Branden's High Points (misleading title by OP)

[Philip Coates]

> And his debunking of some of the myths perpetuated by Struck and White is refreshing, as illustrated in his section "Don't be afraid of the passive voice."

It would be nice if George, Jeff R and others who repeatedly slam Stunk and White were capable of re-reading and reporting to us what the book actually said:

"14. Use the active voice.......This rule does not of course mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary."

[George H. Smith]

> Let me make this as simple for you as I possibly can. Which books by Branden have you started to read "more than once" and then stopped? [GHS]

Let me make this as simple for you as possible:

You started out hostile, suspicious, and questioning my honesty and I don't want to answer your questions or have a discussion on this with you.

You should have said that up-front, given how honest you supposedly are. I will assume, because it it fairly obvious, that you have made no serious effort to read any of NB's books, because you still have a bug up your butt about his Rand days.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

> He once wrote that he could understand a blackboard of equations at a glance but not know the sub-verbal signals a woman might be sending him and had to spend hours figuring it out. How does such a person address and deal with other people in a teaching situation? [brant]

Were you stupid enough to assume that that was still the case, that I hadn't learned anything since age 17 or 21?

No. I just refer to your current efforts to know it's still, basically, the case. I don't know about women, of course, except you've apparently done okay since based on your statement that you've dated a lot of them. If we are the students why do you cause so much antagonism?

--Brant

no bad students, just bad sensei

[George H. Smith]

> And his debunking of some of the myths perpetuated by Struck and White is refreshing, as illustrated in his section "Don't be afraid of the passive voice."

It would be nice if George, Jeff R and others who repeatedly slam Stunk and White were capable of re-reading and reporting to us what the book actually said:

"14. Use the active voice.......This rule does not of course mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary."

I never said or suggested that Strunk and White said that one should never use the passive voice. That would be insane, not to mention virtually impossible. The point is that they make preference for the active voice a rule, and it's not a rule.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Here are some comments that I made about Strunk and White a while back.

I recall that Jeff and I had some discussions, maybe even arguments, about The Elements of Style around two decades ago, as we were preparing a seminar on writing that we conducted in Long Beach. I first read the book while I was a sophomore in high school, after an English teacher, who thought I showed some potential as a writer, gave me a copy as a gift. I liked the organization and advice of the book a great deal; it definitely helped me, so it occupies a place in my heart to this day.

But Jeff is right about the book. I would characterize it as a book for beginners. It has sound advice that can help beginning writers, but the advice should not be mistaken for rules...

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> Okay, so let me ask you this: What books, if any, by Nathaniel Branden have you read? [GHS]

Best to read the thread. This was how I started in post #1 -- it was actually the very first statement on the thread:

" I've started to read some of Branden's books more than once and stopped: I wasn't finding him to be an original or profound thinker or, where he was saying important things, to be saying more than he already said when he was associated with Rand. (In addition, yes she had faults, but the times when he was vicious or unfair to her when he was the person whose actions were reprehensible, also turned me off. Someone would have to be enormously brilliant for me to overcome my distaste in reading him - especially if I find others in positive psychology or cognitive psychology saying what he does as well.

Also, in my initial readings, IIRC, he seemed to think everything centers around self-esteem or reduces too much to self-esteem issues:

It doesn't. "

How do you know?

--Brant

Because of the books by Branden that Phil never read? A wild guess? Or maybe this is yet another example of Phil's pretentiousness.

Take your pick.

Ghs

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil,

I do not have the time for a detailed review of Branden's work. However, I think Branden's most valuable strain of thought has been to focus on something Rand did not write about: developmental psychology. Branden's thrust in stressing that personal growth can be significantly aided by a set of personal practices that stress awareness and acceptance of emotions is an important insight and a significantly different take on self esteem than that advanced by Rand.

My favorite Branden books are Psychology of Romantic Love and The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. The latter is important because it presents the definitive outline of Branden's theory of self-development. He presents the pillars as self acceptance, self-assertiveness,purposeful living, self-responsibility, living consciously and personal integrity. I think the major areas in which Branden expands on Rand are self-acceptance and living consciously. In Psychology of Romantic Love, you can find Branden's most complete discussion of psychological visibility.

