Is OL a gay site?

[Selene]

Shhh - don't ask ...don't tell ...oh what the hell!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTQrCjP14tA

[kiaer.ts]

Shhh - don't ask ...don't tell ...oh what the hell!

Yeah, that's one of the absolute funniest skits in the history of the universe.

[Peter]

Ted Keer wrote:

We think eating dog and horse is unimaginable, while others are disgusted by cow and lobster, largely because we are raised that way.

end quote

Hmmm. Let's see. Shall I say, "Golly Ted you sure know a lot about your subject, homosexuality," or should I say "Wow, Ted, you really do know what you are talking about?"

I will listen to the voice of reason, Peter Reidy, (who actually created the final version of my sign-off, "Semper cogitans fidele,") and stop this back stage at SOLO crap )

wow, Ted, you really do know what you are talking about! I have learned something from you.

Objectivist Living is not a "gay site."

I am not gay. Ted is whatever he says he is.

I am not a witch,

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

Ted Keer wrote:

We think eating dog and horse is unimaginable, while others are disgusted by cow and lobster, largely because we are raised that way.

end quote

Hmmm. Let's see. Shall I say, "Golly Ted you sure know a lot about your subject, homosexuality," or should I say "Wow, Ted, you really do know what you are talking about?"

I will listen to the voice of reason, Peter Reidy, (who actually created the final version of my sign-off, "Semper cogitans fidele,") and stop this back stage at SOLO crap )

wow, Ted, you really do know what you are talking about! I have learned something from you.

Objectivist Living is not a "gay site."

I am not gay. Ted is whatever he says he is.

I am not a witch,

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Certainly not Oscar Wilde either. If you actually meant what you said on homosexuality above, or thought it was grounds for further discussion, you seam to have abandoned it for weak and underwhelming sarcasm.

As for your signature, what do you think it means? Can you translate it for me?

Edited October 11, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Peter]

Ted Keer wrote:

Certainly not Oscar Wilde either. If you actually meant what you said on homosexuality above, or thought it was grounds for further discussion, you seam to have abandoned it for weak and underwhelming sarcasm.

end quote

Seem not seam, Ted. Sigh . . .

I have it on good authority from the Smithsonian that Oscar Wilde was so manly he had two penises. Sometimes in the same night.

Is that sufficiently funny?

I like your kitten in a blanket personae. I am sorry, Ted. That should have been a sufficient hint of your macho-ness. It is so unlike my personae of a direct descendent from one of Cleopatra's cats, my cat Sparks, who's picture appears where mine should be, is named for the nickname Jodie Foster's Dad gave her in the movie, "Contact."

If you want something translated from the Latin just wait until Peter Reidy reads what you wrote. As Ricky Ricardo said, "Lucy, you are in big trouble!"

Ted? Let's be friends.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

Ted Keer wrote:

Certainly not Oscar Wilde either. If you actually meant what you said on homosexuality above, or thought it was grounds for further discussion, you seam to have abandoned it for weak and underwhelming sarcasm.

end quote

Seem not seam, Ted. Sigh . . .

I have it on good authority from the Smithsonian that Oscar Wilde was so manly he had two penises. Sometimes in the same night.

Is that sufficiently funny?

I like your kitten in a blanket personae. I am sorry, Ted. That should have been a sufficient hint of your macho-ness. It is so unlike my personae of a direct descendent from one of Cleopatra's cats, my cat Sparks, who's picture appears where mine should be, is named for the nickname Jodie Foster's Dad gave her in the movie, "Contact."

If you want something translated from the Latin just wait until Peter Reidy reads what you wrote. As Ricky Ricardo said, "Lucy, you are in big trouble!"

Ted? Let's be friends.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I take your offer of friendship as meaning you think I regard you as an enemy? Far from it.

Being able to read Latin myself, I don't need that phrase translated. I am interested in knowing only one thing - what do you think it means? Can you answer that directly? What do you yourself think "semper cogitans fidele" means?

[Selene]

Oh oh this is not going to be pretty at all!

lol

[Reidy]

Cool it, girls. Act like ladies or I won't invite you to my Joan Crawford lookalikes party.

