Lyle B. Hardwood
Beavis
it may be helpful if your signature wasn't and advertisement. So Lyle...
We're not interested. We don't want advertising in this newsgroup, and
we don't patronize anyone who does so
Ralph Hertle
I suggest that the signature identifier lines be
allowed, for example, that the poster may include
his/her personal and/or company name, address, V/F/C
phone numbers, URL, and any greeting. It could be
limited to about ten lines.
The signature lines permitted by the email programs
are technically a form of advertisement, however, the
purpose is usually for reasons of courtesy, or for
identification information.
Purpose governs, and that defines the type of ad.
The type of advertisement that many readers of the
news group object to are the unsolicited
interventionist ads, for example that may promote
expensive vacations in Sweden or Kenya, sweepstakes,
investment scams, Surrealist shock art, or out of
context or off-topic building product promotions.
The in-your-face, give us your attention and your
money, type ads are quite objectionable. They too
are ads, however, they have as their purpose the
violation of the readers rights. These ads would be
properly banned by a moderator if there were one.
The type of ad that most of the members of a.b.c will
appreciate are, for example, in answer a thread that
discusses floor joist spacing, a representative from
a floor joist maker, say LP, may answer some questions
that were raised, and even give a URL, phone number,
or refer one to a specific piece of printed literature
that has spacing information tables that may be of
interest. That type of ad is relevant to the thread
and the NG, factually contextual, and is appropriate
to the conversational courtesies that regulate the
discussions on the NG.
Businesses who use NG's or your email address as a
billboard have nothing that people want and would
search the net for. Legitimate firms that have
legitimate products and services to sell can't be
bothered by placing ads on NGs that have readerships
of usually 10 to 20, and sometimes as many as a few
hundred. They have web sites, TV, and printed
publications for their ads - and their ads are
serious work. These firms rarely go to NGs. The
payoff is too small. We don't see truck mfrs.
placing ads on NGs - its just too inefficient a
use of their financial resources. However, if
some guy wants to sell his 1/2 ton pickup on
the a.b.c NG, it isn't too big a deal to see that
ad on the NG.
If the NG were moderated, I would require that all
express product promotion ads have the first
character of the subject line be the character,
[ , and that all posts of ads without that mark would
be automatically deleted by the Bot program. That
would prevent the NG from being used as a
Spam destination billboard, and would permit
readers to skips items they don't want to read.
Ralph Hertle
Blue Star Houses, LLC
732-603-0685
_____________________________________________________
Ralph Hertle
Apparently, you have a disdain for proper grammar
insofar as evaluating suggestions for improvement.
Constructive criticism is not intended as a challenge
to your pseudo self-esteem. If your version of
reality is whether other people think badly or
goodly of you, and you think that constructive
criticism is in some way thinking badly of you or
is a threat to you, then the problem is yours to solve.
There is a badly mistaken popular view that others
are in some way diminished by an innovator's
ideas. They think that since they didn't think of the
suggestion for improvement or invention that they
are lesser than the innovator. That is a symptom of
very low self esteem, and self esteem is the evaluation
that a person places on him/herself. It is the
sense of personal worth that a person places upon
him/herself. When an identification and evaluation of
the good makes a person feel bad or less capable
then that person has problems.
Better return to your killfile managing, Jeremy,
improving the world is not your deal.
Ralph Hertle
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Jeremy Goodwin wrote:
> Thank you for your proposals. Please learn how to
> initiate a news group that meets your parameters and
> when it is established you may unsubscribe from this
> group. Better yet, unsubscribe immediately and you will
> not have to tolerate the behavior of long term usenet
> users within this forum.
>
> There is a certain amount of tolerance for ignorant
> newbies, but I believe you have exceeded the time
> allowed.
> Back to the killfile.
> JJ
>
C. W. McCall
Have you ever noticed that Lyle never responds to any of the backlash
concerning his "advertising"?
I think "Ralph Hertle" is a character that Lyle invented to answer any
criticism directed towards him
.
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D5F23F7...@verizon.net...
Rico dJour
>Date: 08/18/2002 6:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ajnuct$7bm$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>Group:
>Have you ever noticed that Lyle never responds to any of the backlash
>concerning his "advertising"?
>
>I think "Ralph Hertle" is a character that Lyle invented to answer any
>criticism directed towards him
Breaker, breaker. I don't think so. Lyle is a bit of a one-trick pony, Ralph
is far more entertaining - at least I think so. I rarely get to the end of his
posts (assuming they have them).
R
indago
Here is Lyle's advertisement:
--------------------------------------------
We don't want advertising in this newsgroup, and we don't patronize
anyone who does so.
--
Lyle B. Harwood, President
Phoenix Homes, Inc.
(206) 523-9500 www.phoenixhomesinc.com
--------------------------------------------
Here is what he REALLY means:
-------------------------------------------
We don't want advertising in this newsgroup EXCEPT MINE, and we don't
patronize anyone who does so.
--
Lyle B. Harwood, President
Phoenix Homes, Inc.
(206) 523-9500 www.phoenixhomesinc.com
Dan
"C. W. McCall" <con...@cb.com> wrote in message
> I think "Ralph Hertle" is a character that Lyle invented to answer any
> criticism directed towards him
> .
>
agree I don't think it's a moniker by LH.
Joe Barta
> Group:
> Have you ever noticed that Lyle never responds to any of the
> backlash concerning his "advertising"?
>
> I think "Ralph Hertle" is a character that Lyle invented to
> answer any criticism directed towards him
You give Lyle too much credit. Lyle is a obsessive-compulsive dolt
with delusions of grandeur sprinkled in. He couldn't cobble together
a coherent defense of his actions to save his life.
Ralph, on the other hand is an amazing brain that has become
slightly mis-wired and runs way too hot. Unfortunatly he is
blissfully unaware of this. I'm guessing Ralph is probably in his
mid sixties or so. He's getting a little batty and it will only get
worse. As long as he insists on running his brain at full steam,
slightly warped thoughts will come out. If he slows down a little,
and applies a relaxing calm to his thinking and reasoning, otherwise
known as "taking a chill pill", he may be able to comment in a more
useful manner.
- Joe Barta
Ralph Hertle
You think wrong.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
No, I'm in Edison NJ.
I use Verizon and Netscape. Possibly, your
ping was returned from one of them.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
Designer vitamins and nutrition supplements
work great.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
Yes, I am short of information. If there
is a single suggestion for improvement
that I have made, and that you object to,
please let us know.
Thanks for the USENET URLs. What is it
in particular that I should read?
BTW, I am not trying to make the group
conform to my wishes. You are reading that
into what I said. What I said was merely
a suggestion. It has no weight of legal
contract as does the USENET platform of rules.
A grammar debate? Why didn't I think of that?
I don't claim to be an expert on proper
grammar, and I respect good grammar as
much as I do its intellectual base - correct
logic. Conversational grammar allows for
a great deal of freedom of structure, as
does the English language. A lot of give and
take is appropriate. Incorrect valuations
and incorrect logic, however, are not tolerated
primarily because the writer's meanings may
indeed be incomprehensible. At that point questions
may be appropriate.
