BaalChatzaf

The is no Objectve NOW.

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The funniest thing you've said I ever read.:D

--Brant

still laughing:D

You may thank physicist Wolfgang Pauli for that.  That was one if his  painful cutting barbs hurled at physicists who were sloppy.  Pauli was feared for his cutting but just and accurate barbs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, moralist said:

 It's theoretical, Bob. It's not real. Intellectuals like you don't know what's real.

It's only not obvious to you. It's obvious to me.

And I've concluded that you are a third rate doer... and that's why you were only fit to be a government employee. And now you're only a government pensioner.

 

Greg

I quite government service in 1968.  I have been out of such servitude for 48 years which is probably longer than you have lived. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I quite government service in 1968.  I have been out of such servitude for 48 years which is probably longer than you have lived. 

Quit kidding yourself, Bob. You were a government contract employee all of your life, and now you cash government pension checks. You've frequently expressed your hatred of government and it can be attributed to your dependent servile child/parent relationship to it because you were too inept to make it on your own out in the real world like an adult.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, moralist said:
8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I [quit] government service in 1968. 

Quit kidding yourself, Bob. You were a government contract employee all of your life

Why do you insist upon this false conclusion? What else but bigotry explains your inability to be corrected on matters of fact?

On 10/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

I quit working for the government in 1968.  Since then I never worked for a government or a government contractor.

What you are doing, Greg, is denoting Bob a liar, and presuming to know his life better than him.  The rest of your schtick ("feminized secular yadda yadda") is similarly based on malice and falsity. Besides accusing him of lying, you also judge he is a third-rate human being, a measly pensioner.  

Why do this, Greg? Why be so repetitively obnoxious and insulting on this issue? (there are plenty of means to disagree with or confront opinions you do not share. But the persistent personalized (ad hominem) attacks of this kind reflect poorly back on you.)  Habitual denigration approaches trollery, and tends to degrade the ethos of this forum. 

-- if you have some evidence that Bob is lying to you and the forum about his employment, bring it up, bring it on, share it.  Otherwise you have nothing but malice. Not a good look for a supposed Christophile.

-- here is the portion of Posting Guidelines that trolls blow past:

Quote

2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone’s intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum.

When I disagree with something Bob has written, praised or claimed, I do so without using demeaning language and wholesale slurs on his character and his 'class' ("Intellectuals Like You"), and when he is over-the-top with racialist claptrap about the boxcars and nuclear glass, I call out what I consider his gross cognitive errors and ugly statements.   I don't accuse him of being the wrong kind of Joo, or unable to assess a 'good' Joo from a Christmas cracker.

Your comments here have reached a peak of 94% nasty blots on character.  

I don't run this place, but if I did this would be your third heads-up.  If you can't argue without wild accusations against people, you should maybe shut your piehole. 

Edited by william.scherk
3rd warning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Why do you insist upon this false conclusion? 

It's not false, William.

Although Bob did work for the government until 1968 as he said... he has been a government contracted worker for all of his life. Many "private" companies work under government contract. His government educated him to be an employee. And Bob's infantile need/hate relationship to his mommie government is what accounts for our two completely different views of the world, as well as the two completely different circumstances of each of our lives.

Your comments are simply one bureaucrat defending another motivated by your shared values.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Why do you insist upon this false conclusion? What else but bigotry explains your inability to be corrected on matters of fact?

Greg is a government plant compiling a dossier on OL members.

As well-founded an assertion as his standard fare.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply stop replying to Greg. No more problem, at least a perceived problem.

He stopped on me a long time ago, although I took the more complicated path of telling him to stop. Those conversations are irretrievably buried amongst my past posts.

I've got a lot of that government in me he harps on. I joined the army and became a killer medic. What's left over is I'm an American warrior. It's now firmly part of my DNA. It began in my public education and I didn't know what was being done to me and I tended to be the least mentally passive of  my school mates. A lot is biological. We tend to group up for obvious reasons. Men tend naturally to be fighters too, only most sublimate that in our wealthy societies by going to work. You could say that by running around with a gun I was only getting back to my roots. On that level I loved it. If they/we/I had really been fighting for freedom in Vietnam--you have to fight to win--I would have kept it up. Instead I came home to better things like New York City, Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Another hole to climb out of, but I loved it too, while it lasted. Fortunately in a few months it was blasted. That was 1968.