[kiaer.ts]

Don't be an asshole, Reidy. I have asked Peter some rather simple questions and he is the one has responded with defensive sarcasm, bitchiness, and misdirection. I notice you don't deny his attributing "semper cogitans fidele" to you. If it is yours, what is meant by it?

Edited October 11, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Reidy]

I offered the phrase years ago as a correction to Peter's syntax (don't remember the original). It means "always thinking faithfully." It seemed clever at the time but has grown tiresome through repetition. I'm not to blame for anything past the hundredth occurrence.

[kiaer.ts]

I offered the phrase years ago as a correction to Peter's syntax (don't remember the original). It means "always thinking faithfully." It seemed clever at the time but has grown tiresome through repetition. I'm not to blame for anything past the hundredth occurrence.

Thanks. The problem is that fidele is really the neuter adjective 'faithful' -- not the adverb 'faithfully' -- which is fideliter. As written, it has the sense "always a faithful thinking thing."

[Reidy]

I have never been so embarrassed in my entire life.

[kiaer.ts]

I have never been so embarrassed in my entire life.

I assume that is ironic hyperbole, but in any case you are not the one who has been using it for his signature.

And you can sometimes use a substantive in the ablative with adverbial force, but in this case the ablative would be fideli, and it would mean in regard to or by the faithful thing - i.e., "always thinking by means of the faithful thing." Originally I had thought it was supposed to have meant "always faithful to thinking" but that would have been even more problematic.

My favorite Dog Latin is the following from the South Park Easter Special, set to the tune of Peter Cottontail:

Sanctum Piter oteum, Deus ore uneum.

Hippitus hoppitus reus homine.

In suspiratoreum, lepus in re sanctum.

Hippitus hoppitus Deus Domine.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Peter]

“Semper cogitans fidele,” to me means, always thinking faithfully or always faithfully thinking whichever more clearly says to you that I am always thinking in a rational manner. I mixed up the tenses at first but, Peter Reidy corrected my pig Latin, by changing two letters:

Mr. Reidy wrote:

My Latin doesn't go much beyond the realization that how you spell a word depends on its syntactical function, but it does go that far. English does this with pronouns (they / them / theirs), and it spells possessive nouns differently, but it doesn't take this as far as Latin does. Just as an English *dictionary* would not tell you whether to use "he" or "him" at a particular point in a sentence, so a Latin dictionary would tell you that it all depends . . . What is the slogan supposed to mean? As near as I can figure, it says, "I always think faithful". "Think" in this sense is an intransitive verb (like "cogitate" or "concentrate"), and "fideles" is a plural noun. I suspect the slogan needs some fixing up . . . . "Ever thinking faithfully" would, I think, be "Semper cogitans fidele" and "I always think faithfully", "Semper cogito fidele". Others are free to correct me.

End quote

I accepted Mr. Reidy’s thinking.

Ellen Stuttle wrote:

“As to the translation "faithful" rather than "truthful," yes, Ross, the root meaning of "fidelis" is "faithful, loyal, trustworthy, reliable; safe," but I was guessing that Peter meant "truthfully," since "Always think [or thinking] "faithfully" seems an odd motto.

End quote

And Ellen Stuttle wrote to: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Peter T's Latin...Um...[Report]

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 02:53:32 -0500

I've been doing a little Latin research re Peter Taylor's motto, "Semper cogitans fidele."

At first I'd thought that he meant it as an imperative but that he was using the wrong verb and adverbial forms. (Thanks, Andrew T., for looking up the correct forms in Wheelock's.) Then Peter gave as the translation he has in mind "always thinking faithfully," a construction which I found suspicious because I couldn't recall seeing any similar example in my readings of Latin. Although I've forgotten many details of the rules of Latin syntax and of the Latin declensions, nevertheless I often have occasion to read passages in Latin, usually passages by alchemists of the 15th-17th centuries. The Latin of that time had various departures from early Latin, but it did retain the sentence structure. I couldn't recall having come across a present participle being used the way Peter uses "cogitans."

