A Randian Falacy

[Philip Coates]

> This issue of criticizing your inadequate referencing of quotes isn't even an issue of criticizing you as a person, though you take it as "snarky." [Ellen]

No, what's snarky is ignoring my subject and changing it to attacking me on the quote function.

I thought I explained that in my last post. Or did you need a post number to find it?

[Philip Coates]

> The assumption of negative character traits and motivations is another of the behaviors you've repeatedly criticized others for engaging in and have repeatedly been guilty of yourself when someone's been critical of you. [Ellen]

I may have slipped up occasionally (especially recently with my rising level of frustration with the people on this board), but your statement is an exaggeration. But in general your criticism is unfair and unjust. Please remember, Ellen, that someone pointed out that "words have an exact meaning":

There is a big difference between criticizing "character traits" and "motivations" on the one hand and criticizing matters of bad methodology - logic class or english class type mistakes. Here is another set of examples of valid areas of criticism which do not involve morality or character or speculation about bad motives: rationalism, psychologizing, going off the subject, sloppy posts, long-windedness, vagueness.

On the borderline would be an accusation about 'snarkiness', 'mean-spiritedness'. That is sort of in between an criticism of actions and motivation.

Here's one example: I would say that the attacks on me about the quoting function are snarky or mean-spirited because you, DF, and Michael are intelligent enough to know that they are irrelevant to my criticism of bad grammar, bad writing earlier on this thread. And, having seen other posts, it would be a big leap to attribute it to bad character as opposed to the general human weakness of using any stick to beat an opponent, dredging up all kinds of old debates.

When logic and fairness would require that you stick to the issue.

,,,,,,

By the way, I have made the above points before in other ways: The distinction between criticizing someone's actions and criticizing their character or deeper motivations is not a new one.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Once again, you want to claim use of "logic and fairness," yet you want that to be selectively eliminated at your whim so you can practice inconsistency without anyone commenting on it.

Then you accuse others of exaggeration. That's comical. Funny comical, not maliciously mocking comical. Cartoon stuff.

Sorry, but it is.

Anyway, if you would only get your head out of your own self-pity and sense of martyrdom, you might notice that the "attacks" on you are not attacks at all. People like you. They want to see you do better. So they resist it when your acts do not line up with your words. I sincerely believe that people want to see you being consistent.

Should, one day, you once again become interested in ideas rather than trying to be bossy, you might notice that folks will talk about ideas. When you're bossy, they talk about you.

Think about it.

The whole world is wrong, illogical and unfair--and either on a campaign to smear Phil, or simply smearing Phil in concert because of inherent suboptimal personality issues. Only Phil is right.

That's a hell of a weird premise when stated that way. Yet that's what you project when you get bossy.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

> AFAIK nobody else on this list thinks so, on the contrary [DF]

Argument dismissed: First, numbers don't make truth. Second, you can't even tell that because only a handful of people have expressed an opinion.

This is not a discussion about which method is objectively the "best", this is about (gasp!) having consideration for other people who object to your method of quoting, and in that case numbers do count. You mentioned yourself your objections against the squiggles of John Dailey and now you're surprised that other members on this forum object to your method of quoting?

[Dragonfly]

Here's one example: I would say that the attacks on me about the quoting function are snarky or mean-spirited because you, DF, and Michael are intelligent enough to know that they are irrelevant to my criticism of bad grammar, bad writing earlier on this thread.

I think it's no coincidence that you now omit your criticism that was in fact the immediate cause of the resurgence of the discussion about your way of quoting, namely your criticism of John Dailey. You didn't criticize his bad grammar nor his bad writing, no, you criticized his use of squiggles, and the fact that he didn't want to change his distracting layout style, calling it the "I Am Howard Roark, Super-Individualist syndrome". That was a glaring example of the pot calling the kettle black, so you shouldn't be surprised that people reacted to that remark.

[9thdoctor]

Mote, beam, pot, kettle.

With Kim Novak, Ernie Kovacs, Jack Lemmon, Jimmy Stewart and Hermione Gingold? An absolute classic!

And, in other news, there is still no one sexier than Kim Novak.

Isn't that from Bell, Book, and Candle, the witch movie?

[Philip Coates]

DF and Michael, your "rebuttals" are so silly and illogical they are not worth replying to.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Well, I'm glad we got that resolved.

