Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Please check out my Ayn Rand site...

4 views
Skip to first unread message

mark thibodeau

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
http://www.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~paulreid/tib/randroid.htm

Thanks...

Mark T.
tibb...@hotmail.com

**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****

Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to mark thibodeau
Great Link on Rand! I laughed so much I was in tears! I guess these humorless
Randroids will hate the site, because it tells the truth!

Regards,
Mats

Guesswho

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
She certainly affected you a great deal. You must dislike her a great
deal to devote so much time and effort to it.


Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to Guesswho
Guesswho wrote:

> She certainly affected you a great deal. You must dislike her a great
> deal to devote so much time and effort to it.

He dislikes the crazy cult that she generated.

Mats

mark thibodeau

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Way to avoid and evade, there, Guesswho! Did yo mamma Ayn teach you that?

Cheers,
MarkT

Guesswho

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Way to avoid and evade, there, Guesswho! Did yo mamma Ayn teach you
that?
Cheers,
MarkT

Guesswho writes;
Avoid and evade what? I noticed you devoted an entire web page to hating
Ayn Rand. Is that not what your web page is? Am I mistaken? Isn't the
bulk of your entire web page dedicated to pointing out all that you
believe is wrong with her and how bad you believe her believes were and
how bad you feel her books were? I just pointed out that you have
dedicated quite a bit of your time to her.


Guesswho

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
He dislikes the crazy cult that she generated.

Mats

Guesswho writes;
Me too. It would seem that extremes are the rule. I believe in the ideas
of objectivism, individuality and all that. I think she was far less a
person than most people make her out to be. But, isn't it ironic that
the same could be said of followers of just about anyone. Like Marx. He
was damn near useless. Never worked. Lived off what his friends gave
him. You can't deny that there are those in this news group who worship
him. Clore, Lepore, Dim Dragon, that pshyco kenfran all worship him as
sort of a demi-god. Not all do. You can agree with someone's ideals but
not think they(the person) are the end all. I would never argue with
someone about whether or not Ayn Rand was great. Her greatness or lack
of is really not a concern. I have read about her philosophy, I have
also read Plato, Nietche, Hume, Locke and Marx. Personally, I wouldn't
live my life like any of them. Here is another side to look at, a
question that has to be answered, do we have no choice in our
philosophy, must we pick one and follow it hook line and sinker, or can
we treat the philosophers as a buffet taking and chosing from thier
writings that which gives us comfort and makes sense to us?


pseud...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to
In article <37374E6B...@physics.isu.edu>,

Guesswho <han...@physics.isu.edu> wrote:
> She certainly affected you a great deal. You must dislike her a great
> deal to devote so much time and effort to it.
>
> Indeed. It's something I'll never figure out, why would anyone who
see's absolutely no value in Ayn Rand whatsoever even bother with her
or her followers, PERIOD?

Every so once in a while I'll see a socialist or something post to an
Objectivist forum seemingly solely to pick a fight with Objectivist's.
I wonder: why do they bother? If all the Objectivist's in the world
were converted to socialism, it would hardly be a significant voting
block. Heck, even if you converted all the libertarians (Objectivist
or no) to socialism......

They claim that Ayn Rand's followers are fanatical. Are they really?
Are they anymore fanatically convinced that their beliefs are right
than the political junkies you'll see, at say a Democratic National
Convention?

So Ayn Rand's philosophy has flaws, weaknesses, and even some errors,
I'll accept that. I still think it has some value.

As for criticizing Ayn Rand from a literary perspective, geez, her
novels are inspirational portraits of hero's. They inspire people to
get more out of their lives. I've read enough short stories and novels
and so on that only communicate life is suffering, Ayn Rand is one of
the few novelist, (I could name a few others) that actually dipict life
as joy.

I see he donsn't like Rush either, yea, I guess it's never been popular
to like them either. I think they're brillant, their ablums
mindblowing, beyond compare!

So there!


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

pseud...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to
In article <ytCZ2.1525$p7.850169@WReNphoon4>,> By the way, Ayn Rand's Anthem is a far far better (and I believe
earlier) potrayal of life under totalitarianism than Orwell's 1984
(I'll never know what people see in that book!). As, for High
Schooler's liking it, yea, it was required reading, but I can't imagine
anyone liking it.

