seymourblogger

Banned
  • Content count

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About seymourblogger

  • Rank
    $$$$
  • Birthday 02/01/1934

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Janet ABBEY
  • Description
    I was a student of barbara Branden's in 1960-62 and at the time was a serious Objectivist. My life was changed.
  • Articles
    At the present time I am blogging, reading media and Events through post modern thinking. I consider Rand a great post modern philosopher, unrecognized as such, and also by default. I only consider her fiction, and ignore her non-fiction when I write about her. Her greatness lies in her fictions, and her deep absorption of Nietzsche, which has been underestimated and scrubbed clean in her Journal and Letters. I consider Rand Nietzsche's heir, at least one of them.
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    classical music, modern art, film history. If you read me you will see al of this.
  • Relationship status
    single
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://aynrand2.blogspot.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Springfield MO
  • Interests
    post modern philosophy reading through media
  1. "Insane" has a legal definition, which is one among several, but it is not itself "a legal definition" -- whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Many people OL, including myself, have been called names a lot worse than you ever have. Should you ever threaten, if only by implication ("I could sue you"), to use force against someone again, then I will personally lead a campaign to get you booted off this list. Michael is very tolerant, even of fools like you, but I doubt if he will tolerate that kind of barbarism for very long. You said on SOLO that the hacking originated in London. You know very well that Brant does not live in London, and you have no evidence whatsoever that anyone on OL had anything to do with that unfortunate incident. Frankly, I'm still not sure whether I even believe you. You are such a pathetic egomaniac, an old woman crying out for attention, that I don't trust much of anything you say. The fact that you still post on OL, despite your complaints that it is a fascistic website (or whatever), that an OLer hacked you, that you are libeled, etc., speaks volumes. Any semi-rational person who truly believed such things would have left OL long ago. You stick around because you get attention, and you don't really care what kind of attention it is. Then, to top things off, you repeatedly insult Michael, the guy who pays for your attention-sponge. Again, be as boorish as you like -- that is part of life on Internet forums -- but drop the threats of force. If you don't like what is said about you on OL, then get the hell off. Ghs Did I say Gaede did the hacking? No. I don't think he could do it. That's not to say he couldn't have instigated it. Could HItler fly an airplane? No. But he put an airforce in motion did he not? You can make 1 more posts until Today, 10:47 PM. This restriction is in place until you have 99614 more approved posts Does this mjean that I will have 5 more posts after 10:47? Does a new day start at 10:48? Will I get 5 more posts? Or will I lose 5? This software sucks. You need to pay more money and gt a better person to fix your software.
  2. Sockpuppet Garbage

    The focus of here is on Ayn Rand's reception of Nietzsche - does B. Babich address this too, and if yes, to what extent? edited to add: I just googled "Babich and Ayn Rand" and got a link to a passage of Babich's book on Nietzsche's Philosophy of Science where she writes [bolding mine]: Here is the German translation (going by what you said, I assume it was done by Babich herself): Note that "stems" in the English version is mistranslated in her German version as "unterscheidet", which means something else: 'differs'. As for the term "begriffliche Sünde", (her translation of "conceptual solecism"), it does not exist in German. "Solecism" has to be translated as e. g. "Sprachschnitzer" (language blunder), "sprachliche Ungereimtheit", etc. Grammar mistake: it is not "vulgären esoterschen, but "vulgärer esoterischer". I'd recommend reading BB's work in her native English. For if one random single sentence in German already shows a number of mistakes, one can imagine what the rest looks like ... Babich is NOT translating her own work. She is writing it in 2 languages as she is bilingual. Some words are just NOT the same in another language. To do a LITERAL translation of your own work is an oxymoron.
  3. Sockpuppet Garbage