Now, all I have to figure out is what on earth I was rebutting...

Damned if I know...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

> The assumption of negative character traits and motivations is another of the behaviors you've repeatedly criticized others for engaging in and have repeatedly been guilty of yourself when someone's been critical of you. [Ellen]

[....]

There is a big difference between criticizing "character traits" and "motivations" on the one hand and criticizing matters of bad methodology - logic class or english class type mistakes.

Well, there is a relatively easy-to-demonstrate example which illustrates why I wrote (in the same post, #49, from which you've snipped):

Since you often in quoting select snippets which, upon the context's being checked, can be seen to have *not* fairly conveyed the context, checking is especially important with your posts. Most others here typically provide at least enough of the post quoted so a reader can judge the accuracy of interpretation of the reply.

Here are the two sentences of yours which I quoted and to which I was replying; I have added underscore to the second sentence:

As far, as mentioning the post time or number, that is usually not necessary unless it's many days ago. Unless you are an obsessive-compulsive who needs to reread everything and have memory problems.

The second sentence pertains to a character trait (in this case you included another possible defect). What you are saying is that it would only be some negative trait (or, in this case, possibly a functional defect) which would lead someone to want you to provide identification of the post from which you're quoting. THAT statement is what I was addressing.

Here is my reply, including the first sentence, which was the sentence before the one you snipped:

Notice that you limit the possibilities as to why someone wants to know the context to negative presumptions. The assumption of negative character traits and motivations is another of the behaviors you've repeatedly criticized others for engaging in and have repeatedly been guilty of yourself when someone's been critical of you.

QED. You have distorted what you were replying to. You've left out context which provided the example I was talking about.

You do this kind of thing chronically with your snipping. Often, demonstrating would be even more time-consuming than it was in this case. The responder has to dig up the original post, which you could have linked with the reply function or at least given the number of. But you won't do that, and then you expect people to want to have a substantive dialog with you when they have to keep searching back to find the context you've distorted. Why would they bother?

I would say that the attacks on me about the quoting function are snarky or mean-spirited because you, DF, and Michael are intelligent enough to know that they are irrelevant to my criticism of bad grammar, bad writing earlier on this thread.

As Dragonfly has already explained, it isn't irrelevant to point out that you do exactly what you were criticizing Morganis Chamlo (John Dailey) for doing, with different details. And you were criticizing Equality's supposed inconsiderateness to readers (you used the example of sloppy spelling and grammar) when you display comparable inconsiderateness in a different way (different details, same category -- think conceptually). (Plus, the crowning touch there, Equality is dyslexic, thus, unlike you, has an excuse.)

--

A question: Have you ever caught up to the link function which is automatically provided when "Reply" is used? The little arrow which appears to the left of the date-stamped identification bar?

By using "Reply" you enable the reader just to click on the little arrow and be transferred directly to the post being quoted from. Some other posters (e.g., Peter Reidy and Stephen Boydstun) mostly don't use "Reply," but, unlike you, those posters don't respond in such a way that double-checking of what's been quoted is needed to see if context has been distorted.

Another point: In one of your posts in which you objected to people's overdoing "Reply" by giving a whole nested sequence, I think you said (too tired to search right now) that this makes people have to flip back through pages. It doesn't increase the need to flip back on multi-page threads. There are 20 posts/page whatever the length of the individual posts.

Ellen

Edited August 6, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Rich Engle]

~sigh~

Where to begin? ~double-sigh~ <with squiggles!

This eager, intelligent person, a person who fights a fierce, endless battle against an extremely debilitating learning disability (especially so since they are passionate about literature, philosophy, ideas, and such). . .this person who goes through hellish processes involving reading things upside down, backwards, maybe mirrors and iPads, or whatever, to make it happen--and is also honest, forthcoming, and gracious enough to explain their challenge--they get, well, what?

~The conducting of an online clinic (with mild scolding) about the ins and outs of the Proper Usage of English and English Grammar by our resident laureate-slash-Mrs. Grundy-slash-Roberts Rules of Order specialist.

~A now viral-like thread-hijacking redirecting us to something which is apparently of far greater import--namely, the pros and cons of using (or not using, or half-using) the quote function.

