Ethical Egoism and "Objectivism" (REPOST FOR GANDALF)
Captain Compassion
>perhaps some of its variations. In the interests of brevity and relevance
>to a discussion of morality and rights, insofar as I have occasion to remark
>on the so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, it will be only her
>doctrine of selfishness that I address and not the greater and more fatal
>flaws of her epistemology. For those who are interested in so complete a
>treatment and for a more detailed refutation of her ethics, Scott Ryan's
>excellent and very detailed book, *Objectivism and the Corruption of
>Rationality* may be found on his website at
>
>http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/essays_on_objectivism/
>
>....particularly, the chapter *Values and Volition: The Objectivist Ethics.*
>
>For the purposes of this discussion, the numerous errors and logical flaws
>in Objectivism are simply too extensive for any one post to do justice to
>the subject.
>
>As always, my remarks will be general and are not, with the exception of
>Rand, addressed to the particular work of any individual thinker.
>
>ETHICAL EGOISM:
>
>Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his own
>self interest, and only his own self interest. It should be made clear at
>the outset that Ethical Egoism is not Psychological Egoism. Psychological
>Egoism is a theory that purports to explain why people actually do the
>things they do. Ethical Egoism is about what human beings 'ought' to do.
>As such, Ethical Egoism is a moral theory with relevance to the subject of
>human rights that hopefully will become apparent in later posts.
>
>It should also be made clear at the outset that Ethical Egoism does not
>state that one ought to promote one's self interests AS WELL AS the
>interests of others. There would be nothing particularly novel about such a
>viewpoint. Ethical Egoism is a radical moral theory which states that we
>should ONLY pursue what is in our own interests. This does not mean that an
>Ethical Egoist should NEVER help someone else. It may well be that the
>interests of another might coincide with our own interests, or it may be
>that furthering their interest might serve as a MEANS to secure our
>interests. In those cases, Ethical Egoism would in fact demand that we
>'help' someone else, but it can never be BECAUSE of their interests and
>their interest alone that we act.
>
>The first argument for Ethical Egoism relies on variations of the three
>arguments that follow.
>
>1. Each one of us is individually better able to determine what is best for
>us than someone else is. By the same token, our knowledge of what is really
>in someone else's best interests is vague and always imperfect. By the
>light of this argument, who better to serve our interests than ourselves
>rather than someone else?
>
>2. Serving others by way of a kind of personal charity is degrading to them.
>Various arguments concerning the Welfare State should occur to the reader at
>this point. Serving others robs them both of personal pride and personal
>dignity. How can anyone take joy in that which they have not accomplished
>for themselves? Serving the needs of others merely perpetuates a kind of
>loser mentality that becomes more pervasive with every new act of charity.
>
>3. Serving others is a kind of intrusion into the privacy of other people.
>It's a matter of telling them that their lives and their affairs aren't
>really THEIRS, but are really OUR business. By serving others, we set
>ourselves up as not only the benefactors of their futures but the judges of
>their futures, robbing them of the ultimate liberty of personal privacy, the
>knowledge that one's life is exclusively one's own business.
>
>The problem with all three of these variations on the argument is that they
>don't really describe Egoism at all. The claim is made in each of the three
>arguments that individuals should always follow a course of self-interest
>and yet the foundational premise of each of the three arguments is that
>somehow people as a whole will be better off by following this principle.
>From this standpoint, Ethical Egoists aren't egoists at all, rather they are
>altruists attempting to do something that will make the lives of others
>better in some measurable fashion. Although Ethical Egoists tend to make
>their arguments AGAINST altruism, these arguments demonstrate that Ethical
>Egoism as it is stated in them is merely a subvariety of altruism itself.
>
>AYN RAND
>
>The Objectivist variation on Ethical Egoism can be illustrated by the
>following quote from Rand herself.
>
>"Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since
>he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with
>one's own interests is evil, means that man's desire to live is evil---that
>man's life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.
>Yet that is the meaning of altruism."
>---The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964.
>
>Rand defines her Ethical Egoism by contrasting it with what she considers to
>be it's only alternative, altruism. She considers anything other than
>Ethical Egoism to be a matter of sacrificing one's life. Sacrificing one's
>life need not be a matter of dying because Rand considers all those aspects
>that make up a human life, such as projects, goods made and earned, etc. to
>be valid parts of that life. Any demand that we give up any of these
>possessions or projects are calls for the sacrifice of our life.
>
>The argument can by roughly outlined as follows:
>
>1. Each one of us has only one life. IF we place any kind of value on life
>at all, it must begin with the supreme importance of the individual.
>
>2. The doctrine of altruism requires that the life of the individual has to
>be sacrificed for the good of others.
>
>3. Therefore the doctrine of altruism CANNOT take the supreme value of the
>individual life seriously. I.e., altruism CANNOT value life.
>
>4. Ethical Egoism, does take the individual life as being of supreme
>importance.
>
>5. Hence, Ethical Egoism is the only appropriate philosophy of individual
>morality.
>
>The immediate problem with the Randian view is that it pictures the
>available alternatives in such an extreme fashion that a false choice is
>offered to us. In reading any of Rand's ideas about the subject, altruism
>is always pictured as offering NO respect for the value of the individual.
>One's own interests have NO value and ANY demand by others calls for an
>immediate sacrifice of one's life.
>
>It is as a consequence of Rand's prosy picture of the necessary and
>automatic EVIL of any instance of altruism that Ethical Egoism ends up
>looking good in comparison with any alternative. But it is at least as
>likely that the truth lies somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints of
>either sacrificing one's whole life or deliberately ignoring any and all
>interests of others. Though Rand always insists that her doctrine is
>strictly rational, it is in fact an extremist view that largely ignores the
>reality that a balance between the needs of ourselves and others will result
>in situations in which one should rationally act in one's own interests and
>occasionally rationally act in the interests of others. Even if we are to
>accept Rand's extremist picture of the evils of Altruism, it does not
>logically entail that Egoism is the only alternative. Rand's individual
>failure to realize this fact appears to be linked with her illogical
>insistence on defining any part of an individual's life as, for all
>practical purposes, their life itself in any particular circumstance.
>
>GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON WHY ETHICAL EGOISM DOESN'T WORK
>
>There are two primary reasons for rejecting Ethical Egoism as a moral
>doctrine. The first comes about when we ask ourselves why we have moral and
>ethical systems in the first place. For any rational individual: moralities
>are those devices for securing some desirable behavior that would not be
>obtainable without the cooperation of others. Now, it is quite acceptable
>for thinkers to ponder about what might work out best for any individual in
>any particular situation. To stretch a point, it might be said that a con
>artist who is attempting to swindle a group of individuals out of their life
>savings and escape with the proceeds is, after a fashion, wrestling with a
>problem in situational ethics. But such individual ethics are manifestly
>NOT what such writers as Rand have in mind. Rand did not entitle any of her
>books "How You Can Get Away With Being Selfish." Ethical Egoist theories do
>not describe what some one individual might profitably get away with in
>their behavior within a society. Their doctrines are principles intended to
>apply to groups and so, once again, such doctrines will require the
>cooperation of other individuals to attain their ends.
>
>This being the case, it is difficult to see how Ethical Egoism can survive
>the slightest conflict of interest between any two of it's adherents. If
>Jim and JoAnn are both Ethical Egoists and they have a distinct conflict of
>interest, how can ANY solution to that conflict be acceptable to both of
>them.
>
>Should Jim tell JoAnn that it is her duty, under the circumstances, to do
>what is in her interests, his interests, or both? The first case will be
>wholly unacceptable to Jim because it is not in his interests. The second
>case will be wholly unacceptable to JoAnn because it is not in her
>interests. The third case is impossible because their interests do not
>coincide. When Rand states that there is NO conflict of interest between
>rational men she is stretching the concept of "interest" to the point where
>it loses the very meaning that it requires for a moral system to have any
>practicality. Far from somehow guaranteeing that rational men never have
>conflicts of interest, Rand's doctrine ensures that virtually every human
>interaction will generate such a conflict by definition.
>
>But perhaps Rand really means that men ought to try to act in their own best
>interests, conflicts or no, and that the results are less important than a
>sense of striving for personal ends. In this case, one might realistically
>ask the question, don't the results of a moral system matter? In such a
>case, morality would be turned into a kind of game and morality is really
>not a game in which we all get into the spirit of the thing and root for the
>other side. Even if it could be granted that, for the Ethical Egoist, the
>conflict will be just a matter of someone winning and someone losing, the
>same can hardly be said for the society that, as a whole, decides to adopt
>the doctrine. The end result of Ethical Egoism is that very state of Nature
>that Locke perceived Man creating society to escape from.
>
>People do have self interests and there are things that are in the interests
>of individuals. These two facts and the fact that we are inclined, ceteris
>paribus, to pursue our interests are basic truisms concerning human nature
>and lead to the theory of Psychological Egoism: that man tends to do what he
>does out of some form of self interest. Because rational men perceive the
>kernel of descriptive truth in Psychological Egoism AND because they
>recognize that moralities are cooperative ventures by definition, Ethical
>Egoism fails and Rational Egoism takes its place.
>
>Rational Egoism, in recognizing the pre-eminence of self interest as a
>psychological phenomenon AND recognizing the requirement to cooperate in any
>moral system generally leads to some form of Contractarianism which will
>balance the desires of the individual against what others can be
>realistically expected to agree to. It is for this reason that Rational
>Egoism as a philosophical standpoint, rejects Ethical Egoism as being of no
>practical value to a moral, ethical system. From Hobbes and Mandeville to
>Locke and onward, Rational Egoism has been a driving force in western
>political and social philosophy that recognizes both man's desire to work
>his own will as well as the interests and cooperation of others. Ethical
>Egoism stands in relation to Rational Egoism much as Nihilism stands in
>relation to Subjectivism: as an extremist viewpoint that fails by way of the
>logical consequences and undesirable social and individual outcomes I have
>outlined above.
