L W HALL

What's new, everyone else is taking a test and I am out wandering around. Could explain some of my shortcoming such as composition which I am studying once again after many years of absense from an English classroom. Anyway, I scored an 11. My biggest problem that I recall was being bored out of my mind in most classroom settings, which probably has nothing to do with Autism, but it just came to mind while reading others posts. L W

Although I have no information to add I believe it's a great idea. L W

I don't know how many noticed the lawsuit being brought against KFC over their cooking oil containing tran fat, and the attempt at forcing yet another company into doing what somebody considers serving the public good, whatever that is, but what really jumped out at me in the article- other than it being another example of frivolous lawsuits which bog this country down and eventually cost the consumer more money- is the name of the organization the doctor bringing the lawsuit is affiliated with. It is called 'The Center for Science in the Public Interest'. Here is a link to the article. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/13/kfc.suit.ap/ I would probably never have really paid much heed to a name such as that unless I had read Rand's fiction, but since having read "The Fountainhead", and finishing up "Atlas Shrugged" these types of names sort of leap off the page at you when you read them in conjunction with people or groups who are trying to force businesses into a socialist framework. L W

Grinder said That would be called hitting the proverbial nail on the head. When called upon it, he gave some lame excuse of not wanting to provide a link because it would cause people too much work or some crap to that effect. With all the acumen and knowledge he claims to possess I am much surprised he doesn't know hot to do a simple cut-and-paste coupled with using quotation marks, or more than likely he does which really adds to the lameness. You ask "is that really how that place works?" I would never ask you to take my word for it alone, but just go over to the beginning of the thread and see how Fred Weiss responds to Mark, a person seemingly siding with Phil on the issue. Look at the way he begins his post by referring to Phils post as an "attack on Diana" instead of a rebuttal which if I remember correctly would be called "poisoning the well". He then immediately launches into an ad hominem attack on Mark as Laure Chipman pointed out on ROR, to try and discredit him for being anti Israeli(supposedly) as if that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. When I ask a question about being Objective in regards Diana's original essay he says if you don't agree with it then you are not an Objectivist and that's that as if he has the final say on all things, which is followed by another attack this time on Phil which doesn't have a damn thing to do with my original question. So-- is this business as usual? I may be somewhat guilty of "poisoning the well" myself, but please read it for yourself and decide and then look and see how long it is before he addresses any part of Phil's rebuttal in an objective way. I am *not* saying everyone over there is that way, but he seems to be a point man for somebody or some organization. You make up your own mind. L W

Nick, (My comment keeps in mind that you did not state Christianity is a threat to anyone). I believe that Communism, socialism, and Islam are much greter threats to productive people than Christianity is. I base this on being around what I would call 'Christians with firm beliefs' every day. These people-some of whom are my family members- believe in hard work, taking responsibility, moral values, much smaller government, and a variety of other issues with which I believe most on this board would agree. Of course there are some major differences between Objectivism and Christianity, but if we listen, the true looters are those who would take away everything we work for and give it to those who do nothing but live off the productivity of others. I have set through many, many church sermons from Baptist to hard core fundamentalists and although I have heard a lot of sermons on giving to the poor, I have yet to sit in one where they would forcibly take your money and do so. Nor have I heard my life threatened if I broke one of their rules such as you find with Islam. Yes, they did say I would lose my soul to the Devil for sinning, but as far as I know the days of the Inquisition have passed and their was never a implied threat of any force used against me here on earth . Of course with that said there are fanatics in Christianity just as there are fanatics in other walks of life and I watch for those people more than any, because they are the dangerous ones. They are the ones who will do what ever the feel is necessary to either bring you around to their way of beliefs through fear, intimidation or failing that, they believe eliminating you is totally acceptable. I at one time after splitting from religion used the arguments of all the harm Christianity did through it's wars and the like, but a person I was talking to asked me one day if I thought that men would have still warred and killed each other had there been no Christianity around based on what I knew of history, and I had to admit man has always had a penchant for killing his fellow man, and Christianity was just another excuse in a long list of excuses. In other words it could have happened just as easily had there been religion or not and it all too often boils down to those who covet what someone else already possesses and doesn't mind using force to acquire it. The problem I see with referring to yourself as an Atheist is the general grouping which includes far too many Communists and socialists for my liking and I find I really do not need to put a label on myself as regards those beliefs in my life. My usual answer is that I am not religious, but if I am in a situation where tact is called for then I always say I like to listen and that's all it takes for them to launch into a long harangue on the subject which allows me to finish out the time with no rancor involved. If I have no need for tact then I will often say I would rather talk of something else and switch the subject. Just some thoughts on the matter. L W

