Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[caroljane]

Whatever is going on I had nothing to do with it. Not my style and not my skill level. I haven't even learned how to use the multi-quote function.

--Brant

Really? I am not joking here, I can't do multiquote either tho I seldom need it, if you are being serious Brant. you hearten me a lot.I use my computer as a typewriter basically, but I have been able to communicate on OL. I know I should learn to do more but there are always so many things to do and so many people to harass and terrorize..

[william.scherk]

Here's my post #291 again:

I just tried clicking the blog link again:

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

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

Tsktsk.

Ellen

Clicking the link there still takes me to the dark page giving "Selene" as the blogger.

Likewise, if I click the link in the sig. line to one of Seymour's posts.

However, if I paste "http://intellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com" (sans quote marks) into my browser, I'm taken to an active, cluttered site.

I may have the solution.

Here is what I did:

-- right-click each of the two links, and copy the two link-locations in a text file.

-- this is the result:

http://intellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com/

http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com/

However, if I paste "http://intellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com" (sans quote marks) into my browser, I'm taken to an active, cluttered site.

I just opened the page source for both blogs and couldn't find anything that would explain this in the header section. There are some minor discrepancies, but nothing at my level of knowledge I could detect that would explain it.

Check two links above. I think that Janet may have inadvertently given the wrong address for the Intellectual blog. One says Terrorist, the other says Terrorism.

See http://intellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com/ and http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com/

Both look the same in the auto-shortened (OL) format for HTML links ...

I can't do multiquote either tho I seldom need it, if you are being serious Brant. you hearten me a lot.I use my computer as a typewriter basically, but I have been able to communicate on OL. I know I should learn to do more but there are always so many things to do and so many people to harass and terrorize.

Click the black thing at the bottom once you are finished clicking Multiquote. All the quoted items end up in the reply window ready to be harassed and terrorized.

[Ellen Stuttle]

EDIT: I just opened the page source for both blogs and couldn't find anything that would explain this in the header section. There are some minor discrepancies, but nothing at my level of knowledge I could detect that would explain it. This is interesting, but I have other priorities right now. I'm going to look into it later, though. I'm thinking about getting in touch with Google to see what the hell is going on.

Some further info.

If you go to her post (link below) on SOLO about the blog and computer problem and click on the working link she gives there, at this time that produces a page which says "Blog not found."

#105431, thread "Cronenberg's Dangerous Method..."

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have only skimmed the following, but I have a feeling it has something to do with Seymourblogger's case. If it does, Google definitely is involved in removing her blog.

Google Blogger URL Redirects Censor International Users

By David Angotti

February 3, 2012

Search Engine Journal

From the article:

The change, which deploys a country-specific URL to the Blogger platform, will allow Google to censor and remove content on a country-by-country basis similar to the new Twitter policy.

When required by local laws and regulations, Google has said they will remove content in a manner that impacts the smallest number of potential readers.

Although the ".com" is not affected in Seymourblogger's case, Google is now openly redirecting Blogger URL's, so I believe something is up from its end.

More later as I look deeper.

Gotta run right now...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Guys, one problem is....(ta da)...nothing more than spelling.

Seymour misspelled the name of her site's URL in her sig. line. She spelled it "terrorist" instead of "terrorism." That's the spelling MSK picked up when he gave the code.

When Adam went to the site and got "Blog not found" and "took the name," HE misspelled as "ntellectualterrorist" (leaving off the initial "i").

So, there are now two sites, "ntellectualterrorist2" and Seymour's real site "intellectualterrorism2."

But I can't figure out why the link from the SOLO post doesn't work.

Ellen

OOOPS. I was working on this while William had meanwhile posted the spelling info.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Check two links above. I think that Janet may have inadvertently given the wrong address for the Intellectual blog. One says Terrorist, the other says Terrorism.

William,

You are absolutely right.

After all that effort I put in trying to help (I really was worried about her losing her work), and all that howling from Dork Janet about OL hackers, her Hacking Heavies, Evul Brant, and God knows what else, the whole problem has been that Ms. Dork can't friggen' type!

And she likes to make shit up.

Dayaamm!

What's worse is that I feel like the perfect dork, too. Even more so. I know enough to double check for misspellings. God knows I've learned that lesson the hard way.

So I friggen' know better.

She doesn't, poor thing...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When Adam went to the site and got "Blog not found" and "took the name," HE misspelled as "ntellectualterrorist" (leaving off the initial "i").

Ellen.

