The following is an exchange at sci.life-extension (viewable with a newsreader or through groups.google) that is an excellent example of the writer's (Ólafur's) understanding of the concept of value for value. Because Ólafur does understand this principle of returning value to a person for whatever he has received from that person, he is able to recognize the errors in another's reasoning and very clearly point them out. Ólafur has done this by means of his own created and written explanation, rather than by quoting line and verse of the "master" as a "convert" would do (and as so many followers of Ayn Rand, for example, often do). The clear advantage of this method, which creates many different ways of examining and explaining the logic and validity of a philosophical viewpoint, is why those who are able to fully digest and understand will be best able to promote the ideas of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project as well as most able to practice them.
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension
From: "Olafur Pall Olafsson" - Find messages
by this author
Date: 18 Dec 2005 09:09:36 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 18 2005 10:09 am
Subject: Re: Coenzyme Q10 protects from aging-related oxidative
stress and improves mitochondrial function in heart of rats fed a
polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)-rich diet.
random wrote:
> "Paul Antonik Wakfer" bemoaned:
>
>>> Coenzyme
>>> Q(10)-supplemented animals showed lower hydroperoxide levels; higher
>>> content and/or activity of alpha-tocopherol, coenzyme Q, and catalase;
>>> and a slightly lower decrease in mitochondrial function. According to
>>> that, previously reported positive effects of coenzyme Q
>>> supplementation on the life span of rats fed a PUFA-rich diet might be
>>> a consequence, at least in part, of a lower oxidative stress level and
>>> perhaps, to a minor extent, of a smaller decrease in mitochondrial
>>> function.
>>> PMID: 16127098
>>
>>It would be more informative if someone with access to the full paper
>>would find out and report the supplementation dosages and methods used.
>
> Oh, so of course someone ought to go and do that for you. How rich!
> You were just chastising someone for posting an innocent question to
> the group on the bizarro assumption that it's wrong to solicit members
> of a public forum for the "free service" of an answer. You said
There is a big difference between providing service to someone that
hasn't given any value in return by contributing to the group and gives
no promise of doing so than providing service to someone that already
has given value to people by contributing to the group. Paul is and
has been one of the most valuable posters on this group for a long time
and I'm sure lot's of people here agree with me. Personally I have
gained more value from him from his posts both here and on other places
(the LEF forums and the MoreLife Yahoo group) than any other member of
this group. No one has contributed as much to my knowledge in
life-extension as Paul has. If you don't think he has given you any
value then he is not asking you to provide him with this service. He
is only asking people that find his contributions to the group valuable
and want to give something in return for the value.
[Here is the full thread and context related to the text from Paul within quotes below.]
> "Why should anyone spend hir valuable time doing this
> for you,"
If someone want's to show that he appreciates Pauls contributions to
this group he can do so by returning some of the value he has gained
from Paul by spending some of his time providing this service to him.
And Paul is not the only one that would like to know more details from
the full text.
> "merely because you ask because you are too
> lazy to search the group archives for the information,"
It has nothing to do with lazyness. Paul does not have free access to
the full text article but some people here do. Besides this abstract
is very recent and hasn't been posted on this group before and I can
assure you that the information he asked for is not found anywhere in
the groups archieves.
> "and particularly when you have provided nothing of
> value in return to members of this group?"
Speak for yourself.
> Then you turn around and chastise the next person for failing to
> provide a sufficiently satisfactory free service for you.
It is not free service if the person that provides the service has
already received lots of value from Paul as is the case with me and
probably most of the posters here. As I explained above he is not
asking people that havn't received any value from his posts to do this,
IOW he is not asking for anyone to provide him with free service.
> Note that
> the questioner you dumped on didn't imply an answer was due them; yet
> you then have the complete audacity to look a gift horse in the mouth.
> Your behavior is worse than hypocrisy.
I think people can make their own judgment on that statement.
I have access to the full text article and I will check it out probably
when I get home from work today and provide the service Paul asked for.
By doing so I will be providing value not only to him but also to
other members of this group some of which have given me lot's of value
in their posts.
--------------------EOM------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension
From: "Paul Antonik Wakfer"
this author
Date: 18 Dec 2005 11:17:43 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 18 2005 12:17 pm
Subject: Re: Coenzyme Q10 protects from aging-related oxidative
stress and improves mitochondrial function in heart of rats fed a
polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)-rich diet.
Olafur Pall Olafsson wrote:
> random wrote:
> > "Paul Antonik Wakfer"
[repeated text removed]
Thanks muchly Olafur.
