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 unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 5:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd  take being compared to Spock as an excellent compliment. Spock had his feelings he even admitted it in some episodes his method of deductive reasoning enhanced his intelligence which allowed him greater self esteem. Of course he claimed humor came from his human side. Epicurus really has been slammed through the years and reduced to the equivalent of gluttony proof to me of the harmful effects of hearsay. Its nice to see an individual citing  there research APa style writing it is very  useful.Some times people don't apreciate the fact that a philosophers thinking didn't happen over night that it took a lifetime of effort. I find it amazing that there were such wise men  aproximately 2277 years ago. It lends weight to my belief that ignorance is the surest form of slavery. What I have read about some of Epicurus' students shows me that they didn't adhere to Epicurus teachings and it lowered his stature. Now if I can only get my wife to read his Doctrines. ['Epicurus ?342-270'The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language].By the way it was a pleasure reading them and I might drop by Vincent Cooks website. Another book I found interesting  is Arnold Hermanns How to Think Like God.            

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 7:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom Wolfe's "A Man in Full" has the hero being an advocate of Epicurus. It's a "jolly good read", as the Brits say.

Sam

Edited:

I am in error. My memory is faulty. Tom Wolfe's "A Man in Full" was an advocate of Epictetus.

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/23, 8:05pm)


Post 2

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 7:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A pleasure. (sanctioned)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.

I love this one, particularly because it cuts out the bull that I've seen in many legal 'theory' text books on the nature of justice.

-- Brede


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 2:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Silence of Ayn Rand

There are certainly many flaws in Epicurus' philosophy. His doctrine that pleasure meets its maximum in the absence of pain is one. As with the Stoics, he held the common Greek idea that the emotions were something that one suffered. The Greek pathos and the Latinate passion come from the same root as patient. The oppositions active/passive and agent/patient give us an idea of the original meanings of those terms, as does the phrase The Passion of Christ which does not refer to a secret romance, but to his passive suffering.

Yet there is much of value in what the Epicureans taught. The very first of the principle doctrines is not the equivalent of the Indestructible Robot argument - but the similarity is so remarkable as to make one doubt that it is mere coincidence. Was Rand familiar with the idea? What a value it would have been if she had simply cited the Epicureans, even if she had done so with her usual warnings and caveats that she used when she did name names, such as Nietzsche.

Why did Rand praise Aristotle, whose achievements were indeed great, but whose flaws, such as his defense of slavery were also significant, and why did she praise Aquinas, over whom she could just as well have passed in silence, while she never praised or discussed or credited the Epicureans or the Stoics (whose philosophy I will not address at length here) who in many ways shared her beliefs and made the Classical world what it was? One of the major differences between the Epicureans and the Stoics was their view of public life. Epicureans advocated privacy above all, since political life leads to dangerous attention, while the Stoics, viewing man as by his nature as social being, demanded that men take part in the life of the state. The Romans found the Stoic doctrines congruent with their republican virtues. Cicero, the patron saint of our Founding Fathers, was not an Aristotelian, but an eclecticizing Stoic. Why does Rand canonize the (admittedly brilliant) author of the Summa Theologica while remaining silent on the two largest and most important schools of the Classic era?

I was born in 1968. Perhaps some here who are more familiar with the days of NBI or the legends of the "Collective" can address this issue.

For me, it has been a decades old mystery.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/23, 2:57pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 8:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

NBI/TAS/Epictetus

Epictetus is perhaps the greatest of the extant Stoic ethical thinkers, his Discourses are quite excellent, and a must-read for any serious student of philosophy or the classics. The Loeb Classical Library Version (green cover) is quite excellent, and provides both the Greek and English on opposing pages. What could be more thrilling than to hold the philosopher's millenia-old words in your hands?

It is also worth noting that while the Stoics and Epicureans violently disagreed in their polemics, they were almost universal in their praise of each other's personal virtue, unlike certain members of certain modern schools... The Stoics held Epicurus' metaphysics to be faulty, his politics irresponsible, and his ethics flawed, yet as to his private life held no man ever to have led a more virtuous life.

