Love in Bloom

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Angie,

You are a very generous person.

But yes, he ultimately did wish us well and it doesn't fall on deaf ears so I do acknowledge that.

Do you mean something like this from The Fountainhead?

"I did want to see you two together for once," said Toohey, holding a delicate cup balanced nonchalantly. "Perfectly silly of me, isn't it? There's really nothing to make an occasion of, but then I'm silly and sentimental at times, like all of us. My compliments on your choice, Catherine. I owe you an apology, I never suspected you of such good taste. You and Peter make a wonderful couple. You'll do a great deal for him. You'll cook his Cream of Wheat, launder his handkerchiefs and bear his children, though of course the children will all have measles at one time or another, which is a nuisance."

(...)

"Katie and I met seven years ago," said Keating defensively. "And it was love at first sight of course?"

"Yes," said Keating and felt himself being ridiculous.

"It must have been spring," said Toohey. "It usually is. There's always a dark movie theater, and two people lost to the world, their hands clasped together—but hands do perspire when held too long, don't they? Still, it's beautiful to be in love. The sweetest story ever told—and the tritest. Don't turn away like that, Catherine. We must never allow ourselves to lose our sense of humor."

He smiled. The kindliness of his smile embraced them both. The kindliness was so great that it made their love seem small and mean, because only something contemptible could evoke such immensity of compassion.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Maestro, that was brutal. Direct hit. He's been Toohey-fied

Angie- just to be clear, you cannot have my robot underpants. But I've heard you can get them at Kohl's.

rde

You can always use a hammer without anyone bitching. The trick is, you wrap in in velvet first.

[CNA]

Mike,

I'm truly sorry to say but I haven't read the Fountainhead and I don't know who the main characters are, their stories, what role they play, etc. But I will be reading it soon I am sure. It was at the request of Victor who told me I would really enjoy the book and to read it. But after reading the quote, yes, I agree. Damage is not the happiest of people and his own cynicism, his hatred, and his own contradiction from the very first post he put up on this thread about not wanting to be viewed as such.

But don't take me as being too generous with Damage. I see right through him and I know what his intentions are. But I do acknowledge his well wishing, although his well wishes are seriously diminished by all the other shit he was trying to do. That's why I said, I acknowledge that. But all the other shit he was trying to do.....amazing

I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I wanted him to know that what he was saying, all of it, was being heard loud and clear. When I say all of it, I mean all of it. There is well wishes there but those well wishes are lessened greatly by his ultimate behavior on this thread. But nonetheless, "all of it" has been acknowledged by me.

Angie

Edited September 27, 2006 by CNA

[CNA]

Rich,

I'm so bummed. LOL But hey, I have a Kohls right down the street, literally like one light up. Hell, I got my robot boxers after all. Thanks.

Angie

[Rich Engle]

They served me quite well last night, for what short duration I had any use for them.

I wore them to work. They makes you feel strangely...empowered.

One more round of "Naughty Showgirl" this week and... if you don't see me around after this weekend, send out a team. I can put her off for a few hours Sat. night because we're going to see Porgy and Bess, but still.

rde

I need a nap.

[Victor Pross]

The Fountainhead is my favorite book from Rand’s fiction works. I must have read it about seven times now in the last 15 years. Now while I fancy myself more of a Howard Roark man [with a few jagged edges and a wicked sense of humor] I find Ellsworth Toohey a fascinating character--in a morbid sort of way.

Toohey is thoroughly and consciously evil---a masterful intellectual manipulator and spiritual destroyer, a certain archetype found in history’s pages. Toohey is not a creator, but a parasite. He is a parasite who has taken a sundry patch of the worst ideas--as formulated by various thinkers and philosophers---to dominate and control his followers and the public at large. Toohey doesn’t want to physically harm people --who would, no doubt, defy and rebel against such abuse. It is so much more ideal if a man brings you a whip and begs you to beat him with it. How did Toohey do it: control in the realm of ideas and emotions.

Toohey is---as Ron Merrill described him, a “Moriarty of the mind” or a “brilliant specimen of demonology”---having as his arsenal a grasp of the “metaphysical needs of man” and a plethora of ideologies to serve up to his spiritually starved followers. “I inherited the fruits of their efforts and I shall be the one who’ll see the great dream come true!” Toohey boasts. The “great dream,” in this case, is to establish a worldwide collectivism.

