Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Ellen Stuttle]

Still waiting [...].

See post #348 if you missed it, Phil.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

> I would direct you to my notion of liturgy. I think it might be somewhere in the thread.

Williiam, I'm not sure what you're talking about or what your point was.

I'm astonished. Here I thought that for once someone would have succeeded at getting through to Phil that his out-of-context snippet quoting and lack of engagement with the substance of what respondents have said just won't do if he genuinely wants a discussion. Can Phil really be that wrapped in an impervious cocoon of obliviousness, or is he putting it on?

Ellen

It's an issue of science. People have used industrial diamonds to try to get through, not realizing that Phil's skull is a harder substance. Our only chance might be to exhume a skull that is just a hard -- say, Ellen Moore's or Jason Alexander's -- and use it to bore through Phil's in the same way that diamonds are used to cut diamonds.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's my first real contribution to this thread.

Good marketing starts with the ability to look through the eyes of the typical person being marketed to--to literally see the world as the typical person does. Hope. Pain. Love. Hate. People. Things. Interests.

That perspective has to inform his message just as much as the actual content.

If a marketer can't do that, everything else is beside the point and results in a high risk of poor acceptance.

Hell, even a master social manipulator like Bernays worked on that skill.

So did Jesus.

I have not seen this skill valued very often in the Objectivist-libertarian world. It's actually looked down on at times. And that results in the poor performance we see when Objectivist ideas are promoted. Rand's fiction has done a far better job than anything else so far. I predict this will continue to be the case until this problem is fixed.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

> I would direct you to my notion of liturgy. I think it might be somewhere in the thread.

Williiam, I'm not sure what you're talking about or what your point was.

I'm astonished. Here I thought that for once someone would have succeeded at getting through to Phil that his out-of-context snippet quoting and lack of engagement with the substance of what respondents have said just won't do if he genuinely wants a discussion. Can Phil really be that wrapped in an impervious cocoon of obliviousness, or is he putting it on?

Ellen

It's an issue of science. People have used industrial diamonds to try to get through, not realizing that Phil's skull is a harder substance. Our only chance might be to exhume a skull that is just a hard -- say, Ellen Moore's or Jason Alexander's -- and use it to bore through Phil's in the same way that diamonds are used to cut diamonds.

J

You're making all kinds of implicit presumptions about what you'll find inside and what you'll be able to do once there.

Phil asking for a post number is the queerest, funniest thing he's ever come up with. His purblindedness continues to expand and will soon envelope the entire universe.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Our only chance might be to exhume a skull that is just a hard -- say, Ellen Moore's or Jason Alexander's -- and use it to bore through Phil's in the same way that diamonds are used to cut diamonds.

Remember when Ellen Moore was amazed when Jimbo reprimanded *her* in connection with his civility policy? And Jason's ceasing posting when one of his posts was moderated?

They'd both applauded the policy, thinking it applied to everyone else.

Well, enough from me. Phil is hopeless.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

1. > I won't respond substantively to your posts

First, you could respond to other posts by other people. There have been lots of them on this thread. Second, your excuse for not responding is itself petty and silly: If you only wanted to "perfect posters", there is almost no one you could engage with. A wise person is able to see if someone raises thought-provoking or interesting ideas. She doesn't quibble so much with the form.

Thirdly, you could respond to William, couldn't you? You seem to think his point has not been dealt with, right?

2. > "personal attack"...No one engages in that more than you do

That is outright bullshit, if you've been reading this forum regularly. What I do is -respond heatedly- to personal attacks -in kind-. If someone calls me a hypocrite, I will call them a lowlife or scum or a liar. You do understand the difference between the appropriate of initiating and responding, don't you?

Finally, you are a hypocrite for criticizing me, but not criticizing all of the dozens or hundreds of posts personally attacking me. Not George, not ND, not Jonathan...just to name three most obvious sources. Cite for me the post where you say to at least one of them that they shouldn't be calling me names.

If I call you a hypocrite, which I have and you are, that doesn't make me a "lowlife scum or a liar."

--Brant

[Selene]

Here's my first real contribution to this thread.

Good marketing starts with the ability to look through the eyes of the typical person being marketed to--to literally see the world as the typical person does. Hope. Pain. Love. Hate. People. Things. Interests.

