seymourblogger

I just read a comment by Darren there: He thinks of Rand's epistemology and metaphysics "not as attempts at serious scholarship, but as extended footnotes to readers of her novels; "asides" made to them by the various characters of Galt, Reardon, Taggart, Roark, et al., for the purpose of strengthening the plausibility of the story, and, ultimately, maintaining that all-important suspension of the reader's disbelief. The philosophy of Objectivism (especially its metaphysics and epistemology) — like Atlas Shrugged itself — is ultimately meant as entertainment, not scholarship." (end quote Darren) http://aynrand2.blog...s-floating.html I don't think the term "entertainment" fits. Rand was very serious about her philosophy. The verdict is in: that ain't Darren talking. Just you waight Henry Higgins, just you waight. It's nerrad m'boy, it's nerrad. LOL! He's not a co-writer, he's a co-administrator. A copyrighted one. He's gonna get a book deal outta this, just you wait!

Posted Today, 12:18 AM Seymourblogger I looked at the blog and started to go through "Reading Eric Packer Through Ayn Rand," but I didn't bother to read much. It's amateurish and the visual is kind of tacky. Sorry. Michael Great! Your comment means Darren and I are on the right road! Thank you for telling me what I needed to know. Beaucoup hits. Success is the best revenge.

Here we go again. Pose over substance to scratch a neurotic itch. Any 4 year old would say, "Well, go find people who are not boring to you." Well, duh... That should be easy enough. There are only a billion people on the Internet. And that's not an exaggeration. MichaelBut then what would you do? Every in group needs a scapegoat or an outgroup. This is just psychology 101. Come see my ayn Rand blog: http://aynrand2.blogspot.com You may even like it. Darren is brilliant BTW.

Here she comes, that little town flirt. Town flirts have their charms, however. As much as I hoped otherwise, with a vision of a little old lady in Springfield battling it out in the field of ideas in her dotage, I am afraid SM-Blogger is simply a blowhard, and a pretty mean one at that. A tornado cut through her neck of the woods last week, and yet she finds it relevant to continue to tilt at post-modern windmills, talking about such savory topics as whether NB can "get it up" or not, and if not, why not. If I were SM-Blogger, I would step away from the computer and take another look at Graham Greene, whom she claims to know something about. Specifically, she might take a look at The Power and the Glory, or maybe A Burnt Out Case, and read these works of art as ends in themselves, not to support more post-modern gibberish to beat others over the head with. SM-Blogger seems to fancy herself the heroic Querry in a village of OL lepers, but Querry never insulted the lepers--he sought first to understand them, then he actually came to appreciate them, and then, most important of all, he was redeemed by them. So I am Querry right? And you are the lepers I should understand, come to know and love, and learn from. Sorry I prefer to learn from beings of higher intelligence. Let's try again: http://aynrand2.blogspot.com Links and other stuff are having difficulty with blogspot because right now as I type google is changing servers to keep up with the Japanese goto. this is something google does regularly but this one is massive and people are screaming about losing their panties all over the place. Or maybe te problem is here. We will see now, won't we? In cyberspace one can never really know. There is only credibility. So It might be you are lying or x-ray is? Or it might be google? Or it might by Michael Studart Kelly? Or it might be the intelligent designer of codes? Or Daniken might be right? But Darren will put Rand right smack in the middle of the post modern thought campgrounds. There is no post modern theory. <b>Because</b> now listen carefully: Any theory can be turned and used against the formulator or against what the formulator wished to expose, hinder, stop. - Virilio This is the danger of the role of theory in the dialectic. And brilliant darren only has 5 posts at objectivist living because he is a threat to guess............................