(NOTE FROM MSK: Ron Merrill never wrote the words attributed to him and Rand's Toohey statement is misquoted. The correct is: "I inherited the fruit of their efforts and I shall be the one who'll see the great dream made real.")

Toohey seeks power, and his means to achieve it is not through armed troops or physical force, but via the power of dogma, of faith, ideas and collectivism—of ideology. Unlike his real life counter parts, Toohey seems bent on destroying others as an end in itself. When I say “destroying others” I don’t mean physically, but rather, to destroy self-esteem, a feeling of efficacy, of self-worth, talent...or anything else that is “the good” as exhibited by others. He is utterly evil.

Howard Roark, the book’s protagonist, is NOT one of Toohey’s targets, because Toohey knows that an intellectually independent man like Roark *cannot* be twisted, broken and controlled intellectually—like the parasitical second-hander Peter Keating who, at the end, is a wreck and waste.

Toohey “priced no object” when it came to being a spiritual killer. World domination is one thing, but even undercutting a budding romance between his niece and Keating makes for a lovely distraction. Let’s take a wee little look at how cleaver and underhanded Toohey is.

Michael made use of a nice little excerpt from The Fountainhead, and it is also instructive here to serve as an example of what I want to get across. Now observe how Toohey uses flattery at just the right time---while seeking to implant the seeds of doubt in the young lovers:

"I did want to see you two together for once," said Toohey, holding a delicate cup balanced nonchalantly. "Perfectly silly of me, isn't it? There's really nothing to make an occasion of, but then I'm silly and sentimental at times, like all of us. My compliments on your choice, Catherine. I owe you an apology, I never suspected you of such good taste. You and Peter make a wonderful couple. You'll do a great deal for him. You'll cook his Cream of Wheat, launder his handkerchiefs and bear his children, though of course the children will all have measles at one time or another, which is a nuisance."

(...)

"Katie and I met seven years ago," said Keating defensively. "And it was love at first sight of course?"

"Yes," said Keating and felt himself being ridiculous.

"It must have been spring," said Toohey. "It usually is. There's always a dark movie theater, and two people lost to the world, their hands clasped together—but hands do perspire when held too long, don't they? Still, it's beautiful to be in love. The sweetest story ever told—and the tritest. Don't turn away like that, Catherine. We must never allow ourselves to lose our sense of humor."

He smiled. The kindliness of his smile embraced them both. The kindliness was so great that it made their love seem small and mean, because only something contemptible could evoke such immensity of compassion."

“The sweetest story ever told—and the tritest.” Soft touch--and then bam! Downbeat!

**

Let’s take a look at some key statements side-by-side and in slow motion so that the principle is understood. A section from the excerpt:

“You and Peter make a wonderful couple. You'll do a great deal for him. You'll cook his Cream of Wheat, launder his handkerchiefs and bear his children, though of course the children will all have measles at one time or another, which is a nuisance."

Observe Toohey’s complement, the “Softening touch” and then his casual and blithe Downbeat tone, purposefully making the effort to douse the hopeful romantics of their optimistic outlook regarding their future as a couple.

Now we have seen this type of undercutting on this thread from Damage—an apt fantasy name is seems. And while I hardly place Damage in the same camp as a Toohey, there was nevertheless a similar attempt at manipulation and undercutting. Take a look at Damage’s first post—clear out of the blue sky—on this thread:

"I, Curmudgeon". Seen the film. I didn't audition for it because I didn't want to be associated with being a complete cynic. But, someone else did. Wonder who? Hmmmm. Inside joke.”

Like Toohey, observe in the following quotes Damage’s use of the “Softening tones” which is then followed up with a “Downbeat tone”, as I call it. Let’s take a look at some of Damage’s remarks:

“I've said to Victor in private e-mail that I'm very HAPPY for him. This relationship he's developing with you has GREAT potential. [NOW HERE COMES THE DOWNBEAT] But, quite frankly, this is your private business. Here I am commenting on publicly professed love from two people who are in the mere gestation period of a relationship (which, let me repeat, has GREAT potential). In my humble opinion you're both jumping the gun and are over-doing it. Yes, romantic relationships can start on the internet. But, please, folks: get a grip on reality. You've not concretized your relationship. At this stage, this relationship can't be fully REAL to either one of you. Angie, to get some perspective on this..."

And this:

“Engaging in social metaphysics, rationizations and assumptions are the kind of things I would've accused both of you of doing if I wasn't holding back. It's evident that my compliments are falling on deaf ears because I'm willing to be a wee bit critical.”