That perspective has to inform his message just as much as the actual content.

If a marketer can't do that, everything else is beside the point and results in a high risk of poor acceptance.

Hell, even a master social manipulator like Bernays worked on that skill.

So did Jesus.

I have not seen this skill valued very often in the Objectivist-libertarian world. It's actually looked down on at times. And that results in the poor performance we see when Objectivist ideas are promoted. Rand's fiction has done a far better job than anything else so far. I predict this will continue to be the case until this problem is fixed.

Michael

Michael:

Precisely! Here is one example of one "selling/marketing" system that concentrates on "finding the pain" in the person being marketed too. Once you know the buyer's zone of pain, so to speak, you can then alleviate it, solve it, or provide the satisfaction of the relief from it.

Sandler Pain Funnel Poster

So why does your client want to buy?

The Sandler Pain Funnel reveals the Sandler Selling System for uncovering the prospect's reasons to buy. Ask the right questions so you can zero on what your client really wants, and why!

[william.scherk]

> I would direct you to my notion of liturgy. I think it might be somewhere in the thread.

Williiam, I'm not sure what you're talking about or what your point was.

Oh, right. Here is a link: Liturgy? Objectivity? Marketing?

Do you not know what an ellipsis is and why it's better than quoting everything said from some of these rambling posters, rather than the specific points you consider relevant or want to respond to?

The options aren't limited to quoting *everything* from a post and quoting a sufficient portion fairly to present the context of the original remarks. William illustrated this well by *showing* how much of the context relevant to *his point* you had left out with your haphazard elliding. You don't engage with your respondent when you do that, Phil.

Oh, well. I guess I must follow MSK's suggestion and deal with the persuadee from his point of view ...

Summaries, numbers, questions, LISTS!

1. Respond to Phil's points thoughtfully
   
2. Acknowledge his point of view
   
3. Acknowledge that you too see what he sees
   
4. Praise Phil
   
5. Direct his attention to the response
   
6. Give Phil a link, post number or other device that can help him see your points
   
7. If in doubt, number your points
   
8. Smile and be encouraging
   

OK. Here goes. Now, the latest suite of questions from Phil concern the marketing of O to the niches, using what I might consider scientific advertising (this is also an area of MSK's expertise, so I hope:

1. Phil asks MSK a direct question that can knit together some preliminary observations)
   

Anyhow, can we rank the niches, or analyze the niches, to take us to the "Next Level"? Have we missed anything in this long sprawl of discussion?

• the young and students
  
• those who are victims of the current system
  
• those trained in subjects which develop logic and evidence-based thinking
  
• those whose life or professional discipline requires focused effort and strength of character to be successful.
  
• women, especially in places where they are particularly oppressed
  
• Those niches are very broad
  
• there is not enough money or persuasive intellectuals to fully "hit" even those target audiences
  
• Can we narrow it further to find an even greater concentration of "high value targets"?
  

I see a pattern, and here I am going to seek MSK's help again.

My first and second question:

1. Is there a genera here?
   
2. Can we rank from a Venn intersection to capture the genera of the niches?
   
3. 
   
4. 
   

I see a general grouping that might be sloppily labeled as 'rational' ... or 'rationalists' ... I am looking for the category of folks that are already soft, already committed to Reason and its tools.

Kind of like the recently conquered and newly Judaized Galileans, for-example, who kind of were more than ready for a Monotheistic gawd practice that did not have all the old Jewish bullshit. I mean the Christ business was an easy sell to those in the greater area who were already but half-hearted Jews, familiar with the clean lines of synthetic critical thinking and sick of the Jewish dicta and hierarchy as well as all the crusted religious bullshit built up during domination by Roman, Greek, Assyrian, Egyptian, Phoenician and etc lords and warriors -- multiple pointless and/or onerous and insane gods and practices and temples and rules and oracles and fire rituals and sun incantation and crap.

Phil, the point behind all these remarks is I think those who already wield reason are the larger 'soft target' category today (in the same sense that so many Middle East Christians of the first century were free-thinkers in a time of intense ferment, almost Christians in waiting, pre-boarded for a flight to a simpler, sunnier religious landscape). Right now, in North and South America and worldwide is a category of people akin to your pre-Christian Jews and subjects of varied slave states. Pre-liberated in a few important intellectual/philosophical issues, cosmopolitan, literated, engaged in communication and information-germination already ...