~A sidebar (over on another of EQ's attempts) about the nature of teaching (I was in on that one and I now regret the decision, but at that point the cockpit was already on fire, and an attempt to salvage the fuselage didn't seem, at that time, like such a bad idea). But that one wasn't nearly as jungle-like as this one hyeah--set loose the sniffin' dawgs, boyah--they can handle the swamp jes fahn.

Enjoy your visit so far, EQ? See, next time what you do is check the street signs more carefully--you thought to turn left for the Parthenon, but, alas, that is the way to the Colloseum. Today's stats: Lions 4, Christians 0.

Heaven help this poor unfortunate if they (assuming they have the endurance to plow through) do something like, say, end a sentence with a preposition: that alone might be sufficient to draw a locust-swarm, blood-rain, or meteroite attack.

As a sanity check, I reread the original post. And, you know what? I understood it just fine--bumps and errors here and there are, really, not that much of an impediment to understanding. "Perfect" (American) English (oh-my) is not required!

And, to tie it all up with a pretty red bow, I realized that outside of a few, er, "statistically dense" situations I've seen over the years, I can almost always follow a thread, regardless of how the quote function is, or is not, used!

Now, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this person came here because they thought this might be a good place to bounce around some ideas and get some questions answered. For that, one does not require a perfect phone connection. Whatever it takes will do--semaphore, Morse Code, Skype sessions involving grunting and crude hand-signals, whatever.

Or, we could slap EQ back into Remedial English and Grammar, with a module on Forum Protocol--I got just the guy for that.

rde

Hear the one about the dyslexic atheist? He didn't believe in Dog. Yeah, I'm sure our new friend here has. <---note illegal grammar.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Rich Engle

[equality72521]

Rich,

Thanks. I had a good laugh about your post. While it is right on, I did not really have any true belief that I would get an intellectual discussion over this thread. Experience is the best teacher, and I have been burned too many times not to learn that people are rarely rational about "Holy" things. I think the vast difference between myself and many (not all) others on this forum is that I challenge everything. I take nothing for granted and believe no ones word until they have proven themselves to be reliable. In my youth I was exactlly the opposite, however there are too many people in the world who stand on their head and tell you that your upside down. I now instead prefer to know for sure that the person I am talking too is not standing on their head.

I did have a small hope that this thread would be an intelligent conversation about the topic originally posted.

As to my Dyslexia. It has not been a soft struggle however I don't use it as a crutch, or an excuse to be unintelligent. Instead I have chosen to use it as a whip to drive myself on and become more intelligent.

as to this thread in particular. I have often been refered to as a fire-starter. I do not go out of my way to start fires however I have a habit of challenging peoples fundamental beliefs in hopes that they will do the same for me.

I do think this thread should be deleted because it has broken down into some of the most unintellectual dribble i have read. There are some posts which I am going to respond to in hopes to salvage this thread.

[equality72521]

equality (Alan),

The typical Objectist view (starting with Rand) is simply to redefine human life and claim that a fetus is not a human being,at least not in the early stages. That's a view, I guess, but I find it vastly oversimplified. It does resolve the problem of preserving the rights of one without violating the rights of the other, but it does so at the expense of removing the life cycle from the definition of human being.

Rand defined man as rational animal, with rational being the differentia and animal the genus. Claiming that an early-stage fetus is not a human being essentially removes the genus from her definition. Thus the life cycle does not include the zygote stage when she defines human being, which means that humans are not animals. In other words, humans are rational somethings, but not rational animals.

Don't expect to find any agreement on this issue. It's one of the built-in collisions between principle and reality within Objectivism. It can only be resolved by deriving the principle from reality, not ignoring the parts of reality that do not fit the principle. And that would mean coming up with a new principle that includes application to both individuals (mother and child during pregnancy), but that would mean saying that the present principle is incomplete.

And that bothers a lot of people. Thus, discussions about abortion on Objectivist (and even libertarian) boards are always heated and always go nowhere.

Michael

This is in essence the major problem with Rand's definition of Human, i have met mentally retarded individual who would be excluded from Rand's definition of human. Rand confuses an aspect of the essence of man and uses it as the whole of what man is. Rights cannot conflict this is true, the question is does the mother in fact have that right. that is what is truly the point is. If the fetus is a human the mother can have NO Right to end the life of the human within her.

[equality72521]

an over all note on this thread.