    even if it changes the meanings of a sentence. Good grief selene: the meanings of a sentence or the meaning of a sentence. Now I just lost another post correcting your syntax. What's the difference between grammar and syntax anyway?
  4. I think the notion of "linearity" is connected to our thinking in "time arrow" mode. For example, we compare "then" and "now", we notice the change between what was "before" and what came "after"; we look "back" into the past and "forward" for the future, etc. You open a book - it has a "beginning" and an "end" (even if it should happen to be be a postmodern story attacking the idea of 'beginning' and 'end' ). Reading the book through from beginning to end happens within a section of the time arrow structuring our thinking. "I went to Delaware in 62 to grad school", you wrote. Again, this places you in a specific place within a linearly conceived time arrow where one marks a "past" (1962) and a "present" (March 2012) when you wrote this. But this "Event" can also be positioned linearly on the time arrow as having happened at a specific time in the past. Often, we are only able to 'connect the dots' in hindsight, when "looking back". That's quite ironic indeed, lol. Didn't you have a relapse when reading all those atmospheric scenes where the heroes and the heroine enjoy their cigarettes? As for the 'villains' in AS - did any of them ever have a smoke? I don't think so, but maybe my memory fails me. But isn't it important, before offering a gift (or counter-gift), to consider whether the receiver is going to like it? I think the notion of "linearity" is connected to our thinking in "time arrow" mode. For example, we compare "then" and "now", we notice the change between what was "before" and what came "after"; we look "back" into the past and "forward" for the future, etc. And: Often, we are only able to 'connect the dots' in hindsight, when "looking back". Exactly. We look back and "paste" a cause on what happened. It's called precession. And in fact causes may have been made up all along. How about that! I refer you to the first conversation between Roark and Wyand on exactly this. Roark says he knew these moments when they happened. Wyand says he knew them only in retrospect. These are Foucauldian "cuts" at a micro level in a single human life. Remember when Wyand says:Here's Rand: ....Howard, when you look back, does it seem to you as if all your days had rolled forward evenly, like a sort of typing exercise, all alike? Or were their stops - points reached - and then the typing rolled on again? "There were stops." "Did you know them at the time - did you know that that's what they were?" "Yes." "I didn't. I knew afterward....."(F 25th ed p. 542-3) This is the first conversation in Howard's office with Gail. In Foucault's language a stop can be seen as a CUT, although he saves the term for a more elaborate genealogy rather than a personal instance in a life. IMO it is the micro, so I will use it. Don't you remember anything x-ray? I feel I explain over and over and you never get it. I do not have the exquisite patience darren has with you. But isn't it important, before offering a gift (or counter-gift), to consider whether the receiver is going to like it? As for cigarettes it made me wonder about their take on reality. You see I knew what it was doing to me to smoke. I wondered why they didn't know how it was affecting them if they were so adament about reality. X-ray your problem is still that you are a literal thinking person. You are defining gift in your mind as a present, like a Xmas present. This "gift" falls within the order of Symbolic Exchange and Death. The 9-11 attack can be seen as the "gift" to which the US must reply with the "counter-gift" or suicide. We have not returned the "counter-gift. Reading the book through from beginning to end happens within a section of the time arrow structuring our thinking.
  5. Smallness of Mind