The larger category I see can thus help select subsets within the niches identified, contribute to comparative analysis with the niches already served by TAS, ARI programmes, etc.

So, you are doing good work to identify niche marketing questions. Brilliant, even cunningly inventive work.

I will take a moment here to note one other thing that may help you see my earlier underlying core point. That point also was clad in praise for valiant yeomen like you hard from the quarry of research.

If you want to take advantage of the marketing done with Jesus Christ and his gospels and apply those that have power to the marketing of an objective philosophy, you either have to carefully disengage from trade and marketing of spiritual goods or carefully engage, choose some point of engagement along that decision line.

You can thus take advantage of the communitarian edge Christianity had by embracing just the right amount of churchiness and cultitude and social services. You can do many other things or no things along that continua of engagement/disengagement. I like to use this analytical lens looking at Objectivish things that have blown apart -- to sketch out scenarios for a united movement, a redrawing of the battle plans, a building of The Fortress and so on.

All in all, it seems to me the prime target for cultivating are these ....

Atheists, scientists, free thought communities, rational historians, rational journalists and chroniclers, rational sociologists, evidence-based psychologists and medical researchers, rational inquirers on the ramparts of all inquisitive disciplines that already evince stricter or looser alliances with Reason.

I would campaign for this sector of humanity as the natural proto-ally of objective philosophies. Those who have already viewed or sampled the smorgasbord of spirituality on offer and who have essentialy gone god-vegan are also the natural allies in reason. They certainly gather with other ungodly folk to engage. I think the O factor is a natural in these environs ...

And there you have the so-called Skeptic community world-wide, the Randi-enthusiasts and the science-bloggers. Non-god, hot for science, always engaged with the real world.

So, there before you and before other lesser present-day visionaries like you, Phil, the Target. A rich environment, already half-way there, rejecting autocracy, warming to libertarians (like Michael Schermer). There is already the semi-vanguard cultural affinities exploited by the Harrises and Dawkinses and Schermers, and many other New Rationalists. They offer in their large international convocations a certain stage and presence in the hearts of many international cities, from Sydney to Las Vegas to Delhi (Indian Skeptics are particularly hearty right now).

There is already common causes, I would argue, despite a veneer of faux-leftism, those who argue for science against mysticism are friends if not already fellow-travelers to the most hardened Objectivist, despite Peikoff and Harriman or the other monks and abbots of less renown.

Can one objective thinker infiltrate ... ? Can a body of objective thinkers offer a mainstream reason-based case for, say, being vigilant against over-reach by government, rationally defending Liberty from intrusion and control in reference to salient arenas today, as George and Phil discussed in re Drugs and Sex and Bodies?

Surely an O or two in committee can do something at the next Skepticon, offering a witty modern skeptical take on Rand herself, pretending to only pick out her "good points" by testing a la Mythbusters while test-marketing the entire set, taking up the moral high road of radical liberty and free inquiry: Free pot, free love, free bodies. No to the Drug War, No to the Surveillance Society, the Homeland State, No to Fingers In Your Crotch, No to Special criminal laws for Homosexual sex, No to Initiation of Force, No to Militarized Police in USA, Yes to Discussion of bullshit in the feminist canon, in Bullshit Science Studies, Yes to militant premise-checking. Yes to revisions, the growth of knowledge, human competence.

I could even see some O or Rand-inspired person to take on a harsh, compelling subject, to deliver a scorching speech with visuals on torture, repression, irrational justice, corruption, taking a strong political stand that so engages the gonads of 'activist' niche-dwellers ... Randian-inflected attention to slave states and the worst excesses of Government?

Are you still with me, Phil -- are you reading or are you red-lining?

I can see an O person taking the stage with confidence, attracting an audience and holding it, developing it a the next colloquium

Can one, shall one add to that by also offering the communal benefits of Big Box Christianity today ... have your no-god weddings and your CFI conference and your Atheist Fraternities have their ceremonies in your Assembly?

Yeah, Phil? Do you say yeah to any of this? You want me to go back and summarize and re-number some more?

I will leave you on that playful note, along with a picture.