TAS/NBI Alumni, can anyone comment on my post #4 on the Silence of Ayn Rand? Am I off base or ignorant of any vital references?

Ted Keer

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 7:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't think it's all that mysterious.  Rand did not have a lot of formal philosophical training - a few undergrad courses, some reading in the mid-40s as she was gearing up to write Atlas Shrugged and conversations with the Brandens and Peikoff about what they were working on in school.  This probably made her better at what she did, but in any case it's true.  The philosophers she talked about were the ones she happened to know something about, and this didn't include the Stoics or Epicureans.

(Have you read Tom Wolfe's A Man in Full?  It popularized Epicureanism a few years back.)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter: Read my post #1.

Sam


Post 8

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter, I am inclined to accept your supposition, but on what authority do you speak? (You have no profile here on RoR!) Were you at NBI, or a confidante of the inner circle? Are you citing a biography? Thanks.

Ted

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I attended NBI, but my sources on this are publicly-available biographical information (Barbara Branden's book most of all, as well as the recollections of those who knew Rand, including Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff) and the evidence of Rand's own writings.

Those who saw her in action attest that she could get to the point of something quickly.  NB's story of how she understood Carnap, one of his teachers at the time he met her, by asking a few questions, is a case in point.  The lack of citations and of serious scholarship in her published writings is my main reason for saying that she wasn't a trained academic.  I'm confident that she could have done with the philosophers you mention what she did with Carnap, but as things worked out she didn't.


Post 10

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 2:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Did she ever acknowledge or even study the other Hellenistic schools? How did she feel entitled to praise Aristotle and especially Aquinas so lavishly without having learned of the other non-Skeptic, non-Platonic schools?

I get the impression that she must have been very highly influenced by Paterson, who was openly Jesuit-influenced. (Rand's Father Amadeus character and her making the sign of the dollar at the end of Atlas Shrugged is otherwise incomprehensible.) I.e., Aristotle > Aquinas > Scholasticism > The Jesuits > Paterson > Rand. I have also mentioned how much overlap there is in non-theological matters between Cardinal Mercier's Handbook of Scholastic Philosophy Louvain, 1899, and Rand's thought in specific areas. Mercier attacks idealism and materialism, supports classical liberalism and Natural Law and attacks Marxism and statism. I know that Rand had been asked her opinion of evolution and said that she didn't understand it well enough to opine. This statement shocked me from someone who was so happy to make absolute and unqualified declarations on human nature.

Are there any Objectivist works on the Stoics or the Epicureans in journals or book form? It's always struck me tat many of Rand's articles would have better received had she quoted Diogenes Laertius a little more often than she did John Galt.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Never heard of Rand or anyone in her wake talking about the Stoics or Epicureans.  This ought to be a good dissertation topic for somebody.

I, too, have a hunch that she got some exposure to Scholasticism around the time she started Atlas Shrugged.  In the Q&A section of ITOE she says she hit on her theory of measurement omission "some twenty years ago" (this would be ca. 1950, but I suspect it was earlier) during conversations with a priest.  She thought Aristotelian teleology is the notion (which she rejected) that everything, animate or not, pursues a purpose.  This is at best a controvertible reading of, e.g. the Physics and at worst a wrong one, but widespread among the medievals.  She also thought that Aristotle formulated the Law of Identity when in fact it was somebody in the middle ages.  See
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2252&hl=Suarez


Post 12

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 4:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And yet she highly praised Jones' History of Philosophy series.... which did cover those philosophers...

Post 13

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, there was a review of that book in The Objectivist, no? Even then, I don't remember it praising the treatment of the Stoa and the Garden. There are several primary and secondary sources I would recommend, I'll post on them later. My understanding of the break between Paterson and Rand was that it revolved about Paterson's supposed lack of enthusiasm over The Fountainhead and Rand's refusal to credit Paterson (and by extension, the Scholastics and Jesuits) for having influenced her. There is definitely more than enough material here for a dozen dissertations, Peter.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Vatican Sayings

These sayings, attributed to Epicurus and his followers, are called the Vatican Sayings since they exist as a manuscript held in the Vatican Library. Those evil Catholics!