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men;
it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief
which seems so favorable to statesmanship and art; it ends by fighting
suicidally in the lost cause of the past." - Will Durant
"If you can't eat their food, drink their liquor, fuck their
whores and take their money and STILL vote AGAINST them, you
don't belong in this business." -- Jess Unruh.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Billy Beck
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net (Captain Compassion) posted Hanson's
pretense:
>>It seems the time has come to make some remarks on "Ethical Egoism" and
>>perhaps some of its variations. In the interests of brevity and relevance
>>to a discussion of morality and rights, insofar as I have occasion to remark
>>on the so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, it will be only her
>>doctrine of selfishness that I address and not the greater and more fatal
>>flaws of her epistemology. For those who are interested in so complete a
>>treatment and for a more detailed refutation of her ethics, Scott Ryan's
>>excellent and very detailed book, *Objectivism and the Corruption of
>>Rationality* may be found on his website at
>>
>>http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/essays_on_objectivism/
Oh, this is rich. This is sensational. To begin with, I've
always pointed out that Hanson has never read a word of Rand in his
life, and all he knows about it is what he gets second-hand. It's
hilarious to note that he was, some time back, complaining about
"Website sages", and then see this from him -- while he runs
full-speed away from a challenge to show his own work on the subject.
And, then, I find this Scott Ryan person, and his 113,000 word
book on Objectivist Epistemology. <snicker> I adore all the "shalls"
and "therefores". It's all very... formal.
Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free
La...@beck.com
wrote like a right wing scumbag:
> Oh, this is rich. This is sensational. To begin with, I've
>always pointed out that Hanson has never read a word of Rand in his
>life,
You've also pointed out that you were a BURGERKING NARC, BECKIE
And the entire NewsGroup has pointed out what a pathetic fuckwit you
are.
****************************************************
"And the thing that has you, Roselles, and Hanson in a writhing
twist is that someone actually pointed it out to one of your victims.
Burger King does *not* run segregated serving lines -- in Alabama, or
anywhere else -- and there was no way in life I was going to sit here
and watch you lie about them for weeks on end without pointing it out
to them.
Billy "burgerking" Beck explaining why he became a Narc for BurgerKing
Gandalf Grey
<La...@Beck.com> wrote in message news:3d04327...@news.enetis.net...
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 04:33:39 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
> wrote like a right wing scumbag:
>
> > Oh, this is rich. This is sensational. To begin with, I've
> >always pointed out that Hanson has never read a word of Rand in his
> >life,
>
> You've also pointed out that you were a BURGERKING NARC, BECKIE
Don't you love the way Beckie puts it? "I've already pointed out......"
Unfortunately, Beckie spent the last ten years "pointing out" that Beckie
doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to philosophy
and that the closest he's ever come to it is knowing that Ayers once wrote a
book.
That's why I killfiled the troll. One day I woke up and realized that the
weekly chore of proving that Beck is a moron had finally gotten old.
Isle of the Dead
news:3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com...
>
> Oh, this is rich. This is sensational.
I thought the same thing when you guys were trying to
blame the CA electricity blow-up on "legal limits on
consumer prices".
Yuk yuk yuk.
Well, we know who the Master is now, don't we, Billy!
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/enron/1440588
I called it right from Day One, buddy. From Day One.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.22C.Enron.Manipulated.htm
"employee for Enron's trading unit who wrote the company's
trading software for electricity and natural gas sales, claims
Enron congested the state's transmission lines"
who is the MASTER!
who IS the master!
WHO is the master!
The crux of the problem is that resource determinations ain't taking
place inside the skulls of 300 million consumers. But pricing
decisions *are* being made on an hourly basis, possibly even
minute by minute.
Do you have *any* freaking idea of what goes on inside your
skull when you "pull out a wad of cash to buy a Harley Davidson"?
Any idea at all? Your brain's gotta take stock of all current
resources usages.... rent, car payment, food bills.... then it's
gotta think about possible future resource use.... buying a
new house, medical bills, retirement fund...
And then it's got counterbalance all those resources against....
current income! Then it's gotta figure in future income.
Then it's gotta find some what to make it all balance out so
that you can buy that Harley..... selling the old car....
working overtime.... canceling your Playboy scripscription....
No doubt that you'll tell me it ain't so, Joe.
It's all just voodoo hash magik, right?
Stupendous Man
Roselle, you've got to be the poster child for criminals when you think posting the below makes you look good and Beck look bad.
>
> ****************************************************
>
> "And the thing that has you, Roselles, and Hanson in a writhing
> twist is that someone actually pointed it out to one of your victims.
> Burger King does *not* run segregated serving lines -- in Alabama, or
> anywhere else -- and there was no way in life I was going to sit here
> and watch you lie about them for weeks on end without pointing it out
> to them.
>
>
> Billy "burgerking" Beck explaining why he became a Narc for BurgerKing
>
>
>
Stupendous Man—Enemy of Totalitarianism
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 1621. Sec. 1621. - Perjury generally
Whoever -
(1)
having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2)
in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States
Note: liberals, after Clinton's perjury, now try to claim that lying about sex doesn't "rise to the level of perjury". This is, of course, false, as demonstrated by the many convictions (under the US code) for statements not directly related to a main charge in a case. Such as Barbara Battalino, Pam Parsons and Diane Parker, all convicted of perjury for lying under oath about having sex.
Judge Lacey Collier (Federal Judge, northern Florida district): Perjury is simply not telling the truth under oath. It really doesn’t matter what the fact is if it’s material to the issue that’s before the court.
woof woof
wj...@mindspring.com says...
[snip]
>
> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
>
> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
woof
rightw...@losers.com
like a right wing scumbag:
Beck writing anything is like Dana Writing ...........
==================================================
Isopropyl, the mental midget and right wing moralist write:
"whatca taLKIN' about, nigga? yer dick?"
"say WHAT, NIGGAH?? YOU GETTIN' YOU ASS CHAFED, AIN'T YOU, NIGGAH?"
Billy Beck
woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote:
Well, you'd have to read her, first, and it sure would help to
know the subject matter fundamentally enough to spell the word.
Billy Beck
"Isle of the Dead" <isleof...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The crux of the problem is that resource determinations ain't taking
> place inside the skulls of 300 million consumers. But pricing
> decisions *are* being made on an hourly basis, possibly even
> minute by minute.
You're gibbering contradictions, Langford.
> Do you have *any* freaking idea of what goes on inside your
> skull when you "pull out a wad of cash to buy a Harley Davidson"?
Has it ever occurred to you to reflect on the fact that it's
human beings who make computers, and not the other way around?
> Any idea at all? Your brain's gotta take stock of all current
> resources usages.... rent, car payment, food bills.... then it's
> gotta think about possible future resource use.... buying a
> new house, medical bills, retirement fund...
>
> And then it's got counterbalance all those resources against....
> current income! Then it's gotta figure in future income.
>
> Then it's gotta find some what to make it all balance out so
> that you can buy that Harley..... selling the old car....
> working overtime.... canceling your Playboy scripscription....
> No doubt that you'll tell me it ain't so, Joe.
> It's all just voodoo hash magik, right?
No, it's not. Now, why can't you understand that it actually
happens, with no strain at all, and that people do it all the time,
every day?
Gandalf Grey
<rightw...@losers.com> wrote in message
news:3d04ab62...@news.enetis.net...
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:49:31 GMT, woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote
> like a right wing scumbag:
> >In article <3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com>,
> >wj...@mindspring.com says...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
> >>
> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
> >
> >
> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
>
> Beck writing anything is like Dana Writing ...........
IF in fact Beck ever wrote anything other than posting the results of
turning on his random word generator. That's the closest Beck ever comes to
actual input. The rest of the time he spends running away from his near
comments and posting names and addresses.
I note even in the comment you reposted that he predictably had nothing to
say about Rand other than a comment that he'd decided I hadn't read her.
That's typical of Jelloboy Beck. He actually has nothing to say himself and
like the troll he really is, can only snivel about those smarter than
himself.
Gandalf Grey
"Stupendous Man" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:B929C882.7E7AE%root@[127.0.0.1]...
On 2002-06-10 1:02 AM, in news article <3d04327...@news.enetis.net>,
someone who goes by "La...@Beck.com" apparently from <La...@Beck.com> typed:
>Roselle, you've got to be the poster child for criminals when you think
>posting the below makes you look good and Beck look bad.
Actually posting anything of Beck's makes Beck look bad.
Gandalf Grey
"Jeffrey Quick" <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:jaq-ya02408000R1006021643460001@news...
> In article <ae2l92$6vg$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> > IF in fact Beck ever wrote anything other than posting the results of
> > turning on his random word generator. That's the closest Beck ever
comes to
> > actual input. The rest of the time he spends running away from his near
> > comments and posting names and addresses.
> >
> > I note even in the comment you reposted that he predictably had nothing
to
> > say about Rand other than a comment that he'd decided I hadn't read her.
> > That's typical of Jelloboy Beck. He actually has nothing to say himself
and
> > like the troll he really is, can only snivel about those smarter than
> > himself.
>
> bit of Beck, and he consistently makes real arguments. Even this quickie,
> where he notes that you can't spell
Unfortunately, if you knew how to read you would have noted that Beckie's
comment wasn't on my spelling. As for the rest of it: I've demonstrated
repeatedly that Beck is a liar and an intellectual fraud over the last few
years. Snivel if you like, but that fact remains.
Christopher Morton
Taking Milt/Molly seriously is like taking Lyndon LaRouche seriously.
--
"sure an a nigger is going to use denigrate." - Glen Yeadon
"Who gives an FF what anyone says about the jooz." - Judy Diarya
"Jews mean nothing to me." - Judy Diarya
"Everyone but you knows the jews were behind 9-11." - Judy Diarya
"Stop using that term homophobia, you idiot. Normal people don't fear
the queers. We just don't like them. Call me a homobigot." - Judy Diarya
Gandalf Grey
"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:4j6agugs2uh2vm1j8...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:49:31 GMT, woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com>,
> >wj...@mindspring.com says...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
> >>
> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
> >
> >
> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
>
> Taking Milt/Molly seriously is like taking Lyndon LaRouche seriously.
Is it like taking you seriously when you refuse to post evidence of an
accusation that zepp cheered the death of a gay man because he was gay,
Chris?
woof woof
wj...@mindspring.com says...
>
> woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com>,
> >wj...@mindspring.com says...
> >
> >[snip]
>
> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
> >>
> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
>
> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
>
> Well, you'd have to read her, first, and it sure would help to
> know the subject matter fundamentally enough to spell the word.
There you go again.
A guy you don't like just handed you a sweetheart criticism --
that you yourself don't know enough about
Randian/Libertarian/Objectivism to write about it yourself. All
you have to do to show him up, is to say something intelligent
about Ayn Rand. Anything intelligent.
What do you do? ... why, being a redneck who gets by in his
personal life by threatening everybody; you punt. Does this work
down in that leather bar you post from?
... doesn't work for me.