Please don't think of me as an utter prick. Once again I say to you that it is important to show more good faith here, Phil, since so many criticize you on the same technical issues. You owe something back for the engagement you have got. Reward us donkeys by using the reply button more often, where appropriate. It is easier than your apparent present routine of select, copy, scroll, click, paste, select, cut, select, cut, select, cut, prepend right bracket, press return. It really is.

If this is a minor border dispute between you and the overwhelming majority of posters here then you will lose nothing by giving way on this millimeter of frontier, since you benefit immediately by disposing of an entire class of sniping posts like this one, you fucking idiot.

Edited December 8, 2011 by william.scherk

[Philip Coates]

Many good points, William. (Hope you don't mind, but I find it difficult to respond to an entire long post, so I prefer to snip/condense the parts I want to comment on rather than use the quote or reply function):

> I see a general grouping that might be sloppily labeled as 'rational' ... or 'rationalists' ... I am looking for the category of folks that are already soft, already committed to Reason and its tools...those who already wield reason are the larger 'soft target' category today...Pre-liberated in a few important intellectual/philosophical issues, cosmopolitan, literated, engaged in communication and information-germination already ...Atheists, scientists, free thought communities, rational historians, rational journalists and chroniclers, rational sociologists, evidence-based psychologists and medical researchers, rational inquirers on the ramparts of all inquisitive disciplines that already evince stricter or looser alliances with Reason. I would campaign for this sector of humanity as the natural proto-ally of objective philosophies.

...A rich environment, already half-way there, rejecting autocracy, warming to libertarians (like Michael Schermer). There is already the semi-vanguard cultural affinities exploited by the Harrises and Dawkinses and Schermers, and many other New Rationalists. They offer in their large international convocations a certain stage and presence in the hearts of many international cities, from Sydney to Las Vegas to Delhi (Indian Skeptics are particularly hearty right now). There is already common causes, I would argue, despite a veneer of faux-leftism, those who argue for science against mysticism are friends if not already fellow-travelers to the most hardened Objectivist

> i) Underlining added: I like your point on the veneer. I actually think we are overlooking targeting thoughtful liberals of the kind you describe with the current emphasis on conservatives and business types of both ARI - chasing the Tea Parties and TAS - the "Business Rights Center". And often the leftism is a 'veneer'. If they have a basic commitment to facts and evidence, you can convert liberals to Oism and libertarians. Been there. Seen that.

ii) You are supporting my very abstract point about approaching those halfway there, but your post fleshes it out or concretizes it eloquently with lots of colorful and specific examples.

iii) I think this is only one target, but definitely a promising one. The number of engineers and computer guys who are into Objectivism is perhaps bigger than just about any other group. They are both scientific types and practical types.

> I could even see some O or Rand-inspired person to take on a harsh, compelling subject, to deliver a scorching speech with visuals on torture, repression, irrational justice, corruption, taking a strong political stand that so engages the gonads of 'activist' niche-dwellers ... Randian-inflected attention to slave states and the worst excesses of Government?...No to the Drug War, No to the Surveillance Society...

The advantage of your examples here [many, not all] is they are designed not to appear exclusively right wing or right wing at all and thus turn off the vast majority of intellectuals - who happen to be liberal.

> take advantage of the communitarian edge Christianity had by embracing just the right amount of churchiness and cultitude and social services...communal benefits

A major shortcoming of Oists is they too often tend to be cerebral and often grim or stand-offish "loners". You walk into a campus or community club and you can feel very alone. Christians get the idea of saying "welcome, friend, we're happy to have you come and join us." The idea of Oists providing a trade by offering assistance and advice to each other is a good one. The idea that doing this at all is 'altrustic' is a mistake of (very short-term) self-interest.

You don't build healthy communities, you don't spread a system like this. Plus you don't have much fun.

[Philip Coates]

> "Good marketing starts with the ability to look through the eyes of the typical person being marketed to--to literally see the world as the typical person does. Hope. Pain. Love. Hate. People. Things. Interests.

"That perspective has to inform his message just as much as the actual content.