I think The Psychology of Self Esteem is Branden's weakest book on psychology, but this weakness includes problems that are also endemic in Rand. In general, I think Branden presents an overly simplistic model of anxiety. A complete treatment of anxiety would include biological as well as psychological determinants of well-being. However, this book must be evaluated by the state of medical knowledge at the time it was written. In the case of clinical anxiety, medical knowledge was still fairly rudimentary.

Sorry for the brief response to your initial call for comment, but this will have to suffice for now.

Jim

Around eight years ago I toyed with the idea of writing a book titled Happiness in a Godless World. I planned to include a chapter on NB's ideas but had not kept current with his work, so I wrote to Nathaniel asking him to recommend some later books that deal with theory, and not simply with "practical" matters and therapeutic techniques. Nathaniel kindly sent me copies of three books: The Six Pilllars of Self-Esteem (1994), Taking Responsibility: Self Reliance and the Accountable Life (1996), and The Art of Living Consciously. (1997).

Although I recommend all three books, my favorite is Taking Responsibility, which contains a succinct overview of Branden's views on philosophical psychology. If Phil is seriously interested in Branden's later ideas, he should read that book.

Ghs

Thanks, George. I should probably reread it as well. It's been nearly 15 years and I was reading it at that time for what I could get out of the book. Branden's insights that awareness and acceptance come before and are more basic to psychology than identification and evaluation are very important and distinct from Rand. I do hope Branden's books on psychology get critical review, but I think that will come later as it did with Rand. I think most academic psychologists aren't quite ready to take on his body of work just yet.

Jim

[Philip Coates]

> I do hope Branden's books on psychology get critical review, but I think that will come later as it did with Rand. I think most academic psychologists aren't quite ready to take on his body of work just yet. [Jim HN]

That's why the kind of 'review essay' I described in post #1 might be helpful. It's not always so important who wrote it as the fact that it intrigues some important people who are respected in the field.

[Selene]

Folks, I have read few of his books which I am in the process of correcting. I am working my way through Discovering the Unknown Self which I find quite good.

However, his book that truly impacted me was Breaking Free, which came out in 1971 and was his second book.

I found it to be significantly helpful to my development. It helped unblock my writers block in terms of poetry. In fact, I wrote my first poem on the inside cover of the book while riding the LIRR one afternoon.

Here is an October1971 interview called Break Free, published by REASON:

http://www.scribd.co...thaniel-Branden

The first half of the interview allows him to comment on psychologists from Skinner, Perls, Maslow, Ellis and Szasz which is edifying.

The issue of homosexuality is broached.

On page eight (8) he begins to explain his approach to therapy and psychological issues.

At the bottom of page eleven (11) he nails the issue of "psychologizing" drawing a sharp distinction to Ayn and criticizing her position in the Objectivist on the issue.

He also repudiates the book Who Is Ayn Rand?

Page thirteen (13) is a real treasure because it addresses the "movement" as well as Ayn's personality.

The break is addressed very candidly in the balance of the twenty (20) page article.

Well worth the read.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If I had to name a single book that has helped my writing more than any other, it would be The Handbook of Good English (1982), by Edward D. Johnson. Aside from dealing with the usual basics on grammar and punctuation, Johnson discusses many complex sentence structures that frequently confuse even experienced writers. And his debunking of some of the myths perpetuated by Struck and White is refreshing, as illustrated in his section "Don't be afraid of the passive voice." Johnson concludes:

George,

I just got my hands on this book based on your recommendation.

I'll try to go through it, but to be honest, the Table of Contents shows an approach that does not appeal to me. This is not to say that it is a bad approach, but merely one that I tend to avoid. I don't like reading rule-books. And from years of translating technical manuals, and now a few years of studying instructions about Internet marketing, I have received more than my fill of that format.

I'm an artist at heart. And that shit's boring.

This is what makes Zinsser's book so valuable to me. It is not a grammar book. And he manages to set the bar really high with each chapter. He pushes you to think about the communicating you are doing, not about the rules. He constantly advises you to make sure each component of your writing is "doing useful work." This "work" in Zinsser-speak is always about communicating your message well.