Ralph Hertle
____________________________________________________
Jeremy Goodwin wrote:
> You are not an innovator, just unable to grasp the
> basic concept of usenet. As you are seriously short of
> information and subject to the common errors of new
> users, (often trying to make a group conform to your
> ideal is a classic), I will give you a helping hand.
>
> Read all the information on these pages.
> <http://www.faqs.org/usenet/index.html>
> <http://theyellowpage.net/cgi-bin/main.cgi?base=%2FComputers%2FUsenet%2F>
>
>
>
> Although your grammar may be sufficient for your country
> of origin, it does not conform to the standards of my
> country of origin, but attacking grammar and spelling
> are also classic newbie mistakes and therefore
> inevitable.
>
> Please read the FAQ pages
>
Ralph Hertle
That's a previous address.
What is the source of the data?
I'd want to update their files.
Ralph Hertle
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Jeremy Goodwin wrote:
> I ping him as Little Falls NJ
>
C. W. McCall
Maybe Lyle needs to explain why "we" don't want advertising, but does so
himself.
Until he gives an explanation, he has no credibility in his "legitimate"
posts.
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D60112...@verizon.net...
Ralph Hertle
Lyle may not be working with a proper definition of the concept
of advertisement. That is a broad concept, and within that broad
classification there may be a number of sub-classifications.
This is not an unusual problem. For example, if you want to see
some serious weaseling about the meaning of a word, which is due
to the lack of a proper type of definition (not a descriptive
characterization), ask some quantum mechanics physicists what the
concept of a "frame of reference" regarding the speed of light means.
They actually get angry because they have nothing more to say on the
matter beyond what some authority said. They cannot discuss the matter
further. That is for lack of a proper definition.
We apparently object to some types of ads on the NG, and wish to
not accept other types of ads. But what are those several other
types of ads? Are some types appropriate to the a.b.c. NG, and
are others not? We would have to explain what our common purpose
on the NG is, and then to evaluate each type of ad accordingly.
Lyle may not be up on the latest techniques of writing
contextual (meaning factual) and hierarchical (meaning organized
into classifications) definitions.
An example is the definition of various types of [ paint ]:
(defined by the type of vehicle that is the broadest sub classification)
oil
alkyd
acrylic
latex
emulsions
water color
casein
gouache
wax encaustic
epoxy
shellac
lacquer
But there may be sub-classifications within each sub-classifications.
For example,
additives and admixtures
abrasion resistance
pumice
cross-linked
gloss factor
powdered materials
pigmented
color
metallic
pearlescent
unpigmented
clear
fade resistance
ultraviolet reflectors
chemical resistance
water
acids
oil
wet
dry
and so on.
That is called the genus (wider class) and differentia (sub-class)
method of hierarchical definitions. You see it in library science,
biology, physics, medicine, and many other places.
A place where that type of definition theory is not used for
the organization of knowledge is on the search engines on the
internet. They think that non-essential classifications are
OK. To them, if you enter a search for, +cooking +wines, you
will just as likely get everything there is on the subject of
cooking, and then everything their is on wines. You probably
may not even find anything on, cooking wines, or even, "cooking wines".
Its due to the anti-logic that our universities are teaching
the students.
Are college educated students stupid as a result? In many ways, yes.
..........
I say that Lyle needs a break. Instead we should read the fine
technical articles that he writes in reply to questions on the
NG. We should hope to be able to benefit by the fine quality
of the advice and experience that he offers.
Ralph Hertle
========================================================
Ralph Hertle
What in hell touched you off?
Can't a person make a suggestion?
I see that you didn't offer the suggestion
that I take my suggestions to USENET. Is that
because there might actually be some merit to them?
You must have a self esteem issue at work regarding
suggestions by others.
It is perfectly valid to discuss any ideas on any
subjects in a free society. To impose the limitation
that one always consult super high experts on any
matters bespeaks of paranoia --- that only top
experts have the tenured religiosity of prestige
to be true authorities. That smacks of Catholicism,
and that viewpoint is pure malarky. Recall the divine
rights of kings, and paranoids.
Free up a little, and allow some discussion on the
merits of any types of ideas, and not just the ideas
of the tenured approved orthodoxies.
For example, an excellent technical book on logic,
which is the science of correct thinking, called
I think, Logic, by Ruby, is a great all around text.
If you read some, you learn. Once you learn some
logic, you are for all time an expert on those
methods. Nor do you have to read all of Ruby to
know how to think correctly.
Ralph Hertle
====================================================
Jeremy Goodwin wrote:
> Until you learn about usenet, you are not making sense
> when you write about improvements, nor does asking about
> my level of approval. When you become familiar with the
> nature of the beast, you will understand why my
> suggesting that you try to issue a start-up command for
> a new group is not rude, but the only valid suggestion.
>
> I would suggest that you read all the FAQs, and read the
> information on the alt. hierarchy twice.
>
> I promise not to try and discuss Euclidean geometry
> without reading and understanding the books. You would
> be well advised to follow my example in regards to
> usenet, as you do not yet know the terms or parameters
> of the equation.
>
> You will discover during the learning process, that many
> of your posts fall into well described categories, most
> of which indicate a newcomer to the environment. That
> you consider the rigours of your thought processes
> should be applicable to others is one of those
> categories. You can save a lot of time, energy and
> emotional stress if you accept that in the 28 years
> since I worked on the military precursor of usenet, not
> reading the FAQs and charters is the most likely cause
> of people appearing as idiots. I admit to having made
> the same mistake a number of times myself.
>
> You might also benefit from reading the Verizon TOS
> (Terms of Service) and how they apply to newsgroups,
> primarily to avoid getting your account canceled.
>
> I apologize for anything I might have written that may
> have upset you. I doubt you would try and set up a
> phased array, radio telescope system without reading the
> manual, why you might consider usenet any different is a
> source of some frustration.
>
> When it comes to language and meaning, you must accept
> that you speak, write and think in, a degenerative form
> of my native tongue :-) (preceding symbol indicates
> humour) You might consider that in a world wide forum,
> the potential for misunderstanding is enormous, and that
> it might be your own ability for comprehension and
> tolerance that requires improvement.
> jj
>
Ralph Hertle
You seem to be on a Christian gossiping information
disclosure and dissemination rampage. The Christians
do it every year. They practice the ritual of ratting
on Jesus and the telling of his location to the authorities
in order that they will be rated in higher favor by the
authorities, and, incidentely, that they too will be able
to participate in the ritual replay of Jesus' murder.
Jesus died because of the sins of the people in his town.
Just what sin was that? Malaevolent gossip - by his
ultimate murderers.
I say that the most evil sin that is promoted by the Christians
is the advocacy of the sin tha killed Jesus, and that is gossip.
The Catholics are most obsessed by it, and the Church has even
institutionalized the system of gossip in their system
of Confession. The result is a hell of a lot of very hurt and
guilty people.