So next I got out my Third-Year Latin textbook and looked through some of Sallust's *Catiline*, the start of which has a number of segments describing Catiline's mental characteristics. I found a couple examples where "semper" is used -- for instance, "vastus animus immoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat" (translation: [his] ill-balanced mind always desired the unreasonable, the extraordinary, the too lofty) -- but none where a present participle is used with the implicit verb "to be."

So then I became really ambitious and started perusing the rules of syntax at the back of the book. I found this quite decisive verdict on the incorrectness of the motto:

"The English present participle is often used with a form of *to be* to make the progressive form of the verb. Thus, *he is marching, we were standing* [i am always thinking...]. The Latin present participle is NEVER so used." [my caps.]

So, net result: The grammatically correct way to write Peter's motto would be "Semper fideliter cogito."

Ellen S.

End quote

Back to me. It is good to have web friends.

Ted, I modified my motto from the Marine Corps motto "Semper Fideles" which means “Forever Faithful” which does not refer to anything religious but instead means that you never give up on your comrades in arms. You always bring back your fellow wounded soldiers or their bodies. The Marines always bring back their dead and wounded and this action has caused additional casualties. I myself was in the U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Battery Seventh Infantry Artillery.

I remember a recruiter at a rally for the Marines, at the University of Virginia during the Vietnam War answered a question from the crowd, “What is the difference between the Army and the Marines?” The recruiter answered, “When the Army comes under sniper attack, soldiers fall back and call in artillery. When Marines come under sniper fire, they charge!” I admire that, but give me the artillery any day )

Ross Lavatter wrote:

“In any case, Peter is perfectly free to clarify the meaning of his chosen tag. I fully accept whatever his preferred translation is.”

End quote

Thank you for essentially saying the same thing, Ted.

I will illustrate my motto’s link to Objectivism, by asking you to think about the movie, "The Last of the Mohicans," with Daniel Day Lewis. When the hero knows he must escape the Indians and that his loved one will be captured, he tells her to survive. Survive no matter what. I will come back for you. Never give up hope. I will come back for you.

I do not give up on friends or family, and in a sense I think of Objectivists as part of my extended family, even Leonard, who I am mad at.

So that is the emotional attachment or sense of life I take from the Marine Corps motto, "Semper Fideles" and my own modification of it:

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

I offered the phrase years ago as a correction to Peter's syntax (don't remember the original). It means "always thinking faithfully." It seemed clever at the time but has grown tiresome through repetition. I'm not to blame for anything past the hundredth occurrence.

Thanks. The problem is that fidele is really the neuter adjective 'faithful' -- not the adverb 'faithfully' -- which is fideliter. As written, it has the sense "always a faithful thinking thing."

Ted:

LOL - that is why I said that this was not going to be pretty!

It has a female and male neutrality. In light of the sub rosa racism and homo-erotica in Mr. Maryland's postings, I was enjoying watching you set and bait the trap.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

From what I can gather, you have just asserted your right to utter nonsense because it looks good. I suggest that that is an outright contradiction of your intended motto.

Ellen's Semper Cogito Fideliter is grammatically coherent.

You could also go with Semper Cogitans Fidelis. Or Semper Cogitans Fideliter.

But fidele can only be the neuter form, referring to an it, rather than a he or a she. There is no way around that.

[Peter]

Ted wrote:

Thanks. The problem is that fidele is really the neuter adjective 'faithful' -- not the adverb 'faithfully' -- which is fideliter. As written, it has the sense "always a faithful thinking thing."

Adam responded

Ted:

LOL - that is why I said that this was not going to be pretty!

It has a female and male neutrality. In light of the sub rosa racism and homo-erotica in Mr. Maryland's postings, I was enjoying watching you set and bait the trap.

Adam

end quote

"Semper fideliter cogito" as Ellen Stuttle first suggested is harder to say. Most people would mispronounce it fiddle-a-ter. I like my version better.

Good bye, Adam.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

I offered the phrase years ago as a correction to Peter's syntax (don't remember the original). It means "always thinking faithfully." It seemed clever at the time but has grown tiresome through repetition. I'm not to blame for anything past the hundredth occurrence.

