Christian Objectivist

[Xray]

I'm beginning to suspect you have a stiff one in the morning. This is an improvement in that you didn't say "subjective" once.

--Brant

now I went and did it

Have a - what? I'm too lazy to look it up now; but is not morning here where I live, it's late afternoon, and all I have in my cup is coffee.

For some reason you seem have difficulty in taking jokes, Brant. Can't you laugh at yourself once in a while?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective".

From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian.

Right.

Michelle:

I think it might be wrong to do this but I am so confused, I have no standard to make a decision. I am lost. Help! Should I not do what Phil wants or should I?

Where is xray maybe she can guide the youthful, like yourself, and the ancient like myself with insight and guidance on this critical metaphysical problem.

And stop that asshole with the cartoons!

Adam

Phil very nicely made a very simple request:

"Could you guys -please- not quote twenty or more lines of nested replies within replies followed by one or two lines of your own thoughts?" (emphasis mine)

As I'm a large-hearted woman, I plan on honoring his request.

I don't believe I am in violation right now, as I only see nineteen quoted lines.

We should all kindly agree to quote no more than nineteen lines at a time in order to allow Phil a more pleasant web experience.

I'd like to say something, but I'm going to defer to Phil and not.

--Brant

BTW, did you notice how cool these embedded quotations look under OL's new format?

--Brant

not snarky

Well, it does have a certain aesthetic visual quality. A bit like a "mise en abîme" where one can see things reflected endlessly in mirrors, or pictures embedded in other pictures.

But is it "rational"? ;)

Edited October 15, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Well folks that rips the PHIL thread rule asunder!

Damn...over 36 lines - Can someone contact Phil and find out when the excommunication ritual starts

and whether it will be on pay for view.

Does popcorn go well with Jack Daniels or Wild Turkey?

Revenge is demanded by the GOD OF PHIL - hail a new czar!

Adam

Edited October 15, 2009 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Does that make it a...

(it's coming...)

(scroll just a little more...)

(you're almost there...)

(almost done, I swear it...)

(one last but not least time...)

(ta-daa!)

A PHIL-A-BUSTER?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm beginning to suspect you have a stiff one in the morning. This is an improvement in that you didn't say "subjective" once.

--Brant

now I went and did it

Have a - what? I'm too lazy to look it up now; but is not morning here where I live, it's late afternoon, and all I have in my cup is coffee.

For some reason you seem have difficulty in taking jokes, Brant. Can't you laugh at yourself once in a while?

I thought it needed a little help so I made a joke out of your joke. Soon we'll both be laughing (?).

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

(ta-daa!)

A PHIL-A-BUSTER?

Michael

That's so corny it might qualify as a replacement for the state of Iowa.

Jeff S.

[Selene]

(ta-daa!)

A PHIL-A-BUSTER?

Michael

That's so corny it might qualify as a replacement for the state of Iowa.

Jeff S.

I'm as corny as Kansas in corn time ...

Or as Brant alluded ...I'm as horny as either a hot toddy or a hard ...

Adam

did xray have that gender reassignment surgery in Sweden? Rumor rumor on the wall...who is now the flattest of them all! <with respect to Brant's style.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Selene

[Philip Coates]

> We should all kindly agree to quote no more than nineteen lines at a time in order to allow Phil a more pleasant web experience.

Exactly. There are no objective standards. It's all about *moi*.

> I'd like to say something, but I'm going to defer to Phil and not....BTW, did you notice how cool these embedded quotations look under OL's new format?

I forgot to mention Brant putting a sock in it as another request....I can buy him a set of finger paints if he would rather do that than posting.

> is doing Phil favor in line with Objectivism?

It's actually in the definition.

> I'm beginning to suspect you have a stiff one in the morning.

Are we still talking about prayer...or about alcohol? Or is it something that older men take a pill for?

.

.

