O'Reilly on OWS and anti-capitalism

[anthony]

Well...I am so glad to have been involved to get you two talking again.

(matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match...)

[sjw]

If you don't care enough about the history of the ideas that you claim to treasure, then, fine -- that is up to you. But at least be honest enough to admit, first, that you don't know anything about the views of your predecessors; and, second, that you have no idea how original your own arguments might be.

Actually I've read quite a lot. I just deny the principle you want to assert: that it is my duty to have read a lot. A human being has a right to think, he doesn't need permission from you.

This Columbus Complex, born of willful ignorance, is a defining characteristic of a Crank.

Ghs

This would be more accurately called a Leonardo da Vinci complex:

Because I can find no useful or pleasant subject to discourse on, since the men who came before me have taken all the useful and pleasant subjects and discoursed on them at length, I find I must behave like a pauper who comes to the fair last, and can provide for himself in no other way than to take those things of trivial value that have been rejected by other buyers. I, then, will fill my shopping bag with all these despised and rejected wares, trash passed over by previous buyers, and take them and distribute them, not in the great cities, but in the poorest villages, taking whatever money might be offered.

I realize many will call my little work useless; these people, as far as I'm concerned, are like those whom Demetrius was talking about when he said that he cared no more for the wind that issued from their mouths than the wind that issued from their lower extremities. These men desire only material wealth and are utterly lacking in wisdom, which is the only true food and wealth for the mind. The soul is so much greater than the body, its possessions so much nobler than those of the body. So, whenever a person of this sort picks up any of my works to read, I half expect him to put it to his nose the way a monkey does, or ask me if it's good to eat.

I also realize that I am not a literary man, and that certain people who know too much that is good for them will blame me, saying that I'm not a man of letters. Fools! Dolts! I may refute them the way Marius did to the Roman patricians when he said that some who adorn themselves with other people's labor won't allow me to do my own labor. These folks will say that since I have no skill at literature, I will not be able to decorously express what I'm talking about. What they don't know is that the subjects I am dealing with are to be dealt with by experience (1) rather than by words, and experience is the muse of all who write well. And so, as my muse, I will cite her in every case.

Although, unlike my critics, I am not able to facilely quote other writers, I will rely on an authority much greater and much more noble: on Experience, the Mistress of their Masters. These fellows waddle about puffed up and pretentious, all dressed up in the fruits, not of their own labors, but of other people's labors; these fellows will not allow me my own labors. They will scorn me as an inventor and a discoverer, but they should be blamed more, since they have invented and discovered nothing but rather go about holding forth and declaiming the ideas and works of others.

There are men who are discoverers and intermediaries and interpreters between Nature and Man, rather than boasters and declaimers of other people's work, and these must be admired and esteemed as the object in front of a mirror in comparison to the image seen in the mirror. The first is a real object in and of itself, the second is nothing. These people owe nothing to Nature; it is only good fortune that they wear a human form and, if it weren't for this good fortune, I'd classify them with the cattle and the animals.

There are many who would, with reason, blame me by pointing out that my proofs are contrary to established authority, which is, after all, held in great reverence by their inexperienced minds. They do not realize that my works arise from unadulterated and simple experience, which is the one true mistress, the one true muse. The rules of experience are all that is needed to discern the true from the false; experience is what helps all men to look temperately for the possible, rather than cloaking oneself in ignorance, which can result in no good thing, so that, in the end, one abandons oneself to despair and melancholy.

Shayne

[sjw]

Well...I am so glad to have been involved to get you two talking again.

(matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match...)

We aren't talking. In fact, that's a defining characteristic of both Brant and George -- they refuse to face an actual dialog in terms of substantive discussion. Brant is far more polite about it though, so I prefer him.

What's really going on here is that I'm rubbing George's nose in his hypocrisy while at the same time he persistently engages in it. I guess it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

If you don't care enough about the history of the ideas that you claim to treasure, then, fine -- that is up to you. But at least be honest enough to admit, first, that you don't know anything about the views of your predecessors; and, second, that you have no idea how original your own arguments might be.

