Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/19/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  2. 2 points
    Just like in Communist China. Tell me again that Google is a decent, rights-bearing private company, Statist. Google, FBI, bomb squad airing anti-Red Flag laws advertisement ... https://truepundit.com/video-police-bomb-squad-there-were-snipers-on-the-rooftops/ “San Francisco Police, its bomb squad and the FBI surrounded the residence of Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies, just hours before he was scheduled to provide evidence to the Justice Department detailing how the tech giant has been manipulating its algorithms to promote an anti-Trump agenda and censor Conservatives on Google and YouTube.”
  3. 2 points
    LOL. Look at the amount of verbiage you produced when I didn't even cite a passage. What would I be in for if I did? Ellen btw, I haven't read any further than the sentence I quoted, just taken a quick glance. I truly don't have time for this stuff, much as literature interests me. I was merely letting Jon know that there are people who don't find Rand's calling the book "a poem" (loosely speaking) odd.
  4. 2 points
    I could, abundant passages, like approximately the whole book. But I don't have the time, and if I did have the time, I wouldn't want to spend it on so frustrating a proceeding - way worse than trying to explain a joke Ellen
  5. 2 points
    "Please, never use the word Objectivist associated with yourself, because you cannot be..." Directed at "the apologists for Donald Trump". The "sell-outs". First, he draws an equivalence between the Conservatives and the Left; the "nuttiness" of each. (Which is like comparing apples to - I don't know what). Then, he slams anyone who supports Trump over the Left. In other words: Brook is "an apologist" for the Left. And does not see his own self-contradiction. This is an unwarranted and heavy-handed interference in others' choices. Besides, he's wrong.
  6. 2 points
    The editor of The Objective Standard, a magazine affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, has finally responded to the revelations in ARI Watch’s exposé “Who is Carl Barney?" about ARI’s largest donor. ARI Watch reviews that response in a new article Barney Tells His Story. You can understand it by itself because it quotes the TOS article.
  7. 2 points
    The Perfect Storm for a VACCINE HOLOCAUST is Now Here video, 36 minutes -- Mike Adams https://www.brighteon.com/8879b5af-59b3-4ed3-98e6-f9037f22ade5
  8. 1 point
    https://images.app.goo.gl/mcu6uuSnxqmcAvJ1A
  9. 1 point
    Jules, That's actually great advice. I bet some people are doing just that and cleaning up. Michael
  10. 1 point
    One could probably make a lot of money on short trades based on trump tweets. Ride em down and ride em back up.
  11. 1 point
    Any "scientific consensus" is bogus, politicalized science. Its first cousin is "climate change." A family of lying liars. --Brant the real message is "Shut up, fool!"
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    We're at war with CNN and other such media and the guy got in a good shot. Why are we at war with them? They're at war with us, and have been for decades. It's the good guys starting to shoot back. --Brant N0 MERCY!!!!
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    From the poetically-prosaic Anthem, by way of the Haikus From Books blog.
  16. 1 point
    TG, No biggie. I just think Anthem would need to show things like heroic couplets or other poetry-related elements for me to put it in that category. (Fun fact that is neither here nor there. David Mamet writes his stuff in iambic pentameter. That's right. Glengarry Glen Ross, Wag the Dog, Oleanna, Sexual Perversity in Chicago, The Verdict, Hoffa, etc. are all in iambic pentameter. At least the plays are. I did his online masterclass in writing and I'm pretty sure he said his screenplays are, too. But don't quote me on that until I do the course again. I've tried writing in iambic pentameter in modern English and it's irritating. I'm gonna learn it, though.) Michael
  17. 1 point
    Interesting take, and quite plausible (even if I don't think it has to be either/or regarding the epic poem argument). This is not unlike what happens in comic books/sequential art. Those interested in pursuing this line of thought may be interested in a book called UNDERSTANDING COMICS: THE INVISIBLE ART by Scott McCloud. He examines how comic book artists and animators "draw in the reader" (pun intended) in how they balance realism and more abstract styles. The more detailed, the more distance the reader becomes, and the more abstract or "cartoony", the more the reader/viewer can project themselves into the character or story. Sounds very similar to what Michael is getting at, here; even talks about the child vs. adult modes of perception. (And its medium is its message; it's done in a comic-book format. But don't let that fool you, it's very sophisticated in its approach.)
