ginny

First French, then Deutch. German so resembles Yiddish that I get a kick out of your Yiddish postings. Tell myself that yeah, sure, I know Yiddish. Piece a cake.

Totally agree. English is my third language, but it wasn't difficult to learn. A year after we moved here, I spoke better than most of the blue collar crowd in Charlestown. It's not that rules of grammar aren't easy to come by. What has always puzzled me is that there are poorer communities where proper linguistis is derided. Poor grammar seems to be the seam that holds the gang together. On the other hand, there isn't a news broadcast where some twit anchor knows the different between subjet and object - who or whom. A couple of years ago I wrote a somewhat snippy email to Chicago Trib columnist Eric Zorn for messing up a paragraph - told him if he was a professional writer whom people paid money to read, he better up it a notch. Two days later, Zorn's column discusscced prissy people who had a bug up their butt regarding sticky rules of writing. This from a well-known columnist? Aren't there proficiency tests students need to pass?

If you say so.

Whynot, dear. I hate say this, but you may have a tendency to use words to confuse. Maybe you're real smart, I don't know. And that's the problem. You're not communicating your smartness. All I see is statements being put out there, and I'm not relating. Could be me. Brand's smarter than I am.

No one's talking about fragile people. We're talking war against a brutal dictarship. Christ, I'm from there and I'm grateful to the the allies. I'm earning Baal's pay here.

There must be something in the water.

Would the Nazis be any better if they'd ONLY killed a million or so Jews? (I'm not saying they did, because they didn't only kill that number)

Were the goodies used against the faterland? Did you hit a bunch of the bad guys? Wow. This'll kill Michael, but you're my kind of gent. Such a youth cannot be called misspent. Deutchland uber alles - until Baal.

Sorry about LL. Just a thought. And yeah, you can do better.

Barbara mentioned as much in her book. How everyone expected her to be the perfect ice princess.

Of course tossing a ball has value. I meant to the uptight Collective. From their books, I get the feeling both B's must have been going through hell at the time. While the orthos keeps blaming NB for 'lying,' all I can do is wonder how these two people, who'd worshipped Rand since their teens, felt as it all feel apart. Of course they were confused.

Lindsay Lohan. Two outta three ain't bad.

Adam, all of Atlas' physical fun HAD A PURPOSE. It had value. Tossing ball in a park has no purpose. Fun is not an objectivist value. It's just good for the soul. BTW, yeah on the puny runts of Obj. For someone who worshipped the human body, she sure surrounded herself with some strange ones in Peikoff and Greenspan. Maybe NB made up for all of rest.

Pigs in a blanket - with a busty blonde. I'm not referring to Adam.

WHAT!!

Carol, there apparently was only one softball game that's mentioned by both B's. They both describe it with such longing - a day of fun in Central Park!!!- that it's so clear there weren't many days like that. Fun in the park is one thing. Reason, morality, and a grim, sour, and appropriate demeanor are quite something else. I don't know why, but it's just so sad. One rolicking fun day out of 18 years?

Okay, thanks. Making sense. And please don't pick on Bob. He's a sweetie.

Michael, so if I do a good deed but for my own bad reasons, it's my intensions that are bad. So the good deed is more important than my rotten intensions? Not quite wrapping my head around this.

"just as good behavior is more important than good intentions." Moralist, you've peaked my interest, but could you elaborate a bit. I'm trying to figure out how they differ and how they can clash. Thanks.

I like that, Baal.

How about, they're both important.

He sounds just stupid enough to be interesting. And if he's high, how much harm can he do? But I have a strict moral code, so the second Mrs. has to go. Hey, send him south and keep number 2.

Oh, my. I am rendered speechless. It is rare to see anyone proudly flaunt such stupidity.

I don't recall any mention of du Maurier by Rand, but I think she does say something about Wuthering Heights. I'll look. I think of Rebecca as in the same league as Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre. To me, those three have always been lumped together,and I re-read them frequently. While Rebecca is a favorite, I try to figure out the Brontes. These little parish mice sure could depict some hot-blooded men, but neither of their books ends with love conquering all. Heathcliff never found love until he died, and Mr. R.had to go blind before he found true love. I think they had a bit of their father's attitude about lust not being quite acceptable. Like, you'll end up paying for the sin. Not that it kept them from lusting, bless their hearts. They'd be fascinating women today.

Ellen, I can't get your comment about Objs analyzing Rebecca out of my mind. It's been haunting me, and since justice is a value, you'll need to pay for that. I was dozing off yesterday, and I had a vision of Rand on the podium. "What can one say about a book so disgusting? The title character is beautiful and full of spirit. She bravely lives by her rules and no one else's. Yet she is portraid as evil for her virtues. The so-called heroine is a mousy non-entity who does'nt even have a name. The hero, of course, kills Rebecca, a woman so beautiful he must destroy her. Beauty and spirit scare him. The heroic in life is being depicted as vile. This is ultimate in an evil sense of life. This is the horror of today's literature." You know what's even scarier than the above? How easily words can be used to twist something around.