The journey to individualism truly rendered is a fight between body and mind. All the gravitas is in the body. The mind is only a steering mechanism but that's the seat of individualism.

--Brant

stop being a victim of Greg; it's unseemly; it's not fight or flight; it's not right or wrong; most of all this isn't even wrong:)

conservatives primarily address the body and intellectuals the mind and Objectivism tends to come up short on the body side so the conservatives get most of the gravitas and Objectivism is dead in the water because Peikoff tried to make it a boat with him as captain in weak emulation of Rand who was sooo 1960s that way and frankly, she put a lot of her body into her work--call it "art"--and he is no artist (they should have stuffed her and mounted her outside the front door of the Ayn Rand Institute)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg is completely consistent in describing what he thinks are the narratives that drive peoples perspectives and opinions and why he chooses a different point of view.  His perspective is different but consistent and interesting for that reason.  William's attempt to characterize Greg as "bigot" is laughable as is William's  "I call out what I consider his gross cognitive errors and ugly statements." regarding Bob "not demeaning",  I presume because they are personal slurs therefore politically correct?  So, it's okay to show contempt for others as long as it's personal?  If so, I think Greg complies with the "keep it personal rule" perhaps better than WIlliam does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

I've got a lot of that government in me he harps on. I joined the army and became a killer medic. What's left over is I'm an American warrior. It's now firmly part of my DNA. It began in my public education and I didn't know what was being done to me and I tended to be the least mentally passive of  my school mates. A lot is biological. We tend to group up for obvious reasons. Men tend naturally to be fighters too, only most sublimate that in our wealthy societies by going to work. You could say that by running around with a gun I was only getting back to my roots. On that level I loved it. If they/we/I had really been fighting for freedom in Vietnam--you have to fight to win--I would have kept it up. Instead I came home to better things like New York City, Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Another hole to climb out of, but I loved it too, while it lasted. Fortunately in a few months it was blasted. That was 1968.

I too was a paid killer for the U.S. government  (I put a halt to that in 1968).  I was unable to be a warrior on the battle field for health reasons (bronchial asthma) but  I forged real killer weapons for the battle field warriors.   Several of my "babies" have shed human blood,  so indirectly ,  I am a manslayer.  I reached a point of terminal disgust in 1968, not only with the U.S. government but with State, City and Country governments.  From then on I would only work in the private sector  and never on a government funded contract.  Even so,  I consider my self American, down to my toenails. I consider the  put-upon citizens of this Republic  my countrymen.   I will join them in common cause to defend this Republic against all enemies,  foreign and domestic.  But  I still hates the government precioussssssss...... and I wants to see it bleed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Greg is a government plant compiling a dossier on OL members.

As well-founded an assertion as his standard fare.

Ellen

Ellen, I simply read Bob's own words clearly stating who he's worked for during his life. And our two different career paths were formed by our two very different views of the world.

Bob's view was a result of his liberal government education which trained him to be an employee. While my view was not. My view was formed, not by living as a perpetual child in a liberal government adademia nursery... but rather from making my own way out in the real world by being an independent private sector American Capitalist entrepreneur.

Bob has stated many times how much he hates his government, and his hatred is only because of his dependence on it for his own financial wellbeing. This is very much like a spoiled child can hate a parent who takes care of it. What he really hates is his own weak dependence on the government. And this was by his own free choice.

In contrast to Bob's childish need/hate relationship to his government, the government is not my enemy. It's indifferent to me because i don't need it. The quality of my life doesn't depend on what it is or what it does or who is President, because I'm the only one who is personally responsible for my own life, and no one else.

It's an American value not to be dependent on the government, and that value has almost entirely disappeared from America. You can easily define your own self imposed slavery to your government by an honest assessment of your own lifetime of dependence on it for your own financial and emotional wellbeing.

Ayn Rand's designation of Producers Moochers and Looters is spot on.

This Trump phenomenon is quite amazing...

... in that it just might turn out to be a revolt of the independent American Capitalist producers against the government leeches and the public service union employee looters who can only exist by servicing the needs of the leeches.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emphasis added.