And this:

“Notice I haven't said I think he shouldn't continue this with you. I've made it clear that this has great potential. I just suggest caution.”

And this:

“You're developing very strong emotions of hope. This is the hope that you can both live up to who you say you are. It's just too easy to be anyone you want on the net.”

More:

“We've already had Gary reveal that he has been carrying a torch for Angie. What was that *really* all about? It appears you, Angie, like these internet romances.”

Observe Damage’s alternating use of Softening tones and Downbeat tones. He was very good at it!

The point here, however, is simply this: the Softening tones are not to be taken in isolation as genuine benevolence or heart-felt well wishing: it was all employed to carry out damage and doubt. It was designed to implant doubt in the minds of the lovers on this post [that's Angie and me] so as to undercut a blooming romance. There is no good-will here. It is that ugly little green monster called ENVY.

But maybe that's just the cynic in me. Right, Damage?

Let the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world serve as a cautionary moral tale---before we drink our next ideological cup of Kool-aid—OR fall for all the little self-doubts, the supposedly innocuous little nay-says and negativities that they try to implant. It is the little third rate Toohey-types that we have to be on the lookout for—we, who always give the “benefit of the doubt”—we, who always give that “second chance” to people who drain our life pin-prick by pin-prick.

**

[feed-back and discussion on this post about this issue is welcomed! I also welcome Damage to join in]

Edited July 31, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[CNA]

I really liked this and I'm impressed. Very good job, Honey. You pointed out much and thoroughly explained it and "showed" what you were talking about. It's as plain as day. I really liked the side by side comparison. Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you to Mike for posting the Toohey excerpts as that is what prompted Victor's post and then mine. I haven't read the book yet but I will for sure as my interest has been peaked. Honestly, Honey, there's not much open for debate. It's as plain as day in my opinion.

Toohey doesn’t want to physically harm people --who would, no doubt, defy and rebel against such abuse. It is so much more ideal if a man brings you a whip and begs you to beat him with it. How did Toohey do it: in the realm of ideas and emotions.

I unfortunately have much experience with these types of individuals. One being my father who was also a master manipulator in the way of "ideas and emotions." My sister was another who used physical force, threats, and manipulation as well. My mother is in a whole other category in itself and covers the whole gamut minus physical force. My father was extremely good at it. Damage is good but nowhere near as good as my father was. I can spot these types coming from a mile away. Once you see them for what they truly are and what their true intentions are, there is no mistaking it. It is forever burned into your mind and you can see right through them. Worse yet, if they have the look of joy on their face while doing it, even more disturbing to witness and observe. To the point it makes your skin crawl and you cringe in complete disgust and start to back away. These latter types are the most evil and unfortunately I've also known these types and have seen them in action. Tom is one of them and I've told you about him.

“I inherited the fruits of their efforts and I shall be the one who’ll see the great dream come true!” Toohey boasts. The “great dream,” in this case, is to establish a worldwide collectivism.

Unfortunately I know this one all too well as I am sure you are aware already. Not so nice when people manipulate you out of your hard earned money and efforts of survival. They manipulate you to get what they want; such as, a free ride. The end results were having the emotions of pity and guilt. Once they've manipulated you to this point and you are feeling pity for them and have feelings of guilt and trying to make you believe that they truly can't sustain their own life, they can pretty much do whatever they want, including getting you to willingly give your money to them, to support them, to give up your own life and your future for the sake of them. Another one I know all too well with my father.

When I say “destroying others” I don’t mean physically, but rather, to destroy self-esteem, a feeling of efficacy, of self-worth, talent or anything else that is “the good” as exhibited by others.

Another one that is extremely accurate. That is until the day you see it for what it is and say enough is enough. I've had it. It won't work any longer. All you have to do is make the choice to say no and walk away. Showing them that they can't control you, can't manipulate you. You won't allow it.

Howard Roark, the book’s protagonist, is NOT one of Toohey’s targets, because Toohey knows that an intellectually independent man like Roark *cannot* be twisted, broken and controlled intellectually—like the parasitical second-hander Peter Keating who, at the end, is a wreck and waste.

You got that right. Cannot be broken, controlled or twisted. They're too strong, intellectually independent. You definitely hit the nail on the head with this one as well.