About a dozen of these sayings overlap with the Principle Doctrines as given in the main blog entry. The Principle Doctrines are considered more authoritative and were reportedly inscribed on a wall in the Epicurean school (known as the Garden) and were still extant in late Imperial times. My source for the Vatican Sayings is again Vincent Cook's www.epicurus.net. I have marked duplicates from the Principle Doctrines with an asterisk.

1 * A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness.

2 * Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us.

3 * Continuous bodily pain does not last long; instead, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which slightly exceeds bodily pleasure does not last for many days at once. Diseases of long duration allow an excess of bodily pleasure over pain.

4 Every pain is easy to disregard; for that which is intense is of brief duration, and those bodily pains that last long are mild.

5 * It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.

6 * It is impossible for a man who secretly violates the terms of the agreement not to harm or be harmed to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure that he will not be detected.

7 For an aggressor to be undetected is difficult; and for him to be confident that his concealment will continue is impossible.

8 * The wealth required by nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity.

9 Necessity is an evil; but there is no necessity for continuing to live with necessity.

10 Remember that you are mortal and have a limited time to live and have devoted yourself to discussions on nature for all time and eternity and have seen “things that are now and are to me come and have been.”

11 Most men are insensible when they rest, and mad when they act.

12 * The just man is most free from disturbance, while the unjust is full of the utmost disturbance.

13 * Among the things held to be just by law, whatever is proved to be of advantage in men's dealings has the stamp of justice, whether or not it be the same for all; but if a man makes a law and it does not prove to be mutually advantageous, then this is no longer just. And if what is mutually advantageous varies and only for a time corresponds to our concept of justice, nevertheless for that time it is just for those who do not trouble themselves about empty words, but look simply at the facts.

14 We have been born once and cannot be born a second time; for all eternity we shall no longer exist. But you, although you are not in control of tomorrow, are postponing your happiness. Life is wasted by delaying, and each one of us dies without enjoying leisure.

15 We place a high value on our characters as if they were our own possessions whether or not we are virtuous and praised by other men. So, too, we must regard the characters of those around us if they are our friends.

16 No one chooses a thing seeing that it is evil; but being lured by it when it appears good in comparison to a greater evil, he is caught.

17 We should not view the young man as happy, but rather the old man whose life has been fortunate. The young man at the height of his powers is often befuddled by chance and driven from his course; but the old man has dropped anchor in old age as in a harbor, since he secures in sure and thankful memory goods for which he was once scarcely confident of.

18 If sight, association, and intercourse are removed, the passion of love is ended.

19 He has become an old man on the day on which he forgot his past blessings.

20 * Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.

21 We must not force Nature but persuade her. We shall persuade her if we satisfy the necessary desires and also those bodily desires that do not harm us while sternly rejecting those that are harmful.

22 * Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason.

23 Every friendship in itself is to be desired; but the initial cause of friendship is from its advantages.

24 Dreams have neither a divine nature nor a prophetic power, but they are the result of images that impact on us.

25 Poverty, if measured by the natural end, is great wealth; but wealth, if not limited, is great poverty.

26 One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end.

27 The benefits of other activities come only to those who have already become, with great difficulty, complete masters of such pursuits, but in the study of philosophy pleasure accompanies growing knowledge; for pleasure does not follow learning; rather, learning and pleasure advance side by side.

28 Those who are overly eager to make friends are not to be approved; nor yet should you approve those who avoid friendship, for risks must be run for its sake.

29 To speak frankly as I study nature I would prefer to speak in oracles that which is of advantage to all men even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the constant praise that comes from the many.

30 Some men spend their whole life furnishing for themselves the things proper to life without realizing that at our birth each of us was poured a mortal brew to drink.

31 It is possible to provide security against other things, but as far as death is concerned, we men all live in a city without walls.

32 The honor paid to a wise man is itself a great good for those who honor him.

33 The cry of the flesh is not to be hungry, thirsty, or cold; for he who is free of these and is confident of remain so might vie even with Zeus for happiness.

