User talk:TheJazzFan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Ayn Rand[edit]

Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Have to mull it over, not clear how important what Wikipedia says on the subject is. It's not like it's going to end all debate about her. People bright enough to grasp what she said should be able to decide for themselves. TheJazzFan (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
JazzFan, if I in any way caused you to stumble into the miasma that is the Ayn Rand discussion I apologize. :) Indeed, her legacy will continue no matter how much "trimming", "summarizing" and "balancing" her opponents pursue. On the one hand they're complaining she's covered too much in relation to other philosophers, and on the other hand they won't even acknowledge that she's a philosopher. Irony. Not to mention the fact that they can't seem to take their eyes off her. :) Cheers. I haven't had a chance to look into the MSG discussion. But chemicals is bad m-kay, to quote Mr. Garrison. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have in fact given a great deal of thought to the root causes of the Holocaust, and assure you that I feel no moral ambivalence whatsoever about it. My conclusion is that events like the Holocaust are caused by idolatry--the worship of human constructs or worse, human beings. Having read all of Rand's novels and much of her nonfiction, I also conclude that she and her followers are idolaters, and would be glad to forward you a paper I wrote a couple of years ago that argues just that. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't characterize it as a paper on the Holocaust. I characterized it as a paper concluding that Rand and her followers are idolaters. Certainly plenty of other people (see Ozick) have traced the Holocaust to idolatry, however. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, as an historian I find Peikoff's thesis to be highly unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, particularly the fact that it ignores the relatively unique nature of the Holocaust and the relatively common frequency of all three of the conditions he identifies. If that is why he feels the Holocaust happens, well, frankly he's missing something, because plenty of places have those conditions and do not engage in systematic genocide. Paroxysms of violence have seized virtually every society on the planet, including ours. What makes the Holocaust different was the incredibly organized, methodical way in which it was carried out, as well as the scale. Therefore I simply find Peikoff's thesis (as you have summarized it) very inadequate. My understanding is that one of the definitive works on the rise of totalitarianism is Hannah Arendt's 'The Origins of Totalitarianism, which I have unfortunately not yet read (it is, however, on the ever-growing list). However you might be interested in it. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


I understand and agree with you comments on multiculturalism. But the talk page is not an appropriate place for you to engage in such a debate, no matter ho entertaining. You run the risk of being blocked form editing both for misusing the talk page, and for what will be said to be your incivility to the people with whom you are interacting. You may find it instructing to know what sort of people you are dealing with. Kjaer (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Yeah, I removed myself from this page for a reason. I have nothing at all good to say about Rand. I despise her too much to be of any use to the neutrality of this article. I find her to be a fourth-rate philosopher consisting of banal assertions: "The world is real", "we can use our senses to examine reality", dressed up in pseudo-philosophical language, and without anything resembling rigorous logical argument. With this in mind, I don't think I can remain neutral. I just want to point out that a few editors here are, to the same degree, far too jealously devoted to Rand to contribute to the neutrality of this article either. I'm not sure what wiki policy is in such cases, but it's a real problem for this article, and for any figure which has a cult-like following. I'm not sure how matters were resolved on figures like L.Ron Hubbard (which is a pretty neutral article), but similar steps will probably have to be taken here. CABlankenship (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)"

By multiculturalism I was refering to your comments on cultural relativism as in "not judging Russian philosophy by western standards."

