Bryce

The cop cracks me up. I loathe people who hide behind cameras and this was a bad way to make a point. http://youtu.be/gYAEcko4zgA

Roark didn't give Toohey a cold shoulder; he's not Dominique. Can anyone be contemptuously indifferent? I don't think a man can be both apathetic of another and hold him in contempt.

Roark probably understood that Toohey would be offended by the statement, but that doesn't make him less indifferent. - Toohey asked Roark and received the most simple response. - Roark, a man befitting indifference, didn't reply with, "Leave me alone, Toohey" or "I'm not interested in talking to you." - Roark didn't make an effort to show his indifference. (He didn't go out of his way.) To put it another way, that he understands that Toohey would be offended doesn't make him an insulter. Edit: I also believe that the line was Rand appealing to her readers' contempt of Toohey. It appealed to me a great deal.

Salesmen have a choice. Salesmen (not clerks) understand that their livelihoods are partly tied to the quality of the product they sell. They also understand that a salable product can help make them, in many cases, a lot of money. In return, the salesmen will do the same for the producer. Sales, even in its real (not idealized) form is a marketable trade. And the producer probably doesn't have the time or know-how to do it effectively, so he'll give the job to someone who does.

Done. Thank you! Now I need some help landing a hot Objectivist woman...

It isn't. But there's a Profile Customization tab now.

Michael, I tried. The field to edit isn't there.

Is there a way to change "not looking" to "looking" in my profile?

For those interested in the selling process, finance mangers use a menu to offer service contracts. It's a laminated sheet that lists major selling points of various warranty packages. The menu is both an assumptive close and a choice close and it's ingenious in that it's delivered at the time of purchase. In the same paragraph warning people of the dangers of buying dealer crap, you're eager to point out franchise laws - which "benefit" dealers. But you still haven't said anything specifically bad about car dealers. The dealership "system" is subject to hefty regulation, such as Monroney stickers that, among many detriments, set an arbitrary standard in all new vehicle pricing, and Lemon Laws, Blue Laws, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, buyers guides disclaimers, contract provisions, PATRIOT Act requirements on cash purchases over $10,000 and even dealer and salesman licensing fees. To name just a few.

Michael, I watched both videos but I didn't follow the links. I poorly chose my words. The second step in the sales process is "Qualifying." Qualifying is asking questions to uncover a prospect's wants or needs (and especially unseen needs). I tailor my presentation around the answers I receive from my qualification questions. It also makes upselling easier and the prospect a hell of a lot more receptive to buying my upsell (that is, selling a product or service that the prospect didn't come in for). But I won't value the utility that my customer will receive more than he will. It's nanny-like at best and it's not my place. My place is to ensure that he receives what he wants and that I get paid as much as possible. If I'm selling used cars and my prospect only wants a Corolla, I take a calculated risk in upselling anything else. I'd have to first have an interest in upselling my prospect and secondly a selling point. If I have those things I'll try upselling her, say, a Civic. But she may only want a Toyota, possibly a Honda, but definitely not anything made in America. Because American cars break down and don't get good gas mileage and no one that she knows owns an American car. And American cars aren't cute, either (those are real objections). Her objections are illogical but who am I to argue? The utility (or perceived value) she receives is her own and I have no place to comment if she declines my upsell. So I sold the Civic without deception, without BS as Brant put it, I didn't scam her, and she was completely satisfied with the purchase. But even if the car was perfect and the price was appreciable, she didn't buy and wasn't sold value. She made a stupid decision that I helped facilitate. So what else should I have done? Told her no? "No, sorry, you can't buy this. Xenophobia and 'cuteness' aren't rational reasons to buy." “We’re not trading value for value.” If I'm going to be the epitome of a salesman my customer will leave happy and I'm going to make as much as I can. Otherwise I could have walked her in the attempt to sell her a more rational choice and pissed her and my manager off in the process. Besides, the objective in the example is to make money, not correct a person's mistake. Rhetorically, if the customer won't employ reason in buying, why should I involve it in selling? I have to admit that I don't know what a rational "marketplace" looks like. But I'm trying to establish a dichotomy between the logical end of salesmanship (the characteristics that I described of the epitome of a salesman) and what selling, or the lack thereof, looks like in a rational world. In the real world, however, prospects rarely buy for rational reasons. And like you said, I'd wager that the most common reason for buying is rapport. Women, by virtue ("virtue") of their looks or personality can make a killing in sales. And the ones with staying power are the ones who know it and use it. Men, salesmen, who are congenial can walk a prospect through an entire sale and have him closed without the prospect-turned-customer having noticed that it was a sale at all. Some are so good that the prospect is closed and ready to sign without seeing a price. And that's no rarity for a great salesman! And his competition, the other salesperson who lacked the capacity to build rapport, wouldn't have closed the same customer, even though he was more knowledgeable about the product and was just as capable at asking for the sale. At face value, I'd rather have the knowledgeable salesman than the friendly one. Wouldn't you? I own How To Close Every Sale and How To Sell Anything to Anybody. An important competitive advantage that Joe Girard had was that he set his own pricing. You know that "back and forth" you get at a car dealership between the salesman and his manager? You didn't get that with Joe Girard. He sold at a marginal amount over cost and advertised the fact to his customers. That's a fact that can't be understated in his time and place and I have no doubt that it contributed heavily to his high volume.