By the way, did everyone notice I didn't use a single "quote thread" and ONLY QUOTED THE PART I'M RESPONDING TO? See, even a ***retard*** can do it???? ...And the entire post, responding to several people is all on one screen?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Dragonfly]

By the way, did everyone notice I didn't use a single "quote thread" and ONLY QUOTED THE PART I'M RESPONDING TO? See, even a ***retard*** can do it???? ...And the entire post, responding to several people is all on one screen?

That's very laudable of course, but... your method stinks! We see some quote, but we don't see whom you're quoting. We have to read the previous posts to discover that. If we're lucky we don't have to look far and find it just in the previous post. But it's also possible that we have to wade through many long posts before we can find the respective text. Further it's not so easy to see in your posts what is quote and what is original text.

However, when you use the quote option on this forum, you get a quote that is clearly distinguished from your own text. It's easy to indicate from whom the quote is, without interfering with the text itself. And in the left upper side there is a small arrow - when you click on that, you'll get the original quoted post. I suggest that you peruse my posts on this forum to see how the quote function is properly used, and how the results are much clearer (and all on one screen!) than the undecipherable quote mishmash in your posts.

If you can listen for hours to Peikoff droning away, you can also take 2 minutes to learn the simple features of the quote function. That would make your posts much more readable and results in a much better communication. At least I suppose that's what you want.

Further it's very easy to use the bold, italic and underscore options (or combinations), instead of TEXT IN CAPITALS THAT IS UNPLEASANT TO READ and those clumsy ***asterisks***. We're no longer on Usenet here! People will like you better when you use them. I know, I know, that's no argument for an Objectivist, but yet...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Despite our disagreements, there are good reasons why I love you...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

> I'm beginning to suspect you have a stiff one in the morning.

Are we still talking about prayer...or about alcohol? Or is it something that older men take a pill for?

.

.

By the way, did everyone notice I didn't use a single "quote thread" and ONLY QUOTED THE PART I'M RESPONDING TO? See, even a ***retard*** can do it???? ...And the entire post, responding to several people is all on one screen?

Thanks, Phil, for quoting my typo so I can correct it: "I'm beginning to suspect you had a stiff one in the morning."

--Brant

[Xray]

From DF's reply to Philip Coates:

We see some quote, but we don't see whom you're quoting. We have to read the previous posts to discover that. If we're lucky we don't have to look far and find it just in the previous post. But it's also possible that we have to wade through many long posts before we can find the respective text. Further it's not so easy to see in your posts what is quote and what is original text.

...

Further it's very easy to use the bold, italic and underscore options (or combinations), instead of TEXT IN CAPITALS THAT IS UNPLEASANT TO READ and those clumsy ***asterisks***. We're no longer on Usenet here! People will like you better when you use them. I know, I know, that's no argument for an Objectivist, but yet...

DF is right, Philip.

And as for text in capitals, not only is it strainful to read, keep in mind that it also stands for "yelling" in internet communication.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Further it's very easy to use the bold, italic and underscore options (or combinations), instead of TEXT IN CAPITALS THAT IS UNPLEASANT TO READ and those clumsy ***asterisks***. We're no longer on Usenet here! People will like you better when you use them. I know, I know, that's no argument for an Objectivist, but yet...

Not only is it unpleasant to read, the use of capitals in text also stands for "yelling" in internet communication.

WOW THANKS XRAY I DID NOT KNOW THAT - DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND RAND BETTER?

[Xray]

WOW THANKS XRAY I DID NOT KNOW THAT - DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND RAND BETTER?

Your 'drama king' mentality reminds me a of a pressure cooker with no properly functioning safety valve.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

WOW THANKS XRAY I DID NOT KNOW THAT - DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND RAND BETTER?

Your mentality reminds me a of a pressure cooker with no properly functioning safety valve.

Oh I am much worse than that, but then again the fabric of the universe is subjective, so just think that I am a cool refreshing summer breeze.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Trying to find nits to pick

> you can also take 2 minutes to learn the simple features of the quote function. That would make your posts much more readable [Dragonfly]

Dragonfly, I almost always do the quote as above. Quite readable: It's clear who I'm quoting and it's short and fast. You waited to find a pretty rare occasion where I was in a hurry and left the bracketed person's name out to say "aha!" and pounce.