I think they realized that JAZZ FAN. "Step down off your high-horse mister; ya don't get lard less'en ya boil a hog." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Debate on Objectivism with TallNapoleon (Don't edit)[edit]

User TallNapoleon invited me to look at a paper of his and the following is part of a discussion that ensued. Below that is the text of his paper. If you feel like commenting on this, I'd ask that you create a new section and don't edit this section.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, read through it. It's disingenuous to characterize it as a paper addressing the Holocaust which isn't even mentioned. Nazism is referenced only in passing. It's an anti-Objectivism polemic.
A book I'd suggest is "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff, which is an examination of the Holocaust.
From a summary of the book "Peikoff argues that the deepest roots of German Nazism lie not in existential crises, but in ideas — not in Germany's military defeat in World War I or the economic disasters of the Weimar Republic that followed, but in the philosophy that dominated pre-Nazi Germany. Although it was mediated by crises, Peikoff demonstrates that German Nazism was the inevitable climax of a centuries-long philosophic development, preaching three fundamental ideas: the worship of unreason, the demand for self-sacrifice and the elevation of society or the state above the individual."TheJazzFan (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't characterize it as a paper on the Holocaust. I characterized it as a paper concluding that Rand and her followers are idolaters. Certainly plenty of other people (see Ozick) have traced the Holocaust to idolatry, however.TallNapoleon (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The wording you used suggested to me it was primarily about the root causes of the Holocaust and somehow tying in Rand's ideas:

"I have in fact given a great deal of thought to the root causes of the Holocaust, and assure you that I feel no moral ambivalence whatsoever about it. My conclusion is that events like the Holocaust are caused by idolatry--the worship of human constructs or worse, human beings. Having read all of Rand's novels and much of her nonfiction, I also conclude that she and her followers are idolaters, and would be glad to forward you a paper I wrote a couple of years ago that argues just that."
At any rate you've greatly misunderstood & mischaracterized what she said. In short, "you don't get it". I would largely attribute it to the fact that you embrace religious tenets as valid. Objectivism and religion are incompatible.TheJazzFan (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I do "get it". If man lives by self-interest and reason, what happens when his reason tells him that it is in his self-interest to violate the rights of others? The best Rand can come up with is a feeble "it won't". Unfortunately Rand does not and cannot govern the reason of her followers. All her arguments to the contrary, selfishness--the idolatry of the self--is not a virtue, and if embraced will lead naturally to the sacrifice of others. Look at Rand's own life and what she did to those around her if you do not believe me. Furthermore, her worship of the superman must necessarily end with human sacrifice--despite all her assertions to the contrary. Let me be perfectly clear. Her hero, John Galt, is directly responsible for the deaths of millions, and the entirety of Atlas Shrugged screams at the reader, "They had it coming." Any philosophy that justifies the casual destruction of millions is insane. John Galt is Moloch personified--and Ayn Rand worshipped him.
As for my religious beliefs, unless you can substantiate an error in my argument that is attributable to them, they are irrelevant. But please, enlighten me: what don't I get? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"what happens when his reason tells him that it is in his self-interest to violate the rights of others?" For example? "...idolatry of the self--is not a virtue..." I would first dispute your use of the term "idolatry". You're simply labeling any principle, anything valued as "idolatry". She stated each individual should value their life primarily, that no one - the State, the Fuehrer, has the right to declare a greater claim on your life than you. To state that valuing reason leads inevitably to slaughter is beyond ludicrous. The alternative is to NOT hold reason as the ultimate standard. That's what gives you death camps with the meaningless "Work Makes You Free" over the gate. "...her worship of the superman must necessarily end with human sacrifice..." Really? Define sacrifice. Then show an example of this superman worship ending with human sacrifice as an obvious result. "Her hero, John Galt, is directly responsible for the deaths of millions..." He did nothing whatever to them. He removed himself from a society that proclaimed he owed them his life simply because they demanded it. He had offered them his abilities in a value-for-value exchange, but they demanded he live and work as a slave. As a rough analogy, he and the others essentially "escaped to the North", leaving the slaveholders to tend the fields themselves. "As for my religious beliefs, unless you can substantiate an error in my argument that is attributable to them..." You state by quotation of someone else that idolatry is valuing (which is what you really mean by "idolatry") “Anything that is instead of God. Anything that we call an end in itself, and is not God Himself” Given the rest of what you've said, "anything" means any principle, any moral value, value of self, of life, of loved ones, of material possessions, achievement, triumph (all being not "God") to be a sin of the highest order, but worship of some vague, undefined, unknowable mystical entity is the only virtuous state. The inner contradictions are endless - how do you know this being exists? How do you know what this being wants of you? How do you know any of these things are sins? How do you know ANYTHING? Certainly not by way of reason, you've already proclaimed holding reason as a virtue is wrong. TheJazzFan (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it appears that it is you who has not understood my paper. If you truly believe that I have confused value with idolatry--or that Ozick has--then there is frankly no point in having a conversation with you, because it is very clear that you don't "get it". But I think it's necessary to make the distinction between value and idolatry clear anyway. An idol is, essentially, a moral trump card. It is not just a value, it's a value that supersedes all other considerations, including moral ones. For example, I love (in Rand-speak, value) my family, but I do not worship them. Thus, this is not idolatry. However, if I were to worship my family, or to believe that I must obey their every dictate without question, or that the interests of my family trumped all other moral considerations, including, for instance, the lives of innocent people, that WOULD be idolatry. So when Rand writes that man's happiness is his highest moral purpose, that essentially means that it's a moral trump card--i.e., an idol. On the other hand, if she were to hold simply that happiness is ONE of man's moral purposes. The only possible moral trump card is God, because God, if he exists, is by definition moral. Note that this definition does not excludes atheists. An atheist need not be an idolater, so long as he does not seek to replace God with something else. Similarly, the most outwardly pious can in fact be idolaters (NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!), if they project themselves onto the God they worship. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Your words "Rand worships three idols of particular relevance: individual happiness, the “heroic being”, and Reason." There's no question you've confused "idolatry" with "value". She arrived at her conclusions not by way of indoctrination but by a process of investigation.
How she arrived at her conclusions are irrelevant; they are still idolatrous. Marx (with later help from Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) and Hitler both founded idolatrous philosophies, and so far as I can tell they arrived at their conclusions "not by way of indoctrination but by a process of investigation." How you can maintain that I have confused "value" with "idolatry" when I have explained the distinction quite clearly is beyond me. As for parroting, I quite comprehend Rand's words--that is why I find them so repugnant.
Sure, I understand quite well. You've parroted a few of the words she used but with no grasp of the meaning behind them. If you were to present this paper at an Objectivist forum, I expect you'd be laughed off the stage.
To quote Victor/Victoria: "Being thrown out of here is significantly better than being thrown out of a leper colony." I wouldn't be caught dead at an Objectivist forum.
"God, if he exists, is by definition moral" He is huh. "If" he exists? You're not sure but still have some (yet unspecified) definition for him? And if this God happens to think you should toss virgins into volcanoes, then that's what defines moral behavior? And you determine what God is or dictates by way of....?
My point is that the argument about idolatry is not predicated on the existence of God. Granted I am making the assumption that if God exists he is benevolent--i.e., that he does not want virgins tossed into volcanoes--but I believe this is a reasonable premise. My point is simply that the argument works if God exists, and if he doesn't.
I saw your original paragraph above stating there's "no point in discussing it with me." I've raised specific questions regarding specific points. I've asked you to define terms, to explain your meaning, provide examples. In your revised paragraph you've gone on some more about idolatry but added nothing new. It's incumbent upon you to support your position and clarify these points. You challenged me to point out a flaw related to your religious beliefs and I did so. If you had any genuine interest in intellectual discourse you'd make an attempt. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I challenged you to point out how my religious beliefs negatively impacted my arguments. My point is that my arguments stand independently of my religious beliefs. They draw strong inspiration from rabbinic Judaism (not my religion, incidentally), but my arguments are not predicated on an existence of God.