34 We do not so much need the assistance of our friends as we do the confidence of their assistance in need.

35 Don't spoil what you have by desiring what you don't have; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for.

36 Epicurus's life when compared to that of other men with respect to gentleness and self-sufficiency might be thought a mere legend.

37 When confronted by evil nature is weak, but not when faced with good; for pleasures make it secure but pains ruin it.

38 He is of very small account for whom there are many good reasons for ending his life.

39 Neither he who is always seeking material aid from his friends nor he who never considers such aid is a true friend; for one engages in petty trade, taking a favor instead of gratitude, and the other deprives himself of hope for the future.

40 He who asserts that everything happens by necessity can hardly find fault with one who denies that everything happens by necessity; by his own theory this very argument is voiced by necessity.

41 At one and the same time we must philosophize, laugh, and manage our household and other business, while never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy.

42 The same time produces both the beginning of the greatest good and the dissolution of the evil.

43 The love of money, if unjustly gained, is impious, and, if justly, shameful; for it is inappropriate to be miserly even with justice on one's side.

44 The wise man who has become accustomed to necessities knows better how to share with others than how to take from them, so great a treasure of self-sufficiency has he found.

45 The study of nature does not create men who are fond of boasting and chattering or who show off the culture that impresses the many, but rather men who are strong and self-sufficient, and who take pride in their own personal qualities not in those that depend on external circumstances.

46 Let us completely rid ourselves of our bad habits as if they were evil men who have done us long and grievous harm.

47 I have anticipated you, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all your secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to you or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well.

48 While we are on the road, we must try to make what is before us better than what is past; when we come to the road's end, we feel a smooth contentment.

49 * It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

50 * No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.

51 [addressing a young man] I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not checked by one or more of these provisos is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm.

52 Friendship dances around the world bidding us all to awaken to the recognition of happiness.

53 We must envy no one; for the good do not deserve envy and as for the bad, the more they prosper, the more they ruin it for themselves.

54 It is not the pretense but the real pursuit of philosophy that is needed; for we do not need the semblance of health but rather true health.

55 We should find solace for misfortune in the happy memory of what has been and in the knowledge that what has been cannot be undone.

56–57 The wise man feels no more pain when being tortured himself than when his friend tortured, and will die for him; for if he betrays his friend, his whole life will be confounded by distrust and completely upset.

58 We must free ourselves from the prison of public education and politics.

59 What cannot be satisfied is not a man's stomach, as most men think, but rather the false opinion that the stomach requires unlimited filling.

60 Every man passes out of life as if he had just been born.

61 Most beautiful is the sight of those close to us, when our original contact makes us of one mind or produces a great incitement to this end.

62 If the anger of parents against their children is justified, it is quite pointless for the children to resist it and to fail to ask forgiveness. If the anger is not justified but is unreasonable, it is folly for an irrational child to appeal to someone deaf to appeals and not to try to turn it aside in other directions by a display of good will.

63 There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance.

64 We should welcome praise from others if it comes unsought, but we should be concerned with healing ourselves.

65 It is pointless for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself.

66 We show our feeling for our friends' suffering, not with laments, but with thoughtful concern.

67 Since the attainment of great wealth can scarcely be accomplished without slavery to crowds or to politicians, a free life cannot obtain much wealth; but such a life already possesses everything in unfailing supply. Should such a life happen to achieve great wealth, this too it can share so as to gain the good will of one's neighbors.

68 Nothing is enough to someone for whom what is enough is [too -TK] little.

69 The thankless nature of the soul makes the creature endlessly greedy for variations in its lifestyle.

70 Do nothing in your life that will cause you to fear if it is discovered by your neighbor.

71 Question each of your desires: “What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is achieved, and what if it is not?”

72 * There is no advantage to obtaining protection from other men so long as we are alarmed by events above or below the earth or in general by whatever happens in the boundless universe.