As for Ayn Rand as a Nietzschian Zaranthustra/Overman style prophet,
yes, I've often thought so myself. :-) ,N's overman (overwoman)
discards existing value systems and creates a new value system to live
by.

Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to pseud...@my-dejanews.com
pseud...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I see he donsn't like Rush either, yea, I guess it's never been popular
> to like them either.

No? They have sold millions of albums.

> I think they're brillant, their ablums
> mindblowing, beyond compare!

I liked their "symphonic" period 76-78, although a lot was derived from Yes
and Zeppelin. Lately they have become too mainstream for my taste. BTW,
"Hemishperes" is kind of a critique of Rand.

Take Care,
Mats

>
>
> So there!

Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to Guesswho
Guesswho wrote:

> Here is another side to look at, a
> question that has to be answered, do we have no choice in our
> philosophy, must we pick one and follow it hook line and sinker, or can
> we treat the philosophers as a buffet taking and chosing from thier
> writings that which gives us comfort and makes sense to us?

The problem is that Rand (and her cult) claims you have to accept literary
everything she wrote as being revealed truth. And everything else, except
Aristotle, is useless. I don't agree! I go for the buffet!

Take Care,
Mats

Sweet Pea

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to
> > I see he donsn't like Rush either, yea, I guess it's never been popular
> > to like them either.
>
> No? They have sold millions of albums.

Yes, but still it hasn't been very popular to like them... If you know what
I mean.


> > I think they're brillant, their ablums
> > mindblowing, beyond compare!
>
> I liked their "symphonic" period 76-78, although a lot was derived from
Yes
> and Zeppelin. Lately they have become too mainstream for my taste. BTW,
> "Hemishperes" is kind of a critique of Rand.

Could you please tell me more how you mean? I love them too, especially
76-78. =)

--
SweetPea

Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to Sweet Pea
Sweet Pea wrote:

> Yes, but still it hasn't been very popular to like them [Rush]... If you know
> what
> I mean.

Yes, I guess I do. They have not been accepted by the critics or the boring
middle-of-the-road people. But the same goes for bands like Yes and Emerson,
Lake and Palmer. Nonetheless, all those bands have sold more albums than the
boring Elvis Costello, whom the critics adore.

> > "Hemishperes" is kind of a critique of Rand.
>
> Could you please tell me more how you mean? I love them too, especially
> 76-78. =)

"Hemispheres" is about the tension between the Apollonian and Dionysian aspects
of life. Rand loved the Apollonian aspect (exemplified by the Apollo moon
landing), and hated the Dionysian (exemplified by the Woodstock festival). Rush
lyricist Niel Peart said he was excited by both. And that's what "Hemispheres"
is about.

Take Care,
Mats

Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to
In article <3737F005...@iies.su.se>,
Mats Landstrom <Mats.La...@iies.su.se> wrote:

>The problem is that Rand (and her cult) claims you have to accept literary
>everything she wrote as being revealed truth. And everything else, except
>Aristotle, is useless. I don't agree! I go for the buffet!
>
>Take Care,
>Mats
>

But you do believe that a great deal of Objectivists aren't cultists, correct?

Regina

Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to
In article <ytCZ2.1525$p7.850169@WReNphoon4>,
t...@passport.ca (mark thibodeau) wrote:

>**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here
(tm) ****

I have a question, do you believe that all Objectivists are this way or just
a select group? Also, putting aside the "cult" that has been generated by
Rand, do you have a problem with the philosophy? I'm fascinated by the
inspiration she can be for some people and the visceral hatred she can evoke
in others.

Regina

P.S. Do you think it was Rand's intention to generate a "cult" of sorts? This
is all curiosity(sp?) on my part, not some "Randroid" attempt to try to
disprove your claims.


Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny
Regina,

> But you do believe that a great deal of Objectivists aren't cultists, correct?

There seems to be a dispute among the Objectivists themselves about who are the
true Objectivists. The Cultists claim that they are the only true Objectivists.
Non-Cultist Objectivists generally agree that the Cultists have misunderstood
Rand, since worship of another human being is not rational. Is this correct?

Take Care,
Mats


Guesswho

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to
There seems to be a dispute among the Objectivists themselves about who
are the
true Objectivists. The Cultists claim that they are the only true
Objectivists.
Non-Cultist Objectivists generally agree that the Cultists have
misunderstood
Rand, since worship of another human being is not rational. Is this
correct?