When I click on the link it says "blog not found". I'm not an Objectivist. I neither share Rand's endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism, nor do I conceive e. g. of selfishness as a virtue; I see it as a simple given. I do think of rationality though as a key element for a philosophy, and use certain elements of Objectivism as a tool in discussions. By doing this kind of patchworking, I'm violating yet another Objectivist principle that says one cannot take parts from it because it is an integrated whole. (NB said something about this in his "Benefits and Hazards" article). But of course one can take parts from Objectivism. One can take parts from any philosophy and work them into one's own. Only if I would call myself an Objectivist while rejecting essential parts of the philosophy, this would be problematic because of the resulting contradiction. Arguing from an Objectivist position for example works excellently when you are discussing with theists. For the epistemologically strongest part of Objectivism is the rejection as irrational of any ethics based on religion. On taking parts from objectivism Sciabarra is very clear on this. Peikoff's summary also. It is an integrated system because everything is in relation to everything else. If you start pulling it apart piecemeal the wole ting crumbles. Graham Greene studied Catholicism when he wished to marry a Catholic, as a man not a child. He evidently discussed conversion with a very subtle priest. He converted and married. He has said that the entire system of religion known as Catholicism depends o this carefully constructed structure of beliefs. If one of the "pieces" is doubted or disbelieved, the entire structure shakes and crumbles. It as been carefully constructed for hundreds of years by subtle and intelligent minds. In this Rand is following Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a moralist and is acutely aware of hypocrisy. Rand was also. When it came to her personal life she resorted to denial and rationalization. She was good at it. Her "belief" that sexual choice resulted from your highest value and was a logical choice and decision took it to extremes. But she took everything to extremes. That's Nietzsche and Nietzsche flowing through Rand. It backs you into a corner. Rand was backed into a corner. So was Branden. And so is Peikoff. They cannot nor could not see what was wrong. Why if she was his highest value, and she was, why could e not get it up for her? Why could he not physically desire her? Why did he not need her sexually? To not desire her indicated a flaw in her philosophy. To Branden and to herself. It broke the enclosed system opening it up, and that could not be allowed. Gee I have 4 more comments allowed. I wonder if they roll over like minutes on cell phones. I bet they don't. Isn't Michael Stuart Kelly lucky! I don't know why the link won't go there. It goes there at solopassion. Maybe something here..........? Oh that is blasphemy! When the link won't work, you paste it in the browser. That's good to know because it happens a lot. Just copy it, then go up to the bar and paste it in then click go! That should do it. I had to hurry and import posts because it was getting so many hits as a blank. Dareen has left 2 comments on the beginning post. They are absolutely brilliant. I am so jealous!

ITalk about projection. It is you who are at the lowest level of learning, despite your rote theoretical grasp of what learning might be.Xray knows more about early learning than you do, and also about lifelong learning. No she doesn't. She's too much of an authoritarian in her thinking. I bet she doesn't even know the work of Emmi Pikler or John Holt. And if she did she could never follow them. It is very difficult to do a permissive free school experience. A teacher would have to be much more flexible in her thinking than s-ray. Someone like me. Who did do it BTW. Want some stories. Some famous names of students? You just don't get it. You are in a place where people have conversations, share experiences, talk about ideas, and show what kind of learners and thinkers they are by what they post and how they interact. It is not about credentialism. Hammers are made to test ideas and concepts. - Nietzsche Yeh but you are all so boring. I try to learn something but there's nothing here to learn. Except Princess Beatrice's hat. Now that was very good.

ITalk about projection. It is you who are at the lowest level of learning, despite your rote theoretical grasp of what learning might be.Xray knows more about early learning than you do, and also about lifelong learning. No she doesn't. She's too much of an authoritarian in her thinking. I bet she doesn't even know the work of Emmi Pikler or John Holt. And if she did she could never follow them. It is very difficult to do a permissive free school experience. A teacher would have to be much more flexible in her thinking than s-ray. Someone like me. Who did do it BTW. Want some stories. Some famous names of students?

By claiming that Beatrice was "making fun of royal rituals", you are doing precisely that against which you have been arguing here in numerous posts: you are interpreting, and what you interpret is tainted by the 'postmodern glasses' you seem to be wearing all the time. So unless there exists convincing evidence of Beatrice being a 'post-modern rebel' (for the mere wearing of this hat does not qualify as sufficient evidence), your comments are a mere personal interpretation. I suppose Foucault would have agreed. See above. You are interpreting again. Your interpretation can be countered with other interpretations; so again, I ask you where is your additional evidence?You are confusing categories again. "Interpretation" as far a a "hat" goes is a fun thing. Maybe she didn't know but it said it all the same. The hat designer knew for sure as fashion is a subversive art form. I said fashion, not clothes. By "interpretation" within the Discourse something different is meant. It determines so very much in so many fields and so many ways. It occludes alternative perceptions, textbook inclusions, historical revisionism, etc. When I use the term "interpretation" in a philosophical sense, it has nothing to do with playful interpretations of a very funny hat that thumbed its nose at royal protocol. You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity. You are reciting the rote of jolly old Baudrillard, as you have learned in your many happy years at school. More's the pity. Never learned Baudrillard at school. And not until One year ago. He can't be memorized a he doesn't write that way. He writes only in fragments as Nietzsche did so that one can't learn him by rote. Nor Nietzsche. s-ray says she is not an objectivist but you could have fooled me. She spouts the part line so well. My new blog is http://aynrand2.blogspot.com. Take a look.