Jenna, You bring up an important point in relation to what ARI considers as attacks on Objectivism vs the TAS/TOC view that the philosophy will grow stronger because of the critiques which they allow. I hope Chris Cathcart didn't mind, but I lifted this from SOLO when he was explaining the difference in the two organizations" I found the part which I put in bold to be especially interesting in it's concept. I am not trying to disprove Objectivism, just the opposite, but neither will I accept any part of it if I do not believe it to be factual and truthful. The very reason I was drawn here was because of a belief in looking at the facts, but some times it takes a lot of work to sift through all of the information and arrive at a conclusion and I sure as the heck am not going to allow anyone to bully me into accepting something I am not in total agreement with just because they say so. I made the statement to Fred W on SOLO that Ayn Rands philosophy would fall or stand on it's own merit annd his reply was 'to tell them something they didn't know'. However I am not really sure that some of them want to know or even give any thought to the truth of that statement because they are so convinced ( or so it's seems) that everything about being objective is already include in Rand's writings and there is no possibility of any other views which might in the least not fall in with their party lines. The critiquing of which you speak should be welcomed, not avoided. This type of thinking I have ran across many times in my life and it has a scary ring to it. One of the better quotes which I have used in my life to keep me with an open mind comes from Herbert Spencer. "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation." L W

That's funny Paul, kids are truly awesome. L W

Happy Birthday! Hope it was a good one. L W

Michael, I understood your way of killing the snake and trust me I believe blowing one to bits is highly effective. After that you just leave them alone and let the scavengers have what's left. O:) I would have still disagreed with Domingos' way simply because if you can get close enough to break his back with the backside of the machete, you're close enough to chop him in two. Of course as a rule I just leave snakes to their own business unless they pose some danger to children or pets. L W

MIchael, As I read your article I can't help but think of the early days in this country(a favorite part of history for me) when the settlers would have to wear both hats. Often switching from one to the other by the simple act of laying down the hoe and picking up the gun. This would also entail a neccessary change of mental processes as to what the task at hand demanded. As a young boy I was introduced to both worlds, and although we lived in a small city my parents had both been taught how to farm and grow vegetable gardens. My father married my mother when she was sixteen and he was twentynine, an occurence that took place not long after WWII ended and he returned home. He then taught her how to hunt which she did for a long time untill a near fatal accident happened and she never went again. These things were passed on to me as well as being taught how to fish, gig frogs, kill snakes(a hoe is a highly effective snake killer), and the like. Most all of the people we associated with were involved in these activities to one degree or the other. So to me this was just part of life experience to which I was subjected in my early years and which I took for granted never giving it any deep amount of thought other than that was just something we did. One thing did surface in my mid twenties and it happened while I was squirrel hunting with a friend early one morning; When we squirrel hunted using shotguns we would would use light pellets such as a number eight to keep from damaging the meat too much and winding up with little food for the effort. The problem with this is that at times you will knock them out of the tree and disable them, but they will not be dead. In this case the humane thing to do is to finish killing them and that was usually accomplished by hitting thier head up against a tree a couple of times. On this occasion I had shot one particular squirrel and when I picked him up he was still fairly alert, so I did what I had always done, but for some unknown reason this squirrel would not die and it took several times before he did. I can still picture myself standing there holding the dead squirrel and having a realization that I didn't really like squirrel meat that much and the thrill of the hunt had not been there for a while, so why was I still doing it. Except for a few times of going bird hunting that was the end of my hunting career. If I or my family was hungry I would not hesitate to go back to it and I do not fault anyone who enjoys it, but for me it holds no real attraction and I much prefer to fish. I, like Paul, have a little problem with translating the literal concepts of hunters or farmers into a metaphorical construct of my behavior or psych. and upon contemplation of it I came to the conclusion that like the early settlers I switch modes to fit the situation. One last thing is that I would disagree with your guide on snake killing. A snake with a broken back is still deadly because he is writhing and can still bite. but a snake with no head can strike at you with the body yet since there is no head, fangs, or poison about the worst he can do is make you hurt yourself trying to get out of his way. L W ps-- From people I have talked to and books which I have read about it, the big drawback to hunting large cats is all too often the hunter becomes the hunted. If you ever hear a big cat scream at night close by and your out there with just a light and a handgun in their environment with the darkness of the Stygian variety and a full realization that he knows where you are, but you have little idea where he is, then you will have an experience you won't soon forget. The blood has a tendency to freeze and you can get an idea of how the prey must feel and it becomes hard not to pee your pants.