11 hours ago, moralist said:
22 hours ago, william.scherk said:
On 12/13/2016 at 9:15 AM, moralist said:
On 12/13/2016 at 8:18 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I [quit] government service in 1968. 

Quit kidding yourself, Bob. You were a government contract employee all of your life

Why do you insist upon this false conclusion?

It's not false, William.

Although Bob did work for the government until 1968 as he said... he has been a government contracted worker for all of his life.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it so, Greg. All we have to go by is Bob telling his story and Greg telling Bob's story.  

Quote

Many "private" companies work under government contract. 

Yes, that may be true.  It is also true that many private companies do not work under government contract.

What is needed is some intelligence on Bob -- not merely a repetitive assertion.  You are telling the forum that Bob is a liar about his lifetime employment.  He says he purposely avoided working for government or government-contracted companies since 1968. You say he is bullshitting himself and the forum -- that he is dishonest..

That is the root of the issue -- you have provided nothing but slur, and when challenged on a matter of fact, you repeat slurs. As I asked before -- why do you do this? 

Quote

His government educated him to be an employee. And Bob's infantile need/hate relationship to his mommie government is what accounts for our two completely different views of the world, as well as the two completely different circumstances of each of our lives.

"Bob's infantile need"  is a psychological  assessment as slur.  It joins the list of psychological states you have diagnosed in other people -- most notably when you assessed the etiology of homosexuality.  Rather than accepting the testimony of Reidy, myself, Stephen Boydstun, you continued to assign the gay members of OL to 'child sexual abuse' survivors who hadn't properly come to terms with their abuse.

See the similarity? -- make sweeping, nasty generalizations, and then refuse to consider any counterfactual evidence.  

To those who get a bit antsy over the use of 'bigotry,'  the usage is justified.  BIgotry is for me a fundamental refusal to 'update' information about a disliked group.  Once Bob has been tagged a 'government employee for life' and once Peter Reidy is tagged as a lying homosexualist,  the bigotry kicks in -- nothing can change that false conclusion. It is fixed, and that fixity is the hallmark..  

Quote
On 10/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

I quit working for the government in 1968.  Since then I never worked for a government or a government contractor.

What you are doing, Greg, is denoting Bob a liar, and presuming to know his life better than him.

To recap and focus on the issue:

BOB:  I stopped working for the government and its tentacles in 1968.
GREG: You worked for government contractors all your life. 
BOB:  I quit work for the government in 1968.
GREG: You worked for the government all your life. 
BOB: Wrong. I already explained this to you.
GREG: You are a liar. I know your life better than you do.
BOB: I stopped working for government in 1968.
GREG: You are a third rate doer.
BOB:  My government-tied employment ended completely in 1968.
GREG: You were only fit to be a government employee.
BOB:  I stopped working for government and subsidiary contractees in 1968.
GREG: You were too inept to make it on your own out in the real world like an adult.

How do you resolve those conflicting claims?

-- this is simple stuff, Greg.   If you have evidence that Bob is lying, bring it up, bring it on, bring it forward.

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I reached a point of terminal disgust in 1968, not only with the U.S. government but with State, City and Country governments.  From then on I would only work in the private sector  and never on a government funded contract.

That is what Bob is telling us. What Greg is telling us is Bob is a liar.

 

Edited by william.scherk
What is 'bigotry' and why should we care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, moralist said:

It's not false, William.

Although Bob did work for the government until 1968 as he said... he has been a government contracted worker for all of his life. Many "private" companies work under government contract. His government educated him to be an employee. And Bob's infantile need/hate relationship to his mommie government is what accounts for our two completely different views of the world, as well as the two completely different circumstances of each of our lives.

Your comments are simply one bureaucrat defending another motivated by your shared values.

 

Greg

Never worked as a contractor for a government (at any  level)  or a corporation that does contract business with the Federales.  And none of the projects I worked on were in any way supported by government contracts.   My last 33 years before retiring was strictly in the private sector.  You clearly have me mixed up with someone else....  I made it a matter of principle to given no aid and quarter to governments  after 1968.  As far as governments are concerned,  I am On Strike. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

 

To recap and focus on the issue:

BOB:  I stopped working for the government and its tentacles in 1968.
GREG: You worked for government contractors all your life. 
BOB:  I quite work for the government in 1968.
GREG: You worked for the government all your life. 
BOB: Wrong. I already explained this to you.
GREG: You are a liar. I know your life better than you do.

