Fake News

[Jon Letendre]

2 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon, your explanation wouldn't explain why specifically Objectivish sites.

Ellen

Oh, right. I don’t know, Rand’s sentiment about homosexuality?

Something set him off a decade and a half ago and he’s had a hair up his ass ever since.

He hates her and all of us. And frankly we all look stupid for suffering his sniveling presence year after after year after year.

He is not honest or intelligent or intellectually useful, he just snipes, condescends, evades, lies, evades.

Honest dissenters exist and their presence could be a positive.

It makes no sense at all that he is welcome here.

[caroljane]

12 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Oh, right. I don't know...

Indeed, you don't

It makes no sense at all that he is welcome here.  

Not to the senseless, no.

Do you think playing the homophobia card is going to magically erase all the truth of everything recorded here?  Do you think everyone reading this, admires your writing skills and persuasion techniques? How stupid do you think your fellow alt-rightists are, anyway?

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

24 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

We could always ask him, I suppose. Mind-reading and character-profiles can also work, if you are into that kind of thing. 

My first internet posting with Ayn Rand and Objectivism as a topic was in reaction to "Ayn Rand Cult."  I asked "Is Objectivism a cult" and I answered, "no," and then explored a few 'culty' behaviours of adherents, and pointed out my surprise/confusion that there was a kind of separation of Objectivist discourse from scientific research. I think I mentioned "emotion" as one of those areas where a doctrinal issue trumped ongoing learning.

That first Rand-ish post was I think in one of the old Newsgroups that had migrated from Usenet to Dejanews (or the old Yahoo  groups). In the dim recesses of my mind, I think there was an overlap of psychology in that group, as I recall I quoted Monica Pignotti. I think this would have been around 2005, 2006.

In this 2008 OL comment I ragged on Valliant, using 'cult' demonology as a frame ...

Emotions, I've had a few ...

 

You've been asked over the years, and you've given similar replies to the above.  Replies which don't explain the attraction - now into its more than thirteenth year.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

What is your best guess about "the attraction," Ellen, given what you know of me both in public postings and backstage discourse?  I mean, it may be time for psychological insight ... if the accused is not answering honestly.

If not desirous of opining on psychological quirks and foibles, what might make a reasonable explanation of 'attraction' -- for someone who is a fan of reason and an examiner of cultish things?  

Five bucks to the OL fund for a useful compilation.  

[Jon Letendre]

22 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon, your explanation wouldn't explain why specifically Objectivish sites.

Ellen

I wonder if he is even allowed at those other sites anymore.

Even if he is, he almost never posts there, unlike daily, industriously, here.

The reason is that he is treated as what he is there while here he is treated as though maybe he is a decent human being.

That’s a criticism of Michael for sure, but not just Michael, mostly all the rest of the posters here for being indiscriminating, weak, soft and lazy instead of standing up to the trespasser. I’m thinking of Peter, for example, who attacks me when things get heated between me and the fuckwits who have no business here at all. When does he rise up with a spine and say something?To attack me! A poster here thought I was personally a victim of childhood sexual abuse, didn’t like that I posted so much about human trafficking and so asked me to “show on the doll where than men touched me” asked me to recount the tales of my abuse in the shed”, etc., and Peter said nothing. He waited to come down on me for my consequent language and ostracism! Backasswards moral treason like that is another reason so many fuckwitted cunts thrive here. It’s been going on so long they know now that most of the “Objectivists” present will actually rally to them.

[caroljane]

3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

What is your best guess about "the attraction," Ellen, given what you know of me both in public postings and backstage discourse?  I mean, it may be time for psychological insight ... if the accused is not answering honestly.

If not desirous of opining on psychological quirks and foibles, what might make a reasonable explanation of 'attraction' -- for someone who is a fan of reason and an examiner of cultish things?  

Five bucks to the OL fund for a useful compilation.  

"You no longer agree with what the site owner thinks about politics, so why don't you go away."?

Ellen, you know so much and so richly about Ayn Rand. She could never have tolerated Trump for a single minute.  She preferred real men with minds and morals, preferably good-looking ones.

Please respond  to me why you believe he is acting for the best of America and freedom. We used to talk, very enjoyably as I remember.

[william.scherk]

6 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

47 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon, your explanation wouldn't explain why specifically Objectivish sites.

