[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 100

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, can you write?

Why don't you take the time to sit down and write out a 500 word statement of what it is that you actually intend to say here? All of your posts have been toss-offs, statements of bile, mere gainsaying, insult, and either denials of your own posts or assertions that "no one understands poor me."

Here's you opportunity - tell us at length what you actually have been trying to say. If you need time to learn some history, tell us. Heck, on the Golden Age thread, I gave you 15 points to answer - an easy assignment if you really, in good faith, wanted to say anything other than that the West is just as bad as...(fill in the blank). Of course, you remained sullenly silent. Perhaps someone else here could give you a list of points to answer?

Until then, why should people keep wrestling in the mud with you? What knowledge, what insight, what truth do you offer?

Ted



Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 101

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael Dickey,
Can you read? Can't you see "retribution and consolidation of power that always followed a violent change of regime" in there?


Hong Zhang,
Can you read?

Now you specify that a 'violent change of regime' was necessary to institute bloody retribution, but still you suggested, somehow, that South Vietnam 'would have done the same thing' if, what, they instituted a bloody violent regime change in the north?? If, somehow, magically, the positions were reversed What does that mean? What are you trying to say? You are making no sense.

It baffles me that with whom and why you keep on arguing here

This is what you have said

"violent change of regime causes bloody retribution"
and
"South Vietnam would have done the same thing"
and
Your original statement
"As to the victors slaughter their defeated enemies, that was pretty much expected in those countries. South Vietnam would have done the same if they had won"

Either South Vietnam would have done the same thing *in the north*, *if they won* (which was clearly your initial implication even though now you try to back off from it once you learned how completely incorrect it was)

or

as you seem to insist now, if South Vietnam was actually North Vietnam, and was backed by the communists of China and the Soviet union, they would have done the same thing after instituting a bloody regime change *in the south*? So, in magicall anti-history land, South Vietnam was backed by the communist super powers and was invading the north, and had it won, it would have committed the same bloody attrocities?

Please specify which of these scenarios you are trying to draw a parrallel to. In WHAT scenario would SOUTH VIETNAM have "DONE THE SAME THING" Clearly you are now trying to insist that if South Vietnam sought a "bloody regime change" in the North, they would have done the same thing, but that is not what South Vietnam was fighting for, so what are you arguing? Just making up red herrings?

Yes, Hong, I can read, but you obviously have a lot of difficulty either conveying what it is you are trying to say, or hiding the fact that you are obfuscating every point you make as you try to distance yourself from them once it is shown how absurd they truly are. So now you were not saying South Vietnam would have done the asme to the North had they won, but if in some other magical history land the South was actively invading the North in an attempt to try to conquer it, it would have done the same thing. But that is not at all what South Vietnam was trying to do, so if your point was really this latter, 'new' interpration of your point, why did you make it in the first place? Hey, maybe, I dont know what happens in magical history land, maybe if South Vietnam built a giant nuclear space cannon they would have killed every North Vietnamese, but in the real world and in this real geo-political context "The South would have done the same thing" is an egregious and disgusting comment no matter how you try to spin it.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 102

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

None so blind as those who would not see....


None are so worthless as those who say nothing




Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Post 103

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"Verily, Michael, ye know me not..... indeed you have no idea how wrong ye be.."


And yet, even though both you and Hong have asserted this, you've done nothing to enlighten me, and so I still have no idea how wrong I am. Perhaps you could try this new fangled discussion tactic, for those actually interested in a sincere discussion of ideas (which Hong at least claims) actually try to present some ideas!!! Clearly convey your points!

Robert, here's a good test I use for posts, if I can copy and repeat your post right back at you, it's utterly worthless to post, so give up the silly aphorisms followed by ellipses, you are contributing nothing to the quality of the conversation and it is nothing but pathetic self aggrendization. Secondly, if I am left having learned nothing more after reading your post, or if your post, as in this case and Hong's case, was to explicitly say nothing at all, convey no information whatsoever, and to imply you will convey no information! then what is the point of posting it.