Adam misspelled the TITLE of the blog, not the URL. He got the URL from Janet's link.

Look in the URL field of the browser if you go there.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Adam misspelled the TITLE of the blog, not the URL. He got the URL from Janet's link.

Look in the URL field of the browser if you go there.

Michael

Yeah, I know. But it's the misspelled name which Janet said in a later post was the "mirror" site.

Just to make all of it incredibly confused. :

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

But I can't figure out why the link from the SOLO post doesn't work.

That's a misspelling problem, too. Took me several looks to see it -- indicative of my fading sight. She transposed the "is" in "terrorism" as "si."

Now I wonder if she really did have troubles with her computer as she said she did.

Ellen

ADD: This is cute. Seymour has subsequently fixed the link in the SOLO post, without mentioning that she did so, while she's still indicating that something nefariously wrong is preventing access to her blog from OL.

Here's the original:

#105431, thread "Cronenberg's Dangerous Method..."

x-ray surprised that posted

Submitted by seymourblogger on Fri, 2012-02-17 21:29.

[....]

Yesterday either it was you or daunce, I do honestly forget, that clicked on the link I believe I sent to you: http://intellectualterrorsim2.... at OL and the link went to http://ntellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com and what came up over at OL was a black blank page instead of my blog.

Here's the fixed version:

x-ray surprised that posted

Submitted by seymourblogger on Sat, 2012-02-18 02:43.

[....]

Yesterday either it was you or daunce, I do honestly forget, that clicked on the link I believe I sent to you: http://intellectualterrorism2.... at OL and the link went to http://ntellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com and what came up over at OL was a black blank page instead of my blog.

Note the time stamps.

Ellen

[caroljane]

But I can't figure out why the link from the SOLO post doesn't work.

That's a misspelling problem, too. Took me several looks to see it -- indicative of my fading sight. She transposed the "is" in "terrorism" as "si."

Now I wonder if she really did have troubles with her computer as she said she did.

Ellen, I have no idea what is going on here but I think we should both clutch our pearls.

ISS, Carol

Ellen

ADD: This is cute. Seymour has subsequently fixed the link in the SOLO post, without mentioning that she did so, while she's still indicating that something nefariously wrong is preventing access to her blog from OL.

Here's the original:

#105431, thread "Cronenberg's Dangerous Method..."

x-ray surprised that posted

Submitted by seymourblogger on Fri, 2012-02-17 21:29.

[....]

Yesterday either it was you or daunce, I do honestly forget, that clicked on the link I believe I sent to you: http://intellectualterrorsim2.... at OL and the link went to http://ntellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com and what came up over at OL was a black blank page instead of my blog.

Here's the fixed version:

x-ray surprised that posted

Submitted by seymourblogger on Sat, 2012-02-18 02:43.

[....]

Yesterday either it was you or daunce, I do honestly forget, that clicked on the link I believe I sent to you: http://intellectualterrorism2.... at OL and the link went to http://ntellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com and what came up over at OL was a black blank page instead of my blog.

Note the time stamps.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

Ellen, I have no idea what is going on here but I think we should both clutch our pearls.

That seems like a good idea. I think perhaps a dead faint or two should be performed as well, and maybe even a re-staging of The Vapours. I hope those cupcakes are ready soon.

Where is Church Lady when you really need her?

[Selene]

There better be hashish in those cupcakes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I know you have the best intentions, but I don't intend to play nice with this person.

I've spent an enormous amount of time on her and it was a total waste.

She is dishonest and does not have goodwill.

Ya'll have fun. I'll try to keep out of your way.

Michael

EDIT: I just checked SLOP and it looks like Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo has zapped more threads by this person. Heh.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The SOLO thread is no longer accessible.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

The SOLO thread is no longer accessible.

Ellen

Sure enough.

It looks like Janet's attacks on Michael were no longer sufficient for Linz to tolerate her craziness. .

Ghs

[Xray]

Janet gave this thread the title "Reading Rand through a Nietzsche filter"

The function of any filter is to get rid of other material. Material that one wants removed because its presence is regarded as diminishing the quality of the desired end product. Filtered coffee is a typical example from everyday life. As are photos take with a polarizing filter to get a better contrast.

As for 'filters' being used in philosophical texts, what is removed is of special interest.