Ellen

I wonder if he is even allowed at those other sites anymore.

I am banned from SOLO. I am a member in good standing at the moribund Rebirth of Reason. 

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

23 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

What is your best guess about "the attraction," Ellen, given what you know of me both in public postings and backstage discourse?  I mean, it may be time for psychological insight ... if the accused is not answering honestly.

If not desirous of opining on psychological quirks and foibles, what might make a reasonable explanation of 'attraction' -- for someone who is a fan of reason and an examiner of cultish things?  

Five bucks to the OL fund for a useful compilation.  

William, you won't like my "best guess."  You like gossip, inquisiting nosily.  You like posting gobs of stuff.  You like getting a rise from people and then whining about their not treating you respectfully.  You crave attention, which you wouldn't have much success at getting on liberal sites. You aren't seeking rational discourse and aren't actually "a fan of reason," as you describe yourself, but Objecivish sites give you a place where you can preen ruffled feathers over people's lack of desire to discuss issues with you and where you can adopt a superiority tone tut-tuting their supposed (sometimes actual, granted) cultishness.

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

7 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

William, you won't like my "best guess."  You like gossip, inquisiting nosily.  You like posting gobs of stuff.  You like getting a rise from people and then whining about their not treating you respectfully.  You crave attention, which you wouldn't have much success at getting on liberal sites. You aren't seeking rational discourse and aren't actually "a fan of reason," as you describe yourself, but Objecivish sites give you a place where you can preen ruffled feathers over people's lack of desire to discuss issues with you and where you can adopt a superiority tone tut-tuting their supposed (sometimes actual, granted) cultishness.

Ellen

That’s about as accurate as can be stated politely.

He is here as a destroyer.

And we all commit a moral crime against ourselves, reason and Ayn Rand when we welcome him anyway.

[william.scherk]

14 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

William, you won't like my "best guess."

Like it or not, it's instructive when psychological and character defects are assigned. 

4 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

And we all commit a moral crime against ourselves, reason and Ayn Rand when we welcome him anyway.

What do you propose as a solution to The Destroyer?  I mean, would you approve a banning? Would you approve removal of my material from the site? Would you like Friends and Foes to be removed? 

What is your bottom line?

Edited December 18, 2018 by william.scherk
Happenings

[Jon Letendre]

5 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Like it or not, it's instructive when psychological and character defects are assigned. 

What do you propose as a solution to The Destroyer?  I mean, would you approve a banning? Would you approve removal of my material from the site? Would you like Friends and Foes to be removed? 

What is your bottom line?

Feigned reading comprehension problems again, Billyboylover? I wrote this morning what I would like to see people doing about you, so stop being a fucking a twat. You are fake to the core. Pure, worthless human excrement.

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

A  poster here thought I was personally a victim of childhood sexual abuse, didn’t like that I posted so much about human trafficking and so asked me to “show on the doll where than men touched me” asked me to recount the tales of my abuse in the shed”, etc., 

Who was the poster?  Was it Jules?  Or maybe KorbenDallas?

I am puzzled about what the thing is between you and Jules.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

26 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I wrote this morning what I would like to see people doing about you, so stop being a fucking a twat. You are fake to the core. Pure, worthless human excrement.

So, post a link, Jon. I don't read all of your freakouts, I will admit.  Your expressed views are too often repulsive and hysterical. 

What is your bottom line in the Matter of Marxist Pedophile Boylover? 

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Who was the poster?  Was it Jules?  Or maybe KorbenDallas?

I am puzzled about what the thing is between you and Jules.

Ellen

The poster was Jules.

I want to be fair, if he sticks with going away and stays away, then I shouldn’t be continuing against him in his absence.

So I will say the truth is in the post history, not what I say or what he says.

What I say is that he is an ankle-biting, angry at life, little chihuahua. He thrills to snipe and drive-by shoot at his superiors.

He apparently strongly disagreed about there being any human trafficking epidemic, as that was the first thing I recall him taking shots at me for. Later, he 180 reverses and says that was a totally legitimate issue, it’s the Q postings of mine that were so deeply stupid, stupid, stupid and that he couldn’t stop sniping at me about.

I go on posting about both Q and trafficking and the progress being made against it.

Meanwhile, Billyboylover and Carol are sniping at me routinely, and implying both these issues are mere products of my disturbed psychology.