Both Hitler and Stalin were abysmal monsters. Which is why it makes no sense positioning one over the other as the "lesser evil". Stalin did the gulags before Hitler did the camps. Hitler learned from and copied Stalin. Stalin was by far the more ingenious and intelligent of the two. Had HItler not come to domination of Germany, Stalin might have won the world. Have you ever read some of that book - forget its name - on what might have happened historically if such and such had not happened. The one I remember is when the Huns were surrounding Vienna and the clumsy knights in armor were marching to defend it. They were going to lose to the military acumen of the Mongols. The general had a 200 mile wide flank, and a strategy for destroying cities that was not seen again until the Civil War. The Khan died and they all had to go back to China to vote in the new Khan. Vienna was saved. There were other parts of Germany reduced to ashes and people were living in caves again after the scourge had passed. I've read victor Herman's account of the Gulag and I think being a non Jew, would choose Hitler over Stalin. But of course Hitler would never have come to power had not the European nations facilitated his moves before the war. And the damage done at Versailles by the diplomats. Better give it up x-ray. You are not gonna win against me. You can't keep up and you don't want to learn. A pity.

By claiming that Beatrice was "making fun of royal rituals", you are doing precisely that against which you have been arguing here in numerous posts: you are interpreting, and what you interpret is tainted by the 'postmodern glasses' you seem to be wearing all the time. So unless there exists convincing evidence of Beatrice being a 'post-modern rebel' (for the mere wearing of this hat does not qualify as sufficient evidence), your comments are a mere personal interpretation. I suppose Foucault would have agreed. See above. You are interpreting again. Your interpretation can be countered with other interpretations; so again, I ask you where is your additional evidence?You are confusing categories again. "Interpretation" as far a a "hat" goes is a fun thing. Maybe she didn't know but it said it all the same. The hat designer knew for sure as fashion is a subversive art form. I said fashion, not clothes. By "interpretation" within the Discourse something different is meant. It determines so very much in so many fields and so many ways. It occludes alternative perceptions, textbook inclusions, historical revisionism, etc. When I use the term "interpretation" in a philosophical sense, it has nothing to do with playful interpretations of a very funny hat that thumbed its nose at royal protocol. You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

Ellen, Absolutely correct. But I suspect this increase will evaporate once Janet settles down or gets thrown off of SLOP or just gets too boring to sustain interest in her little show. Regardless--whether the small boost in audience remains or doesn't--I'm happy OL has been useful to SLOP in its time of need. Michael BOOOO! Brant opines that I waste posts. I do waste them. It's fun. What do I mean when I waste a post? Any theories?

Definitely nonlinear, no question. Highly entertaining site, lol! What a bonanaza of royal attire, the gamut ranging from absolutely splendorous and tasteful to the absymal opposite ... ! I grew up with 'Royal gossip' so to speak: My mother was quite an eager yellow press reader, and thus I got quite acquainted, at a tender age, with pictures of Royals wearing their sparkling crowns. I especially liked the silk sashes adorning the ladies' evening dresses. One of Mom's favorites was a non-Royal though (albeit she was of royal demeanor): the elegant and stylish Jackie Kennedy. Mom did not speak English, and pronounced JK's first name as in German "Jacke", which phonetically converted "Jackie" into "Yucky". The comments on that site are as hilarious as the pictures. If you scroll down to about a third of the page, here's one of Margrethe wearing a hat which a blogger aptly called "an upturned oil funnel": http://orderofsplend...ch/label/Hmm... OMG, how did I miss that one. She looks like a Lego piece. (Are Legos Danish?) Gee. Now we are talking about women's hats. How very feminist of you. Actually I have to thank you for this hat thing. It has turned out perfectly. Princess Beatrice wore a hat that was more hat than a hat. It was "worse" than a hat, an "obscene" hat. More so. This is what I have been saying over and over because no one gets it, yet you bring up an image that says it so perfectly. Beatrice's hat. Making fun of "hatdom", making fun of royal rituals that are silly. Most women opt for a pretty flattering hat to go along with the flow. But not our Princess Beatrice. After all Fergie is her mother! She kicked over a few traces eh.Nice model mother. Now why didn't she behave like a normal person? Wear a pretty hat with flowers on it, pretty colors, pretty on her hair, her face framed prettily. The ladies here would have been happy instead of groaning over it because the ladies here are very normal, very conditioned, very good little girls who don't jump over the traces. Good girls don't make history. Rand was not a good girl. What a blessing I say. What a pity these ladies would say, had they been around when Rand was younger.

