Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[Xray]

What a fascinating piece of gossip. Shall we retire to the backyard and hang our wash while we gossip some more. Dang, just what I wanted to know today. What a gem of wisdom.

I hope I forget it by dinnertime.

Why are you so worked up over this?

But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism.

I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed.

But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right?

[seymourblogger]

What a fascinating piece of gossip. Shall we retire to the backyard and hang our wash while we gossip some more. Dang, just what I wanted to know today. What a gem of wisdom. I hope I forget it by dinnertime.

Why are you so worked up over this? But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism. I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed. But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right?

I almost know nothing about Phil. I think I engaged with him on 2 or 3 posts here not at solo. OMG how many was it? 2 or 3? Could it have been even 4? Tellen Crupple will accuse me of being old lady forgetful again I just know it. IYou really assume and generalize so much. It is contributing to your thinking process and weakening it. I realize you will gt reinforced for it here which will continue it for you. A pity.

[seymourblogger]

What a fascinating piece of gossip. Shall we retire to the backyard and hang our wash while we gossip some more. Dang, just what I wanted to know today. What a gem of wisdom. I hope I forget it by dinnertime.

Why are you so worked up over this? But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism. I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed. But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right?

Do you want to argue about this? Is this why when you asked a question of me and I wanted to answer it over on my blog and you wanted it done here because of the ease of the software in quoting? You do remember?

That's not the real reason you wanted it over here. Do you want me to interpret the real reason for you?

I "read" through Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrilard, Virilio, Freud, Lacan. I do not argue theory as I think theory lies in the Hegelian dialectic. Foucault demolished Hegel. This demolished Marxism and Foucault did not fire a shot at Marxism to destroy Marxian theory. It's gone. Good-bye.

[caroljane]

What a fascinating piece of gossip. Shall we retire to the backyard and hang our wash while we gossip some more. Dang, just what I wanted to know today. What a gem of wisdom. I hope I forget it by dinnertime.

Why are you so worked up over this? But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism. I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed. But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right?

Do you want to argue about this? Is this why when you asked a question of me and I wanted to answer it over on my blog and you wanted it done here because of the ease of the software in quoting? You do remember?

That's not the real reason you wanted it over here. Do you want me to interpret the real reason for you?

I "read" through Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrilard, Virilio, Freud, Lacan. I do not argue theory as I think theory lies in the Hegelian dialectic. Foucault demolished Hegel. This demolished Marxism and Foucault did not fire a shot at Marxism to destroy Marxian theory. It's gone. Good-bye.

Xray "reads" through Xray, in my yearlong experience of "reading" Xray through Lynam, Stuart. McAloon, Montgomery and occasionally Lapointe-Gelinas.

She hasn't demolished Hegel or Foucault or Marx yet, but she could probably do it.

A la prochaine

[seymourblogger]

Here's how to "ping-pong the inter-forum dialectic" in O-Land so you can get some attention if you're a lonely old lady.

1. Start out as a lonely old lady.

2. Go talk shit about OL on SLOP.

3. Come to OL and talk shit about SLOP.

4. Claim people are howling and pretend you are important.

5. Stand back and bask in the attention.

Step three isn't happening according to the formula this go-around because the dust hasn't settled enough for the pattern to work. All I would have to do is not say anything and that's where it would go.

I'm 100% certain of that.

You won't get high quality attention this way, but who's complaining when you have nothing? Hell, village gossip must be worth something to someone. And a half-glass of water to a person dying of thirst in the desert can save that person's life.

Michael

Lonely and solitude: 2 different things. Jonathan Franzen on Solitude. All writers live in solitude MSK. How else can you read and think. Nietzsche: either children or books.

[seymourblogger]

What a fascinating piece of gossip. Shall we retire to the backyard and hang our wash while we gossip some more. Dang, just what I wanted to know today. What a gem of wisdom. I hope I forget it by dinnertime.

Why are you so worked up over this? But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism. I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed. But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right?

Do you want to argue about this? Is this why when you asked a question of me and I wanted to answer it over on my blog and you wanted it done here because of the ease of the software in quoting? You do remember?

That's not the real reason you wanted it over here. Do you want me to interpret the real reason for you?

I "read" through Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrilard, Virilio, Freud, Lacan. I do not argue theory as I think theory lies in the Hegelian dialectic. Foucault demolished Hegel. This demolished Marxism and Foucault did not fire a shot at Marxism to destroy Marxian theory. It's gone. Good-bye.

Xray "reads" through Xray, in my yearlong experience of "reading" Xray through Lynam, Stuart. McAloon, Montgomery and occasionally Lapointe-Gelinas.