Ayn Rand was a fascist. She believed that the powerful should
rule the earth; and that the rest of us should have no say and no
rights over anything that they choose to do, even as it affects
US. She is the LAST political "philosopher" that anybody who
thinks he's an individual should choose as a role model. If you
think Ayn Rand is a swell person; you are a foolish, deluded man.
She wasn't even a good lay. Back to you.
woof
Gandalf Grey
"woof woof" <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.176e955e8...@news.sonic.net...
> In article <3d04b084....@news.mindspring.com>,
> wj...@mindspring.com says...
> >
> > woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com>,
> > >wj...@mindspring.com says...
> > >
> > >[snip]
> >
> > >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
> > >>
> > >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
> >
> > >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
> > >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
> >
> > Well, you'd have to read her, first, and it sure would help to
> > know the subject matter fundamentally enough to spell the word.
>
> There you go again.
>
> A guy you don't like just handed you a sweetheart criticism --
> that you yourself don't know enough about
> Randian/Libertarian/Objectivism to write about it yourself. All
> you have to do to show him up, is to say something intelligent
> about Ayn Rand. Anything intelligent.
People have been waiting for that to happen for years. Beck is one of those
trolls who likes to talk about how much he knows about everything. Whenever
it actually comes down to the rubber meeting the road, he scoots. I gave
him a chance fairly recently to show the world how terribly bright he was
and all he could come back with is a comment on how I didn't *really* want
to know. More usually when Beck gets a demand to pony up on his brags he
usually shoots back something terribly mature like "you can't MAKE me answer
you."
It's all part of the Jelloboy MO. Beck loves to make almost-comments. Then
when he's called on them, he finds a way to wiggle out of the discussion.
I've called him on that consistently for a couple of years now and
demonstrated repeatedly that he's a paper tiger when it comes to Rand or
anything else.
Life's too short to keep on rubbing Billy's face in his own stupidity and
lies.
Isle of the Dead
>
> Has it ever occurred to you to reflect on the fact that it's
> human beings who make computers, and not the other way around?
Has it ever occurred to you that people make free markets,
not quantum magic?
The difference between us, Dear Billy, is that I've
actually had to model how people act and work
INTO a computer.
And until you actually do it, you take a lot of
contextual things for granted. Like.... how
do you even know about Harley Davidsons?
How do you know that you want one?
Why *do* you want one?
What are you willing to exchange for one?
> No, it's not. Now, why can't you understand that it actually
> happens, with no strain at all, and that people do it all the time,
> every day?
So sez Billy Beck, who was later heard to complain
that "people can't think anymore".
Isle of the Dead
>
> Has it ever occurred to you to reflect on the fact that it's
> human beings who make computers, and not the other way around?
I'll take this as an admission of error on your part
that the CA deregulation fiasco was caused by
"government price limits to consumer".
Christopher Morton
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:4j6agugs2uh2vm1j8...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:49:31 GMT, woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com>,
>> >wj...@mindspring.com says...
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
>> >>
>> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
>> >
>> >
>> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
>> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
>>
>> Taking Milt/Molly seriously is like taking Lyndon LaRouche seriously.
>
>Is it like taking you seriously when you refuse to post evidence of an
It's like taking you seriously when you try to suppress discussions of
your friends' racism through intimidation, Klandolf.
Gandalf Grey
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:59:55 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> >news:4j6agugs2uh2vm1j8...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:49:31 GMT, woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com>,
> >> >wj...@mindspring.com says...
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
> >> >>
> >> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
> >> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
> >>
> >> Taking Milt/Molly seriously is like taking Lyndon LaRouche seriously.
> >
> >Is it like taking you seriously when you refuse to post evidence of an
>
> It's like taking you seriously
when I ask you to provide proof of your accusations, Chris?
Why won't you provide proof of Zepp's cheering the death of a gay man
because he was gay?
Do you think people are going to forget that you're dodging that request,
Chris?
Why do you lie about things like that, Chris?
Billy Beck
woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com says...
>> >[snip]
>>
>> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
>> >>
>> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
>>
>> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
>> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
>>
>> Well, you'd have to read her, first, and it sure would help to
>> know the subject matter fundamentally enough to spell the word.
>
>There you go again.
>
>A guy you don't like just handed you a sweetheart criticism --
Bring it around, and we'll see.
>that you yourself don't know enough about
>Randian/Libertarian/Objectivism to write about it yourself.
<snicker> Honey: go get to work with Google, or ask an intelligent
question about the subject.
>Ayn Rand was a fascist.
Look: I'm really not interested to engage the matter with liars
and idiots.
John T. Kennedy
Dead" <isleof...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3d04d6c4....@news.mindspring.com...
>>
>> Has it ever occurred to you to reflect on the fact that it's
>> human beings who make computers, and not the other way around?
>
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that people make free markets,
> not quantum magic?
>
> The difference between us, Dear Billy, is that I've
> actually had to model how people act and work
> INTO a computer.
Not the only difference...
> And until you actually do it, you take a lot of
> contextual things for granted. Like.... how
> do you even know about Harley Davidsons?
Good point Broward, no way he could know if he wants a Harley Davidson
without actually having had to model how people act and work INTO a
computer.
> How do you know that you want one?
>
> Why *do* you want one?
>
> What are you willing to exchange for one?
Computer Sez?
>> No, it's not. Now, why can't you understand that it actually
>> happens, with no strain at all, and that people do it all the time,
>> every day?
>
>
> So sez Billy Beck, who was later heard to complain
> that "people can't think anymore".
Say goodnight Copernicus.
-
John T. Kennedy
No Treason - A Journal of Liberty
http://www.no-treason.com/
Isle of the Dead
news:dIIFPWqN0S1DjzN8uLyo1r8=Xp...@4ax.com...
>
> Good point Broward, no way he could know if he wants a Harley Davidson
> without actually having had to model how people act and work INTO a
> computer.
Yuk, yuk, yuk. The Anarcho thing still don't work.
> Say goodnight Copernicus.
Not until you drag David Friedman back in here so
I can pretend to be Milton. :D
"David, I've asked you several times before, for the
sake of the other family members, please keep your
association with the riff-raff *discrete*.
Damn kid. I knew I should have shipped him off to
Chile for his doctorate"
Hey, check it out, I did my first Web Service &
bio-database access tonight. Trivial. It's just
a URL and parser.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/webservices/2002/05/14/biows.html
Here's a thought of you, John, sparked by Billy last night.
Money performs a fully abstracted representation of all goods
& services, right?
Money preserves no relationship or attributes...
about any items... about anything at all.
But in the Real World, there's the notion of a "Substitute Good".
I can substitute beef for chicken, or a Toyota for a Ford,
or Elissa for Monika. Right?
There's marginal utility for substitutions, though. Some
goods can only roughly be exchanged, some lose
value over successive substitutions, some can't
really be substituted at all, like who would
*want* to substitute Monika for chicken?
Does this mean that money is an imperfect representation
of goods & services, possessing a sort of skew that
must be compensated at other levels, by other things?
If I somehow differentiated money down into subclasses
that possessed some knowledge of what they represent,
could I create a monetary system that functioned better?
For instance, I might have a Meat$$$. It could only
be used to buy and sell chicken... or beef... or pork.
Or I could have a Chick$$$, representing Tina, or
Nina, or Nikki.
When you think about it, that's sort of what Uncle Sam
is doing now, by pre-allocating tax money to
certain categories of things. Defense. Welfare.
Food Stamps.
Eagle Eye
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>[Milt Brewster] wrote:
>>wj...@mindspring.com says...
>>> >[snip]
>>> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
>>> >>
>>> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
>>> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
>>> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
>>> Well, you'd have to read her, first, and it sure would help to
>>> know the subject matter fundamentally enough to spell the word.
>>There you go again.
>>A guy you don't like just handed you a sweetheart criticism --
> Bring it around, and we'll see.
>
>>that you yourself don't know enough about
>>Randian/Libertarian/Objectivism to write about it yourself.
><snicker> Honey: go get to work with Google, or ask an intelligent
>question about the subject.
It's just Milt Brewster using one of his several dozen aliases.
He doesn't know the first thing about Rand, objectivism, or
libertarianism, as demonstrated by his full retreat in the thread
"Libertarian Economics Explained".
Just imagine Glen Yeadon as a drag queen with the ability to spell.
That's Brewster.
>>Ayn Rand was a fascist.
> Look: I'm really not interested to engage the matter with liars
>and idiots.
Then you can safely ignore posts from the following (old) list of
Brewster's aliases:
adolf hitler
archie villanova
cockatoo
crank
klystron
kodiak
merde
molly
poop scoop
rachael owlglass
ralph nader
rapmaster bush
veronica floss
waskaly wabbit
woof woof
xeor
There are at least a dozen more I haven't bothered to add to this list.
Just check the headers to see if the person is posting from sonic.net
(NNTP-Posting-Host is 209.204.*.* or 209.148.*.*) using the MicroPlanet
Gravity newsreader.
=====
EE
Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
msoja
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posted:
>Just imagine Glen Yeadon as a drag queen with the ability to spell.
>That's Brewster.
Sure is getting ugly around here.
Mike Soja
Eagle Eye
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4nauak%24j5h%40jethro.Corp.Sun.COM
The Christian Coalition must be completely morally bankrupt.
Instead of debating the issues, their members are reduced to
posting trolls while pretending they are female. Pathetic.
Milton Brewster
woof woof
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
[snip]
>
> He doesn't know the first thing about Rand, objectivism, or
> libertarianism, as demonstrated by his full retreat in the thread
> "Libertarian Economics Explained".
You could answer my question because you have some answers, or
you could call me the same old names you always do, in an attempt
to hide your own ignorance.
Let's see: Which will you choose?
woof
veronica floss
ganda...@infectedmail.com says...
Funny how these "libertarians" can't explain their own beliefs.
In fairness, I think Beck and EE both confuse Libertarianism with
vigilantism.
I am grateful today that I don't live anywhere near either of
them. If they lived in my town; they be able to resist hunting me
down. If they did that, then I'd have to call the police. They'd
wind up on the local news; as tonight's 'police gun down crazy
stalker' story.
VeeVee
>
>
Gandalf Grey
Beck's incapable of a reasoned response to anything and people like Beagle
Eye are nothing but Beck apologists. If you go for a showdown he's going to
tell you you aren't worth talking to, and so we end up the way we always do:
with Beck bragging about his knowledge on subjects he's proven he knows
nothing about. That's why I finally killfiled him. It just got boring
proving that he was a liar and idiot over and over again, only to have him
show up a week later pretending once again to be an unbeaten champion of
whatever subject happened to be on discussion.