For a forum supposedly filled with Objectivists, I have discovered that rand was right. "The most difficult thing to explain is that thing which everyone has agreed not to see."

I have heard from most of the response on this forum nothign but subjectivist crap. I try to have an objective definition of man and what i hear is 'there is no objective definition of man'.

I have heard the praise of emotionalism and it used as an excuse.

I have heard attacks that have nothing to do with the original point of this post.

What the hell are you people doing here? you claim to be objectivists and you violate every principle of the philosophy. (not all of you but most).

many people here have been a disappointment. I came to what I thought was the base of a mountain to look up at greatness, and have found myself standing at the edge of a cliff looking down.

[Brant Gaede]

an over all note on this thread.

For a forum supposedly filled with Objectivists, I have discovered that rand was right. "The most difficult thing to explain is that thing which everyone has agreed not to see."

I have heard from most of the response on this forum nothign but subjectivist crap. I try to have an objective definition of man and what i hear is 'there is no objective definition of man'.

I have heard the praise of emotionalism and it used as an excuse.

I have heard attacks that have nothing to do with the original point of this post.

What the hell are you people doing here? you claim to be objectivists and you violate every principle of the philosophy. (not all of you but most).

many people here have been a disappointment. I came to what I thought was the base of a mountain to look up at greatness, and have found myself standing at the edge of a cliff looking down.

You seem to be looking for a Galt's Gultch of Objectivist ideas. There is no such place any place. Being a member of OL is not by invitation only, you don't have to be an Objectivist and you have to be pretty bad to be kicked out.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rights cannot conflict this is true, the question is does the mother in fact have that right. that is what is truly the point is.

Alan,

I am not arguing for or against with the following remark. I am arguing a bit deeper.

We have to define "right" correctly.

The way it exists, as given in your comment, the mother would not have the right to kill the fetus, but the fetus would have the right to enslave the mother.

I see a problem. And I think it comes from a flawed philosophical derivation of rights (basically an oversimplified view of human nature).

As to your last post, my suggestion is to not descend into the snarkiness. That only makes you one more snarky person, too.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> What the hell are you people doing here? you claim to be objectivists and you violate every principle of the philosophy. (not all of you but most).

EQ, a couple things to keep in mind:

First of all, probably at least half of the most frequent posters are -not- Objectivists. There are a number of religious people, a bunch of anarchists, a number who think Rand is incorrect in major areas.

And a number who just like to kibbitz. Remember that there is no moderation, no standard for who can participate. Most have read Rand but that and a couple bucks might get you on the New York subway. Although with inflation, I don't know what it costs now....

So the "you claim to be Objectivists" is greatly exaggerated. Moreover, just because someone posts on a list doesn't make them admirable or a great person. Or logical. Or sane. Or consistent.

And finally, even if someone completely espouses Objectivism, why would you think that makes them an example of 'greatness'? Anyone can read a book and give it lip service.

But, on the other hand, there are good people here. Just don't expect them always to be saying accurate things or to have full understanding.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

For the record, I'm a "good people."

--Brant

sociopathic psychopath

[Rich Engle]

The stench of Phil-droppings fills the room:

"First of all, probably at least half of the most frequent posters are -not- Objectivists. There are a number of religious people, a bunch of anarchists, a number who think Rand is incorrect in major areas."

...And so on, Phil. You have really revealed yourself, lately. And here I thought I had "momentary lapses of reason." I was merely a pretender to the throne.

That's just mean-spirited, controlling, and generally shitty. OK, you win: You Control The Universe From Your Bedroom<tm>

The real sick part of it is that it is starting to look like you like taking the repeated ass-whuppin's that are put upon you. I think that makes you a masochist. Have you been a Bad Boy? Do you need a good over-the-knee paddling? "Yes, Mama, I have been bad: Spank Me Hard!"

Send us all a style manual, and, once we get through it, we will submit test-pieces to you, and endure an endless loop of your correction series. Talk about Ego. Advice: attempt to get laid, or something. Do whatever it takes to pull your head out of your nether-regions. But, alas, I fear it is impossible for you. Maybe squeeze a stress ball until it explodes.

EQ: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater--there are people here with whom you can have wonderful discourse, and learn.

Jeezus, Phil, I thought you had eclipsed yourself but you really did it this time. Nothing like latching on to a newcomer and trying, left-handedly, to get them into The Church of Phil.