Words have meaning, Jazz. You cannot claim that happiness is a man's highest moral purpose and that he must rely for knowledge solely on his own reason, and then insist that the rights of others should be inviolable. Again, what if a man should conclude that killing his neighbor would make him happier? The ONLY answer Objectivism has in reply is "Well, no it wouldn't, so you shouldn't kill him." Doesn't that strike you as a little... feeble? Do you think that would stand in our hypothetical would-be murderer's way? Seriously, Jazz, doesn't the way Rand systematically dehumanizes her opponents--both real, and in her novels--seem a little... well, dangerous? Doesn't the way she so casually tosses around the world "evil" to describe things or people she disagrees with strike you as a little, well, odd? The woman wrote a novel whose plot is, essentially, "Everyone who disagrees with me dies, and deserves to." Doesn't that bother you in the slightest? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"Doesn't that strike you as a little... feeble?" It strikes me that again, you're not even being accurate. Rand spoke of rational self-interest. If you read and understood what she said, you'd understand what this means. Rand recognized mens rights - personal and property rights. Men are entitled to live their lives free from the unprovoked initiation of force by others. This is an explicitly stated, fundamental tenet of Objectivism that you've managed to remain ignorant of despite alleged familiarity with the subject. Self-interest does not equal lawlessness or acting on malevolent whim. If killing your neighbor because you want his property was fair game, then you too are subject to being murdered by another neighbor. Life in Somalia -vs- Mayberry.
No, I KNOW it is an explicitly stated by Objectivism. I am stating that it contradictory and feeble. See here's the thing: Rand doesn't get to be the judge of rationality or of what makes people happy (utility). Only individual actors can judge the rationality and utility of any given action. Thus if happiness is my highest moral purpose, and my own personal reason my only means to knowledge, then if I judge that violating the rights of others will further my happiness the most then it follows that I must do so. The only answer Objectivists have is that it wouldn't really make me happier. That's what it boils down to. Thus Rand's belief in the absolute nature of human rights is contradicted by other elements of her philosophy.
"The ONLY answer Objectivism has.." Again, that's just factually wrong as outlined above.
"How she arrived at her conclusions are irrelevant" Apparently you find the fundamental differences in the substance of their beliefs to be irrelevant.
Their beliefs are equally dangerous because they are all rooted in radical idolatry. The only reason Objectivism does not have the blood of millions on its hands is because it has never gained power, and God-willing it never will. I will note, however, that the 19th century, which Rand so adored, was a pretty shitty time to be a worker, or an Indian (of either type), or an African, or really anything other than a wealthy white male. The Social Darwinism of the time was itself idolatrous, willing to sacrifice the lives and health of workers and subjugated, colonized peoples on the altar of "progress".
"my arguments are not predicated on an existence of God." You state that only belief in God is virtuous and nothing else - adhering to anything that's an "end in itself" i.e. a principle, a belief - "anything that is not God" is not virtuous. This is the closest you've come to defining idolatry. To state this presupposes a belief in God. You declare the concepts that Ayn Rand asserts are invalid, because they're "not God". And if there is no God presumably you believe in nothing since you've declared that holding or adhering to - i.e. "idolizing" - any other values or principles without regard to the validity of their underlying rationale whether pro-freedom, anti-freedom, pro-rights, anti-rights, is by default sinful "idolatry". There's no right, no wrong - only belief (somehow accomplished without reason) in some mystical deity. You've attempted to remove reason & principles from human existence and replace them with unthinking (no reason allowed!) obeisance to some central figure - Heil to der Fuerher!!
If God exists, then He is infinite. If he does not exist, nothing is. One of the definitions I offered in my paper for idolatry was the conflation of the finite with the infinite. Now, an atheist could make a very, very strong case that ANY religion is inherently idolatrous, but that is neither here nor there. Incidentally, idolatry does not mean belief. It means treating something as a moral trump card, as I said before.
""Everyone who disagrees with me dies, and deserves to." I guess you just wanted to punctuate how profoundly you've misunderstood. If nothing I've said so far is having an impact I suspect it's pointless to exert additional energy.
"Words have meaning" Yup. Here's a list including points that I previously brought up that you've failed to address.
Define idolatry
I already have, repeatedly and in detail. You have either failed to read what I have written, failed to understand it, or are trying to waste my time. None of these reflect well upon you. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Define sacrifice
The term has many meaings. However, in my paper I am using it in the sense of "killing something--in this case, someone--to appease a bloodthirsty deity". Think Aztecs or, for that matter, Moloch. Incidentally, Rand's definition is highly idiosyncratic, and is used by virtually no other philosophers. She defined the term for her own purposes, and then uses her definition to attack philosophers who were using it in a different way. So she was either being shoddy, or disingenuous. Take your pick.
Define virtue
A very tricky question to which there is no easy answer. As you well know, books have been written on it. For the purposes of my argument, the only ethical premise that needs to be accepted is that murder is morally wrong.
Define God
Any God for which I could provide a satisfactory definition would be an idol, because it would be a creation of my own imagining. Again, my arguments do not stand on the existence of God.
Define Faith
The acceptance of any proposition without definitive proof. Note that this does not mean "without evidence".
How do you know God exists?
I accept it on faith (see above). I also accept on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, though I have no way of proving it.
Show an example of this superman worship (as per Rand) ending with human sacrifice as an obvious result.
Read Rand's train scene in Atlas Shrugged. She is quite explicit that everyone on that train deserves to die... and it is a very short leap from saying someone deserves to die to doing the deed. Or, when Dagny shoots the guard at the end. To her he's not even a human being any more. The lives of the people Galt
Is there a way of obtaining knowledge other than through reason, logic, use of one's senses and mind?
If one includes emotions and intuition under the rubric of mind, then no. I would also note that there are many different kinds of knowledge, and most of what we "know" is really just a probabilistic estimate. In this case the only things we can know for certain are those which we derive deductively and rigorously from axioms. However, I would submit to you that "almost certain" is usually good enough. Furthermore I would argue that tradition forms an important body of wisdom that should be drawn upon, although not uncritically.
Who has a greater claim on your life than you?
Not who, but what. I believe in a deontological morality: that morality exists independent of human interests. Proper ethics does not create a moral system, but exposes existing moral truths, rooted in human and--if one accepts the existence of God, which is not necessary for deontology--divine nature.
Is self-sacrifice virtuous?
Short answer, it depends. Slightly longer answer: In Judaism, it is permissible to break any of the religious laws to save a life, including one's own, except for three. Under no circumstances may one murder, and under no circumstances may one commit sexual crimes, and under no circumstances may one commit idolatry. So, while an observant Jew might lie to save a life (and indeed would be obligated to), or eat a ham sandwich to avoid starving to death, he could not worship an idol or kill an innocent person to avoid being killed. Obviously, to risk one's life to save others is noble and heroic, but I would not argue that there is necessarily an obligation to do so. However, the argument is again irrelevant to my arguments against Objectivism.
When you've addressed all of these points, I might consider continuing a discourse.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why I should consider that a privilege. So unless you wish to actually engage with my thesis, we're done here. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC) said that you don't find reason something to be held in high regard and by golly you've presented no evidence to the contrary.TheJazzFan (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