The best thing Christianity can do for its believers, and for
every one else is to ban all gossip.
Is that the category that matches your intentions?
BTW, what is the source for your data? I wish to bring the data
records up to date.
If you disclose my S.S. No. or finacial information I will
bring legal action against you.
Ralph Hertle
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Goodwin wrote:
> Sorry, I have now pinned it down to Edison, with a 3
> figure house number on the road beginning with P, close
> to the tracks. I did not bother getting the data
> available, tel. #, S.S. #, house value, auto, DL #, NJ
> income tax paid in 2001, etc.
>
> JJ
>
Brian Belliveau
> that I take my suggestions to USENET.
When you get there, say "hi" to them from me
Joe Barta
> Designer vitamins and nutrition supplements
> work great.
Just as those little bottles of engine additive will help an
automobile with bad rings.
You keep taking your vitamins and our friend will keep dumping
additives in his car, and both of you will continue to blow smoke
everywhere you go.
- Joe Barta
Lazenby
mid (or late) sixties. Ralph put a bit too much strain on me, so I blocked
him along with Lyle. Enjoy you, though.
Jim
"Joe Barta" <jba...@apk.net> wrote in message
news:Xns926F5FAD474...@206.183.6.17...
Joe Barta
> Don't get too much of that sun, Joe, or you may not enjoy the
> luxury of your mid (or late) sixties. Ralph put a bit too much
> strain on me, so I blocked him along with Lyle. Enjoy you,
> though. Jim
I have Lyle blocked for obvious reasons. He's the only one though. I
might think Ralph is a little batty (worn rings, loss of
compression and blowing smoke), but I would never block him. I value
all points of view, although not all equally.
- Joe Barta
C. W. McCall
wife talks.
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D608800...@verizon.net...
> C. W. McCall:
>
> Lyle may not be working with a proper definition of the concept
> of advertisement. That is a broad concept, and within that broad
> classification there may be a number of sub-classifications.
>
> This is not an unusual problem. For example, if you want to see
> some serious weaseling about the meaning of a word, which is due
> to the lack of a proper type of definition (not a descriptive
> characterization), ask some quantum mechanics physicists what the
> concept of a "frame of reference" regarding the speed of light means.
> They actually get angry because they have nothing more to say on the
> matter beyond what some authority said. They cannot discuss the matter
> further. That is for lack of a proper definition.
>
> We apparently object to some types of ads on the NG, and wish to
> not accept other types of ads. But what are those several other
> types of ads? Are some types appropriate to the a.b.c. NG, and
> are others not? We would have to explain what our common purpose
> on the NG is, and then to evaluate each type of ad accordingly.
>
> Lyle may not be up on the latest techniques of writing
> contextual (meaning factual) and hierarchical (meaning organized
> into classifications) definitions.
>
** snip **
Ralph Hertle
Doesn't the disclosure of a person's location, let alone the
dissemination of other information, for the purposes of an
attack on that innocent person concern you?
What principles are you defending?
The attack is working. My car has now been vandalized to
the tune of $1300, my Internet defenses now register many
hits every day, and my email is now being flooded by
a number of scores of ads every hour.
Whose morality are you endorsing? Threats are a social issue,
and they are not a matter of private email correspondence.
Do you intend to be a co-interventionist along with Jeremy?
Ralph Hertle
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lisa Doherty wrote:
> Now I have to ask. What the heck do the Christians have to do with
> ANYTHING??? He is pretty much attacking you as a person. How did Jesus
> become a victim in your argument?
Pam
unless you are his lover.
Pam
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D5F23F7...@verizon.net...
Pam
>
> What is the source of the data?
> I'd want to update their files.
>
> Ralph Hertle
>
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>
Man, please stop talking about stuff you know nothing about. You cant change
the trace route of routers.. what, do you think a trace route is like yellow
pages?
Pam
Pam
happened last time when that threat was made, ralph almost called the police
:)
"Jeremy Goodwin" <jer...@dcnet2000.com.> wrote in message
news:3D607CB3...@dcnet2000.com....
Pam
> dissemination of other information, for the purposes of an
> attack on that innocent person concern you?
>
> What principles are you defending?
>
> The attack is working. My car has now been vandalized to
> the tune of $1300, my Internet defenses now register many
> hits every day, and my email is now being flooded by
> a number of scores of ads every hour.
Oh my,
Here goes the paranoid thing again.
Brian Belliveau
If you _think_ that the people who frequent this news group have nothing
better to do than search out your automobile for the express purpose of
vandalising it, you may, in fact, be paranoid!
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
On the other hand, you may be an idiot c/w asshole @ 19.2" o.c. in your life
away from the keyboard ... I'd look closer to home for something to be
concerned about.
HTH
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D615F50...@verizon.net...
Ralph Hertle
Did it ever occur to you that there is a specific
relationship of proper English grammar and logic,
which is the science of correct thinking?
Ralph Hertle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Paul Fritz
"Brian Belliveau" <brian-b...@NOSPAMshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:vY699.181919$v53.9...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> In the style of Foxworthy ...
>
> If you _think_ that the people who frequent this news group have nothing
> better to do than search out your automobile for the express purpose of
> vandalising it, you may, in fact, be paranoid!
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>
> On the other hand, you may be an idiot c/w asshole @ 19.2" o.c. in your
life
> away from the keyboard ... I'd look closer to home for something to be
> concerned about.
>
> HTH
No doubt......if raphie acts in rela life the way he does here, it would
not surprise me at all if someone were to take a stamroller to his vehicle.
Jackson
logic. You think that "kill file" equates someone killing you?
You think that if someone does a trace route on your IP address, they
actually know who and where you are?
You think this same person vandalized your car?
You sir are NOT logical. Please repent or go away. We dont need another
Lyle.
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D64FFF1...@verizon.net...
Joe Barta
> Brian:
>
> Did it ever occur to you that there is a specific
> relationship of proper English grammar and logic,
> which is the science of correct thinking?
>
> Ralph Hertle
This coming from one of the most irrational, illogical, muddled and
rambling personalities to hit this group in a long while.
Ralph... sit down... you ain't all that.
- Joe Barta
Paul Fritz
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
> > Brian:
> >
> > Did it ever occur to you that there is a specific
> > relationship of proper English grammar and logic,
> > which is the science of correct thinking?
> >
> > Ralph Hertle
>
>
> This coming from one of the most irrational, illogical, muddled and
> rambling personalities to hit this group in a long while.
He's going to take the title away from debbie!!!
Brian Belliveau
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D64FFF1...@verizon.net...
Ralph Hertle
You dropped the context, and that is the
quoted prior post of yours which is the
referent of my post.
Ralph Hertle
Brian Belliveau
the specific relationship of proper English grammar and logic, which is the
science of correct thinking.
It would appear to condense to the simple English (grammatically correct,
_and_ spell checked) phrase ... you are out of your element conversing with
the real world, which would logically expect a reasoned response (contextual
or otherwise) , and lacking a BSc in logic, you will ramble incoherent
phraseology in the hopes of muddy-ing the waters in which you flounder
repeatedly. I believe this is correct thinking, on my part.
