Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/23/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    This is a side issue, but correcting your report of what happened: No one came to see Tony's lack of ability at mechanical reasoning as anything but lack of ability - or Merlin's outright intellectual fraud (on Wikipedia) combined with ineptitude as anything but chicanery combined with ineptitude. Maybe what you're referring to is Jonathan's commenting - I think this was on a different thread (the "Where are you?" thread) - that he enjoyed seeing how the mathematically inclined approached the problem. But Jonathan knew from the start that he isn't good at math skills, though he's excellent at mechanical visualization. Ellen
  2. 1 point
    Jon, I think that Peter just looks at whatever pops up in the "Activity" feed and plops down his letter streams on whatever's handy. I think your impression that he's specifically following you results from statistical artifact. You happen to be doing a high percentage of the posting these days. I agree that Peter would be well advised to just not respond to your posts if he wants to be left alone by you But in a way, you're engaging in threat tactics: "Don't respond to me or I'll call you names." I hope it needn't be said, but I'll say it anyway: I do not want you off OL. Your posts are of much interest to me. Ellen
  3. 1 point
    Just when I think he has "understood" the rules of civilized banter he proves me wrong, Jules. Though his last few forays in big game hunting have been better. At some point Michael may even think we will be laughing together, though still "Friars Club roasting" each other. Who knows? Now back to me being his father figure . . .
  4. 1 point
    “Grabs some popcorn.” hahaha?
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    Transference [trans-fer´ens] in psychiatry, the unconscious tendency of a patient to assign to others in the present environment feelings and attitudes associated with significant persons in one's earlier life; especially, the patient's transfer to the therapist of feelings and attitudes associated with a parent or similar person from childhood. The feelings may be affectionate (positive transference), hostile (negative transference), or ambivalent. Sometimes the transference can be interpreted to help the patient understand childhood attitudes. end quote A person who transfers their personal feelings into an attack on another person, attributing what they are ashamed of, to that other person, is not a good characteristic and should not be condoned. Take each instance of name calling or slander and wonder, “Is that what they are really like?” Perhaps, Ellen Stuttle may be one person with an opinion on this, but anyone, please feel free to contribute. Peter
  7. 1 point
    That should get you a reprimand, but why bring up your sister? Now that is GI humor. You mentioned having a family. Is this how you treat them? This encounter clearly illustrates the difference between objective banter, argumentation, and what is clearly a destructive personal attack.
  8. 1 point
    You don’t get my jokes and you attack me. That’s all you seem able to do. You misinterpret my cussing manner of laughing at all your great jokes and you attack, attack, attack.
  9. 1 point
    If a person cusses or bullies in writing, what is the possibility that that is how they act in their personal life? That sounds harsh and a bit too personal but not if someone claims they have no control over their actions. Involuntary and volitional contradict each other. Peter
  10. 1 point
    I agree Michael. One other point about being civil. A person may involuntarily cuss "in person" when that is normal group speak. You can't go back and edit "What the "F"" to your Army buddies. But when writing you can edit yourself before sending. To claim otherwise, is not logical. When I engage anyone in conversation online and it is not a personal message, I look at the "Activity" list for guidance. That is when I engage or not. If a person had no activity I would not engage. That is not stalking. On another list Azrael Rand wrote: Let me ask this question? If Ayn Rand were alive today and was able to keep up with the scientific discoveries of the day as well as current events do you believe she would have amended her philosophy to be consistent with its original premise based on the feedback given to her by reality or do you believe she would have stayed the course even up until today. I choose to believe in the former which is one of the reasons I believe in the concept of Open Objectivism. end quote What would Ayn Rand think of someone cussing, accusing, name calling, and being uncivil? I don't need to answer because it is obvious. Another line of thinking about that quote may be the subject of another thread. If she were still alive and writing, what would Rand change or expand upon? Peter
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Jon, Thank you for the above post. That gives me a much better idea of the specifics of your views on "the Gang." I'll answer somewhat out of order. I think you're probably right about the "thousand points of light" as a "back-of-a-napkin estimate" of critical mass. I also think that Trump's managing to get elected President of the United States threw the calculations and assumptions into uproar. It was an election that shouldn't, that couldn't happen, so the Gang elites thought. But it did happen, and they're in a tizzy as to how to proceed now. Thinking over my "Doesn't everyone know it?" has led me into memory-lane explorings of when/how I began to think that there were groups attempting to engineer world events. A major suspicion arouser for me was a job I had for a year, late '70-late '71, working as secretary/research assistant on a study of foundations. The job workplace was at the Russell Sage Foundation. The Ford Foundation was much featured in the study. I hardly remember any details of the report that resulted, but I remember my increasing feeling of unsavory stuff going on, and much being "understood" which wasn't said. There, I'm agnostic. I think that there are coteries and alliances, but I'm doubtful that there's a central core leadership. That brings me to your statement: "I’ve never myself to my knowledge been anywhere near them or anyone who has gotten near them." I have been near persons who I think are among them, and not just in the United States, in Hungary and Vienna. I think that the people I encountered in Europe aren't under the leadership of American chiefs and are rather disdainful of American elites. I'm talking impressions, not something I know for fact. Maybe I'll learn more later this summer on a forthcoming Vienna trip. Ellen
  13. 1 point
    As I said over on the five-minute phobia thread, you are using stolen concepts here. If empirical studies are as unreliable as you say, I have to wonder what you would consider good evidence and why that is better. How you would prove such a claim without empirical evidence is beyond me. In any case I did not say that controlled studies are "the only way" to gather information. In the passage you quoted I expressly mentioned that testimonials (about sentence-completion, for example) could be of some value. Speaking from an amateur literacy in the field, I should think that a good followup would include standardized tests, self-reports and interviews with duly blinded investigators, and maybe other techniques as well. As a matter of fact I've read several of Branden's books. The theoretical part was impressive. The exercises struck me the same way folk-dancing does: harmless fun if you're into it, but not for me.
