Dodger

Dodger, you are 17 years old? --Brant Yes indeed. I apologize for my emotion filled post (I can write better), but its just I'm so sick of theoretical physics being tainted with these...morons. It is one of my goals to eventually get a Ph. D in theoretical physics, but the more I hear about what these Ph. D holders are wasting their time doing, sometimes I think it would be more productive to be independant. Brant, are you interested in hearing some of my physics endeavours?

Impressed? Hehe

And it shouldn't be. But some people are making it seem that way.

You're kidding me? This topic had been here for almost a year and only touched twice? This is a beautiful, well written article, that explains my perspective in relation to string theory/M theory better than I could have done. I have been a long time independant physicist for some time now, studying Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and string theory. I am very familiar with all of the mathmatics involved, but I do have a limit as to what I will believe. Stephen Hawking's book 'A Brief History of Time' tackles ALL of these topics in a very accessible manner, and I've read it over 50 times, and I believe he is doubtful of m-theory's relevance in physics. String theory is completely and utterly ridiculous. Sure, the math works, but its math is so unneccesary and long that, on first glance, I thought string theory was some sort of theoretical physics joke. It seems most every influential theoretical physics 'seer' has defined the revolution he initiated with one equation--Einstein, Hawking, etc. String theory has yet to produce anything observable, usable, or valuable, for that matter. These physicists just have boners because they think that since string theory cant really be falsified that it must be right. They are so aroused by the concepts of string theory that they often, actually, VERY often overlook the senseless implications that string theory makes: 9 dimensions? Strings? Membranes? Blobs? What the fuck? All of this shit that is string/m theory these people are just pulling out of their asses. Its as if physics has become a religion--A theological movement that preaches that you can only be saved if you believe that string theory died on the cross to save you from your dumbass assertions that the eath was the center of the universe.

First: Welcome. Second: What?

Very good points. I understand your situation well. This is frustrating me now. I admire both you and Victor, and I would rather not take sides. Especially when the house is favored to win.

Maybe so, Bob.

I understand, and please forgive me for my heartless posts. I've been a bit, er, pissed off generally and I'm not really watching who I lash out on. I did one of the things that I've always preached against--posted destructively instead of productively.

How do I protest?

Agreed. I havent condemned America, but it needs work. But I would rather not live anywhere else. The problems we are facing can be fixed, but Im just growing impatient. Once I get fed up Im sure Im going to take immediate action.

Is that the best you can do?

To be honest, I love the capitalist economy, but I'm getting sick of the retarded polticians. I dont like conservatives (generally speaking). I believe in a seperation between church and state, but when someone recommends it, the fundamentalists Christians rear their whiney heads and say 'But our country was founded on our beliefs!!' I also REALLY despise feminism, and nothing is stopping it from growing. I hate how marriage is treated as a rite of passage, only the first step (the next--divorce.) I hate how no one fucking stands up and takes charge and acts productively in politics. More later--Im multi tasking.

It isnt neccesarily the things people are saying to me, it's what Im saying to them.

Tell me that is not possible to love at a young age, and I'll tell you that I already am in love. Tell me that I do not know what I value because I have not lived long enough, and I will define them for you. Tell me that I am immature, and only experience in life can define me, and I will show you my wisdom. Tell me that you understand my situation better than I do, and I will just laugh in your face. Tell me that I am wrong, and I'll tell you that I am right. Tell me that I can't have her as my own, and watch her run into my arms. Tell me that there is no way I'll ever be able to win her heart, and I'll invite you to my wedding. Tell me that I am just too much of an idealist, and that I am fooling myself, and I will show you reality. Tell me that I am in denial, and I will tell you that you are just bitter. Tell me that I'm not worthy to talk to you, and I'll remain silent. Tell me that I am senseless, and I will show you your mistakes. Tell me that I am irrational, and I will ask you if you aren't. Tell me that I have some growing up to do, and I'll show you that I'm already grown up. Tell me that you are wasting your time on me, and I will tell you that I am wasting my time on you. Tell me that I am bitter, and I will tell you that you are worthless. Tell me that I am obsessed, and I will tell you 'No, Im in love.' Tell me that I am just wasting my time..... And I will show you time well spent.