She hasn't demolished Hegel or Foucault or Marx yet, but she could probably do it.

A la prochaine

Don't reinvent the wheel. Foucault has already done in Hegel. If you do in Hegel, Marx just dissolves as Marxian structure is based on Hegel. If you want to get the best of me you are going to have to get smarter.

[caroljane]

Here's how to "ping-pong the inter-forum dialectic" in O-Land so you can get some attention if you're a lonely old lady.

1. Start out as a lonely old lady.

2. Go talk shit about OL on SLOP.

3. Come to OL and talk shit about SLOP.

4. Claim people are howling and pretend you are important.

5. Stand back and bask in the attention.

Step three isn't happening according to the formula this go-around because the dust hasn't settled enough for the pattern to work. All I would have to do is not say anything and that's where it would go.

I'm 100% certain of that.

You won't get high quality attention this way, but who's complaining when you have nothing? Hell, village gossip must be worth something to someone. And a half-glass of water to a person dying of thirst in the desert can save that person's life.

Michael

Lonely and solitude: 2 different things. Jonathan Franzen on Solitude. All writers live in solitude MSK. How else can you read and think. Nietzsche: either children or books.

MSK was addressing you, however. You are neither Frantzen nor Nietsche nor a writer.

[caroljane]

What a fascinating piece of gossip. Shall we retire to the backyard and hang our wash while we gossip some more. Dang, just what I wanted to know today. What a gem of wisdom. I hope I forget it by dinnertime.

Why are you so worked up over this? But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism. I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed. But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right?

Do you want to argue about this? Is this why when you asked a question of me and I wanted to answer it over on my blog and you wanted it done here because of the ease of the software in quoting? You do remember?

That's not the real reason you wanted it over here. Do you want me to interpret the real reason for you?

I "read" through Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrilard, Virilio, Freud, Lacan. I do not argue theory as I think theory lies in the Hegelian dialectic. Foucault demolished Hegel. This demolished Marxism and Foucault did not fire a shot at Marxism to destroy Marxian theory. It's gone. Good-bye.

Xray "reads" through Xray, in my yearlong experience of "reading" Xray through Lynam, Stuart. McAloon, Montgomery and occasionally Lapointe-Gelinas.

She hasn't demolished Hegel or Foucault or Marx yet, but she could probably do it.

A la prochaine

Don't reinvent the wheel. Foucault has already done in Hegel. If you do in Hegel, Marx just dissolves as Marxian structure is based on Hegel. If you want to get the best of me you are going to have to get smarter.

If there is a best of you. please bring it on. We have already seen the worst for free.

[seymourblogger]

Here's how to "ping-pong the inter-forum dialectic" in O-Land so you can get some attention if you're a lonely old lady.

1. Start out as a lonely old lady.

2. Go talk shit about OL on SLOP.

3. Come to OL and talk shit about SLOP.

4. Claim people are howling and pretend you are important.

5. Stand back and bask in the attention.

Step three isn't happening according to the formula this go-around because the dust hasn't settled enough for the pattern to work. All I would have to do is not say anything and that's where it would go.

I'm 100% certain of that.

You won't get high quality attention this way, but who's complaining when you have nothing? Hell, village gossip must be worth something to someone. And a half-glass of water to a person dying of thirst in the desert can save that person's life.

Michael

Lonely and solitude: 2 different things. Jonathan Franzen on Solitude. All writers live in solitude MSK. How else can you read and think. Nietzsche: either children or books.

MSK was addressing you, however. You are neither Frantzen nor Nietsche nor a writer.

Franzen is spelled Franzen not Frantzen. You're right. I am none of the above.

[seymourblogger]

What a fascinating piece of gossip. Shall we retire to the backyard and hang our wash while we gossip some more. Dang, just what I wanted to know today. What a gem of wisdom. I hope I forget it by dinnertime.

Why are you so worked up over this? But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism. I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed. But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right?

Do you want to argue about this? Is this why when you asked a question of me and I wanted to answer it over on my blog and you wanted it done here because of the ease of the software in quoting? You do remember?

That's not the real reason you wanted it over here. Do you want me to interpret the real reason for you?

I "read" through Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrilard, Virilio, Freud, Lacan. I do not argue theory as I think theory lies in the Hegelian dialectic. Foucault demolished Hegel. This demolished Marxism and Foucault did not fire a shot at Marxism to destroy Marxian theory. It's gone. Good-bye.

Xray "reads" through Xray, in my yearlong experience of "reading" Xray through Lynam, Stuart. McAloon, Montgomery and occasionally Lapointe-Gelinas.

She hasn't demolished Hegel or Foucault or Marx yet, but she could probably do it.