Rand may have shared certain elements of Nietzschean thought - but there still remains much in Nietzsche where Rand differs substantially from him, and I think this is what Janet has 'filtered out', has disregarded in Nietzsche because it contradicts her position which presents Rand as a "Nietzschean strategist" that was "steeped blood, bone, mind, feelings, down to the Inscription of the Body all the way to the cellular level with the thought of Nietzsche." (Janet)

A well-known poem by Nietzsche is "Vereinsamt".

In virtual every line this poem reflects an attitude toward life that is extremely opposed to Rand's .

Here is the German original and the English translation, which, although the translator Walter A. Aue "winged it" [his own words], still renders the poem's atmosphere of existential hopelessness and despair .

Friedrich Nietzsche:

Vereinsamt

Die Krähen schrein

und ziehen schwirren Flugs zur Stadt:

bald wird es schnein -

wohl dem, der jetzt noch - Heimat hat!

Nun stehst du starr,

schaust rückwärts, ach! wie lange schon!

Was bist du Narr

vor Winters in die Welt entflohn?

Die Welt - ein Tor

zu tausend Wüsten stumm und kalt!

Wer das verlor,

was du verlorst, macht nirgends halt.

Nun stehst du bleich,

zur Winter-Wanderschaft verflucht,

dem Rauche gleich,

der stets nach kältern Himmeln sucht.

Flieg, Vogel, schnarr

dein Lied im Wüstenvogel-Ton! -

Versteck, du Narr,

dein blutend Herz in Eis und Hohn!

Die Krähen schrein

und ziehen schwirren Flugs zur Stadt:

bald wird es schnein,

weh dem, der keine Heimat hat!

Friedrich Nietzsche:

Lone

Shrill shriek the crows

that to the town in whirls roam:

soon come the snows -

weal unto him, who - has a home!

Now you stand still,

look back, alas! how far unfurled!

You fool! You will

escape the winter to the world?

The world - a gate

to thousand deserts, mute and chill!

Who lost his fate,

as you have lost, stands nowhere still.

Now you are pale

and cursed to wander winter's rise,

like fumes prevail

that always seek the colder skies.

Seek, bird, and shriek

your desert-bird-song, worn and torn! -

And hide, you freak,

your bleeding heart in ice and scorn!

Shrill shriek the crows

that to the town in whirls roam:

soon come the snows -

woe unto him, who has no home!

Janet,

Contrast for example the speaker's conceiving of the world as "a gate to thousand deserts, mute and chill" with Ayn Rand's - I'm tempted to say 'optimistic' - "philosophy for living on earth" (which implies that she, as opposed to Nietzsche, and despite the many difficulties she had encountered in her life, must have felt as lot more 'at home' in the world).

She wanted to better the world, yes, free it from 'communist evil', etc., but in no way did she feel alienated as a human being due to the fact of her mere existence in the world.

Nowhere in Rand's and writing can I feel the existential pain and despair that this one poem and other writings by by Nietzsche so strongly convey.

Can you?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Janet gave this thread the title "Reading Rand through a Nietzsche filter"

Xray,

Lots of people had long posts on that thread, too, didn't they?

Not troll posts, either.

That's how hatred works. Collateral damage is, well... [blank out]... to haters. Kinda too bad, but not really.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Janet gave this thread the title "Reading Rand through a Nietzsche filter"

Xray,

Lots of people had long posts on that thread, too, didn't they?

Not troll posts, either.

That's how hatred works. Collateral damage is, well... [blank out]... to haters. Kinda too bad, but not really.

Michael

I went over there last night and found a post by LP saying he'd wait a few minutes then delete the entire thread. Reviewing the thread, I found it was mostly Janet's posts mostly complaining about OL, OLers and what have you. There were only a few substantial posts, if that many, apropos her topic. I think a post by WSS set LP off. He likes him less than her even.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

The SOLO thread is no longer accessible.

Ellen

Sure enough.

It looks like Janet's attacks on Michael were no longer sufficient for Linz to tolerate her craziness. .

Ghs

I saved the whole thread with the Firefox extension 'Scrapbook' and will put it up on the web in all its creaking glory (for aficionados of kook only). It tells us something about the "most open" forum that Lindsay promotes. Just remove the entire thing! That'll open things up ...

[Brant Gaede]

The SOLO thread is no longer accessible.

Ellen

Sure enough.

It looks like Janet's attacks on Michael were no longer sufficient for Linz to tolerate her craziness. .

Ghs

I saved the whole thread with the Firefox extension 'Scrapbook' and will put it up on the web in all its creaking glory (for aficionados of kook only). It tells us something about the "most open" forum that Lindsay promotes. Just remove the entire thing! That'll open things up ...

