| | Ted: I am taking this up for one last more time, since I've seen that now additional posts were added after your message (Post 34). I will merely add my comment to your very uncivilized:
"Your envy regarding your six compared to my nine is your personal issue, I suggest you take it up with your therapist.." You should have checked the Internet before saying this since my quotes have been taken up and added to many websites and blogs -which speaks for itself in what refers to their importance and popularity - while of your quotes none, not even one, was added to another webite or blog. I only mentioned your "six" because you mentioned my in the Internet internationally accepted quotes in a derisive manner. Civilizedly you had neither a right nor a motive to do so, excepting, of course, the evident envy you evidenced yourself in your messages. This puts the weight of having to take it up with a therapist on your shoulders, not on mine, but as I said, we should now leave it at that. I haven't any longer any interest to carry this on.
Roper: This too just (as mentioned above) because the thread was followed by further posts. No intension whatsoever to follow this up endlessly. Your first message (Post 0) mentioned:
"Rand didn't say this in the work given (even if its true). Manfred F. Schieder said it by way of heavily borrowing from another's text and making minute alterations. YOU are the one quoted here."
You wrote this in the heat of dislike. You should have first looked up if any part of the quote I had added DID came from any of Rand's writings (I gave sufficient proof that it did) to then say: "The quote comes from Rand's writings, but Manfred prefaced it with a notice - placed between brackets - to inform the reader what he had to take into consideration when reading it. Manfred shouldn't have done this in view of the RoR mode of how quotes must be mentioned, but have placed his comments in a "Forum - Quotes" message added."
While I had thought of doing this before I added the quote with my preface, I then thought that it would be useless to proceed thus, for if those who read the quote didn't look at the "Comments" they wouldn't have noticed what had to be taken into consideration when reading Rand's quote.
Saying "Manfred F. Schieder said it by way of heavily borrowing from another's text and making minute alterations" was lacking every sense, since I neither "heavily borrowed from another's text", made no alterations to it nor wrote my preface by taking up someone else's style. I merely added the preface the way I write and then presented Rand's words in her own "style".
But it's no longer necessary to take this whole story up again.
While I know that there are quite a lot of people at RoR who like what I write (Mike Erickson is a very worthwhile example of this), there are also very many who greatly dislike ANYTHING I write, and the forums provide ample testimony to this. Teresa's words ("I frankly don't care if you ever submit another word") state this with utter clarity. Further on, she also stated: "I'll be forced to verify pretty much everything you submit from now on." It's a fact that since I write articles - somewhere else I mentioned already that I supplied them to newspapers, magazines, etc., all of them very prone to censor writings - NONE of my articles were ever censored in any way whatsoever: they have always been published them without changing, adding or deleting anything. So, should Rebirth of Reason want me to continue supplying my articles, the person who uttered this what I read as being a menace of "verifying" what I might supply, will have to make void of what she said. All Rebirth of Reason can do in relation with my articles is to decide whether to publish them as I supply them or leave them unpublished. This will mean no offense on my side nor bad manners but merely correspond to RoR decision of what is to be published and what not. But this decision depends, of course, on whether RoR wants me to continue supplying my writings.
So much said, I will now leave the theme at rest.
|
|