Take Care,
Mats

Guesswho writes;
Perfect way to put it. I would never worship another and believe that
objectivism would hold that as completely illogical and wrong. I also
believe objectivism means to contantly review the situation and if a
better solution arises, and it is moral, that is the solution to follow.


Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny

unread,
May 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/12/99
to
In article <3738A0E1...@iies.su.se>,
Mats Landstrom <Mats.La...@iies.su.se> wrote:

>Regina,
>
>> But you do believe that a great deal of Objectivists aren't cultists,
correct?
>

>There seems to be a dispute among the Objectivists themselves about who are
the
>true Objectivists. The Cultists claim that they are the only true
Objectivists.
>Non-Cultist Objectivists generally agree that the Cultists have
misunderstood
>Rand, since worship of another human being is not rational. Is this correct?
>
>Take Care,
>Mats
>

This is absolutely correct...In my opinion, those
who are Objectivist Cultists could never be
considered true Objectivists. It goes against the
whole concept of Objectivism, and as much as they
might plead the opposite, I doubt Rand would be
pleased with them. Personally, I think the Cultist
Objectivists are more likely the people who didn't
think the way Rand did before they read her
fiction or non-fiction(This isn't always true, but
my best theory so far)...on the other hand, those
who had similar opinions to those of Rand before
reading her books and found they agreed with her
upon reading her works would most likely be
considered "true Objectivists". I think that quite
a few people argue that if you're an individual,
you shouldn't agree with Rand so much. However, I
think the point there is that if everyone is
rational on every issue, they will usually come up
with the same conclusions. I don't know if my
writing is a little hard to follow, but if it is,
just ask me to clarify and I will do so gladly.

Regina


Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/12/99
to
Regina,

> I think that quite
> a few people argue that if you're an individual,
> you shouldn't agree with Rand so much.

That's right!

> However, I
> think the point there is that if everyone is
> rational on every issue, they will usually come up
> with the same conclusions.

That's wrong! Or rather, I have yet to come across a good explaination of why
that is the case.

Take Care,
Mats


mark thibodeau

unread,
May 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/12/99
to
As the author of the website in question, I feel I should address some of
the questions posed...

What is it that I find so annoying about Rand, her fictions, her philosophy,
and the cult she
has generated?

First things first...

Rand herself - (and this is only my opinion, from reader her writing and
seeing her on the Donahue show)
I find her to be an incredibly damaged creature, an ugly toad of a woman who
wished
she were better looking, stronger, smarter, a better writer, whatever. She
developed obvious
personality disorders, including delusions of grandeur and overcompensation.
Her fantasies were so
important to her that she developed an entire 'philosophy' around them, and
thought everyone
would think them brilliant. When they didn't, she developed delusions of
persecution.

As a writer - she sucked. Case closed.

As a philosopher - she wasn't. Case closed.

And her cult - the real reason I spend any time debunking Rand (check out my
website and the links, I'm
not going to repeat tens of thousands of words in this ng) is because if her
cult. I can't stand it when I
see people who don't know what they're talking about claiming so-and-so is
the best whatsis. It's as if
someone were to say The Monkees were the best Rock and Roll band of all
time. When you encounter
someone who believes such foolishness, you can react in one of two ways...
you can say "Whatever, moron."
and walk away (which is what most people do when they encounter Randroids),
or you can try to show
them where they err. That is what I have attempted to do with my website.
If I can show you the error
of your ways, great! If not, well, so be it. Continue believing that Rand
was a great philosopher, and that
she was a great novelist. Hopefully, one day, someone more skilled at
deprogramming cult-members
will reach you and pull you from this hideous siren's spell...

Cheers,
Mt
tibb...@hotmail.com

My Ayn Rand site... http://www.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~paulreid/tib/randroid.htm

Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny

unread,
May 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/13/99
to
In article <Mqg_2.5993$4S.4154767@WReNphoon3>,
t...@passport.ca (mark thibodeau) wrote:

>Rand herself - (and this is only my opinion, from reader her writing and
>seeing her on the Donahue show)
>I find her to be an incredibly damaged creature, an ugly toad of a woman who
>wished
>she were better looking, stronger, smarter, a better writer, whatever.

