About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Jennifer,
 
I'm sorry I made that impression. I can certainly see that--good grief I know exactly how it looked to you, the grandfatherly type, patting you on the head, "now don't worry what people say about you, dear." Yes, very patronizing, wasn't I. Truly sorry about that.
 
I don't think the people who labeled SOLO sophomoric (and I may actually have used that term myself) would agree that what they posted themselves is, "gossipy," but if you do, you do, and that would of course appear to be hypocritical to you.
 
George,
 
So you equate pointing out what one believes is philosophically wrong with "attack," is that right. Well, then, now that you have explained your own personal meaning for that word, you may call it an attack if you like.
 
Then you said, "Regi, the difference between Miss Branden's views on Objectivism and the late Mrs. Rand's is nuanced and peripheral in nature. The fundamentals are identical."
 
No they are not, George. That's my whole point, they are not the same, they fundamental opposites.
 
Now I appreciate you telling me you believe my motives are, "Envy and Control."
 
But I am having a hard time, still, understanding what you mean. I'm sorry, just put it down to my old brain or something. So would you mind answering one more question, what? What do I envy and what do I want to control. I'm really sorry George, I have no idea what you are talking about? But I'm sure you can tell me.
 
Moderators, Everyone,
 
This is my last post to SOLO under moderation. After waiting all day for my last post to appear, and in that time having mostly lost interest in this thread, as everyone else has, I have much to much to do for such nonsense. If the moderation is not lifted I will assume Mr. Fletcher's wishes are being honored, which is fine with me, of course. My only reason for the decision is that I just do not have time to post here under these conditions.
 
I am sure SOLO will be quite successful without my posts. I only wanted anyone who responded to this post to not be disappointed if I do not respond to them.
 
Regi




Post 61

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cass: I understand that - as you explained to me - you cannot bring yourself to deliberately cause hurt and dismay to anyone.

Regi: Barbara, I do not attack people, ever. The reason is very simple. There is nothing in me that desires anything from others except their happiness.

What the hell is this bull-shit?

When did Firehammer become Ghandi?



 




Post 62

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 6:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For the record, people attack and criticize the views of all other people all the time.  It is the quality and character exuded by the nature of the attacks and criticisms that are important - all criticisms and attacks are in some sense negative.
(Edited by Next Level on 11/27, 6:03pm)




Post 63

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"WOW" is right.

I really thank you for the tribute, deserved or not. My wife certainly agrees with it. She stood up and cheered when I read it to her.

But, Cass, she's a bit prejudiced about me, I think. Now I don't want to question your objectivity, but you did say, right on this forum, you were secretly in love with me.

Now I'm afraid, with posts like that, your not keeping your secret very well. But don't let it stop you from doing whatever you have to do, I certainly have no objections at all.

(I know I said I wasn't going to post anymore--but even the old phart Regi responds to love. I don't get much of that around here.)

Regi




Post 64

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, you know how it goes Regi, "our best response to our highest values" and indeed those whose lives epitomise those values.

I hear tell around here they feel that way about some guy who has a reputation for spilling the beans about private love affairs when the subject is dead, and not being able to keep his pants on for two minutes together.

I guess in our own ways Regi, your wife and I are both "a bit prejudiced"
Lots of love
Cass




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 65

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec wrote:
>(Regi's) method is the very ortho-Objectivist one of wordplay. He supports his arguments by setting up logical structures of premises that involve narrowly-, conveniently-, self-defined terms--whose definitions result in Regi's conclusion--but which bear no resemblance to reality and truth.

Sigh. Yes. If you've ever wondered why pedantry and verbalism is endemic in philosophy as a whole, and Objectivism in particular, it's this emphasis on arguing over the *meanings of words*, rather than arguing over propositions, plans or statements. It's resulted in centuries of very bad arguments.

So it is fortunate indeed that we have had Mr Firehammer to illustrate this fallacy so perfectly on a regular basis. Consider how he will argue forever about "true meanings" of words, cranking out empty verbiage like so many philosophical Chicken McNuggets. Yet note how careful he is to avoid making any *actual proposals*, plans for action etc as a result of all his blab. How he'll issue a condemnation of, say, homosexuality, but then claim this is no cause for anyone - especially him - to *do* anything at all?