"I have not seen this skill valued very often in the Objectivist-libertarian world. It's actually looked down on at times. And that results in the poor performance we see when Objectivist ideas are promoted. Rand's fiction has done a far better job than anything else so far. I predict this will continue to be the case until this problem is fixed. " [MSK, Post 353]

I completely agree with each of those three points:

1) If you can't see the other person's perspective, where he is coming from, how do you know what will be important or resonate or what his objections might be . . . and how to address them?

2) Yes, the above -does- need to be as important as just conveying content. Sometimes it is the most important thing before you can go any further:

If the persuadee thinks that you are interested in his context, his feelings he is very likely to put up even with certain mistakes or lack of eloquence in the content - and may very well come back another time for more. If he doesn't, he may tune you out immediately.

3) The reasons Oists often look down on this include a view of pleasing people as 'Peter Keating' or social metaphysics, a mistaken take it or leave it attitude, a conviction that these things are self-explanatory or should sell themselves. All of these are mistakes.

They mistake a rationalistic, moralizing diatribe for patient explanation. Or asking questions and having an -interactive- conversation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh, well. I guess I must follow MSK's suggestion and deal with the persuadee from his point of view ...

William,

You have to go deeper than posting style for this to work well. See below...

Many good points, William. (Hope you don't mind, but I find it difficult to respond to an entire long post, so I prefer to snip/condense the parts I want to comment on rather than use the quote or reply function):

(Still to William) See? Total flop. Phil ain't using no quote function ever. He don't need no stinking quote function.

At least imitating his posting style creates great rapport.

But if you are going to imitate, may I suggest hypnosis? Imitation is called "pacing" in Eriksonian (or conversational) hypnosis and it is the start of trance induction.

You might have better luck with that approach than appealing to reason from the persuadee's eyes on an issue where he is dug in deep and has erected barriers.

It's ironic that Phil wishes to persuade and teach persuasion, but totally ignores the inconvenience of his posting style for others, even as they complain loudly and constantly about how difficult it is to check the posts he quotes, and as they further point to how everyone resolves this problem for themselves by a couple of mouse clicks and learning a couple of easy-schmeasy code rules when they wish to shorten--or slice and dice--the quote.

He refuses to look through their eyes when he tries to persuade, but damands that they look through his. I don't predict a good outcome for his persuasion efforts until he starts changing his perspective and using the knowledge he gleans from such observation.

The quote function exists for the reader's convenience, not the author's. In the marketplace of ideas, considering today's glut of reading material in our information overloaded world, when readers encounter poor publishing habits (including poor formatting), they tend to move on to other writing where their situation, qua readers, is considered, not ignored, by the author.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3) The reasons Oists often look down on this include a view of pleasing people as 'Peter Keating' or social metaphysics, a mistaken take it or leave it attitude, a conviction that these things are self-explanatory or should sell themselves. All of these are mistakes.

Phil,

I agree with this. I often read people in our sub-community who think too quickly about Peter Keating and sabotage their sales efforts. They totally forget about Heny Cameron's "astute business manager, a mild, self-effacing little man of iron" (quote from Rand).

Keating's mistake was that he tried to replace productive effort with covert marketing (and ass-kissing, but that's beyond the scope here). That doesn't mean that it's bad to use marketing--both open and covert--to promote productive effort. There's nothing wrong with being competent at both.

In fact, unless you have a few decades of your business life to throw away like Roark did, in our competitive business environment, that's the only way to fly.

I have seen people get this wrong a lot.

Michael

[Jonathan]

It's ironic that Phil wishes to persuade and teach persuasion, but totally ignores the inconvenience of his posting style for others, even as they complain loudly and constantly about how difficult it is to check the posts he quotes, and as they further point to how everyone resolves this problem for themselves by a couple of mouse clicks and learning a couple of easy-schmeasy code rules when they wish to shorten--or slice and dice--the quote.

He refuses to look through their eyes when he tries to persuade, but damands that they look through his. I don't predict a good outcome for his persuasion efforts until he starts changing his perspective and using the knowledge he gleans from such observation.

What's even more hilarious is that, no matter how many times he is told, the fucktard can't grasp the simple fact that one can snip and condense while using the quote function -- that snipping/condensing and using the quote function are not mutually exclusive -- and yet this clown wants to advise the world on the best ways of doing everything. It's like hearing an idiot say that he doesn't like buffets because he prefers to be able to choose from all of the dishes that a restaurant offers.