73 That we have suffered certain bodily pains aids us in preventing others like them.

74 In a philosophical dispute, he gains most who is defeated, since he learns the most.

75 The saying, “look to the end of a long life,” shows small thanks for past good fortune.

76 As you grow old you are such as I urge you to be, and you have recognized the difference between studying philosophy for yourself and studying it for Greece. I rejoice with you.

77 Freedom is the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency.

78 The noble man is chiefly concerned with wisdom and friendship; of these, the former is a mortal good, the latter an immortal one.

79 He who is calm disturbs neither himself nor another.

80 The first step towards salvation is to attend to one's youth and guard against that which defiles everything through maddening desires.

81 The soul neither rids itself of disturbance nor gains a worthwhile joy through the possession of greatest wealth, nor by the honor and admiration bestowed by the crowd, or through any of the other things sought by unlimited desire.

===

Please visit www.epicurus.net.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Do nothing in your life that will cause you to fear if it is discovered by your neighbor."

Would that we had a society that allowed us that luxury.  In fact, as Rand points out, the method of the power seekers is to make us hide that which we most desire, out of a mistaken guilt over our own nature qua human.

(For anyone who finds that they fear their own thoughts - as in, seriously considering suicide or some other act of great destruction or apparent evil - I would suggest Max Stirner's "The Ego and His Own" as a wondrous antidote.)

We are like Jews in NAZI Germany, always having to check our thoughts and feelings against what is permissable or would make us appear in a bad light...  It is dangerous to be honest and true.

It is this that undercuts the major reason that people are naturally honest and just in their dealings.  That reason is not that "honesty pays" in some business policy sense (altho that maxim may well be independently true), but rather that - as seen by the value that people place on relationships of love or friendship - we passionately need and desire to find other people who can be mirrors of our "souls." 

Yet the criminal can never feel free to show his true self, and, as in "Catcher in the Rye" or parodied in "Die Leiden des Jungen Werther," that purity of spirit, or its invisability or lack leads us to desperation and desperate, shortsighted acts.

And still, the powerful benefit from enslaving our spirits, and setting us against one another.


 


Post 16

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil, I don't have the Greek before me, but I think from the context that statement would be better expanded as "do nothing against common interest" or "contrary to the honor of your conscience." I don't think the statement was specifically meant as advice for those who live next door to the gestapo - but as advice for those who would indeed become thieves or murderers or the like. Perhaps "Men with clean consciences sleep easy" would be a good substitute?

In any case, upon reading the entire doctrines, do you not find them more uplifting than misleading?

Ted

Post 17

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 10:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I, too, thought it queer that Rand didn't say anything about Epicurus. More than likely, she knew of him, possibly some basic stuff (especially atomism being originated in an Epicurean) from the Epicureans.

-- Brede

Post 18

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 4:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I suspect that if you showed AR the list in #14 she'd find it a mixed bag.  Some of the sayings, such as 5 or 43, bespeak a Roark-like serenity and self-sufficiency.  Others, like 1 and 79, exhort us to repression and self-abnegation, to "disowning the self" in Branden's phrase.  The list is a collection of aphorisms, not, as it stands, an organized theory (which is not to claim that Epicurus didn't have one).  The similarities here and there would have to be much stronger and more systematic to look like influences.

The thinking here seems to be that Rand was familiar with these authors but deliberately ignored them and deliberately discouraged discussion by the people around her.  Those who think that (if there be any) bear the burden of documenting it with hard biographical data such as diaries, letters, manuscripts or corroborated eyewitness accounts, not coulda-mighta-musta speculations.  (Peikoff, not Rand, wrote the review of W.T. Jones that Malcom mentions in #12 [unless you have some other source in mind].  She presumably read the review, but this doesn't show that she read the book.  In any case her theory had been in place for years by 1964.)

Re #17: Atomism originated with Democritus.  Was he an Epicurean?

Slightly off-topic, this topic of the Catholic Rand is most interesting.  I've seen attempts to read coded Jewish meanings into her work, and they've struck me as labored and implausible.  This looks more fruitful.

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 9/25, 4:06pm)


Post 19

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, I did enjoy reading thru the various sayings.  It is useful to see things stated so clearly and abstractly even when one may take exception to several of them.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.