Actually I've read quite a lot. I just deny the principle you want to assert: that it is my duty to have read a lot. A human being has a right to think, he doesn't need permission from you.

This Columbus Complex, born of willful ignorance, is a defining characteristic of a Crank. Ghs

This would be more accurately called a Leonardo da Vinci complex:

Because I can find no useful or pleasant subject to discourse on, since the men who came before me have taken all the useful and pleasant subjects and discoursed on them at length, I find I must behave like a pauper who comes to the fair last, and can provide for himself in no other way than to take those things of trivial value that have been rejected by other buyers. I, then, will fill my shopping bag with all these despised and rejected wares, trash passed over by previous buyers, and take them and distribute them, not in the great cities, but in the poorest villages, taking whatever money might be offered. I realize many will call my little work useless; these people, as far as I'm concerned, are like those whom Demetrius was talking about when he said that he cared no more for the wind that issued from their mouths than the wind that issued from their lower extremities. These men desire only material wealth and are utterly lacking in wisdom, which is the only true food and wealth for the mind. The soul is so much greater than the body, its possessions so much nobler than those of the body. So, whenever a person of this sort picks up any of my works to read, I half expect him to put it to his nose the way a monkey does, or ask me if it's good to eat. I also realize that I am not a literary man, and that certain people who know too much that is good for them will blame me, saying that I'm not a man of letters. Fools! Dolts! I may refute them the way Marius did to the Roman patricians when he said that some who adorn themselves with other people's labor won't allow me to do my own labor. These folks will say that since I have no skill at literature, I will not be able to decorously express what I'm talking about. What they don't know is that the subjects I am dealing with are to be dealt with by experience (1) rather than by words, and experience is the muse of all who write well. And so, as my muse, I will cite her in every case. Although, unlike my critics, I am not able to facilely quote other writers, I will rely on an authority much greater and much more noble: on Experience, the Mistress of their Masters. These fellows waddle about puffed up and pretentious, all dressed up in the fruits, not of their own labors, but of other people's labors; these fellows will not allow me my own labors. They will scorn me as an inventor and a discoverer, but they should be blamed more, since they have invented and discovered nothing but rather go about holding forth and declaiming the ideas and works of others. There are men who are discoverers and intermediaries and interpreters between Nature and Man, rather than boasters and declaimers of other people's work, and these must be admired and esteemed as the object in front of a mirror in comparison to the image seen in the mirror. The first is a real object in and of itself, the second is nothing. These people owe nothing to Nature; it is only good fortune that they wear a human form and, if it weren't for this good fortune, I'd classify them with the cattle and the animals. There are many who would, with reason, blame me by pointing out that my proofs are contrary to established authority, which is, after all, held in great reverence by their inexperienced minds. They do not realize that my works arise from unadulterated and simple experience, which is the one true mistress, the one true muse. The rules of experience are all that is needed to discern the true from the false; experience is what helps all men to look temperately for the possible, rather than cloaking oneself in ignorance, which can result in no good thing, so that, in the end, one abandons oneself to despair and melancholy.

Shayne

I did not know Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo da Vinci was not a friend of mine. But you, sir, are no Leonardo da Vinci.

Another chacacteristic of a Crank is to liken oneself to geniuses who defied authority and blazed new trails.

Ghs

[sjw]

"But you, sir, are no Leonardo da Vinci."

A very predictable response by George. I almost added this prediction. Note how he ignores the principle I underscore in order to pursue his ad hominem. He's an alpha male in attack mode, and really nothing more.

George is like the Pythagoreans: they love geometry, so they come to believe that everything must be reducible to it. George has spent his whole life studying the works of others. Therefore he measures virtue in accord to how many dead people you have read the works of.

As it happens, I've read a considerable number of works by dead authors. I've read a good deal of Aristotle, all of Rand (and all of the works done by those associated with her), enough Murray Rothbard, Locke, a lot of contemporary libertarian literature, Hume, Nock, Paine, the list goes on. I have gotten considerable value from most of these authors (I'm not fond of Rothbard). As it happens, I've also read quite a bit of George H. Smith. I find him to be rather boring. I can imagine why that might be.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Well...I am so glad to have been involved to get you two talking again.

(matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match...)

We aren't talking. In fact, that's a defining characteristic of both Brant and George -- they refuse to face an actual dialog in terms of substantive discussion. Brant is far more polite about it though, so I prefer him.

What's really going on here is that I'm rubbing George's nose in his hypocrisy while at the same time he persistently engages in it. I guess it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Shayne

I have debated much better Cranks than you -- most notably, the late Jason Alexander, who got paid a lot of money as the resident intellectual of Cypress Semiconductors.

On a Crank-O-Meter scale of 1 to 10, Jason was a 10, and you are a 6, at best. You have no new tricks to teach this old dog.

Ghs

[sjw]

I have debated ...

Where? The only trick you know is ad hominem. And you spend a great deal of energy on it too. If I was really the man you claim I am, you'd ignore me. Evidently I'm so important that you must spend considerable time and energy trying to make it appear that I don't know what I'm talking about. Given that at the same time, you absolutely refuse to engage about what I'm talking about, that should tell any intelligent reader everything they need to know about your motives, though one can only speculate on the specifics here.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Well...I am so glad to have been involved to get you two talking again.

(matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match...)

We aren't talking. In fact, that's a defining characteristic of both Brant and George -- they refuse to face an actual dialog in terms of substantive discussion. Brant is far more polite about it though, so I prefer him.

What's really going on here is that I'm rubbing George's nose in his hypocrisy while at the same time he persistently engages in it. I guess it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Shayne

I have debated much better Cranks than you -- most notably, the late Jason Alexander, who got paid a lot of money as the resident intellectual of Cypress Semiconductors.

On a Crank-O-Meter scale of 1 to 10, Jason was a 10, and you are a 6, at best. You have no new tricks to teach this old dog.

Ghs

As I remember Jason he was some fun the way the late Ellen Moore was. If they had engaged in true ratiocination they'd have run aground on their unthinking ignorance. I don't miss either of them, though.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I have debated ...

Where? The only trick you know is ad hominem. And you spend a great deal of energy on it too. If I was really the man you claim I am, you'd ignore me. Evidently I'm so important that you must spend considerable time and energy trying to make it appear that I don't know what I'm talking about. Given that at the same time, you absolutely refuse to engage about what I'm talking about, that should tell any intelligent reader everything they need to know about your motives, though one can only speculate on the specifics here. Shayne

You are right, for once. I should ignore you. I should also have ignored Jason, but I admit to a weakness when it comes to Cranks. For one thing, they tend to be so prickly that they are fun to poke and ridicule.

On the other hand, I have ignored you, so far as any substantial ideas are concerned. I learned the hard way in previous exchanges that any attempt to engage you in a serious dialogue is pointless and counterproductive. So I will continue to take pot shots and then watch you squeal like a stuck pig. This is a crude form of entertainment, I admit, but it can be amusing at times.

Maybe you should ignore me....

Ghs

[sjw]

If they had engaged in true ratiocination they'd have run aground on their unthinking ignorance.

Ironic.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I have debated ...

Where? The only trick you know is ad hominem. And you spend a great deal of energy on it too. If I was really the man you claim I am, you'd ignore me. Evidently I'm so important that you must spend considerable time and energy trying to make it appear that I don't know what I'm talking about. Given that at the same time, you absolutely refuse to engage about what I'm talking about, that should tell any intelligent reader everything they need to know about your motives, though one can only speculate on the specifics here.

Shayne

What's nice about Internet forums is a multitude of alpha males can occupy the same space and metaphorically tear each other to pieces while maintaining their own inviolable contexts.

--Brant

where are the broads?

[sjw]

On the other hand, I have ignored you, so far as any substantial ideas are concerned. I learned the hard way in previous exchanges that any attempt to engage you in a serious dialogue is pointless and counterproductive. So I will continue to take pot shots and then watch you squeal like a stuck pig. This is a crude form of entertainment, I admit, but it can be amusing at times.

Interesting value hierarchy. But not exactly true. You learned that you could not face me in debate, that much is true. The ugly motive you reveal here though is cover for far uglier motives.