J

[9thdoctor]

Today is the feast day of St. Ambrose, an easy date to remember since it coincides with Pearl Harbor day, and is always the opening night at La Scala in Milan, of which he is the patron saint. He was a very significant figure, credited with converting St. Augustine and with advising, if not directing, the policies of the Emperor Theodosius relative to paganism. Early in the reign of Theodosius a Christian mob pillaged a pagan shrine, prompting Theodosius to order restitution be paid. Ambrose explained to him that this would be wrong. Within a few years Theodosius ordered the destruction of all remaining temples. Does this bear comparison to Peikoff’s call for any “Ground Zero Mosque” to be bombed, as a matter of “foreign policy”? Could the spread of the “new philosophy” of Objectivism end up looking like the 4^th century, rather than the 1st, parallels with which Phil doggedly pursues? On one point I feel very confident: the Christianity of the 4^th century was very different from the Christianity of the 1^st. And that's the Christianity that won.

Speaking of Phil and his Caveat Lector quoting methods, upthread I brought up the 4^th century and, merely as a detail, note that Gibbon cites a figure of 5% at the time of Constantine. Phil’s reply was to list names of other writers and give their estimates, 20% here, 50%(!!!!) there, fine, who cares? This utterly ignores the point I made. Here it is again: to get from 5% (or 20%) to 100%, force was needed. How can this ever reconcile with Objectivism?

"Let all temples in the countryside be demolished without disturbance or upheaval. With their overthrow and removal, all material basis for superstition will be destroyed." -- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.16

[Philip Coates]

Subject: three ways of answering the same point about Objectivism and the initiation of force

> Here it is again: to get from 5% (or 20%) to 100%, force was needed. How can this ever reconcile with Objectivism?

And here's my answer again: It can't. And Objectivism's goal should not be to convert - or require lip service from -100%.

> Does this bear comparison to Peikoff’s call for any “Ground Zero Mosque” to be bombed, as a matter of “foreign policy”?

No, because what Peikoff was advocating was not Objectivism but it's violation.

> Could the spread of the “new philosophy” of Objectivism end up looking like the 4^th century.

No, because that would not be Objectivism since it involves the initiation of force.

[9thdoctor]

Objectivism's goal should not be to convert - or require lip service from -100%.

Ok, now, will you acknowledge that in discussing the “founding of Christianity”, you’re talking about one of many, many cults? And that it is a cult which does not have a reliable historical record, particularly of its first 3 centuries? If so, I ask again, why talk about Christianity, as opposed to Scientology or Mormonism? If you’re looking to learn lessons on how to build a cult, shouldn’t you look at cults with objective, independent, contemporarily reported histories? Or do you think there are lessons to be learned from what Christian apologists portray their history to have been? Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, for example?

"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius I.

Source: Lardner, Works, vol. vii., pp. 206, 396

[Roger Bissell]

Here's my first real contribution to this thread.

Good marketing starts with the ability to look through the eyes of the typical person being marketed to--to literally see the world as the typical person does. Hope. Pain. Love. Hate. People. Things. Interests.

That perspective has to inform his message just as much as the actual content.

If a marketer can't do that, everything else is beside the point and results in a high risk of poor acceptance.

Hell, even a master social manipulator like Bernays worked on that skill.

So did Jesus.

I have not seen this skill valued very often in the Objectivist-libertarian world. It's actually looked down on at times. And that results in the poor performance we see when Objectivist ideas are promoted. Rand's fiction has done a far better job than anything else so far. I predict this will continue to be the case until this problem is fixed.

Michael

Marketing is like communicating. You have to know your market/audience. I think Objectivists, by and large, are ~still~ grappling with this concept and scratching their heads, wondering how to break out of their "small pond" and have an impact in the "big ocean." It's good to see people like Yaron Brook and Ed Hudgins making the attempt. But the political tail still seems to wag the philosophical dog far too much. And perhaps that's to be expected, since people's lives and self-interests are largely focused on their financial well-being, which is about as precarious these days as it's ever been, thanks to eight years of W and nearly three years of O.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

It's ironic that Phil wishes to persuade and teach persuasion, but totally ignores the inconvenience of his posting style for others, even as they complain loudly and constantly about how difficult it is to check the posts he quotes, and as they further point to how everyone resolves this problem for themselves by a couple of mouse clicks and learning a couple of easy-schmeasy code rules when they wish to shorten--or slice and dice--the quote.