Welcome Cindy, please join in the discussions. I believe you will find that the people around here are good people even when they are disagreeing. L W

Thanks Jenna, O:) My many years of being away from writing down my thoughts still surface at times, so the clarification is welcome and I realized I made an error in implying that Oism is an entity in and of itself apart from those who practice it.

There have already been lot of good replies here and the food for thought these questions generate are well worth musing over. I see a lot of this as more of a human dynamics issue that one which is tied to Objectivism in particular. When I was younger I read a lot of John D McDonald's books written with Travis McGee as the protagonist which led me to keep an idea of someone who I wanted to emulate as being McGee-like and I was always asking myself what would T McGee do in this situation. I have read where people post the same kind of questions in regard to Roarke or Galt on Oist sites, but there is a major problem with this just as there was when I was trying to figure out what McGee would do in a given situation; neither McGee, Roarke, or Galt are real people and all of the situations which they found themselves in were created and controlled from beginning to end by the mind of the person who wrote of them with nothing left to chance. I am well aware that the values and morals which were funneled into these characters are real and can be used in real life situations yet due to the ever shifting and changing interactions of people we can only use those as tools, and we must be ready ourselves to adapt the tool to the situation. This cannot be done by always referencing a fictional character because it is impossible to write of every possible human situation and we would be left with a total inability to meet life head on. It would seem that Rand and her characters she created are often confused and Rand's striving to embody her ideals in Galt and Roarke should not be taken as everyone cne (Rand included) as having the perfect answer, perfect thought or perfect reaction to all of lifes vagaries. What I am driving at is that while I respect Ayn Rand and I believe her philosophy has much to add to the human experience I do not place her on a pedestal as I found a long time ago that that is just too far for a human to fall when evidence of their ability to err surfaces. For some whose posts I have read while on the various sites, I get the impression that they hold Rand up in the same light as the religious hold God and many have not developed the emotional maturity to match their intellectual savvy and which cannot allow for the fact that Rand -in spite of the great amount of work and ideas which came from her- was still a human being who should be allowed the dignity of everything that entails. A lot of issues seems to arise out of the belief that Rand can somehow be tainted, yet if anyone if truly interested in her philosophy and they are able to think for themselves at all they will then investigate and arrive at their own conclusions. If all they are is followers who have no desire or ability toward self-growth which occurs with questioning of both others and ourselves, would they be of much use to Oism anyway? L W

Angie, When I first read what you wrote it struck me as being similar to a Zen Koan, but after thinking about it a little, it hit me that unless I have been forced into a particular situation the "way out is the way in" could easily apply to myself as this "way." This is kind of funny(strange) because it takes me back to another mystical saying by Jesus which says " I am the way, the truth, and the light"( I am paraphrasing, using my memory) which when looked at through the lense of Oism, and substituting man as being the ultimate being would bring us full circle to your saying which I will put a little differently: "I got myself in this situation so it is up to me to get myself out." Hope that's not too rambling. L W

I too read the entire article last night and have some thoughts I would like to add when I get time to stop and formulate them. Right now work beckons so I will have to wait till this evening. L W

I love moral perfection discussions even though trying to get even two people to agree on what they consider moral perfection to be is an obstacle course fraught with peril. To try to get a group in agreement, followed by even larger amounts takes some novel thinking. These obstacles were overcome early on by those who knew that it would take something larger than life to persuade people into agreeing on what the criteria for a life which moved toward moral perfection would be. Enter God; in one fell swoop the law-givers(acting on behalf of God of course) could dictate moral goals, have a way to explain the unexplainable, provide a convenient scapegoat for ills that befell people(the Devil or a angry God), and do all this while keeping the masses under control. Of course by no means were all the laws incompatible with what we would consider moral today. Those such as murder and stealing would mesh quite nicely with today's rational thinker. There are a few areas of concern which come to mind when someone starts telling me what moral perfection should be today: One is, who sets the standards? Another is, who is doing the judging? And my most favorite question of all is: Who died and made the particular person being quoted, God? I prefer to live by my own standards and by living by my own standards I can accept the consequences, be they good or bad, arising from my decisions. L W