    This is beautiful. Thank you.
  6. Rand through a Nietzsche filter

    The generally poor reception you get on OL is not because you are a maverick -- almost every regular poster on OL is a maverick of some kind -- but because you are a fool. Even that might be tolerable if you were not also an annoying fool, i.e., a twit. To the gas chambers-- Go!. And take your shopping cart with you. Ghs Maybe I am a fool for commenting here. But I am not getting drunk because my money has been cut off and my landlady is threatening eviction as I am in arrears on my rent. Who is the fool? Yes? And I would bet that law organization in Bloomington is run by Michael Ausbrook. Yes?
  7. No. Rand wanted her philosophy displayed exactly for the philosophy she saw it to be. Correct. It is stated above that two individuals hold themselves forth as expert, reliable expositors of what is Rand's philosophy Objectivism. But these individuals disagree on an essential issue (closed versus open system). The result is a contradiction. The Objectivist approach to contradictions is that they are the result of at least one false premise. What could be the false premise (or premises) here? Stephen, Both you and Janet are speculating; but do you really believe that without Branden and the NBI, Objectivism would have become a widespread movement? Absolutely it would not without NBI. It reached enough people that when the tapes came out there were those ready to listen. I went to Delaware in 62 to grad school. Again. I think I saw on the bulletin board somewhere that someone was advertising for anyone who wanted to do the tapes. I called the person, talked to her and she and a young man came tomy apartment. They wanted to do the tapes with me because I had done the lectures for 2 years, doing the Basic Principles twice. I knew it cold. I had it memorized by heart. I lived it to the minute. I was in grad school in the behavioral sciences thrown in with really smart psychology majors and I didn't know shit. I had burned all my bridges in public school teaching behind me. I didn't feel I had a choice but to study all the time and really learn the stuff. It was the very first time in my life that I couldn't con my way through courses and do OK. I couldn't. I was terrified. The only thing holding me together was objectivism. The only thing. You do not get that from reading Rand's fiction. If you read Nathaniel's book, he had endless personal tutoring from Rand about all his questions. discussions through the night. It never stopped for him. He went to Mew York with Barbara and Rand followed him. It is important to register the fact that she went from her beautiful home in California, the home O'Conner loved and his garden. If you have never had a garden that you loved you can't understand what she did to him, and what he gave up. Heller sees this in her biography when she quotes someone being so sad because here Frank was painting flowers instead of tending them and growing them and arranging them. and he was arranging windows for display. So sad. I think Rand knew she was never going to finish Atlas without him, and so she sacrificed everything else to be near him. He was her muse pure and simple. I don't think I was the only one so serious about objectivism. There had to have been others. And a handful is really all you need. Jesus only had 12 was it. Loyola only had 12 to start the Jesuits. The world happens by Events. Things do not develop linearly. They appear to because of our perceptual illusions but linearity is just an illusion. LIke those booklets that when you flutter the pages like a deck of cards the figures appear to be walking or running or.... NBI was an Event on the scene, unexpected, coming from elsewhere, unpredicted, unplanned, just a little 2 x 3 inch rectangle in the entertainment section of the Sunday Inquirer. And my mother who read every single death and birth notice saw it. I was reading Atlas at that exact time and I was enthralled. I was also quitting smoking on a deconditioning program I read about while I was reading Atlas. Think of the irony of that! Three Events that intersected in my life. Destiny. The moment of kairos as the Greeks said. Without that, no grad school, no thousands of things it enabled me to do because it was a particular push. Her fiction would never have done that for me. The only thing since I can compare it to was reading Foucault for the first time and feeling the light bulb go on, feeling all that I knew being ordered in a different way. A feeling of complete calm that I was where I should be in life at that exact time. Kairos. I owe the Brandens my life, even more so than Rand. I received a great gift from Rand through the Brandens. Now it is time for the Counter-gift. I intend to make Rand more radical than she ever dreamed of being. Just as Baudrillard made Foucault more radical than Foucault ever dreamed of being. Such is the counter-gift. I am out of my 5 posts for today and the way this software is I may not be able to post this either. So in that case I will do it tomorrow. You got Objectivism "through the Brandens." Which you came here first denigrating. Her "gift" to Nathaniel. Do you begin to understand how mixed up you are? Remember Barbara's "35th" rate intellect? Do you begin to understand that you are insane? How can you make Rand any more than Rand made herself? Double nuts. --Brant You got Objectivism "through the Brandens." Which you came here first denigrating. Am I to assume you have never had a teacher that you learned much from who was not an exceptionally intelligent person? Remember Barbara's "35th" rate intellect? I still think that. How smartdo you have to be to read verbatim a prepared lecture and answer catechism questions from Rand's fiction rather than the Bible? Do you begin to understand that you are insane? Insane is a legal definition which means that one has to be declared insane by the state. Since that is not the case I could sue you. That is, if you had anything to get. But people with nothing to get often shoot off their mouths like hot shot adolescents in a drive by, not because there is such a thing as free speech, but because they have nothing to lose in legal action. Be much more careful Brant. You know what you said about Foucault and AIDS and Mexican boys. You were laying low for awhile after the brutal hacking I received from objectivist lliving. I suspect you of being involved. No I don't think you have the smarts to do it yourself, but that's the way you operate. The above is probably going to put this in the garbage pile. Never mind. I have saved a copy. You keep on with this mfkng crap and you will be sorrier than the last time. Your name, attack on Foucault, irresponsible name-calling Brant Gaede, will circulate on the internet along with hacking, hacked, hacker. Do you want to keep this up since maybe something else won't go up? I am grateful forever that Barbara Branden came to Philadelphia every Tuesday night for 2 years to deliver the NBI Lectures. I used to have exact and well detailed notes, but no longer. A pity. Nathaniel in writing them probably had Rand at his elbow doing much of the dictating. He was not an originator of the material but a synthesizer, a condenser, the person who sifted it out of her fiction. This required enormous time and knowledge of her work. A genius? No, I think not, but so what, as Werner would say. He was the perfect person at the right time to lift Rand into a different kind of prominence. Interpreting whether he was a necessary or sufficient condition is an interesting game to play. It means nothing. He did it, and he has not been fully recognized for his achievement. Nice that he is being recognized here. And that the NBI Lectures are authentic Rand, edited and approved by herself. And lastly, How can you make Rand any more than Rand made herself? Double nuts. Watch me. LIsten and learn.
  8. You got Objectivism "through the Brandens." Which you came here first denigrating. Her "gift" to Nathaniel. Do you begin to understand how mixed up you are? Remember, Barbara's "35th" rate intellect? Do you begin to understand that you are insane? How can you make Rand any more than Rand made herself? Double nuts. --Brant She's going to do for Rand what Baudrillard did for Foucault. Making Rand more radical? I know. Let's change "existence exists" to "hyperreality simulates." That's our new axiom. Catchy, huh? Excellent! A perfect ready-made sound-bite. Existence exists is pretty sound bitey too eh. Rand is far more radical than even you folks have dreamed. Or Peikoff. Or Branden, Or....or....or....... Simulated hyperreality. Hyper simulated reality. Reality simulated hyperly. Fun huh!
  9. Rand through a Nietzsche filter