She's spiking SOLO's readership because people from here who weren't paying any attention to SOLO are looking to see what happens. This sounds right, for a few reasons. Fresh hot vituperation sometimes spurts and flows, related to the large eruption in 2005, Perigo banished to solo passion with a few bitter cronies, MSK a-building, Joe Rowlands and the couch people sagging deeper into dullness. Is there an internal rule of Objectivist partings-of-the-way, that any break or subordination comes with nasty effluvia? I know that when Comrade Doctor Diana was having her McCaskey false labour pains, even the normally slumbering Facebook community of Objective-ish came alive, seething and spitting, not to mention all the gnashing and gurning in the usual places. From time to time wounds from the first SOLO open up, too. When schisms happen (even small peevish ones), I think a lot of folks do go gander, see who gets punished, see who wins or loses anything of value. Heads thump into a basket, threads get expunged, commentators fall through the trapdoor and are gone. Human drama in all its splendour. This time our zany Janet got sloppy, unwise and arrogant, got Linz riled, got sharp-toothed Creatures of the Swamp lumbering up onto his beach. He got even more riled at George from the Swamp's unanswerable take-downs -- and when Darren added his own gifts of vituperation, our Linz -- like our Phil, like any aging martinet with waning powers of persuasion -- performed the inevitable self-thwarting fit of amok. Another whack of the hatchet. Another thump in the basket. Through it all our sweet bemused Janet rowing in circles, unable to form a credible tale of the people with whom she interacts, unable to discern personality, motivation, or decency in her interlocutors, rowing sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes pausing to shout abuse at larger more purposeful boats. Just think, six years and some months ago, we might have been able to fill a giant ballrooom with folks of the original SOLO. MSK, Perigo and Rowlands might have been able to croak out a few pleasantries about each other on mike from the dais. Barbara may have downed a few Martinis and dished in a corner of the balcony. Even Diana might have stood at the bar slugging vodka and moose milk and heckling. As our host notes, aren't we happy to help SOLO get some extra eyes while the lava flows. -- by the way, I think Ghs should receive a Carol-crafted award for his pithy response to Janet's mumble scary mumble very slow swamp fuck she is delivering to mumble mutter victory blah. It raised the hairs on my nape. From the Swamp we came, to the Swamp we return, teeth sharpened anew. The first Swamp award must go to George H Smith for some fine work this week both in and out of the Swamp. When he does this to Unreason (I must use it somewhere as my avatar): It seems it is letting me post and I can add 3 more until 6:38 with just 1 more minute to go. then it will stop me. What a smooth auto tech thing it is. The number changes every time and the time slot changes every time. Amazing. Ah that giant ballroom is getting bigger and bigger as fewer and fewer people are in it. That old Yiddish folk tale with all the farm animals in the house with all the children and relatives. I like your gif BTW, and it doesn't slow me up. Wonder why? Brant says it's greased. What is happening is what is called the "drop out rate" in education. In the public schools now those schools who have a high rate are now referred to as "drop out factories". Well named. So what reamins are little enclaves, much like the Shakers who thru non-fucking diminished to zero. Attrition has descended on SOLO SLOP and Objectivist Dead. It's what happens to closed system religions and cults. As Canetti says in his book on Power,and Groups, every group's goal in to increase. Well it looks like SOLO SLOP and OD have goals to contract small enough to slither down the drain eh. Now it's very incestual. Your anger at Peikoff for keeping Objectivism a closed system is a projection from your two sites, which themselves are mirrors, in that they also are closed systems. That BTW is what a Discourse is and does. It is why baseball did not change over 150 years until Billy Beane "CUT" into the Discourse and this is what Moneyball says. The jock owners and mangers even knew that it was a change in Discourse and said so. A change in the discourse forces - forces - a change in thinking. No change here. Keep on moving. Nothing to see here. It's just a commenting site where people who know each other online come to gather over the back fence and shoot the breeze. However, I found some treasures here. I am a corporate raider incognita!