Thanks. The problem is that fidele is really the neuter adjective 'faithful' -- not the adverb 'faithfully' -- which is fideliter. As written, it has the sense "always a faithful thinking thing."

Ted:

LOL - that is why I said that this was not going to be pretty!

It has a female and male neutrality. In light of the sub rosa racism and homo-erotica in Mr. Maryland's postings, I was enjoying watching you set and bait the trap.

Adam

Yes, I suspected your meaning. And I was wondering if I was the only one who thought the racial comments were odd. The way it was put I assumed perhaps the anecdotal evidence was from personal experience. But I don't think Shaft was Hatian.

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:

I have never been so embarrassed in my entire life.

End quote

Your version is a more Objective answer to my request for a rational ending. (After all, there are no “Latins” to dispute it. Latin Americans don’t count as real Roman Latins either. I stopped listening to Latin Professors after the fall of the Roman Empire.) I had grown tired of “Live long and prosper,” though I may go back to that for a while.

Locally, due to my frequent letters to the editor, people know who I am because of the Latin motto. The local editor cuts it out unless I put it at the end of the last paragraph because the letter must end with name and town. No lynch mobs have shown up at my door as of yet, but I am keeping an eye out for them.

It is hot here: 80 degrees plus. My granddaughter went home at one, (she still has not taken her first unsupported step, but we have the camera ready) and my wife has gone to Ocean City. The house is too quiet. I may go start the lawn mower up.

The five sheep I mentioned yesterday have not reappeared. I hoped they might be on the news. The last I saw of them, they were headed for a major highway, after eating my Southern States goat chow.

Live long and proper,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Ted wrote:

Yes, I suspected your meaning. And I was wondering if I was the only one who thought the racial comments were odd.

End quote

I don’t view my comments as racial but factual. I look for a scientific basis for “the facts.” Nor do I stack an argument through the “selection of data presented.”

Refute, with evidence, and I will verify if your conclusion is true. My mind is not “set,” while I think yours is “set” in a PC, don’t tell anyone the emperor is wearing no clothes, mode.

If you are objective, with just a bit of luck, you will live long and prosper,

Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

Refute what? You haven't even identified the article you claimed to have read. Your accusing me of PC is a laughable substitute for knowing my positions. For example, I oppose "gay marriage" while you support it, and I deny the reality of gayness while you take it for granted.

Klaatu Barata Nikto

[Peter]

Refute what? You haven't even identified the article you claimed to have read. Your accusing me of PC is a laughable substitute for knowing my positions. For example, I oppose "gay marriage" while you support it, and I deny the reality of gayness while you take it for granted.

Klaatu Barata Nikto

End quote

Finally Ted states a position, while the earth stood still.

Would you care to expand on your concept, “the UN-reality of gayness?”

Now, “the realty of gayness” meaning pink houses in Key West sounds more real to me, Ted.

Whatever happened to the A-Rab who started this stupid link?

Beam me up Scotty,

I'm going upside for a while,

Peter

[kiaer.ts]

Identify the article you said you had read.

[Selene]

Identify the article you said you had read.

Maybe this is the "article" he was referring to.

"There is a very interesting discussion of sexual identity and sexual orientation in Martin Seligman's book ~What You Can Change and What you Can't~ (Alfred A. Knopf, 1994). In particular, see the sections on "Exclusive homosexuality" and "Homosexuality and therapy" (pp. 154-157). The section on "Sexual identity" (pp. 151- 154) is also important."

[kiaer.ts]

Taylor had written:

I just recently read an article that stated male person’s of a certain ethnic background PUBLICLY despise homosexuals, yet locally 15% of men of that ethnic back ground have AIDS acquired primarily through homosexual sexual practices. This percent may be the highest in the nation.

In private confidential interviews the men as a group admit to getting “Down and Dirty” with other males yet claim they are not homosexuals. They themselves estimate that nearly 99% of males in that ethnic background and in their acquaintances routinely engage in secret, homosexual sex. This predilection could be due to genetics, personal preference, or homosexual experiences in prison, and could explain their derision and depiction of females as “bitches” or “whores,” and could even explain their failure to commit to monogamous sexual relations with females. They think of themselves as hetero or bi-sexuals.