Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[Ellen Stuttle]

Looks like seymourblogger is worried about memory loss, considering the way she keeps bringing it up.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Apparently she doesn't read very well.

I just looked and she's crowing (which is what crows do) about me deleting a post by Brant I didn't delete.

She truly doesn't understand how I work.

I would never delete a post by Brant. I respect him.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

And I would never delete a post by Michael.

--Brant

I, uh, I--respect him!

[Xray]

Nice pick up: In fact there is no truth. Nice paradoxical statement eh.

In short, you are attacking truth in the name of truth. Classic case of what is called 'stolen concept' in Objectivism.

The nature of stolen concepts is their 'stickiness': the attackers are unable to free their minds of the very concept they are attacking. It even sticks in their mind so much that they base their case on it, like in denying truth in the name of truth.

I do not accept your wiki definition of truth. And I do not want to get into an endless dialectical argument/discussion on a concept that has been done to death for centuries by philosophers. Like God. I am not mixing up truth and validity.

You are mixing up truth with mere belief/personal opinion/subjective value judgements. .

There is a site that delves into this and I wil have to search to link it for you. The Relative Absolute is another site with a wonderful name, and wonderful material.

TIA for providing the link.

We are mostly in simulated reality now. In SR there are no opposites. All you have are simulacra, copies o9f copies circulating. Look at the women: Fake boobs, lips, faces, liposuction all over their bodies, not to even get into artificial kidneys, hearts, hair, teeth, eyes, which is the beginning of cloning that we are very close to. It will be done because they can.

But of course there are opposites. For example, the 'reality' of surgically interfering with body fat is to oppose another reality that was there before: fat one wanted to have removed.

Therefore, on the factual level, there exists no such thing as 'simulated reality': there is only reality.

Another illustrative example is lying: the liar is trying to conceal a fact, a truth that he/she wants to keep hidden. But the act of lying itself belongs to reality.

[caroljane]

Nice pick up: In fact there is no truth. Nice paradoxical statement eh.

In short, you are attacking truth in the name of truth. Classic case of what is called 'stolen concept' in Objectivism.

The nature of stolen concepts is their 'stickiness': the attackers are unable to free their minds of the very concept they are attacking. It even sticks in their mind so much that they base their case on it, like in denying truth in the name of truth.

I do not accept your wiki definition of truth. And I do not want to get into an endless dialectical argument/discussion on a concept that has been done to death for centuries by philosophers. Like God. I am not mixing up truth and validity.

You are mixing up truth with mere belief/personal opinion/subjective value judgements. .

There is a site that delves into this and I wil have to search to link it for you. The Relative Absolute is another site with a wonderful name, and wonderful material.

TIA for providing the link.

We are mostly in simulated reality now. In SR there are no opposites. All you have are simulacra, copies o9f copies circulating. Look at the women: Fake boobs, lips, faces, liposuction all over their bodies, not to even get into artificial kidneys, hearts, hair, teeth, eyes, which is the beginning of cloning that we are very close to. It will be done because they can.

But of course there are opposites. For example, the 'reality' of surgically interfering with body fat is to oppose another reality that was there before: fat one wanted to have removed.

Therefore, on the factual level, there exists no such thing as 'simulated reality': there is only reality.

Another illustrative example is lying: the liar is trying to conceal a fact, a truth that he/she wants to keep hidden. But the act of lying itself belongs to reality.

Round 2!

Goodwill and intellectual acuity and subtlety:

Xray 1

Janet (she will fill in the score, and then forget what it was, and say that somebody else filled it in)

[Brant Gaede]

See it while it's still there:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8939

"Truth - False - Slander - Brant Gaede"

Heh.

To me, I was tickled to see the following words on SLOP:

And I am going to stop here with a statement of the utmost integrity by Michael Stuart Kelly.

There's some blathering after that, but this one--on SLOP--sounds kinda nice. My name is even spelled right this time.

