Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content Count

    35,035
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    314

Everything posted by Michael Stuart Kelly

  1. Ciro, Kat and I keep this corner because of several reasons. One is we love the guy. He is one of the absolute high points in independent Objectivism and should be honored. He is also a sweetheart of a person. (A lot like you.) Another reason for this corner is that I intend on doing a "thing" with Russian Radical to make it more accessible. Also, I have a few other surprises planned. For now Chris doesn't post anywhere except on his own blog. He recently had an operation and some terrible personal losses (people and animals) that have thrown his schedule far behind, on top of coping with gri
  2. John, Thank you for that explanation. Now I have a question that is even more basic (and this is for the benefit of non-poetry readers - those who want to appreciate poetry, but whose eyes glaze over when they see verse). Why does a poet choose the form he chooses? How does the rhythm, rhyme scheme and other technical matters impact on his message? Tension is a good thing to prompt (and you made me think a bit there - thank you), but it is delivery, not the subject itself. Most people, for example, have no idea why you would choose varied rhythms for a message about contemplating the glory beh
  3. Gary, The sad sad sad sad sad truth is that I have done all I am gonna do with booze. I still like to smell certain alcoholic beverages and articles like this one strike my fancy and make me wish for a moment that I was active again. I have nothing against those who do drink as it is a wonderful pleasure for those who know how. (I don't.) In compensation, I can't feel too bad. I have more in my past than 5 heavy drinkers normally have in the sum of their entire lifetimes... When I get down, I go all the way down. There's nothing halfassed about it... Michael
  4. Gary, That was quite a gush. Thank you! That's a nice relaxed time thing you got going. I imagine the Brandens should be answering you back in about a year or so... So tell the truth. Under the weather... what does that mean? (Really, really, under the weather...) Was about hurricanes or were you tom-catting after the born again of the female persuasion? Welcome back, friend. Michael
  5. This ain't wine, but it sure looks interesting as all hell. (sigh) Ah, the poignant wistfulness of temperence... (Shaddap all of ya!) Read the article with picture on the linked title: Distillery to Revive 184-Proof Whisky (But here's the text just in case the link breaks one day. This is just too important to run that risk... )
  6. Jody, You... you... you... ap.. ap.. ap... ologize to.. to... ahem... whom?!!! Dayaamm Phil! Dayaamm! Now look what you done! Michael
  7. Phil, Well? Uhm... er... are you going to say what they are? In Brazil (which is a Catholic country) they have a saying. If you kneel down, you have to pray. So out with it, man! Michael
  8. John, This is a delightful little poem. It captures a very nice moment of wonderment during an everyday occurrence - a commute by train. The emotion is a typical Objectivist one instead of something like contemplating nature or an unimportant small detail, which is rare. One question. The rhyme scheme is in twos, but the verses are in threes, making the rhymes overlap with the verses. Did you have any particular effect in mind by doing that? Also, you avoided the normal cliche of making a clackety-clack type rhythm. The rhythm of your poem is pretty random. I imagine this was done to emphasize
  9. Phil, Then let's get off the topic of that book. No arguments here. (I will do the review I announced, though, and publish others, all with locked threads.) For the record, we have very different views about the character and intentions of Mr. Valliant. Also, for the record, on RoR, my comments were restricted to an incorrect insinuation against the historical thread on OL. I am very proud of that thread and I think it will be a small tool for Ayn Rand scholars and historians for years to come. Now that this has been made very clear to all, I will probably not continue (as I stopped once befor
  10. James, I don't think fragmentation is bad. On the contrary, OL is such a fragment and I spend an awful lot of time here. If Kat and I had not fragmented like we did, there probably still would be no place on the Internet where you could discuss and learn about the Brandens without a lot of insults flying around (except on their own sites). The people who hate the Brandens are relatively few, but they are very active in penetrating places where discussions about the Brandens take place. Thus, fragmentation is serving me well in promoting the ideas I believe in. I am building a place where a pos
  11. James, You just wrote: Where on earth did you get the impression that she was talking about Rand? I specifically understood her words to mean Objectivist organizations since the closing of NBI, including the present ones. I admit, she has been critical of Rand's public moralizing, excommunications, off-the-cuff psychological evaluations of other people's motives, and other behavior. I understand her words to mean that Rand's progeny generally engage in aping this behavior to the detriment of the ideas. I agree. I go by what I have observed. Many examples of what I have seen are registered