Why in God's name would people be so bent on destruction? You guys look like 3 year olds throwing temper tantrums.

Oh God can we end the f*cking self pity already? What is your goal here, Mark? To seek empathy? To try and find answers? When people go through instances such as this, it is best for them to be left alone and to deal with it on their own.

Im of a different breed. I dont defend America much--Im already fed up with the way it runs now. I'll defend it when it stops acting like a child.

Ellen, I am in complete agreement with you. It was the Madame Bovary quote that blew me up, and caused me to write Michael that I would have no further dealings with Victor and would not participate in discussions of his OL posts. Victor gives not the slightest indication that he takes his plagiariam seriously. Apparently, he is quite content to be a cheat. I have no doubt that he will continue it whenever and wherever he thinks he can get away with it. I hadn't wanted to say this before, but there is a simple way to spot Victor's plagiarisms: Usually, the grammar is correct, and what he probably calls "big words" are used reasonably correctly, neither of which tends to be the case when he writes his own posts. I think the people here who have been painstakingly explaining and re-explaining to Victor -- and to others -- just what plagiarism does and does not consist of, are making a mistake. I doubt that there is anyone here who is not perfectly clear on the issue, most emphatically including Victor. I do feel sympathy for Michael. He has invested a considerable amount of time and energy in Victor, clearly believing that it was worthwhile. I'm sorry that Victor has been so intent on proving him wrong. Barbara Oh dear. I dont want to start trouble. :shifty:

What contradiction is that, Dodger? Your post isn't even pertinent to Victor's borrowing habits, except for your comment "every single person in this forum plagarizes when they type," which is a false statement and indicates that you don't understand what plagiary means. I repeat my suggestion that you do some research. Ellen ___ The contradiction is simple, and I wont state it again. It is in the first post I made here. Anyways... Words such as “cribbing” and “plagiarizing” are inapplicable in the context of conversation--especially when in live conversation, and this include chat-room forums. And: when you write an article, (even if the article does not collect financial remuneration and is presented on a forum such as OL) it is best to employ up most caution. But in conversational exchange? No. :shifty:

Good point, and it wasnt intended to rhyme perfectly. I merely used the mechanics of rhyme as suggestive rather than law.

Seems no one else is interested in creative writing. Ah well

It isn't morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion. It is morally wrong to help yourself to other people's writing without attribution and to instead pass it off as your own work. Learning from others isn't plagiary. I suggest that you do some research as to what plagiary is, and on the relevant legalities. Ellen No need for me to research. You ignored the contradiction that I stated.

