Two Colorado Talks by Craig Biddle -- 11/3 and 11/5
Diana Hsieh
these exciting lectures!
****************************************************
Craig Biddle on "Ayn Rand's Morality of Selfishness"
****************************************************
Date: November 3rd, 2005
Time: 7:30 pm
Location: Math 100, University of Colorado at Boulder
URL: http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/cal/2005-11-3
***
Ayn Rand's morality of selfishness, or rational egoism, is the only
morality that is conducive to human life, personal happiness, and
social harmony. It is the only moral code that provides people with a
system of principles to guide their choices and actions in pursuit of
their life-serving goals and values--from career, to love life, to
friendships, to recreational activities. And it is the only moral code
that provides an objective foundation for the protection of individual
rights--and thus for the establishment and maintenance of a fully free,
fully civilized society. This talk introduces the principles of
rational egoism, concretizes them with real-life examples, and shows
why everyone who wants to live happily and freely needs to understand
and embrace them.
Craig Biddle is a popular Objectivist speaker and writer on ethical and
epistemological issues. He is the author of Loving Life: The Morality
of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. He is currently writing
a book on the principles of rational thinking.
***
This lecture is free and open to the public. It's sponsored by the
Boulder Objectivist Club
(http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/objectivists/).
***
The Boulder Objectivist Club is a student group at the University of
Colorado dedicated to studying Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and
how it relates to today's world. (The Boulder Objectivist Club is
independent of Front Range Objectivism.) If you have questions, please
contact Jared Seehafer at seeh...@colorado.edu.
**********************************
Craig Biddle on "Living Purposely"
**********************************
Date: November 5th, 2005
Time: 6:00 pm (Social Hour), 7:00 pm (Buffet Dinner), 8:00 pm (Lecture
and Q&A)
Location: West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado
RSVP: Please RSVP by November 2nd to Lin Zinser at l...@zinser.com or
303.431.2525. Mail check to FROST to 8700 Dover Court, Arvada, CO
80005.
Cost: $50 for dinner and lecture ($30 for students)
Link: http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/cal/2005-11-5
***
Objectivism holds that one's success in life depends on one's choosing
and achieving three cardinal values: reason, purpose, and self-esteem.
While much has been said about reason and self-esteem, relatively
little has been said about purpose. What exactly is this value? How
does one embrace it? What does it mean to live purposefully?
This lecture examines the nature and importance of purpose, surveying
its place in the Objectivist ethics, its role in both motivation and
thinking, its relationship to the virtues, and potential misconceptions
of the value (such as the error of freezing "purpose" at the level of
"central purpose" or "career") which can retard one's life. The lecture
aims to expand one's understanding of this vital concept and thus to
enhance one's ability to live fully selfishly.
Craig Biddle is a popular Objectivist speaker and writer on ethical and
epistemological issues. He is the author of Loving Life: The Morality
of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. He is currently writing
a book on the principles of rational thinking.
***
Please RSVP with Lin Zinser by November 2 for this motivating and
practical talk. (You can mail your reservation and check to 8700 Dover
Court, Arvada, CO 80005.) Also, please note the price for the entire
evening is $50, $30 for students. To sit at the head table and converse
with Craig Biddle during dinner, please contact Lin Zinser directly by
phone (303.431.2525) or by e-mail (l...@zinser.com).
***
FROST (Front Range Objectivist Supper Talks) brings nationally known
and respected Objectivist speakers to Denver for delicious dinners and
stimulating lectures on a variety of topics about five times per year.
Anyone is welcome, including people unfamiliar with Objectivism. If you
awish to receive announcements of FROST events, please join the mailing
list (http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/lists.html). If you have
questions, please contact Lin Zinser at l...@zinser.com.
Malrassic Park
<di...@dianahsieh.com> wrote:
>Please forward this announcement to anyone who might be interested in
>these exciting lectures!
What is your purpose in drawing people's attention to this material?
Ken Gardner
"Malrassic Park" wrote:
>>Please forward this announcement to anyone who might be interested in
>>these exciting lectures!
> What is your purpose in drawing people's attention to this material?
Uh, trying to promote these lectures? I'm guessing, of course...
Ken
Atlas Bugged
>>>these exciting lectures!
> "Malrassic Park" wrote:
>> What is your purpose in drawing people's attention to this material?
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:djdsao$cju$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> Uh, trying to promote these lectures? I'm guessing, of course...