I wonder what the savages think...

Michael

Perigo dumped the whole thread, apparently as soon as he saw it. One of my posts was something like, "Janet, I don't think Lindsay is going to appreciate you using SOLO as your default posting site and garbage dump." She then criticized my grammar, which had been deliberate by me. I started posting on what we can call the "Internet" almost 25 years ago and have been at it pretty much since. This is the first time anyone got really vicious with me.

--Brant

[caroljane]

See it while it's still there:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8939

"Truth - False - Slander - Brant Gaede"

Heh.

To me, I was tickled to see the following words on SLOP:

And I am going to stop here with a statement of the utmost integrity by Michael Stuart Kelly.

There's some blathering after that, but this one--on SLOP--sounds kinda nice. My name is even spelled right this time.

I wonder what the savages think...

Michael

Perigo dumped the whole thread, apparently as soon as he saw it. One of my posts was something like, "Janet, I don't think Lindsay is going to appreciate you using SOLO as your default posting site and garbage dump." She then criticized my grammar, which had been deliberate by me. I started posting on what we can call the "Internet" almost 25 years ago and have been at it pretty much since. This is the first time anyone got really vicious with me.

--Brant

The entertainment just doesn/t stop, however. She referred recently to her "bogsite" where all truth is revealed.

Ask anyone of workingclass British extraction where the bogsite is, and what to use for bog paper.

She once mentioned that she spent "a fortune on analysis" and if this is not a Jungian slip in the bog, I don't know what is.

[seymourblogger]

I just took a look on SLOP and saw Seymourblogger complain that I had not "given" her 5 posts for the day.

Here we go again.

The software program does this automatically. In the program:

1 "day" = 24 hours

In other words, if a poster with this restriction made 5 posts at 11:00 PM on Tuesday, she would not be able to make another until 11:00 PM on Wednesday. She could not make one at 8:00 AM on Wednesday--not even at 10:59 PM on Wednesday.

Twenty-four hours have to pass.

The thing is, it works like clockwork, even when people don't understand it.

Michael

Maybe Ms, Xray, Angela could give a tutorial. She had the same difficulty understanding the "24 hour paradigm."

"Five posts a day" can be misunderstood as being those of a calendar day. I recall being been listed in the "Today's top posters" section (which OL had back then) with e. g. "3 posts", so I thought I had 2 more, but when I tried to get # 4 through, I got the message "You have already used up your 5 posts"; I thought there must be some glitch in the software, or it that it has to do with the time zone difference. But the 24 hours just run through independent of any calendar day or time zone limits.

The 5th post I recall not being able to edit, for the program closed after posting, so that last post often stood there with all the unweeded typos.

Hey x-ray I answered you on true and false at solo. See I don't always make typos.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8924#comment-105329

The links on truth you asked for are on the right side of this blog of mine:

http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com

L'Immoraliste and The Relative Absolute. They also have wonderful blog links on their sites.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perigo dumped the whole thread, apparently as soon as he saw it.

Oh mannnnnnnnn...

You mean it doesn't say SLOP is SLOP when talking about SLOP on SLOP anymore?

And that passage on SLOP about me, moi, yours truly making a "statement of the utmost integrity"?

No more, no more?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The links on truth you asked for are on the right side of this blog of mine:

http://intellectualt...t2.blogspot.com

Looks like this blog bit the big one.

Either that or the link is wrong.

Michael

[seymourblogger]

The links on truth you asked for are on the right side of this blog of mine:

http://intellectualt...t2.blogspot.com

Looks like this blog bit the big one.

Either that or the link is wrong.

Michael

http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I get "Blog not found" when I click on the link.

Michael

[seymourblogger]

I get "Blog not found" when I click on the link.

Michael

It's not my keyboard it's your software. did you jism it?

http:// intellectual terrorist two but you have to put the number 2 in as your software turns it into 12 twelve

then blogspot dot com

Your software also says I have one more post when I do not. You need a better IT person. Want a reference?