I could also write

You have no idea what I won't tell you!!!

Oooohhhh!!! ya got me!!! You're right, I dont have any idea about what you haven't said!!! Amazingly, I am not telephathic, or, maybe to speak in a language Robert can understand

Nothing said is more pointless than something said to say nothing...



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 104

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I long ago stopped spreading pablum for those who have no teeth to eat....



Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 105

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I long ago stopped spreading pablum for those who have no teeth to eat....


i.e. you have no decent intellectual contributions to make to this discussion, you are 'too good' for it, so you'll take your ball and go home.

Robert, this is now your second post in this thread where you have informed us that you would not post anything of significance. I doubt any of us were confused about that potential anyway, so how about you spare us and save yourself some time and just not post, eh?



Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 106

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 5:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dickey: You are one angry teenager.


The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another.

Nature abhors a moron.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 107

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great first post Mr. Wagner. Start off with a mindless insult.

How about you back up your claim Mr. Dickey is operating from delusion and not evidence? What evidence do you speak of that contradicts what Mr. Dickey is claiming?

Nature abhors a moron.


Nature also abhors a forum troll.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 108

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I will personally strangle, in their sleep, anyone who gives this Wagner guy his first Atlas, which will take him off moderation.

RoR abhors assholes.




Post 109

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 2:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder why "John Wagner" has shown up to post "his" first post ever on this otherwise thankfully dead thread? With a member number of -1207- and a posting history since membership to today of -0- posts, I wonder whose alias this troll actually is? Given that someone has actually sanctioned this troll's empty name-calling, I wonder if it would be appropriate for everyone here sympathetic to Dickey's post to go back and sanction every single post critical of Hong in this thread? Perhaps "Wagner" and "his" supporter could enlighten us as to "their" principles in such matters?

Or perhaps the troll and his sanctioner could simply step out into the light and entertain us with a real argument, and not this juvenile name-calling?

Ted



Post 110

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gosh. I am no longer shocked that a spot on appraisal is met with comments "mindless", "troll", and "asshole."

Welcome John, itís a pleasure to read your post. Far from agreeing with John, Teresa, and Ted, I loved the scope of your brief comments.

Unfortunately, I think you are all too astute; the online objectivists really do have a lot of trouble distinguishing the difference between beliefs and real-world actions, therefore they wonít appreciate you.

Guy

P.S. I would love to take credit for being the first to give John his first Atlas points, alas someone got there before me.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 111

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
<----------- Galexies from appreciating posing asshats.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 112

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 10:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Guy Stanton wrote,
Gosh. I am no longer shocked that a spot on appraisal is met with comments "mindless", "troll", and "asshole."

Welcome John, itís a pleasure to read your post.
So, Wagner's comment, "Nature abhors a moron" is a pleasure to read, but calling it a "mindless insult" and responding with similar comments (e.g., "nature abhors a forum troll) is offensive. The mind boggles. The next thing we'll hear is that you've joined RoR for a serious discussion of Rand's ideas!

Btw, is "Guy Stanton" an amalgam of "Guy Francon" and "Stanton Institute," both from The Fountainhead? I wouldn't be surprised if it were; it fits you so perfectly.

- Bill





Post 113

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 7:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"So, Wagner's comment, "Nature abhors a moron" is a pleasure to read, but calling it a "mindless insult" and responding with similar comments (e.g., "nature abhors a forum troll) is offensive."

I guess you can superficially call them similar but they are not; I was keeping the context of the thread in mind.

"The next thing we'll hear is that you've joined RoR for a serious discussion of Rand's ideas!"

Oh, I love ideasĖbut the proof is in the puddingĖgetting too wrapped up in Randís ideas or anyone elseís is too Platonic for my taste. That said, worthy ideas can excite a serious exchange.

"Btw, is "Guy Stanton" an amalgam of "Guy Francon" and "Stanton Institute," both from The Fountainhead?"

Like " William Dwyer" was deduced from "Edward Willers"?
Guy




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 114

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 8:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, why are you on this forum, Guy?