My guess is: It's about Objectivism and this newsgroup is about Objectivism.
However there is no way to *know,* so does anyone have any ideas to help
poor Mal figure this out? It's *deeeeep.*
Malrassic Park
<kesga...@charter.net> wrote:
.
>"Malrassic Park" wrote:
>>>Please forward this announcement to anyone who might be interested in
>>>these exciting lectures!
.
>> What is your purpose in drawing people's attention to this material?
>Uh, trying to promote these lectures? I'm guessing, of course...
So? What is the purpose of promoting these lectures?
Jim Klein
> My guess is: It's about Objectivism and this newsgroup is about
> Objectivism.
That's not a purpose. It's a fact, or really two facts.
> However there is no way to *know,*
Of course there is. Just look at the evidence. We know that the two facts
you entered aren't sufficient to create a purpose for Diana, since if they
were she would've posted something else about Objectivism. Yet according
to Google, she's posted nothing here in over six months.
Thus, we know your explanation doesn't cut it and the essence of Mal's
question remains---why did Diana choose to post /this/?
> so does anyone have any ideas to help
> poor Mal figure this out?
Sure. It was an invalid question since when one sacrifices one's soul to a
cause, the concept of <purpose> begins to lose meaning, at least with
regard to the purpose of one's own life as distinguished from the purpose
of the cause.
Clearly here---whatever the purpose was, it wasn't a self-generated purpose
of Diana's in any meaningful way.
I wonder if the mullah is going to cover /that/ in his lectures!
> It's *deeeeep.*
It's the opposite of depth. Being the sacrifice of one's own raison d'etre,
it's about as shallow as it comes.
There was a tune about Diana..."Another One Bites the Dust." She believes
she found a Greater Cause, but all she did was sacrifice the Greatest one.
There's your "purpose." The purpose wasn't hers.
jk
George Vernon Skivington
> We know that the two facts
> you entered aren't sufficient to create a purpose for Diana, since if they
> were she would've posted something else about Objectivism.
Perhaps what you missed was the implicit word "supposed".
Jim Klein
Sorry, I don't get it. Could you give me the sentence to which you're
referring, with the word "supposed" placed explicitly into it? Thanks.
jk
Malrassic Park
<di...@dianahsieh.com> wrote:
>Please forward this announcement to anyone who might be interested in
>these exciting lectures!
Why are they supposed to be so exciting?
George Vernon Skivington
> Sorry, I don't get it. Could you give me the sentence to which you're
> referring, with the word "supposed" placed explicitly into it? Thanks.
My mistake: the word is "supposedly", as in "is supposedly about
Objectivism".
fred...@papertig.com
> ...does anyone have any ideas to help poor Mal figure this out?
Yes, he's bored. So apparently is Jim Klein.
Mountains out of molehills and so on...
Fred Weiss
Mark N
> There was a tune about Diana..."Another One Bites the Dust." [...]
Well, no disrespect to the Queen version, but it was far surpassed, IMO,
by Weird Al's "Another One Rides the Bus." That one always brings tears
to my eyes! The man is a genius!
Mark
Jim Klein
Okay, but I still don't get it. I wasn't saying that Diana's post wasn't
really about Objectivism, so I don't know what "supposedly" adds.
This being nearly a lawyer's forum, I'll put it in legalese. I stipulate
that the post was about Objectivism. The question still remains why Diana
chose /that/ to be her only post in six months.
My comment stands. Ultimately, it wasn't her purpose at all. I mean
technically literally, it was her purpose, since what else could've caused
the post to be written?
I was making a somewhat broader point...that the moral principle(s) behind
that being her single post, weren't hers at all, or at least weren't those
of an egoist. I was just offering yet another bit of evidence (in an
endless stream of evidence) that ARIanism has nothing to do with
Objectivism, and is indeed nearly a perfect inversion.
Diana thought this was the most valuable thing to share with this board in
over six months. All I'm saying is that someone who thinks that, has
values more in common with religious collectivism, than objective
individualism.
That's all. It wasn't meant to be some noteworthy discovery, but rather
just a mention of the obvious. Anyone who cares to look, doesn't need a
proof that ARIanism ain't Objectivism.
jk
fred...@papertig.com
>...The question still remains why Diana
> chose /that/ to be her only post in six months.
You mean apart from the fact that she is a full time graduate student
in philosophy and runs her own very active blog?
