ginny

Hey, what makes you think I'm a madam?

Keep it clean. Sorry, forgot who I'm talking to.

You're not lazy, but rumor is you're an imposter.

Any time I can get away with it.

Climb high on a bar stool. It might be the safest place. Make the gents carry you through the water.

Is it still flooding?

Thank God. Take a deep breath and relax

Brant, please don't be so hard on Jean D'arc. Women in those days didn't have many opportunities, and the poor even less. If they could make themselves and others believe they had a hotline to god, it was probably worth a few dinners. I'm sniffing out some self-interest. Vivent longtemps le roi!

Carol, are you in the Canadian flood area? Pictures look gross.

Jerry, yes, thanks, that's the lecture. Did the cassettes have those arguments (or debates on them?) Do you recall those debates and how silly they were? By the Way, I do recommend the grammar lecture to anyone. Ellen: I knew Fred vaguely. He was friends with Ed Cline, whom I saw briefly at the time. He was snooty, invoking the wisdom of Peikoff at every opportunity. He made sure that listeners understood that he and Peikoff were peas in a pod. I never forgot his performance at the debate thing, and I had to work to keep a straight face. He just wasn't as impressive as he thought he was. Jerry - wait a minute. I just reread your course summary, and it says Rand answered questions at the end. Can't be the same one, then.

Oh, Jerry, you're so wrong. That grammar course was the gold standard. It was fantastic. It kills me to say he did anything worth while, but for a writer, it was the best. Now, did your answer say the the communications course is the one I'm thinking of? Because if it is, the debate part was a Laurel and Hardy slapstick. He had teams of twos (pro and con) for religion v. atheism, capitalism v. communism, and -- I forget the third. The problem was that those who had to debate the 'bad' side were so scared that it would be held against them, all they could do was stammer, "well, you know, communism is good. Yes, really. It isn't so bad." Fred Weiss would mumble a word, step back, run back to the microphone and yell, "But you know I don't really believe that, right?" The only one worth watching was the guy who defended religion. He kept shouting "You can't speak until you've read the Dead Sea scrolls." over and over again, not allowing his opponent to open his mouth. He got close to a standing ovation.

Is this the course that was divided into three parts 1. written comm.; 2. speaking comm.; and 3. formal debate. The time frame is right.

"My experience is that strong Objectivists tend to make a moral issue out of just about everything from deciding to live or not to choosing between two flavors of ice cream." Baal, you must have read the thread on OO where for weeks they debated the morality of vanilla v. chocolate ice cream. Too funny. But they got it all wrong. If it's not coffee ice cream, it's going straight to hell.

Brant, yes, small choices lead to big choices yada yada ... but as presented, the scenario was about a one-time shot when someone had a job interview and had ice cream in the cart. You don't usually change in midstream, Brant. A habit is very different from an emergency. However, that being said, if a person is habitually forgetting appointments or running late, it's damn annoying, but I still can't call it immoral.

It's not concentration. It's making proper choices. If the choice is getting a job I desperately need or, with proper regret, leaving ice cream to melt in a cart, I'd hightail out of the store. To me, it's common sense. Were I an objectivist, I would say its putting my values in the propre hierachical order. By the way, there are more than two choices here. How about going back the next day, new job on the horizon, apologize to the manager and offer payment. For god sakes, let's think out of the box instead of being obsessed with immorality. Go forth and sin no more.

Moralist, you sound like a vengeful god from the old testament on crack. People do thoughtless stuff like tossing something back on a shelf. Momentarily stupid for a specific reason is a far cry from immoral. Just a generalization - people who seek out sin usually are hughe sinners themselves. Who died and made you Elvis?

You can send me private messages. I'm glad you at least want to know what it's about. That cool.

Guess we have different tastes. No problem. I'm not sure how Hugo snuck in here, but you kind of ignored my questions.

Is this a pick-on-Ellen moment?

Will lying to save my child's life make me more rotten? Will stealing food to feed someone who is hungry (think Jean Valjean) make me more rotten? Rearden cheated on his wife. Did that make him more rotten? Always be careful when you use the word always.

Hmm guess gents are sensitive to stick up the butt jokes. Point taken. Jerry, so you're saying that NB was nice before the split. That's good to hear, but my comment was based on many comments over the year, and he does admit in his books that he acted badly. Your view is a welcome change. Now, keep in mind I carry a wonderful stick the next time you ask me for citations!

No published citation, Jerry. But if you read both his and her biography, they both say that he walked around acting the role of lord enforcer. (want page numbers; don't have them.) I've heard him speak after the monumental break, and read his writing, and he certainly has change his attitude about a lot cof the rigitity. I consider that a positive evolution. Are you of a different opinion. By all means, tell us. No need to cite.

I think Ginny and I should put this to a test. What freaken test? Carol, yes, I remember the post from poor Phil. There has to be something about Obj. that screws men up in this area. Could that with all the importance Rand put on sex, including that your choice of a partner reveals all of your dark secrets, be a bit much to handle? Some of this nonsense is still going on. There a guy on OO who has a blog called The Leading Man. It's an dating advice column for guys. Rand's superior man raises his ugly head again. This blog is full of stuff how only men make decisions, only men determine what happens in a relationship, and a woman who opens her mouth is emasculating men. Jeez, how much does it take to emasculate a superior man?.

I'm sure you could do a hell of a lot worse than John Galt no matter what your preferences are. c Nope, I don't think we could do much worse than a two-dimentional, cold, non-communicative guy. I mean, I have done worse, but am not about to repeat it. However, I wish you the best with Dominique.

Wow.