<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/lunatic/chanteburningham/Scary.gif?o=135" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z349/chanteburningham/Scary.gif" border="0"></a> Ghs How come your gifs don't slow my computer down the way others do? QUESTION!

They never knew I did it while I was doing it, and they still don't know. And I still keep doing it to finish the job. The site was hurting someone I cared about. They wouldn't stop when explained it to them, so I stopped them. By ruin, I mean it cost them a whole lot of money and a lot in dropped revenues. They no longer make money on their site to the tune of what they used to. Now if Rand were alive she would stop this. But she is dead and can't. So far I am not motivated to do it. But if I were you would never know it was happening or that it had happened. It would be very slow. Like a very slow fuck. The Silent Destroyer!

She's spiking SOLO's readership because people from here who weren't paying any attention to SOLO are looking to see what happens. EllenQuite astute Ellen Tuttle. Brant as usual is dead wrong. No intuition Brant.

Nex time you'll be calling us closet-postmodernists, as we like transgressing the boundaries of serious discussion, seeking some comic relief. Buillding a bridge back to Nietzsche's world should not be difficult though: Hey, look at that daringly non-linear postmodern hat Queen Margrethe is wearing here! http://orderofsplend...ch/label/Hmm... No wouldn't that one also have looked great on - what was the name of Nietzsche's muse - Lou Salomé? x-ray permanent truce if you want to translate Lou Salome's untranslated work. She is so great. How can you be German and be so unappreciative of Nietzsche and her. She was a woman who was never going to be able to put up with Nietzsche's problems and his awful sister and family. We are lucky we got his writings after he died but they wanted the money. What a blessing. Lou was a fine psychoanalyst BTW and refused to let Freud analyze her while studying with him in Vienna. Lived as a widow in War II sometimes without wood to heat her house. When she died the troops came in to raid her house for letters from Nietzsche but cool Lou had gotten them away long before. They didn't touch her during that time because of Nietzsche and their reverence for him. Nietzsche has just recovered his prominence from being tarred by the Nazi brush. Baudrillard's comment on the third Reich was that maybe it existed and prevented something far worse. I think Stalin would have been. You? Now I am being very forthright with you, sincere and I am wondering how you will return my honest words to me.

Definitely nonlinear, no question. Highly entertaining site, lol! What a bonanaza of royal attire, the gamut ranging from absolutely splendorous and tasteful to the absymal opposite ... ! I grew up with 'Royal gossip' so to speak: My mother was quite an eager yellow press reader, and thus I got quite acquainted, at a tender age, with pictures of Royals wearing their sparkling crowns. I especially liked the silk sashes adorning the ladies' evening dresses. One of Mom's favorites was a non-Royal though (albeit she was of royal demeanor): the elegant and stylish Jackie Kennedy. Mom did not speak English, and pronounced JK's first name as in German "Jacke", which phonetically converted "Jackie" into "Yucky". The comments on that site are as hilarious as the pictures. If you scroll down to about a third of the page, here's one of Margrethe wearing a hat which a blogger aptly called "an upturned oil funnel": http://orderofsplend...ch/label/Hmm... OMG, how did I miss that one. She looks like a Lego piece. (Are Legos Danish?) Gee. Now we are talking about women's hats. How very feminist of you.

Definitely nonlinear, no question.

Definitely nonlinear, no question.

The first paragraph is pretty much what I think, too. But where do you get the idea that Darren's a boozer? Are you partly mixing him up with Brant, who sometimes posts on SOLO while drinking (but who, on the other hand, I wouldn't describe as ever becoming nasty). Ellen Ellen: I come from a household (and generations) of boozers, and, from an unfortunately young age, have long had a radar for these things--albeit a not infallible one, so I may be missing the mark. My experience in life is that someone that smart is not usually that nasty, or at least not that gratuitously nasty in such an uneven and patchy way, without outside influences, such as booze. For intance, his calling you a gossip-monger and likely therapy candidate back in the day was entirely gratiuitous and out of proportion to anything to anything warranted by your comments. I also seem to noticed his making a reference to Brant in a manner that a boozer might do...So, assuming he is a boozer is actually more benevolent than the alternatives. That being said, I got a kick out of watching the back and forth. The dude is wickid smart, and that makes up for a lot. I think he was just fed up with the IQ around here. Darren did/does not suffer fools gladly.