  12. Barbara, I do have to admit that, as MAJESTY, you upstaged the hambone in the ongoing saga of: (drum roll) (drum roll) (drum roll) (drum roll) (drum roll) THE MAN WHO WOULD BE QUEEN There can be no forgiveness for that. Michael (PS - All right, all right. I'll try to come up with something better...)
  13. James, As an outsider looking in, I see a kind of self-imposed blindness on Objectivist insiders when discussing the merits of an organization. They get sidetracked by insinuations and insider fighting. For example, your comment above: This insinuates that they would not have a view to such importance. Frankly, the same thing could be said of you: "I am hoping upon hope that you (James) will come to this seminar with a view to the importance of seriousness about the philosophical ideas of Objectivism." Want to see where that insinuation goes? But somehow all that sounds all wrong. It gets th
  14. I'll second that. Inky is AWESOME. Michael
  15. Roger, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... He's right, but it's still funny... Dayaamm! Michael
  16. Phil, I was in doubt about whether to start this thread or not for precisely the reasons you mentioned. However, I have been in show business a good many years. This behavior of stealing or cashing in on an audience you do not have the talent to draw, one gathered by a person/group you are hostile to, is a typically called a dirty trick. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior among people of honor. There are about 6 billion people on this planet. That's more than enough market. Objectivism deals with earning your values and producing them, not trying to sneak them from people you despis
  17. Jody, This is incidental, but when I was at Boston University in the early 1970's, I attended a few lectures by Issac Asimov. He was very entertaining. I remember him mentioning an evolution theory for human beings. Women evolved smaller (and other things) because they are physically impaired during a fairly long pregnancy. So they stayed home and took care of the cave and did not develop prowess. Men evolved stronger (among other things) because they had to go out and kill dinosaurs and stuff for dinner. Following that logic, Asimov said that it was women who actually prompted human progress.
  18. Roger, Here is one of the cruxes of our disagreement. I didn't mean to misrepresent your thoughts. I meant literally what I said. Here is the phrase: You emphasized the words, "no moral weight at all" as if I were only talking about ethics (and your vision of them). Sorry if it sounded like I was misrepresenting your views. I wasn't. I was talking about rights at that moment. Rights are moral principles applied to social organization. In this case, the proper emphasis should have been on the words, "in applying it to society." According to your premises, the monster's act would have "no mora
  19. Today, March 1, 2006, Robert Davison made the following statement on the Rebirth of Reason website. He was talking about Ayn Rand during Q&A sessions of lectures he attended, but the lectures are not specified. He has authorized me to post his comment here. Michael In an email to me dated March 1, 2006, he also stated:
  20. Roger, Right. Got it. Thanks. The premises are dead wrong. Well, how about the conclusion? Is it wrong too? //;-)) Michael (I think I've been reading too many of their posts. Still, a 5 premise syllogism with their kinda logic ain't no joke...)
  21. Phil, I agree with your evaluation of the six statements. (Why did you say five?) That already is a mess. But what causes my extreme contempt is that they want to use TOC's audience to sell books and bash TOC (and TOC's lecturers, especially the Brandens, but others too) at the same time. The truth is that they do not have the capacity to generate the kind of specialized audience that TOC does through a seminar. They simply aren't good enough and true enough to catch on with that public. So they must latch on and suck on the achievements of others - ones that they did not earn through their o
  22. Kitten, You know, the more I look at this, the more I like it. Anybody have any more suggestions? I am thinking of a dotted line (to denote secondary connection) between politics and esthetics, mainly mentioning freedom of speech, economics and group art forms (performing arts). Michael
  23. Jake, Glad to have you aboard. Make yourself at home. Michael
  24. My brother just sent me something real cute. It's a bit long, but worth it. I hope you enjoy this. It kind of reminds me of some of our philosophical discussions... Michael If Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were alive today, their infamous sketch, "Who's on first?" might have turned out something like this: COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you? COSTELLO: Yes, thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking about buying a computer. ABBOTT: Mac? COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou. ABBOTT: Your computer??!! COSTELLO