He refuses to look through their eyes when he tries to persuade, but damands that they look through his. I don't predict a good outcome for his persuasion efforts until he starts changing his perspective and using the knowledge he gleans from such observation.

What's even more hilarious is that, no matter how many times he is told, the fucktard can't grasp the simple fact that one can snip and condense while using the quote function -- that snipping/condensing and using the quote function are not mutually exclusive -- and yet this clown wants to advise the world on the best ways of doing everything. It's like hearing an idiot say that he doesn't like buffets because he prefers to be able to choose from all of the dishes that a restaurant offers.

J

Two questions:

1. Michael -- are "damands" condemnable requests? (or would that be: "damnands"?)

2. Jonathan -- is a "fucktard" a crotchless leotard?

Bonus question:

3. Ellen -- where were you all this time, and why did you choose just now to come back?

REB

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Our Most Valued Contributors . . .

> Jonathan -- is a "fucktard" a crotchless leotard?

Roger, We're all grateful to Jonathan, Brant, and Ellen in particular for their thoughtful and substantive contributions to this thread. These individuals clearly understand that the world depends on Objectivism to save it from sliding downhill, and they learned from St. Paul's nitpicky epistles to his flock in which he made the same point over and over about the glaring and unquestionable merits of the quote function vs. snipping and ellipsis as the key to success. This single topic is a major contribution here by J, B, E, as well as ND, and MSK. If readers lack a sleeping pill, the repetition in dozens of posts on multiple threads is thoughtful and it is what those of us who want Objectivism to succeed should be focusing on, and the kind of pedantry (hmm? should I call it schoolmarmish?) admiring outsiders want to see belabored when they visit Objectivist Living. They also love to see the same person pummeled over and over for non-essential reasons.

With his truly massive intellect, zeroing in unerringly on the key points of any thread, Jonathan is merely trying to impress us with the breadth of his stunning vocabulary by using the word "fucktard" as well as "shitstain". And, being the clever boy he is, he knows that he can't insult people using only four letters like "cunt" as that is so shocking it would violate the posting guidelines and bring a swift reprimand from Michael and Ellen Stuttle, our angelic guardians of civility. (Fortunately some of our more philosophically-minded recently created a helpful thread called "The Fucktard Table" focused on which forms of fifth grade gutter language are permissible here in personal insults, character assassination, and attempts to derail a serious, thoughtful discussion. Since my major character flaw and the source of my total inability to persuade is the failure to provide links, here it is --> ol/fucktard/table.html)

> Ellen -- where were you all this time, and why did you choose just now to come back?

The reason she is back is that a substantive issue has only now just arisen in the last six months: the chance to focus on me again. (That's the only thing that gets her juices flowing.) She is willing to admit that there have been other substantive opportunities along those lines but she has missed them as her retirement has kept her busy. So she has now doubled her posting rate from the last few months in just a few days by exclusively concentrating on criticizing one person. Rather than commenting on the thread topic or on ideas, as that would be less substantive.

(Bonus answer: If you put the crotchless leotard on backwards you won't have to watch out as much for a shit stain.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since my major character flaw and the source of my total inability to persuade is the failure to provide links, here it is --> ol/fucktard/table.html)

Phil,

Actually, the problem is not your lack of providing links.

The main gripe I see (and agree with) is your constant lecturing others to do stuff you refuse to do. Or lecturing others on stuff where you have little or no knowledge. Or just lecturing where no lecturing is called for. Lecture qua lecture.

(In the context of this post, I take lecture to mean something closer to preaching or haranguing or nagging than imparting knowledge in a formal manner.)

There's a difference between lecturing and discussing. I rarely see you discuss. You're always telling people what to do. The schoolmarm metaphor might be diluted through overuse, but it is accurate.

It gets comical when you say experts should do (or think) this or that as you make elementary mistakes. Then get stubborn and start defending your laziness on looking stuff up. I see that happen a lot.

If you want to talk persuasion, that cuts deeply into your credibility. And credibility is one of the pillars of persuasion.

