Philip Coates

> since I wouldn't want to be that active anyway, there's actually nothing to feel guilty about. But where I do give a lot and where I'm very committed is my job as teacher of young children.The tax declaration can wait, but in my job it is 100 %, that I give. Xray, I think that's great. This thread was not intended to just be about activism, but about any way that one gets off one's butt does things to further one's values. In your case, a career choice. And in Baal's case, a spending of free time helping people in a certain way: " I record books for blind and dyslexic folk. ...I hate to see people who have lost their vision or have inherited a reading difficulty through no fault of their own be stuck and isolated." One can get a great deal of satisfaction from a choice like this (for me it's teaching). Has nothing to do with Oism, activism, philosophy, proselytizing. Baal cites this old quote which captures the right attitude toward taking actin to further your values: It is better to light a candle, however small and weak, than to curse the Darkness.

> they want to discuss with you.. Who said a public post on a public list is a discussion "with me"?

> if she’s unemployed and therefore spends lots of time on this kind of thing. Who said it had to be lots of time?

Brant, you keep making unjust or snarky comments, I will keep calling you on it.

I'm continually impressed by how much Diana H's small community group, "Front Range Objectivists", does to get up out of the passive, grumbling defeated armchair state and fight for their values: " For calendar year 2011, Front Range Objectivism (FRO) members ... published the following at the regional and national level: Articles: 4, OpEds: 73, LTEs: 24. Some of the topics covered include free speech, economics, health care, energy policy and environmentalism, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, abortion and "personhood", foreign policy, and Colorado politics. For comparison, our total 2010 output was 5 articles, 68 OpEds, and 27 LTEs. The majority of this writing was done by people working in their spare time, in addition to their day jobs. This list does not include numerous TV/radio appearances, talks to community groups, oral and written statements to elected officials, postings to Facebook and Twitter, and blogging." -- Paul Hsieh, Noodlefood. The future is affected by those who choose to affect it. Not by those who lie down and 'take it' across a whole life - like a kicked dog. ,,,,,,,,, Does anyone here have any examples to share of their own fighting for their values and philosophy - either currently or in the past? (Doesn't necessarily have to be activism/outreach to the general public. There are other ways.)

> What issues? Doh. That's what I was afraid of.

> It's 14 posts devoted to you Once again, pointing out the obvious: If idiots like you make posts devoted to attacking me, you are to blame for not posting on the issues.

> for a while no one was attacking anybody, at least on this thread, but it seems Phil got bored Said by the master of the stupid, lazy one-liner.

> Needing another "fix," eh Phil?* Need another snarky remark, eh, PDS, rather than addressing the points made?

Point taken. I can try to come up with better titles in the future, but my making an effort or 'editing' my posts is contingent on people once in a while commenting on the -good- points I make or posts I make, not just looking for any flaws. Try to do better or I'll have to do a root canal....

> our savior has given up The mark of a second-rate mind or personality is a certain quality of sarcastic resentment when pointed criticism is offered. (Now -that's- a good one-liner!)

Subject 1: Explaining What Should be Obvious (to an Attentive Mind) (Subject 2: Bad Thinking and Communication - Lazy, Sloppy, Stupid, Out-of-Focus) > lazy, "twitter"-like, one-liner, half-assed humorous posts --- including this one. [Me] > Excuse me Phil, my one-liner was in fact profound and resonant of the paradoxical nature of the Maslovian hierarchy of needs. [Daunce] Clearly Carol-Dauncester, I didn't mean you: Anyone who can put together a phrase like yours above is worth reading. And note all my adjectives*. They are meant conjointly not discretely**. Short can be sweet and not half-assed (no that doesn't include you, brant'nnd). It should also be obvious to other people than Carol, that -occasional- one liners can be effective. It should be obvious to any half-intelligent reader that what is "twitter"ish and lazy is to -characteristically- respond with one-liners, lame videos and cartoons. And virtually never to post careful, thorough responses in literate, detailed four of five paragraphs of systematic argument. * I underlined and highlighted some of the points above because I often feel I'm dealing with lazy "skimmers" here. **If you don't know what those two adverbs mean as applied in this context, please get out a dictionary.

Part of the non-thoughtful decline of this list is all the lazy, "twitter"-like, one-liner, half-assed humorous posts --- including this one.

Dear Cadaunce, The title represents my declining effort here at coming up with good titles.

William, your focus on my "otherizing" seems sort of petty compared to the importance of these points: " the ideas that there is both a critical and a supportive way to look at OIsts, a positive and a negative side -- and that both movement "factions" tend to err in their critical slant." It's sort of like when someone does a good essay focusing all your attention on the fact that he used green ink and it distracted you.

Foolish satirical photos: soooo predictable.

> Actually, just deleting your post would be sufficient compliance with the voluntary rules we are using to participate in this thread. Mr. S, just deleting -your- above post would also be in compliance with the rules. (Also, just FYI, note that New Orleans will win in the other contest today.)

In that case, I will forfeit all prize money.

Dennis, I sympathize. You tried to share a value and ninth doctor responded by [alliteration alert] smearing shit on it with a smirky, smutty, slimy response. (He said he had to suppress a yawn: I wish he'd suppress his posts instead.) Now you can see what I have to deal with with this guy on thread after thread - and why I despise him so much.

> Tebow Magic ends here. Problem is the Patriots have a bad defense and Tebow mixes up his offense. So the Broncos win a close one.

> Phil, of course, has a way of announcing with his subject heads that he's about to tell Others what they're doing wrong. [Ellen] Which is exactly what you just did in your post: "The lack of understanding of the actual course of the history of ideas...non-appeal to scientists...like a hermetically-sealed package". And what most people do in their posts. And most intellectuals do when they write critically.

William, I'm not sure I understand the point of your post. Did you get *absolutely nothing* out of the points I took the trouble to make in post 19? I took some trouble to develop those points - and the ideas that there is both a critical and a supportive way to look at OIsts, a positive and a negative side -- and that both movement "factions" tend to err in their critical slant.

> This quote comes from trivial post. The point is not to defend yourself on silly stuff. People have enough to read without trivial or useless posts....you could also try editing and writing shorter stuff. I know you appreciate my tips: No gratitude necessary.

Definitely worth a standing erection.

> EDIT: I think I see your point. You meant to say in the first one that the post, while not necessarily written by "Caroliine," might still be authentic. Is that right? My point was to ignore "Caroliine" altogether since I am pretty sure she's made up. You sounded like you were saying she still might have written the post. It's a trivial point, who cares.