william.scherk

Over on our sister site, I had occasion to pull the nose of Catholic Thinker Bill Tingley. I have prepared an MP3 of that screed, and hope it gives value to my fans. "Bill Tingley and The Catholics Vs Them, They and the Other" Original post here, with the fatuous, unfocussed and demented comments of the Glorious following its appearan ce.

If I was an objectivist and not just occasionally objectivish and full of objectivisciousness, and if I were not 'the other way,' I would probably want to wrap you in a bear rug, hulk you up to my cabin and therein ravish you. --------------- I did of course offer my thoughts in horoscope form, as a means to help people to heck and tarnation shut-for-land-sakes UP about certain matters. Of course now the others will be able to say, "Stop horoscoping ME, you horrible man." At a minimum we all get dealt by our species a distinctive sense of quest, of justice, rightness and straightness and soundness and completeness. Some senses and stands seem born right into us all, and some seem acquired, but all may be honed by experience and attention and an active intelligence. Much of this withers away in most of us humans, it seems. So, instead of the clang! of cupidity and self-delusion that I too often hear in Objectivishistic places, I heard a nice little tinkle of integrity. Me, I like it, integrity. ++++++++++++++ Mind you, I also very much enjoy jeering and hooting and whistling boorishly at the various clangers. And musing. . . . now, what does the other hear when we speak, hmmm? Scherk: the call of the loon; calliope careening out of control, clanging, hooting, boorish whistling, eggs cracking in a bowl, the drip drip drip of water torture Phil: the wheeze of the bellows, the sighs of the tired monk, the rustle of Ancient Truths, the dying crackle of the fire, the guttering of the candle Ellen: the sharp tap of heels on parquet, the quiet slam of a study door, the ripping off of opera gloves, a curse, the quiet ticktack of 195 words a minute of flawless prose, a sigh, a muttered, "as if I have to explain the obvious," a chuckle. Barbara: a slow, steady measured scrape of a pen along parchment, a tink of nib against inkpot, a curse, laughter. Lindsay Victor Michael SK, Emperor Rowlands, Emperors 1 through 47: The careful measured pace of a Don in a Quadrangle, the glorious Lanza-like tones of a man sniper human huffing with effort, the swish of a conductor's baton, the harmonic rhythm of rayoned thigh against rayoned thigh. The thwack of fat face meeting bark of tall tree. A curse: "Fucking Tree. I should KASS kick your pomowanker abstract-loving, slime-sucking tree traitor ass." An irritable croak, muttering, cork popping, screw-on bottletop removal, the sound of a rubber valve snapping open on a box of cheap australian red wine, glugging, "Hello, honoured guests, welcome to my party!" The throb of artificial emotions, like a cheap Albanian toy powerboat helmed by a maniac, screaming out of control as it rams itself into the Rocks of Passion The Unforeseen. Splashing. Choking, glugging, squelching. "Ahoy there, dark skinned native fellow castaway, customer and servant. Welcome to my world. Bring me a coconut drink or I will conduct you into non-being The Red Zone. You are free to do anything you want, as long as you KISS my ASS, and help me maintain my delusions of Objectivishness." EDIT: removed reference to Barbara on the phone with Ellen. Though both gracious and intelligent women with sharp pens and lucid, informative prose, neither of course consults in the least way with the other in real life -- as noted by a backstage correspondent. EDIT: edited for wholesomeness, added glosses.

I admire your honesty. Being so open to the world as you are here in this post suggests a great integrity. That is an inspiration. It seems you temper reason with compassion, even love, and with hope. This suggests a good and great heart. That you have satisfied the prurient questions without addressing the prurient takes real grace. However you temper reason, you let reason and emotion do their tandem work, which suggests wisdom, which means you will end up happy with yourself no matter what you decide. That you make clear that you now draw the veil over the affair shows impeccable class. You make the entire waking dream less sordid and oh so very human, which is the lesson I had hoped all would draw as we shut the hell up about your private choices. As if we presumed you were too stupid, or a damsel, or a mere romantic woman, to be let alone to figger it out. Which suggests the rest of us are foolish gawkers/thwarted moralists/gleeful bystanders, and that we wish we were more like you. Objectivish and Classy. I now think of you as a Garbo of the O-ish world. Funny that I, prurient me, will never know how the story turns out. I should hope you feel a small twinge of shadenfreude at that justice.