If you would care to expound on the original question, in the context to
which you perceive it to relate to anything at all, I'll be back in a minute
... (gotta get a cold one for this)
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D65A0B...@verizon.net...
Brian Belliveau
( Better hurry ... my bed time is fast approaching )
Ralph Hertle
That fallacy is called "the appeal to laughter",
and that is used to avoid a rational discussion
that is based on facts and logic. Another fallacy
that you rely on is the "non-sequitur", and that
means that no conclusion follows from the words,
phrases, and premises used. That also means that
no logical conclusion is possible from the facts
given, if any.
Ralph Hertle
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cana...@railroad.trilogy
>Gee Lyle, given that 90% of your recent posts are responses to advertisers,
>it may be helpful if your signature wasn't and advertisement. So Lyle...
>
>We're not interested. We don't want advertising in this newsgroup, and
>we don't patronize anyone who does so
>
>
Lyle never listens, never learns- in his own so-called mind he is
the supreme arbiter of what is and is not advertising in this NG.
Don't try to argue with him because he's always right.
After all he runs the biggest treehouse construction company
on earth- you can't argue with that kind of success.
Paul
Beavis
<Cana...@railroad.trilogy> wrote in message news:3d700155.6868696@news...
Ya got me there. At least I know where to go when I need a tree house!
Ralph Hertle
Check your facts before you smear.
Sloppy errors of knowledge look bad on you.
Are you sure that Lyle is from Phoenix?
Ralph Hertle
Rudy wrote:
>> Lyle never listens, never learns-
>> After all he runs the biggest treehouse construction company
>> on earth-
>>
>
> in PHOENIX AZ... ??
> What trees ? Can a tree house be built in a Saguaro ?
>
>
>
>
>
Harvey V
> Rudy:
>
> Check your facts before you smear.
> Sloppy errors of knowledge look bad on you.
>
> Are you sure that Lyle is from Phoenix?
Maybe not *from*, but according to his sig, currently located there.
Or are you saying that Lyle's sig contains some sort of lie?
(Why would he lie? I think we should be told.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Jackson
> Sloppy errors of knowledge look bad on you.
>
> Are you sure that Lyle is from Phoenix?
>
>
> Ralph Hertle
Guys like you and Lyle are easy to smear..
Ralph Hertle
"Phoenix Homes, Inc. is a Seattle-based company operated by Lyle Harwood..."
From his web site, http://www.oz.net/~lbh/about.htm .
Ralph Hertle
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ ]
Joe Barta
> Rudy:
>
> Check your facts before you smear.
> Sloppy errors of knowledge look bad on you.
Wow. You should be the LAST person to chastise someone for "sloppy
errors of knowledge". And as far as "looking bad".... Ralph, you've
been around that track several times and you don't even know you're
in a race.
- Joe Barta
Jackson
> errors of knowledge". And as far as "looking bad".... Ralph, you've
> been around that track several times and you don't even know you're
> in a race.
>
> - Joe Barta
Joe, remember, mentally ill people don't know they are mentally ill.
Peter
Ralph Hertle
I did not "chastise" Rudy. I merely
reminded him of the facts which he
treated with disdain.
What do you mean by, "...around that track
several times..."?
Do you mean my age?
What may be unbelievable to you is that
I actually do have an age.
Are you implying that I am in a race?
For what purpose?
Please grant me the courtesy of a civil
explanation.
Ralph Hertle
Jackson
about Usenet, Killfiles, TCP/IP etc. and yet you continually are making
crazy comments.. you've been around the block with this before. is that too
hard to understand?
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D72D2AB...@verizon.net...
Ralph Hertle
Why is opposition to evil and pushy Pragmatist
" whatever works" advertising such a hotbutton
issue with you?
You obviously are not defending individual rights,
or even the right of free speech or volition. Why
are you opposed to the opposition? I suspect that
you rely so strongly on rules, for example, those
of religious training, that anyone who acts
according to the principles of a logical ethics
or courtesy has to be snubbed. If you need a system
of rules for security you won't be able to guide
your thoughts and actions by means of logical
principles.
What I know about "Usenet, Killfiles, TCP/IP etc."
wouldn't fit on one page. I have, however, read
the USENET rules and FAQs, and I couldn't
relate what details I read if I had too. A limited
amount of advertising, that does not interfere with
the purposes of the group, is permitted on USENET
NGs. All forms of posting are not permitted.
For example the NeoXXXX promotions have been blocked.
It only a matter of time and some of the worst forms
of DeConstructivist and Nihilist Pragmatist
promotions will be banned.
Name a single crazy comment that I have made,
wrong logic, or bad facts, and I'll be happy to
consider and revise my ideas.
Ralph Hertle
----------------------------------------------
Jackson
> It only a matter of time and some of the worst forms
> of DeConstructivist and Nihilist Pragmatist
> promotions will be banned.
>
> Name a single crazy comment that I have made,
> wrong logic, or bad facts, and I'll be happy to
> consider and revise my ideas.
How about this post? It made absolutely no sense.. Its just rambling on
about nothing.. Did you take your medicine today? You are great
entertainment for all of us.. keep it up.
Don Linsenbach
> I have, however, read
> the USENET rules and FAQs, and I couldn't
> relate what details I read if I had too.
That pretty much sums it up Ralph.
You read, but you don't understand.
Of course I must ***plonk*** at this juncture.
***PLONK***
Joe Barta
> Joe:
>
> I did not "chastise" Rudy. I merely
> reminded him of the facts which he
> treated with disdain.
I re-read what you wrote. I still come up with chastise. On this
point we'll agree to disagree.
> What do you mean by, "...around that track
> several times..."?
Meaning you have said many things that make you look bad.
> Do you mean my age?
No. Don't make your age an excuse ;-)
> What may be unbelievable to you is that
> I actually do have an age.
What may be unbelievable to you is that this is one of the dumbest
statements I've ever heard. What may be doubly unbelievable to you
is that I'm not surprised YOU would say such a thing.
> Are you implying that I am in a race?
Figuratively speaking. But you don't seem to be aware of it.
> For what purpose?
You ended up "in the race" because you desperately wish to impress
people. In reality, you're just making a bit of a fool of yourself.
I told you a short time ago that I thought your exceptional mind was
running a little hot. You dismissed that notion. So be it. Carry
on...
> Please grant me the courtesy of a civil
> explanation.
You mean I can't call you sick and evil? I can't suggest that maybe
you suffer from a cocaine addiction?
And what about those times in the past when I asked for an
explanation from YOU?? The next time I ask you to explain one of
your slightly whacked out statements, I hope you too will grant me
the courtesy of a civil explanation.
Have a nice day Ralph.
- Joe Barta
Ralph Hertle
You seem to have some type of axe to grind.
Are you opposed to factual or logical arguments?
Are you opposed to Objectivism?
Are you a Christian? I say that because I don't
get any static from persons of other religions.