Christopher Morton
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:gpmagu87u3i4do84n...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:59:55 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>> >news:4j6agugs2uh2vm1j8...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:49:31 GMT, woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com>,
>> >> >wj...@mindspring.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >[snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
>> >> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
>> >>
>> >> Taking Milt/Molly seriously is like taking Lyndon LaRouche seriously.
>> >
>> >Is it like taking you seriously when you refuse to post evidence of an
>>
>> It's like taking you seriously
>
>when I ask you to provide proof of your accusations, Chris?
When you shill for that racist moron, Yeadon.
Gandalf Grey
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:24:19 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> >news:gpmagu87u3i4do84n...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:59:55 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:4j6agugs2uh2vm1j8...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:49:31 GMT, woof woof <wo...@lostdog.org>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <3d0428a9....@news.mindspring.com>,
> >> >> >wj...@mindspring.com says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Here's another question you can run away from, Hanson:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Have you actually read this person's Web-book?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Writing an Epistomological dissertation on Ayn Rand is like
> >> >> >writing a literary dissertation on Spider Man.
> >> >>
> >> >> Taking Milt/Molly seriously is like taking Lyndon LaRouche
seriously.
> >> >
> >> >Is it like taking you seriously when you refuse to post evidence of an
> >>
> >> It's like taking you seriously
> >
> >when I ask you to provide proof of your accusations, Chris?
>
> When you shill
I'm not shilling for anyone, Chris. But even if I was, you should be able
to come up with proof that Zepp did what you say he did.
Why can't you furnish proof, Chris?
Are you lying.........AGAIN?
Billy Beck
>> > > IF in fact Beck ever wrote anything other than posting the results of
>> > > turning on his random word generator. That's the closest Beck ever
>> > > comes to actual input. The rest of the time he spends running away
>> > > from his near comments and posting names and addresses.
>> > >
>> > > I note even in the comment you reposted that he predictably had nothing
>> > > to say about Rand other than a comment that he'd decided I hadn't read her.
>> > > That's typical of Jelloboy Beck. He actually has nothing to say himself
>> > > and like the troll he really is, can only snivel about those smarter than
>> > > himself.
>> >
>> > How very peculiar...two paragraphs of solid ad hominem. I've read quite a
>> > bit of Beck, and he consistently makes real arguments. Even this quickie,
>> > where he notes that you can't spell
>>
>> Unfortunately, if you knew how to read you would have noted that Beckie's
>> comment wasn't on my spelling. As for the rest of it: I've demonstrated
>> repeatedly that Beck is a liar and an intellectual fraud over the last few
>> years. Snivel if you like, but that fact remains.
>Funny how these "libertarians" can't explain their own beliefs.
And how would you know that, apart for taking Hanson's word for
it? It's not like you ever asked *me* about any of it.
>In fairness, I think Beck and EE both confuse Libertarianism with
>vigilantism.
That's what you think, and you're the one wo's confused.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Beck's incapable of a reasoned response to anything and people like Beagle
>Eye are nothing but Beck apologists. If you go for a showdown he's going to
>tell you you aren't worth talking to,...
Tim Starr and I have irreconcilable differences over the morality
of voting, Hanson, but he's not like you: he's always worth talking
to.
>... and so we end up the way we always do:
You should speak for yourself.
>That's why I finally killfiled him.
If you actually did that, you did it because I pointed out that
you have never read Ayn Rand in your whole life, and that everything
you post about her is someone else's. That's when you ran away.
rightw...@losers.com
wrote like a right wing scumbag:
>
>
>>Beck's incapable of a reasoned response to anything and people like Beagle
>>Eye are nothing but Beck apologists. If you go for a showdown he's going to
>>tell you you aren't worth talking to,...
>
> Tim Starr and I have irreconcilable differences over the morality
>of voting, Hanson, but he's not like you: he's always worth talking
>to.
How, BEckie?
You sit around and spank each other's monkeys, or compare
deaththreats? Or perhaps see who can outbrag each other?
You fucking moron.
********************************************************
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:31:15 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>>Bec...@BurgerNarc.com wrote:
>>
>> You get one warning, Roselles: keep my name out of your rubbish,
>>or you know what's going to happen. I will burn this place down with
>>your name, address, and phone number all day long, no matter what. If
>>I end up bouncing posts off Mars to get 'em here, I will.
>
>Stick it up your ass, Beck you chickenshit little nazi.
>
>You haven't got the personal courage, or the intellectual integrity
>NOT to do it.
>
>It's all you really have left, isn't it?
Gandalf Grey
<rightw...@losers.com> wrote in message
news:3d07f5f7....@news.enetis.net...
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:45:13 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
> wrote like a right wing scumbag:
> >
> >Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Beck's incapable of a reasoned response to anything and people like
Beagle
> >>Eye are nothing but Beck apologists. If you go for a showdown he's
going to
> >>tell you you aren't worth talking to,...
> >
> > Tim Starr and I have irreconcilable differences over the morality
> >of voting, Hanson, but he's not like you: he's always worth talking
> >to.
>
> How, BEckie?
That's typical of Beck. He states he's a genius and his enablers agree.
When it comes to proof of what he supposedly knows, on the other hand, Beck
is all about death threats, stool pigeoning and disappearing acts.
Fuck him. He's a liar and a moron.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
You Jew haters quite clearly explain your beliefs.
I've taken the liberty of quoting some of them in my .sig:
Christopher Morton
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> When you shill
>
>I'm not shilling for anyone, Chris. But even if I was, you should be able
Keep shilling for that dimwitted racist, Yeadon.
After all, you have the same racial beliefs.
Gandalf Grey
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:55:30 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> When you shill
> >
> >I'm not shilling for anyone, Chris. But even if I was, you should be
able
>
> Keep shilling
Regardless of whether I'm a "shill" or not, you should still be able to post
proof of an accusation like you made against Zepp. Unless of course, you're
a lying sack of shit who doesn't have any evidence.
I guess we know now that you're a lying sack of shit, Chris.
Congratulations.
Gandalf Grey
> I've taken the liberty of quoting some of them in my .sig:
But then we now know you've also taken the liberty of making false
accusations, don't we Chris?
You've accused Zepp of cheering the death of a gay man because the man was
gay. You've got no proof that he ever did so.
You're a liar, Chris.
Christopher Morton
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:u9fmgus22ft5m9l0i...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:55:30 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> When you shill
>> >
>> >I'm not shilling for anyone, Chris. But even if I was, you should be
>able
>>
>> Keep shilling
>
>Regardless of whether I'm a "shill" or not, you should still be able to post
You are, and it's part of your pattern of racism.
Keep shilling for that dimwitted racist, Yeadon.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 10:20:02 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> >news:u9fmgus22ft5m9l0i...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:55:30 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> When you shill
> >> >
> >> >I'm not shilling for anyone, Chris. But even if I was, you should be
> >able
> >>
> >> Keep shilling
> >
> >Regardless of whether I'm a "shill" or not, you should still be able to
post
>
> You are
And you still can't post the proof of your accusation against Zepp, Chris.
banjocat
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:u9fmgus22ft5m9l0i...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:55:30 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> When you shill
>> >
>> >I'm not shilling for anyone, Chris. But even if I was, you should be
>able
>>
>> Keep shilling
>
>Regardless of whether I'm a "shill" or not, you should still be able to post
>proof of an accusation like you made against Zepp. Unless of course, you're
>a lying sack of shit who doesn't have any evidence.
>
>I guess we know now that you're a lying sack of shit, Chris.
>
>Congratulations.
Accusation without proof is *Standard Operating Procedure* for the
Mortons and Floracks of this NG.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
Racism and support for Al Qaeda is SOP for the Weasels.
banjocat
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:55:52 GMT, Banj...@bellsouth.net (banjocat)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 10:20:02 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>>>news:u9fmgus22ft5m9l0i...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:55:30 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>>>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> When you shill
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm not shilling for anyone, Chris. But even if I was, you should be
>>>able
>>>>
>>>> Keep shilling
>>>
>>>Regardless of whether I'm a "shill" or not, you should still be able to post
>>>proof of an accusation like you made against Zepp. Unless of course, you're
>>>a lying sack of shit who doesn't have any evidence.
>>>
>>>I guess we know now that you're a lying sack of shit, Chris.
>>>
>>>Congratulations.
>>
>>Accusation without proof is *Standard Operating Procedure* for the
>>Mortons and Floracks of this NG.
>
>Racism and support for Al Qaeda is SOP for the Weasels.
Calling yourself Weasel? That's an insult to the Weasels.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:44:47 -0400, Christopher Morton
><chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:55:52 GMT, Banj...@bellsouth.net (banjocat)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 10:20:02 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>>><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:u9fmgus22ft5m9l0i...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:55:30 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>>>>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> When you shill
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I'm not shilling for anyone, Chris. But even if I was, you should be
>>>>able
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep shilling
>>>>
>>>>Regardless of whether I'm a "shill" or not, you should still be able to post
>>>>proof of an accusation like you made against Zepp. Unless of course, you're
>>>>a lying sack of shit who doesn't have any evidence.
>>>>
>>>>I guess we know now that you're a lying sack of shit, Chris.
>>>>
>>>>Congratulations.
>>>
>>>Accusation without proof is *Standard Operating Procedure* for the
>>>Mortons and Floracks of this NG.
>>
>>Racism and support for Al Qaeda is SOP for the Weasels.
>
>Calling yourself Weasel? That's an insult to the Weasels.
No, I'm a liberal.
Gandalf Grey
And Chris has just as much proof for that as he does to back up his claim
that Zepp cheered on the death of a gay man because the man was gay. In
other words, none. Chris is a liar, as incapable of telling the truth about
himself as he is incapable of telling the truth about anyone else.
banjocat
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
That's obvious, right-wing fascist moron.
Christopher Morton
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
I've got thousands of posts taking liberal positions on everything
from affirmative action to gay rights.
You on the other hand have nothing but softballs to Jew haters and
gaybashers.
That's why they call you Klandolf.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
Strange how you can't quote any "right-wing fascist" opinions by me.
banjocat
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
Strange, you can't provide proof of your accusation of Zepp.
Gandalf Grey
And not one that backs up your lie about Zepp.
Funny about that, eh Chris?
Eagle Eye
Milt Brewster wrote:
>In article <3d050f49$0$108$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
>ganda...@infectedmail.com says...