Here's a typical passage where he is discussing the principle of simplicity (p. 8 of On Writing Well) to illustrate what I mean. (I added italics instead of indenting because the forum program sometimes acts weird on indents when quoting.)

During the 1960s the president of my university wrote a letter to mollify the alumni after a spell of campus unrest. "You are probably aware," he began, "that we have been experiencing very considerable potentially explosive expressions of dissatisfaction on issues only partially related." He meant the students had been hassling them about different things. I was far more upset by the president's English than by the students' potentially explosive expressions of dissatisfaction. I would have preferred the presidential approach taken by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he tried to convert into English his own government's memos, such as this blackout order of 1942:

Such preparations shall be made as will completely obscure all Federal buildings and non-Federal buildings occupied by the Federal government during an air raid for any period of time from visibility by reason of internal or external illumination.

"Tell them," Roosevelt said, "that in buildings where they have to keep the work going to put something across the windows."

Another great message I got from Zinsser is embarrassing to admit, but this is what happened. When I first started writing on SoloHQ in about 2005, I had not studied formal writing in any way other than my long-forgotten high-school classes. I decided to write about things that I found important during my years of living. I thought I was in front of a friendly audience, so I had no reservations about presenting stories from my life. At times I used them as the whole topic and at other times I used them to illustrate a point. Back then, I considered them as incomplete autobiographical glimpses into my past. I had the intention to complete them one day.

Now along came Zinsser. He has a whole chapter on writing memoirs and, for the first time after I read it, I learned that there is a writing form called "memoir" (which is different than autobiography) that I had been doing quite well. Memoirs are among some of mankind's most treasured works. I was doing it right and didn't even know it.

Back during the SoloHQ days, I was constantly mocked for writing "fluff"--and these criticisms mostly targeted my life-stories. If only I knew then what I know now. I wasn't writing fluff at all. The idiots who were mocking me didn't have a clue about what a memoir was. I didn't either, but I was doing it. Essentially, they didn't know good writing from their asses.

Live and learn...

btw - This has been a life-long pattern with me. I go out and start doing stuff, often doing it well, without learning very basic information about the activity. I remember getting close to winning a state debating championship in high school. I was debating on the negative side. The problem is that I didn't realize all I had to do was disprove ONE point by the positive to win. Had I known that, instead of attacking full out with everything I could think of, I would have isolated the weakest argument (or arguments) of the opponent and gone deeply into it. In short, I had to win a string of debates in order to learn a basic rule about debating competitions.

This blindness about master of the obvious stuff has often made me frustrated with me over the years.

One comment about your mention of the passive voice. (Many times, the impact of my writing has been diluted by the passive voice. Oops... Many times, the passive voice has diluted the impact of my writing. )

There is one use of the passive voice I detest.

(LATER EDIT: gurghhh... How ironic! I detest one use of the passive voice. Ahh... that's better...)

It can make the most mundane thought sound highfalutin and academic. I think it is an inherently boring style. That's not the whole story, of course (so I am particularly interested in what Johnson has to say), but even boring has stylistic uses at times.

For example, if you want to affect a detached intellectually superior tone, what better way than let direct objects do the work of subjects? Some might call it snooty, but if snootiness is your game, passive is your frame.

I suppose there are positive stylistic uses, but I'll own up to my prejudice. I resent the 35,000 pages of mostly bad technical writing I translated from Portuguese into English because a great deal of it was chock full of the passive voice. I developed a piss-poor habit that haunts me every time I sit down to write. So I have to fight against the passive urge.

(Somehow that last sentence sounds horrible. )

Unfortunately, Rand herself succumbed to passive voice overdose in ITOE. I think writing a formal philosophy text intimidated her and, as she was an excellent stylist, she adopted an academic style as part of the show to muster her courage. I can't think of anywhere else in her writing where she was so gawdawful boring, nor where she used the passive voice with such frequency. I see cause and effect here.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

If I had to name a single book that has helped my writing more than any other, it would be The Handbook of Good English (1982), by Edward D. Johnson. Aside from dealing with the usual basics on grammar and punctuation, Johnson discusses many complex sentence structures that frequently confuse even experienced writers. And his debunking of some of the myths perpetuated by Struck and White is refreshing, as illustrated in his section "Don't be afraid of the passive voice." Johnson concludes:

George, I just got my hands on this book based on your recommendation. I'll try to go through it, but to be honest, the Table of Contents shows an approach that does not appeal to me. This is not to say that it is a bad approach, but merely one that I tend to avoid. I don't like reading rule-books.

