World Libertarian Order Official Site

Internet Forums

Home | Introduction | EU, UN, NATO | Indigenous Nationalism | WLO Goals | WLO Membership | Roundtables | Unied Nations | Free Market Economists | Contact Us | Timothy McVeigh | September 11 / World War III | Libertarian Organizations | Internet Forums | Olympic Games | Kid Page | Animal Page

Occasionally today there are unsolicited forum postings about the WLO, but usually these degenerate into discussions about things unrelated. It's a pity the administrators don't run a tighter ship.

The reader may prefer to skip this section since we have not initiated or participated in any online forums since 2003. It's funny for us now to read what our policy had to be in those days:

"We have been delighted by intelligent commentary that has arisen from material in the WLO site. Much of our content is controversial, however, and certain problems have arisen. Debate is like a gunfight, speed is usually at the expense of accuracy. Serious matters should be weighed calmly. One should never reply the same day. Problems exemplifying this kind of frantic rush-to-judgment are as follows:

1. Laziness. We are more than happy to answer intelligent logical questions which might arise from a careful reading of this volume. We will not, however, respond to questions which clearly reflect that the individual gave the work only a cursory glance. Our time is too valuable to waste on private copy-and-paste tutorials.
2. The trigger-happy practice of skipping ahead and reacting out-of-context. Often an idea is greatly qualified by the ideas which precede and follow it. Sometimes the entire essence of what ties a book together will be found only in the preface or introduction.  A good example here is the reader so anxious to express himself that he will quickly skim the text for emotionally charged keywords that he can object to. This way he can quickly express his philosophy without having to read or think. If the person doesn't have sufficient time or energy to digest this material in it's entirety, then it shouldn't be read at all.
3. The mistake of acting as though one statement is a microcosm of an entire work, defining every term and elucidating every principle in one or two sentences. If this were possible, one book would summarize an entire library. This error leads to superfluous comment resulting from the wrong assumption that specific points have not been covered elsewhere in the work.
4. The tendency to ignore the actual words a person uses and react to some complex of ideas which the reader brings to the situation rather than what the writer is actually saying. This will often involve the reader's simply ignoring words not understood. A collegiate dictionary close at hand would be a good remedy here.
5. The problem of not separating the important from the trivial. This results in petty and pedantic chit-chat. This, especially is helped by first sleeping on the idea.
6. The cheap shortcut of glib negative summary. There is unfortunately a certain element who feel justified in quickly reviewing books they haven't read. This is easier of course, than creating something oneself. Our ideas are not intended for narrow individuals who try to falsely enhance themselves by quickly dismissing that which challenges them. Those who have taken the time to write something are seeking only specific substantive comment, because only this can lead to constructive upgrade of the material.
7. The use of insult or slander. Sadly, the same anonymity which makes message boards such a wonderful arena for free expression also provides a safe haven for unhappy people who like to be abusive. We always try to be genteel and will not read the posts of anyone who is nasty. Insult is not equivalent to viable argument and always comes from people with untenable viewpoints which they simply can't support (1).
Generally speaking the kind of tedium that comes from all this intellectual slovenliness isn't worthy of reply. Serious people won't squander their time on dilettantes."

1. Heavy insult is mostly from aggressive dirty-mouth boys of all ages, and usually involves remarks against a person's intelligence or family. Often there are elaborate anal or excretory references. Three unpleasant examples:

~ Fundamentalist Christian responding to a discussion of evolution with reference to imagined necessity of his opponent receiving "deep-muscle enema."

~ Liberal Democrat responding to a discussion of Libertarianism with reference to sphincters and the unlikely scenario of political philosophy emerging from the upper colon. This poor soul uses an online pseudonym which mentions a prominent birth defect. It would be too great a coincidence, but a friend of ours from Florida told us about a disfigured man who is known to spend a great deal of time insulting people online. We won't go into detail about this poor man's deformity. It should suffice to say that his neighbors refer to him as "Old Turkey Neck."
~ The author was lucky enough to learn the identity of one of these message board thugs and paid him a visit. An apology was politely requested, but the slander and vile language was loudly escalated in the presence of a lady. When the tough talker tried to claw the author's face, self-defense and simple chivalry dictated corrective action. The author introduced the attacker to a little known love-tap called the "East Boston Fluffernutter" upon which the insulting individual became very mild and apologetic. The lady wanted to instruct our dirty talker in "the art of passionate shoe kissing" but the author insistd that his apology was enough. The pen is mightier than the sword, but sometimes …