>> I've demonstrated repeatedly that Beck is a liar and an
>> intellectual fraud over the last few years.
No, you haven't.
>Funny how these "libertarians" can't explain their own beliefs.
We've explained them many times to you.
>In fairness, I think Beck and EE both confuse Libertarianism with
>vigilantism.
No, that's what you do. In this very thread you claim that
libertarianism is fascism, when it is the very opposite. Nazis
wanted total control while libertarians advocate allowing each
individual maximum liberty. Contrary to your confused notions,
liberty does not include violating others' rights.
>I am grateful today that I don't live anywhere near either of
>them.
For all you know, you live one block away from me. It is
possible, considering some of the hints you've dropped about
your location.
>If they lived in my town; they be able to resist hunting me
>down.
Funny how you're the only one who even mentions such things.
>If they did that, then I'd have to call the police. They'd
>wind up on the local news; as tonight's 'police gun down crazy
>stalker' story.
As I reminded your wife/girlfriend, Gail, I don't even own a gun.
So much for your paranoid ramblings.
=====
EE
Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
Gandalf Grey
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2002061822554...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <MPG.17714240f...@news.sonic.net>
> Milt Brewster wrote:
> >In article <3d050f49$0$108$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> >ganda...@infectedmail.com says...
> [snip]
> >> I've demonstrated repeatedly that Beck is a liar and an
> >> intellectual fraud over the last few years.
>
> No, you haven't.
Yes, I have. And now I'm Milton Brewster?
You're incredibly lame, Beagle. Maybe if you figured out who YOU are, you
wouldn't be wasting so much time stumbling over everyone else.
Eagle Eye
Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:2002061822554...@nym.alias.net...
>> In article <MPG.17714240f...@news.sonic.net>
>> Milt Brewster wrote:
>> >In article <3d050f49$0$108$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
>> >ganda...@infectedmail.com says...
>> [snip]
>> >> I've demonstrated repeatedly that Beck is a liar and an
>> >> intellectual fraud over the last few years.
>> No, you haven't.
>Yes, I have.
Cite it.
>And now I'm Milton Brewster?
Learn to read attributions, idiot. Count the ">"s.
Gandalf Grey
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> In article <3d0fc287$0$102$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >news:2002061822554...@nym.alias.net...
> >> In article <MPG.17714240f...@news.sonic.net>
> >> Milt Brewster wrote:
> >> >In article <3d050f49$0$108$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> >> >ganda...@infectedmail.com says...
> >> [snip]
> >> >> I've demonstrated repeatedly that Beck is a liar and an
> >> >> intellectual fraud over the last few years.
> >> No, you haven't.
> >Yes, I have.
>
> Cite it.
Look it up.
>
> >And now I'm Milton Brewster?
>
> Learn to read attributions, idiot.
Learn to aim your remarks at the right author, moron.
Ernest Brown
>
> "Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> news:2002061902291...@nym.alias.net...
> > In article <3d0fc287$0$102$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> > Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> > >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> > >news:2002061822554...@nym.alias.net...
> > >> In article <MPG.17714240f...@news.sonic.net>
> > >> Milt Brewster wrote:
> > >> >In article <3d050f49$0$108$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> > >> >ganda...@infectedmail.com says...
> > >> [snip]
> > >> >> I've demonstrated repeatedly that Beck is a liar and an
> > >> >> intellectual fraud over the last few years.
> > >> No, you haven't.
> > >Yes, I have.
> >
> > Cite it.
>
> Look it up.
Translation, Gandalf lies again.
It's what we expect from a pathetic lying
like Gandy Ova.
Gandalf Grey
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.020619...@krypton.bengal.missouri.edu...
Translation: Gandalf doesn't feel like getting involved in one of the right
wing's favorite ploys. You morons always pull the same lame trick of
ducking while one of your idiot friends is being shown for a fool then
coming back a week later and insisting that it never happened. Beck has run
like bastard from so many arguments with me that it's common knowledge on
the groups. I have neither the time or the inclination to repost the
evidence of that over and over again. Beck and eflorack are now legendary
for having their faces rubbed in shit. That they're now nothing but trolls
is their own fault.
Ernest Brown
Wow, it's just exactly the opposite. You've run and run when challenged to
demonstrate any actual familiarity with philosophical material that wasn't
"cut-n-paste" or "web engine" related, most recently when Beck challenged
you to show actual familiarity with Ayn Rand's work. You ran behind your
killfile in response, showing your mentally impotent cowardice for all to
see.
Your defense of Yeadon's implicit insult of FDR was also as funny as
blazes. Was Franklin Delano Roosevelt a tool of the Wall Street money
barons to the extent of refusing to target their German industrial plants,
GG Allin? Inquiring minds want to know.
--
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
Gandalf Grey
All evidence to the contrary. Beck's run away from me on Ayn Rand before
when I requested him to show some actual knowledge on the subject, screaming
his usual "I'm too good to actually respond to you!" bullshit. On every
other philosophical subject he's been a no-show from the start as his lame
inability to get involved in the many essays I've written on the subject
demonstrate.
Life's too short to keep on demonstrating the lies of you righties,
Brownshirt. People know I and others have repeatedly handed Death Threat
Beck his head on innumerable occasions. Now that he's sunk to the depths of
trolldom, it's just not worth it to waste bandwidth on him any longer.
___________________________________
From: Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Rights And Reasons In Selfitaria
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
View this article only
Date: 2001-12-27 11:24:04 PST
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>C.W. Sparks, an Australian Philosopher once referred to Rand as 'an
American
>novelist sometimes mistaken for a philosopher.'
On the day when Sparks, or you, or that fop up in Cambridge can
come to terms with, for example, her epistemology -- upon which not
one of you have ever laid eyes -- that'll be the day you don't come
off like the rhetorical vandals that you really are.
I have drawings to kick out for the rest of the afternoon.
And when I'm done with that, I am going to demonstrate, with your
posts, the fact that I just stated.
___________________________________
From: Gandalf Grey (ganda...@infectedmail.com)
Subject: Re: Rights And Reasons In Selfitaria
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
View this article only
Date: 2001-12-27 11:29:03 PST
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c2b73f1...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >C.W. Sparks, an Australian Philosopher once referred to Rand as 'an
American
> >novelist sometimes mistaken for a philosopher.'
>
> On the day when Sparks, or you, or that fop up in Cambridge can
> come to terms with, for example, her epistemology -- upon which not
> one of you have ever laid eyes -- that'll be the day you don't come
> off like the rhetorical vandals that you really are.
On the day when you come up with anything that amounts to a logical argument
in defense of anything you'll have succeeded in transcending yourself.
>
> I have drawings to kick out for the rest of the afternoon.
More cheese for Beck.
>
> And when I'm done with that, I am going to demonstrate, with your
> posts, the fact that I just stated.
No you aren't.
________________________________
From: Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Rights And Reasons In Selfitaria
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
View this article only
Date: 2001-12-27 20:39:05 PST
!Dick Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> >C.W. Sparks, an Australian Philosopher once referred to Rand as 'an
>> >American novelist sometimes mistaken for a philosopher.'
>>
>> On the day when Sparks, or you, or that fop up in Cambridge can
>> come to terms with, for example, her epistemology -- upon which not
>> one of you have ever laid eyes -- that'll be the day you don't come
>> off like the rhetorical vandals that you really are.
>
>On the day when you come up with anything that amounts to a logical
>argument in defense of anything you'll have succeeded in transcending
>yourself.
Thank you. You bit: hook, line, and sinker.
You're not *interested* in a "logical argument". That's just
weezil gas every single time you type those words.
____________________
And that was that. Beck spent the rest of that post and a dozen following
posts sniveling about how he was just too good to actually post the defense
of Rand that he pretended he was going to post. He pulled the same thing
that he's pulled on nearly every poster he's come up against. He swears up
and down that they don't know what they're talking about and when the time
comes for him to pony up with his supposed knowledge, he trots out one of
his patented "I don't deal with people like you" scams, or my favorite "you
can't MAKE me respond."
He's a troll, Brownshirt. So are you.
Ernest Brown
Just the opposite, Gandy Ova, you're the troll. Sparkes's statement is an
example of the informal fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial (i.e. the
fact that one is a novelist does not, in and of itself, disqualify one
from being a philosopher or discussing philosophical issues, cf. Camus and
Sartre) and thus not a "logical argument" at all. Since his book, TALKING
PHILOSOPHY, deals with such fallacies, it's even more reprehensible on his
part.
The fact that you parroted it only showed that you wanted to engage in
such reprehensible fallacies (in Sparkes's case, argument from
authority as well) and Billy got you to admit it quite nicely.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Ernie the Brownshirt <eeb...@mizzou.edu> wrote in message...
Did anyone here ever go to look at Hanson's cited authority on
Objectivism at --
http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/essays_on_objectivism/ocr/
Anyone?
That's the funniest goddamned thing I've seen in months.
How in the world am I supposed to take him (Hanson) remotely
seriously? We're talking about a cheap snipe who can't do any better
than run a Web search as evidence of competence on the subject, and
believe me: I always have better things to do than deal with that. I
really did have a moment when I thought he'd actually read even a
*bit* of the original work, but there is no question about it: I was
dead wrong.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free
Gandalf Grey
"Ernest Brown" <eeb...@mizzou.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.02061...@radon.bengal.missouri.edu...
No. It's Rand's idiot ideas and inherent dishonesty that disqualifies her
from being a philosopher.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>It's Rand's idiot ideas and inherent dishonesty that disqualifies her
>from being a philosopher.
That's pretty audacious when it comes from someone who only knows
what some Web-freak who complains about shoes has to say about the
matter.
xofpi
That is such an obvious dodge, it's *not* funny. It's embarrassing.
Isle of the Dead
news:3d10d1c9$0$109$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> Life's too short to keep on demonstrating the lies of you righties,
Yeah, you got your own lies to work on, right? :D
rea...@moron.com
wrote like a right wing scumbag:
>Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's Rand's idiot ideas and inherent dishonesty that disqualifies her
>>from being a philosopher.
>
> That's pretty audacious when it comes from someone who only knows
>what some Web-freak who complains about shoes has to say about the
>matter.
Comments by the Usenet idiot (and Burgerking Narc) whose ONLY claim to
fame is death threats, (and stupidity) is pretty audacious
Tell us about Burgerking, Batshit.
Make us laugh.
=================================================================
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>Maybe he wants to blow up the planet. Its his property.
>> Don't come around here anymore talking about "demonizing",
>>Emma.
>
>Billy, you must first realize the person you are addressing.