I think it is good that Michael lets a somewhat freewheeling debate go on here at OL, but this is where I would draw the line. It is blatantly against any reasonable forum etiquette to engage in the kind of bad faith behavior that George admits to here.

And Brant plays the good cop to George's bad cop routine. I used to think of Brant as a good guy, but he's always very supportive of George, even after George admits to things like this.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Well...I am so glad to have been involved to get you two talking again.

(matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match...)

We aren't talking. In fact, that's a defining characteristic of both Brant and George -- they refuse to face an actual dialog in terms of substantive discussion. Brant is far more polite about it though, so I prefer him.

What's really going on here is that I'm rubbing George's nose in his hypocrisy while at the same time he persistently engages in it. I guess it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Shayne

I have debated much better Cranks than you -- most notably, the late Jason Alexander, who got paid a lot of money as the resident intellectual of Cypress Semiconductors.

On a Crank-O-Meter scale of 1 to 10, Jason was a 10, and you are a 6, at best. You have no new tricks to teach this old dog.

Ghs

As I remember Jason he was some fun the way the late Ellen Moore was. If they had engaged in true ratiocination they'd have run aground on their unthinking ignorance. I don't miss either of them, though.

--Brant

You are right about Jason, which is why I rated him 10 on my Crank-O-Meter scale. I mean, this was a guy who didn't like the "under" in "understand," so he coined the word "overstand" instead. And that was just a sample.

The fact that Jason was able to peddle his mumbo-jumbo to T.J. Rodgers, the founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corp, who paid Jason a truckload of money to teach company executives, made Jason a crank of almost legendary proportions.

Too bad Jason is no longer around and active on OL. He and Shayne could have competed for the title of Greatest Crank. Jason would have won easily, in my opinion, because he had a lot more self-confidence than Shayne does, he didn't whine, and he had worked out his cranky ideas in much greater detail than Shayne has, or probably ever will.

Ghs

Addendum: I should note that I used the word "Crank" with a fairly specific meaning. There have been some Great Cranks in history. In philosophy, Hegel was probably the greatest Crank of all time. This example alone illustrates my belief that Cranks are not necessarily stupid or ignorant people. Some are, and some are not.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Well...I am so glad to have been involved to get you two talking again.

(matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match...)

We aren't talking. In fact, that's a defining characteristic of both Brant and George -- they refuse to face an actual dialog in terms of substantive discussion. Brant is far more polite about it though, so I prefer him.

What's really going on here is that I'm rubbing George's nose in his hypocrisy while at the same time he persistently engages in it. I guess it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Shayne

I have debated much better Cranks than you -- most notably, the late Jason Alexander, who got paid a lot of money as the resident intellectual of Cypress Semiconductors.

On a Crank-O-Meter scale of 1 to 10, Jason was a 10, and you are a 6, at best. You have no new tricks to teach this old dog.

Ghs

As I remember Jason he was some fun the way the late Ellen Moore was. If they had engaged in true ratiocination they'd have run aground on their unthinking ignorance. I don't miss either of them, though.

--Brant

You are right about Jason, which is why I rated him 10 on my Crank-O-Meter scale. I mean, this was a guy who didn't like the "under" in "understand," so he coined the word "overstand" instead. And that was just a sample.

The fact that Jason was able to peddle his mumbo-jumbo to T.J. Rodgers, the founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corp, who paid Jason a truckload of money to teach company executives, made Jason a crank of almost legendary proportions.

Too bad Jason is no longer around and active on OL. He and Shayne could have competed for the title of Greatest Crank. Jason would have won easily, in my opinion, because he had a lot more self-confidence than Shayne does, he didn't whine, and he had worked out his cranky ideas in much greater detail than Shayne has, or probably ever will.

Ghs

Remember your contest on Atl II: "Why did the turkey attack Ellen Moore"? (She had declaimed to that.) The winner was, "She took exception to one of his Cypress lectures." I was a runner up with, "It was next in line." When Ross Barlow read that he told me he had tears streaming down his face.

--Brant

get your magazines?

[George H. Smith]

get your magazines?

Yes. I sent you an email nearly 3 hours ago. Did you get it?

