Alfonso Jones

Norman -

Welcome to OL!

Make yourself at home, read away, and post as you are intrigued.

Bill P

Bill:

Understood.

You just watch your damn back over there.

This half century dance between Taiwan, Quemoy and Matsu and the other islands is starting to percolate. As you know, they are

pushing out with their Navy.

I just have that wary hairs on the back of my neck feeling again.

Akmablowjob over in Iran has announced that "Iran to deliver telling blow to global powers on February 11th."

Even obiwan the diminished is moving Patriots into the gulf as well as a flotilla in anticipation.

China is their only buddy left of real substance.

Be careful.

Adam

Adam -

Thanks for the kind words.

These are not the best of times to have the likes of Obama in the Oval Office.

Bill P

And that is why Americans will never be ground into the mud!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Love that American sense of life. Push us hard and we eventually rebel.

Bill P

Bill,

Brant's joking.

PARC probably had a run of 3 or 4 thousand (maybe 5 at the outside). What's left from that will be what's left.

Michael

That was my impression also, but I was hoping to get it on record. It would be good to get the actual total sales count (or print run) on record.

Bill P

Ms. Xray:

You just have no clue how foolish and petty your language appears to me.

I believe you made certain assumptions about the folks who found this objectivist purgatory.

I believe that you assumed that every poster was in lock step to justify Ayn Rand's personal behavior and Ayn's projected "values" as written in scriptural stone.

You, apparently, refuse to see or admit that you are wrong.

Even on a factual issue like the Germanic suppression of home schooling that has existed, by law, since 1938, was not only allegedly unknown to you, but when it was stuck in your mental face, you do not even have the human grace to admit that you were completely mistaken.

You have failed to make clear to me, as to why you are so obsessed to participate in a forum about ideas that you detest.

Why don't you go annoy the Catholics...at least they will forgive you.

You do fail to perform due diligence concerning Ayn's actual statements. You are intellectually lazy. Finally, you are actually, quite dull and boring, but that is just my personal opinion.

Geez...how anyone could be a member of PETA and pay them money to continue to support their absurd proposals on the fraud of man made global warming, is, frankly, no longer as surprising as when you first mentioned it.

Adam

Adam -

Does the phrase "battle of wits with an unarmed person" ring a bell, perchance?

For me, at least, Xray's whining has become boring. For a while, it was amusing in a bizarre sort of way. Now, it is soporific.

Bill P

Unless you want to pay a reseller $50 or more for a new copy and $30 or more for a used one, you'll have to go to the Ayn Rand Bookstore to get PARC.

I wonder how much surplus inventory they have.

Robert Campbell

153,000 copies.

--Brant

inside info--honest!

the bonfire of the vanity

Brant -

Seriously? Could that be total copies printed? Is it really SURPLUS INVENTORY?

Bill P

You forget that the message always says "You can make five more posts today".

Hogwash. It does not always say that. I saw the message without "more" many more times than I saw it with "more".

And it always says that: five more posts. (see above)

Hogwash again.

And you have very well experienced that flaw in the "enforcement of the limit", haven't you?

No. You are hopelessly wrong.

You admit there is wrong info given in the messages while at the same time trying to play it down.

More hogwash. However, you try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You harp about messages or labels and refuse to admit that enforcing the limit and counting the top 20 posters work exactly like I said and flawlessly.

Merlin -

Good luck. So many have tried to communicate with Xray. She either doesn't want to understand or is incapable. I incline to the former interpretation.

THis extends, of course, not only to the discussion of how her number of posts is limited, but to most of her other discussions on OL.

Bill P

There's something about Rand's "kill the messenger" approach here that bothers me. It seems like overkilling the messenger.

I think it's this.

If a person has no notion that something is a lie, how can he be judged to be repeating a "vicious, vicious lie" as if he were out to discredit Rand on purpose, told he is the real one who insults her (drawing on a "very wise" statement by an Egyptian ambassador for illustration) and be called "dirty"?