    You posted this nearly two months ago. Still waiting for you to "get into her style" ...Briefly. The style in which you write something must be a mirror of what you are writing about. Meyer in Twilight is writing about seduction. Her style is more seductive (to Muse and other rock music) than the seduction she is writing about. Rand's choppy, gestapo boot style that was panned by Chambers is perfect for the rusty, inefficient, clunky bureaucracy she is writing about. Her style mirrors that bureaucracy. Cosmoplis does this when Packer is in the limo start, stopping "moving in quarter inches" through the New York city traffic jam. It is soaring when he is projecting into the seagull in the sky. It is seductive when he is trying to get his wife to screw him just about anywhere each time he meets her. Sasha, that utterly wonderful book reviewer of a blogger does this for Nabokov's Lolita, so read her review of Lolita in her archives. http://silverfysh.wordpress.com/ Sasha is 22 years old and a Fillapina I believe. She is an extraordinary writer.
  10. No. Rand wanted her philosophy displayed exactly for the philosophy she saw it to be. Correct. It is stated above that two individuals hold themselves forth as expert, reliable expositors of what is Rand's philosophy Objectivism. But these individuals disagree on an essential issue (closed versus open system). The result is a contradiction. The Objectivist approach to contradictions is that they are the result of at least one false premise. What could be the false premise (or premises) here? Stephen, Both you and Janet are speculating; but do you really believe that without Branden and the NBI, Objectivism would have become a widespread movement? Absolutely it would not without NBI. It reached enough people that when the tapes came out there were those ready to listen. I went to Delaware in 62 to grad school. Again. I think I saw on the bulletin board somewhere that someone was advertising for anyone who wanted to do the tapes. I called the person, talked to her and she and a young man came tomy apartment. They wanted to do the tapes with me because I had done the lectures for 2 years, doing the Basic Principles twice. I knew it cold. I had it memorized by heart. I lived it to the minute. I was in grad school in the behavioral sciences thrown in with really smart psychology majors and I didn't know shit. I had burned all my bridges in public school teaching behind me. I didn't feel I had a choice but to study all the time and really learn the stuff. It was the very first time in my life that I couldn't con my way through courses and do OK. I couldn't. I was terrified. The only thing holding me together was objectivism. The only thing. You do not get that from reading Rand's fiction. If you read Nathaniel's book, he had endless personal tutoring from Rand about all his questions. discussions through the night. It never stopped for him. He went to Mew York with Barbara and Rand followed him. It is important to register the fact that she went from her beautiful home in California, the home O'Conner loved and his garden. If you have never had a garden that you loved you can't understand what she did to him, and what he gave up. Heller sees this in her biography when she quotes someone being so sad because here Frank was painting flowers instead of tending them and growing them and arranging them. and he was arranging windows for display. So sad. I think Rand knew she was never going to finish Atlas without him, and so she sacrificed everything else to be near him. He was her muse pure and simple. I don't think I was the only one so serious about objectivism. There had to have been others. And a handful is really all you need. Jesus only had 12 was it. Loyola only had 12 to start the Jesuits. The world happens by Events. Things do not develop linearly. They appear to because of our perceptual illusions but linearity is just an illusion. LIke those booklets that when you flutter the pages like a deck of cards the figures appear to be walking or running or.... NBI was an Event on the scene, unexpected, coming from elsewhere, unpredicted, unplanned, just a little 2 x 3 inch rectangle in the entertainment section of the Sunday Inquirer. And my mother who read every single death and birth notice saw it. I was reading Atlas at that exact time and I was enthralled. I was also quitting smoking on a deconditioning program I read about while I was reading Atlas. Think of the irony of that! Three Events that intersected in my life. Destiny. The moment of kairos as the Greeks said. Without that, no grad school, no thousands of things it enabled me to do because it was a particular push. Her fiction would never have done that for me. The only thing since I can compare it to was reading Foucault for the first time and feeling the light bulb go on, feeling all that I knew being ordered in a different way. A feeling of complete calm that I was where I should be in life at that exact time. Kairos. I owe the Brandens my life, even more so than Rand. I received a great gift from Rand through the Brandens. Now it is time for the Counter-gift. I intend to make Rand more radical than she ever dreamed of being. Just as Baudrillard made Foucault more radical than Foucault ever dreamed of being. Such is the counter-gift. I am out of my 5 posts for today and the way this software is I may not be able to post this either. So in that case I will do it tomorrow.
  11. Rand through a Nietzsche filter