Johnson's book is far more than a book of rules. It that's all there was to it, I wouldn't recommend it over dozens of similar books on grammar.

The first two parts of the book (on Grammar and Punctuation) are the most useful to the experienced writer, because they deal with problems and errors that are sometimes not discussed in standard grammar books. Some of Johnson's explanations are fairly technical, but that is what makes them so useful to advanced writers. Here is an example that I picked more-or-less at random, from pp. 54-5. This is not especially technical, but it illustrates how Johnson deals with specific issues.

Adverbs that should be adjectives

I feel badly about it is the most common type of error; the example itself is so common that some authorities accept it as standard English. The verb feel is a linking verb in this construction, not an ordinary verb as it can be in other constructions, such as The doctor feels carefully along the patient's spine. A linking verb links its subject to the following word or phrase. I is a pronoun and cannot be modified by or linked to an adverb. It can be modified or linked to an adjective. Thus it should be I feel bad.

An occasional expression such as I feel badly may infiltrate the speech and writing of those who are conscious of grammar and know something about it, but not enough; they think the verb feel has to be followed by the adverb badly, so they carefully tack on the ly. It's an embarrassing error, because it suggests a self-conscious attempt to be correct. To avoid embarrassment we have to pay special attention to expressions involving linking verbs. The most common linking verb is, of course, be; other common verbs that can be linking verbs are seem, appear, look, become, grow, taste, feel, smell, sound, remain, and stay. Most of them are not always linking verbs. The verb smell is not a linking verb in He vigorously smells the wine or in He smells less acutely than the winemaster, but it is a linking verb in He smells strong after his sessions in the wine cellar.

You have to hold the camera vertical for close-up portraits is correct. It is the camera, not the holding of it, that has to be vertical; hold the camera vertically would be the same sort of error as feel badly, though it does not involve a linking verb. It involves an object complement -- a noun or adjective that follows the actual object of the verb to complete the meaning. Let us see it clear and plain is a similar use of object complements.

Precision can be important. In opening his poem on his father's dying with the line Do not go gentle into that good night, Dylan Thomas, not just a master but a grandmaster and ringmaster of language, was being precisely correct; he wanted his father to be ungentle about the prospect of dying, but he did not want his father to die ungently -- that is, he did not want the death to be ungentle and painful, which Do not go gently would mean.

I have read dozens of books on grammar over the years, and this is the best explanation of this issue that I have seen. The same goes for many of Johnson's other explanations as well. Especially useful to me personally (some years ago) was Johnson's discussion of comma use in highly complex sentences. It dramatically changed how I use commas.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Folks, I have read few of his books which I am in the process of correcting. I am working my way through Discovering the Unknown Self which I find quite good.

However, his book that truly impacted me was Breaking Free, which came out in 1971 and was his second book.

I found it to be significantly helpful to my development. It helped unblock my writers block in terms of poetry. In fact, I wrote my first poem on the inside cover of the book while riding the LIRR one afternoon.

Here is an October1971 interview called Break Free, published by REASON:

http://www.scribd.co...thaniel-Branden

The first half of the interview allows him to comment on psychologists from Skinner, Perls, Maslow, Ellis and Szasz which is edifying.

The issue of homosexuality is broached.

On page eight (8) he begins to explain his approach to therapy and psychological issues.

At the bottom of page eleven (11) he nails the issue of "psychologizing" drawing a sharp distinction to Ayn and criticizing her position in the Objectivist on the issue.

He also repudiates the book Who Is Ayn Rand?

Page thirteen (13) is a real treasure because it addresses the "movement" as well as Ayn's personality.

The break is addressed very candidly in the balance of the twenty (20) page article.

Well worth the read.