[william.scherk]

Perigo dumped the whole thread, apparently as soon as he saw it. One of my posts was something like, "Janet, I don't think Lindsay is going to appreciate you using SOLO as your default posting site and garbage dump."

So obviously self-thwarting, I just gape sometimes. This is another gaping moment.

The thing is, Seymour has steeped too long in a delightful jest. The piquancy and richness of the French language itself --as instrument of rhetorical power -- whatever its shitty, addled, woo-infested essentialist philosophy -- is a lovely instrument. So, it is okay to read Foucault. Grown men read Foucault. More men have read Foucault than have eaten quiche.

So let us not be cruel. If Seymour exults in sophomore pleasures once more, the banter and woozy oratory of frat house knees-ups, great, more than great. It is a little bit Whatever Happened to Baby Jane singing My Heart Belongs To Daddy in her garish dotage, sure, but what the heck. It is good entertainment.

Seymour, I welcome you back, humbled. At SOLO, they play the hard-ass game; at OL, a softer style of a different game. Some are snakes. Some have venom. Some bite. You got a bite. Many here have been bitten.

Yes, be conversational, go a step further back in time before a tone snide. Maybe, oh why not, all the way back to before you discovered boys. Mexican boys, sunshine, grass, horses and tacos, and administering psychoanalytic woo on said horses, and sand, too, and water. I think I will like this new, more addled but more charming Seymour.

I wonder why exactly entire that thread obliteration at SOLO. My bet (50$HK) is on the italic issue as casus belli -- but otherwise that Seymour had indrawn a few too many snarks from WSS, Brant, MSK (even delicately de-Seymoured) -- add too a stupefied reluctance to comment upon the eruption of OL by all the other reactionaries and dry drunks, all this impinged upon Lord of Wee Distant Universe. It was a matter of good faith or discourtesy for Perigo, a bit of an Ick Factor to the Nth for Perigo, an unwelcome infestation, fiends -- all this besides the technical foul of runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnon lines and refusal to close the code.

Seymour will blunder and we will blunder, each time anew as we all further continue along the freeway of discussion, keeping an eye on swervers and honkers and aggressors and ruthless punishers.

We here at OL at our best are kind to seekers and admirers after Ayn Rand, whatever our stripe or age or obsession, truly and more rightly than the authoritarianism at Hsieh, OO, RoR, FANS, HBL, etc. He who reigns at SOLO is more wicked than most for his sectarianism and his bile. Few are more Imperial and nasty against dissenting discourse.

So, here we all are at OL, Seymour, hosted, hooted at and sometimes gently chided by MSK, acknowledged as vastly more fair and just than yon distant tyrant and red-button enthusiast at SOLO. We perhaps should have warned you. Phil comes and goes here. You may come and go here, but as MSK has explained quite pertinently, he does not red-button people in a pique. So, you can feel at home here, and say what you want. For a while, Seymour, we daily paralyze your ability to communicate after five outbursts. When your outbursts subside, this treatment will be discontinued. Xray was once paralyzed daily by Imperial Majesty, like you. But she did not have to serve the entire 99 million year probation. She was an early release, and surely so shall you be, as you retract your fangs and settle down to measured rants like the rest of us, fun, engaging rants, well-constructed rants, copious rants.

It is a different game of kind here, Seymour, really, and virtually. Peace can be had with a few step-downs. We really are nice behind our fangs here. We are the red-buttoned and the ranted about, the excluded (here I include other petty tyranny of rectitude), non-mainline & skeptical, natural friends for insights about The Language Of Power. Here is rebellion against oppressive diktats of culture and church and university and orthodoxy and vainglorious history and so on -- truly we are all daughters of this kind of maternal line embedded in our cells. George H Smith is cultured enough to mark and pay attention to Foucault, among polite others, so you really can kindle a discussion of points of mutual interest and productive insight for the rest of us stupefied onlookers.

