Jody Gomez

Members
  • Content Count

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jody Gomez

  1. This really should go in the creative writing section and maybe later I will transfer it over there. But for now, I thought something productive should come out of this mess, even if it is only a satire diddley.

    Objectivist Schism Blues

    by Michael Stuart Kelly

    Hey, Michael.

    Hi, Sergio.

    I have been watching the schism you are causing on the Internet.

    Schism?

    Yeah. You know, the thing about that guy being invited to speak at a TAS Seminar.

    That isn't a schism.

    Sure it is.

    No it isn't. A schism happens if there is an alliance. There is no alliance with that dude. Never has been since OL was founded.

    Well, it looks like a schism.

    (sigh…)

    Come on. You know what I mean. You are all Objectivists.

    Graaak!…

    So why can't you Objectivists just get along? First the Brandens, then Kelley-Peikoff, then Peikoff-Reisman, then some others, now you guys.

    All right. I see how it looks. What do you want me to do?

    Well… er… find common ground with that dude and… you know… make peace.

    OK… let's see… common ground?... hmmmm… we read some of the same books by Rand.

    See? That's a start.

    But he likes to cuss people all the time. He tries to get others to do that.

    And you have a problem with that?

    Well, duh.

    But sometimes you have to cuss people.

    Sure. But not all the time.

    True.

    This dude does it all the time.

    Why do you think he does that?

    Because that's what he does. He can't not do it.

    But he says it is rational passion surging and pulsing through his soul.

    He used to cuss people when he was a Marxist. Now he cusses them for Objectivism. Something else is surging and pulsing in his gut. If he ever became Christian he would cuss people.

    Got a theory as to why?

    Yeah. He likes to cuss people.

    Well… the guy from TAS thinks the dude can change.

    I know. The dude cusses TAS people too.

    Say what?

    But they don't mind. They think he will cuss himself dry one day.

    Why would they think that?

    I don't know. The dude says he loves Ayn Rand, so that probably counts for something.

    He says he loves Rand?

    Yeah. Usually right before he cusses TAS people.

    Why does he cuss TAS?

    He likes to cuss people.

    Oh.

    That's what he does.

    Oh.

    He likes it.

    But didn't Barbara Branden just write a harsh critique of him?

    Yeah. First time in a long time. She called him a "beleaguered rebel" in search of martyrdom. Said he was "often befuddled by alcohol."

    Wow! Martyrdom?

    Yeah. He always writes about being the last man standing… all abandoned and alone, true to his cause, the only one with integrity, you know… during some spat or other when folks start leaving.

    And he drinks?

    Yeah. He writes about his drinking a lot. Says it's rational.

    Does he drink too much? When?

    I don't know. Before he cusses people…

    So what did he do about Barbara Branden?

    He cussed her. Called her a "filthy, unutterably disgusting, low-life bitch."

    And the TAS guy?

    He thinks this dude will cuss himself dry.

    Well, see what I mean about schisms?

    No.

    The TAS guy is trying to stop the schisms.

    I've already told him I am not that dude's ally. Never will be.

    So what? That can't change?

    No.

    Why not?

    He likes to cuss people all the time. I'm into something else. Creating stuff... things like that...

    But what if he stops cussing people all the time?

    He won't.

    How do you know that?

    A is A.

    I haven't heard that one in a while.

    When Rand's right, she's right.

    So, "A is A" means you have to have a schism?

    There is no schism. You can't have a schism without an alliance.

    But don't you want Objectivism to spread?

    That would be nice.

    So, why won't you even think about an alliance with that dude?

    I don't want nonstop cussing to spread.

    Oh. I see.

    Do you?

    But what if he stops cussing people all the time? TAS just invited him to give a speech and he promised he won't cuss anybody.

    Heh.

    Aren't you curious to see what will happen?

    No.

    Why?

    Because I already know what he'll do.

    But he says he won't.

    He always says that.

    When?

    Right after he cusses people. Sometimes before…

    Oh. But what if this time is different?

    I'm not interested.

    Why not? The Objectivist movement needs unity.

    It has never had unity until now. Rand's books sell. Millions. Why does it need unity?

    Because unity will make spreading the philosophy easier.

    I don't mind spreading the philosophy. That's a good thing.

    So what's the problem?

    I don't want to spread cussing people.

    Oh, just stop it!

    OK.

    So what are you going to do?

    Nothing. You said stop it. So I stopped it.