  18. 1 point
    I want to take a different crack at this. I keep thinking it over because it nags at me. I want to understand and I think I have just come up with something that makes sense to me. The Inner Child Inside every man and every woman is a little boy and a little girl respectively. A child. As people grow older and mature, they carry that child with them. In fact, they mature on top of that child. They never replace it. As life in the adult stage is way more complicated than life in the child stage, the adult world and values is is where the minds of adults focus. At this stage, they rarely get the chance to see the world for long stretches as their inner child sees it. But that inner child is still there, just hidden under massive amounts of learning and living. One of the more charming aspects of Rand's fiction writing is sporadic moments of childlike wonder, childlike reactions of stupefaction, and so on. Atlas Shrugged especially has many moments similar to: Isn't it wonderful how much the mind can do? Rand used this emotion a lot while Dagny was in Galt's Gulch as a counterpoint to the more cerebral parts Normally we express this as: Whoa! or Wow!, etc. And our inner child feels good since it has been seen and allowed expression. (That's just one emotion. There are many that call back to the inner child.) Style and Message I think Rand went really deep into this emotional world with Anthem. But she wrote it for adults. I remember one of her comments on style in fiction writing was to wed the style of writing to the message. So I think Rand adopted the style of, say, an eleven year old without the faulty logic and distractions. This allows the adult to get into a childlike aesthetic trance more easily than if she had used a more adult style. Incidentally, something similar is taught in popular fiction writing. When you want the audience to focus on reflections, use longer sentences and bigger words. When you want to portray action and ramp up the emotion, use shorter sentences and less complicated language. Also, Rand did this in nonfiction, too. Look at the difference in style between her middle range articles (I'm going on memory, but I think that's what she called her philosophy writing for the general public) and ITOE Poetry and the Inner Child Now, switch over to poetry. The origins of poetry come from us learning how to talk as children. There's an excellent discussion of this in a book called Entranced by Story: Brain, Tale and Teller, from Infancy to Old Age by Hugh Crago. Incidentally, Crago used a term I like a lot, songstries, to mean the mental play of children of alternating event and reversal with sound patterns like rhyme, alliteration, repetition, etc. Listen to children and they go on and on and on like this. Massaging sounds with seesaw events (even when they don't make much sense, especially with 18 month old babies ) is the epistemological foundation of poetry, how it works, why certain rules won't go away, and why it is important to humans, so to speak. In adults, wedded to the memories of these sound manipulations are the memories of the emotions the child felt when he or she was in that phase. And this gets expressed in several ways. For example, we see an appeal to this emotion through verbal sound play in pop songs all the time. Almost all great pop songs have, oh baby, or ooh ooh, or something like that in them. (And notice that love songs say "baby," not "child" or "kid" at these moments. ) Poems elicit these low level childlike emotions through sound play, but poems (other than children's poems) also satisfy adult perspectives through the message, symbolism, cultural references, advanced vocabulary, etc. I often call this merge the meaning in between the lines. The Writing Style in Anthem I think Rand tapped into that childlike emotional world in Anthem, but without the sound play. Instead, she used an adult story allied to a child's way of writing. This would also make sense in the story since the people in that world were not highly educated. One of