Adam

The book also illustrates his first and primitive use of sentence completions. This matured in the next year or two as reflected in his next book The Disowned Self, which was basically an appendix to The Psychology of Self Esteem (1969) as he wanted to emphasize how his emphasis had changed from the 1960s. He never wrote a book that heavy again (TPSE), but he did write some very good ones including The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. In my 1994 review in "The Objective American" I criticized the lack of a workbook to go along with it. BTW, TPSE was basically articles he had published in the 1960s co-edited by Ayn Rand. And I believe he returned the favor. This entrepreneur of Objectivism had some intellectual influence on the philosophy.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant:

Yes, I noticed that he was using it with the clients. It's interesting because it is an interrogation technique which I was always aware of, but he developed it along a completely different path with excellent results.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Brant:

Yes, I noticed that he was using it with the clients. It's interesting because it is an interrogation technique which I was always aware of, but he developed it along a completely different path with excellent results.

Adam

He didn't invent sentence completion. He invented the sentence completion technique--a structured way of using it. Before him it was merely free association. This is like saying he didn't invent the wheel, he invented putting the wheel on an axle and the axle on a cart with an animal to pull it. (The Incas didn't know of the wheel, btw, but they had roads.) As an interrogation technique it would not really be concerned with psychology, but maybe the cops were using a structured method too.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant:

Yes, I noticed that he was using it with the clients. It's interesting because it is an interrogation technique which I was always aware of, but he developed it along a completely different path with excellent results.

Adam

He didn't invent sentence completion. He invented the sentence completion technique--a structured way of using it. Before him it was merely free association. This is like saying he didn't invent the wheel, he invented putting the wheel on an axle and the axle on a cart with an animal to pull it. (The Incas didn't know of the wheel, btw, but they had roads.) As an interrogation technique it would not really be concerned with psychology, but maybe the cops were using a structured method too.

--Brant

That's what I meant, you put it much better than I.

[George H. Smith]

This is what makes Zinsser's book so valuable to me. It is not a grammar book. And he manages to set the bar really high with each chapter. He pushes you to think about the communicating you are doing, not about the rules. He constantly advises you to make sure each component of your writing is "doing useful work." This "work" in Zinsser-speak is always about communicating your message well....

I like Zinsser's book. I haven't read it in years, however, so last night I went through a couple boxes of books on writing, dug it out, and began reading it again. Quite a few books like this have been written, but I would say this is one of the more entertaining ones.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I will go through the Johnson book. But I swear, if I have to worry about how to handle linking verbs versus God knows what when I sit down to write, I will shut down.

Johnson's explanation in your quote of the Dylan Thomas line is clever, but it doesn't do anything for me. In my aesthetic view, the meaning he projects onto the poem is a gigantic nit-pick and has very little to do with what the poem is about, I don't care how much he gushes about Thomas.

But, I know that you should give something a good honest shot before making such negative comments, so I will dive into the book. I'm certain it will give me a lot of food for thought whether I agree or disagree with this or that in his definitions of errors (including ones he attributes to authorities on the English language as he said in your quote--which reminded me of rule-based music theory books I have studied where one authority bashes other authorities for "errors").

Just from reading your quote, though, I did find that he forces you to think. And that's always a good thing. So that, coupled with your recommendation, makes me sure my time will be well spent.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George, I will go through the Johnson book. But I swear, if I have to worry about how to handle linking verbs versus God knows what when I sit down to write, I will shut down. Johnson's explanation in your quote of the Dylan Thomas line is clever, but it doesn't do anything for me. In my aesthetic view, the meaning he projects onto the poem is a gigantic nit-pick and has very little to do with what the poem is about, I don't care how much he gushes about Thomas. But, I know that you should give something a good honest shot before making such negative comments, so I will dive into the book. I'm certain it will give me a lot of food for thought whether I agree or disagree with this or that in his definitions of errors (including ones he attributes to authorities on the English language as he said in your quote--which reminded me of rule-based music theory books I have studied where one authority bashes other authorities for "errors"). Just from reading your quote, though, I did find that he forces you to think. And that's always a good thing. So that, coupled with your recommendation, makes me sure my time will be well spent. Michael

I wouldn't recommend that you or anyone else dive into a book on grammar unless you have a specific purpose in mind. I normally consult grammar books when I am puzzled by a particular sentence I have written or wish to refresh my memory on a particular point.