On your other point, it's a nitpick what form of emphasis one occasionally uses (bold, italics, asterisks, caps) by comparison to some of the wretchedly unclear and bad writers we have on this forum.

By the way, have you made these sorts of criticisms about other posters who are much worse writing stylists than I am? Has Dragonfly pointed out the flaws of those who do all kinds of special effects typing on every thread? Or those who write whole posts in one sentence paragraphs? Or those who can't write sentences with good vocabulary or syntax?

Or are you just out to "get" me out of hostility and a desire to undercut someone you either don't like or disagree with by finding some sort of error or nit to pick?

You did the same thing recently when I wrote a post in which I wrote a few words in French in passing. Instead of finding something on the topic of the post, the only thing you wrote was to find an error in one word of translation and insert the French accents in a couple others. I let it go at the time.

But you're just lying in the weeds looking for any time when I do a sloppy or hurried post. Having seen you do this many times on trivia over several years, you seem to do this out of spite.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

All humor aside, I want to say this in a good way. The intent is to rise, not bicker.

The message you constantly give off in between the lines is, "I must teach you ignorant folks lots of stuff, but I myself can't be bothered to learn anything new."

When this involves elementary commands that take maybe 2 minutes to learn, the effect gets worse—it comes off as choosing stubborn ignorance as a value, with a chip on your shoulder at that.

Not a good message if teaching is your real concern. One teaches by both words and by example. The greatest example a teacher can give is show how to learn by showing how he does it. The worst example possible is belligerent refusal to even try to learn.

Do as you please, though. This is just food for thought.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Subject: Trying to find nits to pick

> you can also take 2 minutes to learn the simple features of the quote function. That would make your posts much more readable [Dragonfly]

Dragonfly, I almost always do the quote as above. Quite readable: It's clear who I'm quoting and it's short and fast. You waited to find a pretty rare occasion where I was in a hurry and left the bracketed person's name out to say "aha!" and pounce.

I didn't "wait" for anything, I just replied to your post in which you told us how admirable your way of quoting is, pointing out that, although I liked your intention, I didn't think the execution was really so exemplary and I told you also why. When you tell us how good you're quoting, it's no surprise that you will be criticized for your own quoting in that very same post if that leaves something to desire. No psychologizing or conspiracy theories are needed, I'd almost say "you can do better than that", but of course I won't say that, that's not my style...

On your other point, it's a nitpick what form of emphasis one occasionally uses (bold, italics, asterisks, caps) by comparison to some of the wretchedly unclear and bad writers we have on this forum.

Maybe, but if you start praising your own writing style, you might perhaps expect some "nitpicking".

By the way, have you made these sorts of criticisms about other posters who are much worse writing stylists than I am? Has Dragonfly pointed out the flaws of those who do all kinds of special effects typing on every thread? Or those who write whole posts in one sentence paragraphs? Or those who can't write sentences with good vocabulary or syntax?

Oh, certainly, more than once! I don't have the time now to find those posts among the thousands I've written here, but long before you did so, I've for example complained about using big fonts and the lazy quoting of complete posts, sometimes with big pictures included, resulting in an extensive nesting of quotes followed by a one-liner. I don't complain about syntax of posts as English is not my mother tongue and I know the wooden beam in my own eye, but I can't resisting correcting (sometimes atrocious) spelling errors, just while the English spelling is so easy.

Or are you just out to "get" me out of hostility and a desire to undercut someone you either don't like or disagree with by finding some sort of error or nit to pick?

You sure can dish it out, but it seems you can't take it. I thought my post was at most a friendly dig in the ribs, but you're mighty quick to take offense.

You did the same thing recently when I wrote a post in which I wrote a few words in French in passing. Instead of finding something on the topic of the post, the only thing you wrote was to find an error in one word of translation and insert the French accents in a couple others. I let it go at the time.

Sorry, but I'm God's scourge of people who write incorrect French.