Thus Janet will get around her 5 post OL limit.

--Brant

not complaining

[Ellen Stuttle]

I saved the whole thread with the Firefox extension 'Scrapbook' and will put it up on the web in all its creaking glory (for aficionados of kook only). It tells us something about the "most open" forum that Lindsay promotes. Just remove the entire thing! That'll open things up ...

Oh, good. I'm glad you did that. I have copies of some of it, but I'd like to see how the whole discussion developed. There is a certain amount of philosophic interest to me in the back-and-forth between Angela and Janet. Plus there's a post (one which I copied) in which Janet describes some early perception research when she was a student. I'd like to find references to that research if any of it was published. I don't know if she said anything further about it elsewhere in the thread, since I didn't have time to read all the posts.

Ellen

[Xray]

Janet gave this thread the title "Reading Rand through a Nietzsche filter"

I have to correct two mistakes. My apologies.

1 )The title is "Rand through a Nietzsche filter".

2 ) When scrolling back up, I just saw that it was MSK, not Janet, who chose this title:

Seymourblogger,

I chose "Rand through a Nietzsche filter" as the title. That seems apt. Please let me know if you have any objection.

I have not read each of Janet's posts on this thread, but it looks like she did not object.

[Xray]

I saved the whole thread with the Firefox extension 'Scrapbook' and will put it up on the web in all its creaking glory (for aficionados of kook only). It tells us something about the "most open" forum that Lindsay promotes. Just remove the entire thing! That'll open things up ...

Oh, good. I'm glad you did that. I have copies of some of it, but I'd like to see how the whole discussion developed. There is a certain amount of philosophic interest to me in the back-and-forth between Angela and Janet. Plus there's a post (one which I copied) in which Janet describes some early perception research when she was a student. I'd like to find references to that research if any of it was published. I don't know if she said anything further about it elsewhere in the thread, since I didn't have time to read all the posts.

Ellen

Thanks to WSS from me too for saving it. When I realized the thread was gone, I groaned "If I had known this was going to happen, I would have saved my reply to Janet regarding the film 'Rashomon' which centers on the question of "What is truth?".

So Bill's saving it saves me the work to write it again.

Plus there's a post (one which I copied) in which Janet describes some early perception research when she was a student. I'd like to find references to that research if any of it was published. I don't know if she said anything further about it elsewhere in the thread, since I didn't have time to read all the posts.

Ellen,

As far as I recall, she didn't say anything further, but what she wrote about the early perception research was indeed very interesting.

[caroljane]

I'm glad too that anything Rashomon was saved. What a movie. I like Seven Samurai the best, but so enjoyed Ran also, is it all about japanese psychology, or just Kirosawa being a great moviemaker? I like Japanese movies, one of my faves was "Double Suicide" tho I don't know the director.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thanks to WSS from me too for saving it. When I realized the thread was gone,  I groaned "If I had known this was going to happen, I would have saved my reply to Janet regarding the film 'Rashomon' which centers on the question of "What is truth?".

So Bill's saving it saves me the work to write it again.

If this is the one you mean, it happens to be one I saved:

Janet;I was in the process

Submitted by Xray on Fri, 2012-02-17 21:08.

Janet;

I was in the process of editing my latest post, but as you replied during this time, I could not get the edited version through anymore:

Oh, Rashomon happens to be my favorite film! Its deeply philosophical topic is about "truth", or more precisely about "What is Truth?"

In the film, the truth about what happened is not revealed - we only have the 'eyewitnesses' to the killing (including the dead victim speaking from the 'beyond'!) telling the story from 'their' perspective, their motivation obviously being to present themselves in a favorable light.

But just because the truth about what happened is not revealed doesn't mean there is no truth. For example, the victim either committed suicide or not.

It is also because I have studied several true crime cases that Rashomon interests me.

There do exist unsolved criminal cases where the truth has not been found out - but this does of course not mean that this truth does not exist. Get my point?

The message of the film Rashomon is not that there is no truth - it deliberately leaves several possible scenarios open.

It also points out the complexity and intricacy of motives and directs the spectator to possible 'elements of truth' in  each eyewitness's account.

Artistic license in fiction often 'plays' with our expectation regarding truth.

But in real life, the factual cannot be treated with as much license as in fiction, which is why a philosophy drawing its basis from fictional scenarios focusing on the distortion of reality will result in an epistemological trainwreck.