So, Stand Down, Margaret, sort of, Seymour. If you stand down just a little I promise further apologies, and even virtual flowers, virtual chocolates and best wishes.

(Brant, I said respect you more, with all that implies. I just turn into a large mad hound when I think I sniff Wrong. I turn very northern. Beastly. Ask Carol)

Speaking of Carol, Seymour, there really isn't anyone nicer than Carol here. She is an official odd treasure of OL, ever more fearsomely Down Home maritimer big-hearted Canuck, a real love who only hates authoritarianism and butchery and death cults. If only you know why I post such outliers like videos of Ginette Reno. We really are fearsomely, freakishly, nice.

Shake a few hands, drop a few tears, be eleven again and be winsome, and try to make friends with the rest of the boys here, even Carol. Even the toughest of the boys, like Ellen and Me and PDS and Ninth and others who have hurt you. Okay, Seymour?

I might even explain the shameful secret behind my reference to Adult Party Pants. Think Japan. Think Karoake. Think tattooed men with steel teeth and implanted knobs on their foreheads. Tattoo-eyed murderers, Seymour, in fiction, not in truth, not in fact but fact grossly distorted, not like these chocolates here.

Edited February 16, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's not my keyboard it's your software. did you jism it?

http:// intellectual terrorist two but you have to put the number 2 in as your software turns it into 12 twelve

then blogspot dot com

Seymourblogger,

What on earth are you yapping about?

The following is the exact URL I got from clicking the link and visiting your site. It's identical on OL and in the browser at the place where the blog is supposed to be.

http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com/

It's as you say. There is no "12." But there is no blog, either.

Let others try. I'm not going to play games with you.

I do know that Google sometimes deletes entire blogs. That is the price one pays for using the free resources of another. (George Reisman had a similar problem a while back.)

I don't like you, but I know you put a lot of hard work in that blog. I don't want to see it disappear from The Big G being ham-handed like I fear it has. I suggest you look into it and stop the silliness if you want to recover it. At least I suggest you don't be silly with Google.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I just tried clicking the blog link again:

http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com/

A blog site comes up -- but not Seymourblogger's.

Tsktsk.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wonder why exactly entire that thread obliteration at SOLO.

#105336, thread "CPAC Speeches Worthy of Listening To"

Janet

[....]

As for the rest of your post—again, I've no idea what you're talking about. I'd been away for a couple of days, and came back to find some crappy new thread of yours, which appeared to consist of copy-and-pastes from O-Lying, had thrown the whole front page spastic. So I deleted it without even absorbing its content.

Janet, it's true that this is the most open Objectivist forum you'll find anywhere, but I'd urge you to read the posting guidelines nonetheless. If someone like Scherk, who thrives on viciousness, is accusing you of viciousness, then it's possible we have a problem.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'd been away for a couple of days, and came back to find some crappy new thread of yours, which appeared to consist of copy-and-pastes from O-Lying, had thrown the whole front page spastic. So I deleted it without even absorbing its content.

Now that's cute.

Anyone who has ever interacted with Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo knows:

1. That is not how he operates, and

2. He has no problem lying to everyone when it suits the image of himself he wishes to project.

This vain dude would delete an entire thread over formatting?

Heh.

Here's how I imagine it went down. He received several emails from the barefoot savages complaining about all this sudden OL crap on SLOP from a "pomowanker" (which is the Perigo jargon I imagine they call Seymouorblogger) and what's worse, accusations of pedophilia (which is a topic dear to his heart--just ask Jim Peron). They whine it ain't looking good for SLOP. He opens the thread, verifies it, sees the bad formatting. He latches onto that as the pretext to delete the thread and lies to his public so he can come off as all innocent and stuff.