Your clunky formatting and refusal to use the quote function (making it much harder to read and get context for your stuff) as you decree what people should or should not do are not fundamental. They merely add irritation gravy on the shoe-sole steak.

Once again, it would help your message greatly to look through the eyes of your intended persuadee instead of appealing to victimhood. You're a big boy. You can do it. Who knows? You might actually persuade someone of something after a while.

That's just a suggestion, though. You have your own rock bottom to hit. I hit mine some years ago with drugs and alcohol. I've already learned that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same error over and over and expect a different result.

For now, I suppose you'll keep blaming it all on the wolf-pack or whatever as you keep repeating the same errors and keep getting the same results. That's the way it works...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1. Michael -- are "damands" condemnable requests? (or would that be: "damnands"?)

Roger,

Dayaammand!... er...

Michael

[Jonathan]

2. Jonathan -- is a "fucktard" a crotchless leotard?

Well, let's see, that would make Phil a gelded, thin-skinned piece of hosiery? Yeah, I guess that works just fine.

J

[Jonathan]

With his truly massive intellect, zeroing in unerringly on the key points of any thread, Jonathan is merely trying to impress us with the breadth of his stunning vocabulary by using the word "fucktard" as well as "shitstain". And, being the clever boy he is, he knows that he can't insult people using only four letters like "cunt" as that is so shocking it would violate the posting guidelines and bring a swift reprimand from Michael and Ellen Stuttle, our angelic guardians of civility. (Fortunately some of our more philosophically-minded recently created a helpful thread called "The Fucktard Table" focused on which forms of fifth grade gutter language are permissible here in personal insults, character assassination, and attempts to derail a serious, thoughtful discussion. Since my major character flaw and the source of my total inability to persuade is the failure to provide links, here it is --> ol/fucktard/table.html)

If you've been reading this forum regularly, Phil, you'd know that I avoid making personal attacks, but that I don't shy away from being very direct in identifying who and what a person is. If someone is a fucktarded schoolmarm shitstain, I will identify him as a fucktarded schoolmarm shitstain. You do understand the difference between insulting and accurately identifying, don't you?

J

[caroljane]

Objectivism's goal should not be to convert - or require lip service from -100%.

Ok, now, will you acknowledge that in discussing the “founding of Christianity”, you’re talking about one of many, many cults? And that it is a cult which does not have a reliable historical record, particularly of its first 3 centuries? If so, I ask again, why talk about Christianity, as opposed to Scientology or Mormonism? If you’re looking to learn lessons on how to build a cult, shouldn’t you look at cults with objective, independent, contemporarily reported histories? Or do you think there are lessons to be learned from what Christian apologists portray their history to have been? Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, for example?

"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius I.

Source: Lardner, Works, vol. vii., pp. 206, 396

Objectivism's goal should not be to convert - or require lip service from -100%.

Ok, now, will you acknowledge that in discussing the “founding of Christianity”, you’re talking about one of many, many cults? And that it is a cult which does not have a reliable historical record, particularly of its first 3 centuries? If so, I ask again, why talk about Christianity, as opposed to Scientology or Mormonism? If you’re looking to learn lessons on how to build a cult, shouldn’t you look at cults with objective, independent, contemporarily reported histories? Or do you think there are lessons to be learned from what Christian apologists portray their history to have been? Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, for example?

"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius I.

Source: Lardner, Works, vol. vii., pp. 206, 396

This is an excellent point. The similarities beween Objectivism and Scientology have often been noted, and both movements seem to attract similar types - excellence-seekers bent on success and self-improvement. I wonder if there is any way of estimating the numbers of professed Objectivists and of Scientologists?

[Philip Coates]

1. > OK, now, will you acknowledge that in discussing the “founding of Christianity”, you’re talking about one of many, many cults?

--Already done so, if you've read my previous posts.

2. > why talk about Christianity, as opposed to Scientology or Mormonism?

--Already explained: 1/3 of the world's population are Christians.

3A. > If you’re looking to learn lessons on how to build a cult.

--I'm not.

3B. > lessons to be learned from what Christian apologists portray their history to have been?

--Already explained that I'm not suggesting we learn to lie or learn how to distort history.

ND, My writing is not all that unclear. If you read my posts carefully, you'd see I said all this - in fact on multiple posts.