Ghs

[sjw]

I have created a new thread to discuss George's bad faith behavior: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11345

Shayne

[Xray]

where are the broads?

I have always wanted know what exactly the term 'broad' refers to. Is it used because women have broader hips than men?

[George H. Smith]

Remember your contest on Atl II: "Why did the turkey attack Ellen Moore"? (She had declaimed to that.) The winner was, "She took exception to one of his Cypress lectures." I was a runner up with, "It was next in line." When Ross Barlow read that he told me he had tears streaming down his face.

If I was the judge of that contest, and i think I was (since I started it), I cannot understand why you did not get first place. Your entry is obviously better.

I hereby award you first prize in retrospect.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Remember your contest on Atl II: "Why did the turkey attack Ellen Moore"? (She had declaimed to that.) The winner was, "She took exception to one of his Cypress lectures." I was a runner up with, "It was next in line." When Ross Barlow read that he told me he had tears streaming down his face.

If I was the judge of that contest, and i think I was (since I started it), I cannot understand why you did not get first place. Your entry is obviously better.

I hereby award you first prize in retrospect.

Ghs

Uh, wait a second. I just noticed the turkey=Jason aspect of the winning entry. That is funny as well. Okay, let's call it a tie.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Remember your contest on Atl II: "Why did the turkey attack Ellen Moore"? (She had declaimed to that.) The winner was, "She took exception to one of his Cypress lectures." I was a runner up with, "It was next in line." When Ross Barlow read that he told me he had tears streaming down his face.

If I was the judge of that contest, and i think I was (since I started it), I cannot understand why you did not get first place. Your entry is obviously better.

I hereby award you first prize in retrospect.

Ghs

Uh, wait a second. I just noticed the turkey=Jason aspect of the winning entry. That is funny as well. Okay, let's call it a tie.

Ghs

What a fucking ripoff! It was my entry that won.

You can forget about it if you think I'm going to share my prize (which I think was 10 points) with Brant! You'll have to pry those points from my cold, dead hands.

J

[George H. Smith]

Remember your contest on Atl II: "Why did the turkey attack Ellen Moore"? (She had declaimed to that.) The winner was, "She took exception to one of his Cypress lectures." I was a runner up with, "It was next in line." When Ross Barlow read that he told me he had tears streaming down his face.

If I was the judge of that contest, and i think I was (since I started it), I cannot understand why you did not get first place. Your entry is obviously better. I hereby award you first prize in retrospect. Ghs

Uh, wait a second. I just noticed the turkey=Jason aspect of the winning entry. That is funny as well. Okay, let's call it a tie. Ghs

What a fucking ripoff! It was my entry that won. You can forget about it if you think I'm going to share my prize (which I think was 10 points) with Brant! You'll have to pry those points from my cold, dead hands. J

You can keep your 10 points. I will manufacture 10 new points for Brant.

Just call me The Fed.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

get your magazines?

Yes. I sent you an email nearly 3 hours ago. Did you get it?

Ghs

Got it.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

where are the broads?

I have always wanted know what exactly the term 'broad' refers to. Is it used because women have broader hips than men?

I can't help you on this one.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Remember your contest on Atl II: "Why did the turkey attack Ellen Moore"? (She had declaimed to that.) The winner was, "She took exception to one of his Cypress lectures." I was a runner up with, "It was next in line." When Ross Barlow read that he told me he had tears streaming down his face.

If I was the judge of that contest, and i think I was (since I started it), I cannot understand why you did not get first place. Your entry is obviously better.

I hereby award you first prize in retrospect.

Ghs

Uh, wait a second. I just noticed the turkey=Jason aspect of the winning entry. That is funny as well. Okay, let's call it a tie.

Ghs

What a fucking ripoff! It was my entry that won.

You can forget about it if you think I'm going to share my prize (which I think was 10 points) with Brant! You'll have to pry those points from my cold, dead hands.

J

Name and address, please.

--Brant

pale rider

[Brant Gaede]

Yours was better because it was two-ways funny--it tagged both Jason and Ellen. In fact, it was brilliant.

--Brant

but I made Ross laugh!