Nice, gee, that Plato was a great lookin' guy, eh?

>She
>developed obvious
>personality disorders, including delusions of grandeur and overcompensation.
>Her fantasies were so
>important to her that she developed an entire 'philosophy' around them, and
>thought everyone
>would think them brilliant. When they didn't, she developed delusions of
>persecution.

So it's the "selfishness" you have a problem with? Do you think she's being
self-indulgent? Could you be specific?

>As a writer - she sucked. Case closed.

It's all subjective, but she wasn't awful, maybe not a Jane Austen(whom I
love) or Charles Dickens but I liked Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead...or
am I just a "brainwashed Randroid"?

>As a philosopher - she wasn't. Case closed.

What constitutes a philosophy, or rather what do you think constitutes a
philosophy?

>And her cult - the real reason I spend any time debunking Rand (check out my
>website and the links, I'm
>not going to repeat tens of thousands of words in this ng) is because if her
>cult. I can't stand it when I
>see people who don't know what they're talking about claiming so-and-so is
>the best whatsis.

What about the non-cultists? Or are we all cultists?

>When you encounter
>someone who believes such foolishness, you can react in one of two ways...
>you can say "Whatever, moron."
>and walk away (which is what most people do when they encounter Randroids),
>or you can try to show
>them where they err. That is what I have attempted to do with my website.
>If I can show you the error
>of your ways, great! If not, well, so be it. Continue believing that Rand
>was a great philosopher, and that
>she was a great novelist. Hopefully, one day, someone more skilled at
>deprogramming cult-members
>will reach you and pull you from this hideous siren's spell...

LOL, I love the way you express yourself. Yes, we all sit at night, beside
our beds and pray to the Great Rand for strength to be just like John Galt or
Howard Roark...geez. Hmmm, oh and thank you, I now realize that quoting Atlas
Shrugged is equal to quoting a passage from Mein Kampf. I remember recently
reading a review of one of Rand's philosophy books at Amazon.com and someone
said her philosophy could lead to a Holocaust(yeah, sure)...and people think
Objectivists are crazy...

Regina

Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny

unread,
May 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/13/99
to
In article <37394095...@iies.su.se>,
Mats Landstrom <Mats.La...@iies.su.se> wrote:

Mats,

>
>> However, I
>> think the point there is that if everyone is
>> rational on every issue, they will usually come up
>> with the same conclusions.
>
>That's wrong! Or rather, I have yet to come across a good explaination of
why
>that is the case.

Give me an example of a situation where there is no "most rational"
conclusion. BTW, I'm enjoying our communication...


>Take Care,
>Mats
>

Regina

mark thibodeau

unread,
May 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/13/99
to
>In article <Mqg_2.5993$4S.4154767@WReNphoon3>,
>
>t...@passport.ca (mark thibodeau) wrote:
>
> Rand herself - (and this is only my opinion, from reader her writing and
seeing her on the Donahue show)
> I find her to be an incredibly damaged creature, an ugly toad of a woman
who wished
> she were better looking, stronger, smarter, a better writer, whatever.
>
>Nice, gee, that Plato was a great lookin' guy, eh?

IDIOT!!! Thanks for proving that most Randroids couldn't think their way out
of a soaking wet paper bag.
I NEVER said ugliness precludes one from being a great philosopher (as a
matter of fact, that sounds
like something Rand would have thought up!). Rather, I said that I believe
it was POSSIBLE that Rand
allowed her deep-seated neurotic self-loathing to infect her world-view.
Over-compensation, projection,
all that jazz. When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. Rand
turned the lemon of her
ugliness into sarin nerve gas. Also, the only thing we know about Plato is
that he was a stocky war hero
before ageing so gracefully that all the little boys in Greece tried to get
under his toga, so don't go
dropping names unless you know what you're talking about.

> She
> developed obvious
> personality disorders, including delusions of grandeur and
overcompensation. Her fantasies were so
> important to her that she developed an entire 'philosophy' around them,
and thought everyone
> would think them brilliant. When they didn't, she developed delusions of
persecution.
>
>So it's the "selfishness" you have a problem with? Do you think she's being
self-indulgent? Could you be specific?

What the fuck is the matter with you? Can't you read? There is nothing
confusing about what I wrote.