A la prochaine

Don't reinvent the wheel. Foucault has already done in Hegel. If you do in Hegel, Marx just dissolves as Marxian structure is based on Hegel. If you want to get the best of me you are going to have to get smarter.

If there is a best of you. please bring it on. We have already seen the worst for free.

Keep on, you'll see it.

[seymourblogger]

Here's how to "ping-pong the inter-forum dialectic" in O-Land so you can get some attention if you're a lonely old lady.

1. Start out as a lonely old lady.

2. Go talk shit about OL on SLOP.

3. Come to OL and talk shit about SLOP.

4. Claim people are howling and pretend you are important.

5. Stand back and bask in the attention.

Step three isn't happening according to the formula this go-around because the dust hasn't settled enough for the pattern to work. All I would have to do is not say anything and that's where it would go.

I'm 100% certain of that.

You won't get high quality attention this way, but who's complaining when you have nothing? Hell, village gossip must be worth something to someone. And a half-glass of water to a person dying of thirst in the desert can save that person's life.

Michael

Lonely and solitude: 2 different things. Jonathan Franzen on Solitude. All writers live in solitude MSK. How else can you read and think. Nietzsche: either children or books.

MSK was addressing you, however. You are neither Frantzen nor Nietsche nor a writer.

Jeez MSK I am almost up to 14K on that post.Another 1000 since we bean counted together. You got yours on Ayn Rand's MOJO I got mine on my own. Who's the better Objectivist. Not a question. Who's the second rater sliding on someone else's MOJO?

Second rater? Hey! You are being too kind tenaj!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seymourblogger,

Going from village gossip to kindergarten taunts now?

It's the veritable Incredible Hulk in Depend incontinence products.

Pour it on, silly lady.

Court jester is your best schtick so far.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Pour it on, silly lady.

Court jester is your best schtick so far.

Yeah, well she'll never outfox the fox!

[caroljane]

Seymourblogger,

Going from village gossip to kindergarten taunts now?

It's the veritable Incredible Hulk in Depend incontinence products.

Pour it on, silly lady.

Court jester is your best schtick so far.

Michael

Guess the moon is still full. Uncharacteristically nasty from you, bro. Funny though.

[George H. Smith]

Here's how to "ping-pong the inter-forum dialectic" in O-Land so you can get some attention if you're a lonely old lady.

1. Start out as a lonely old lady.

2. Go talk shit about OL on SLOP.

3. Come to OL and talk shit about SLOP.

4. Claim people are howling and pretend you are important.

5. Stand back and bask in the attention.

Step three isn't happening according to the formula this go-around because the dust hasn't settled enough for the pattern to work. All I would have to do is not say anything and that's where it would go.

I'm 100% certain of that.

You won't get high quality attention this way, but who's complaining when you have nothing? Hell, village gossip must be worth something to someone. And a half-glass of water to a person dying of thirst in the desert can save that person's life.

Michael

Michael,

Do you have any links to SOLO in which Janet complains about OL? I just paid a brief visit to the site, but I'm not familiar with the layout, and I don't have the patience to do much searching,.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Uncharacteristically nasty from you, bro. Funny though.

Carol,

That's my tempering by life.

I actually do feel pity for this little nobody. In former times I would have let my pity let her contaminate this forum with her brand of poison by trying to reason with her about it.

I've learned that there is no reasoning with destructive people--especially destructive nobodies--once they have gone over a certain line. They don't stop. Their mission in life is not to produce anything of value to others so they can receive payment. It's status--pure unadulterated unearned status. It kills them inside that other people have it and they can't seem to get their hands on it, so they spend their time racing against the wind for the booby prize at a finish line that never appears.

Well... that never works.

So they try something else.

They try to take an ephemeral cure to their frustration and inner emptiness from someone they target. It's an ancient superstition, really. You find this in savage tribes of cannibals where they imagine they will obtain someone's courage or knowledge by eating that person's cadaver.

I could go on, but the bottom line is my job is to keep this forum healthy. And I take that task seriously. So I have to balance what I've learned in life about people who exist to destroy with jazzing things up for some entertainment around here.

If nasty is the game I'm called out to play, sure. What the hell. I'm game. But only up to a certain point. If this little carnival bearded lady sideshow truly starts contaminating the spirit of intellectual goodwill on OL, I have stronger measures available to shut it down.

I never like doing that, even though I have to do it at times. It's such a pity...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you have any links to SOLO in which Janet complains about OL? I just paid a brief visit to the site, but I'm not familiar with the layout, and I don't have the patience to do much searching,.