The point here, however, is simply this: the Softening tones are not to be taken in isolation as genuine benevolence or heart-felt well wishing: it was all employed to carry out damage and doubt. It was designed to implant doubt in the minds of the lovers on this post [that's Angie and me] so as to undercut a blooming romance. There is no good-will here. It is that ugly little green monster called ENVY.

Honey, you see it as envy. I see it as hatred and wanting to destroy that which is good, wanting to destroy any form of happiness. What type of person wants to destroy the happiness of another or of a couple? The man that detests life. There are too many of these people walking around. Unfortunately I have also known many and I have also been the reciever of their bullshit one too many times. That is until I said, Fuck all of you people, I'm outta here, Enough is enough and walk away. It's that simple.

When you do finally find some shred of happiness, even the smallest amount, they come in and knock you down in any way they can, any attempt to take it from you. Some do it overtly while others like Damage do it in such a subtle way as to not get caught red handed. But he got caught this time. They truly don't want you happy. They want you to suffer. Suffer just as they do. Do you still think Damage or people that were like my father, Tom, etc., don't belong in the Toohey camp or any of those that are supporters of them? You better believe they do and anyone that supports these types. I'm sure we all here at OL know where to find a lot of them.

Let the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world serve as a cautionary moral tale---before we drink our next ideological cup of Kool-aid—OR fall for all the little self-doubts, the supposedly innocuous little nay-says and negativities that they try to implant. It is the little third rate Toohey-types that we have to be on the lookout for—we, who always give the “benefit of the doubt”—we, who always give that “second chance” to people who drain our life pin-prick by pin-prick.

Thank you for posting this, Honey. Thank you, Mike, for also posting the initial excerpt that prompted the follow-ups.

Angie

[Victor Pross]

A Canadian man and an American women--a mixed marriage! I wonder what the children will look like?

[CNA]

Honey, you're the artist, take our pictures, combine the two, and see what you think. What I've seen of your work, you're very very good and you would probably get it pretty damn close. I'm a wee bit curious myself.

[Rich Engle]

If someone asked me for a ninety-second elevator summary on Toohey, it's simple: low self-esteem.

A lot of, most, roads lead to self-esteem. Think about it-- low self-worth, low efficacy, in a decent mind (he was not a dull blade). What to do? To paraphrase Victor, become a parasite.

It's very tragic and damaging, what those kinds of people are capable of. It's a central theme, heck, it's practically speaking the central theme of Rand's work.

Now there's some hijacking..but you guys started it.

I read Fountainhead the week after I completed Atlas. That was a pretty good thing, because it required less endurance. Quite enjoyable that way.

[Victor Pross]

I did a sketch...hey, what the hell! It's Ernest Borgnine! [kidding] ;)

Rich,

I agree with you. I have also noted that there are a lot of people who approach Objectivism as a…er…religion [you know what I’m saying] and thus take many of its precepts as ethical mandates—duties [and in the process fail to implement the philosophy correctly].

One such example would be: “Thou shall be productive!” Well, where does that leave the poor self-proclaimed “Objectivist” who is not really productive, who is merely a job-holder and has no particular set of skills and talents? Hmmm, let’s see…those are the folks that become crusading head-bashing polemists, the nascent moralizer, the busy-body who proscribes people’s lives, brow-beating and chastising them. This is their desparate clasp at some kind of “control” since they themselves feel so out of control. These are the people one would counter with the classic “Get a life!”

Wasn’t it Nathanial Branden who said that ‘self-concept is self destiny’…or something to that effect.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

“Now there's some hijacking. but you guys started it.”

Hey, what I heard from Damage is that YOU are responsible for hijacking—the hijacking of planes and crashing them into buildings. I was supposed to get all moral on your ass, according to Damage. Now come down here so I can bitch slap you for those naughty beliefs.

Victor

[Rich Engle]

I think we're fully hijacked, now...

Here, let's keep it a bit alive... three word recommendation: Horny Goat Weed. Hoofa, esp. if both parties involved take it an hour prior to getting the groove on. Nasty business.

Anyway...

Nathaniel Branden has written a number of things very much like what you mentioned meaning pretty much the same thing, from what I recall.

I don't underrate people that just work "regular" jobs. I consider that productive. But I'm with you on the shrill screamers, and the armchair quarterbacks.

EDIT, just saw... Oh, really? Get moral on me? There's a treat. I love moralizers-- I just microwaved one for lunch.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Victor Pross]

“I don't underrate people that just work "regular" jobs. I consider that productive.”