    You are going to stop the schism?

    There is no schism.

    All right. All right. Are you going to try to make peace with that dude?

    No.

    Why not?

    He likes to cuss people all the time.

    And here I thought you were reasonable.

    (sigh...)

    LMAO

  2. Jody,

    About another issue, I don't want to stifle strongly held views, but I do have a suggestion rhetoric-wise. Place your passion on the idea, not on the messenger of the idea. It is far more effective to do that and you will convince far more people.

    When you call someone a vulgar name, the only way to make that effective is to dismiss him and have nothing more to do with him. But if you call someone a vulgar name and continue to debate him—even calling him other names—whether you like it or not the message that comes across is that you do not believe in the strength of the ideas you promote. You show you need to stifle the other and do not have the capacity to convince him of any idea at all.

    Think about hecklers. How many hecklers have convinced anyone of anything at a meeting? How many people think a heckler has a strong argument?

    Now think about this. Imagine a meeting where a strongly held controversial view is being presented. Among the audience, there is one (preferably a person with standing, but an anonymous person will do) who suddenly gets up and says loudly: "You are full of crap. I will have nothing to do with this anymore." Then he walks out.

    Who made the stronger statement?

    A moment in Atlas Shrugged comes to mind. Remember Galt in the meeting at the Twentieth Century Motor Company? He did just that and the phrase "Who is John Galt?" was born.

    As to your discussion with Martin, if you wish to have an ongoing exchange with him, the approach has to be different to be effective. One solid fact insisted on in the midst of heated rhetoric is far more powerful than shouting all the vulgar names in the world.

    I am not against using vulgar names per se. I do think one must use them with competence, though. Otherwise, the discussion gets robbed of its important ideas and descends into mere bickering between people who do not like each other.

    Michael

    Michael,

    You're right. I owe Wolf and Martin an apology, and I'm offering that now. This thread started with someone I've always admired taking a sucker-punch at me. That put me in a hell of a state.

    Thanks Michael. I mean that sincerely. You know me too well! Fortunately you know when I'm being an asshole.

  3. Get real. Iraq was conquered for Exxon. The ploy failed. Presto, $100 oil.

    W.

    Care to cite any evidence for that claim?

    Wolf is wrong...

    --Brant

    I'm an exploration insider. Cheney's 2000 secret energy commission concluded that 25% of future US oil imports had to come from Iraq because of declining production in the North Sea, Kuwait, etc. In 2003, I saw a map of Iraq's fields and known reserves at a major oil company's office in Houston. There was a team assigned to develop it as soon as Bremer had it sewed up. I said Exxon because I didn't want to name the company in question, but it was one of the top five, and certainly Exxon had similar maps and plans. You shouldn't be so eager to dismiss the facts. Had nothing to do with Saddam or democracy or WMD or terrorism.

    W.

    Okay Captain Nemo. When you can cite sources other than the voices in you head, you just let me know.

  4. Quoting Martin:

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Neither did Iran, the next nation that the Bush administration is looking for an excuse to attack. But never mind that. Those Muslims are all the same. Just a bunch of Islamo-fascists.

    You are correct-Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11. They did however have something directly to do with al-qaeda. The 9/11 Commission even discovered that. So should we just appease the nations that support the terrorists groups which attack us?

    You are correct again. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, but what is your solution to a radical Islamic regime(or as I say Islamo-fascists filth) which is enriching Uranium while calling for the destruction of Israel? Pick up a history book and in the index look up Chamberlain and Hitler.

  5. Ellen,

    Fer Keriiiisst sake! I don't mind you and Jody going at it, but if you say something bad about someone, he is going to be miffed. You don't have to be speaking to him. You can even be trashing someone else at the same time. None of that makes any difference. If you say something bad about someone, he is going to be miffed.

    This ain't rocket science. And nobody reading all this is a fool. What on earth are you arguing?

    Michael

    Michael,

    Thanks for seeing how I took this as an insult. Arguments I can handle, but "vapid" insults fire me up.

  6. Quoting Martin:

    The most recent figures from Iraq Body Count estimate roughly 78,000 - 85,000 deaths, but these are deaths confirmed from multiple sources and only include non-combatant deaths.

    So what kind of dishonest ass does it take to inflate "the most recent figures" of 78,000-85,000 and inflate them to "several hundred thousand?"