    I am aware of Hicks's take on this. x-ray. A comparison and contrast lies within the Dialectical Discourse. Did you forget that I am not there? Janet, Of course you are "not there", (i. e. in the "Dialectical Discourse"). Before getting into that in detail in a separate post, a general remark: forum posts are always also posts to a 'public', i. e. they are not exclusively addressed to a specific poster. My link to Hicks's take on the issue is to be understood that way. From your prior posts I know that you think "Hicks sucks", but your personal opinion is irrelevant in the context in which I posted the link to his article: I think it offers ample material for further discussion. Has Chris also commented on your POV (for signaling interest in something does not necessarily result in further action). There also exists the possibility of you having misinterpreted as "interest" what may merely have been a polite answer on Sciabarra's part. I didn't misinterpret as I didn't have to interpret at all. Your comments are restored as the spam filter took them to be perused. You are free to link to as much misinformation as you want. Why don't you link to a real scholar, Babette Babich who also has graduate degrees in Germany altho an American. Many of her articles on Nietzsche are written in German and translated into English by herself., Her books, her journal on Nietzsche, interviews are all bilingual as the English ones she translates herself back into German. She writes also on Hannah Arendt and Heidegger. Hicks may be a good lecturer, - Penn State is it? - but he is not a world authority on Nietzsche as Babich is. Her understanding of him is intuitive,deep and "true" if I may say that, and comes from a long career reading Nietzsche. May I say you seem to have a real aversion to your fellow Germans when it comes to this subject. Any reason? You seem to have a real aversion to considering that more than one person can provide information or insight on any given topic; the "world authority", the "best", the "leader in the field" are the only ones worth listening to, everyone else is a fifth-rater, ---there's always only one.Foucault was top dog then pouf! Baudrillard knocked him out, like Hemingway and Mailer gamely swung for the Great Heavyweight American Novelist championship. Others have called you a guru-seeker, and it is easy to see why you were attracted to the early Ayn Rand movement - the stories of which are very interesting, by the way. Any reason? Remember that part in the Fountainhead when Dominique drags Wynand to the theatre to watch a very mediocre performance which Toohey had had praised in The Banner? NO? I'll refresh your memory then. To praise, award, and revere the mediocre in the place of excellence, is to destroy excellence. Hicks is adequate, but not of the caliber of Babich. But he doesn't need to be. Nietzsche is not his specialty. Nietzsche is Babich's specialty among others like Arendt who gave a series of lectures on Nietzsche at the New School in New York and Heidegger who reads through Nietzsche. Don't take my word for it, these are the major philosophers of our time on this subject. When you want to know something go to the top. Read Nietzsche first, not Hicks on Nietzsche. Then read Hicks if you so desire. But know that Babich exists and is considered the premier scholar on Nietzsche at the present time. I am sure she has said something about Hicks. Has Hicks said something about Babich or maybe he doesn't know she exists. Maybe he hasn't read the Journal on Nietzsche Babich started and published. Baudrillard did not "knock out" Foucault. He proved everyone of Foucault's points and made Foucault more radical, more Foucault than Foucault ever dreamed of being. Zizek is going to do the same with Hegel in his new book out in April. See dancer, you go off about something you know nothing about, have never read or studied and shoot off your mouth. All that does is make you sound stupid. And you are stupid for doing it. It says more about you than Foucault, Baudrillard and my posts and comments. BTW how are your chicklet teeth coming along? They sure are white. Garbage pile!
  12. Rand through a Nietzsche filter