The real question is why you think there's a question. People
occasionally post notices of events or items of interest to
Objectivists here. It may have something to do with the fact that this
is a newsgroup dedicated to discussing Objectivism.
> I was making a somewhat broader point...that the moral principle(s) behind
> that being her single post, weren't hers at all, or at least weren't those
> of an egoist. I was just offering yet another bit of evidence (in an
> endless stream of evidence) that ARIanism has nothing to do with
> Objectivism, and is indeed nearly a perfect inversion.
I don't know what this is except typically incoherent Kleinian babble
which is usually the only real issue in regard to any of your posts,
namely, wtf are you talking about? Of that we have an endless stream of
evidence going back years.
Fred Weiss
George Vernon Skivington
> This being nearly a lawyer's forum, I'll put it in legalese. I stipulate
> that the post was about Objectivism. The question still remains why Diana
> chose /that/ to be her only post in six months.
So despite appearances, you're not saying that the post was unrelated to the
purpose of this group, and you do admit that a post about Objectivism is
actually not off topic for this group. Well, that's good to know. Fred has a
good account of why she doesn't post more things here, which no doubt is all
true, but in addition, I want to point out that there is relatively little
serious discussion of Objectivism here. No offense guys, but let's face it,
the off-topic posts outweigh the on-topic posts and even the on-topic
posters tend to get distracted by the scum.
> I was making a somewhat broader point...that the moral principle(s) behind
> that being her single post, weren't hers at all, or at least weren't those
> of an egoist.
That strikes me as one of the most ludicrous claims that I've seen in a long
time. You're saying that a person who posts an announcement about lectures
on Objectivism is following some kind of altruistic principles? Or are you
saying that, for some unfathomable reason, because she posted one thing in 6
months, that *that* is evidence of an altruistic ethic? Bizarre.
Ken Gardner
"George Vernon Skivington" wrote:
> So despite appearances, you're not saying that the post was unrelated to
> the purpose of this group, and you do admit that a post about Objectivism
> is actually not off topic for this group. Well, that's good to know. Fred
> has a good account of why she doesn't post more things here, which no
> doubt is all true, but in addition, I want to point out that there is
> relatively little serious discussion of Objectivism here. No offense guys,
> but let's face it, the off-topic posts outweigh the on-topic posts and
> even the on-topic posters tend to get distracted by the scum.
Yes, we seem to be going through one of those slow periods at HPO. This one
seems to be lasting much longer than usual. But it is far from being the
worst one that I can remember.
Ken
Jim Klein
>>...The question still remains why Diana
>> chose /that/ to be her only post in six months.
>
> You mean apart from the fact that she is a full time graduate student
> in philosophy and runs her own very active blog?
Yes. Why, are you having trouble reading? The question wasn't why she only
offered only one post in that period. It was why /that/ post was her
choice. I think that's pretty clear, even re-reading it now.
> The real question is why you think there's a question.
And we have the new question of why you can't understand the question!
> People
> occasionally post notices of events or items of interest to
> Objectivists here.
Yes, they do. That doesn't answer the question either. But I can see how
you wouldn't know that, since you're saying you didn't understand the
question in the first place.
> It may have something to do with the fact that this
> is a newsgroup dedicated to discussing Objectivism.
I don't know why George thought I was saying it was off-topic or something.
Except for advertising inverto-Objectivism drivel (most likely), it was
clearly on-topic. Against the charter maybe, but definitely on-topic.
>> I was making a somewhat broader point...that the moral principle(s)
>> behind that being her single post, weren't hers at all, or at least
>> weren't those
>> of an egoist. I was just offering yet another bit of evidence (in an
>> endless stream of evidence) that ARIanism has nothing to do with
>> Objectivism, and is indeed nearly a perfect inversion.
>
> I don't know what this is except typically incoherent Kleinian babble
I might worry about that judgment, were it not for the fact that you can't
even understand a simple question!
> which is usually the only real issue in regard to any of your posts,
What other issue would there be?
Oddly, and clearly not intentionally, that's as close to my question as
you've come. This is a philosophy forum, yet Diana didn't choose to offer
any philosophy to discuss. And most especially, she didn't offer any
of /Diana's/ ideas at all.
That is, unless you consider a commercial advertisement for someone else an
"idea."
I would think most Objectivists would expect Klein to offer Kleinian babble,
and Hsieh to offer Hsiehian babble. As to which of it is rational babble
and which isn't, I'd think an Objectivist would pride himself in telling
the difference.