  7. Quoting Martin-

    I am not blaming the "U.S.". I am blaming the U.S. government. The United States as a nation of 300,000,000 people may never justifiably be equated with the U.S. government. Why am I blaming the U.S. government? Because the Iraq war was a war of choice against a nation that had not attacked and was no threat to the United States. Since the war was not fought in self-defense, the U.S. government had absolutely no legitimate right to attack Iraq, and is therefore responsible for all of the devastation that has resulted from its attack.

    Look at the cease fire agreement from the 1st Gulf War...look at the numerous U.N. resolutions. The U.S. had every right to keep its promises.

  8. No Jody. I think she's been in an argument with you from the get go, but I'm glad she's not going any further with this.

    Well, Brant, with that one you managed to provoke me into saying something further. I haven't been in any argument with Jody "from the get go." Jody wasn't the addressee of my post which started this interlude. Bob Kolker was. I was objecting to his presumption. Please get clear why I said anything at all. I hadn't even read most of the other posts on this thread. I always read Bob K.'s posts because he says a certain amount about scientific issues which I find of interest. On the other hand he can irritate me with his blanket pronouncements. It was Bob K. who was the target of my remarks, not Jody. Near as I can tell, what Jody is upset about is my description of the particular remarks to which Bob K. was responding. I'm sorry if Jody's feathers have been as badly ruffled as it seems they have been. Maybe if I'd said "empty" instead of "vapid," he wouldn't have been as miffed. I debated between "vapid" and "empty." Whatever. I'm not going to argue with Jody about Islamists, national defense, etc. To repeat -- and then, I hope, I won't feel called on to re-re-re-repeat: it was Bob K.'s post to which I was objecting.

    Ellen

    ___

    Ellen,

    The first post I responded to tonight was Brant's, but I see this has went much further, and I have yet to read them all. Honestly, I was offended by your comments. I'm willing to discuss it intellectually with you, and to respect your opionion, but you tossed out the empty pejoratives against me. I respected you, so it just kind of cut me a bit. A lot of people here know that I don't mince words, but I will listen...and if I listen and hear something of value, I'll admit it. The best example of this is Rich, who is someone I attacked dedicatedly on SoloHq, but someone that I now admit I was mostly ;) wrong about. He now holds my deepest respect. Quite simply Ellen, I was taken aback by you, because I've always respected you...even when I disagreed. When I have disagreed with you, I have never assumed ignorance or maliciousness on your part, which is what you intimated about me...at least in my opinion.

  9. Ellen, some victories are not worth winning and I'm glad this is ending.

    --Brant

    Brant-

    So you think the victory is hers for the taking? Very well. Let her fight for it.

    No Jody. I think she's been in an argument with you from the get go, but I'm glad she's not going any further with this. And I sincerely wish you'd cut it out also. It's true I consider her my friend, so I addressed her instead of you. That's all. I'm sick and tired of good people cutting each other up on Internet forums.

    --Brant

    Brant-

    I respect you and your opinion. I also respect Ellen. I got a little hot under the collar because of such. I wish she had respected me and my sincerity. Thanks for calming me down.

  10. Get real. Iraq was conquered for Exxon. The ploy failed. Presto, $100 oil.

    W.

    Care to cite any evidence for that claim?

    Wolf is wrong. However, when one delves beneath the superficial skein, you find the Bush people historically involved with oil and their good buddies the Saudis and one begins to understand the Iraqi War a little better. Never mind that the Saudis have more to do with Islamo-fascist terrorism than any other people, government and group, going back at least decades to an extremist assault on Mecca in 1979. The Saudis beat the extremists by agreeing to propagate the extremists' thought enacted in deed world-wide by adherents. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. I thought at the time it was a brilliant setup, but now I don't.

    --Brant

    I know that the Bush people have been involved in oil, but that means nothing regarding the war.

    I've heard a lot of talk about the Saudis, and I'll admit that I'm not in the know about that. I'm going to do some research on it though, as I do believe you and others have a valid point.

  11. Brant-

    During the times I've been active on O'ists forums, I've seen a lot of sucker-punches thrown at you, so I assume that you know what they look like...and realize my frustration and determination.

  12. Argument: a reason given in proof or rebuttal(at least according to Merriam-Webster)

    I think that saying that my statement was a "string of vapid assertions" was given in proof or rebuttal. Ergo...