I do get a lot of flak from Pragmatists,
Surrealists, Post-Modernists, and Nihilists,
however.
Joe Barta wrote:
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
>
>>Joe:
>>
>>I did not "chastise" Rudy. I merely
>>reminded him of the facts which he
>>treated with disdain.
>>
>
> I re-read what you wrote. I still come up with chastise. On this
> point we'll agree to disagree.
Please provide a single reference to something I said.
If I said something that was discourteous, for example,
I may see that and offer to correct what I said.
>>What do you mean by, "...around that track
>>several times..."?
>>
>
> Meaning you have said many things that make you look bad.
Please provide me with a single example.
>>Do you mean my age?
>>
> No. Don't make your age an excuse ;-)
>
>
>>What may be unbelievable to you is that
>>I actually do have an age.
You comment about, "around that track", is still
a puzzle.
> What may be unbelievable to you is that this is one of the dumbest
> statements I've ever heard.
I give up. Yes, I have made dumb statements in my time.
What's the point?
> What may be doubly unbelievable to you
> is that I'm not surprised YOU would say such a thing.
Why me? Yes, sometimes I say things in humor as well, and
sometimes I'll have to take the credit for that. I have
to admit to saying funny remarks sometimes.
>>Are you implying that I am in a race?
You mean like in discussions of ideas?
Are you referring to the philosophical war that exists
on the UseNet newsgroups between Catholic or Kantian
religionist flamers and some Objectivists? You know
the type of argument where the discussions go round and round
with faith and arbitrary assertions and baseless accusations
being promoted against factual and logical arguments. Is
that what you mean?
> Figuratively speaking. But you don't seem to be aware of it.
Please tell me so that I may be aware of it. I am trying to
be aware, except that there is nothing coming through. What
is the proper subject of the awareness to which you refer?
If you say that I have a mental block, I may have to laugh.
That would be funny. Is that what you are trying to transmit?
>>For what purpose?
>>
>
> You ended up "in the race" because you desperately wish to impress
> people. In reality, you're just making a bit of a fool of yourself.
Yes, it is good when I try to impress people. I don't always succeed,
and often I do.
To what instance do you refer where you claim that I made a fool of
myself.
> I told you a short time ago that I thought your exceptional mind was
> running a little hot. You dismissed that notion. So be it. Carry
> on...
Actually, I answered the question. Recall that I said that its all
due to plenty of designer vitamins and nutrition supplements.
>>Please grant me the courtesy of a civil explanation.
>>
>
> You mean I can't call you sick and evil? I can't suggest that maybe
> you suffer from a cocaine addiction?
Say anything, and without evidence you are a self-declared liar.
I don't take drugs.
> And what about those times in the past when I asked for an
> explanation from YOU?? The next time I ask you to explain one of
> your slightly whacked out statements, I hope you too will grant me
> the courtesy of a civil explanation.
In my writings on UseNet groups I have said that I answer questions
that have philosophical interest or that interest me insofar as
technical discussions regarding AEC topics. I don't educate
others, and I don't derepress the intellects and emotions of others.
At other times, my work prevents me from answering all questions.
Please restate the question if you will, and I'll have a try at
providing an answer.
> Have a nice day Ralph.
>
> - Joe Barta
Signed, Ralph Hertle
Joe Barta
> Joe:
>
> You seem to have some type of axe to grind.
Your conclusion is in err. Then again, this is nothing new for you.
You'll have to work on your "correct thinking" skills.
> Are you opposed to factual or logical arguments?
Are you opposed to being taken seriously?
> Are you opposed to Objectivism?
What the hell is Objectivism? (And no, I'm not going to look it up.
I'm smart enough already. If you can't explain yourself using common
English then don't say anything.)
You were blessed with an exceptional mind and this is the best you
can do? Being an intellectual wannabe in a contruction newsgroup? Go
into alt.usenet.kooks and beat someone over the head with big words
and neurotic logic there.
> Are you a Christian? I say that because I don't
> get any static from persons of other religions.
I'm sure you get static everywhere you go Ralph.
> I do get a lot of flak from Pragmatists,
> Surrealists, Post-Modernists, and Nihilists,
> however.
Not to mention the Italians and the Greeks...
> Joe Barta wrote:
>
>> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joe:
>>>
>>>I did not "chastise" Rudy. I merely
>>>reminded him of the facts which he
>>>treated with disdain.
>>>
>>
>> I re-read what you wrote. I still come up with chastise. On
>> this point we'll agree to disagree.
>
>
>
>
> Please provide a single reference to something I said.
> If I said something that was discourteous, for example,
> I may see that and offer to correct what I said.
YOU re-read what you said and see if you come up with anything
different. If you don't, then you fail the test.
>
>>>What do you mean by, "...around that track
>>>several times..."?
>>>
>>
>> Meaning you have said many things that make you look bad.
>
>
>
>
> Please provide me with a single example.
Go back over your postings here in the last few weeks. There's lots
of material to choose from. If you still can't find anything then I
can't help you.
>
>>>Do you mean my age?
>>>
>> No. Don't make your age an excuse ;-)
>
>>
>
>>
>>>What may be unbelievable to you is that
>>>I actually do have an age.
>
>
>
>
> You comment about, "around that track", is still
> a puzzle.
Then it's a puzzle. Let it go.
>
>
>
>> What may be unbelievable to you is that this is one of the
>> dumbest statements I've ever heard.
>
>
>
>
> I give up. Yes, I have made dumb statements in my time.
> What's the point?
You clarify a dumb statement with a dumb question? The point? I made
the point already Ralph. Again, if you don't understand, fuh-get
about it.
>
>
>
>> What may be doubly unbelievable to you
>> is that I'm not surprised YOU would say such a thing.
>
>
>
>
> Why me? Yes, sometimes I say things in humor as well, and
> sometimes I'll have to take the credit for that. I have
> to admit to saying funny remarks sometimes.
You are funny, but not in the way you think.
>
>
>
>
>>>Are you implying that I am in a race?
>
>
>
>
> You mean like in discussions of ideas?
> Are you referring to the philosophical war that exists
> on the UseNet newsgroups between Catholic or Kantian
> religionist flamers and some Objectivists? You know
> the type of argument where the discussions go round and round
> with faith and arbitrary assertions and baseless accusations
> being promoted against factual and logical arguments. Is
> that what you mean?
That's EXACTLY what I mean ;-)
Alright, I'm done. Responses to the rest of your babblings will have
to wait for another day. It's past my bedtime.
- Joe Barta
Napalm Heart
Link to objectivism site.
Best Wishes,
Ken
Joe Barta
> Link to objectivism site.
>
> http://www.aynrand.org/
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Ken
Interesting. But I'm an instant gratification sort of guy. From what
I can see, a thorough grasp of Objectivism would take quite a while.
My elementary understanding of the world suits me just fine for now.
I did find it interesting that this "Objectivism" is based on the
writings of one individual... female no less. I'm reminded of my
brief, but interesting, foray into the wonderful world of Dianetics
and Scientology. (Fortunately?) I didn't get very far with that.