What a foul. Between that and your "Broadway Play" (although I kind of liked the dancing Yorick skeleton, hackneyed though it was), you have really shown yourself to be a brick of charcoal.

If you haven't, already, run EQ's last post through some exhaustive spellchecking, add a few phrasing bon mots of your own, and put him on the short bus.

That's all that seems to be left of you, and you do it well, ad nauseum, and drone-like.

Stay up and type some more: I will take anti-nausea drugs and attempt to endure.

It must take weeks, and heavy mining equipment, to get up your sphinctre.

rde

Holy Fuckin' Christ: Mrs. Grundy has a machete, and she's packin' heat.

This one, you had coming.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Rich Engle]

Now, EQ:

There are many (and I mean many) others that can do a better job of this than I will attempt to do, which is (God Forbid) try to answer your inquiry; or, more accurately, dialogue to it.

First off, it seems to me that you made a distinction between O-ism, and Randianism. This is sort of like talking about the baby AR birthed, and then what happened to it after it grew up.

But, on the other hand, you are also mentioning that AR's system (Objectivism) is not a proprietary one. Here, I would say that there are really no proprietary systems of anything. That is like saying a jazz musician has developed something completely unique, even though they went through all the hassle of listening to all those that came before them. At least in art, this is supported, though many attempts have been made. That is what good makers do: they push the envelope. Think about music (it is easiest for me given my backgrond): there are always innovative attempts to change "what is" in thought, or composition. That is why you have things like 12-tone music, or, in jazz, extended structural things in both composition, and pushing tensions via chord structure. And, all the while, trying to make it march to the audience. Innovative, different, yes: this is all possible. But to assume that something came out of the blue, well, that is just not how life works; how artists, makers, whatever you call them, work.

She made some horrible mistakes, but I guess if you aren't making mistakes, you aren't really up and doing something, are you?

At that time in history, she was so very unique, and so very much a different kind of writer. It is enough, maybe, that she introduced something like a novel that conveyed a cutting-edge philosophical view; one emphasizing individuality. It was a beautiful song to many of us, continues to be, really. It was, and remains, a resonant hymn to things that good, hardworking, creative people already believed in the first place. It was good to hear someone else say it, and even better to have it elegantly conveyed in novel form.

This was, at least to me (and many others with whom I have discussed it over the years) the predominant feature of AR's work. Very, very inspiring--a breath of fresh air, an "atta-boy," etc.

So, there is that, and I know it to be true, because it affected my life to the positive so deeply. Talk about "checking your premises." If it had not had a positive effect (and it did, overall), then I would not be able to verify the results--results greater than one could ever imagine from reading a couple of books. I also noticed (and continue to notice) that this was not a unique case for me. Meaning, there were others that came away with positives, big-time, from reading those books (and I mainly speak of "The Fountainhead," and "Atlas Shrugged.")

With great positives, though, come negatives, and for sure the work of AR is not only no exception, but maybe a very sad one. But, it is normal for powerful works, once rendered, to be surrounded with seekers; they attach themselves to that experience, and, lo and behold, it becomes Chapter and Verse. There are many things to read about this vis-a-vis Rand alone (like debates about closed/open, like whether or not her work generated a "cult," etc.). Unfortunately, there is enough there within the following to at least bring that possibility to a thinking person's attention. For this, I do think the good outweighs the bad in her work--and that is coming from someone that had the well-known reaction, for many years, of becoming what I call an "Objectivist Prick." It causes you social problems, if you are fraught with this malady, and results are often non-productive, non-nurturing, and painful for all. I do believe this is where Nathaniel Branden did some wonderful work. In fact, having worked with him some, I know it to be true, results-wise.

So that is enough of that.

And it is fair and reasonable for you to bring up a hot topic (abortion). Of all this mess, I think that Brant G. (if you go back, need be, and see his comments on it) was the most concise. It is either that, or continue the debate of what is a human, what is not, what is choice, down to the sub-atomic level (or worse). It is a difficult decision, it is something where there are few answers. And that is a lot of what life is about, isn't it?

The rest of this, it is a lot of reading and soul-searching, then, you attempt to decide. Rand's work will be of some calibre of importance to you during such decision-making. In the end, though, that is where she shines (at least to me), meaning that it is always a better world where you have the option of deciding on something like that in the first place. This is where I believe her statements on things like facism are particularly strong, and true.