  13. You have put forth an argument. You can either choose to back it up, or let your silence speak for you.

    I know what I said, and that it wasn't an argument. Possibly unlike you, I know what an argument is. For example, is your statement in your post #19 (I'm not sure to whom, since you don't identify whom you're quoting) "you are an amazing piece of shit" an argument?

    Ellen

    ___

    Ellen,

    I specifically addressed a quote by Martin, so I thought it would kind of be, oh... ipso facto obvious who I was addressing. Sorry to confuse you. And yes, my comment that you quoted was an argument...it was one of those ergo kind of things. So you can either use diversionary tactics, or directly address my statements to you, and directly address your argument that I put forth a "string of vapid assertions."

  14. How nice of you to describe the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US invasion and occupation, along with the roughly four million refugees, as "filth"

    I must continue to address this, as it just astonishes me. I referred to fighting filth. We are fighting(over there, rather than here) al-Qaeda operatives. If you use scare quotes in describing my estimation of al-Qaeda as filth, then quite frankly, you are an amazing piece of shit.

  15. I have no wish to argue with you, Jody, nor any intention of arguing with you; nor was I presenting an argument, "grandiose" or otherwise; nor did I think I was presenting an argument. I was doing exactly what I said I was doing, objecting to the implied presumption involved in Bob K.'s description of your comments.

    Ellen

    Ellen,

    Had you merely said that you disagreed with Bob, I would have had no complaint. When you accuse me of a "string of vapid assertions" you are putting forth an argument. Don't back down now. I would have respected an honest disagreement. It's sucker-punches that I don't tolerate well. You have put forth an argument. You can either choose to back it up, or let your silence speak for you.

  16. Steve,

    My PARC spamming complaint is an old and frequent one. Nothing new there. All you have to do is read the old threads. If you like I will dig up some posts, but frankly, you should do your own research.

    Maybe you haven't read those threads because of the spam-like posting by PARC supporters? Here is a link to a list of links if you are interested. I won't hold my breath for you to read all that, though. And I will not criticize anyone for not wanting to read all that crap.

    I stopped adding to the linked list in late 2006. Maybe I will update it someday when I have nothing better to do.

    Michael

    Damn Michael. That's a great compilation and gathering of facts! Wish you would update it, but I understand having better things to do. :)

  17. To whom? I normally stay entirely out of discussions of politics, national defense, Islamists, etc., but I must object to the presumption as to how Jody's comments might sound to others. To me, far from sounding "reasonable," they just sound like a string of vapid assertions.

    Ellen,

    Your use of the pejorative "vapid" without argument to the contrary seems quite "vapid" to me. If you wish to argue, then argue. Certainly don't tell me that you normally stay out of such discussions, such as the vital ones, except when you flutter down from whatever ethereal realm you inhabit in order to proffer such grandiose arguments as "vapid assertions."

  18. How nice of you to describe the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US invasion and occupation, along with the roughly four million refugees, as "filth". Does that include the Iraqi infants and children too, or just the adults? This definitely requires clarification. But I guess we just had to do it because, after all, if we hadn't, Iraq was all poised to invade our shores and forcibly convert us all into Bathists.

    Again, please cite your sources for that "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US invasion and occupation..."

    Just the adults.

    Was Iraq poised to invade our shores? No. Was it a nation, or a few pieces of Islamic filth, backed by states that sponsor terrorism that attacked us on 9/11? After 9/11 Leonard Peiloff was on O'Reilly and was asked a very similar question that you intimated(though O'Reilly had more integrity and admittance than you do), and Peikoff asked, "Will it be our innocent women and children, or theirs?" Of course, the person that believes in the efficacy of that 15th U.N. resolution and 15th final, mother-of-all chances has ipso facto stated which women and children he will sacrifice.

    And I iterate, please cite your fucking sources. Ohhh...I think I stumbled upon your source: www.moveon.org

  19. Oh, absolutely! We obviously had only two choices, either bomb the shit out of Iraq, invade and occupy their country, kill several hundred thousand of them, destroy their cities, their homes, and their infrastructure, or to sit in our bunkers here in the US, trembling with terror, waiting for Iraq to launch an invasion against us. What other alternatives could their possibly have been?

    By god, you're right! We could have had a 15th U.N. resolution. That would have certainly prevented the nonexistent "several hundred thousand" deaths. Well, Sadam was doing pretty well at raking in deaths and mass killings...but I see that you're blaming the U.S. Which certainly the U.N. could have prevented!

    Could you please cite your sources for that "several hundred thousand of 'them'"?