>>As a writer - she sucked. Case closed.
>
>It's all subjective, but she wasn't awful, maybe not a Jane Austen(whom I
love) or Charles Dickens but I liked Atlas Shrugged and the
Fountainhead...or am I
>just a "brainwashed Randroid"?

It's NOT all subjective. And she WAS awful. Just wishing something to be
true doesn't automatically make
it so. Have you read the essay at my site?
http://www.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~paulreid/tib/randroid.htm

>>>As a philosopher - she wasn't. Case closed.
>
>What constitutes a philosophy, or rather what do you think constitutes a
philosophy?

There is a big difference between "having a philosophy of life" (which
applies to Rand) and "practicing
philosophy." As far as practicing philosophy, Rand was strictly pro-am, if
that. A rank amateur with,
as I have stated, delusions of grandeur and persecution.

> And her cult - the real reason I spend any time debunking Rand (check
out my website and the links, I'm
> not going to repeat tens of thousands of words in this ng) is because if
her cult. I can't stand it when I
> see people who don't know what they're talking about claiming so-and-so
is the best whatsis.
>
>What about the non-cultists? Or are we all cultists?

You seem to take offense at the label. Would it help if I clarified and
told you that by 'cult' I don't
necessarily mean 'sect'? A Randroid is like a Trekkie, not a Scientologist.
You don't pay a tithing,
per se, but your lives revolve around her writings and most of you believe
her shit didn't stink.

> When you encounter
> someone who believes such foolishness, you can react in one of two
ways... you can say "Whatever, moron."
> and walk away (which is what most people do when they encounter
Randroids), or you can try to show
> them where they err. That is what I have attempted to do with my
website. If I can show you the error
> of your ways, great! If not, well, so be it. Continue believing that
Rand was a great philosopher, and that
> she was a great novelist. Hopefully, one day, someone more skilled at
deprogramming cult-members
> will reach you and pull you from this hideous siren's spell...
>
>LOL, I love the way you express yourself. Yes, we all sit at night, beside
our beds and pray to the Great Rand for strength to be just like John Galt
or Howard
>Roark...geez. Hmmm, oh and thank you, I now realize that quoting Atlas
Shrugged is equal to quoting a passage from Mein Kampf. I remember recently
>reading a review of one of Rand's philosophy books at Amazon.com and
someone said her philosophy could lead to a Holocaust(yeah, sure)...and
people
>think Objectivists are crazy...

She did defend the Holocaust of 8,000,000 American Indians...


Cheers,
Mt
tibb...@hotmail.com

Guesswho

unread,
May 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/13/99
to
She did defend the Holocaust of 8,000,000 American Indians...
Cheers,
Mt

Guesswho writes;
How do you figure that?


Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny

unread,
May 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/13/99
to
In article <hQB_2.5815$me.2478190@WReNphoon4>,
t...@passport.ca (mark thibodeau) wrote:

>>In article <Mqg_2.5993$4S.4154767@WReNphoon3>,

>IDIOT!!! Thanks for proving that most Randroids couldn't think their way out
>of a soaking wet paper bag.
>I NEVER said ugliness precludes one from being a great philosopher (as a
>matter of fact, that sounds
>like something Rand would have thought up!). Rather, I said that I believe
>it was POSSIBLE that Rand
>allowed her deep-seated neurotic self-loathing to infect her world-view.

Woah...calm down, I was teasing. Obviously I can't do that as you loathe
anyone who might even deign to *suggest* that Rand had one good thought or
that she was not evil or mentally ill. Btw, about her wishing to be stronger,
how easy do you think it was for her to grow up in Communist Russia? Do you a
think a weak person could survive and manage to become successful? I don't
defend everything she did as some of it went against her philosophy but I
can't deny the validity of some of her claims.


>
>What the fuck is the matter with you? Can't you read? There is nothing
>confusing about what I wrote.

Thank you, I CAN read and there isn't anything the matter with me.Hmm, I love
how you called me an idiot and now you're here using objectionable language.
Very convenient. I'm not the one getting worked up over words or trying to
show "confused people" the error of their ways. If you hate us all so much
then you should just go, I appreciate your efforts in trying to "save" me
though. Thanks.