Clarification, I don’t underrate people who hold regular jobs either—I’m speaking only of those people who are so dissatisfied with their work [and life] and seek to fill a void by becoming what I call “cause people”—any cause--so as to fill that nagging hollowness. That’s were you may find moralizers and cult members.

[Rich Engle]

Ah, understood, Victor.

I sympathize with people who are truly stuck (at least for a time) in jobs they hate; having to support their families and such, but you are right: if you don't like your job, either suck it up, or better yet, think about how and what you need to do in order to change that.

Sure, I get your point... the ones who port their rage and control issues over to other areas.

I think you see this a lot in middle-management types... They're the ones I've always had the most trouble with in the business world. Mostly I think the middle positions are useless, and lately, so does most of the business world-- that's why they have done away with so many of them. I learned this the hard way and that's one reason why now I put myself in a place where I report directly to the owner. There are a core group others in my "lieutenant" type position, but none of us have authority over one another.

So anyway, you do better with the Horny Goat weed if you get it in you for a month or so.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Victor Pross]

Rich, you shared your strory about how you found a relationship via the cyber world, and thanks for that. Where are all the other tales-yet-to-be-told on this thread regarding "love and found"? People, don't be shy and come forward. ;)

[CNA]

Hey, you guys. I agree. It has everything to do with self-esteem and how you use your mind. If you use your mind "correctly" and the way you are supposed to, this is the key to building self-esteem. And the rest from there will follow. I have personal experience with this as well and HOW I was able to build my self-esteem up on my own, although I didn't know it at the time and what was ultimately going to happen which was a whole lot and one hell of an intellectual journey of major discovery. But what I started at 16 was the key that unlocked the door to so much. I've been going full throttle ever since. I don't have much time to write so maybe more later on this whole self-esteem issue.

I also want to say something in regards to control freaks. I've again known many very very close up. Control freaks are those that have no control over their own life so they try to control others. I have a friend that is becoming a former control freak and it's quite interesting to talk with him. He's aware that he is a control freak and has admitted it. But he has started that same process I started when I was 16, many, many months ago.....almost a year maybe, 8 months. He thoroughly enjoys what he started and I'm very happy for him.

But he's told me that he no longer has a desire to control people, situations, etc. He told me that he finally feels that he has control over his own life, his own choices, his own actions. And has said strangely enough that controlling behavior towards others has pretty much been eliminated. He's turned that control inward, control over his choices, control over his actions, control over his life. He said it's quite liberating for him !! He is a wonderful and I'm ecstatic to hear that he's finally getting control over his own life. This is my friend Rick. I find it very interesting to talk with him about many different subjects. It's mostly about him though and his life, things he's discovering about himself, etc., and I enjoy it thoroughly. This is just his perspective on why "HE" wanted to control other people. Of course, individuality, etc., so this may not be the case for someone else and why they may want to control someone or something, etc. But this is what we've talked about. I thoroughly enjoy his company when he comes to my house. We can talk for hours and hours. He's a great guy.

Angie

[Victor Pross]

Honey, your friend Rick, remember...you can watch, but no touching.

[CNA]

LMAO. Oh, you're bad...hehehehehe.

Honey, he's gay "right now." I put that in parens because that is another area we've talked about at length. I'm curious to know the end result of that process he started when it comes to that issue and what the ultimate outcome will be.

[Victor Pross]

Oh, he's gay? Okay, not that there is anything wrong with that! ;)

[Guest Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Note from Administrator: The following is part of a post that started a heated and unrelated tangent discussion on another thread, so this part got moved here along with the pertinent posts. The post where the part came from is here. The quoted part is from a post by Victor here.)

Damage,

There is no nice way to put this so I’m just going to come out and say it. You have insinuated in private email that I am, in effect, the personal hand-puppet of MSK who is feeding his ideas into me, and that I have fallen under the spell of a beautiful woman for whom I have a tempered my views. You moan the loose of a friend, the “old Victor” that you had formally known to be a more in-your-face fighting Objectivist. I’ll state it for the record, here and now, none of this is true. I am under the spell of a beautiful woman, and but not in the manner you have suggested, which is just more groundless conjecturing shoot-from-the hip and spout from the ass bullshit.

