Mom loves her husband more than her kids Posted by Nicole Theberge
on 4/20, 2:10pm
"MODERN LOVE; Truly, Madly, Guiltily By AYELET WALDMAN (NYT) 1687 words Published: March 27, 2005 Sometimes I think I am alone in this obsession with my spouse. Sometimes I think my husband does not feel as I do. He loves the children the way a mother is supposed to. He has put them at the center of hi...(Read more...)
Nicole: "It is amazing to me that after doing all I have done, I am looked upon as if I am still doing wrong. I ask honestly, when does that end?"
By my standards, it ended long ago. It ended when you realized you had made a (small) mistake and said you would rectify it. That should have been the end of it. And you have no reason whatever to doubt your understanding of Objectivism.
Shayne, have you ever wondered why so many people find your manner of presenting your ideas offensive? Of course, it may be that you are infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone else. But then again. . . .
Shayne, have you ever wondered why so many people find your manner of presenting your ideas offensive?
This isn't about my manner of presentation. It's about people who wouldn't know a principle if it bit them on the nose, which, it seems, is the only thing they think a principle is good for. If you want to make this about my manner of presentation, I'd recommend that you do what a few thoughtful people did, and take it up with me on the side. This isn't the appropriate venue.
Of course, it may be that you are infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone else. But then again. . . .
Glad you could join in on the traffic accident.
You might have noted my initial dismay that everyone let Nicole's pragmatism slide by. I *expected* to find principled and intelligent people here. So clearly, the problem isn't that I assume that I'm "infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone else". (Thankfully, a few principled people in the forum did ultimately chime in).
I just wish you all would take Robert's advice. I'm certainly ready to stop posting on this thread, but I'm not going to stand by quietly while you all keep tossing insults my way (except MSK's insults -- he can feel free to toss in all he wants).
Sarah, off-topic (but given the "topic," that's not a bad thing), are you a "Highlander" fan? Hated the films (except the first), but loved the TV show, especially Adrian Paul's character, Duncan MacLeod.
Okay... I said I'd let you all know, so here it is. The NYT legal department sent me a message saying it is fine to post full articles "that cannot be linked to nytimes.com"directly to newsgroups and the like as long as they are not for profit. But it can only be up for 30 days, and it cannot be archived. I have asked the webmaster here to edit it and make it an excerpt instead, so that it is not archived in its full form and I don't have to worry about editing it in a month when I cannot be sure that I will have an internet connection. ;o)
If anyone has any further questions, please send me a message.
Thanks for all of your advice again. I hope this satisfies any one who was upset or concerned.
Let me congratulate you. You make me feel good about being an Objectivist - and you are doing just fine.
The way you went about the whole thing, from learning and understanding the principles to contacting other people, the authoress, NYT and webmaster, in order to discover which rules to follow in this vague copyright issue, is an inspiring example of the practical application of philosophical principles to the world we live in.
You sought information from various sources first-hand and used your own mind and judgment to guide your actions.
Well, I do thank you. I'm trying not to blush. ;o)
I think I did pretty well too, to be very honest.
It was kind of intimidating to be in contact with the NYT people, but they were actually very nice. They seem to be doing very well figuring out the vague issues, and they were very clear in explaining them to me. (Which could be a task if they weren't so good....)
I will use what I have learned here a thousand other times I'm sure.
What would we learn if we never made mistakes? ;o)
Nicole, I concur with Michael's thoughts completely. Congratulations. I think you're terrific and I take my hat off to you. Alas, I must now put my hat back on to cover my bald spot which gets bigger every year. :-)
That is fantastic news! Congratulations once again on the rational and principled manner in which you dealt with the situation. Legal people really aren't all quite as mean as is often made out >;-)
By the way, I too enjoy Highlander, though I only ever had the chance to see the first two or three seasons. Based on what I saw it appears to be one of several SF/Fantasy shows that are actually replete with Objectivist values (I'd say the same of Smallville and even Buffy).
Shayne - I've been asked to take a look at this thread, which I hadn't previously followed, on account of folks' disquiet with the way you behaved here & on other threads. It does seem that you retain Randroid habits that you might have learned from ARI or that might be entirely your own work. Either way, it's clear that you routinely rush to moral judgement where none - or something much less serious than you're itching to dish out - is called for. You go into nasty mode at the drop of a hat. Folk do find it offensive, for the very good reason that it is. You will no doubt respond that that is their problem. Just be aware that , if you keep it up, you'll be placed under moderation. It injects a poison into proceedings that is not in the spirit of SOLO. I don't want to discourage you from making vigorous contributions, but I'd invite you to ask yourself if there are ways you could do that without repeatedly becoming personally obnoxious.
Linz: I have a hard time taking protestations about my style seriously when those who do it simultaneously ignore my content. It sends to me the message that what they really disagree with is my arguments, but that they have no counter-argument to give.
I am actually quite open to criticism of my style, and if there's something wrong with it, I'll change it. If I notice that I crossed a line, or if someone demonstrates to me that I crossed the line, I'll apologize for it.
Frankly, I was and am baffled as to how this thread devolved (see posts 23-26 -- the rest is just more of the same but with more intensity). Now if someone can show me (privately is fine) why I was wrong, then I'll change. Otherwise, nothing will change. And how could it? I don't know what I did wrong, unless it's that I didn't tip-toe around people who were obviously getting touchy. Tip-toeing is something I know quite well how to do, but am not willing to do in an Objectivist forum.
Which means I will ultimately be banned from Solo -- A is A. Which means, unless someone can show me how I was wrong, then as of this post, I will consider myself banned and stop posting. I'd rather censor myself voluntarily than be censored in the middle of some important discussion.
Even though I disagree with you about this Linz, I do appreciate that you've left it up to me instead of outright banning me. Thanks for that.
You're being unfair with Shayne. I can hardly believe you've actually read this thread.
If you did, then you must have seen how it was Shayne who was first the object of sniping and ridicule by Nicole (Post 24 - middle graphs). Shayne's first two posts were principled and his response to her Post 24 in his Post 25 was measured and rational, not sniping. Shayne's follow-up in Post 26 went to the heart of the matter and actually sympathetically told Nicole to "forget about the incident" since she was having the content removed.
Now, check out the snide comments of Nicole in Post 28 in response to Shayne's measured posts! Here's what she said: "What I am saying is I will not be discussing it with you further." This post opened the floodgates. Lance made his snide post (29), and Nicole let loose with both barrels of hysteria in Post 31, which was uncalled for. Shayne's calling her a "brat" in post 32 was incendiary but, unfortunately correct, considering Nicole's refusal do deal with the principles in this matter and her going after him personally when he hadn't taken it to that level yet.
Just briefly, Shayne kept mostly to the issues afterward despite being called a "buzzkilling troll" by katdaddy. an "ARI Crapper" by Malcom, a "moralizer" by MSK, an "asshole" by Sarah House. Shayne speculated on why so many people would not deal with the principle of the matter in this thread, and he was right to do so.
All of that said, Shayne can be abrasive, unlike our soft and passive Lindsay. ;-) But I've found Shayne's posts recently to be predominantly rational and to the point more often than not -- and not testy. For some evidence, check out his last 10 posts. Good stuff. He doesn't deserve to be moderated any more than Bidinotto does for his testiness, straw men and ad hominem.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]