>>
>>It's all subjective, but she wasn't awful, maybe not a Jane Austen(whom I
>love) or Charles Dickens but I liked Atlas Shrugged and the
>Fountainhead...or am I
>>just a "brainwashed Randroid"?
>
>It's NOT all subjective. And she WAS awful. Just wishing something to be
>true doesn't automatically make
>it so. Have you read the essay at my site?
>http://www.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~paulreid/tib/randroid.htm

Yes, actually I did read it when I visited your site, and trust me, it wasn't
the accomplishment of reading a "REALLY BIG BOOK" that made me like A.S.
Everyone says she's terrible but no one ever says why. Someone said she is
verbose and spends pages on descriptions but other excellent authors have
done this(i.e. Charlotte Bronte, Dickens). Are the characters flat and
static? They undergo no major changes? Is this what constitutes an awful
novel?


>There is a big difference between "having a philosophy of life" (which
>applies to Rand) and "practicing
>philosophy." As far as practicing philosophy, Rand was strictly pro-am, if
>that. A rank amateur with,
>as I have stated, delusions of grandeur and persecution.

So, are you admitting it's a philosophy or are you saying that she isn't a
philosopher because technically she went against what she said in some areas?
Persecution?? Explain.


>> And her cult - the real reason I spend any time debunking Rand (check
>out my website and the links, I'm
>> not going to repeat tens of thousands of words in this ng) is because if
>her cult. I can't stand it when I
>> see people who don't know what they're talking about claiming so-and-so
>is the best whatsis.
>>
>>What about the non-cultists? Or are we all cultists?
>
>You seem to take offense at the label. Would it help if I clarified and
>told you that by 'cult' I don't
>necessarily mean 'sect'? A Randroid is like a Trekkie, not a Scientologist.
>You don't pay a tithing,
>per se, but your lives revolve around her writings and most of you believe
>her shit didn't stink.

Obviously most Objectivists you've come in contact with have been these
alleged Randroids. I never said I agreed with her on everything or that she
didn't make mistakes. I guess I just accepted the fact that she was **human**
and went on with agreeing with a GREAT PART(not all) of her philosophy. And
darling, it sounds like YOUR life revolves around her writings.

>> When you encounter
>> someone who believes such foolishness, you can react in one of two
>ways... you can say "Whatever, moron."
>> and walk away (which is what most people do when they encounter
>Randroids), or you can try to show
>> them where they err. That is what I have attempted to do with my
>website. If I can show you the error
>> of your ways, great! If not, well, so be it. Continue believing that
>Rand was a great philosopher, and that
>> she was a great novelist. Hopefully, one day, someone more skilled at
>deprogramming cult-members
>> will reach you and pull you from this hideous siren's spell...
>>
>>LOL, I love the way you express yourself. Yes, we all sit at night, beside
>our beds and pray to the Great Rand for strength to be just like John Galt
>or Howard
>>Roark...geez. Hmmm, oh and thank you, I now realize that quoting Atlas
>Shrugged is equal to quoting a passage from Mein Kampf. I remember recently
>>reading a review of one of Rand's philosophy books at Amazon.com and
>someone said her philosophy could lead to a Holocaust(yeah, sure)...and
>people
>>think Objectivists are crazy...
>
>She did defend the Holocaust of 8,000,000 American Indians...

When?


>Cheers,
>Mt
>tibb...@hotmail.com
>
>
>

Sincerely,
Regina

mark thibodeau

unread,
May 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/13/99
to
To those who wonder about the genocide thing:

"[t]hey didn't have any rights to the land
>and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights
>which they had not conceived and were not using. It would
>be wrong to attack any country which does respect individual
>rights, because if they do, you are an aggressor and you are
>morally wrong if you attack them. But, if a country does not
>respect rights, if a given tribe is the slave of its own tribal
>chief, why should you respect the rights they do not
>recognize? Or any county which has a dictatorship
>government? Morally, the citizens still have individual rights,
>but the country as such does not have any rights, and anyone
>has the right to invade it, because it does not recognize the
>rights of its own citizens."

>"I will go further. Let's suppose they were all beautifully
>innocent savages, which they certainly were not. What was it
>they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this
>continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence,
>their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and
>not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you
>will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves
>above it. Any white person who brought the element of
>civilization had the right to take over this continent."

These are Rand's words. In the 19th century, we (Americans) 'ethnicly
cleansed'
over 8,000,000 Indians in the pursiut of our manifest destiny. Rand, the
great moralist
and defender of individual rights, defends that genocide.