Michael Stuart Kelly darren knew exactly what he was doing. He's as post modern a thinker as you will ever see in your milieau anyway. What he did was to implode Perigo. That's stright up and straight out Baudrillard. darren went at me and I was uncomfortable until I spent some down time contemplating him. The reason I did was that he is so spot on in movie reviews. I mean really really good. I can't not like anyone who knows how to read films. And then................darren and I.............but that's another story. Not now. Whatever he did he did on purpose. Very consciously. And Perigo deserved it. Perigo starts out the day reasonably rational, rationally reasonable and as the day progresses he gets more confabulated, more aggressive, and name calls more until later at night his fury erupts. Like guys in bars do when they spend the afternoon and evening drinking together. Do I think Perigo has a drinking problem. Yes, I do. I think BB was correct in saying that. You can tell by his syntax as the day and evening progress. No way LP could ever get the best of darren, who made me my avi, and I shall miss him sorely. That is if I stay around long enough to miss him there. His Cambrian Period comment was a masterpiece of a comment..It was meant for me whether he intended it that way or not. And no he doesn't do long linear comments or posts that carefully explain every little thing to every little mind reading them. Uh-uh. The world is not linear so why should writing be linear. Just so little minds can follow it the way their teachers taught them? Rand didn't write that way. She wrote aphoristically. Like her mentor. Who was her mentor? I'll never tell.

Both "Darren" on SOLO and "AristotlesAdvance" on OL indisputably argue for Intelligent Design. I'll document re "Darren" in the next post. The OL poster with the screen name "AristotlesAdvance" gives as his full name "Aristotle Economides." Have you ever heard of anyone with such a last name? It sounds made up to me. I suspect it's a reference to Darren's profession. If I remember correctly, Darren said on his SOLO user profile that he's a financial analyst. He gave "Darren Wrede" as the full name, a name which rings real. The photo might even be a real photo of the poster, but if Darren indeed was an usher at Peikoff's 1976 course, as he's claimed somewhere in his SOLO posts to have been, then the photo -- which is of a young man -- has to be numerous years out of date. Ellen Both "Darren" on SOLO and "AristotlesAdvance" on OL indisputably argue for Intelligent Design. I'll document re "Darren" in the next post. The OL poster with the screen name "AristotlesAdvance" gives as his full name "Aristotle Economides." Have you ever heard of anyone with such a last name? It sounds made up to me. I suspect it's a reference to Darren's profession. If I remember correctly, Darren said on his SOLO user profile that he's a financial analyst. He gave "Darren Wrede" as the full name, a name which rings real. The photo might even be a real photo of the poster, but if Darren indeed was an usher at Peikoff's 1976 course, as he's claimed somewhere in his SOLO posts to have been, then the photo -- which is of a young man -- has to be numerous years out of date. Ellen Ellen, this is so funny. Where I live Greek names are a norm ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was filmed nearby) and I did not give his stated real name here a second thought, but I did wonder why a Greek guy would call himself "Darren" on Solo! Maybe for no reason at all! You all remind me of the rob Pattinson fangirls wondering why he just cut his hair, or why he wore that Viet Nam jacket to the Berlin film festival, or how come he is stil smoking, or is he going to do Child 44 next, or or or or You are as stupid as they are.

"[D]o you believe your consciousness will survive the death of your brain (I confess to finding the evidence that this has already occurred quite strong)?" So Jabba booted this guy for repeating back at him a putdown that Jabba had just used? On the grounds that he didn't give attribution? If you say to me "Yo mama", and I reply "nah, yo mama", that's plagiarism? Jeez. That's just the precipitating straw culminating a long history. Plus, I suspect that Linz is in a generally worked-up mood because of anger at what persons he once considered friends are saying on the multiple active threads about the coming US presidential election. I don't agree that he's an "asshole." A provocateur. Very smart, prodigiously well-read, and with an eye for genuine problem areas. A shame, imo, he doesn't write up his critiques in essay form instead of employing his talents irritating posters on web lists. I guess he does his schtick just for amusement. Ellen darren doesn't irritate me. Definitely NOT an asshole. Maybe it's just that most of the rest are wondering how many angels can daunce on the head of a pin. He's a post modern writer Ellen. If the world is non linear then why should writing be in linear essay form? He's following Nietzsche. Does he know it? Dunno.