Then, get this, trafficking and sexual abuse becomes joke-worthy again for Jules and he asks me where did the priest touch me? How many times did my stepdad take me to the shed? Etc. He is not well.

I gave him several chances. Unlike Billyboylover and Carol, he took me up on the offer of total mutual leaving alone. But he came back with substance-free ankle-biting little low-IQ chihuahua everytime. Or tried to crawl back all nice like last night in Space Force thread, like we had not condemned one another in the most thunderous terms just a few hours earlier. I have no idea what his issues are, but he is creepy and I am done with him completely and permanently, along with Billyboylover and Carol. I do not believe it is possible they are good people.

[Jon Letendre]

12 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

So, post a link, Jon. I don't read all of your freakouts, I will admit.  Your expressed views are too often repulsive and hysterical. 

What is your bottom line in the Matter of Marxist Pedophile Boylover? 

I saw you complaining about defamation somewhere earlier.

Have you retained counsel yet?

Did she mention how bad it would be if you adopted and yourself used the alleged defamatory material?

Did she mention what I will get to do at discovery?

Anyway, go fuck yourself, pedophile, and not a child, for once.

[Jon Letendre]

Billy and Carol can start today.

The offer is still open.

I will then be obliged to behave as though I am unaware of their existence.

We will see if that is what they want., or if they value continuing to harass me more.

[Jon Letendre]

36 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Who was the poster?  Was it Jules?  Or maybe KorbenDallas?

I am puzzled about what the thing is between you and Jules.

Ellen

KorbenKeatingShitforBrains is like Jules, but only about one-tenth the intensity. He laugh emotes at some of my posts which I don’t think so much that a good person would choose to laugh at, but he’s not a sniper or ankle-biter.

He does really dumb things. One time he laughed at Michael, called Michael ridiculous, and then it turns out KorbenKeating doesn’t even know what false flag means. Thought it meant nothing happened, no event at all. So that’s where ShitforBrsins got added.

I have a real problem with smart-assed fuckwits who literally don’t know what they’re talking about. I have always been harsh on them, it is a matter of justice.

But I am not certain, like I am with the other three, not certain it can’t be that Korben is a good person.

So I won’t be using those names, but instead Korben, starting now, assuming this is agreeable to him.

I will respect Korben while he does the same for me.

We’ll see how it goes.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, caroljane said:

Ellen, you know so much and so richly about Ayn Rand. She could never have tolerated Trump for a single minute.  She preferred real men with minds and morals, preferably good-looking ones.

Carol,

I love it when people who don't like Rand tell others what she would think and who she would admire today.

 

Here is one of the "real men with minds and morals" she absolutely loved for real (Mickey Spillane). Good looks and all.

And here is another if good looks is the standard, Leonard Peikoff:

I could go on, but that's enough to make my point.

 

Michael

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

3 hours ago, caroljane said:

Ellen, you know so much and so richly about Ayn Rand. She could never have tolerated Trump for a single minute.  She preferred real men with minds and morals, preferably good-looking ones.

Please respond  to me why you believe he is acting for the best of America and freedom. We used to talk, very enjoyably as I remember.

Carol,

Yes, we did, as I remember too, used to talk very enjoyably.  Mostly on literature.  I'm sure, if time permitted, we could still talk very enjoyably, mostly on literature.

On politics, however, we've not been of similar viewpoint, although I think we didn't get into our differences.

On Trump, and what's "for the best of America and freedom," I see no chance of agreement, and I don't have time for a discussion.  There are big bad biological schemes underway with the goal of eliminating mega millions of people, and for the last year I've been devoting much time to helping counteract those schemes, in the small ways I can help.  (Primarily biologic theoretic ways.)

I got into posting again here because I was curious to see what was being said, especially by Michael, about the mid-terms.  And then I couldn't resist the "Aristotle's Wheel Paradox" thread.  But I'll probably be vanishing again soon.

Just a couple points: Regarding what Rand's reaction to Trump would have been.  I think that she'd have reacted negatively at the start but then come around - unless she got stubborn, having once expressed negativity.  But I think that she'd have been horrified at the thought of Hillary Clinton as President, and at some point, with accumulating evidence about Trump, would have reversed on him and become a fan with some reservations.