I have to admit, I kinda like the idea of him opening the thread in that scenario and seeing my name plastered all over it. If I were him, in that case I would probably lie to the public, too.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just tried clicking the blog link again:

http://intellectualt...2.blogspot.com/

A blog site comes up -- but not Seymourblogger's.

Ellen,

The times I saw it for testing (I generally test the links posted on OL to see if they work), there was also a notice that this URL name was available to be registered. So someone took them up on it. First come first served. (That's the way Blogger works.)

Now when you go there, the name under the "About Me" is Selene, but there is no bio. I looked and this is a brand new Google account. So I doubt if it is our Selene, but who knows?

Looks to me like the kiddies are playing games.

Michael

[Selene]

I just tried clicking the blog link again:

http://intellectualt...2.blogspot.com/

A blog site comes up -- but not Seymourblogger's.

Tsktsk.

Ellen

Ellen:

I did the same last night and it forced me to enter a blog which is what you now see. I do not blog. So now I have to un-ring that bell.

Adam

[seymourblogger]

Nice pick up: In fact there is no truth. Nice paradoxical statement eh.

In short, you are attacking truth in the name of truth. Classic case of what is called 'stolen concept' in Objectivism. The nature of stolen concepts is their 'stickiness': the attackers are unable to free their minds of the very concept they are attacking. It even sticks in their mind so much that they base their case on it, like in denying truth in the name of truth.

I do not accept your wiki definition of truth. And I do not want to get into an endless dialectical argument/discussion on a concept that has been done to death for centuries by philosophers. Like God. I am not mixing up truth and validity.

You are mixing up truth with mere belief/personal opinion/subjective value judgements. .

There is a site that delves into this and I wil have to search to link it for you. The Relative Absolute is another site with a wonderful name, and wonderful material.

TIA for providing the link.

We are mostly in simulated reality now. In SR there are no opposites. All you have are simulacra, copies o9f copies circulating. Look at the women: Fake boobs, lips, faces, liposuction all over their bodies, not to even get into artificial kidneys, hearts, hair, teeth, eyes, which is the beginning of cloning that we are very close to. It will be done because they can.

But of course there are opposites. For example, the 'reality' of surgically interfering with body fat is to oppose another reality that was there before: fat one wanted to have removed. Therefore, on the factual level, there exists no such thing as 'simulated reality': there is only reality. Another illustrative example is lying: the liar is trying to conceal a fact, a truth that he/she wants to keep hidden. But the act of lying itself belongs to reality.

No. Not in simulated reality. The whole dust up about Foucault was to prove that to you. Alas gone. Cowards all. There was no way to prove or disprove it. No way to "know for sure" it was true or false. Only whether it was credible or not. It wasn't of course. But anyone can put out anything and then because it is out there it is credible. Maybe. It can generate a repeat of what we saw in the last few days. A fury! Raging ping-pong!

I am sure brant will never use that particular RUMOR on me for a third time. That's the way to get rid of something. Excess leads to implosion.

[Brant Gaede]

I am sure brant will never use that particular RUMOR on me for a third time. That's the way to get rid of something. Excess leads to implosion.

You mean you prevented me with your "excess" from using it a third time?

I think you are trying to bait me or pat yourself on the back or both. However, you are like the fireman who arrives after the fire and starts it up again.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Have you been duly imploded by the Master Manipulator, or are you going to continue your raging howling?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Have you been duly imploded by the Master Manipulator, or are you going to continue your raging howling?

Michael

I must recover first from the shock of her body blow.

--Brant

[seymourblogger]

I am sure brant will never use that particular RUMOR on me for a third time. That's the way to get rid of something. Excess leads to implosion.

You mean you prevented me with your "excess" from using it a third time? I think you are trying to bait me or pat yourself on the back or both. However, you are like the fireman who arrives after the fire and starts it up again. --Brant

Then stay out of my way completely, Always. Is there any part of that you don't understand? I want no comments on anything I write. No still hot matches to start any fires.