Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/16/2019 in all areas

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 1 point
    Thank you. And right back at you. J
  4. 1 point
    Bump: C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt. J
  5. 1 point
    Lesson of the day kids! If you are bullied just remember and repeat after Grandpa Jon. “You deserve it!”
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 1 point
    😄 😃 What evidence do you have that I am not trying to understand what Gilder says? On the other hand, there is you calling me a shill for Big Brother, making inuendos about government surveillance, Google and Facebook wanting to "rule the world" and "conspiring with government", despite the government starting to investigate Big Tech for anti-trust violations. In addition, you used Gilder's book to try to justify your inuendos, despite Gilder's book providing no support for you.
  10. 1 point
    Michael, What you say about Q is along the lines I've been thinking, too. Sometimes Q is right, sometimes wrong, but always Q gets people questioning and poking and prying. William's supercilious negativity was what first aroused my interest. William's effective as a reverse indicator. Ellen
  11. 1 point
    Final days of Seth Rich conspiracy peddling? Kevin Poulsen has a different perspective, based on the Mueller Report itself: Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians Julian Assange repeatedly blamed Seth Rich, the murdered DNC staffer, for Russia’s leaks. The Mueller report shows that Assange was lying from the start. Exclusive: The true origins of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. A Yahoo News investigation.
  12. 1 point
    When will charges be laid? It's been six years since she left office -- and there are no new criminal investigations underway or on order. Justice report slams James Comey's actions with FBI in Clinton email case William Barr, attorney general nominee, backs away from prior comments pushing Clinton Foundation investigation Russian Uranium One Deal And Hillary Clinton In The News Again The QAnon corps has been referring to an impending Clinton arrest since Day One of the hoax:
  13. 0 points
    The following is for the reader, not for Merlin (he's too busy trying to win imaginary competitions to worry about things like this). I was interested in the falsified prediction thing. I had skimmed the passage before and at first blush, nothing in the falsification universe jumped out at me. Although the idea was novel and unexpected, it didn't make any sense to me based on what I had skimmed. So I said I didn't understand it. I just now looked with a critical eye to see what I missed, and I began to wonder why I am wasting time on this. Here is the passage in question (Merlin quoting Gilder): And here is the allegedly falsified prediction spelled out. I learned a long time ago that meanings are to be gleaned from context, not in parsing words in such a manner as to attribute wrong meanings to them or wrong intentions to their authors. In writing, a good indication of context is in what precedes a statement. Here's an example of a wrong meaning attributed to a word, but by mistake and not design. There's a famous story from Ira Gershwin (a lyrics writer and brother of George). He once wrote a song that included the the line, "I have loved you for years." During a rehearsal for a musical that featured this song, the singer stopped and asked why she loved the dude four years and not for five years or three years or any other number. The reason this is funny is not just the pun. It's because this is a love song dealing with a universal emotion, love. That's the context. It's not a song about a calendar or timeline even though it is true that the ear hears "for" as "four" and vice-versa. Now let's look at the passage in question. What does "power" mean in that context? This is the main word since it is the thing being shifted or not. So first question. Power of whom? Gilder himself says: "advertising system." He means, of course, the advertising system on the Internet. (Google did not exist at the time he speculated on how the Internet would impact advertising systems.) Next question. Power to do what? Gilder says: "deliver only the ads the viewer wanted." So Gilder says he thought the power to make that decision and effect it would shift from advertisers to customers and, from the tone (using the structure: back then he thought X, implying that now he thinks Y) , he makes it clear he thinks differently now. Somehow this is supposed to be a falsified prediction because Gilder does not call advertisers customers and damned if I still can't see how falsification even applies. Like I said, it's probably because I'm stupid. Just to be clear, Gilder based his previous speculation by focusing only on elements of the Internet while ignoring critical elements of human nature. And now, decades later, he is writing from a deeper perspective of including those elements, which is why he changed his mind. But that has nothing to do with disproving anything by a falsification procedure to test propositions. Gilder's main epistemological approach is not reductive (or deductive). And falsification is purely a deductive process. Gilder's process is mostly inductive when he speculates on large scale trends. Anyway, I hope you--the reader--get something out of this. Granted, the issue is a bit obscure. I mean, after all, who gives a crap that Gilder used to think one thing and now thinks another? Or that Gilder's meanings are not the ones someone else approves of? Or even, if you use the perspective of most readers where their interest is Ayn Rand, who gives a crap about Gilder? The important idea, at least for me, is how the Internet works and how users are being manipulated by large organizations that use the Internet--specifically, private (or semi-private) organizations that are in bed with the government like Google, Facebook, etc.--who claim they are doing the opposite. From a Randian perspective, the idea is that crony corporatism is bad. In other words, I would like this kind of discussion to lead to thinking about ideas, not about someone constantly and indiscriminately crowing: I win and you lose, bwahahahahaha! And if you--the reader--get no value at all from this, "Tough titty," said the kitty, "But the milk's still fine." Michael
  14. 0 points
    Merlin, Your own words. (sigh...) I tried to discuss the ideas, but you're just too smart for me... My problem is my limited capacity to understand the grandeur of intellectual heights you achieve... Michael
  15. 0 points
    Merlin, There is no obligation because there is no rule maker that must be obeyed, and, apparently Gilder forgot to consult you before writing his book... The point is, you can either try to understand what he is saying, or you can congratulate yourself for getting him got good down and dirty by attributing meanings to his words that he doesn't use, then debunking your own meanings. It's a choice. In my world, I seek to identify correctly before I judge. Identifying incorrectly does not allow one to provide good judgments. But, as long as you are at it, you might want to debunk all of Google for not using your meanings, too. That should make you really feel good. Michael