- Joe Barta
indago
I doubt that the "objectivist" principles are base on anything new.
Ralph Hertle
I realize that for others on the a.b.c NG,
discussions of philosophies are somewhat away
from the central subject matter. Please don't
think that I am trying to foist any doctrine upon
you or to promote any type of scheme whatsoever.
I want to clarify a point regarding Objectivism.
You would be right in saying that the philosophy of
Objectivism may not be based on anything new. There
is, however, one exception.
To explain. Objectivism is solidly oriented in
the facts of reality, and it completely advocates
the use of logic to identify, and to work with, the
facts of reality. There is nothing new in history
there, and, in fact, all of civilization is based on
the principles of facts and logic. Objectivism claims
no new fundamentals there, however, there is one
exception - the study of ethics. The ethics of
Objectivism is totally new in the history of ideas.
Ayn Rand's idea is that each person acts in his
own rational self interest, for example, to provide
him/herself with nutrition, or with productive
achievement, or with the creation of the values
needed for one's own life.
She further says that while one has the right to seek
values that cause the continuation of one's own life,
so does everyone else have that right. She adds this
most important qualification: that no one has the right
to seek values at the sacrifice of the rights of other
persons. That provision differentiates her ethics from
all the previous, including all religious, theories
in all of history.
How does that work in a social system? When the values
of others are desired the only way to aquire those values
is by means of volitional or non coercive free trade
in a free market. The initiation of force of any
one person anywhere upon another is banned in Ayn
Rand's Objectivist ethics.
For Americans that doesn't seem all that new. but for
the peoples of Asia and, earlier, Europe, that is
revolutionary.
There is more to Objectivism than that, and I wish
here, to comment only on that single point.
BTW, Ayn Rand's novel, "The Fountainhead", is a great
novel for those persons who are of the designer-
constructor mentality, and its hero, Architect, Howard
Roark, is the Mike Hammer of architecture. The novel
is built on a struggle for honesty and integrity
in design, personal honesty, and greatness
in architecture and construction.
These days, that's new.
Ralph Hertle
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
indago wrote:
> I doubt that the "objectivist" principles are base(d) on anything new.
>
>
Jackson
are you just here to make trouble, similar to your other personality Lyle?
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D769B81...@verizon.net...
Cecil
Look, Rand was a very smart lady, and many people who are strong supporters
of laissez-faire capitalism (myself included) learned much from her. But
the statement, "The initiation of force of any one person anywhere upon
another is banned in Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics." is false.
A government cannot exist without initiating force and violating
rights. Rand was an advocate of government. Thus, Rand was
an advocate of initiating force. That may sound harsh, but it is
simply reality.
Read this and tell me what you think:
Don Linsenbach
> How does that work in a social system? When the values
> of others are desired the only way to aquire those values
> is by means of volitional or non coercive free trade
> in a free market. The initiation of force
> one person anywhere upon another is banned in Ayn
> Rand's Objectivist ethics.
This is commonly referred to as the NAP.
The Non-Aggression Principle.
No charge for the editing.....
Don Linsenbach
"Cecil" <cecil...@att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns927FD54F03977...@204.127.36.1...
Only with the *consent of the governed*.
To the best of my knowledge no one ever asked me or anyone I know for
*consent* to have force initiated against me by anyone.
In fact, initiation of force is initiated against almost everyone, against
their wishes by the gov't.
I doubt Rand, or any other sane person, would agree with that type of
government.
As for me, I largely just ignore the initiators of force and go on about my
business....
Ralph Hertle
Don Linsenbach wrote:
[ TEXT OMITTED. You say: ]
> Only with the *consent of the governed*.
> To the best of my knowledge no one ever asked me or anyone I know for
> *consent* to have force initiated against me by anyone.
> In fact, initiation of force is initiated against almost everyone, against
> their wishes by the gov't.
> I doubt Rand, or any other sane person, would agree with that type of
> government.
> As for me, I largely just ignore the initiators of force and go on about my
> business....
>
The problems that exist with a government by consent of the citizens are numerous,
and not all of them have been solved. The issues were first conceptualized with
the Magna Cart, and in America with the concept of, "no taxation without
representation." There is continuing work to be done insofar as the
development and protection of liberty.
In what form shall the consent by given? The vote is one. The method of
electing representatives is another. And, also, many rights have been given
a great deal of enhancement and explanation in the various laws of the US
government, the states, and the local governments. More work is possible.
On the coercive side, there is coercive taxation. The military draft has never
been done away with. Concentration camps have not been banned. The rights of
opposing POWs or undefined detainees have not been defined. In many local
governments, landlords still have the right of access to a rented apartment
at any time without permission. Under certain conditions it is illegal to own
gold or firearms. Blue laws still remain on the books that permit government
interference in one's life. Vocational licensing is becoming a major plague
upon the honest workers of the USA. The oppression of licensed attorneys and
architects is getting to be serious in that a terrible sameness of official
approach to dealing with problems is taking place. Aerobic septic systems
are not yet legal in New Jersey. License plates junk up the appearance of one's
automobile.
Well, I needn't ernumerate all the problems that we citizens have with
governmental coercion in the USA.
Ralph Hertle
Don Linsenbach wrote:
[ TEXT OMITTED. You say: ]
"
Only with the *consent of the governed*.
To the best of my knowledge no one ever asked me or anyone I know for
*consent* to have force initiated against me by anyone.
In fact, initiation of force is initiated against almost everyone, against
their wishes by the gov't.
I doubt Rand, or any other sane person, would agree with that type of
government.
As for me, I largely just ignore the initiators of force and go on about my
business....
"
The problems that exist with a government by consent of the citizens are
numerous, and not all of the problems have been solved. The issues were first
conceptualized with the Magna Carta, and in America with the concept of,
"no taxation without representation." There is continuing work to be done
insofar as the development and protection of liberty.
In what form shall the consent by given? The vote is one way. The method of
electing representatives is another. And, also, many rights have been given
a great deal of enhancement and explanation in the various laws of the US
government, the states, and the local governments. More work is possible.
On the coercive side, there is coercive taxation. The military draft has never
been done away with. Concentration camps have not been banned. The rights of
opposing POWs or miscellaneous detainees have not been defined. In many local
governments, landlords still have the right of access to a rented apartment
at any time without permission. Under certain conditions it is illegal to own
gold or firearms. Blue laws still remain on the books that permit government
interference in one's life. Vocational licensing is becoming a major plague
upon the honest workers of the USA. The oppression of licensed attorneys and
architects is getting to be serious in that a terrible sameness of official
approach to dealing with problems is taking place. Aerobic septic systems
are not yet legal in New Jersey. The state of New Jersey legally owns all of
the water produce by humans and nature in the state, and it is illegal to apply
even pure potable water to your own land. License plates continue to junk up
the appearance of one's automobile.
Well, I needn't enumerate all the problems that we citizens have with
governmental coercion in the USA.
We should thank the Founding Fathers of the (free economic community of the)
United States for our liberties.