I have never preached the need to learn technical grammatical terms and rules, largely because I tend to forget them myself within a few weeks of learning them. This is why I skim a number of books on grammar every year or so, looking for discussions that pertain to things I have written recently. I regard these annual reviews as literary booster shots, in effect, because they make me aware of details that I might have otherwise forgotten about or overlooked. I will sometimes correct a recurring error, however minor, after these reviews; and thus my writing will improve bit by bit, long after I have forgotten the formal rule that originally caused me to make the change. I see no value in learning rules of grammar for their own sake.

Young writers -- serious writers, I mean -- frequently experience a rapid improvement in their writing style, as they develop their own distinctive voice. But such improvements become more incremental over time, and more difficult to achieve. This is where a periodic and selective reading or rereading books on grammar (in the broad sense) can prove useful.

As for Johnson's explanation of Dylan Thomas' use of "gentle" (instead of "gently'"), this was an interesting illustration of his grammatical point, nothing more. (I remember wondering about the usage when I first read the poem in high school.) It was no part of Johnson's intention to inject any "meaning" into the poem.

Although Johnson tends to be strict rather than permissive in his approach to grammar, he advises not to adhere to rules when the result sounds awkward. I agree with this, but I also believe that rules are broken to best advantage when one knows one is breaking them.

On the back cover of The Handbook of Good English, Willard Espy (the author of Words at Play) wrote this blurb: "This is the finest guide to grammar and style that has appeared since Fowler's Modern English Usage. No -- it is the finest that has appeared, period."

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

> “Dr. Ginott, I've started to read your books more than once and stopped. I haven’t found you to be an original or profound thinker.” [This is basically how Phil started this thread.]

Not at all, Dennis. There is a big difference between walking up to a man and saying I don't like your work and then trying to have a conversation -with him- and saying on a board **whose purpose is discussion** that you don't like a certain thinker's work. Especially if you give your reasons. Please tell me you're able to see the difference: Why the first is foolish and the second is appropriate intellectual discussion.

It’s one thing to say that you have read an author, offer specific criticisms of his work and invite discussion.. Quite another to say that you “started” to read his books and quit, trash him in vague and baseless terms, then ask others to “motivate” you to read more.

In the case of someone familiar with Objectivism, saying that about Branden, it is irresponsible, inexcusable and transparently manipulative.

I completely disagree with Diana Hsieh's critique of Branden's views, but at least she had the decency to read and understand him before ripping into him. I don't know what your motivation is, but the lack of respect you have displayed is extremely offensive to anyone who feels, as I do, that Branden has enriched his life in ways that could never be repaid.

[George H. Smith]

> “Dr. Ginott, I've started to read your books more than once and stopped. I haven’t found you to be an original or profound thinker.” [This is basically how Phil started this thread.]

Not at all, Dennis. There is a big difference between walking up to a man and saying I don't like your work and then trying to have a conversation -with him- and saying on a board **whose purpose is discussion** that you don't like a certain thinker's work. Especially if you give your reasons. Please tell me you're able to see the difference: Why the first is foolish and the second is appropriate intellectual discussion.

It’s one thing to say that you have read an author, offer specific criticisms of his work and invite discussion.. Quite another to say that you “started” to read his books and quit, trash him in vague and baseless terms, then ask others to “motivate” you to read more. In the case of someone familiar with Objectivism, saying that about Branden, it is irresponsible, inexcusable and transparently manipulative. I completely disagree with Diana Hsieh's critique of Branden's views, but at least she had the decency to read and understand him before ripping into him. I don't know what your motivation is, but the lack of respect you have displayed is extremely offensive to anyone who feels, as I do, that Branden has enriched his life in ways that could never be repaid.

Well put, Dennis.

Of course, Phil will plead his innocence once again, claiming that his remarks have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by his enemies. If sincere, this plea will reveal a mental denseness unparalleled in the annals of OL. If insincere, it will reveal a manipulative first cousin to a troll.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> Phil will plead his innocence once again, claiming that his remarks have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by his enemies.

Why should I even bother?

You and Dennis and others on this thread are too fucking dumb to read what I said anyway.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wouldn't recommend that you or anyone else dive into a book on grammar...

George,

Too late.

The boat's done left.

At least you can console yourself entertaining the very high probability that I will not finish the damn thing.