Yo, Smith: "Emma" had a chance to sort out her ethics and give
up a life of Tit-Sucking at my expense.
*You* are in line for the smokey end of a 7.62.
Keep pushing it, pal. You have no idea what you're fooling
around with, and I'm not talking about *me*.
Billy
Ernest Brown
Yes, on Gandalf's part for offering ad hominem fallacies in place of
rational and informed criticism of Rand, including proper citation of
-her- works. It's the equivalent of criticizing Bill Clinton solely by
pointing to the ouvre of Ann Coulter without reference to his own words
or actions.
Gandalf Grey
"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:3f5Q8.23730$15....@www.newsranger.com...
Well, that's Beck. Whenever he's called on anything he dodges rather than
face up to it. I devoted an entire essay to Rand and her idiot philosophy
and he ran from it like the rat-bastard he is. As to quoting, the current
IFF thing is an excellent example. Called on his comments, he *quotes* and
yet whenever anyone else quotes, he calls it 'cutting and pasting.' The
simple fact is that other than his personal threats, Beck's never made an
original comment on anything. He just *says* he makes original comments.
And although he consistently runs away from any real discussion, sure
enough, he'll show up again, trumpeting about how no one can hold their own
in an argument with him.
That kind of behavior labels him as nothing but a troll. After pointing
that out innumerable times, I've killfiled him because, like eflorack, he's
the kind of troll who can be whacked down a hundred times and he'll still
come back bragging about how he's never been whacked.
Beck reminds me of the infamous Black Knight in Monty Python's Search for
the Holy grail. At one time or another, nearly every progressive poster on
this group has sliced off one of Beck's intellectual appendages, but he's
still there--legless, armless, dickless and headless, too stupid to get the
hint that his credibility bit the big one years ago. Continuing to directly
entertain his limbless torso is a 'compleat' waste of bandwidth.
Gandalf Grey
"Ernest Brown" <eeb...@mizzou.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.020619...@helium.bengal.missouri.edu...
Bullshit. I've written essays on Rand's stupidity and Beck ran from them
like the rat-bastard coward and intellectual fraud he's always been.
Tell Beck to go out and buy a better sock puppet, Ernie. You suck.
Billy Beck
xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <3d10d394....@news.mindspring.com>, Billy Beck says...
>> Did anyone here ever go to look at Hanson's cited authority on
>>Objectivism at --
>>http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/essays_on_objectivism/ocr/
>>
>> Anyone?
>>
>> That's the funniest goddamned thing I've seen in months.
>>
>> How in the world am I supposed to take him (Hanson) remotely
>>seriously? We're talking about a cheap snipe who can't do any better
>>than run a Web search as evidence of competence on the subject, and
>>believe me: I always have better things to do than deal with that. I
>>really did have a moment when I thought he'd actually read even a
>>*bit* of the original work, but there is no question about it: I was
>>dead wrong.
>That is such an obvious dodge, it's *not* funny. It's embarrassing.
Look: I've been up & down the road with Hanson since 1996. I
know exactly what I'm dealing with in him. If *you* have anything
interesting to discuss about philosophy, I might give it a go with
you, but I'll tell you this: I don't have a taste for cynics or
morons. Hanson's a rank liar: if you compare what he says with the
things that I've actually written here over the years, you could
figure that out for yourself, but I am not confident of the prospects,
especially when I consider our last exchange. In any case, I've been
at this a long time, and I really don't care whether you're
entertained, or enlightened, or amused, "embarrass[ed]", or any of the
rest of it.
Really. I've seen it all around here, and I could count the
number of seriously interesting posters on one hand.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>"Ernest Brown" <eeb...@mizzou.edu> wrote...
>> > That is such an obvious dodge, it's *not* funny. It's embarrassing.
>>
>> Yes, on Gandalf's part for offering ad hominem fallacies in place of
>> rational and informed criticism of Rand,
>
>Bullshit. I've written essays on Rand's stupidity...
Without a *single* citation to her work. Ever.
Nice going. I'm sure that passes for criticism down at the
day-room, Hanson, but psychotics are like that.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> moaned:
>As to quoting, the current IFF thing is an excellent example. Called
>on his comments, he *quotes* and yet whenever anyone else quotes,
>he calls it 'cutting and pasting.'
There is a categorical difference between citing original
material -- like FAR/AIM -- and Webbing-up the delusions of some dink
who makes a point of explaining how he hates his shoes, Hanson.
I checked around on your boy Ryan. He's a case. It's not like
you know a damned thing in the world about people seriously interested
in Objectivism -- pro or con -- but I found a group of them who just
about uniformly dismissed the guy as a crank on the basis of personal
experience with him. Some of them were trying to be nicer about it
than others, but the picture was pretty clear, and this was *after* I
read his stuff, which was just dippy.
*You* are just amazing in your ignorance compounded with
unmitigated audacity. At least Ryan had sense enough to leave the
group.
xofpi
<Pine.LNX.4.33.020619...@helium.bengal.missouri.edu>, Ernest
Brown says...
>It's the equivalent of criticizing Bill Clinton solely by
>pointing to the ouvre of Ann Coulter without reference to his own words
>or actions.
That's a surprisingly sensitive use of analogy for a right-winger! I doubt the
comparison is valid, though, because Ryan evidently started out thinking Rand
was really neat-o. He also seems to have some brains. Apparently he did have a
drinking problem, but I doubt it was Dat Ole Debbil Chardonnay.
Isle of the Dead
>
> but I found a group of them who just
> about uniformly dismissed the guy as a crank on the basis of personal
> experience with him. Some of them were trying to be nicer about it
> than others, but the picture was pretty clear, and this was *after* I
> read his stuff, which was just dippy.
My god. It must be these freaking "anxiety" pills!
Every time I take one, I have hallucinations about
fifteen minutes later. I would swear to God
that this paragraph implies that...
Billy Beck..... is.....
bowing....
to the tyranny of the majority opinion?!!!
EGAD!!! I'm losing my freaking mind!
Gandalf Grey
I found another example that's interesting and illustrative of Beck's notion
of discussing and defending his viewpoints Here's an example of what Beck
thinks defending his viewpoint is in his response to a very lengthy essay I
took the time to write on Ethical Egoism and "Objectivism." The response
below represents the high water mark of Beck's responses in that thread.
Later he descended into his usual dodges and seques and ultimately even put
out a call for help from his dad [another moron].
Note: In the below "Richard Hanson" is someone Beck believes I am. He's so
lacking in even ground floor civility that he can't bring himself to refer
to people by their given handles. Hence, he spends his time hatching
conspiracy theories on who his political opponents *really* are and
generates even more dodges therebye. Richard Hanson was apparently one of
the progressive scourges of the right wingers in his day and Beck
consistently favors me with the title....another of his many errors.
In the below, you'll see all the hallmarks of the Beck MO. His opponents
are wrong, they're getting their information from flawed sources, etc., etc.
Beck on the other hand never comes up with a valid counter argument. When
he's challenged, he either runs away completely or attempts to change the
subject [to something like who his opponent 'really' is] or insists that
he's just too damned great to deal with people who ask him to pony up with
some defense of his own ideas.
From: Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Ethical Egoism and "Objectivism"
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.politics,
alt.politics.bush, alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc
View this article only
Date: 2002-01-07 15:56:05 PST
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>ETHICAL EGOISM:
>
>Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his
own
>self interest, and only his own self interest.
No, !Dick, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
education.
Gandalf Grey
"Marilyn Welch" <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3D10F2F7...@islandnet.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> None on top, but lots blowing in the wind.
> eeew.
> Was he really a volunteer narc in Burger King?
> eeew, I'm a vegetarian.
Beck appears to be a cross between Nosferatu and a wood termite. All of
which I'd be willing to accept were it not for the ugliness of his miserable
little soul and his box of rocks stupidity. Don't let the pilot crap fool
you. Beck's "cockiness" is the blatant egoism of the career moron. At
heart, Beck is nothing more but an ignorant shit-kicker with a random word
generator.
Gandalf Grey
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.33.020619...@helium.bengal.missouri.edu>,
Ernest
> Brown says...
>
>
>
> >It's the equivalent of criticizing Bill Clinton solely by
> >pointing to the ouvre of Ann Coulter without reference to his own words
> >or actions.
>
>
>
> That's a surprisingly sensitive use of analogy for a right-winger! I doubt
the
> comparison is valid, though, because Ryan evidently started out thinking
Rand
> was really neat-o. He also seems to have some brains.
That's what really turns the Beckettes off.
Manson Grape
> generator.
Whereas Propagandalf is an enlightened ex-hippie plagarist
with a really, really big hard drive and cable connection.
xofpi
When I consider our last exchange, which you departed from rather prematurely I
might add, I consider that you approached it much as you're approaching this
one, with a massive chip on your shoulder and an attitude that I should study
your previous posts before you would commit to making a point, as though you've
made all your points already and there's no need to make them ever again. (I
could be unkinder about the implications of this attitude of yours but will
resist the temptation.) Well, the fact is, I haven't read all your old posts and
have no desire to, but I will read any specific ones you point me to if they
have any bearing on your arguments.
And I still think you could explain why you let Bush off easier than Clinton if
you're an anarchist without my having to dig through Google archives.
> Really. I've seen it all around here, and I could count the
>number of seriously interesting posters on one hand.
On that score, I'm in total agreement. I have to say that at least you--and
Gandalf--are interesting.
Bec...@psycho.com
wrote like a right wing scumbag:
>
> Nice going. I'm sure that passes for criticism down at the
>day-room, Hanson, but psychotics are like that.
Speaking of "day-rooms" and "psychotics", BATSHIT
How's about you explaining your death threats?
********************************************************
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:31:15 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>>Bec...@BurgerNarc.com wrote:
>>
>> You get one warning, Roselles: keep my name out of your rubbish,
>>or you know what's going to happen. I will burn this place down with
>>your name, address, and phone number all day long, no matter what. If
>>I end up bouncing posts off Mars to get 'em here, I will.
>
>Stick it up your ass, Beck you chickenshit little nazi.
>
>You haven't got the personal courage, or the intellectual integrity
>NOT to do it.
>
>It's all you really have left, isn't it?
eflorack
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Gandalf Grey wrote:
> > Translation: Gandalf doesn't feel like getting involved in one of the right
> > wing's favorite ploys. You morons always pull the same lame trick of
> > ducking while one of your idiot friends is being shown for a fool then
> > coming back a week later and insisting that it never happened. Beck has run
> > like bastard from so many arguments with me that it's common knowledge on
> > the groups. I have neither the time or the inclination to repost the
> > evidence of that over and over again. Beck and eflorack are now legendary
> > for having their faces rubbed in shit. That they're now nothing but trolls
> > is their own fault.