Fuck her.

Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny

unread,
May 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/13/99
to
In article <RHG_2.6090$me.2574495@WReNphoon4>,
t...@passport.ca (mark thibodeau) wrote:

See? I don't agree with that. I don't agree on everything...

Regina

Paul gate

unread,
May 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/16/99
to

Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny wrote in message <7hdg20$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
A lifeboat with ten people aboard has a hole in its hull that is letting in water in at a certain rate.
Land can be seen in the distance...the situation is thus....
With all nine people aboard the rate of water flowing into the boat through the hole
gives them a one in ten chance of the boat remaining afloat untill they reach land,
with 8 people aboard the weight is reduced and the water flow is slower so that
they have a 2 in ten chance...with 7 people they have a 3 in ten chance...and so on
Should all remain in the boat untill it almost certainly sinks, killing them all?
Should all be abandoned except one...who will almost certainly survive?
How many people if any should be abandoned?


Guesswho

unread,
May 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/16/99
to
Paul writes;

A lifeboat with ten people aboard has a hole in its hull that is letting
in water in at a certain rate.
Land can be seen in the distance...the situation is thus....
With all nine people aboard the rate of water flowing into the boat
through the hole
gives them a one in ten chance of the boat remaining afloat untill they
reach land,
with 8 people aboard the weight is reduced and the water flow is slower
so that
they have a 2 in ten chance...with 7 people they have a 3 in ten
chance...and so on
Should all remain in the boat untill it almost certainly sinks, killing
them all?
Should all be abandoned except one...who will almost certainly survive?
How many people if any should be abandoned?

Guesswho writes;
They could rotate in and out of the boat until they reached land saving
them all. As 5 swim, 5 ride. They can move faster this way with the five
swimmers pulling and pushing the boat. As the five tire, the others help
them aboard and hop in the water and start swimming.


Jim Klein

unread,
May 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/16/99
to
In <7hl66t$a4r$1...@lure.pipex.net> "Paul gate" <ga...@dial.pipex.com>

>A lifeboat with ten people aboard has a hole in its hull that is
>letting in water in at a certain rate. Land can be seen in the

>distance...the situation is thus....With all nine people aboard the


>rate of water flowing into the boat through the hole gives them a one
>in ten chance of the boat remaining afloat untill they reach land,
>with 8 people aboard the weight is reduced and the water flow is
>slower so that they have a 2 in ten chance...with 7 people they have a
>3 in ten chance...and so on Should all remain in the boat untill it
>almost certainly sinks, killing them all? Should all be abandoned
>except one...who will almost certainly survive?
>How many people if any should be abandoned?

None. One of them should get on a cell phone to Vegas and have the
chance of making it changed to 99 out of 100, even if they all stay
aboard. Either that, or toss the philosopher out and plug the hole.

Or even better yet, leave the philosopher IN and swim to shore!


jk

Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/17/99
to
Regina,

> Give me an example of a situation where there is no "most rational"
> conclusion.

In love. Remember, I don't share Rand's vision of love as being something that
can be rationally examined.

> BTW, I'm enjoying our communication...

Me too, ever since I realized you're not a Randroid.

Take Care,
Mats

>
>


Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/17/99
to mark thibodeau
Mark,

I'm a little disappointed by your post. By seem to think that ALL Objectivists are
cultists and if so, you are making a big mistake. Some Objectivists realize that Rand
had problems and that her philosophy have problems. I liked your anti-Rand site. In
fact I agree with it 99%. But you are not curing cultists by attacking them, this will
only reinfore their anti-social behavior. I think the best cure is to show them real
philosophy and real literature.

Take Care,
Mats


Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/17/99
to Accidents are just a fool's explanation of destiny
Regina,

I'm grateful to Mark, because he has proven there exists people who dislike Ayn
Rand more than I do, and that is quite impressive. But let me make this clear, I
don't hate or feel contempt for Objectivists in general. But I can't help but
feel a little contempt for the Cultists, because they are like clowns without
humor.

Take Care,
Mats


Mats Landstrom

unread,
May 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/17/99
to mark thibodeau
mark thibodeau wrote:

> These are Rand's words.

Where is that from?

> Fuck her.[Rand]

No, thank you. I have a better taste for women.