- Bill



Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 115

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 8:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Guy Stanton:

Gosh. I am no longer shocked that a spot on appraisal is met with comments "mindless", "troll"....


And so we are greeted with an additional troll to our forum.

Welcome Mr. Stanton! And thanks for continuing in the spirit of mindlessness that John Wagner has started off with in this thread. I hope you two can find true friendship in your trollness.


The difference here of course is John Wagner is responding with insults without justification for them. He calls M. Dickey a moron and a teenager, yet does not specify any specific comments to lead one to that conclusion, nor are those terms terribly descriptive in their usage and are used here solely to degrade or ridicule another person. Hence this describes trolling behavior. I am responding with characterizations that fit the description of John Wagner's senseless post.

Troll: posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, on-line forum, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait and offer no substance in their comments. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."


Mindless: Having no intelligent purpose, meaning, or direction.

So first let's take the insult "you are one angry teenager". Perhaps M. Dickey is angry, but of course anger is an emotion to which can be justifiable. Rand called emotions the logical extensions of our values. If there is anger displayed in Dickey's posts, they are justified considering the people he is arguing against callously disregard the millions of people who died needlessly in Indochina in a display of depraved indifference to life. That is certainly enough to anger anyone who values life. Thus the insult is unwarranted.

Next we have the accusation Dickey is commenting with delusions rather than evidence. John Wagner makes no attempt to quote any of Dickey's comments to illustrate this. If John Wagner cares not to concretize the characterization, he is only succeeding in trolling. The insult is thus mindless, i.e. without intelligence.

Finally we have "moron" of which is commonly defined as a stupid person, or someone with a small capacity for intelligence. Again, John Wagner makes no attempt to prove this, nor can he. The term is used solely to degrade M. Dickey and used for no other purpose.


OK, I'm done feeding the trolls. Carry on.



Post 116

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The proof is in the posting

Let's see if "Wagner" and "Stanton" (He should strangle whoever named him, unless the name came with an endowment!) can actually add content to this site. Stanton's quite meager history and Wagner's non-history don't bode well, but one never knows.

Well, boys, let's see what you can offer besides dung.

Ted



Post 117

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 4:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William: "So, why are you on this forum, Guy?"

That is simple to answer. I have lots of affection for and interest in ideas that affect the world. I also love Randís work, and the heroism of her characters. Which, in theory, should make my time here pleasurable and rewarding. But, the reality is that a great many online "Objectivists" are really Platonist standups in Objectivist drag. Regardless, I like to touch base once in awhile looking for special people.

Ted: "The proof is in the posting."

Posting is negligible: itís work to make a proof, and a posted proof is wasted.

John,

I am hearted to see you justifying 9 paragraphs in response to two "mindless trolls." But you donít have to feel bad, calling people names doesnít make them so. If we were truly mindless you would be stupid to respondĖand since you did, that means you hold us in higher regard then you are admitting to.

Guy

Apologies for continuing on this hijacked thread. I did not want to start a new thread on the intricacies of Objectivist fellowship.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 118

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 5:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regardless, I like to touch base once in awhile looking for special people.
Why?  Are you a collector?




Post 119

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

I am hearted to see you justifying 9 paragraphs in response to two "mindless trolls." But you donít have to feel bad, calling people names doesnít make them so. If we were truly mindless you would be stupid to respondĖand since you did, that means you hold us in higher regard then you are admitting to.

Guy


Still not contributing any substance I see. So if I come to my own defense or my fellow RoRers, the ones to whom I respect at least, who have been mindlessly attacked, it is considered "stupid" by you?

I'm waiting to hear your arguments why that is

1) stupid

and

2) if not stupid why that would mean I hold you in high regard?


But, the reality is that a great many online "Objectivists" are really Platonist standups in Objectivist drag.


Which Objectivists? And how specifically did they act as "Platonist standups"?

After reading this garbage, I can also come to the conclusion you are a coward in addition to being mindless and a troll. Generalized accusations without specifically naming names and not making any reference to any specific comments is the work of a pathetic coward and further evidence of trollish behavior.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.