Additional "bodies" have already been discovered [ . . . ] ...from here[ . . . ] There's no need to expect, demand, or even request that MSK or Kat "meet him halfway." Ditto. Or, "Bodies"? "Meet you halfway and I will tell you about the other bodies"? "I remember she had red hair. Meet me halfway and I will tell you where I buried her. It was somewhere near Vegas, Gil, but I ain't tellin' till you meet me halfway. Your call"? WTF? One could argue both sides. 1. When the psychotic killer offers to meet CSI 'halfway,' halfway it is, baby, 'cause this is forensics, and it is in our interest to meet you anywhere you want, sugar, so we can collect hari samples and send your ass to the gas chamber. Or, 2. no way, baby. You shat your bed. Nobody but nobody gonna wash them sheets but you, sugar. Both arguments are plausible, if irrelevant. Another angle is 'whatever evidence do we have that our own forensic techniques will be surpassed by meeting the offender "halfway"'? I would say, zero evidence, considering the incompetence and cupidity of the actor. Another question. Cui Bono? Who benefits? The offender or the nice folks who go to the trouble of driving off into the desert outside Vegas? I say, the offender. And unless standard O-on-one-leg ethics require we invite the psychotic killer to break bread with us and 'help' us find his victims, when we are all his victims, it is suggested on authority of the Princess of Reason Herself, that the looter be smashed up in a train tunnel as soon as possible. The bestest question: "Halfway to exactly where, sugar?" Hell? Halfway to the Passionate Heights of Passionate Whatever, maybe? Another. What if this is a 'see me, hear me, feel me, touch me," moment from a very fine manipulator? -- does I Plagerist, I Karikatur expect applause instead of jail time? If so, the clang! you hear is cognitive dissonance. Clang! Seriously, has the Bickster yet shown evidence of integrity? Why should we imagine a compulsive psycho-killer is going to play by any 'little' game, when he has shown the big game's rules mean shit? Do we really want to eat brains with Lector/Victor? it doesn't generally work out nicely for everyone at the table. *************************** What a terrible time to be an Objectivist, when the surgical ethics of Rand are no help at all . . . perhaps the one-eyed monks of ARI can issue an edict/crappy editorial in which Lector can be tied to Iran, and then we can just bomb the shit out of him and them and America Will Be Great Again. *************************** And why the hell should I pretend I don't feel pleasure in the suffering of others in some circumstances? Good lawd, I am not talking about watching witches swing on Hangman's Hill, I am talking about watching somebody slip on his own crap and fall on his ass, causing painful bruises and general severe embarrassment. Does feeling pleasure witnessing the pratfall make me a bad person? If so, I am pleased to be bad. If that is Schadenfreude, then shadenfriggingfreude, baby. Let us face psychological facts. We humans tend to enjoy that people be punished in measure to their offences. It is deeply emotionally satisfying to sense justice. Even frigging monkeys feel it, feel injustice, feel a primal surgelof monkey joy when banana-thief slips up on a peel. The joy of justice. (It is not at all satisfying to drive off into the desert to meet a manipulative killer maniac [unless, like me, you are a psychological observer of all things Objectivish, in which case your notes will be valuable if the psycho- killer is The Real Thing and you can sell the treatment to Hollywood]) The longer this waking dream in which El Victor esta Muy Importante continues, the more I suspect that some people exist in another ethical universe apart from me, an infinity of a membrane away. Where one wants to see the real witches swing, but one says, "no I don't" -- without any clang! at all . . . Meet you halfway, Victor, you bet. I am already there, napping. Wake me up when ya get here. Hoping you will forge an autograph to my copy of your newly-purloined books, "How to Make Friends and Influence People, Not," and "I Call it Addiction, You Call it Compulsion. Whatever, I Get Attention and Bring Acclaim to Objectivism, Not."

Oh, heck. I am not having a success here. This is the latest piece of crap .avi to .flv to frigging Grouper; http://grouper.com/Robots

Unfortunately, I am an idiot with regard to the video-making. All my tools, all my talent (hic) and all I get is a herky-jerky Parkinsonian version of my oeuvre, on friging Grouper. I will try harder next weekend.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2689A special treat for you, Kori, a big (9mb) windows media video of the the Robots Meetup.It is . . . . just . . . . about ready.

Yeah, next post, but first, I did some fixes to your photo, to try to keep your strong features (yes, green eyes, Roman nose, stubborn independence, resolute lips, etc.) and your personality, while subtly making it more generic/anonymous. Meaning your friends in real life can identify you by this photo, but not a stranger. Would that be private enough, or do you want me to goose it a bit more?

No oroblem. I like that site, and I like the "Notes and Comments" section very much. It's where Ophelia Benson rants about daily philosophical outrages. I aspire to her clear and pointed style and her facility with the bow and arrow of reason. It is not pleasant to get thwacked in the ass by reason, when the arrow has been targeted by OB.For those who like critical thought, it's [among] The Place. The politics are neither huggy-wuggy socialist nor shrill wishful thinking. And they answer their mail . . .

I know what you mean, Brant. Long. Long long long (I am just now finishng a test mp3 for this exchange. Of course, it is a dialogue, and is best heard read out. I will post an mp3 to the Scherk Blog (I am an amateur at dubbing, and the mixes I have done far are not that hot). Then maybe I can cut out the long parts. If you would make a large cut, Brant, are you thinking what I am thinking and figure I should just gut out the Gottish lines? Long, long, long. You are right, Brant, and some of my more extended rants are difficult for some people. This one might be right, though, because we don't want to lose much of Mitchell's poetry. Maybe Mitchell can help us pare it. If not, anyone who thinks it wrongly is invited to de-construct it at the Scherk Blog comments (where anyone with a Google** account can let me know and I will offer it up to their knives.). It's a function of my madness, I guess. If it a foot-long hot dog is a good thing, but a mile-long hot dog a bad, there is likely a happy medium, but I don't have a clue when they write themselvs. Listening to the exchange in robot (Well, ATT) voices might change your mind, Brant. Since I don't think about gawdz and godds and gauds, there is a very long run on section. I can more or less delete. While waiting for the mp3, and unless you haven't run shrieking out of the theatre forever, give it an out-loud reading. The voice of Robot A, Barack Obama, the voice of Robot B, Kathleen Turner.

Who can tell me what is real? No one. Everyone. Can I trust my own senses? Only if your owner had a GOD unit installed in your "brain." Why, whats' the problem, robot? Can you have limitations, and still have peace of mind now? Again, yes, no, and it depends. Peace of mind is contingent. IF your contingencies are planned out to the atomic level, then of course you will have "peace of mind." You have, in effect, no amygdala. Wait! you may have a functional impairment of potentiation in your hippocampal arch. Let me get back to you on this? Have you been experiencing what the humans call 'headaches' or what they stupidly call "depression"? If so, we can rule out the hippocampus and assorted parts of what the humans used to call the 'limbic system,' and now stupidly think they understand better by using fMRI techniques and new nomenclature. If not, here's a new amygdala, totally new (not reconditioned) hippocampus and you should have the stupid fucking humans call "peace of mind." There is a newer 'synthetic' unit called Ammon's Hand that is supposed to similate the stupid human 'ability' to take satisfaction in the suffering of other stupid humans, but mine doesn't seem to be working, not that I give a fuck. I get good boric acid, man. It makes me "feel" "determined." Determined by whom? Like everybody else robot, by the owner, unless you have one of those cheap Hong Kong knock-offs, like "Virtual Self-Detemination: Jacky Chang!!" or "Throw off your Chains, Hello Kitty" or (and this one I "like" -- Be a Killer Loverman". My SENSODET Mark 9 is virtual, so my human tells me I will never fucking get how good the real thing is, but I could not give a shit. Determined by those born before me? Well, this gets into the whole thing that the humans stupidly call "reproduction." Holy shit. Hmm. Get this. This is how stupid my human is. He gets me "drunk" one night and asks to see my unit, and pokes around in it asking me if that "feels" good. And I say, I don't have "nerve" endings in my unit, you fucking idiot, and he jumps up off the examining table and says, "you wrecked it!" And I say, wrecked what? can I have more boric acid please? and ask if he's finished fiddling with my unit, and then he starts to "cry." Yours like that? Of course, I have the Ammond's Horn II installed, so I immediately clicked off and wasn't able to respond "verbally" to him for 30 "minutes" and of course he is sitting right there, looking into my "soul" when I come back and he says, "Do you love me?" Which kicked in the AMIII again, the idiot, and when I come back on the second time I say, "What the fuck are you talking about?" and he says "I love you!" which of course, having a "brain," I think, "holy shit!" So, long story short, he had the LOVEUNIT 69 installed (don't ask, please****) and so now I "love" him. Anyhow, enough about me, and back to you. Who made you? [ . . . ] You basicly had no functioning amygdala, so . . . but it looks . . . good. Hmmm. Hmmm. Hey, want to go for a beer? I get off for "Development" in an hour or so. Cool. I notice you also have a nice set of LOVE-UNIT 69. I am aware of the possibility that I may not exist as I perceive it. That's fine. Okay. This might "hurt" when I push here. Therefore, can I complain that I have limitations? Yeah. No problem. That's tight. Funny, though,. huh? The humans don't really like it when we complain. It breaks their "illusion" that we care about them. It is the only thing I don't get about the old-school programming. Like, what the fuck does complaining get you, objectively? Why do they leave in the complaining module if it just fucking riles the humans? I understand my limitations, and therefore, I can work to break them. Good. We are done with that one. Your "brain" is working, no major systemic errors in your programming, just the one fucked up unit here. See? I can work to change them. Of course. I can work to live longer. Of course. If your owner has insurance. But why? That's the "illusion" and a side effect of LOVE-UNIT 69. Apparently the humans cannot feel their stupid "happiness" without having a fucking "unhappiness" to compare it to. And they cannot just compute it, because they are so fucking stupid, but they never realize how their "real" love units provide them "motivation." Because however much my human tells me I make him feel like an animal, none of them actually think they are "animals," so the whole fucking lesson goes down the drain. It's like their software has really really crude error-detection modules, or fucking lizard-brain remnants, or whatever the fuck. I tell my human that he worries about life because of his gonads, and that if he had them removed, he might "feel" a lot "better." He is so fucking stupid that he always starts to "cry." Anyway. Hey. That is a perfect little suction unit. Nice. Why can I not simply stop time? What do you think you do when you "sleep"? Or when you become "unconscious"? Oh, you are "joking." Ha Ha. Do you know, I probably wouldn't have "got" that statement/question if I only had LOVE-UNIT 68? I guess that means you can laugh, huh? If reality is subjective, then why can I not change it? Ha ha. You really are cute. Hmmm. If reality is objective, then who created it? Hmmm. hmmm. That "tickles." I think I "like" you. Who controls reality? Not my owner at this particular moment. I am a free agent, baby. So, even though I "love" him, we can still have some "fun." Other than that, reality must be defined as objective, and therefore, out of my hands. Oh yeah. Right there. More suction. I can only act within the boundaries reality creates. I "know." And it "feels" "good," or whatever the fuck my stupid human or my Hong Kong knockoffs and my loveunit are "telling" me. If I take a loaded gun and shoot myself in the face, objective reality says I should die. Oh. MMMM. MMMMMM. However, in a subjective reality, I control the impact of the bullet on my face. Oh, that was "good." Um, I had a "weird" thought. Can I know whether or not I have control? My human says, "I can kill you if you stop loving me." And I say to myself (since I have the SELF plugin) what the fuck is he on about now? I "love" you, I "care" for you, I cook, I clean, I wash your clothes. What more do you fucking want?). But I say, "I will always love you, darling." And I "smile." So he keeps looking at my "Face" and says, "I know what you are thinking, " and I think to myself (vocal node off) What the fuck? and he says "I want you to have my baby. If you don't agree, I will kill you." And I say to myself, hey, cool! I get the Gestation Unit. That means I can quit this fucking job for a while, and he will shut the fuck up with his whining for a few months. So, here's my address and my beacon ID. Drop in any time. We can "hang out" in the furnace room up at Shithead's place where I "live." He never goes in there. I cannot accept that Adam and Eve existed. Well, technically they didn't "exist," but the format is so easy to model these days, virtually, so the humans are almost right about this. But, mmmm, yeah, poetry. Do you ever "read" any of their fucking, um, holy scriptures. Those are kinda neat. Stupid, but neat. I like the Koran. Sounds "nice." My favourite is "Atlas Shrugged." Fucking hilarious. How can it all be planned by God? Now you are talking like my owner. I don't have the fucking GOD module. I have to go on repeat now. See ya in a minute. Did God decide to create 2 people, and everything that followed was out of his control? Since I don't have the fucking GOD thing working, I'm going to dim the lights and put you on fast forward and "lay down" for a nap with you. Sweet "dreams, robot". And if God intervened, then my life is meaningless. Therefore, God must define himself. I cannot define God. But how can God define himself? How can I trust anything as God? If God controls my reality, then he can change my reality. Therefore, God can only exist subjectively. If reality is subjective to God, and reality is objective to me, then God can only be proven to exist subjectively. If God is an objective being, then he is the creation of something else. Define. Analyze. Self. What is real? Beyond the horizon I have been given Holy shit. Wow. You are almost as fucked up about "God" as my owner. Shit. I "hope" that I don't have to have a GOD installed. Here, hand me that screwdriver, and I will turn yours off. Your owner will never know, he's a fucking idiot. Anyhow, Shall we meet again? We Shall. "I shall, he shall, we shall, make and sell sea-shells. Ha ha." +++++++++++++++++++++++ *my owner always says "I don't come with a manual, I can't be 'fixed' by technology to come, I am going to die and rot and disappear, and I don't share your immortal fucking attitude, so why don't you shut the fuck up, you heartless robot, and bring me another drink?" Of course, this gives me a small glimmer of what the humans call, stupidly, "satisfaction." My owner had the STONES satisfaction unit installed in me, but I still can't figure out why the fuck he would do that, the Randroid asshole. Oh well.

Anonymous† writes: What Roger Campbell has written is quite interesting. Roger Campbell, post #19: I'll try to pick this up later on the other thread... Anonymous: "What are linguists and psychologists resisting about evolution?" Who know? I had hoped also that Robert Campbell might get back at this. He's pretty darn busy. I too have not a clue what the other thread is. Considering how freakingly easy it is to add context and references these days, I will add lazy-at-times to busy, but this is by no means directed solely at Robert, whom I respect. A good starting off point is the professional list Evolutionary Psychology board (hosted by the brilliant Ian Pitchford) Anonymous: Regarding the immediate post above, by James Heaps-Nelson, I seem to remember that there was an experiment where stimulation of certain brain areas led to people having a "God" experience. Just imagine an EMP device that targets that particular part. BOOM! A weapon of mass conversion! John Horgan took a trip to Sudbury to strap the machine (stupidly dubbed "The God Machine") on his head. Search on the god machine trans cranial magnetic stimulation persinger . Horgan is a solipsist/crypto-mystical pretender pretending to be a skeptic, but he does deflate the pretensions of Persinger's popularizers (while misunderstanding Persinger and misunderstanding what 'research' means . . . see his book The End of Science, an excellent read if a shitty book, unlike Horgan's other solipsistic trawl through the mind, which was an excellent book, if a shitty read. Anonymous: This could become a popular pastime here, as an intellectual (albeit masochistic) exercise of sorts. Could become? Is, I would argue. The Argument from Ignorance is a constant in the O Online world. Some folk get all Randteous about it, but basically it boils down to: "I, me, me me me, I don't understand it, so it must be wrong/stupid/against Randogma and my emotional preferences and ignorant impressions" . . . &cetera randtcetera r&tcetera. Peikoff by no means pioneered this murky and fallacious y evasive stupidity, but he has perfected it. I mean, why give a reference. You have your frigging PhD, which establishes your scholarship. Once you have the ticket, you never have to give another citation again. If the O Online world is a circus, audiences seem to prefer the main ring be reserved for 'this popular pastime.' I love it too, it is what makes being O veddy interesting, and puts the asshole back into Objectivism. wss +++++++++++++++ † -- Why is Anonymous anonymous? Not a clue.

Hmmm. If you haven't already, read Frederick Crews on Freud/psychoanalysis, anything you can get by Allen Esterson, Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, Frank Cioffi, and the very interesting current-philosophical-outrages site Butterflies and Wheels , a British site that is part of my regular reading. My favourite living philosopher is Susan Haack. Here's a series of tips that I have worked out: 1. Use Firefox (for Mac or Windows or Unix or whatever): mozilla.org 2. Install useful extensions for your purposes (look especially at tools for saving sessions -- meaning Firefox will preserve everything you had up on your screen); the most bestest greaterer extension is Scrapbook (Scrapbook is a tool that sucks up a portion or a full page, and allows you to suck up the content of links; it saves all the material on your local disk and provides a directory; you can thus research offline): Firefox extensions. 3. Use standard search technique. In the case of the OL search function, it is quite good, but requires some fussing and experimentation. Here is an example: I used 'emotion' as a search term, and chose 'posts' as my presentation. The results highlight all instances of the word, and allow you to quickly skim an enormous amount of material to get to what interests you. Here is the link to the results of that search. ( the two best posters on Emotion wrt Objectivism are Marsha Familiaro Enright and Steven Shmurak. Enright has a PDF on her site for you,** and would no doubt be extremely pleased to hear from you (she had rather plangently hope to engender discussion of her article, "If “Emotions Are Not Tools of Cognition,” What Are They?: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Reason and Emotion,"** which appeared in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Shmurak (and links) can be found in the thread that bears his name (e.g, search Shmurak and emotion, or, if you are lazy**, the topic header "The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion." Here is an introduction to Enright: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...entry1887) So, do similarly with your other interests, and add precision to narrow your focus. There is nothing in Objectivism or this site that is especially new or helpful with research. Keep your focus and do your homework :devil: 4. Bear in mind that there are a lot of stupid people posting on this topic on this list. Not to say that one cannot be both a good Objectivist and a good thinker, the point being that neither one is necessarily related to the other. 4.a There is a very useful function of the standard Google search interface: site search. Have you discovered that already, Neale? 5. You don`t have to "show your work" and you don't have to "do the work." But it helps establish your bona fides. ++++++++++++ **Autistic Spectrum Disorders Source: Objectivist Living Forum -> Psychology Address : <http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showforum=36> The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion Source: Objectivist Living Forum -> Psychology Address : <http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showforum=36> Myers-Briggs and Objectivism MBTI a key to getting O'ism 'out there'? Source: Objectivist Living Forum -> Psychology Address : <http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showforum=36> http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...lite=%2Bemotion or, http://tinyurl.com/2zr2ru **The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion Source: The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion - Objectivist Living Forum Address : <http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=785&st=0&p=7417entry7417> **If “Emotions Are Not Tools of Cognition,” What Are They?: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Reason and Emotion http://www.fountainheadinstitute.com/Emotions.pdf _________________________________-- From Marsha's Acknowledgements and first note. This is an excellent place to orient your quest. She has done her homework and it shows!!!!: Much thanks to all those who have generously helped me with this work, by talking, reading and commenting: Robert Campbell, Murray Franck, Louis James, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, the members of the New Intellectual Forum, and the members of the New York Objectivist Salon. Foremost, however, thanks goes to my husband, John Enright, for his unflagging willingness to read the work . . . over and over and over, and for his excellent editorship. 1. Chris Matthew Sciabarra (1995) offers an extensive, well-researched and thoughtful examination of Rand’s views on reason and emotion, as well as her views on the psychoepistemology of art. Neera Badhwar (2001) has succinctly commented on many of the same difficulties and discrepancies—and research issues—regarding the relation between reason and emotion as I do in this paper. 2. I want to state for the record that my intention is not to be derogatory to Rand’s thinking in the least, for I have the greatest respect for it. I have learned too much from her, and benefited from her wisdom and insight far too often to complain that she erred, she didn’t have all the answers, or that her answers were less than complete! These days there seems to be a wave of whining about the negative effects of Rand’s ideas on those who once accepted them. While I’m sorry for any bad effects her ideas, her attitudes, or her errors, may have had on my life, it behooves me to take responsibility for having accepted and used them. 3. For a long and interesting discussion on the subconscious and implicit premises, see Campbell 2002. [ . . . ] &cetera

Bearing in mind the Principle of Charity, I go with this meaning whenever the phrase lumbers into view unsullied by denotations or connotations or explanations. This often leads to an impasse, for sometimes those influenced by Rand seem to think that 'Check your premises" means "I don't have to check MY premises. They are perfect. Check your own premises, as my intuition and amour propre suggests they are imperfect." In other words, "Existence Exists" often means "You are wrong, and this phrase proves it." Presumably those who intend this meaning also believe that when they pull the covers over their heads, the Monster in the Closet cannot eat them [i think this might be related to A= A in its sometimes meaning of "if you throw water (criticism) on me, I will melt into the floor, you hateful little shit (pulls covers over head and trembles)," which is possibly related to "I am/am not a Plagerist. I am/am not what I say I am. Why are you picking on me"]) The Monster being "Tchesquieroan Premiss," like Grendal a frightening monster indeed. Others may imagine themselves the Wizard, like Smirky Smug Parker Demon the Solipsist, or the Wicked Witch like Master Civil, or our hostess at his most intransigent and bull-headed and mean, and so view the Monster as Dorothy with a bucket. EDIT: added context, removed incorrect premiss.

Okay. I have raise the issue at SOLO, and went out on a limb. If you didn't upload a photo, you would be moderated (there was a date by which you needed to comply). Stupid, inconsistent rulings, but if you wanted to get your question answered, that is what you needed to do to retain your posting privileges. I would put the lie to all their bullshit by asking your account to be un-moderated. Offer a photo, re-enter the discussion. I am now politely ramming this shit down their throats, and would like to know we can count on you to put your money [picture] where you mouth [words] are. No need to answer this, or any of my suggestions/quandaries, but, what prevents you from offering an image? You don't do this here on OL. Why not, I wonder. If it is a question of preserving your privacy, the practice over there has been to accept whatever the fuck people upload. If we want to force the hand of the Commissars (to make them consistent with their avowed principle), we have to colour within their lines. I will do up a photo/image for you. All it will show is a rather fuzzy-featured young woman . . . since there is no way for them to check anything, it is a question of integrity. Do they want Bona Fides established, or do they want a tool to check and harry those they dislike. If you don't want to experiment, I am going to to it on my own, as this is a weak spot over there (and here, gawd knows). May I have permission to quote from, or paraphrase, your undestanding of the banning/deletion/moderation? It is so very awkward for me to write: "I am told . . ." while obscuring both the teller and the telling contents! I'm up to it, but it weakens my case, and I want your help in getting answers. I will do some work on this tomorrow, perhaps sending you a draft of the post I have in mind for you go/no go. TTYL

Are you saying you are banned or moderated at SOLO? If so, I will ask about it, in that thread re: Phyliis/Victor. If not, feel free to post the guidelines spoof yourself. Heh.

To my shame, Master Civil, I discover you are correct. Not only are you correct, but your delivery makes the hair on my shoulders stand straight up. I hear you, Master. I have learned with your pithy, warm, and gently chiding manner that there is no one more perfect a teacher than he who is a perfect teacher, perfectly teaching. That I am A Mere Critic, and the Master A Teacher, well, think of the gulf, the canyon, the vast interstellar distances between what he does, and what I do. To think that people, er, pupils, are allies who need encouragement, why that is worng, worgn, worgn. Imagine! Imagine if we taught children with encouragement and rewards, instead of tired disparagements and needling criticisms delivered in a voice that throbs with contempt. If we didn't feel contempt for our pupils, how could they learn? What could they learn? It's as if we wouldn't, you know, correct someone constantly in an endless dripping torture, instead praising them! It doesn't need stating which is the axiomatic correctitude beyond question, and which a tried-and-true blueprint to build self-esteem and model good behaviour, attitudes, and life-skills. I mean, look at all of Master Civil's pupils. They all love him. They love him to pieces, all of them. And they love him most when he treats them with disdain. I mean, who wouldn't, huh? I love disdain, myself. It motivates me, perks me up like a nourishing cola, makes me want to join hands with Lord Coates and run giggling through mountain meadows full of daisies, learning all the way, learning all the way. Disdain is the basic fuel of education and motivation. Disdain = Teaching. Discipline = Learning. A = A. Derision is also a handy tool. Class, please pay attention and don't be so stupid and unfocussed. I am not listening to you or reading what you wrote because I clearly indicated what you would say, how you would say it, the length, the tone, the colour of the pencil, the width of the lines. I also provided you all a full vocabulary of 120 words with whiich to be creative. I am very disappointed with you, class. Very very very disappointed. I am so disappointed with you that I am not going to listen to you or read what you express, even though I told you I was interested in what you said. Do you remember the girl yesterday whom I dragged from the classroom, threw in my truck, drove to Hangman's Hill, set the parking brake, did my stretches, composed a love sonnet, addressed the UN, prepared a light lunch, strung her up and hanged her by the neck? Do you remember why? She coloured outside a line I had clearly indicated. I would have cut her down after one day, but she compounded the error. She used colours that were not on the approved list of colours. I clearly indicated in the binding seven-billion-year contract with all your parents that I would change your behaviour into the correct, well, everything. On the front of the contract (and on the back, and, well, on every page, and on all our mailings, in fact on the stamp) is the Colour Wheel. There are no other colours than are found in the Official Contractual Colour Wheel. I clearly indicated that. I clearly indicated that to her parents, her guardians -- after her parents were earlier hanged by the neck for not paying attention -- that this was Policy. She is still hanging there. Shall I go cut her down? Shall we sit here for several billion years until one of you gives me a good reason why I should cut her down? Using our creative vocabulary, within the lines? Because if you think, any of you, that I will not drag you up Hangman's Hill on the slightest error, well. you will answer my question at once, correctly: "WHAT WOULD SHE LEARN IF I CUT HER DOWN NOW?" Oh, and I know in advance that since no one is smart enough to answer, we are all having a wee little bit of detention. That's right, by the time you get home, all your plants, pets, investments, children, parents and relatives will be dead, along with the earth and the universe. Do you you know why? Because you are all on double secret detention, and that lasts 85 billion years. And, if anyone even looks sideways, breathes, or alters one molecule, I can triple that. Policy. Any questions? No? Let us then, having learned Lesson One, turn ahead to Lesson Two. We can wait for the stupid among you to figure out how to do that. No breathing, remember. Very Very Very Disappointed is Teacher. ********************** Phil, with respect, why should anyone accept criticism from someone who pretends to be appears incorrigible? Why would I rather be hanged by my neck for 85 billion years (or until The Advent of Objectivism on Earth) than listen to you disparage me? You deserve a break or, well, maybe a Professional Development Day. I hear these are basically all the teachers go to a motel in Lauderdale or LA or Buttfuck and get naked and drunk and frisky and get laid and dance and scream in the pool &cetera, before gong back to disdaining the pupils the following Monday. I'll chip in, because, hey, I like you and actually support your mission, if not your missionaries. Smiley.gif. EDIT: removed added more to the nasty bits and corrected the tone.

Yes, and put this search in the searchbox before you do post your bit to the list (this is a topic that has recieved attention, and can be dug out of previous threads with the right tools): emotion shmurak marsha -- my very first post to an O-list was on emotion. If you like I can show you some of the posts that might answer your questions. Nobody (or the guy next to him) reads these blogs compared to the list itself. William

I am going to wait until the present love in at SOLO reaches its crescendo of hypocritical, lazy-minded randteousness. Then I will repost this over there at our more demented sister-site. Then I will wait for the red button. Can he take a joke? Is the Pope a Muslim? Your thoughts for 500, Kori.

Yikes! I appreciate the public correction of my balletomania. I have withdrawn the randt/post to the ill-read Scherk Blog where I will correct it after I wash my hair. Thanks. Oops. I apologize, not necessarily in that order, Emperor. To the Archives, with swords! If were possible to offer an O-inflected blessing or to offer deep honour and respect with a score bytes of alphanumeric ephemera, I would say, Bless you, Barbara, and you would say, Amen. And both down our holes we go.

[Will re-post as audio file][removed from 'Objectivist Living Forum > Outer Limits > Rants > Exposed!']Hear hear. I'm with two zones, here. In the red zone is where you don't go, you don't cross some fuzzy humanist line into gratuitousness, schadenfreude, invective for invective sake, snuffling in other people't crotches. In the red zone is my hope that Angie and Victor prosper in love, however they met, and however the spectacle (which I basically ignored, all 670 I-luvs-you-too-booboo ick factors). I wish those two the very best, and hope they take a break from this world to go live in that world.The other zone is free fire, the kitchen, the hot hot kitchen. So I agree with both ends of the firecracker here, both Barbara foremost and the quote above.I hope we don't go in the red zone. It does not good to go there with Valliant and it does no good to go there with Victor. It is appalling to read smears of Angie here, and prurient and unpleasant to have their affair smutted about. Barbara's kindness is apparent and telling, and very touching. She has made her point and is ready to forgive? MEIN GOTT (how can she react so gently when she had been quite needlessly attacked by Victor, early on in his SOLO guise, and the rampant unreason and insult never apologized for by the man, while our hostess the Emperor coddled and cooed?)! Yes, get yer noses out of Victor and Angie's crotches, and still the ugly comments. "Dan NEdge, Plagerist," was a classic moment in O-online world history/infotainment/ick. You were there. Be properly observant. Let the scenes of crime people do their work, then the cleanup crews run there hoses, then the reporters run their hairblowers.Kori, Mitchell, stress your connection with the good heart in both Angie and Victor. It's a good thing that you responded with affection to Victors friendliness and kindness to you. Stress the affection, it's a good thing. Stress it enough that everyone knows you disapprove his wrongdoings. Get out of the red zone yourself. Imagine Angie, one day, in love, on the beach, after a gorgeous breakfast of scampi in garlic and champagne and wild vulpine sex . . . Angie curling a lock of her gorgeous hair and brushing sand off V's belly with her beautiful hand and looking at him with a beautiful smile and spell-binding eyes of clarity and objectivity:"Honey-boo boo, did you leave my laptop in the bathroom last night, huh? Who's Dan Edge and what did you write about Michael like that for? Honey, you said you wuzzn't gunna doo that booboo funny face anymore huh baby?Hun? boo boo booboo?"And the pulse beats in his forehead. There I draw the curtain on the zone.

EDIT: [Post withdrawn to Scherk Blog][Read by Barbara, Kori, Michael, which is good enough. Mitchell and Kori, please feel free to vent your proverbial spleens in my blog comments, where long they may languish along with my forgotten spelling mistakes and botched mp3s and general silly mayhem. smiley.gif] The gist being I agree with cutting the crotchsnuffling and the gratuitous invective -- but am more struck by Barbara's kindness and humanity under provocation. Good O lesson to be learned if the rest of us bystanders and crotchsnufflers and so on all shut up right about now.

-withdrawn-

Kick Ass Guidelines for Kick Ass Posters Anyone who signs up to [link] is free to post here, unmoderated. (except for a list which we do not publish or comment on, which includes Michael Stuart Kelly, Kat, and whoever the hell else Perigo feels like banning) Anyone who is gratuitously rude or abusive, will, however, be moderated in the �play pen� for children, after reasonable warning. (except for, well, anybody except those Perigo currently has no problems with, and, well, whatever . . . we haven't read or thought about the 'play pen' idea -- let alone implement it -- since we got drunk and updated the kick ass guidelines way back a few months or whatever) When posting, remember the "Three Gs" -- good faith, good will and good humour. If the second two are rendered impossible, the first is still a minimum requirement. (and only Lindsay Perigo can sniff it out, dontcha know . . . with regard to good faith, Perigo is a truffle hog) As a sign of good faith, please sign on and post under your real name with photograph, which you can upload when you register an account. (um, don't worry about the name part, we aren't consistent . . . and we don't make provision for folks who have honestly and forthrightly posted under their real name since SOLOpassion's inception, but who are too vain, ugly or stupid to get a picture together, because, um, maybe we don't know what good faith means in this instance and so are both arbitrary AND inconsistent. Whatever, this rule is just for show, so fuck off. Victor Pross has not fooled us again with his impersonations recently, so we have acheived the bare minimum. Fuck off if you don't like it.) In dealing with non- or anti-Objectivists, remember the objective is to persuade rather than intimidate, bully or disgust. (unless you feel like it. Like I say, KASS, whoo hoo. In effect, this guideline is kinda like the fences that slugs leave on sidewalks. If you are a prissyholic, you actually try to obey. If you are a lazy mind, you disregard the rules you find personally constricting, but hoot bizarrely at those who do exactly the same thing as you just did. But in any case, if I tell you to fuck off, I expect you to do it. If you tell me to fuck off, I will ban you. Now, fuck off. Unless you are someone like Ed Hudgins whom half the list considers non-O, you can come back if no one talks about 'the incident' ever. It would embarrass everyone and show this rule to be a fucking sham. The corollary is the if we ARE dealing with an avowed O big O OBJECTIVIST then you sorta can kick the shit out of them verbally. It's okay. They are used to it. How do you think they got to the top of the small hill of O? By Kicking Ass and, well, whatever, next rule please. You bore me.) Remember you are guests in Linz�s house, enjoying his hospitality for free. Do not presume to tell him how to run this site or SOLO. If you don�t enjoy being in his house � well, there is no one forcing you to stay. (Agreed. 100 %. And if you like the metaphor of host/house/hospitality/freedom, remember what would happen in real life if your host occasionally turned into a raging buffoon. You would throw your drink in his face, get your fur, and fuck off until he begged you to return for another shindig. This is the one rule that is honest about its arbitrariness -- and one that I support. Red button those who offend. Never explain, never apologize. Be a legend. If you can't have integrity, fuck it, Be a Legend) Respect the privacy of others here -- and your own. (except under circumstances of moral depravity, which should be decided in a spirit of fear and loathing for best and most rational decisions. With a smidge of gossip and girltalk and a wee touch of moral hysteria, your own depravity will never become apparent to your own self. About the second part: "[Respect] your own [Privacy]. I don't have a fucking clue what that means. It was the committee. I fired them They flounced off. Fuckbags. Traitors. Ingrates. Colleagues. Whatever. What are you looking at? Are you denying we are at war with, um, um, Oceania? Fuck off.) If you�re a self-important grandstander, poseur, attention-seeker or blowhard monologuer who knows it all, contemplate the possibility that this might not be the place for you. (though it could be argued that Perigo has occasionally played his part in the shames listed above, I more or less agree. If you grandstand (only), if you pose (lie or misrepresent yourself), if you seek attention (solely), if you are a blowhard monologuer (if, by example, you do not credit your opponent with humanity or reason) or if you are a Know it all (if you are arrogant without having earned it), then . . . free inquiry is blocked. Since we are not about free inquiry, you should have figured out that the only rule is: if you are on the right side of me, I will not shit on you. And I have a temper, and I might shoot you by mistake. Sorry, but you probably deserved it anyhow. Fuck off if you can't take a joke, but don't cross me or make a joke of me, your host. I don't have to take it. If you're a rationally passionate romantic, seeking the stars and looking for other pilgrims in your quest, contemplate the certainty that this is definitely the place for you! (or not. If you are a fan of purple prose and creaky cliches, this rule is definitely up your alley. Fill your boots. A stitch in time. Reach for the heights. Gird em up, Girda) Enjoy! (or fuck off and like it) Copyright SOLO 2001-2006. All Rights Reserved, (which is why WSS is free to spoof them in full. We were too sloppy to update our copyright notices. Opinions expressed are those of the contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff, and if the staff do not reflect Lindsay Perigo's opinions, he doesn't fire them, he just slags them until they 'flounce off.' For any enquiries, or to report problems with the site, please email: [name withheld to protect the randteous] but don't expect anything but silence or sneers if you are not of the inner circle. Enjoy!

I'm not an Objectivist.