Take Care, (and please Mark, Calm Down!)
Mats


Tom Asquith

unread,
May 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/17/99
to
On Tue, 11 May 1999 10:53:25 +0200, Mats Landstrom
<Mats.La...@iies.su.se> wrote:

>Guesswho wrote:
>
>> Here is another side to look at, a
>> question that has to be answered, do we have no choice in our
>> philosophy, must we pick one and follow it hook line and sinker, or can
>> we treat the philosophers as a buffet taking and chosing from thier
>> writings that which gives us comfort and makes sense to us?
>

>The problem is that Rand (and her cult) claims you have to accept literary
>everything she wrote as being revealed truth. And everything else, except
>Aristotle, is useless. I don't agree! I go for the buffet!

Actually, Rosenbaum/Rand even found Aristotle as being deficient--she
gutted his ethics, defiled his politics and stripped his epistemology
of its purpose. I guess this only leaves Aristotle's poetics--but
then again, if one reads her drivel on romanticism not even this
portion of his work survives.

Cheers,
Tom Asquith
tasquith-at-hotmail-dot-com

LP

unread,
May 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/19/99
to
On Wed, 12 May 1999 06:38:07 -0800, t...@passport.ca (mark thibodeau)
wrote:

>As the author of the website in question, I feel I should address some of
>the questions posed...
>
>What is it that I find so annoying about Rand, her fictions, her philosophy,
>and the cult she
>has generated?
>


I don't know if this has been discussed much yet, but it has become
apparent to me that Ayn Rand has generated at least two cults. The
cult of Randoids, and the even more fanatic cult of AntiRandoids. The
cult of AntiRandoids (which Marks page is a prime example) seem to me
to be much more robotic in their thinking than any of the Randoids
that I've met. It just seems ironic to me that the AntiRandoids
don't see how hypocritical they are in their overzealous objections
to anything and everything that is associated with Ayn Rand.


>First things first...


>
>Rand herself - (and this is only my opinion, from reader her writing and
>seeing her on the Donahue show)
>I find her to be an incredibly damaged creature, an ugly toad of a woman who
>wished

>she were better looking, stronger, smarter, a better writer, whatever. She


>developed obvious
>personality disorders, including delusions of grandeur and overcompensation.
>Her fantasies were so
>important to her that she developed an entire 'philosophy' around them, and
>thought everyone
>would think them brilliant. When they didn't, she developed delusions of
>persecution.
>

>As a writer - she sucked. Case closed.
>

>As a philosopher - she wasn't. Case closed.
>

>And her cult - the real reason I spend any time debunking Rand (check out my
>website and the links, I'm
>not going to repeat tens of thousands of words in this ng) is because if her
>cult. I can't stand it when I
>see people who don't know what they're talking about claiming so-and-so is

>the best whatsis. It's as if
>someone were to say The Monkees were the best Rock and Roll band of all

>time. When you encounter


>someone who believes such foolishness, you can react in one of two ways...
>you can say "Whatever, moron."
>and walk away (which is what most people do when they encounter Randroids),
>or you can try to show
>them where they err. That is what I have attempted to do with my website.
>If I can show you the error
>of your ways, great! If not, well, so be it. Continue believing that Rand
>was a great philosopher, and that
>she was a great novelist. Hopefully, one day, someone more skilled at
>deprogramming cult-members
>will reach you and pull you from this hideous siren's spell...
>

>**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****

whirl_pool
#1439

Lavos999

unread,
May 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/21/99
to
Mats Landstrom <Mats.La...@iies.su.se> wrote:

>Regina,
>
>> But you do believe that a great deal of Objectivists aren't cultists,
>correct?
>
>There seems to be a dispute among the Objectivists themselves about who are
>the
>true Objectivists. The Cultists claim that they are the only true
>Objectivists.
>Non-Cultist Objectivists generally agree that the Cultists have misunderstood
>Rand, since worship of another human being is not rational. Is this correct?

Basically, yes. However, I would argue that the "cultist Objectivists" (Ayn
Rand Institute, led by Leonard Peikoff) are not really Objectivists because
they miss the forest for the trees. In blind worshipping of Rand, they
misunderstand the basic principles of *individualism* upon which the philosophy
is based.

----------

"As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any
man's *demand* for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is *his*
property."
- John Galt

0 new messages