But you're just lying in the weeds looking for any time when I do a sloppy or hurried post. Having seen you do this many times on trivia over several years, you seem to do this out of spite.

No, that impression is quite wrong. I'm in fact a very friendly person, but I'm a bit of a schoolmaster sometimes. I seem to remember I'm not the only one on this forum. I'm sure you're aware that this kind of nitpicking concerns only a very small part of all my posts on this forum and that you can't reproach me for a lack of arguments in substantial discussions.

[Philip Coates]

> belligerent refusal to even try to learn.

Michael, as usual that is a highly hostile and unjust conclusion. I'm constantly trying to learn. (And you didn't even specify in what way.)

With this - belligerently - hostile personal attack style of yours, you've managed to piss off at various times and even drive away for various lengths of time Jim H-N, Roger Bissell, Ellen S, Robert Bidinotto, and now me. (Exactly some of the most thoughtful people who have been here over the last few years.) And if memory serves, you don't get along too well with -almost anyone- at SoloP. And Rowlands at RoR. Plus I get emails from people who are so angry at you that they don't even want to post here any more.

Michael, you have an enormously insulting, attack people, accuse them of dishonesty type of style. And the chances of your correcting it, even when you've driven people off and not gotten along with them throughout the Olist community is seems pretty small.

You just love to fight with people, apparently.

But, as someone said, that's okay.

You just do what you like.

[Philip Coates]

> at most a friendly dig in the ribs [DF]

Okay, it just didn't seem that way. I'm not in a position to know if you nitpick with everyone, but my experience [see my recent exchange with MSK - somehow, I don't think he has my best interests at heart or is giving friendly, 'benevolent' helpful advice] with a number of people is they'd just love to find something, anything wrong with something I've said . . . for reasons other than the factual merits. (Sometimes it's not conscious but an emotional attack surge, a defense mechanism that pops out of the subconscious.)

I apologize if you are not one, it's hard to keep track of all these posts, but there are an awful lot of people attracted to Oist lists who once you criticize them, even if you don't question their motives or honesty, they remember it forever and bear a grudge and try to find fault with you.

Suddenly the number of times they post criticizing you jumps enormously. And it's not just me - I notice a lot of long-standing 'fights' on these lists - right now: Xray versus her 'enemies', Jonathan vs. Ellen S, etc.

No disagreement or minor point is too small to be pounced on by an opponent seeking to humiliated or make fun of the other party. What strikes me is the - ok I won't use all caps :-)enormous pettiness of people. Christ!!

> I'm a bit of a schoolmaster sometimes. I seem to remember I'm not the only one on this forum.

Ha, ha! Good one...

I have a tendency to perfectionism and I've learned as a teacher that you have to call your shots. I try not to be over-critical. When I correct English compositions or oral presentations I have learned slowly not even to look for detailed spelling or syntax or other smaller errors until I've studied the overall logic and structure, argument and evidence, etc.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> I want to say this in a good way ... stubborn ignorance...with a chip on your shoulder [MSK]

Oh yeah, that's definitely a good way.

Remind me again how you would say it -not- in a nice way?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

> I want to say this in a good way ... stubborn ignorance...with a chip on your shoulder [MSK]

Oh yeah, that's definitely a good way.

Remind me again how you would say it -not- in a nice way?

Sure my pleasure...

how many words would you like it to be?

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Adam, why are you answering for MSK when I give direct proof of the offensive manner in which he says something?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey Phil,

Look at you.

All that crap to keep from trying to learn.

You prove my comments to a tee.

Wanna learn how to use the quote function or not? It's not rocket science.

Michael

[Selene]

Adam, why are you answering for MSK when I give direct proof of the offensive manner in which he says something?

Because I can and because the man that you chose to insult, unjustly, inaccurately and frankly, tediously. provides both you and I, and others, a great place to be both fools and philosophers.

You should frankly, just say thank you, and be on your way. Or try the later.

Clear the log out of your eye before you even attempt to find a splinter in another's eye.

Adam

Edited October 17, 2009 by Selene