I removed my essay from your talk page, because it is my intellectual property and I did not give you the right to publicly disseminate it. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading it I see why you want it deleted! Very poor indeed. Moloch? HAHAHAHA Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I stand by every word. However, as I have stated it is MY intellectual property, and I did not give Jazz permission to disseminate it publicly. I may well post it online at a later date. However if I do so it will be on my own terms. And surely, an Objectivist should have no difficulty understanding the concept of intellectual property rights. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he (?) says it's his, I certainly have no proof. Anonymous poster sending an uncredited paper. I don't even know for sure what their gender is. All I can say for sure is whoever signs in under that username purports to agree with the contents. At any rate they've already publicly repeated the essence of it numerous times, it made sense to provide some context and show what I was referencing and let people make up their own minds about it in context, rather than just the parts I cherry-picked. If they don't want it up, whatever - I'm not that invested in it. I certainly won't be claiming it as my own.TheJazzFan (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello, TheJazzFan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm putting this up here just as a courtesy. I posted on ANI asking that the essay be permanently removed from the revision history of the Talk Page. I don't think you were acting maliciously so I don't want them to put any sanctions on you--just figured I should let you know about the ANI. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But, aren't you anxious for a peer review? Any serious thinker would leap at the chance from better minds. Tsummerlee (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New Arbitration Request[edit]