Second, your comment "[Rand] preferred real men with minds and morals, preferably good-looking ones" reveals a gulf between your assessment of Trump and mine.  I think that Trump is about as "real man" as it gets.  Grizzly-bear-power "real man."  I also think that he has a mind, not an abstract theoretic one, but a very shrewd logistic and practical one - badly needed in the current historic context.  And that he's a man with morals, strong morals.  See things Michael's said on that subject.

As to "good-looking," he sure isn't my idea of male aesthetic ideal.  However, I enjoy seeing his body language, how he handles himself - stance, gestures, expressions.  In charge and can do.  Just the sort this country desperately needs at the helm now, in my view.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I love it when people who don't like Rand tell others what she would think and who she would admire today.

 

Here is one of the "real men with minds and morals" she absolutely loved for real (Mickey Spillane). Good looks and all.

And here is another if good looks is the standard, Leonard Peikoff:

I could go on, but that's enough to make my point.

 

Michael

 

Michael, um, lol at the second photo you posted.  I don't think that Rand ever thought of Leonard Peikoff as a "real man" type - a dutiful son, more like it.

Spillane, now, yeah, she thought of him as having the stuff.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

The poster was Jules.

I want to be fair, if he sticks with going away and stays away, then I shouldn’t be continuing against him in his absence.

So I will say the truth is in the post history, not what I say or what he says.

What I say is that he is an ankle-biting, angry at life, little chihuahua. He thrills to snipe and drive-by shoot at his superiors.

He apparently strongly disagreed about there being any human trafficking epidemic, as that was the first thing I recall him taking shots at me for. Later, he 180 reverses and says that was a totally legitimate issue, it’s the Q postings of mine that were so deeply stupid, stupid, stupid and that he couldn’t stop sniping at me about.

I go on posting about both Q and trafficking and the progress being made against it.

Meanwhile, Billyboylover and Carol are sniping at me routinely, and implying both these issues are mere products of my disturbed psychology.

Then, get this, trafficking and sexual abuse becomes joke-worthy again for Jules and he asks me where did the priest touch me? How many times did my stepdad take me to the shed? Etc. He is not well.

I gave him several chances. Unlike Billyboylover and Carol, he took me up on the offer of total mutual leaving alone. But he came back with substance-free ankle-biting little low-IQ chihuahua everytime. Or tried to crawl back all nice like last night in Space Force thread, like we had not condemned one another in the most thunderous terms just a few hours earlier. I have no idea what his issues are, but he is creepy and I am done with him completely and permanently, along with Billyboylover and Carol. I do not believe it is possible they are good people.

Jon,

Thank you for that reply.  It lets me understand what the dynamics were between you and Jules and how they developed.

My assessment of Jules and the way he posts has differed from yours.  I don't know what I'd think if I read through the whole series you describe.  I wasn't here when it was happening.

What I've always though about Jules' rapid one- or two-liners was that he had very little time for posting - since he works long hours most days of the week - and he was just firing off a comment super quick, not giving the wording much thought.

Sounds like there was more than the rapid-posting factor, however, in what developed in your exchanges with him.

Agreed about it's not being good to continue about him in his absence.  I was curious, though, since I didn't understand how the animosity started.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

45 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Carol,

Yes, we did, as I remember too, used to talk very enjoyably.  Mostly on literature.  I'm sure, if time permitted, we could still talk very enjoyably, mostly on literature.

 

Carol knows literature.

I used to enjoy her participation here when she wrote about what she knew and loved.

J

[caroljane]

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I saw you complaining about defamation somewhere earlier.

Have you retained counsel yet?

Did she mention how bad it would be if you adopted and yourself used the alleged defamatory material?

Did she mention what I will get to do at discovery?

Anyway, go fuck yourself, pedophile, and not a child, for once.

Do your children bring your posts to school for "show and tell?"  I'm sure they are mighty proud of strong, brave Internet Dad.

[Jon Letendre]

4 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Do your children bring your posts to school for "show and tell?"  I'm sure they are mighty proud of strong, brave Internet Dad.

No, but on Sundays at the shooting range, for example, I have over-heard them bragging about their Dad’s various exploits and accomplishments.

They do seem to be mighty proud.

Thanks, cunt.

[Jon Letendre]

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Billy and Carol can start today.

The offer is still open.

I will then be obliged to behave as though I am unaware of their existence.

We will see if that is what they want., or if they value continuing to harass me more.

The cunt can not leave me alone. She can’t do it.