How do you resolve that?

 

It is clear.  Greg is a Legend in his own mind.  He is actually  a second rate third rate thinker and in his case consistency is a vice,  rather than a virtue. 

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”


 Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mikee said:

Greg is completely consistent in describing what he thinks are the narratives that drive peoples perspectives and opinions

Let's say that is true.  Is it also true he is consistently incorrigible?  When was the last time he corrected himself?**

Here the issue for me is one of unwarranted claims.  If Greg has some evidence that Bob is a liar, I invite him to bring that evidence forward.  If he were open to the notion that he is wrong about Bob's employment claims, then I would not harry him. He could write, "Okay, sorry, I was wrong about the details of Bob's employment history.  I still insist that Bob is a creature of his government education and that his values are opposed to mine."

I'll set the timer.

Quote

and why he chooses a different point of view. 

"A different point of view"  is euphemism.  In this instance, the 'different point of view' is that  Bob is a liar and an unworthy human being.  Why Greg chooses this point of view is not clear to me.  I believe, though I may be wrong, that Greg gets pleasure out of the insults.  He enjoys the freedom to be personally insulting and close-minded to correction.  I suspect there is a benefit to him that he could explain -- thus my questions "Why? Why do you do this?"

Quote

His perspective is different but consistent and interesting for that reason. 

That may be true for you in general.  But what is interesting to me is his consistent refusal -- here -- to accept corrections to his "Interesting Perspectives." 

Quote

William's attempt to characterize Greg as "bigot" is laughable as is William's  "I call out what I consider his gross cognitive errors and ugly statements." regarding Bob "not demeaning", 

Could it be that you misunderstand me?  My last dispute with Bob was in the Garbage Pile thread started by Jerry, with the Jeff Rense video..   Bob entered a bit of boilerplate about the Germans and the Boxcars -- as 'solution' to the Islamic Invasion of Germany.

Did I attack Bob with personal slurs and insults about him as a man?  Did I tell him he was a useless government-educated appendage?  Did I use only wholesale slurs against him to advance my argument?

Go have a look if you are sure you have me to rights.  Embarrass me with evidence that I rely on ad hominem arguments in that dispute.

To critique gross cognitive errors or ugly statements is not on its face "personalizing discussion." If I said, "Mike, you are a fool" then take that as insult. Take "Mike, your errors as I see them ..."  as demeaning if you like. 

The distinction you elided was the "angle of attack."  If I attack ... your argument, statements and claims, this is different from attacking you as a person, a class, a type, a general bloc of opinion.  Taking issue with your arguments is not to my eyes 'attacking the man.'

Quote

I presume because they are personal slurs therefore politically correct?  So, it's okay to show contempt for others as long as it's personal?  If so, I think Greg complies with the "keep it personal rule" perhaps better than WIlliam does.

I don't understand this.

I will gladly accept correction or embarrassment when you dig up my wholesale personal slurs against Bob. Contempt for an unwarranted and incorrigible position, I can own that.   The puzzling part is you "Greg complies with the 'keep it personal rule.'" Where is the 'keep it personal rule'? Perhaps you left out a word or qualifier.   

I mean, I fail.  I fail at times to keep discussion tightly on ideas and statements and claims and warrants. Especially in my early days at OL and elsewhere, I let all my rhetorical gambits slide into personalized crap.  I regret almost every single instance of such personalization. I would like to keep to my own prescriptions.  

.......................................

** -- as far as I remember, the last time Greg accepted correction was on the occasion of posting a pay-walled Wall Street Journal article.  He was told by civilians that this was problematic  He blanked-out all suggestions until ... Michael stepped in.  

Here is the totality of what I received as answer to my notes on pay-walls and fair-use:

Quote

William, did you know your indirect third person oratory as if addressing an audience is a liberal trait? It goes along side by side with the feminized queenly collective "we".