>
> Wow, it's just exactly the opposite. You've run and run when challenged to
> demonstrate any actual familiarity with philosophical material that wasn't
> "cut-n-paste" or "web engine" related, most recently when Beck challenged
> you to show actual familiarity with Ayn Rand's work. You ran behind your
> killfile in response, showing your mentally impotent cowardice for all to
> see.
(CHUCKLE!)
Yeah, I did make note of that,too, but didn't comment at the time.
It was, however, priceless, and a prime example of Hanson. Funny how
he does EXACTLY what he accuses ME of doing.
And of course when I call him on his lies as regards Morton, recently,
he goes into his 'cockroach' mode...
If any achievement on his part can be measured, it is this; Hanson has
gotten himself through singular dedication, to the status of paramount
slimeball of Usenet.
Perhaps we should hold a party in his honor?
Ernest Brown
> <Pine.LNX.4.33.020619...@helium.bengal.missouri.edu>, Ernest
> Brown says...
>
>
>
> >It's the equivalent of criticizing Bill Clinton solely by
> >pointing to the ouvre of Ann Coulter without reference to his own words
> >or actions.
>
>
>
> That's a surprisingly sensitive use of analogy for a right-winger!
Aside from the fact that I'm a "right-winger" only in Gandalf's
diseased consciousness, what prohibits *anyone* from a "sensitive use
of analogy?"
> I doubt the
> comparison is valid, though, because Ryan evidently started out thinking Rand
> was really neat-o. He also seems to have some brains. Apparently he did have a
> drinking problem, but I doubt it was Dat Ole Debbil Chardonnay.
I'd give Ryan credit for agreeing with my larger point. I surmise that
if you sent him an e-mail asking him if a "critique" of Rand that only
cited him as a secondary source and not Rand herself was a sound
methodology, he'd strongly deny it. Likewise, in order for Billy to
fairly critique what Ryan had to say, he'd still have to ignore GG
Allin's posts and cite Ryan directly and/or invite Ryan to debate him
here. That's why Gandalf runs his little parasitic plagiarism games,
he doesn't have to put out any effort and when individuals who take a
serious view of such things refuse to sanction his behavior, he gets
to throw hissy fits and lie about their motivations.
In point of fact, Billy patiently engaged GG Allin in debate when
"Gandalf" first showed up here in Nov/Dec 2000, and it was Gandy Ova
who broke and ran.
For the latest instance of GG's cowardice, check out the current
thread "Lying Scumbag Glenn Yeadon," where Gandy popped in to defend
Yeadon on partisan grounds, only to vamoose when his tiny brain
realized that Yeadon's preposterous charge that industrial plants
owned by American companies in WWII were not bombed because of the
conspiratorial conniving of their fascistic boards of directors was,
in fact, an indirect insult to the Democratic administration of FDR!
(since old Frankie and Co. would either have to be too stupid to know
what was going on, or actual collaborators in the process) This is
just par for the course.
Ernest Brown
mr_antone
wrote:
>In article <3d10eb86$0$107$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>, "Gandalf Grey"
><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Beck reminds me of the infamous Black Knight in Monty Python's Search for
>> the Holy grail. At one time or another, nearly every progressive poster on
>> this group has sliced off one of Beck's intellectual appendages, but he's
>> still there--legless, armless, dickless and headless, too stupid to get the
>> hint that his credibility bit the big one years ago. Continuing to directly
>> entertain his limbless torso is a 'compleat' waste of bandwidth.
>
>Then why don't you quit?
Try reading Gandalf's comments again. Slowly.
mr_antone
Gandalf Grey
>
> In point of fact, Billy patiently engaged GG Allin in debate when
> "Gandalf" first showed up here in Nov/Dec 2000, and it was Gandy Ova who
> broke and ran.
You're a liar, Brown. Beck's ran like a bastard from every debate we've
ever had
Ernest Brown
In the spirit of actually quoting someone, here's Beck on "left/right."
Search Result 3
From: Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: The Noose Is Tightening
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.society.liberalism,
talk.politics.misc
View: Complete Thread (116 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2000-11-28 05:45:10 PST
mongo78 <mon...@nospaam-aol.com> wrote:
>Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>>Marksman <whiney-...@suck-ass.net> wrote:
>>>"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote...
>>>> are you ready to accept the bet becky? Going to run off and hide
under
>>>> a rock again? Come on little coward speak up.
>>>Hey silverbitch cowardly assed socialist, why do you accuse right
wingers
>>>of being cowardly, like you?
>>
>>Psst, GDY2K might think Beck is a "right winger," but you ought to
>>know better.
>
>This is true. Usually, when someone talks about wanting to 'move
>beyond the tired labels of left and right', it is really code for
>socialism with a smiley face. I think Beck is really the genuine
>article.
The whole "left/right" dichotomy is nearly perfectly irrelevent
to anyone seriously interested in liberty. I say "nearly", because I
often whack "lefties", so it's not as if I could completely disclaim
it in my own useage. That's a fact that should also be considered in
context of the fact of eight years under a leftist regime, which only
insane people would attempt to deny, all this blithering rot of
"centrism" notwithstanding. I didn't get wired to the 'net until well
into the Ozark Long March, so nobody here has ever seen me in
full-song against a conservative regime. It's looks like that's
coming, but I'll say this: The Lying Bastard can never expect respite
from my lash. Never. His administration has been without question
the very nadir to which government has ever sunk in American history,
and Dubya will have to come up with something seriously demonic to
surpass it. We'll see.
In any case, this is the part where everybody gets to groan out
loud as I mention The Russian Rage and point out that her
Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy is the essential root philosophical
fallacy that results in this "left/right" jazz. That "Gandalf"
character was partly correct in his assertion that it goes back
thousands of years, but he has no clue in the world where it really
lies, or that it doesn't manifest in *politics* until 1789 and the
French Revolution when the socialist revolutionaries seated themselves
in the highest benches of the chamber at the first National Assembly,
which happened to be on the "left wing".
As usual, the French bring the world an original patent lunacy.
Anyway, That Woman pointed out something that stands rock-solid
to reason when she analyzes the mind/body split between conservatives
and "liberals" (as they're currently known). "Each side of the split
grants freedom to that sphere of human activity that it *despises*."
It's true, even though it looks absurd at first glance.
Take a look at, say, Buckley. The guy could never in life
imagine turning his own wrenches on a V-8: that kind of thing is
beneath his dignity. His whole world view is devoted to Higher
Things, and the actual material aspects of human production don't
concern him, which is why he's content to leave them alone. Economic
freedom is a natural consequence in his political philosophy.
However, the spiritual matters of human life loom large, predominant,
in his value system. I would have to dig around in order to turn up a
specific example for you in Buckley himself. However, if we can drop
him specifically and posit a Conservative Archteype, what we find in
the type is, for instance, constant railing against pornography with
all attendent statist constraints against it screwed down if possible.
Conversely, a "liberal" archetype is not concerned with authentic
intellect. They make great pretense to it, but I need only note what
we deal with here in these newsgroups every day to make the point.
They cannot think, because they're not interested in that. It's why
they howl so loud & long about "intellectual freedom". (Observe the
frequent "freedom of speech" nonsense we see here. A good example
would be Kurt Lochner, who knee-jerks that thing whenever someone
tells him to just shut the fuck up as a matter of ordinary human
contempt for sheer flaming idiocy.) What mainly concerns them are the
material aspects of human life, which is why they stand so hard on
economic totalitarianism. Hillary: "We can't trust the people to make
those decisions. We have to make them for them." (in re: health
care, to Dennis Hastert.)
What I've laid out above is a bare sketch of this issue. Ayn
Rand did unprecedented work at illuminating and resolving this basic
fallacy of the mind/body split, which is rife throughout the history
of philosophy in various forms.
Neither side exemplifies actually integrated human life. Both
sides are enemies of freedom, each in their own way. The whole
dispute centers on who gets to wield The Gun of government coercion.
I'm not interested in that in the least. "The Left" and "The
Right" can both go to hell in my view. My philosophy is completely
integrated, and the political result is uncompromising advocacy of
freedom.
(Of course, ever since Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his screwy
"perfect freedom" context-destruction jazz, that very word is an
invitation for every dizzy fool to come crawling out of the woodwork
to scream about "freedom" to rape and pillage, but that's a separate
issue dealing with the earliest assaults on the Enlightenment.)
Billy
xofpi
Ernest Brown says...
>
>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:<Pj6Q8.23760$15....@www.newsranger.com>...
>> In article
>> <Pine.LNX.4.33.020619...@helium.bengal.missouri.edu>,
>Ernest
>> Brown says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >It's the equivalent of criticizing Bill Clinton solely by
>> >pointing to the ouvre of Ann Coulter without reference to his own words
>> >or actions.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a surprisingly sensitive use of analogy for a right-winger!
>
>Aside from the fact that I'm a "right-winger" only in Gandalf's diseased
>consciousness, what prohibits *anyone* from a "sensitive use of analogy?"
I see. You have a problem taking compliments. Okay, but what I meant is that
right-wingers are not usually considered sensitive, and this analogy was one
that seemed to actually take into consideration the audience it was intended
for. So I applaud you again for your sensitive analogy, though I repeat, it was
actually off the mark.
>> I doubt the
>> comparison is valid, though, because Ryan evidently started out thinking
>Rand
>> was really neat-o. He also seems to have some brains. Apparently he did
>have a
>> drinking problem, but I doubt it was Dat Ole Debbil Chardonnay.
>
>
>I'd give Ryan credit for agreeing with my larger point. I surmise that if
>you sent him an e-mail asking him if a "critique" of Rand that only cited
>him as a secondary source and not Rand herself was a sound methodology,
>he'd strongly deny it. Likewise, in order for Billy to fairly critique
>what Ryan had to say, he'd still have to ignore GG Allin's posts and cite
>Ryan directly and/or invite Ryan to debate him here. That's why Gandalf
>runs his little parasitic plagiarism games, he doesn't have to put out any
>effort and when individuals who take a serious view of such things refuse
>to sanction his behavior, he gets to throw hissy fits and lie about their
>motivations.
