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 5


Post 100

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Since I'm already in the doghouse around here:"

Aw. Now I'm really starting to feel sorry for you Mindy. Or, at least I would, except I think when you said "I like people who are benevolent" you meant "For LUNCH"....

Post 101

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 10:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know why I seem mean. I don't feel mean. I haven't posted anything with the slightest bit of anger or one-up-man-ship except I was angry at what I saw as Ed's presumption. I don't suppose it will do any good, but I can tell you outright that I'm friendly in my intent. I do feel strongly about what's true and right, of course, as we all do.

Post 102

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 11:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You know, the cultural problems with the word, "selfish" come from the fact that most people regard selfishness as predatory. That's the way they are used to thinking/feeling about the word...

I've been looking up "hubris," and then "pride," and I am amazed to find how often "pride" is first defined as excessive positive self-regard, or "conceit!" I know the word is used in both senses, depending on context. I had thought that was merely sloppy useage. If anybody knows of a thread that addresses this, let me know, OK?

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 1/24, 11:15am)


Post 103

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I do feel strongly about what's true and right, of course, as we all do"

True. But no one, neither Ed or Mindy or anyone is omniscient. Not only can we be mistaken in our understanding of an issue, we can be mistaken in what we think is someone else's understanding of an issue. But, our disagreements are VALUABLE. They help illuminate the corners or our own misunderstandings to our betterment. Also, you are new here. You do not know Ed. I have been here for years, Ed has contributed tens of thousands of words in discussions which have benefited me greatly. So far, Ed is a greater value to me than you are. Even if I don't agree with everything Ed seems to be saying. That said, you do seem nice, mostly. And darned smart. Just don't underestimate Ed, or Ted, and many others.

Post 104

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh goody, I get to be myself again. Problem: how can I ask Mike to point out where I underestimated anyone, without seeming too prickly...
(Edited by Mindy Newton on 1/24, 8:17pm)


Post 105

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

You just need a looser jockstrap.

Post 106

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would like to know what you mean, Ted, but you'll have to be literal.

Post 107

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

That’s really funny, Ted! (Though I wish you were more enthusiastic about humor when you are the butt of it.)

Mindy, I like you. I can see how you would come across as prickly to some. It doesn’t bother me.

In the Ed thing about measurement/measurable, I thought you were prickly when you came back with ‘Am I MIA?’ and ‘back to my subject.’ Ed had been addressing your subject and you never acknowledged your error or apologized.

I don’t recall you ever addressed the earlier questions, requests for confirmations of understanding, etc. that Ed had made. This isn’t prickly, but it looks and feels fly-by or diversionary.

Sometimes I think I follow you but doubt that most have the missing links and assumptions to follow you. You assume too much is given. Spell it out a little more.



Post 108

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 3:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon, thanks.
The "Am I MIA?" was self-deprecatory. It was an apology, in my mind.
I didn't make explicit my reasons for not addressing every question, and maybe that is something I didn't, and don't realize is necessary. I did make some explanations, and assumed they would be kept in mind by people who had asked a question that fell into the same category.
The thread was about very specific issues, it wasn't about epistemology, or Objectivist epistemology generally, which several questions seemed to suppose.
I had said in the first that there would possibly be a problem with my making my exposition while people were asking questions...
I don't believe, to answer your statement, that Ed was addressing my topic, or that his reformulations represented a clarification. If you want to discuss that, let me know.
I will keep in mind spelling things out more. When I start sounding patronizing, say so nicely, OK?


Post 109

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
    "When I start sounding patronizing, say so nicely, OK?",
Good luck with that, Mindy! :-)

Regards,
--
Jeff


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 110

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Screw you, Jeff.

(Oh, no! I proved him right.)

Right, on Jeff! Good luck, Mindy! You won’t need it ‘cause I’m gonna be real nice. Nice, nice, nice, that’s me…



Post 111

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh good - I was waiting for a Saturday joke... ;-)

Post 112

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, Robert, here's a joke:
Two Objectivist friends and I were at Georgia State University one spring evening, a long time ago. I was in graduate school there at the time. We were there for W. to teach M. and me how to play racquet-ball; W. was a very good hand-ball player, and had played the other game a bit.
After getting tired and sweaty on the court, we went into the canteen for a drink. We sat at a little table, with our paper cups of coke (that's how long ago it was, vending machines filled paper cups with drink!) We were lamenting a few sore spots where we'd been hit by the ball, and W. was telling us that we should be glad we hadn't been hit by a hand-ball ball. That led to questions about the difference between the two types of balls, and W., who is a Civil Engineer, was explaining.
For some reason, M. was having trouble understanding what he meant when he said, "The hand-ball is solid rubber, but the racquet-ball is much softer, because it is a bladder." M., a banker, asked what he meant by that, a very brow-knitted expression on her face. "It's empty inside, there's nothing in it, like a bladder. "Like a bladder?" M. asked, "Why do you call it a bladder?" Because it's empty," W. replied. "Empty?" M. said, her face totally screwed up in puzzlement now, "Who ever heard of an empty bladder?"

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 1/24, 4:52pm)


Post 113

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
a relieved bladder perhaps, but never an empty one... ;-)

Post 114

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 7:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I never hear from mine till it's full.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


User ID Password or create a free account.