With regard to your love life. Quite your shadow boxing, it makes you look so insecure. I've said repeatedly that I'm happy you met Angie. Both of you asked for my thoughts. I gave you my thoughts in personal e-mails. You still wanted me to make them public. I did. Then you started your shadow boxing. Angie pulled out her imaginary sword and started swinging at invisible ghosts. You need to stop this insecurity.

To Angie's credit she did acknowledge what I said and is doing a good job at moving on.

[CNA]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved to here from another thread. It used to be here.)

Damage,

Angie pulled out her imaginary sword and started swinging at invisible ghosts. You need to stop this insecurity.

To Angie's credit she did acknowledge what I said and is doing a good job at moving on.

ROFLMAO. Damage, I'm laughing my ass off at what you said. Since YOU'VE brought me up again and taken a jab at me, who's the one who hasn't moved on here? Hmmm....only obvious. I just so have to comment. Damage, it was self-evident on that thread but all of it was acknowledged. I didn't like the implantation of doubts in the very first post on that thread in an attempt to discredit Victor. And then the doozy one was calling me an Internet Ho, laughing even harder now, as you don't even know me nor have you read a great majority of my posts nor have I talked with you in private but you still had the nerve to sling mud my way that I was an Internet Ho. ROFLMAO That's still the funniest fucking thing I've heard in a long time. It takes a hell of a lot more than that to piss me off and to push my buttons.

Your jab at me now is only obvious as to what your intent is. This is between you and Victor but you still took a jab at me in an attempt to push my buttons. Me upset over it, ROFLMAO. I've found you to be quite comical and entertaining and my entertainment is at your own expense. This is between you and Victor and your deteriorating friendship or whatever is left of it. Aside from the bullshit that went on in that one thread, I have not taken any jabs at you nor do I want to because it is a waste of my time to intentionally push people's buttons. I have better things to do than to waste my time and energy on unproductive activities as this post will be cut short very quickly.

This is between you and Victor, not me and Damage and Victor.

Angie

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved to here from another thread. It used to be here.)

Victor wrote to Wayne Simmons (Damage, Inc):

You have insinuated in private email that I am, in effect, the personal hand-puppet of MSK who is feeding his ideas into me, and that I have fallen under the spell of a beautiful woman for whom I have tempered my views.

Oh God! The jig's up!

Woe is me!

Disgracefully exposed as a John Galt wannabe!!!

Come on, Angie. We have to move on and find another victim and stop his motor...

Sniff... sniff...

Michael

[Victor Pross]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved to here from another thread. It used to be here. The issue dealt with at the start below is from a post on the other thread here.)

Damage,

Now, you state that I have not—not even once---have I ever disagreed with Dr. John Ridpath or Yaron Brook when I was in their presence. Damage, whether I have or have not disagreed with these men doesn’t mean anything. How is that a standard for anything? My definition of “individualism” does not include arbitrarily disagreeing with people for its own sake, for the sake of being a contrarian. But you being a first-class polemist, you may think that head-budding is consistent with the principles of Objectivism, but it isn’t really. In your world, I have failed to sufficiently “disagree” with others and that means I have failed to think independently? In the words of my beloved, that’s just more “meta-social bullshit.” I agree.

You give yourself away by the very language you employ --and the things you focus on in your “refutation” of me. You even find is necessary to name-drop “Barbara Branden” in your post above. Social Meta. What’s next? A personal autobiography of the famous people you have encountered over the years?

You see, I am not concerned about “agreeing” or “disagreeing” with people as a first-line consideration. That’s your gig. What are your “disagreements," after all, if there isn’t an audience for it? In world of values, that’s why, no doubt, you saw me as an ill-behaved Objectivist when I refused to step into the ring and box Rich's ears over his religiosity. You gave me a through thrashing for this. I was being a “bad Objectivist” for not carving out Rich a new asshole—just like the good old days. You expected me, in the name of “loyalty to my values," to engage a fight I wasn’t interested in--and then thereafter you characterized it as a “betrayal” of you! Jesus! Am I the only one here who can’t help but see the absurdity of this?

How did this shit start? Let's look at the chain of events: after the posting of the Perigo caricature—PRISTO! here you are under the fantasy name of “Damage” to correct a wrong and save the day! Too bad you couldn't come in threw a window. Tell me, did you get your cape caught in the telephone booth on the way over? Look at me! Look at me! Don't get me wrong, Damage, I like people looking at me once in a while--but at the things I create and produce--not damage and destruction.