The 'Anti-' Mindset: Movement vs. Movement Using Justice As A Scapegoat What does it mean to create a philosophical movement? A theological movement? A scientific movement? Why is it that such 'movements' are created? Of course, the answers to these questions come by nature, so lets ask a more suitable, often ignored question: 'What is the reason for the 'anti' movement?' Part One--Motivation In order to answer this question, we have to ask a few more to find the source of the movement. So lets begin with the motivation for creating an 'anti' movement. Ill use feminism as the example for now. Feminism has played a large role in the United States, if not the entire western culture. It has changed the way our society functions, and has had dramatic effects on the legal system, commercial system, and so much more. Feminism itself is a movement for equality between men and women. I use feminism as an example because it's main goals are flawed. Equality between men and women cannot be possible, simply because men and women are two different beings. So, what is the proper action one should take to shed light on these flaws? Well, many people thought it would be common sense to counteract feminism and and create a movement largely known as Antifeminism, with many branches of the movement created in the name of men's rights, etc. So the motivation for this particular example to create the 'anti' movement is simply the flaws present in the feminist philosophy. Part Two--Justification Well, antifeminism seems to be justified right? Wrong. This is where the subtitle comes in: Using Justice As A Scapegoat. Men often say that justice is being destroyed when women force standards to change to favor them, and I agree with them. Justice is being set aside to give women special care, and now women can take advantage of men in almost any situation possible. Well, doesnt that mean I should support antifeminism? No. The reason I do not support this movement is because whenever an 'anti' movement is created, the goals of the movement are NOT productive, rather, destructive. Antifeminism seeks to destroy feminism and take it out of society instead of creating a better, more efficient movement that would solve the problems for both movements. People would rather destroy that which they do not agree with than create something that others will agree with. Antifeminism using justice as a reason to, ironically, justify its reasons to fight it. It seems like such a noble cause, doesnt it? No. Anything that seeks to destroy is bad. AntiChristianity--Athiesm. Athiesm seeks to destroy Christianity, and encourages others to shrug off the religion completely, and ignore all of the productive aspects of Christianity. AntiCapitalism--Socialism Socialism seeks to destroy private property and wants everything to be used for the public good, and ignores all of the productive aspects of Capitalism. You see where I'm going with this. Part Three--Anti Mindsets Now then, lets break it down to a more personal level. Movements are created by likeminded people who seek a common goal, so lets take a look at the minds of these likeminded people, shall we? Whenever groups are formed productivity can arise from the commonalities within the group. Groups of people can effect build, or they can destroy--it is their chioce. To make it even more personal, lets take this forum, for instance. The group of people present here are similar and have common goals. They are all objectivists to some extent and seek to share knowledge, etc. Doesnt that seem good? Who would dare say such a group could be bad? I would. Whether or not you want to admit it, likeminded groups can cause problems. There is a thing called the 'mob mentality' and when one person speaks up against the group's values, the group can take one of two actions, but not both: 1) Cooperate with the individual and work towards understanding the individuals views and explaining the groups as best as possible, or, 2) Getting rid of the individual because the individual is a threat to the group's cohesiveness. If the group chooses the former, they are seeking to be productive and cooperative, trying to find better ways to look at themselves and others. If the group chooses the latter, they are using justice as a scapegoat, and using the potential threat of the individual as justification to get rid of him, or silence him. This is why groups can be potentially hazardous, but it is up to the members of the group to keep open minds, or better yet, the leader of such groups to be rational and open. ------------ This is all I have for now, and Im going to rewrite and add to this, and eventually fine tune it and send it in as an article. But for now, I want to hear your thoughts.

You have got to be kidding me. I'll defend Victor if I must. I understand both sides of this arguement, but to put it simply, every single person in this forum plagarizes when they type. Why is it morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion? Oh, yes. Because Victor is looting from the productive person who originally wrote what what was used. Eh..is it really possible to be a producer and NOT be a looter of some sense? This is where I disagree with Rand--I do not believe in such absolutes. Since man does not live isolated, his knowledge and his beliefs come from using other people's knowledge and beliefs. My knowledge of math is not my own, but it is others. Definitions of mathmatical equations are sometimes credited to those who wrote them shortly, but ideas are borrowed and used by individuals to create their own personal ideas, whether or not they are similar or the same as others. I believe Victor is being lazy, but not being morally wrong. The standards used against him are not defined by some 'law' so only MSK can set the standard on this forum, simply because it is not law anywhere else.

Forgive me, but I did not read all of this post, it makes me sick. If you honestly believe you are worthless, then we can do nothing for you. If you are looking for a quick, ready made answer to your problems, you will not find it here. If you tell yourself that you are worthless then far be it for my to sympathize with you, or even try to help. You are on your own on this one, and until you decide what your worth is, there is no reason for me to comment further. I will comment on this, and if I am taking this out of context, please tell me: Do you honestly believe that all of this can be solved by one, simple epiphany? You are half right and half wrong. What this takes is a decision--not a realization. It is the decision to be productive that you hold in the palm of your hands, but you choose otherwise. Read the new article on the home page 'Good vs. Evil.' I think it may help you, but then again, only you hold the answers to these questions.