  14. 1 point
    No, everyone is just breathing a sigh of relief that there is no high-level obnoxiousness at that moment :-) Jim
  15. 1 point
    That which I think has been most harmful to the Objectivist movement: Objectivists who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety, that it is a perfect, integrated system, and that to disagree with any "essential" aspect of it is to reject Objectivism, and, therefore, to become an "enemy of Objectivism." This view seems to cause people to behave in self-limiting and self-destructive ways. It causes them to publicly declare things like, "If you're not purely Objectivist (as defined by us), we don't want you, we don't need you, so fuck off." (Attractive slogan, no?) Those who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety often seem to think that it also must be promoted in its entirety, which means that formal educational programs must be the primary means of spreading Objectivist ideas. It seems that even conversations must come as close as possible to resembling a lecture: an Objectivist Crusader usually can't discuss, say, a current political event or a work of art without mentioning Objectivism, quoting Rand, quizzing his opponents on their knowledge of Objectivism, and making suggestions about how they might study Objectivism better. One can't "leave them hungry and begging for more" - one can't be clever and original in an argument, inspiring his opponents with new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and wait for them to ask what his intellectual influences were. No, in all intellectual discussions, a proper Objectivist Crusader must tie the issues and arguments to the whole of Objectivism immediately. In effect, he must change the subject of every conversation to Objectivism. (And from what I've seen, he must also lecture his opponents about Objectivism even after they've repeatedly told him that they are bored out of their freaking minds, no longer listening, and sick and tired of his intrusive, pompous, condescending behavior.) Since no two people will ever agree precisely on what is "essential" to Objectivism, I think that the "Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety" approach is a major cause of the movement's extreme sectarianism and sycophancy. Objectivists often seem to see everyone beyond their insular little cliques as attacking Rand and Objectivism (even strictly personal conflicts are treated as attacks on Objectivism). The movement is full of petty, abusive and manipulative behavior, lies, "airbrushing," public excommunications, denouncements and betrayals -- usually over minor, esoteric differences or purely personal issues -- and ridiculously overblown senses of self-righteousness and self-importance. All of it very public, all of it in the name of "defending" Objectivism, and all of it seen as highly heroic only by those indulging in it. J PS - This (which I've posted elsewhere a few times) is what I think that radio commercials would sound like if businesses borrowed the Objectivist movement's theory of marketing: "The McDonald's on 3rd and Maple is evil. They don't understand or practice the true McDonald's methods and recipes. They are false friends of McDonald's. For one thing, they don't correctly arrange the reconstituted onions on their Big Macs. And their Special Sauce applicator is totally inconsistent. Sometimes the amount of sauce it squirts out is too much or too little by up to 8 percent! If you want a ~real~ Big Mac, eat at our McDonald's out on Highway 18. We are the only true defenders of Ray Kroc's vision. Be forewarned that before ordering, we will expect you to sign an oath that you will never eat at the evil 3rd and Maple McDonald's. They are piece of shit lying scumbag fuckheads who are trying to destroy the purity of of the McDonald's name. We will not sanction your sanctioning them."
  16. 1 point
    Barbara, I have to disagree even that it's "an intelligent and valuable argument." The one point she makes which is important to try to make is that if the energy restrictions desired by the AGW (anthropogenic global-warming) proponents are instituted, this would mean severe consequences for the quality of living of multitudes, and literal death for many -- the exact consequences and figures are speculative, but they'd certainly be draconian. However, she goes so far over the top in her demonizing of liberals, she loses credibility even on the nugget of truth in what she's saying. And I think "embarrassing" isn't the word for what her views on evolution make her look like in scientific circles. There's no way I'd even bring up that article, let alone recommend it as "worth reading," to any of the scientific types I know. And the problem it presents from Larry's standpoint is that the scientists he's trying to persuade to look more carefully at the scientific issues pertaining to AGW are only too likely to hear of the article (not from him) and to bring it up in just the vein Brant described, as indicating that only "the freaks and nutcases" are taking the anti-AGW side. Ellen ___
  17. 0 points
    Decent people . . . don't you ever do anything productive? Let's see some smart posts or quotes, not your low life drivel.
  18. 0 points
    Does your sister fake the orgasms?
  19. 0 points
  20. 0 points
    I can’t express myself without cuss words, I’ve tried quitting them and I fucking can’t. It’s my expressional identity, that’s like a gender identity in that Peter has to accept it or he is a bigot and has no place at OL. He keeps targeting me and making me feel this an unsafe place for people like me.