Alfonso Jones

Welcome to OL, Jay. Bill P

Deaths are reported. One source says quite a few, 5 documented. Rebels attacking troops with rocks, ... Troops firing on rebels. As you say, not much detail is emerging. It will. Bill P

Does anyone else see what is so hard to understand about "no more than 5 posts in a 24 hour period?" I think this is very telling about Xray's (in)ability to engage in a substantive philosophical discussion, if this is beyond her comprehension. I understand that the verbal short of "5 posts per day" is hardly a full and complete discussion of the restriction - any more than, when you "purchase a house" it is a full and accurate statement to say "you own the house." How about the mineral rights? What restrictions might exist on your ownership due to deed restrictions? Etc. Context matters. Bill P

An even simpler solution: 1 per day, meaning: When you post, you can't post again for 24 hours. No other positive number is as easy to explain. That's clear, and I think within the grasp (remember the crow epistemology?). Bill P

Not only having problems with logic, but even basic reading comprehension, Xray? Note: You have been told how the algorithm works. Was that unclear? Do you expect every announcement or reminder to repeat all the details of the algorithm for you? Is your attention span so short that you forget so quickly? It's not "5 posts each calendar day." You have been told that. It's instead "no more than 5 posts within any 24 hour period" - which means that if you look back in time for an amount less than 24 hours and find 5 posts by you, you won't be allowed another post. If you made an additional post that would be 6 posts in that time period. You are having troubles with this, and want to discuss and criticize Rand's contributions to epistemology? Rand wasn't perfect. She made some assertions she couldn't prove. She was, at times, just plain wrong. At times she equated her preferences with what "any rational person" should think. Nathaniel Branden has documented some of these instances clearly. But you seem amazingly inept in your attempts to find fault with Rand. Sometimes 5 seems like a very large number. Bill P

Well put. Roger deserves our congratulations and our thanks. He was a major drver in making this happen. Bill P

Michael - I hope that you aren't letting managing Xray consume very much of your time. The return on investment of that engagement would be amazingly low! She seems unable to enter into a meaningful and respectful discussion. Meaning-switching is her forte. Bill P

What please is "unintelligible" in my "prose"? Example from my # 590 post (typos edited): "A large bucket of water is dumped on a small wood fire. The fire is extinguished. If the fire is threatening to ignite and burn down a valued house and you want the threat removed, the action is suited to this purpose, therefore, called good. If the intent is to cook with the fire, the action is unsuited to the purpose, therefore, is called bad. Same entities. Same action. Same end result. Cause and effect are the objective constants. Purpose is the subjective variable; meaning, whether the result of putting out the fire is called 'good' or 'bad' is in reference to personal preference. Or to put it another way, good or bad refers to the evaluation of means (suited/unsuited) in respect of a subjectively chosen purpose. (The terms, good and bad could be eliminated altogether since they are the same as saying suited/unsuited to personal preference). Value can't be separated from purpose. It is the goals of volitional entities which determine whether an action is considered as valuable or the opposite." (Xray) Now please tell me what you don't understand about this. My six year-olds will understand this, Bill, when I demonstrate it to them with a similar experiment. Xray - Note that you begin by editing your earlier response. That says a lot, doesn't it? You might try defining some of your terms: Subjective - - - that would be a good first one. Bill P

I'd phrase that a bit differently. The Peikoff product sells primarily because it is viewed by some as an extension of the Rand brand. But the extension has not been that successful (and hence the drop-off). Bill P

I'm very interested in the general answer to this question. I've tried before and never found a good way to get data on book sales (presuming you want to have not just current year sales, but "since original date of publication." Hoping someone will point out a good resource. I've also seen where others have enquired online, to no avail (in terms of getting something beyond current year data). Bill P

Let's hope so. The Republicans have not proven to be a strong counterweight. Bill P

Adam - Isn't amazing? Read the brief Rand quote. Then read what Xray said about it. Rand is crystal clear. Xray's prose is unintelligible. Perhaps that's her purpose - to get folks to think that her writing is deep, because it is unintelligible. I can see through Xray. Some pun intended. Bill P

Comrade Edski!!! Bill P

Personally, I would like to see a volume doing a thorough critique of both NB's and LP's books on Objectivism. I envision eight sections--one for each of the 5 main branches of philosophy, one of NB's forte: psychology, one on LP's forte: history of philosophy, and one on the relevance of their works for the future. Secondly, I apologize as sincerely and deeply as I can for the horrendously error-ridden index of The Vision of Ayn Rand, and I hereby announce that I am in the process of re-doing it -- i.e., DOING IT RIGHT this time. I will post it here, there, anywhere it makes sense to post it, and I will make it available to Jim Peron @ Cobden Press for (what I hope will be) future editions of the book. Best to all for the holidays, REB Roger - Don't feel too bad about the index. You led in an accomplishment. Many waited 40 years or more for this publication. Just think what it would have been like if you had been trying to get Rand's approval of the work (pre-schism, of course). From the tales of LP's experiences on Ominous Parallels, it might have taken 400 years! Bill P