And here is what he had to say when Michael pointed out the same problem:

Quote

Thanks for the reminder, Michael.

Just to round out the thought -- I have twice rattled on about my "bigotry" usage. Here.

Quote

Bigotry is a simple concept to understand. I don't use it lightly on OL. I reserve it for the disgusting and degrading comments made by such as Moralist,  Wolf and the Joo-haters (since departed) and for Jerry's disgusting Rense-reliance, and for Bob's melange of Muslim Boxcar solution tropes.  I use it to refer to the Hatefest at SOLOpassion.  I use it to refer to Jeff Rense's disgusting comments in the OT

Here.

Quote

I appreciate bigotry as a habit of mind, a misplaced insistence on rectitude, an obstinate holding of one's opinions as being beyond doubt or useful criticism. It can be that a bigoted thinker in one aspect of life is a much more rational actor in others. I can think of some hockey fans, for example. I can also think of crowds of left-ish types of particular bigotry: the demonizing of "The Right" as if it were just an undifferentiated mass of You People. This is most often seen when a bigoted speaker dismisses as one of Those People as beyond the pale, because of his or her membership of a group. (so, of course, in my normal real life I have many 'discussions' with folks who hold bigoted views, often shallowly-warranted views -- and the key test for me is whether or not they allow in new information contra their opinion. If they do, the bigotry was only apparent in a forceful opinion. The old saw about not attributing to malice that which belongs to ignorance or error comes to mind ...)

 

Edited by william.scherk
Big big big

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

From then on I would only work in the private sector  and never on a government funded contract.

Never for a private company that does government contracted work?????

Then what company did you work for?

I'm all ears, Bob.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth noting... the only thing that calls William out from under his rock is defending another bureaucrat like himself. :wink:

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, moralist said:

Never for a private company that does government contracted work?????

Then what company did you work for?

I'm all ears, Bob.

 

Greg

Greg, It is not the height of shame to have worked for the government in a reasonably free country, not when they're almost the only game in town for some professions. To call one "a bureaucrat" is a stretch as well. That's a certain type of yes-man (I've seen too in private, corporate employ). It depends I think on whether one stays true to one's own standards in a job, and when that independence begins to be eroded, as it must in gvment work, doesn't remain much longer in their employment. Bob says he did his stint (and given his most specific skills, ability and interest, he was probably not widely in demand on the open market, I guess) and pulled out. Not everyone is capable or motivated to be self-employed, and complete free enterprise definitely would not require that anyway. You must be aware that research, science and other theoretical and technical projects need enormous capital backing (effectively they run at a short term loss).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, moralist said:

Never for a private company that does government contracted work?????

Then what company did you work for?

I'm all ears, Bob.

 

Greg

A dozen or so none of which were either government owned or did contract work with government.  I did a lot of work for general warehouses  and trucking companies.  Very private sector, very much not government connected all of which payed taxes and paid the usual  fees  for  permits and inspections withheld FICA from the salaries of their employees and all of which paid their income tax.    In the U.S. there is no such thing as a legal firm totally disconnected with government.

Not even yours.  You pay property tax.  You pay gasoline tax  and don't give me any shit about how  your customers pay it.  It -first- came out of your pocket.  You are an accomplice before and durng the fact,  so you should cease your smug  hyper righteous attitude forthwith.  We are all burdened with government whether we like it or not.  Greg, the Righteous is just another poor civilian schmuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "poor civilian schmuck" is homeless and pushing a shopping cart down the street with his worldly possessions. I see them every day.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

A "poor civilian schmuck" is homeless and pushing a shopping cart down the street with his worldly possessions. I see them every day.

--Brant

And some poor civilian schmucks are comfortable at home telling themselves everything is o.k. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 5:20 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

A dozen or so none of which were either government owned or did contract work with government.

What companies Bob?

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 3:38 AM, anthony said:

Greg, It is not the height of shame to have worked for the government in a reasonably free country, not when they're almost the only game in town for some professions.

Generally of course it isn't,Tony. I was speaking of Bob's personal situation of needing the government for which he has expressed so much hatred. There is always a connection between hate and need, and Bob's an example of that principle.

 

Greg

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...