the most common ways we get to to see life through that emotional world these days is through poetry and songs. I think this is the reason people accept Anthem being called a poem at face value. They feel a long stretch of the emotional world they get to glimpse through poetry. Except Rand got there through style of prose writing, not through poetry. And this is the reason, I believe, people get so defensive about it when someone criticizes Anthem. They can't explain it, but they know they experienced some very special emotions and these emotions were just as real, even though dreamlike, as anything else they ever experienced. Also, nobody is going to fuck with their inner child! What has actually gone on with Anthem is that they got to experience an adventure story (love interest and all) with an adult message and with an adult's understanding, but with a child's emotional innocence. For me, this is a brilliant use of style--intentionally chosen prose style. It makes a lot more sense than calling the work "epic" like in Homer and things like that just to justify the word "poem." Back to My Evaluations Now that I have worked this out in my mind, the standard changed. I no longer use other books and poetry in general as a standard from which to compare Rand's writing style in Anthem. Instead, I use an eleven year old's form or writing. From this angle, I don't think the writing is bad anymore. On the contrary, it's really really good. Everybody can understand it. The aesthetic trance favors the childlike emotions of a more innocent time in a person's life. The style works. It works well for clarity and enhancing the intended emotion. That, to me, is the ultimate storytelling standard for style. Michael
  19. 1 point
    He's got a point. Day 2 of "Everyone Has A 'Theory' Week." -- Forensic Nose Patrol to the fore with the OL delegation! This was supposed to be Infrastructure Week, but hey. Good luck to all contestants.
  20. 1 point
    I said sandwich and TG ran with it. You’re not missing anything, I don’t think. TG took sandwich and jumped to that “Manwich is a meal” ad.
  21. 1 point
    TG is saying that it is pitiful how The Manwich Co. found poetry in a sandwich while you cannot, in Anthem. 😆😆😆
  22. 1 point
    For the sake of clarity, President Trump retweeted it. He included the video. Here is the original. To the reader, watch the video. It's funny as hell and when you add that President Trump retweeted it, it's even more hilarious. LOl... Michael
  23. 1 point
    I think he has been in a secret, safe location and not at that facility in New York they say he died in today. But bad guys don’t know that. Bad guys make a plan to go in and Arkancide Epstein. The good guys learn of this plan and they place a dead double for the hit team to discover. There’s no time to abort the plan, media is already announcing, picture with bad ears is already out. The traitors get punked right out in the open for any and all who can see, to see.
  24. 1 point
    The President posted this today: Donald J. Trump Retweeted https://mobile.twitter.com/w_terrence Died of SUICIDE on 24/7 SUICIDE WATCH ? Yeah right! How does that happen #JefferyEpstein had information on Bill Clinton & now he’s dead I see #TrumpBodyCount trending but we know who did this! RT if you’re not Surprised #EpsteinSuicide #ClintonBodyCount #ClintonCrimeFamily 2:04 1.3M views 12:26 PM · Aug 10, 2019
  25. 1 point
    That's because I was originally exercising poetic license in my quotation... "Oh....fudddddggeee..." (Only he didn't say "fudge"...)
  26. 1 point
    Actually, Ralphie got an A + + + + + + + +
  27. 1 point
    "What I want is a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock... "and this thing which tells time." Wow, that's great. "I think that everybody should have a Red Ryder BB gun. "They're very good for Christmas. "I don't think that a football's a very good Christmas present." Oh, rarely had the words poured from my pencil with such feverish fluidity. Poetry! Sheer poetry! A+ for Ralphie! A + + + + + + + !!!!!
  28. 1 point
    Hmm...I took Rand's description of Anthem as a poem as being in the tradition of the epic poem, something like The Epic of Gilgamesh or The Odyssey; like something pre-dating the invention of the novel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_poetry
  29. 1 point
    I won’t know for sure what to think about those ears until the OL expert on all things batshit chimes in. Can’t wait. 😆
  30. 1 point
    You can't make me stick to that belief, though. You can't! You can't! I didn't know what i believed when I wrote that and I still don't know what I believe about this and I only said "Her poem" in respect to what its creator herself calls it, so you can't pin anything on me here! Not anything!! 😀
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    Jonathan, If you ever change that, I will fall out with you. I can't think of Jonathan being Jonathan unless he is hanging someone with their own rope. Michael
  33. 1 point
    That house they repaired to might have been inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, a picture of which appeared on the cover of Time magazine. I toured it in 1973. --Brant
  34. 1 point
    Jonathan, That's one hell of a frame. I seriously doubt Rand meant that Roark was excited to be working for the government. Thank God Oliver Stone never got to do a second version of The Fountainhead because that is exactly what he intended to change Roark into (designing public parks and other government projects as his main occupation). Michael
  35. 1 point
    Thank you Michael. I like what you said about Objectivism being a starting point rather than an end point. I'm reminded of a well known book in libertarian circles titled It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. After rereading PAR and seeing some Youtube videos of Barbara, I wish I had had a chance to meet her. Hers was not a perfect life, but neither is anyone else's. PAR helps me understand who Ayn Rand was better than any other book, and I'm grateful to her for that. BTW, I've never heard of VDare. Robert
  36. 1 point
    I don't see why. RBG could be spending almost all of her time at home with no congress to speak of with other justices with her staff doing all the work, the idea being to outlast Trump. And just maybe her body is in the freezer laid out in the right posture for the after the election funeral. --Brant "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
  37. 1 point
    Woo hoo! The sticky one from the Deep State finally leaves. Michael
  38. 1 point
    Are we still talking about the RBG doppelgänger? I'm only claiming that the "Russian Interference" narrative is/was plausible, in comparison to the RBG story, as presented on this thread, which I call Batshit Crazy. In other words, utterly implausible.
  39. 1 point
    I take it all back. Look how easy it was for Ethan Hunt to do it on the fly: Now if the Ginsburg double has legal experts feeding her lines through an earpiece...shit this would be easy! I wonder why they call it Mission Impossible?
  40. 1 point
    Would you all mind choosing a different word than "artifact"? Thanks, J
  41. 1 point
    "Knowing" the story in my head is the essence of psychologizing. The discussion is about conspiracy theories, in this case the theory that the photo that we've been discussing was faked, to bring that old woman in it, who is supposed to be dead. The funny thing is that I hadn't realized that you had put those circles on the picture, to alert us on a supposedly missing shadow, as evidence of tampering. My impression was that you'd copied that photo with circles and all from some conspiracy site. Apart from my reaction, Mark and Anthony also dismissed that "shadow" argument. You then brought up new arguments: 1. The walking people seemed to be "out of focus", in contrast to the standing and sitting people. I pointed out (and Anthony also implied) that that fuzziness was nothing but the motion blur of moving people. 2. Then your next argument for tampering was that the fuzziness should only be on the backside of the walking person, and not on the front. I showed you why this notion is incorrect. 3. Your next argument was about the statue, the "white holes" between statue and shadow. I pointed out that this is a common effect of (often automatic) sharpening of the image. Further you asked where the mouth was. I replied that it was covered by a beard. 4. Then you tried to ridicule the picture of the statue, that it didn't have a real beard. I replied that I didn't see anything wrong in that part of the photo, other than that the statue was overexposed and therefore details were washed out. Anyway, I found a different photo of that scene, this time with considerably better resolution. The statue is obviously the same as on the other photo, only with more detail. You can discern mouth, ear, beard and hair, and these correspond clearly with what the fuzzier image shows. Due to overexposure it is still washed out, but I think nobody will think this has (also?) been tampered with. If I'm prejudiced, then my prejudice is rationality, common sense and respect for reality (omg, now I sound like a real Objectivist). You never disputed any of my refutations of your evidence of tampering, but only came up with again another argument. What is your subtext, or don't you have one? Is the idea that these images are perhaps not tampered with really anathema? Because you once were sure that it had been tampered with?
  42. 1 point
    The SCOTUS has been mostly a scam since the late 1930s when FDR scared it with the packing attempt, which my grandfather testified before Congress in favor of. But lately It's starting to tilt the other way. --Brant next: Zombie Ruth?