In all fairness Xray, wouldn't you describe religion as 'irrational'? If we use science as the standard, and I really think deep down this is what Rand was alluding to, then man ought to live by science and not religion if he is to maximize the use of his superior brain. To get into a discussion on this, we would first have to provide objective criteria between rational and irrational. But off the cuff, if claiming that something exists (without offering evidence of its existence) is irrational, then religion is irrational. But so is Objectivism, where something is also claimed to exist of which there is no evidence: so-called "objective values". To me, Objectivism against religion is one fallacy fighting another. Both are based on the illusion of "objective" value. (I assume that others can also sort out the attributions on the above.) Xray would do well to read Rand carefully on the subject. In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, essay What is Capitalism, Rand says: The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason. Perhaps if you dealt with this notion of objective, instead of some other which seems to be capturing your attention, you would not be so puzzled, Xray? Read carefully: no separation of "value" from "purpose," or of good from beneficiaries. Bill P

Even the White House spokesman has used the word terrorism to describe the incident. Bill P

Greybird - The new term for it is not "Xmas snow" but "global warming deposits." Bill P

Agreed. Bill P

Imo "life is a value to be bought" makes no sense, hence my ironic comment about it. If you think I'm in error, then please give me an illustrative example of the transaction of "buying the value life" with "thinking as the only coin noble to buy it". How does one go about it? You would do better to be serious. This flippancy from you isn't earning you credibility. Many gave you, for a long time, the benefit of the doubt. That's the nature of the OL community. But more and more seem to be seeing right through you. I urge you: come back to planet earth. The occasionally serious questions you ask (accidentally or on purpose? Impossible to know, given the number of ridiculous questions such as the one above.) have been thoroughly addressed. If you were actually interested in a discussion you would respond in a meaningful way. But we're still waiting on that sort of response from you. With declining expectation that you will ever respond meaningfully. Bill P Who does is that collective "we" refer to? You make it appear as if everyone here held the same thoughts. 'Morality' is based on a set of values. I am by no means the only one who has stated here at OL that values are subjective. If you read this thread, you will come across substantial criticism (not only by me) of Galt's idea what constitues morality. Why don't you adress that criticism as well? I asked you to give me an example of "buying life as value". If you think Rand's statements make sense, why not explain it here to me and all those to whom it makes no sense either? Or do you just "feel" that Rand must be right? Xray - Let us know if you ever decide to return to planet earth and discuss meaningfully. That time has obviously yet to arrive. Bill P

Imo "life is a value to be bought" makes no sense, hence my ironic comment about it. If you think I'm in error, then please give me an illustrative example of the transaction of "buying the value life" with "thinking as the only coin noble to buy it". How does one go about it? You would do better to be serious. This flippancy from you isn't earning you credibility. Many gave you, for a long time, the benefit of the doubt. That's the nature of the OL community. But more and more seem to be seeing right through you. I urge you: come back to planet earth. The occasionally serious questions you ask (accidentally or on purpose? Impossible to know, given the number of ridiculous questions such as the one above.) have been thoroughly addressed. If you were actually interested in a discussion you would respond in a meaningful way. But we're still waiting on that sort of response from you. With declining expectation that you will ever respond meaningfully. Bill P

I would like to respectfully call your attention to a spelling error above. That's "inanely" deceptive. Oops. It works both ways... Bill P (smiling)

The pinko-stinko-lefty-freakos hope that Govcare/Obamacare/Kennedycare will become a fixture of policy like Social Security (so-called) and will never be repealed. If it is allowed to stay in, that is exactly what will happen. The liberal-pinko-stinko-lefty-freakos will win by default. Only a total breakdown of the system will put an end to it. We have just taken the same steps that Britain took immediately following WWII. A 65 year lag. How long will it be before we get our Margret Thatcher? I weep for the Republic. Ba'al Chatzaf Agreed. I am particularly concerned by the requirements being imposted (by a 60 - 39 vote!) of a super-majority of 67-33 or better to overturn some portions of the Health Care bill. They're doing their best to make the entanglement permanent. Bill P

Gary Cooper was not all that good in the role. Ba'al Chatzaf Agreed. 1) Gary Cooper looks substantially older than I envision Howard Roark. 2) Cooper effectively communicated the aspect of Roark which is his immunity to being hurt by the world. What he doesn't communicate (at least to me) is Roark's PASSION. Roark is a PASSIONATE INDIVIDUAL, in love with his work. Cooper is never convincing in that dimension, for me. Bill P

Not only that, I will give a complete rerun of the discussion here so that everyone can compare what we both have written. Your dishonesty is on full display agin. Your rerun is far from complete. The proof is here. You've got it, Merlin. Every time I readjust my expectations of Xray downwards, she engages more of this sort of behavior - misleading quotes, bizarre and unnatural interpretations, ... and demonstrates that she can underperform to those new expectations. Not ready for prime time. Bill P

Bravo! Bill P