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [1]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Please do not edit the proposed decision. That page is meant for arbitrators to vote upon. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Objectivism haters[edit]

I'm just curious if you can articulate what the nature of your objection to Objectivism is.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment that TallNapoleon deleted from his talk page[edit]

I left this on TallNapoleon's talk page and he subsequently deleted it with the comment "not interested". Yes, he does seem to be averse to the truth.

"You pedantically assert that words have meaning and then proceed to dance around to avoid defining them. Jazz completely outed your fallacious methodology.
Your analogy of "faith" in God & in the sun rising is beyond absurd. One is observation of an event involving observable bodies with measureable properties and interacting in a known, observable fashion - even if the mechanism isn't completely understood there's nothing to suggest they'll interact in a different manner during a given period. You most certainly can prove the validity of the assertion that "the sun will rise" (i.e. the Earth will rotate) - you can see it happen. The sun never *stops* rising.
So-called "faith" in God is an amorphous urge that doesn't even rise to the level of a valid assertion given that it's related to some equally amorphous pseudo-entity you've failed to define, thereby rendering impossible anything that can be called a "belief" that's worthy of serious consideration. You're trying to avoid that evidence requires a criteria against which to evaluate it.
Reason an evil idol? You're just another in a long line of folks trying to use reason to disprove the validity of reason, and as is always the case, utterly failing."TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jazz, I don't know if you're aware, but I wanted to let you know that alleged instances of incivility on your part are being closely monitored and reported in detail in the Arb Com hearing. The panel reviews what is reported to them and may not take into account broader context. So, I encourage you to make sure you keep it wholesome and to focus on content rather than other editors. I haven't looked at the reports so I have no idea if they are valid, but I just wanted to let you know. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it but I can't say as it's something I'm really concerned about. "Being closely monitored" - LOL whatever. I got something they can closely monitor 'raht hyuh.TheJazzFan (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I hear you and I basically agree. But I did want to let you know and to make sure you understand that Arb Com is going to be setting down rules and possibly punishments based on the statements people make and the diffs they provide. That's just how it works. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Puh-leeze. If I actually cared, I bet I can make more ID's and access more IP's than they can hand out "punishments". TheJazzFan (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A Penny[edit]

United States penny, obverse, 2002.png A Lucky Penny
A Penny for Your Thoughts...A small price to pay for your resplendent repartee'...--Buster7 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just read with interest your conversations re:Rand over the past few weeks. I am not interested in being pulled into a discussion, ANI, RfM, etc. on a subject I have great interest in. I'm glad you are. Time is a precious commodity. I prefer not wasting it on the Ellsworth Toohey/Wesley Mouch's of the WikiWorld. It would not be in my self interest. It is, however, beneficial to know who the Wiki players are and what color jerseys they wear.--Buster7 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the penny. I understand your sentiments. I've probably pretty much said what I have to say on the subject. The basic environment of YouTube isn't really conducive to a good article on Rand.TheJazzFan (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
And by "YouTube" I of course meant Wikipedia. But the article actually looks decent at this point. Not too much noise.TheJazzFan (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand[edit]

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

Of course I was... .snicker TheJazzFan (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gee I guess that means I can't add to the exactly -0- edits I've ever made to the Ayn Rand article.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh[edit]

Good to see the Rand article is largely cleaned of hater spew. Buwahahahaaaaa....TheJazzFan (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a confession, I made more edits during my "ban" than I ever did before it.TheJazzFan (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)