Charles, Thanks for the answer and I have thick skin so any irritation which may have crept into your post is no problem on my end. I have long since learned that by their nature discussions of these types can have emotional overtones at times. As I become more knowledgeable of AR and her writings I will have a better understanding of how they relate to my own beliefs and how much I am willing to accept as part of my personal philosophy. L W

Roger said: Although I am not as familiar with the various personalities in the Oist community as many of you are due to my being newer than most, I nonetheless am inclined to agree with Roger here. I am reminded of a time when I was in my early twenties, and was dating a very pretty girl who seemed to be a turmoil and excitement junkie. I was very hot-headed, possessive and jealous and also liked to drink a lot which made for a volatile mix; a mix which she knew just how to stir and did quite often while she sat back and watched as fights would break out between me and other guys. I don't blame her today because my reactions were things I could have controlled, but was not mature enough to do so. Now keep in mind I am not accusing or insinuating that anyone who has debated this issue is being immature, rather I am pointing to the way Diana made her post at the time she did-where I have yet to figure out what would have prevented a couple of weeks delay- and then had the ready made excuse of finals and vacation to fall back on. All the while others were ready to act as her proxy in the ensuing argument in which she has had the leisure of mainly being a spectator. After reading Joe Duarte's blog and especially this part: I can't help but be more inclined to agree with Roger's assessment of her being a "drama junky". The bottom line is something in Denmark has a decidedly rank smell to it. L W

Robert said: I believe body language could indeed be counted as action and it also could be misconstrued at times. Someone who invades our space while scowling, hunched forward, and with clenched fists will normally set off all kinds of warning bells with us. The fight or flight mechanism should be activated with most people in this circumstance before a word is ever uttered. L W

Mike Lee, In Diana's replies to Phil on SOLO the reason she cites for being too busy to give full attention to the questions he(Phil) was posing was she was in the middle of finals and then her and her husband were leaving a day or so ago on a bike trip or something to that effect. I found it odd that she would post the denunciation Chris S at such a time in her life when she could be almost certain it would elicit controversy and she would be called on to defend her assertions. Of course if you had no intention to begin with of putting up a defense of such an all out attack on a noted member of the Oist community I guess it wouldn't matter. L W

I find this quote by Rand to be somewhat vaque in nature unless there is more to it when taken within the entire context of the speech.. When she speaks of a "given country" and the forfeiture of it's rights when initiating violence does she include every man, woman, and child in the equation, or is she referring to the government, the people running it and the military? If she is grouping every person whether child or adult, whether responsible or not, and whether aggressor or not within the meaning then for me that has a ring of illogic to it especially coming from a woman whose families business was forcibly taken by a government she was not in agreement with. Would we hold every person within a totalitarian regime such as N. Korea -which brooks no dissent from it's citizens- equally responsible and just as open to retaliation as we do the perpetrators within the regime? L W

Kat, Although I did find the post by Luke interesting, in light of what's been going on about Chris S and his (supposedly) asserting that ARI puts pressure on it's contributors and to which Diana H says there is absolutely no basis to believe and further goes to great length to show her indignation about, the post right below yours by Lindsay Perigo kind of jumped out at me. And I quote: Now I am not saying this is exactly the same, but nevertheless coming from Lindsay who is on the Diana team, I did find it food for noodlethought. L W

I claim no serious knowledge of paintings, other than what I like and don't like, but I find this to be riveting. Thanks Kat Also would like to add Happy Mother's Day to you and the other Mothers in the OL community. L W

Ellen, Although I seem to remember reading the post you mentioned I can't recall where it was, but Robert Campbell posted a link in the Objectivist Living Room for the "loyalty oath" you spoke of. You can view his post here. http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Obj...der=asc&start=0 L W

Angie, For my part I would like to say thank you from the bottom of my heart for such kind words, and would like to also add how much I respect those like yourself who were able to face up to life and make it work for you instead of against you. I also join you in saluting the many on here whose words and life deeds inspire me and even if I don't always totally agree with some of their viewpoints it does not mean I disrespect their nobility and quest for meaning in this at times chaotic world. L W