As Alec says, all he is doing is literally "playing with words" - in his case, as in most others over the course of history, ultimately a means of camouflaging either 1)the same old ancient prejudices, or 2) having nothing to actually say.

- Daniel





Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 8:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I hope everyone takes due note, from Cass's post just above Daniel's, of what a thoroughly nasty piece of work she has shown herself to be. Her last few posts have been malicious to the point of obscenity. She's been placed under moderation, & I don't rate her chances of ever making it through.

At least her mentor was prepared to go through the motions of reinventing himself as Gandhi, as George pointed out, though no one was fooled by it, as George also pointed out. Cass just got nastier & nastier. They're *all* like that over on the dark side - just plain ol' nasty. They deserve each other. All phour of them.

Linz





Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Newham,

For your wise counsel on the distinctions between verbalized philosophies and actual behavior,

and

Daniel Barnes,

For your insightful comment about debating over words and not facts or judgments about reality, causal relationships and their interpretations,


I salute you.

(Edited by Next Level on 11/27, 9:15pm)




Post 68

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Editor's note: just after I posted re Cass, the following came through from Regi. Since he here shows his true colours, for the benefit of those who still needed persuading that this creature is a scumbucket, I am letting it through. And that's his lot. Both Regi & Cass are now banned.

Linz

Dear Cass,

Thank you for explaining, but my wife and I have been trying to figure out exactly who the "guy" you are referring to might be. Could it be that geriatric psychologist who is so famous for helping young women uncover their repressed desire to go to bed with him?

It's just a guess of course.

Lots of love to you too.

Regi


(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 11/27, 8:34pm)

(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 11/27, 8:38pm)




Post 69

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 10:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No-body in the whole wide world can be held responsible for a single iota of anything I do or say, but me. Lesson no. 1. Got it?
Actually, Lesson #1 would be "read more carefully so you address the correct issue."  But I digress.




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 11:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
CHILDREN! BEHAVE!

Adam



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 6:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,
I just want to say: good call.




Post 72

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 8:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy said:
It certainly was your post, Glenn, but that's no big deal.  I wasn't affronted by it or anything.  When I read your post I realized that that was the general sentiment regarding Regi around here.
Thanks for the clarification.  It looks like there was no misunderstanding of my post.

Glenn




Post 73

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Edited by Robert Bisno on 11/28, 10:46am)




Post 74

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I want to thank the members of Solo -- Linz, George, Matthew, and others - who have spoken up on my behalf against Regi and Cass. It means a great deal to me.

I've mentioned in a post on another thread that I belonged to a discussion group where I was quite viciously attacked for a stand I took, and almost no one defended me or my position, although I knew that a number of the members agreed with me and not with my attackers.

That does not happen on Solo, which is one of the reasons why I am very happy to be a member here.

Barbara



Post 75

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I want to thank the members of Solo -- Lindsay, George, Matthew, and others -- who have spoken up on my behalf against Regi and Cass. It means a great deal to me.

I've mentioned in a post on another thread that I used to belong to discussion group where I was rather viciously attacked for a stand I took. Almost no one defended my position or me, although I knew that several or more of the members agreed with me and not with my attackers.

That does not happen on Solo, which is one of the reasons why I am happy to be a member here, and why I feel a real affection for several of you -- not simply that you speak up in my defense, but that you speak up in defense of whatever you value.

Barbara



Post 76

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sorry for the double post -- but you will see in the final paragraph of the second one what I wanted to add.

Barbara



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 2:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm sorry that I was unable to participate in this lively discussion, but I've had some difficulties logging on due to NYU server problems.  So you can add my voice to the chorus, Barbara.

I am, quite frankly, rather baffled that people who have so repudiated SOLO would even want to participate on this forum and 'soil' themselves.  I've often been criticized for my ecumenical spirit, but methinks there are limits even to ecumenicalism.  And this is coming from one of the most ecumenical among you.




Post 78

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm simply struck dumb at how low Regi & Cass went in their last posts.



Post 79

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Chris. I would have know that you'd add your voice to the chorus.

Linz, I'm relieved that you banned Regi. I was beginning to gag from an overdose of his sudden sweetness.

Barbara



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.