Mindy Newton

Yeah, but not seen since until this video recorded it! --Brant I've been meaning to ask, Brant, is that a Corsair in your pic? = Mindy

I think my remark was ill-placed, or something. Anyway, I didn't mean to take a position on Baker or Ron Paul. = Mindy

REB quoted: "I think that the present title works well enough and is more succinct than the possibly less confusing "Objectivist Perspectives on Secularism" (which is what I probably would have called it). If I were a Secularist unfamiliar with Objectivism, or at least with how Objectivism would relate to my concerns, I think I would be quite interested and open to read about how another philosophical movement's thinkers viewed those concerns. And I wouldn't immediately/automatically write it off as "BS." I think this book is in the same category as the book co-edited by Mimi Gladstein and Chris Sciabarra: "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand." They're both attempting to bridge between Objectivism and other intellectual/social movements. It seems to me that that is a worthy pursuit." REB What I was on about was that instead of actually saying something about why secularists would find Objectivists' opinions of interest, the statement only said that he (Hudgins) would tell them things he thought would be crucial to them. It's vaccuous. I'm going to introduce you to my perspective on matters crucial to you. It's comparable to saying: I wrote a book and I think you should read it. Aside from being off-putting, he misses the chance to make a substantive point that shows the relevance of Objectivism to secularists. The more important consequence of such a statement is that it leads the reader to expect that sort of meaningless verbiage, and the "thinking" that goes with it, throughout the book! That's why I'd re-shelve it right away. = Mindy

Alas and alack, He'd take that spelling back, For he wrought what was wrong, When he referenced the song! = Mindy

A-muse-ing, Brant Alas and alack, I want my bullet back, I will no more hunt swan, To remember Polly Von. = Mindy Thx for fixing that up for me, Mindy, but it wasn't a bullet in the Peter, Paul & Mary version, it was an arrow. --Brant "Alas and alack, I'd take that arrow back!" How's that? = Mindy

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers. --Brant Is it kinder to spare a poster here the painful truth? = Mindy All is truth. No truth, no untruths. This is because there is a hierarchy with truth being basic and untruths being derivative. Sooooo ... if you give someone an untruth you have given him nothing. Argue with that, lass! --Brant PS [edit]: "Truth" refers to the metaphysical. "Untruth" is purely epistemological. There! My argument is both perfect and complete! It is also irrefutable. Why? You can't refute the TRUTH! Sure, Brant, I'll be happy to "argue" with you, but I don't know what you're saying--or, at least, I hope I don't get what you're saying. Want to explain? = Mindy

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers. --Brant Is it kinder to spare a poster here the painful truth? = Mindy

But can you refuse to accept my tomatoes as payment? How do I know before I go to your store what sort of money or goods to bring? If you try to give me origami figures instead of change, and I don't want it, but you don't want to give me my money back, and the ice-cream I bought is melting, what do we do? I thought legal tender solved all that. = Mindy

A-muse-ing, Brant Alas and alack, I want my bullet back, I will no more hunt swan, To remember Polly Von. = Mindy

Yes, of course. I don't know why it strikes me as odd. = Mindy

But the promise of a bail-out, or anticipation of it, is one factor in the performance of the market, no? = Mindy

Here are the first three errors: "One of the main stumbling blocks is Federal legal tender laws, which state that government-controlled fiat currency MUST be accepted for many kinds of monetary transactions." "In the absence of legal tender laws, people are free to accept the medium of exchange of their choice, and are likely to insist on payment in something of real value." "Related to legal tender laws, contracts in gold are not enforced. Meaning if two parties agree to exchange goods or services for gold, and end up in a dispute, the courts will simply settle the dispute in Federal Reserve notes." Read your contracts. Very often, you agree to arbitration as your first remedy. And, courts being what they are, what would you expect? If I offer to ship you my iron ore in exchange for your coal and we have a problem, the courts will use the common denominator. That only makes sense. Again, you do not have to go to the government courts. That is another canard of the Right Wing and a different topic as well. "One is also expected to pay sales tax on the purchase of gold." This is not true in Michigan or in several other states. As a result of the "Coingate" scandal in Ohio, that state resumed taxes on bullion. But it is not a federal tax. Ron Paul glided from a rant against "government" to ignoring the differences among state laws and then back to a complaint about the federal government. Also, sales tax being what it is, would you expect sales tax on gold jewelry or nor? On platinum or iridium or iron or praesodymium or what? What makes gold so special to Ron Paul but a mystical attachment to a chemical element? I understand the case for gold as the standard for money, but, here the issue is conflated by someone who, I believe, knows better but profits from being a demogogue. "Congress should no longer force Americans to do business in dollars if they would prefer to transact in gold, or silver, or cigarettes or seashells, for that matter." No such law exists. Buy and sell with sesshells if you can find the trading partners. Ron Paul plays to the ignorance and self-imposed helplessness of his god-guns-gold constituents. The U.S. Treasury sells gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes at the market rate for gold. They sell Eagles (ounces and fractions) to a restricted list of large volumne wholesales. However, they also sell numismatic items with modest to hefty mark-ups over bullion. The bottom line is that the dollar is backed in gold at the market rate and those data are available for a mouseclick. Yes, I see his bit about seashells-as-money is wrong. I think his complaint about paying tax on gold is that if gold is used as coinage, its being taxed as if it were a commodity being exchanged is improper, doesn't that make sense? I don't see the political principle you are advancing in your bit about arbitration. = Mindy