Let's entertain your standard of value for a moment: I have been very disagreeable on certain subjects—even very pissy—to my host, MSK, and have stated my disagreements openly for all to see—that includes Barbara Branden—quite a few times. And that was because I sincerely disagreed. Damage, do tell us, please, of the occasions where you have disagreed with the Lord…er…sorry, Lindsay Perigo.

I know—as well as you do—that securing the good graces of Lindsay and company is mandate one with you, while I don’t give a shit what they [or anybody here] thinks of me. I do not think in terms of “my tribe is better than your tribe” type of format. Look at your ridiculous posts and your private emails as you try to establish the credits and merits of SLOP over OL. Jesus H. Christ, you couldn’t be speaking the wrong language to the wrong person than to me on that one. Who the hell do you think you have been speaking to in those 13 years? Do you know anything about me? Christ, I think Angie and MSK have a better idea of who I am than you. Actually, they do.

Let's move along...

Taking things into context regarding Ridpath and Brook: the one occasion, Damage—one occasion—that you and I saw Yaroon Brook speak was when he was delivering a lecture entitled “In Moral Defense of Israel.” Given the delimited subject matter—and the subject matter covered--of the lecture given, I found nothing to be disagreeable over. Further more, I have studied under John Ridpath at York University and during tutorials I was very disagreeable. Does that make you happy?

Finally, regarding Angie and me: No Wayne, I have never asked you for feed-back regarding us. I don’t have a clue as to what the hell you are talking about. I have been very vocal in protesting your reducing my love life to a Toast Master debate. From the very moment when I excitedly told you of Angie—and of our promising romance in the making—you were instantaneously down on it, you were negative, very “skeptical.” And it is now a matter of public record where your ill-will and back-peddling can be seen on the “Love in Bloom” thread.

Now what have you to say about war?

-Victor-

[Guest Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved to here from another thread. It used to be here.)

Damage,

Now, you state that I have not—not even once---have I ever disagreed with Dr. John Ridpath or Yaron Brook when I was in their presence. Damage, whether I have or have not disagreed with these men doesn’t mean anything. How is that a standard for anything? My definition of “individualism” does not include arbitrarily disagreeing with people for its own sake, for the sake of being a contrarian. But you being a first-class polemist, you may think that head-budding is consistent with the principles of Objectivism, but it isn’t really. In your world, I have failed to sufficiently “disagree” with others and that means I have failed to think independently? In the words of my beloved, that’s just more “meta-social bullshit.” I agree.

What I see here is your attempt at rationalization. You had 13 years to demonstrate your individualism and you utterly failed. You switched hats because of Angie. That's the truth and you know it. Should I ask our OPAR study group to jump into this discussion? It's not “meta-social bullshit”, it's about moral character something you seem to lack.

You give yourself away by the very language you employ --and the things you focus on in your “refutation” of me. You even find is necessary to name-drop “Barbara Branden” in your post above. Social Meta. What’s next? A personal autobiography of the famous people you have encountered over the years?

Nonsense. I brought up ISIL and Barbara Branden to paint a context. Your ad hominem attack on me as a ARI zombie that lacks critical thought is an egregious lie. My personal history demonstrates this. I arrive at the truth though the use of reason applied to experience. The so-called ARI clone wouldn't do this.

Taking things into context regarding Ridpath and Brook: the one occasion, Damage—one occasion—that you and I saw Yaroon Brook speak was when he was delivering a lecture entitled “In Moral Defense of Israel.” Given the delimited subject matter—and the subject matter covered--of the lecture given, I found nothing to be disagreeable over. Further more, I have studied under John Ridpath at York University and during tutorials I was very disagreeable. Does that make you happy?

No. I think you're not telling the truth (trying to be polite).

Finally, regarding Angie and me: No Wayne, I have never asked you for feed-back regarding us. I don’t have a clue as to what the hell you are talking about. I have been very vocal in protesting your reducing my love life to a Toast Master debate. From the very moment when I excitedly told you of Angie—and of our promising romance in the making—you were instantaneously down on it, you were negative, very “skeptical.” And it is now a matter of public record where your ill-will and back-peddling can be seen on the “Love in Bloom” thread.

-Victor-

False again. You kept me informed as to Angie's reply and mentioned that she has some questions for me and that I should reply. You both WANTED my thoughts.

Btw, Angie: I never took a shot at you in my last post. I was talking about the past. Re-read it without jumping to conclusions.

Wayne Simmons