Just think of the consequences of falling in love in Saudi Arabia - being
shot or beheaded. Or for drug use - beheading.
The problem of governmental force outside the realm of retaliatory force
in the defense of individual rights, property rights, freedom of action,
and the right to share in the control of government should not be taken
lightly.
Ralph Hertle
.
indago
however, there is one exception - the study of ethics. The ethics of
Objectivism is totally new in the history of ideas.
Ayn Rand's idea is that each person acts in his own rational self interest,
for example, to provide him/herself with nutrition, or with productive
achievement, or with the creation of the values needed for one's own life.
She further says that while one has the right to seek values that cause the
continuation of one's own life, so does everyone else have that right. She
adds this most important qualification: that no one has the right to seek
values at the sacrifice of the rights of other persons. That provision
differentiates her ethics from all the previous, including all religious,
theories in all of history."
You really should get out moreĊ
Shakespeare wrote, in Hamlet in 1602: "This above all; to thine owne selfe
be trueĊ Thow canst not then be false to any man." Also, the principles
and desire for self preservation are inherent in everyone, passed on through
our genetic structure. Ayn Rand is espousing principles as old as time. To
say that these ancient principles are "Ayn Rand's idea" is to say that Al
Gore discovered communication.
Ralph Hertle
Ayn Rand identified the principles of her ethics, and she was the
first to develop an integrated philosophical ethical system. that
was based on those ideas.
It is not impossible that individuals have expressed some of
the same ideas from time to time. After the discovery and definition
of the concept of individual rights and property rights in history
many people may have stated similar ideas in part, and you refer to
Shakespeare in that connection.
What Ayn RAnd did was to integrate two fundamentals into a single
ethical principle.
She said that, while each and every individuals has rights, no
individual has the right to interfere with the rights of another
individual. That is what is new in the history of ideas.
The prevailing view prior to that was the ethics of Altruism
that was coined in Medieval times, and that says that
the individual's purpose in life is to live for the sake of others
and not for one's self. Under an Altruist ethics people are
expected to give their time, ideas, work, money, children, property,
and even their lives to others or to causes that are not one's own.
Some examples are: coerced motherhood, taxation, military draft,
slavery, and the acceptance of tyranny or intimidation.
The philosophical system that she developed enables individuals
to live without interfering with the lives of others, to have a
proper philosophical base for legislation that enhances, protects
and furthers liberty, or that enables free trade and the free
enterprise system to have a proper philosophical base, for example.
The ideas are consistent with the needs of people, and as such, and
to the extent that people act in their own rational self interest,
they need a proper concept of rights as the basis for their society
in order to live. That has always been true.
Those ideas have always been consistent with what people have needed
in order to live or to live happier lives. In that sense there is
nothing new in Rand's ethics. However, in the sense that an intellectual
and philosophical integration and development was created, and that
is the basis for further work for protecting individual rights
and liberty, what she wrote is new.
You say, " Ayn Rand is espousing principles as old as time." That is
true, and the success of most societies or social systems in the
world is based on those principles, either implicitly or explicitly.
It is true that the principles have existed all the while in the sense
that these principles have always been the cause for successful
individual life and even the success of nations, e.g., the USA.
Ayn Rand merely created a philosophical system that redefines,
explains, proves, and demonstrates the new integration of ethical
principles.
Ralph Hertle
Out more? Yes, thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
indago wrote:
> Ralph Hertle has noted: "Objectivism claims no new fundamentals there,
> however, there is one exception - the study of ethics. The ethics of
> Objectivism is totally new in the history of ideas.
>
> Ayn Rand's idea is that each person acts in his own rational self interest,
> for example, to provide him/herself with nutrition, or with productive
> achievement, or with the creation of the values needed for one's own life.
>
> She further says that while one has the right to seek values that cause the
> continuation of one's own life, so does everyone else have that right. She
> adds this most important qualification: that no one has the right to seek
> values at the sacrifice of the rights of other persons. That provision
> differentiates her ethics from all the previous, including all religious,
> theories in all of history."
>
> You really should get out moreS(
>
> Shakespeare wrote, in Hamlet in 1602: "This above all; to thine owne selfe
> be trueS( Thow canst not then be false to any man." Also, the principles
Jackson
goodness our mothers didnt feel that way, or we would all be neglected..
Also, rand basicly felt that , with regards to god, that she would only
believe what she could see. Thus, to her, god does not exist.
Wasnt it Christ that taught the golden rule, "Do unto others" ?? It's
common sense isn't it? Did Rand really come up with anything new?
One last thing Ralphy, If so are so hip on Objectivism, isnt it clear to
you that the way you act here isnt working? Wouldnt it make sense, based on
the law of Objectivism, to make a change and stop being such a pain?
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D7771F6...@verizon.net...
Don Linsenbach
> We should thank the Founding Fathers of the (free economic community of
the)
> United States for our liberties.
No, I should not be thankful to dead guys that I never knew.
See, I do not live by the collectivists *we* and *us*.
I am *me* and that is all.
It matters not where I live, I am still a sovereign individual and will be
treated as such.
BTW: Iniating force againt the aboriginals of north america was classic,
teaching by example.
Joe Barta
> "Ralph Hertle"> wrote
>> We should thank the Founding Fathers of the (free economic
>> community of
> the)
>> United States for our liberties.
>
> No, I should not be thankful to dead guys that I never knew.
Many good men spilled their guts so YOU can shoot off at the mouth
unhindered.
> See, I do not live by the collectivists *we* and *us*.
> I am *me* and that is all.
Sorry, you don't have that choice. You live by *we* and *us* whether
you like it or not.
> It matters not where I live, I am still a sovereign individual
> and will be treated as such.
Again, you are a member of our happy little group whether you admit
it or not. All you're managing to do is blow hot air.
> BTW: Iniating force againt the aboriginals of north america was
> classic, teaching by example.
Not sure what your point is. I'd be curious to hear you clarify and
expand on this thought.
- Joe Barta
Don Linsenbach
> Don Linsenbach wrote:
>
> > "Ralph Hertle"> wrote
> >> We should thank the Founding Fathers of the (free economic
> >> community of
> > the)
> >> United States for our liberties.
> >
> > No, I should not be thankful to dead guys that I never knew.
>
> Many good men spilled their guts so YOU can shoot off at the mouth
> unhindered.
Spilled mine too, Joe, more than 25 years ago.
I've learned alot since then.
> > See, I do not live by the collectivists *we* and *us*.
> > I am *me* and that is all.
>
> Sorry, you don't have that choice. You live by *we* and *us* whether
> you like it or not.
Yes, Joe, I do get to make that choice, and there isn't a damn thing you can
do about it.
> > It matters not where I live, I am still a sovereign individual
> > and will be treated as such.
>
> Again, you are a member of our happy little group whether you admit
> it or not. All you're managing to do is blow hot air.
LOL, now you're becoming hysterical, Joe.
Maybe YOU choose to be a memeber of anything you want, just leave me out of
your little equation.
> > BTW: Iniating force againt the aboriginals of north america was
> > classic, teaching by example.