"One of the main stumbling blocks is Federal legal tender laws, which state that government-controlled fiat currency MUST be accepted for many kinds of monetary transactions." And is that false? And if so, how? Thanks for your patience. = Mindy Edit: Ron Paul is saying government's expanding the money supply robs people holding gov. currency, and we're stuck with gov.-issued currency. (Unless we carry barter goods around with us, and are fortunate enough to find a gas station that needs a lot of, e.g., potholders.) No? = Mindy

= Mindy I love it when I can let my inner self out to roam around for a while. This is my version of going out on Hollowean night since I'm way too old to actually Trick or Treat. I'm evil, evil, evil! --Brant Perhaps you should consider wean-ing yourself this Halloween. = Mindy

I have to say, the title seems awkward. Doesn't it imply there's an Objectivist, non-secular text? Also, if I read an intro that told me "this book seeks to introduce [me]...to perspectives on matters crucial to [me]," I'd rate it as BS right there. = Mindy

To alleviate your obvious disappointment, oh Medieval one, here is an analysis of your personality: You are large in your presence. You look down on people in general (that's when you're flying, of course.) Your temper can be fiery (that's genetic, of course.) Your toenails need cutting. (C'est la vie.) = Mindy I'd better add my idiosyncratic take on "Dragonfly" which is of a flying dragon... :sorcerer:

Animated Leader(??!!!!) That surprised me. I try to avoid positions of authority over other adults. Ba'al Chatzaf Ah, but it does not surprise the rest of us, Baal. How about that? :yes: = Mindy p.s. oops!! I thought it said, "Agitated Leader" my bad. :angel:

In other words, if I give my landlord my letter from the IRS, I have not given him "legal tender" but if I give him a thousand $1 federal reserve notes, I have. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less. You do not have to accept government money. You can barter for apples if you want. Ron Paul may know this. However, it is painfully obvious that many Objectivists, Libertarians and Conservatives do not. Now, at least, you know. By the way, in case I forgot to mentiion it more than a thousand times, I win literary awards for writing about money. My first one corrected the Encyclopedia Britannica and the nomination came from a curator at the Smithsonian. That ties to the opening sentence. When someone points out that I am ignorant, my feelings will be hurt, but I still accept responsibility to take the initiative to get smart. Michael, you missed the point. I don't think any of us needs a whole explanation of "legal tender," rather, what is Ron Paul's error with respect to it? = Mindy

FYI: It's "deer in the headlights" = Mindy Oh. I didn't catch that because I once ran down my dear (I shot the SOB she was dearing with) and I saw her eyes in my headlights. Had to replace the whole front end. I was really pissed off I had to drive my Yugo for a month while the Caddy was in the shop. Had to buy a new mattress too. I'm putting a plastic cover on the new one just in case it happens again. --Brant Charming, Brant. = Mindy

This is simply wrong, GS. We can, for instance, begin with ostensive definitions. By the way, here is an "absolute" you might like to try to challenge: Whatever moves occupies space. = Mindy

FYI: It's "deer in the headlights" = Mindy

I don't know what "objective" communication means. I have an idea what communication means but once you add that adjective I'm lost. Possibly you are referring to communication using some technical language where the meanings are quite precise? It means that your meaning can stand alone. It doesn't need explanations as to what you intended to say, etc. = Mindy

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will. Ba'al Chatzaf Grandma might be deaf! Sure, Paul, blame it on Gramdma. = Mindy

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will. Ba'al Chatzaf Good one. It is even stiffer than mine, though. = Mindy

What are you talking about? Barbara didn't quote Rand; I did. On the other hand, one of Barbara's assertions about Rand was very wrong. I read the embedded quotes wrong, Merlin, sorry. You supplied a quote in response to Barbara's contradicting somebody else. You didn't actually state whether you thought your quote supported or opposed Barbara's statement. Then Brandt said he thought Barbara's point needed re-formulating. I had assumed that was your position also. Phew. If you disagreed about something else Barbara said, what was it? My point was that Rand said "wish" and that that didn't mean "whim." = Mindy