I view salesmanship - true, uninhibited sales - as the recognition that people are a commodity; they are trees and sales is a chainsaw. During a sale I care about closing the sale and how much I will make, not how much it benefits my prospect. Because people don't make rational buying decisions. Michael, in a thread in May you made an analogy about a buyer wanting to buy an expensive Mustang over sentiment instead of another equally expensive car of technically better value. And I don't disagree with that analogy because the buyer of the Mustang isn't committing mental evasion. Many other purchases are, though, because the prospect likes the salesperson. The product and price can be identical and a prospect will buy from the salesperson who is more likable. That's no small occurrence, either. It impacts the sale so much that good managers seek personable people over studious salesmen. The epitome of a salesman is the one who lacks empathy but can engage with a prospect on a personal level - his level - and, as said in the car business, rip his head off. A product sold logically to rational customers wouldn't need that level of personal engagement. But between Roark and Wynand I still don't know which is the proper outlook.

I used to donate platelets. I was awarded the "Four Gallon" pin before I quit going (right around the time I found Ayn Rand...). I suddenly remember that some technicians were worse than others at finding my veins and the punishment that came during a return when the needle wasn't put in properly. And that's aside from inadvertently flexing or moving my elbow with the needle in there. I wish they could've done it somewhere other than right at the joint.

It looks like a rock. This is one of the mesas in my hometown: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=golden,+co&hl=en&ll=39.755563,-105.210703&spn=0.000747,0.001135&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.357014,74.355469&t=h&hnear=Golden,+Jefferson,+Colorado&z=20 We're not close to knowing if the speed of light is a problem, to say nothing of overcoming it. The problem is advancing enough to have that problem.

This was posted on Facebook by the Ayn Rand Institute today: "You have seen, within the span of the last few years, that controls breed more controls, and that the proliferation of controls breeds the proliferation of pressure groups. Today, you see political manipulators setting up new conflicts, such as ethnic minorities against the majority, the young against the old, the old against the middle, women against men, even welfare-recipients against the self-supporting. Openly and cynically, these new groups clamor for “a bigger slice of the pie” (which you have to bake)." The Ayn Rand Letter, II, 21, 3

His report is very dignified. I found this (something I was unaware of until now):

Heh. Serves me right for speaking too soon...

I get it. Fox News is the leverage certain authors or editors are using to punish Spirit Airlines. I don't think that the powers at be at Fox News give two shits about that guy. They're using it to make money because that's what sells. So I think we're talking about Gail Wynand. To quote Wikipedia: Now consider Apple. Thinking of that quotation, do you see the similarities between Wynand and Apple? Apple doesn't make particularly good product. Apple products are expensive and not as feature-packed and/or advanced (particularly iPhones) as their competition. But Apple makes a lot of money because their marketing is ****ing great because their marketers know how to pander. I don't have a problem with that... sometimes. I'm conflicted because I often think of humans as resources rather than rational beings. I could (theoretically) exploit the exploitable and deal rationally with the rational. But can you blame me for thinking that way? Some go to great lengths to prove to me how irrational they are, so sometimes I just can't help it. But the rest of the time I think about how idiots stop being idiots when no one lets them act idiotic. What do you think marketing would look like in a mystical fantasy land where every human acts as rational as he can? I think it would look like it did before Bernays: dull. I'm very interested in the psychology of marketing and salesmanship so I'm going to research "Cialdini six."

I bet they know it. I got the impression that they don't want to capitulate. I wouldn't. I don't (sometimes, but not usually). Besides, the airline didn't cause the bad press. Fox News, a spiteful old man, and the idiots who support them are doing a smear job. What is Spirit Airlines doing? Fulfilling its contract. My point is that the long term benefits of defending a rational position outweigh the short term publicity or profit loss.

I was just searching for that "No" comment and came across this: http://www.ksee24.co...-149077895.html What a hero.

Fox News has been waging a small war against Spirit Airlines over the airlines' refusal to refund the cost of a man's airline ticket. The 76 year old man, Jerry Meekins, is dying of cancer and was once a Marine. He made his grievance public several days ago and Fox News went to battle for him. I find this remarkable not over the 'victim' being referred to as a Marine or dying or elderly but in the airlines' steadfast refusal to issue him a refund. And I am not, in any way, being shocking or sarcastic: I think it's rational. It feels good (not his ailment). Good for Spirit Airlines and to hell with the idiots. Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza: Now that's a man who knows the definition of fairness. And after being asked again about giving him a refund, the company (if I remember an earlier article correctly) said "No." Just no! I think the practical solution was to issue a refund. But practicality doesn't equal right and I think the company would rather be right than politically correct. Further down the article are a couple unrelated gems: I wish my employer had this kind of tenacity. There are a few more articles on this man on foxnews.com.

I would be as uncomfortable and conflicted about Saffron as Mal, and acted as he would have until her betrayal. I don't see her as an ideal in any way. She's sexually submissive - that's it (which I'm not holding as virtuous). Otherwise she's naive, dependent, and emotional. If she didn't object, I would've traded her for Vera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-e-HY69Gb0

I stopped watching after the "we"'s and "anti-disgenics" bit. His false modesty at the beginning was also annoying.

That doesn't make sense. Also, they're not given the option to be not cleaned up. EMTs see to that, not the police. Regardless, Zimmerman's injuries were in an officer's report and on camera with one officer even looking at his injured head. It's so blatant that only someone with an ulterior motive would say otherwise.

Remarkable. People aren't brought in if they're in a bloody mess. As for the beating I believe: -ABC presented the no-head trauma video 'evidence' -then the beating story was told (or retold) -ABC presented a sheepish explanation, a lot of justification, and digitally remastered evidence completely contradicting their first report

David Icke and reptoids are all you need to know. I loved the X-Files and blackvault.com as a kid but it doesn't interest or enthuse me now. Even Ancient Aliens is boring. But I believe the universe is so massive that alien life must exist. And that's not counting what life has been or will be. I think we are separated by proximity but we are not alone.