I can't know what was in that young man's head, but I certainly think it is plausible for his question to be motivated by a sincere desire to understand why the philosophy professors he met kept saying bad things about Rand's argumentation. In other words, maybe all he wanted to do was clear up some confusion in his mind from observing things that didn't add up.

Rand comes off as a bully in this episode.

Granted, she is reacting, not acting, but she cut off communication during a public Q&A and called a questioner names ("dirty," conveyor of "swill," and the first person in Ford Hall Forum history to permit "himself that much intellectual cheapness") without even trying to understand whether the questioner was coming from an innocent place or a hostile one.

Michael

Agreed, Michael. I think it's entirely possible the questioner was looking for information to use to argue with his philosophy professors. If so, I would consider his question to be asked in a clumsy fashion, but hardly insulting.

Bill P

Adan quotes Obama saying:

"I am not an ideologue."

He is presumably struggling not to omit the one, superfluous, protective word in that sentence?

(Echo of AS deliberate...)

Bill P

I hope PARC stays out of print.

It deserves its place in the trash-bin of Objectivism.

Michael

I'm saving my copy as a souvenir.

It's a low point all right. Ranks down there with "To Whom It May Concern..." (Saved my copy of that issue of The Objectivist, also...)

Bill P

Marotta's imagination that Beck would simply replay other clips from YouTube turned out, oddly, to be innacurate.

Ted Keer's claim about my intention is also wide of the mark. My point was clearly that this has been done before. These scenes have been shown before. Other produces have sold this idea before.

As it turns out, I was right. Not only was much of this rehashed -- some original; I had no idea that Che Guevara made racist generalizations -- but Glenn Beck's website does not credit these sources.

Also, to take the matter at hand directly, Beck glossed over some fundamentals in order to make points that his neo-con viewers were pre-disposed to accept. The segment about the Cuban general who was executed begged a few questions. His family claimed that he was a patriot and against Batista. So, where was he during the revolution? How did he remain a general opposed to the dictator? His father was also a general. Unless we have a special case, it seems that the guy was executed for either of two reasons: he failed to support the revolution; or, opposing it, he failed to mount an effective defense.

Mike M.

You refer to "Beck and his neo-con viewers."

Data, please? I know you refer to Beck's VIEWERS as neo-cons, not Beck. Got data showing Beck's viewers are neo-con in higher proportion than the population of the USA at large?

Or do you mean to imply that Beck is neo-con? I've be very interested in hearing your characterization of the neo-con movement, and how you see Beck fits into it - in terms of the positions he takes. He has hardly been a friend to the neo-cons.

Regards,

Bill P

This is addressed to Michael Stuart Kelly or other "Experienced" Rand Fans:

I am sorry to change the subject, but I have a question and nowhere else to ask it. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's body of work? If so, is he a real world economist like von Mises and George Reisman or not? I was thinking about getting his book, "Intellectuals and Society", but I'm very gun shy about anyone that Sean Hannity likes. Thanks for any info.

Also, what is PARC?

PARC = Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, an execrable book which purports to be an expose of the Brandens. Poorly written and researched by James Valliant. Not recommended except as an example of poor writing and research.

Thomas Sowell - interesting economist. Formerly a Marxist, now broadly an advocate of economic freedom. Fairly libertarian in outlook.

Bill P

Thanks to Peter, Reidy, Adam, Jeffrey, Ninth Doctor, and Ed for most helpful responses!

Bill P

Merlin -

It sounds exactly as has been explained to Xray, painstakingly and repeatedly.

As I posted earlier - the notices could be more clear, but it is obvious even when reading them what they must mean. (When you post and it says you can post 5 more "that day" it should be clear that day is not defined by local time in the poster's location, but by a 24 hour time window. And that the 5 includes the current post, so it's really 4 more. Nothing too complex or confusing about that.)

Bill P

Chris and Bill:

My understanding is that what a shareholder can and cannot do is specifically delineated in their agreements.