I couldn't have said it better myself ;>)
--Paul
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension
From: "Paul Antonik Wakfer"
this author
Date: 18 Dec 2005 12:28:01 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 18 2005 1:28 pm
Subject: Re: Coenzyme Q10 protects from aging-related oxidative
stress and improves mitochondrial function in heart of rats fed a
polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)-rich diet.
Addendum:
I should have added that I already did contribute some value by merely
pointing out that the original abstract was deficient in not providing
dosage information for the CoQ10 and that the information on the
positive results it found would be more useful once dosage information
was known and translated to human terms.
The only thing that I perhaps should have done and did not, was to
thank the original poster, Tim, for finding and posting the abstract.
However, Tim and I go way back to the LEF forums and he already knows
that I very much appreciate his contributions here.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
---------------------------EOM---------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension
From: random
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:14:44 -0500
Local: Sun, Dec 18 2005 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: Coenzyme Q10 protects from aging-related oxidative
stress and improves mitochondrial function in heart of rats fed a
polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)-rich diet.
Even if Paul has offered free services to this open public forum, he's
not morally entitled to expect reciprocation. Unsolicited services
offered freely carry NO obligation of reciprocation whether or not
they provide value to recipients. If you want to reciprocate, that's
fine. But Paul's statements inform one and all that he _expects_
reciprocation, which is down right slimy. You and Paul clearly share
the mentality of charities that send unsolicited gifts under the
assumption that in some way that makes the recipient duty bound to
reciprocate. If you want to be paid for your services, you should
restrict access to only those who decide to pay for them. It is only
in that context that someone is morally entitled to expect
reciprocation for their utilized services. That should be obvious.
"Olafur Pall Olafsson"
[repeated text removed]
----------------------------EOM------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension
From: "Olafur Pall Olafsson"
by this author
Date: 18 Dec 2005 20:14:33 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 18 2005 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: Coenzyme Q10 protects from aging-related oxidative
stress and improves mitochondrial function in heart of rats fed a
polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)-rich diet.
random wrote:
> Even if Paul has offered free services to this open public forum, he's
> not morally entitled to expect reciprocation. Unsolicited services
> offered freely carry NO obligation of reciprocation whether or not
> they provide value to recipients.
Yes there is no obligation to return the value. But there is benefit
for both parties in returning the value, by giving Paul value in turn
for the value I've received from him I am encouraging him to keep
providing me with even more value. And I know he spends more time and
consideration into reading and responding to my posts than he would
if I wouldn't be returning value back to him.
> If you want to reciprocate, that's
> fine. But Paul's statements inform one and all that he _expects_
> reciprocation, which is down right slimy.
I don't see anything wrong with asking for value in return for value
received. I assume you've had a payd job sometime in your life. Would
you have taken that job if you knew you wouldn't get payd for it? I'm
pretty sure the answer is no, IOW you wouldn't work for your employer
if he wouldn't pay you value in return for the value you gave him by
working for him right. The reason you wouldn't is because you don't
live for others you live for yourself. So why shouldn't you ask for
value in return for value received in other areas of life? I think you
should, doing so is a totally reasonable action. By not doing so you
would be being inconsistent with the fact that you live for yourself
not others. The problem in the current society is that most people
take things as free if they don't have a predetermined price and the
same way they don't think they have the right to ask for value in
return for things they provide but do not have a predetermined price.
I hope this will slowly change for the better in the future.
> You and Paul clearly share
> the mentality of charities that send unsolicited gifts under the
> assumption that in some way that makes the recipient duty bound to
> reciprocate.
Again no one is bound to reciprocate but those that do will most
definately benefit extra from it. Paul did not order anyone to provide
this service, he asked politely.
> If you want to be paid for your services, you should
> restrict access to only those who decide to pay for them. It is only
> in that context that someone is morally entitled to expect
> reciprocation for their utilized services. That should be obvious.
That is the thinking of most people in current society. If they only
realised the benefits of returning value for value received. The
problem with restricting access to only those who decide to pay for it
is that the value people receive from the posts (or any kind of service
for that matter) differs greatly between individuals. Person A might
value a particular post I posted as zero worth, while person B might
value it as 5 cent worth and person C might value it as 5$ worth.
Putting a predetermined price would be unfair to those who value the
service as less than the price put up. In the same way it would be
unfair for me if those who valued it more than the given price would
get away with paying less.