>
> Not sure what your point is. I'd be curious to hear you clarify and
> expand on this thought.
That was in response to Ralphs remark that the original patriots of the US
were not inflicting force against the british.
They were retaliating, which was true.
They did however initiate force upon the natives of north america.
indago
has rights, no individual has the right to interfere with the rights of
another individual. That is what is new in the history of ideas.
The prevailing view prior to that was the ethics of Altruism that was coined
in Medieval times, and that says that the individual's purpose in life is to
live for the sake of others and not for one's self. Under an Altruist ethics
people are expected to give their time, ideas, work, money, children,
property, and even their lives to others or to causes that are not one's
own. Some examples are: coerced motherhood, taxation, military draft,
slavery, and the acceptance of tyranny or intimidation.
The philosophical system that she developed enables individuals to live
without interfering with the lives of others, to have a proper philosophical
base for legislation that enhances, protects and furthers liberty, or that
enables free trade and the free enterprise system to have a proper
philosophical base, for example."
You are describing the difference between the ancient feudal societies and
the contractual society created by those who assembled together at
Philadelphia in 1787. The principles of Natural Rights had been propounded
for centuries before this.
In 1860, the Iowa Supreme Court declared that "the plaintiff needed no
constitutional declaration to protect him in the use and enjoyment of his
property... To be thus protected and thus secure is a right inalienable, a
right which a written constitution may recognize and declare, but which
existed independently of and before such recognition, and which no
government can destroy." It is written in many places in the Bible: "And
the LORD was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth". It is
not a new phenomenon that an individual is encouraged to gain wealth and
enjoy it. Natural Law principles are based upon the premise: "Men do not
make laws. They do but discover them"; from which follows: "An unjust law
is not law". These principles are noted in the writings of some of the
great thinkers of their time: Demosthenes, Sophocles, Aristotle, Cicero,
Seneca, Ulpian, Gaius, John of Salisbury, Isidore of Seville, St. Thomas
Aquinas, Bracton, Fortescue, Coke, Grotius, Newton, Hooker, Pufendorf,
Locke, Blackstone.
It is wonderful that these principles are discovered again and again over
time. Ayn Rand may have written about these ancient principles, but she
certainly did not create them. Those who are not familiar with the
principles of Natural Rights may have read her writings and believed that
this was a new phenomenon.
Cecil
>
> It is wonderful that these principles are discovered again and again
> over time. Ayn Rand may have written about these ancient principles,
> but she certainly did not create them. Those who are not familiar with
> the principles of Natural Rights may have read her writings and
> believed that this was a new phenomenon.
I can't remember where I read it, but I recall someone once describing the
correctness and uniqueness of Rand's philosophy in this way: "Where she was
right she was not original, and where she was unoriginal she was wrong."
Cecil
news:Xns928174735B10F...@204.127.36.1:
Oops. That should read, "Where she was right she was not original, and
where she was *original* she was wrong."
Joe Barta
>
> "Joe Barta" <jba...@apk.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns92808D0FFBA...@206.183.6.17...
>> Don Linsenbach wrote:
>>
>> > "Ralph Hertle"> wrote
>> >> We should thank the Founding Fathers of the (free economic
>> >> community of
>> > the)
>> >> United States for our liberties.
>> >
>> > No, I should not be thankful to dead guys that I never knew.
>>
>> Many good men spilled their guts so YOU can shoot off at the
>> mouth unhindered.
>
> Spilled mine too, Joe, more than 25 years ago.
> I've learned alot since then.
>
>
>> > See, I do not live by the collectivists *we* and *us*.
>> > I am *me* and that is all.
>>
>> Sorry, you don't have that choice. You live by *we* and *us*
>> whether you like it or not.
>
> Yes, Joe, I do get to make that choice, and there isn't a damn
> thing you can do about it.
Right now, you are engaging "me". That makes us a "we". You are
pissed about someone wanting you to buy a fishing license. That
makes you and them a "we". You are connected to the Internet and I
suppose you read articles that interest you. Those articles were
written by someone else... that makes you affected by someone
else... another "we". You don't have to worry about Chinese jets
flying over your house because others are protecting you... it goes
on and on. You live in a society whether you like it or not. You are
a part of a group whether you admit it or not. You can spout off any
way you wish, but reality is reality. You might as well argue that
fire is not hot or water is not wet.
- Joe Barta
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
indago wrote:
[ text omitted }
> It is wonderful that these principles are discovered again and again over
> time. Ayn Rand may have written about these ancient principles, but she
> certainly did not create them. Those who are not familiar with the
> principles of Natural Rights may have read her writings and believed that
> this was a new phenomenon.
>
I write:
My understanding is that natural rights were a discovery during the early or pre-
Industrial Revolution, and that they were not ancient. The concept of individual
rights is still more recent. In fact, the discovery and improved formulation of
the concepts of rights were a primary cause if the Industrial Revolution, and
the benefits of that thinking continue today.
Ayn Rand's particular formulation of ethical rights was an integration, or
combination, of two, possibly pre-existing, concepts.
The pre-existing concepts were (1) that individuals had rights, and (2) that it
was wrong to violate the rights of other individuals. I believe that those concepts
came from England during the Enlightenment and Renaissance.
Ayn Rand did not invent the concept of individual rights - that was done earlier.
The many types of crimes that existed prior, e.g., murder, theft, rape, quartering
soldiers in one's home, confiscation without due process under objective laws,
forced labor conscription, and numerous other examples, were unified according
to an implicit standard - that people need rights, including individual and
property rights, in order to live. Rand did, however, significantly develop
and expand the concept of individual rights, and she developed a more general
philosophy of ethics that went far beyond what previous philosophers had written.
One of the principles that Rand discovered was that the standard by which
all actions are measured, and all violations of rights, is that the life
of the individual human being is the good. Previously individuals were thought to
be the instruments of God's will, were helpless pawns of natural processes, or
were the subordinate subjects and property of governments, or of prcreationist
androcentrics, land owners, or kings, for example.
One of the characteristics of Rand's philosophy is that individual rational
beings are considered to be the standard of the good be which all actions are
measured. That means that the purposes of the lives of the individual are
productive acheivement and happiness.
Her innovation was that because EACH individual has rights so is it necessary
that NO individual has the right to violate the rights of others. This is a
paraphrasing explanation that expresses the gist of what she said. Ayn Rand's
formulations regarding ethics and individual rights were a significant
innovation in the history of philosophy.
To Rand, rights are a philosophical and social concept that enable individuals
to live without the interference of others.
Ralph Hertle
.
memimi
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D77073C...@verizon.net...
Jackson
Its time for you to be objective and MOVE ON! this is alt.building
.construction
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D78EFA4...@verizon.net...
Ralph Hertle
Ok. I'll say no more on this thread.
I would agree that the line of the thread
got sidetracked.
Ralph Hertle
Jackson wrote:
> Ralph,
> Its time for you to be objective and MOVE ON! this is alt.building
> .construction
>
[ quoted text omitted ]