NATIONAL REVIEW NEW HIT PIECE ON RAND

[kiaer.ts]

Um, that's "lowlives" Phil.

Subject: Don't Judge a Book by the Stains and Splatter on its Cover

> the miserable company of skeptics and elitists and misanthropes and hole-pokers and haters loom over us far more malevolently than any masses...I have had twenty five years of experience in union and blue-collar jobs. I would much rather sit next to any random former coworker of mine than a random Objectionist on a six hour train trip [Ted]

Ted, I sympathize and there is an element of truth to what you say. However, I think you have overstated the case: The issue is one of the sample size and the nature of the sample. Yes, I know that you may have additional small samples, but don't make the mistake of judging "Objectivists" in any large measure by the people who post on these discussion boards. Especially after they have been existence for a few years and the benevolence has been replaced by personal hostility and grudges. And too many of the better psyches have become disgusted and either left or just lurk.

The level of knowledge of the philosophy, social skills, psychological balance is much better on average for example at summer conferences. And, as someone who has started campus clubs and community clubs in the East, Midwest, and West Coast, I can also tell you that most Objectivists are far better balanced and integrated personalities than a number of those who like to post a hundred times a week and tear down others. Remember that Objectivism attracts for good reasons but it also attracts people who want to feel superior, who want a stick to beat the world, who are Nietzscehans, who want to feel like everyone else is their inferior, who are on a power trip or want to impress people or feel like they are big froggie in a tiny rivulet.

I've met a lot of wonderful people among Oists over the years. Remember that these lists tend to not be moderated, so there is a certain type of person drawn to them.

Not everybody, obviously, but the trolls and sloppy thinkers and "haters" tend to play a disproportionate role.

Think of trying to have a conversation in a bar, and a loud drunk comes over and keeps shouting in your ear because no one has bounced him or told him not to.

Ah, yes, the loud drunks.

I have met plenty of bad Objectionist types outside these fora. But the problem may be that most of the "good" Objectivists are leading real lives, not participating in fora and so forth.

You might read the discussion here of whether O'ists are on average the same as, better, or worse than non-Objectivists morally.

A lightly moderated forum not run by ARI clones would be a valuable commodity. I wonder why TAS doesn't sponsor one.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Mikee]

The conversation reminds me of this article by Robert Bidinotto:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Bidinotto/Nobodys_Perfect.shtml

Years ago after an Aikido class I brought up Ayn Rand, the instructor (who also taught at a local college) upon hearing the word "Objectvist" said "All Objectivists are assholes". That ended the discussion. I wondered why he felt that way at the time, I don't anymore. A very vocal representative sample ARE assholes.

[kiaer.ts]

The conversation reminds me of this article by Robert Bidinotto:

http://rebirthofreas...s_Perfect.shtml

Years ago after an Aikido class I brought up Ayn Rand, the instructor (who also taught at a local college) upon hearing the word "Objectvist" said "All Objectivists are assholes". That ended the discussion. I wondered why he felt that way at the time, I don't anymore. A very vocal representative sample ARE assholes.

Yes, a great essay. Following the links back from the thread it generated to earlier threads (about Joseph Rowlands banning people) one sees a reference to the then 1,700 members of SoloHQ.

[Philip Coates]

> Um, that's "lowlives" Phil.

Um, if we're going to be pedantic Ted, no it's not.

A "low life" is a person who lives a very low kind of life, so that "lowlives" would mean that one person led more than one life. Sort of like a cat, maybe...or a schizophrenic?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

> Um, that's "lowlives" Phil.

Um, if we're going to be pedantic Ted, no it's not.

A "low life" is a person who lives a very low kind of life, so that "lowlives" would mean that one person led more than one life. Sort of like a cat, maybe...or a schizophrenic?

And I suppose that since housewives usually only have one house each, the word housewife has no plural?

Face it Phil, you are outclassed.

[Selene]

Does that make housewives like sheep?

Kinky.

[Philip Coates]

> Um, that's "lowlives" Phil...I suppose that since housewives usually only have one house each, the word housewife has no plural?

Ted, usage is not always consistent in forming plurals, but in the case of lowlife, lowlifes is the most commonly accepted usage.

Here's the definitive dictionary of the English language, the OED ---> noun, plural, -lifes, (occasionally) -lives.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

> Um, that's "lowlives" Phil...I suppose that since housewives usually only have one house each, the word housewife has no plural?

Ted, usage is not always consistent in forming plurals, but in the case of lowlife, lowlifes is the most commonly accepted usage.

Here's the definitive dictionary of the English language, the OED ---> noun, plural, -lifes, (occasionally) -lives.

You do realize that (although I would, myself, use "lowlives") this was simply a joke occasioned by your fear of being corrected over misspelling Nietzschean?

[DavidMcK]

The purpose and function of the train wreck is to give a compressed stylized vision of the stylized compressed vision represented by 'Atlas Shrugged'. In other words the train wreck story is a miniature version of the whole idea of 'the strike'. Notice that all the decision makers who could have stopped the train wreck have been removed, or will lose their jobs and livelihood if they decide to assert themselves and stop the train from entering the tunnel. The conductor is drunk, the British intellectual is demanding nationalization of the railroad, the people in power have been placed there by the passengers, power has been transferred from the front of the train to the back, and they run smack dab into another train placed their by other bureaucrats. It is all very symbolic and clever the way she integrates this story with the totality of the novel. I admit it bothered me until I realized how true it was: e.g. Nazi Germany got the kind of government they were demanding, and the intellectuals and average person went along with the idea that the main choice was some form of dictatorship (fascism vs. socialism), so who was responsible and or guilty for what the Germans had to suffer through? The Nazis were legally elected.

[Philip Coates]

> You do realize that (although I would, myself, use "lowlives") this was simply a joke occasioned by your fear of being corrected over misspelling Nietzschean? [Ted]

Whooops. Sometimes I miss jokes.

...So I guess all my arduous research on the plural of 'still life paintings' will go for naughty?

[kiaer.ts]

> You do realize that (although I would, myself, use "lowlives") this was simply a joke occasioned by your fear of being corrected over misspelling Nietzschean? [Ted]

Whooops. Sometimes I miss jokes.

...So I guess all my arduous research on the plural of 'still life paintings' will go for naughty?

As I noted elsewhere, you need not have gone further than wikipedia, where they embolden the plural "still lifes."

[Mikee]

"nought"

[kiaer.ts]

I think he meant "knotty."