There, that's my take. But, as I said, there are better ones to bounce off. I'm a Unitarian Universalist with a strong Rand background, so you have to take me as my own voice (one that is a bit different than Orthodox Objectivists, to be sure).

Ask others your question, then decide upon your own accord.

I hope what I have written is useful, and more on track rather than talking about prepositions and such.

Regards,

rde

Edited August 7, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Philip Coates]

> ..stench of Phil-droppings...You Control The Universe...repeated ass-whuppin's that are put upon you...Talk about Ego...get them into The Church of Phil...That's all that seems to be left of you...get up your sphinctre...Mrs. Grundy

.....I'm a Unitarian Universalist [RE]

Wow! I guess you told me.

That's an awful lot of resentment and seething hostility from a nice little Christian boy. Certainly a good recommendation for the Christ-like benevolence and tolerance and outreach of Unitarians.

PS, I always get a good laugh from the almost psychotic rage in Rich's posts about me. I must really get under his skin.

[anthony]

Equality you write:

"Who's Rights?"

The question will now be raised "Yes but doesn't the mother have the right to decide what will or wont happen to her own body, you are now violating the mothers property Right". This is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the case. Justice imposes upon all men certain obligations, for example the man who steps off the top of a skyscraper in just his shorts must fall. Justice also requires a Murderer be put to death, it requires that when someone steals they must pay due compensation. The woman who becomes pregnant through a consensual act of sex has no Right to blank out the consequences of her actions, she in fact gives up her Right not to bare a child when she becomes pregnant."

It seems to me that you are trying to replace individual rights with the "rights" of Something else - if not God, or State, who then, Nature, perhaps? The foetus?

But then on the sliding scale of a foetus' growth, at which point does it gain its own rights as 'rational animal'?

That is not for philosphy to ascertain, but science, as GS said.

The appeal to Justice you have raised is intrincicist nonsense; by your reckoning, a person who takes up a risky sport, skydiving let's say, must suffer the consequences of his actions, and refuse medical assistance when he breaks his leg.

Conclusion: a pregnant woman must give birth.

BTW, it is laughable that you can berate others for not displaying sufficient Objectivist spirit, but reserve for yourself the right to criticize Rand's thinking.

Your ball, your goal-posts, right?

Tony

[9thdoctor]

I found this exchange during the presidential campaign very memorable:

If only Obama (and politicians generally) would approach other questions (e.g. economic planning) with the same humility.

[Rich Engle]

Phil, you just keep making them, then stepping in them.

What would make you think I am a Christian? Do you believe all UU's are Christians? This is not so, not even close.

As to psychotic rage, no, I was actually being pretty tempered with you, considering the fact that basically, you are, lately, acting about the same as a hall monitor in some MIdwest Jr. High School.

You have good kung fu, though. Try pulling it out, instead of sticking it in, maybe.

rde

I guess I'm a Christian now, because Phil Says So<tm>.

[kiaer.ts]

Mote, beam, pot, kettle.

With Kim Novak, Ernie Kovacs, Jack Lemmon, Jimmy Stewart and Hermione Gingold? An absolute classic!

And, in other news, there is still no one sexier than Kim Novak.

Isn't that from Bell, Book, and Candle, the witch movie?

Never heard of it.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owBbuPw3df8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owBbuPw3df8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owBbuPw3df8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Rich Engle]

I think Phil is probably sexier than Kim Novak. He has those "bedroom eyes."

Good Idea<tm>: Take Phil off his busy efforts at scoring choreography for his upcoming Broadway Play, and redirect him to produce a nice practicum for coitus. We could start by giving him a copy of the Kama Sutra. This will occupy him for some years, as he will have many refutations with which to deal <---notice nice dodge/workaround about preppy-sition problems.

If he employs a language translator, it should get him off our backs for at least a couple of years.

But that's just me, being a Christian, and all. Now, I might have to de-commission that black velvet Elvis painting: you know--the one where he is playing cards with the dogs. Crap, 35.00 out the window. Maybe next time I will just get one of those weird white-Jesus paintings, and be done with it.

rde

Phil is the Ultimate Solution to All Western (and maybe Eastern) Thought As We Know It.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Rich Engle