(But then again, I might... I'm kinda hardheaded... Ahh... Baloney... I'll probably do like you said and use it for sporadic reference as my needs and interest arise.)

Michael

[caroljane]

I wouldn't recommend that you or anyone else dive into a book on grammar...

I wouldn't either. If people started to learn grammar and basic essay construction on their own, I would be out of work.

[Philip Coates]

> Phil, honestly, I was trying to turn you around a bit, get you going on something productive, exciting, already remarkably good and supported on this site, get you to fuck your enemies and turn to your friends...Do you trust anyone to help you?...don't give up on yourself and your dreams to fear. ...Trying different ways and means of helping myself and others closer to practical truth. Entertainingly if possible. Savagely if necessary. With kindness if it might be effective. [WSS, post 37]

Willliam, I really do appreciate your civil attempt to be helpful, to strongly criticize me where you think it is appropriate, and the time you spent on trying to communicate with someone as hard-headed as me.

For that reason I don't mind the occasional sarcasm or snark, because it's not the essence of the communication, and I don't sense someone mean-spirited or whose primary objective is to play "gotcha". (Unlike some of the vicious little ankle-biters around here.)

However, I think we will often have to agree to disagree ==>

> A Staggering Irony for him to ask for this kind of labour while dodging it himself [WSS]

Not exactly: The most precise way to put it is you draw conclusions about what you've seen; if this were a venue where people were serious about putting effort into something like this, and if they treated other people's efforts with respect and engaged with them, then, for my part, I'd be considerably more likely to put more effort in myself. (And also note that I have done many, many, many efforts of labor in the past and usually gotten little back in return.)

> an embarrassing blunder -- in tone, tenor, register, angle of attack...How many times have we seen or watched or listened to or read drama or comedy or tragedy and seen a real person or a fictional person stand in his or her own way?

Not really interested in much 'trade' or having friends among the J's, ND's, Brants, GHS's, and the vicious little turds I see here. So I'm not "getting in my way" of achieving that goal. Lowlifes and snarky insult boys have no values to offer me. My value (and it is limited) is often to kick 'em in the teeth. And play whack-a-mole when they pop up with something stupid that it doesn't take me long to shoot down. Other times I'll just ignore 'em when they make a particularly dumb form of sophistry that falls of its own weight in any rational mind.

You seem to have the idea that the Oist movement - especially as epitomized on these discussion boards - is an unparalleled fount of great wisdom, well-meaning allies, thoughtful commentary. And wise and knowledgeable people. :-) And that I'm somehow missing out if I antagonize some of these paragons.

> your zeal for and knowledge of Objectivism could help you Spread Objectivism. It is a good hook, I think, a fine spine, a great jumping-off point. You could kill two birds, maybe three, with one stone.

I don't think Objectivism is going to spread until a host of more fundamental attitudes, knowledge, liberal arts education, persuasion 'savvy', people skills are treated with respect and effort first. Problem is: A majority of these people are not "housebroken", so no one in their right mind is going to listen to them.

> give your fans something to valorize, get Objectivism spreading, and complete a personally-satisfying task for which you believe you are well-qualified.

I do have fans but they are not in this steadily declining arrogant and foolish and often sick little subculture. And I have other goals, things I want to spread instead, which are more personally satisfying. And I'm afraid there are better people out there.

[George H. Smith]

> Phil will plead his innocence once again, claiming that his remarks have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by his enemies. Why should I even bother? You and Dennis and others on this thread are too fucking dumb to read what I said anyway.

What you said was essentially this: You haven't read any of Branden's books, but you don't think he is especially profound or original. Of course, how you know this without having read any of his books is anyone's guess. You continued by suggesting that someone write a comprehensive review that might help to ameliorate your ignorance. Again, why you cannot simply skim some of Branden's books and find the parts that interest you is anyone's guess.

You also said that you started to read some of Branden's books but stopped. When I asked what books these were, you refused to answer, claiming that I had not showed sufficient respect to deserve an answer. I suspect you were lying through your teeth. In any case, if you are unwilling or unable to read a book by Branden, then why should anyone care what you think?

It was with good reason that Michael dumped this thread in the Garbage Pile.

Ghs