George,

Ellen gave it earlier in this discussion, but you have to search for it. So here is the main SLOP thread. I suspect there are other comments to be found, but I don't read that forum very much and don't feel like starting: Happy BIrthday Ayn Rand - Why You Are Still Misunderstood.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If Janet is destructive to OL then, if it gets irredeemably bad enough, cancel her account. There has been so much crap put up by her since she "left" it makes me want to leave, not that I'm going to for that. I'm assuming you aren't into S/M. She can't change; she has nothing to change to; and she's not Prometheus.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There has been so much crap put up by her since she "left"...

Brant,

Come to think of it, that's true.

What the hell happened to the dialectic ping-pong game and reading MSK through Perigo? (Oh God, I don't believe I actually wrote that... )

I just restricted Semourblogger to 5 posts a day.

She can still charge at her silly windmills from her mangy horse, but no longer can she hog the forum doing it.

Now, on OL, she has to actually think before she posts if she does not want to squander her allowance, but I'm not expecting much.

As usual, if goodwill emerges over time, I'll lift the restriction.

Michael

[caroljane]

There has been so much crap put up by her since she "left"...

Brant,

Come to think of it, that's true.

What the hell happened to the dialectic ping-pong game and reading MSK through Perigo? (Oh God, I don't believe I actually wrote that... )

I just restricted Semourblogger to 5 posts a day.

She can still charge at her silly windmills from her mangy horse, but no longer can she hog the forum doing it.

Now, on OL, she has to actually think before she posts if she does not want to squander her allowance, but I'm not expecting much.

As usual, if goodwill emerges over time, I'll lift the restriction.

Michael

Good idea. If she thinks about and plans her posts, rather than just swinging wildly at the latest target, she will be less repetetitive. And, we hope. sound less like Aunt Pittypat Hamilton on crack.

[9thdoctor]

I just restricted Semourblogger to 5 posts a day.

She can still charge at her silly windmills from her mangy horse, but no longer can she hog the forum doing it.

Good move. You should take my advice more often.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=154798

And, we hope. sound less like Aunt Pittypat Hamilton on crack.

On crack? How do you tell the difference?

[caroljane]

I just restricted Semourblogger to 5 posts a day.

She can still charge at her silly windmills from her mangy horse, but no longer can she hog the forum doing it.

Good move. You should take my advice more often.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=154798

And, we hope. sound less like Aunt Pittypat Hamilton on crack.

On crack? How do you tell the difference?

Ah just intuited it honey. Ah don't know how, ah can jes know things. It all started after Aunt Pitty brought that Monsewer Bodiddley to the Cotillion Ball.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I saw it and I actually did take your advice. I merely did it on my perception of timing and not yours.

I thought of mentioning you in the post, but I didn't want this to look like a lynch mob thing to fuel the dragon lady's victimization narrative and David and Goliath narrative (with her, of course, slaying the monster and bringing us all to our knees begging for mercy) that will undoubtedly unfold.

Michael

[seymourblogger]

Uncharacteristically nasty from you, bro. Funny though.

Carol,

That's my tempering by life.

I actually do feel pity for this little nobody. In former times I would have let my pity let her contaminate this forum with her brand of poison by trying to reason with her about it.

I've learned that there is no reasoning with destructive people--especially destructive nobodies--once they have gone over a certain line. They don't stop. Their mission in life is not to produce anything of value to others so they can receive payment. It's status--pure unadulterated unearned status. It kills them inside that other people have it and they can't seem to get their hands on it, so they spend their time racing against the wind for the booby prize at a finish line that never appears.

Well... that never works.

So they try something else.

They try to take an ephemeral cure to their frustration and inner emptiness from someone they target. It's an ancient superstition, really. You find this in savage tribes of cannibals where they imagine they will obtain someone's courage or knowledge by eating that person's cadaver.

I could go on, but the bottom line is my job is to keep this forum healthy. And I take that task seriously. So I have to balance what I've learned in life about people who exist to destroy with jazzing things up for some entertainment around here.

If nasty is the game I'm called out to play, sure. What the hell. I'm game. But only up to a certain point. If this little carnival bearded lady sideshow truly starts contaminating the spirit of intellectual goodwill on OL, I have stronger measures available to shut it down.

I never like doing that, even though I have to do it at times. It's such a pity...

Michael

I suggest you don't do that.

[seymourblogger]

What a fascinating piece of gossip. Shall we retire to the backyard and hang our wash while we gossip some more. Dang, just what I wanted to know today. What a gem of wisdom.

I hope I forget it by dinnertime.

Why are you so worked up over this?

But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism.

I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed.

But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right?

I am finished with you too. I disagree with someone - I forget who now - having decided you didn't want to know "in good faith." A pity.