That isn't fair. Gandalf is one of the few posters around who actually works at
making an argument and supporting it, whatever you think of his politics. And he
is tenacious on a thread, which is probably what turns a lot of wingers off
about him. And though he is subject to succomb to the typical Usenet ad hominem
war as any of us are when we're annoyed or goaded or bored, I think he tends to
keep his attacks on the level of argument and ideas more than a lot of you guys
on the right--or, if you prefer, in the ethereal anarcho-capitalist
not-here-not-there-land--do.
>In point of fact, Billy patiently engaged GG Allin in debate when
>"Gandalf" first showed up here in Nov/Dec 2000, and it was Gandy Ova who
>broke and ran.
Yeah, I'll take your word for it. Right. Sure. But it seems to me that anytime I
get into anything with Billy, which ain't that often frankly, most of his energy
is spent explaining why he won't explain himself. Really! Check it out!:
" Look: I've been up & down the road with Hanson since 1996. I
know exactly what I'm dealing with in him. If *you* have anything
interesting to discuss about philosophy, I might give it a go with
you, but I'll tell you this: I don't have a taste for cynics or
morons. Hanson's a rank liar: if you compare what he says with the
things that I've actually written here over the years, you could
figure that out for yourself, but I am not confident of the prospects,
especially when I consider our last exchange. In any case, I've been
at this a long time, and I really don't care whether you're
entertained, or enlightened, or amused, "embarrass[ed]", or any of the
rest of it."
This seems like a dodge to me. Rather than talk ideas, he goes right to the
level of ad hominem, telling me "I don't have a taste for cynics or morons," as
if that means anything. Who has a taste for morons and cynics?! Who cares what a
debating opponent's taste in people is anyway!? But of course that line was not
intended to inform me about Beck's personal tastes. It was a signal that he
would reserve the right to pull out at any time and blame his flight on his
alleged distaste for "morons and cynics."
Look at his rejection of Ryan's critique of Objectivism™:
"There is a categorical difference between citing original
material -- like FAR/AIM -- and Webbing-up the delusions of some dink
who makes a point of explaining how he hates his shoes, Hanson.
"I checked around on your boy Ryan. He's a case. It's not like
you know a damned thing in the world about people seriously interested
in Objectivism -- pro or con -- but I found a group of them who just
about uniformly dismissed the guy as a crank on the basis of personal
experience with him. Some of them were trying to be nicer about it
than others, but the picture was pretty clear, and this was *after* I
read his stuff, which was just dippy.
"*You* are just amazing in your ignorance compounded with
unmitigated audacity. At least Ryan had sense enough to leave the
group"
Now tell me really: Is this the "argument" of a person who is taking ideas on
their merit? Be honest. This is not argument. This is mindfucking. Beck and
McMartin are especially prone to this type of crap. When the argument is getting
nowhere or when you just don't feel like reading something that challenges a
belief you hold near and dear, haul out the reliable ole ad hominem assault on
an opponent's mental state. That'll shut 'em up!
I won't deny that I use Usenet mostly as entertainment. Sometimes you just want
to zap some idiot who says something stupid and it just plain feels good to do
it. But sometimes, you want to use it to get a little deeper into questions you
have about, say, why some people believe something you personally find
impossible to believe. It seems to me that if Beck would quit posing as the
arbiter of mental health, stopped thinking about every exchange as a zero-sum
game where one or the other *must* lose (which leads him, it seems to me, to
keep his intellectual risk-taking to a minimum), he might be an interesting
source of information about anarcho-capitalist belief, which I personally find
self-contradictory.
Ernest Brown
(snip-will deal with other points later)
See
Re: FASCISM: Why It's Not A Liberal Phenomenon
from 12/12/00-12/19/00
also check out the aforementioned "Lying Scumbag Glenn Yeadon" thread to
see GG and "Silverback [GY]" engage in their typical routines. You'll
start to understand why Beck's somewhat -less- than patient with them
these days.
xofpi
example of her totalitarian tendencies...
Can anybody cite the source?
xofpi
>
>...which conservatives and so-called "anarcho-capitalists" love to quote as an
>example of her totalitarian tendencies...
>
>Can anybody cite the source?
>
http://www.cchconline.org/soundbites.php3
"I mentioned...to the first lady about medical savings accounts and just right
away she said, 'We can't do that.' And I said, 'Well, why?' And she said, 'Well
there's two reasons.' And I said, 'Well, what are they?' [And she said,] 'The
first reason is with the medical savings account, people have to act on their
own and make their own decisions about health care. And they have to make sure
that they get the inoculations and the preventative care that they need, and we
just think that people will skip too much because in a medical savings account
if you don't spend it, you get to keep it or you can...accumulate it in a health
care account. We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they
won't get the care for their children and themselves that they need. We think
the government, by saying 'You have to make this schedule. You have to have your
kids in for inoculations here, you have to do a prescreening here, you have to
do this'--the government will make better decisions than the people will make,
and people will be healthier because of it.'
"I said, 'Well, part of that's an education process. People have to understand
that [if] they behave a certain way, they're going to save money, [with the]
preventive medicine issue--you get the prescreenings, if you can inoculate your
kids you save money on it. I mean, they're not sick. You save money.' She said,
'No. We just can't trust the American people to make those type of
choices...Government has to make those choices for people.'
"I said, 'Okay, we just disagree there. But what's the second reaosn?' And she
said, 'Well, the second reason is, with a medical savings acount, savings are
[like] an IRA. They go in as actually money saved and all that money will go
into IRAs which goes to the private sector.' And she said, 'We can't afford to
have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal
government because the federal government will spend that money better than the
private sector will spend it.' And so [I thought] holy mackeral. I can't argue
these issues. These are philosophical issues."
Rep. Hastert, whose legislative plan included tax-deferred Medical Savings
Accounts with contributions by employers. He concluded after a discussion with
First Lady Hillary Clinton that there was little common ground on which to
negotiate with the Clinton Administration on health care legislation. "Health
Has No Fury," David Brock, The American Spectator, November 1996.
Ernest Brown
From: Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: #Can Bush Mend His Party's Rift With America? (A: HELL NO!)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.bush
View: Complete Thread (13 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2000-12-17 14:31:22 PST
Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
>You do'nt trust the American people to make their own decisions that
>effect their own lives, the lives of their spouses, grandparents, and
>children.
"She said, 'No. We just can't trust the American people to make
those types of choices. Government has to make those choices for
people.'
I said, 'Okay, we just disagree there. But what's the second
reason?' And she said, 'Well, the second reason is, with a medical
savings account, savings are [like] an IRA. They go in as actually
money saved and all that money will go into IRAs which goes to the
private sector.' And she said, 'We can't afford to have that money go
to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government
because the federal government will spend that money better than the
private sector will spend it.' "
(David Brock, "The Seduction Of Hillary Rodham", p. 334, quoting
Dennis Hastert on his June 1993 meeting with Hillary on health care)
Now, of course, you don't have to take Brock's or Hastert's word
for it. You can dismiss them if you want to.
Nobody *honestly* paying attention to Hillary, however, would do
that. She is what she is, and she is exactly what you pointed out,
above.
--
Stan
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
Is this Davis Brock when he was telling the truth or when he was lying?
--Stan
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
--George W. Bush, July 26, 2000
xofpi
Ernest Brown says...
Right. I'm *honestly* paying attention to you and I *honestly* think you've got
a lot of nerve pushing something Hastert allegedly told Brock for publication in
The American Expectorator as a fair representation of what Hillary actually
said.
You guys are either thick, gullible or shameless. Which is it?
msoja
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>You're a liar, Brown. Beck's ran like a bastard from every debate we've
>ever had
Is that why you killfiled him?
Mike Soja
Gandalf Grey
"eflorack" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bd154db5.0206...@posting.google.com...
Oh look, honey. The village idiot is laughing.
It certainly makes sense that the second biggest liar on the group would
show up to stump for Billy Beck.
Ted Clayton
> Rep. Hastert, whose legislative plan included tax-deferred Medical Savings
> Accounts with contributions by employers. He concluded after a discussion with
> First Lady Hillary Clinton that there was little common ground on which to
> negotiate with the Clinton Administration on health care legislation. "Health
> Has No Fury," David Brock, The American Spectator, November 1996.
Oh, *there's* a reliable source.
Ted
Ted Clayton
Those aren't mutually exclusive....
Ted
Gandalf Grey
"msoja" <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cu34hugrj9nq4173s...@4ax.com...
[Mikey Soja, another troll who runs from arguments asks ironically]
I've killfiled Beck because he's finally turned into the intellectual
equivalent of morons like Dana and efloreck: running away from every
argument he gets into only to come back a week later crowing about how he's
unbeatable. That's just a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. It was
bad enough when Beck used to spend a week making non-comments in response to
challenges for information or would waste a dozen posts bloviating about how
he *really* knew the answers but just couldn't be bothered to explain them
to people who *weren't really serious* or who *didn't really want to know
the truth,* or would fritter away everyone's time by insisting that he was
just too good to deal with his opponents. But nowadays, Beck has descended
into the kind of third grade idiocy that eflorack is so well known for:
crowing that he's won the argument when he hasn't even engaged the argument.
If you add to that the fact that Beck's main contribution these days is
threats and segues into who is opponents supposedly *really* are, it's a
waste of time and bandwidth to read him or address him.
It's sort of like when you ran away from the half-dozen challenges I made to
you about the Bell Curve. You remember: it was that book you never read.
You disappeared for a week or so and then came back and tried to pretend
that the whole thing never happened. So you know what I'm talking about,
Mikey.
Gandalf Grey
But it IS kind of amusing. Brown and Beck both employ an interesting dodge
that's pretty illustrative of the *inherent dishonesty* of the right wing.
If I post news articles, all I'm doing is cutting and pasting. If I post my
own thoughts, I've robbed them from someone else. This particular lie is so
extensive that even when I wrote a series of philosophical essays for the
group and various arguments and counterarguments ensued, righties like John
Sabotta and Dana went so far as to accuse me of plagiarizing even the
detailed responses, word for word, from some unnamed source.
The amazing thing about this particular charge is the fact that, if true, my
*source* must have been amazingly clairvoyant, because it apparently knew
exactly what questions and arguments were going to come up as a result of
those threads but had a word for word argument for every response.
Of course, this being the case, even my response to you is not really MY
response. I've simply pasted it from my secret source of universal
knowledge.
So, that's the joke to me. Morons like Ernie Brown and Noam Chumpski spend
half their time sniveling about the fact that I post news and opinion
articles on the web and the rest of their time pretending that my original
posts aren't original.
> Look at his rejection of Ryan's critique of ObjectivismT: