploma, but the act of walking down the aisle with his classmates. Normally, at the graduations I have been to, they walk, stand in front, and then go up the stage from one side to another in alphabetical order, to get diploma. He would not be able to do that (of course). I did not interpret that as meaning he was looking for a diploma.
So, I do agree with you that A=A in that he was not seeking to graduate, nor should he have from the information available when we started this, er, discussion.
It seems we derailed on just what the A= criteria was, in that I believed he was seeking to just participate in the walk, you are perceiving that he was trying (or would have defacto been asking for) participation in graduation.
Is this accurate?
My point in posting still remained though that in the circumstances of "just walking with his peers" the school district is imposing itself upon something and using rules to make their case, in order to have their way, when it seemed they were asking to just participate as "guests" and to be part of, the commencement experience, which is part of their senior year.
"Nice" is the term I use for doing something that may not necessarily be the correct, absolute rule based action, in order to provide someone an otherwise unattainable experience or item. Such as walking with your classmates in the ceremony, (assuming no one did not have an objection). It may not be a Objectivist trait, to think of someone outside of the boundaries of rules and regulations, or from self centered interest.
That said, I did do some more digging to see just how this all ended up, being that we have been on 2 sides of this, and I must admit that this story:
http://www.taylorpress.net/news/article_...
indicates a slightly different angle, and that either they said the only way he could do it was to meet their standards (which he did not do) or not. Again, incomplete facts to make a good assessment: Did he know from the start what was required? Did he assume it was met by his attendance? Didn't the school require his records to enroll in the exchange program? I don't know, so I can not make a statement, since I lack the facts to make a judgement.

I am not a straight up A=A person, in cases of individual people, because in my experience, there is never a single set of reliable guidelines that cover every quirk and twist of personality. A=A in cases of clear facts (i.e. Hillary is not to be trusted, and should never be allowed to be president) I base that on observed behavior and repeated events where her credibility failed and a repeat pattern of the same type of excuses and claims. But with this kid that was not apparent. The second article seems to indicate a different situation.
I am always alarmed anytime the "authorities" go to the "rules and regulations" and use that as a justification for a position, groups like the EPA tend to do that to justify whatever they want to use, not use or just ban. I have had bitter experience with rules being applied one way in one case, and another way in another case, even if the facts are the same.
So it seems that we are somewhat divided on what the details meant. You see the graduation as a pinnacle of work done to a set standard, which I agree he did not meet. I did not see (what was described as the request) as a graduation, but an association with friends in a unique situation that could have been accommodated as a common benefit to all. Had anyone objected, that would have been a different kettle of fish. Is this accurate?

The additional information from the other article throws a bucket of water on the whole deal, as it implies he was trying to meet the diploma requirements (but maybe because they said that was the only way to be allowed to walk). So it becomes harder to absolutely say right or wrong in this.
That is an issue with any reporting today, sometimes you do not, or cannot get the full picture based on what is presented, which is why I like the oversampling method, there just were no other samples on this story. Now, there was one from Wed 5/26 that adds more information.

I am not ordinarily confrontational or rude, but I have had some people be rude for no reason other than they felt I had violated their sacred ground in these forums. In that I pay my toll to be on this road as much as anyone else, and try to stay with the categories and spirit of Atlas Shrugged, but I am by no means committed to it as the be all and end all of existence. It just seemed to fit what I see going on around me better than any other ethical set.

For instance, I do not know what the deal is with Hiraghm, nor what he has done, but it seems anywhere he appears his comments are hammered. I am just not that thrilled with that unless the person is being obnoxious just to be obnoxious, yet all their comments are hidden. I do not understand that.

nickursis,
part 2
as I said, no reply function so we get clunky communication.

Oh, dear. You ARE determined to be angry, right? Did you read what I wrote? Did you happen to read my objections to the "ignore" feature?
I did, and somewhat do, want to hear from you, as I have allowed you 2 deadly insults and we are still talking. kind of.

How about you clarify for me, OK?
Back 732 years ago, when I was in High School, there was this ceremony called "Graduation". Students' names would be called, they would walk across the stage, shake the principal's hand, and receive the diploma which they had earned. Students who had not earned a diploma were present in the audience, but that was all. It was a celebration of graduation, not friendship.
Is this "walk" thing different from that? How?

extra explanation and my thoughts on how Objectivism applies to this situation:

I have been thinking that the "walk" was a graduation. The student did not graduate, nor did he earn a diploma. The story said he was missing credits. If the ceremony IS a graduation, he could & should! have had several places there: in the audience, a special mention, an introduction to those audience members who don't know him - lots of choices.
BUT.
If the ceremony is a graduation ceremony, and he did not graduate, it is not being "nice" to allow him to take part. It is an untruth. It says "you did not fulfill the requirements to participate in this ceremony, but we're going to cheapen the achievements of every student who DID and allow you to participate."

Can you see the difference I see, or are you stuck on "nice"? Sometimes, not being nice is the best thing you CAN be. I am not in support of some stupid rule made up by some stupid governmental entity. I do THINK that obtaining a diploma is an Objective standard which one reaches. The celebration is congratulatory, celebratory and, most of al, a recognition of achievement. Yes, this student achieved - just being able to speak more than one language is more than most American High School students can do. And yes, it was appropriate to recognize or value that - but not as something it was NOT.
Can you see how A does or doesn't = A in this situation?
WW

p.s. I'm going to dinner. If you reply, I'll see it before I quit for the night, but I may not reply until morning.

Winterwind, this all started with the first reply from Zen, which was a cut a paste and appeared on many others. That set the stage. Then with your "sorry couldn't make it +50" remark, I could not tell what you were saying. When I asked about it, you proceed to lecture me on a Code of Conduct, slapping AR in the face, and judged my comment wrong. Your propsed comment is one I have never seen on a post here, so I believed that was part of the lecture.
I justified my point, and what I thought it was illustrating. I do not have a degree in Objective ism, I came here after listening to AS, and finding I thought AR illustrated all the things I have found wrong with our society in the last 30 years. I didn't find the Objectivist Test at the signup page, I came through Kickstarter support for AS3. The whole point of this was I saw an administration that rejected a womans request, and the kids, that he be allowed to walk with his classmates. Not graduate, not get a diploma, just enjoy the fellowship and friendship of the ceremony. I saw no problem with it. Denying it due to rules and regulations is abhorrent to me, it is the excuse of the powerful to point to some obscure law or rule to force people to follow "their" law.
" From what I see, the kid and the host mom just want to let him walk with his classmates. If he did a senior year, then WTF? Can't anyone do sometthing simple and nice for someone? "
why is being nice so "anti Rand"?
You say: "Your comment is WRONG in intention." How do you know my intention? I thought that was clear with "Can't anyone do sometthing simple and nice for someone? " The question could also be: Does everything have to have a rule or regulation to be permitted? Does government have the right to regulate every little bit of life down to telling a group "he can't walk with you" because he didn't meet their standards? He didn't ask for anything that required meeting anyone's standards, just to be allowed to walk with his friends. You seemed to be defending the governments right to dictate to all what gets done, by whom, when and where. The graduation ceremony belongs to the kids graduating, not the school. The school owns granting the certificates and diplomas. That was where their authority stops, in my opinion.
There are so many posts here that have nothing to do with AR/Objectiveism/AS (refer to http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2... for one, and that was posted by one of the "top" producers) that I did not see why I merited such special attention. I did not find one "This does not belong" or "Why is this posted here?" comment.
If you do not want to hear from me, then feel free to hit "ignore" apparently it will delete all traces of me from your world. I'm ok with that.

nickursis
my "reply" function is not working, so I am using "add comment" as a poor substitute.

oh, absent gods.
yes, let us attempt to "get things straight". Please do me the honor I did you, of reading your entire post. You might be surprised.

I think it's a fair question to ask why you, the poster, think this article belongs on the site. Your last sentence was so broad I couldn't even see any connection between GGO and this particular situation. and I wanted to know.

I do get riled when someone makes a statement that effectively ends discussion. {i.e. "I am confused." "This is amazing."] How about
I am a little confused because....
I didn't see your point?
I didn't jump into a conversation about why can't people be nicer?
I pointed up another person?
Not knowing what you were confused about, I answered every possible source of confusion, with criticism.

You replied by designating me as a a Gestapo. that's your idea of nice?
and in addition, you let pass a typo? error? that I see as the first example in a list of "Don't you dare..." items. Gault. my spell-checker catches it, because anyone can make a mistake, and I have made sure I won't make that one. small? yes. vital? yes.

I am NOT "rude"; I am sharp, clear, brilliant and focused, and calling me aggressive is a compliment. and I am NOT an English major, I am an educated human being.
BUT
The important point is, I WAS interested.
If I'm not interested, I do pass.
I want to know why this particular story, out of all the stories possible, piqued your interest. Obviously you see something I don't - what is it? How do you think that applies to our society? How do you think it applies to the society of the Netherlands? The culture that makes "walking" so important is not mine - what is so important about it? why does it matter? and then, what is "nice"? why do you think it's important?

All in all, we are different. [You may say DUH! with me.]
I see most philosophical discussion as a meeting of flashing blades, sharpening the users, disposing of the irrelevant to expose the true and right. yep, every single one.
How do you see it?
regards,
WW

You need to understand that this site may be focused on a specific philosophy, and any philosophy is subject to interpretation and individual underestanding. I could easily point out dozens of other articles that have no apparent connection to Objectivism, AR or AS, but that individual thought it might spark a good discussion. Let nature take it's course. My point was: A bureaucratic empire that cannot make a decision for the good of one individual (and the question was not "graduate or give him a degree, but let him walk with his classmates"), is one that will have other individuals in their sights. It leads to a replication of the same "You cannot do that" mentality. You are practicing the same thing, when you try to qualify an submission as meeting some litmus test. If you are not interested, ignore it, is that asking too much? The Gulch is as much mine as yours, so you should show me the same respect I show you. I do apologize that you got me fired up and I was rude in my initial reply, but you were not nice.

Winterwind: Lets get this straight: I do NOT owe you diddly squat in the way of an explanation, and I did not know you were an English major. You are rude and aggressive, and you fail the "do no violence" test. Had you approached this in a less aggressive, confrontational manner, we might have had a discussion. By the way, I was going to Bail, but Scott had asked me to stay, and has indicated he supports my position. Maybe you need a chat with him on proper behavior.

see 1. WHAT do you think this article has to do with the focus of the site? If you had included that information, I might have disagreed or not, but I would know why you put it here. for example, where, oh where, is the oppression?

spelling is good. so is grammar. use them - you'll sound smarter.

So I guess that the roots of oppression, where rules are rules and common sense does not apply, is not applicable? If a damn article does not say "Objectivist, Ayn Rand, or Atlas Shrugged (I guess Fountainhead didn't meet your limited horizon) then your Gestapo morals are offended? I thought John Gault left because he did not want to participate in such a society. Maybe my copy didn't match yours. Adios...

Why are you confused?
1] You post an article that had nothing to do with the emphasis of this site. Isn't that against the Code of Conduct?

2] You write a "slap-Miss-Rand-in-the-face" comment: "Can't anyone do something simple and nice for someone?" i.e., be altruistic

3] Your comment is WRONG in intention.
He did a year at an American School. Graduation is to award a diploma certifying that you have successfully passed or completed High School, which the article states he did NOT; nor has he completed High School in his native country.

and then, instead of asking a clear, information-seeking question, say you're confused. An example of an "information-seeking question" might be:

I think this article aligns with the purposes of the site because xxxxxxxxx; do you disagree? if so, why?
I hope I've cleared up your confusion; feel free to continue this discussion here, if you like.
[edit for punctuation]

What? I am a little confused here..

sorry I couldn't make it +50.

What does this post have to do with Objectivism, AR, or AS?