  43. 1 point
    Thank you. And right back at you. J
  44. 1 point
    Bump: C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt. J
  45. 1 point
    Lesson of the day kids! If you are bullied just remember and repeat after Grandpa Jon. “You deserve it!”
  46. 1 point
    Oh, goodie. The symbolism that goes all the way back to Babylonia. (It does go all the way back at least that far.) Ellen
  47. 1 point
    "How a 'slick talker' lobbyist boosted the false Seth Rich murder conspiracy — before getting shot himself" See also for details: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conspiracyland/id1471037693 Sister Perpetua of the Holy Smokes.
  48. 1 point
    That’s a great video, Jerry. Freaking horrifying how many people cannot grasp the problem with this situation, their legal immunity. The holocaust he outlines really has been their plan for years, it will all be disclosed in total and no one will be able to deny the truth of it, in due time. But the military intelligence operation we are living in now, that recruited Trump, prevented Killery’s election and is engineering the Epstein, spygate and other disclosures we’ve been witnessing, has already stopped these plans.
  49. 1 point
    It isn't rational to just dismiss "some paper" as the product of those awful scientists. The Danish study I referenced followed all children born in Denmark in the period January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1998, a total of 537,303 children followed for a total of 2,129,864 person-years. Read the paper to see how careful this study was set up, how painstakingly and meticulously all kinds of possible factors were taken into account. If you think you can just dismiss the study, you should point out the errors therein. Follow also the references in that study to see the results of other studies that come to the same conclusion. As I said before, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a common fallacy. With many millions of people it is statistically unavoidable that there will be "remarkable" coincidences. How impressive these might seem, in themselves they don't prove anything. Therefore you need large and carefully designed scientific studies, not a collection of anecdotes. In such cases I trust only scientific data. Not that these are automatically correct (far from it!), but at least I have some possibility to check the accuracy and the soundness of the methods used.
  50. 1 point
    Let's put it this way: The question boils down to answering: Is it possible to be an Objectivist and not be absolutely, 100% consistent with each and every consequence of Objectivism? I think that the answer to that is . . . obviously, yes it is possible (and hence, no - not an oxymoron). Otherwise, anybody who thinks of themselves as an objectivist, but then changes their mind on learning something new which contradicts something they had thought earlier, either wasn't an Objectivist before or isn't after. The only way around this that I see is to maintain that there is a short list of essentials without which one is not an Objectivist. If so, what is that short list, and on what is that list based? When Rand did the "standing on one foot" characterization of her philosophy, she didn't explicitly mention atheism. Bill P Bill, I strongly disagree with your statement of what the question boils down to. It is not whether, to be an Objectivist, one must accept each and every consequence of its basic principles claimed by Rand. It is whether one can be an Objectivist while denying its most fundamental principle. And its most fundamental, principle is the absolutism of reason. Rand wrote: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. . . . This -- the supremacy of reason -- was, is and will be the primary concern of my work and the essence of Objectivism." Religion -- any religion--requires a belief in the supernatural, in a realm unknowable by reason. In The Art of Living Consciously, Nathaniel Branden defines mysticism as follows: "Mysticism is the claim that there are aspects of existence that can be known by means of a unique cognitive faculty whose judgments are above the authority of sensory observation and reason." One does not have to accept the idea that a woman should not be president of the United States to be an Objectivist; one may quarrel with many of the concepts that Rand claimed logically followed from her basic principles and still be an Objectivist. But just as one cannot, for instance, claim to be a Christian while denying the existence of God -- one cannot claim to be an Objectivist while denying the absolutism of reason. And -- not incidentally -- when Rand characterized her philosoophy while standing on one foot, it is true she did not mention atheism, but she most certainly named the absolutism of reason as essential to her philosophy. Her rejection of theism was implicit in that statement. Barbara