I can own a company the makes centrifuges, but I could not make them use them in a specific manner.

A shareholder elects a board of directors to manage the company correct?

This is about the first amendment: Congress shall make NO law.

It does not say, except on alternate Tuesdays or when you get crotchety and your panties are twisted.

The essential element of this decision is that "money is speech" and you cannot abridge the free exercise thereof.

Long overdue.

Fucking asshole McCain with his bullshit about getting money out of politics - God that man drives me nuts.

Adam

Exactly, Adam.

I don't know of any corporation which requires that 100% of the shareholders agree in order to permit a given corporate action.

Regards,

BIll P

Heh.

One day M. Xray will learn how the program works. Until then, she will keep saying it doesn't.

I used to believe it was a lost cause, but I believe one day she will actually get it. For no other reason than she keeps trying to make the reality of it fit with the fantasy of it in her head.

All that effort has to pay off some day.

So I try to practice the virtue of patience.

Michael

Michael -

Clearly something in the combination of program and Xray is failing, consistently. I think it's pretty obvious to most of us that it's not the software.

Regards,

Bill P

Speaking as someone who writes software I wouldn't discount that it has a few bugs.

I have written software, also, GS. But if you're wondering about this, read Xray's descriptions of the "software problems" she is encountering. That will make it clear that she is either confused, or attempting to confuse.

Bill P

Remember the discussion on the other thread where you it became clear that you had not understood the algorithm at work here?

I does have bugs, and believe me if it was possible I'd invite both you and MSK over here so you can see for yourself that one part of the software obviously does not know what the other is doing.

Xray -

Correction - - - you made it clear that YOU did not understand how the algorithm works.

These things seem so hard for you.

Bill P

Hmmm, if this is being portrayed accurately in the news, then apparently unlimited campaign funding can be collected from corporations?

Let's assume for the moment I understand this correctly, then there seems to be some issues at stake:

1. corporate money belongs to the individual shareholders. If a majority of shareholders elect to donate campaign money to a candidate, that majority should have a limited degree to do so. The limitation comes from the fact that not 100% of shareholders would elect to make such a move. Of course, shareholder elections probably would not take place for such donations anyway. Regardless, the ruling seems ethical from this angle.

2. corporate donations may imply a connection between business and government. Relationships between business and government have historically not favored freedom and personal rights (almost necessarily all relationships have a level of personal, non-universal non-ideal self-favoritism involved). Therefore pragmatically it may be that such donations will result in greater collusion and diminishment of universal rights' protection. This ruling would then appear unethical.

Thoughts, anyone?

A fast response:

Your thinking runs up against the nature of a corporation. Would you argue that a corporation cannot make any decision except "to a limited degree" because a minority of shareholders may object? The structure of a corporation is that the shareholders do not have day to day, line-by-line budgetary control of the decisions made.

Bill P

Heh.

One day M. Xray will learn how the program works. Until then, she will keep saying it doesn't.

I used to believe it was a lost cause, but I believe one day she will actually get it. For no other reason than she keeps trying to make the reality of it fit with the fantasy of it in her head.

All that effort has to pay off some day.

So I try to practice the virtue of patience.

Michael

Michael -

Clearly something in the combination of program and Xray is failing, consistently. I think it's pretty obvious to most of us that it's not the software.

Regards,

Bill P

Speaking as someone who writes software I wouldn't discount that it has a few bugs.

I have written software, also, GS. But if you're wondering about this, read Xray's descriptions of the "software problems" she is encountering. That will make it clear that she is either confused, or attempting to confuse.

Bill P

Phil,

Please give the charges of "psychologizing" a rest.

As Ayn Rand attempted to define it, psychologizing means drawing unwarranted conclusions about other people's motives. (The notion was problematic from the git-go, because had she applied it in a fair and balanced manner, she would have had to admit her own frequent past indulgences in the very practice that she now sought to condemn.)