    Seymourblogger, I skimmed it. I might look deeper later, but on first blush, I would give it a subtitle: Psychobabble Your Way To Liberal Bliss And Hating The True Bogeyman, The American Right. Authoritarianism is a great topic for delving into an important facet of the human mind, irrespective of left, right, religious, atheist, or otherwise. It's a pity to see partisan propaganda where ideas should be--but then again, this is the academic world funded by government handouts. At least I hope Altemeyer got tenure in exchange for selling out. Michael I guess you weren't kidding when you said you skimmed. Altemeyer took zero - 0 - funds from anyone to do his work. Not theory but questionaires, endlessly revised to be more precise for over 20 years. As you probably don't know, authoritarianism is the psychological counterpart to the political organization we all know and love and call fascism. This site is a good mini example of a fascist organized site with a group of people who follow the party line here. (This is bound to get me in the garbage pile again eh.) Lest you think I am partial to criticizing you all, The heavy hitting liberal site - The Dailykos - is the very worst offender having driven off a wave of really good posters when the brownshirts came to get them all, one by one by one. Needless to say I went to the camps too.
  13. Rand through a Nietzsche filter

    I am aware of Hicks's take on this. x-ray. A comparison and contrast lies within the Dialectical Discourse. Did you forget that I am not there? Janet, Of course you are "not there", (i. e. in the "Dialectical Discourse"). Before getting into that in detail in a separate post, a general remark: forum posts are always also posts to a 'public', i. e. they are not exclusively addressed to a specific poster. My link to Hicks's take on the issue is to be understood that way. From your prior posts I know that you think "Hicks sucks", but your personal opinion is irrelevant in the context in which I posted the link to his article: I think it offers ample material for further discussion. Has Chris also commented on your POV (for signaling interest in something does not necessarily result in further action). There also exists the possibility of you having misinterpreted as "interest" what may merely have been a polite answer on Sciabarra's part. I didn't misinterpret as I didn't have to interpret at all. Your comments are restored as the spam filter took them to be perused. You are free to link to as much misinformation as you want. Why don't you link to a real scholar, Babette Babich who also has graduate degrees in Germany altho an American. Many of her articles on Nietzsche are written in German and translated into English by herself., Her books, her journal on Nietzsche, interviews are all bilingual as the English ones she translates herself back into German. She writes also on Hannah Arendt and Heidegger. Hicks may be a good lecturer, - Penn State is it? - but he is not a world authority on Nietzsche as Babich is. Her understanding of him is intuitive,deep and "true" if I may say that, and comes from a long career reading Nietzsche. May I say you seem to have a real aversion to your fellow Germans when it comes to this subject. Any reason?
  14. atlas shrugged, the movie

    No. No more than a movie of Pride and Prejudice or LOTR "inspires" people to read the books. The movies may have that affect on some, of course. Indeed, I only read P&P recently after watching all of the remakes, some more than a few times. I also read Northanger Abbey after watching The Jane Austen Book Club. But really, such movies are typically made for fans. Do you think that the 2009 Star Trek movie boosted sales of DS9 on DVD? In point of fact, I just bought three Star Trek role playing manuals and a Tholian cruiser, but I was already a fan. I think that applies to Atlas, also. Some will be motivated, truly indeed, but, no, largely the movie was made and sold to a precommitted viewership. Because they made a stupid movie out of it. Lousy script, lousy directing, lousy actors, what else to expect but a lousy movie. I bet a great animation one could be made of it. And oh you know about fanfic. How about that. 18,000 plus for Twilight. And now Fifty (MOTU) by James best seller. I've done 2 of them. Check my irresistible destiny link. Bel Ami crossed with House of MIrth. Porno of course. and a Twilight one also porno.
  15. Rand through a Nietzsche filter

    (C. Sciabarra and E. Mozes added two interesting comments as well). I am aware of Hicks's take on this. x-ray. A comparison and contrast lies within the Dialectical Discourse. Did you forget that I am not there? I've talked with Chris about this. He is interested in my POV. Did you forget also about agreeing and disagreeing in an exchange of ideas?