Did you establish that Dragonfly, Brant, and I made unwarranted statements about the motives of Messrs. Valliant and Perigo?

No, you merely presumed that they were unwarranted, in calling the various things we said "psychologizing."

If you want to know why I think Lindsay Perigo suddenly banned Neil Parille and me so we wouldn't rain on Jim Valiiant's parade, you could ask me. (Same goes for asking Brant and Dragonfly.)

It's not as though I wouldn't be able to explain how I arrived at this conclusion, or why I deem my reasoning sound. I have close to five years of online experience with Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant to draw on. I did not start out imputing these kinds of motives to either one of them, but I made some generalizations over time about the way they operate, through a process called learning.

Of course, you might disagree with my case. You might even be able to poke holes in it.

But asking why, instead of peremptorily condemning, would much more closely resemble the civil discourse that you take me and others to task for not engaging in...

Robert Campbell

Well put on the accusations of "psychologizing" - in this case, and so many others which have preceded it, made by so many over the years.

As Rand said, in "The Psychology of Psychologizing," . . .

The last clause is vital. The introduction of the concept was never intended by Rand to give a free pass to those who would inflict their psychological problems on others.

It has turned out to be a pretty slippery concept, witness Philip's recent post...

Bill P

Heh.

One day M. Xray will learn how the program works. Until then, she will keep saying it doesn't.

I used to believe it was a lost cause, but I believe one day she will actually get it. For no other reason than she keeps trying to make the reality of it fit with the fantasy of it in her head.

All that effort has to pay off some day.

So I try to practice the virtue of patience.

Michael

Michael -

Clearly something in the combination of program and Xray is failing, consistently. I think it's pretty obvious to most of us that it's not the software.

Regards,

Bill P

Bill P. wrote:

Imagine, for instance, if Rush Limbaugh had advocated voter fraud to ensure a particular electoral outcome...

end quote

Some accused that Rush's operation Chaos was an attempt at fraud. In open primaries he advised conservatives to vote for whichever liberal was losing to cause more infighting. The theory was that Hillary and Barrack would more thoroughly beat each other up, if the process was drug out. It worked but the bigger Marxist still won the general election. I don't agree that it was any sort of fraud. Advising people to vote more than once is 'morally' an attempt at fraud, but it is something covered by free speech. Rush might even joke about it.

Here is a couple of quotes that apply to a powerful voice like Limbaugh.

How do you conquer Rome with no weapon other than your voice?

Cicero

Sometimes, if you find yourself stuck in politics, the thing to do is start a fight – start a fight, even if you do not know how you are going to win it, because it is only when a fight is on, and everything is in motion, that you can hope to see your way through.

Cicero

Peter

Exacatly. While there was no actual fraud proposed in "Operation Chaos," the howling reached a high level. Imagine if Rush had advocated voting multiple times to magnify the effect...

Bill P

I thought progressives believed in democracy where the people rule. What Ed Schultz believes in is Ed Schultz ruling.

If someone had declared the sort of intentions and thoughts Schultz did, but "on the right," there would be no end to the howling and screaming about it.

Imagine, for instance, if Rush Limbaugh had advocated voter fraud to ensure a particular electoral outcome...

Bill P

Roger:

As I was just scanning this post for the first time, that "bitter poverty" is a solid down scaling of the probative value of Lenny's accuracy.

Maybe he and Frank were drinking buddies.

Adam

I would have enjoyed having a drink with Frank at least

Adam; Lenny has never been drinking buddies with anyone.

That's hard to imagine (that he could be). Laughably so.

Bill P

Does "To Whom It May Concern" come to mind?

Michael

Very sadly, yes.

Bill P

This will be a don't miss documentary. Here is the 1m44s trailer

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e_OFwtJMRY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e_OFwtJMRY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e_OFwtJMRY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Don't get FoxNews here in Shanghai. HOpefully I"ll get access to this documentary (which Glenn Beck has been touting for some time now).

Regards,

Bill P