But not being a self-described Objectivist for quite a while, that's just a
guess on my part. Most so-called Objectivists these days behave nothing
like what I'd imagine an Objectivist to be. After all, I have nothing to
go on except the ideas that were expressed by the supposed founding babbler
of Objectivism, Rand.
> namely, wtf are you talking about?
> Of that we have an endless stream of
> evidence going back years.
Well, I'm impressed that at least you /pretend/ to appeal to the evidence!
So meanwhile the question still stands, whether or not you ever come to
understand it. In this period since her conversion, why is it that Diana
thought /this/ was the most valuable thing that /she/ had to offer to a
primary public forum about Objectivism on the Internet?
That's all. Not why she had time for only one post, nor whether or not the
post is on or off topic. The question is about the converted Diana---why
was /that/ the most valuable thing that she believed /she/ had to offer in
this six month period.
Lemme know if you still can't get it, but save the part about me supposedly
being the reason for that. It's very un-egoistic of you, but maybe you
don't understand that either.
jk
Jim Klein
>> I was making a somewhat broader point...that the moral principle(s)
>> behind that being her single post, weren't hers at all, or at least
>> weren't those of an egoist.
>
> That strikes me as one of the most ludicrous claims that I've seen in a
> long time. You're saying that a person who posts an announcement about
> lectures on Objectivism is following some kind of altruistic principles?
No, I wrote nothing like that.
As long as you asked...no, I wouldn't call it altruism. And I didn't.
However I /would/ call it a form of sacrifice, quite along the lines of the
ultimate sacrifice that I believe Leonard Peikoff engaged in...the
sacrifice of his own capable mind for what he believed at the time was some
sort of greater cause.
But I didn't say that either; I'm just pointing it out now.
> Or are you saying that, for some unfathomable reason, because she posted
> one thing in 6 months, that *that* is evidence of an altruistic ethic?
No. I don't recall using the word "altruism" at all. What I wrote was,
"Clearly here---whatever the purpose was, it wasn't a self-generated
purpose of Diana's in any meaningful way."
That hardly translates to a charge of altruism.
> Bizarre.
That's cute. Invent a position, falsely attribute it to someone else, and
then call the position "bizarre."
I'd like to call that strategy itself "bizarre," but around here it isn't.
jk
George Vernon Skivington
> No. I don't recall using the word "altruism" at all. What I wrote was,
> "Clearly here---whatever the purpose was, it wasn't a self-generated
> purpose of Diana's in any meaningful way."
Of course you didn't. That's because you don't say things directly. I still
don't understand what your objection is when a person posts information
about a talk germane to Objectivism. You go off on a tangent about that act
not being the act of an egoist, about people sacrificing their minds, and so
on. I understand that you have an intense hatred of the content of
Objectivism, even though you seem to have some alternating marginal fondness
for the name.
John Alway
When you said "the Queen" version, I was thinking "The Queen's"
version. And then I though, oh, *that* Queen.
Two songs played at sports arenas: "We are the champions" and "We
will rock you", or whatever the titles are.
...John
Jim Klein
> Of course you didn't. That's because you don't say things directly.
Wow...I've been accused of so many things, but not that. Refreshing!
> I still don't understand what your objection is when a person posts
> information about a talk germane to Objectivism.
That's because I don't have any such objection.
But don't let that stop you. The world is a much simpler place if you keep
within the CONTEXT of your mind. So you just keep imagining that's my
objection, and you can keep being confused.
Or step outside of the Church and take a glance at the real world.
> You go off on a tangent
> about that act not being the act of an egoist, about people sacrificing
> their minds, and so on.
I think maybe you need to read a little more carefully.
> I understand that you have an intense hatred of
> the content of Objectivism, even though you seem
> to have some alternating marginal fondness for the name.
Way to go, George...you got it pretty much backwards.
Like I said, you apparently need to read a bit more carefully. What I mean
is what I actually write, not what you imagine that I wrote.
jk
George Vernon Skivington
> Like I said, you apparently need to read a bit more carefully. What I
> mean
> is what I actually write, not what you imagine that I wrote.
All I really was hoping for is that you would stop this dancing and evasion,
and give one coherent reason why Diana should not have posted the
information about the talks. Whether or not I need to read more carefully,
you need to write more plainly and honestly. You are overthinking this whole
issue. It's plain to see that you reject Objectivism, so why not just come
clean and move on with your life? Unless in the context of your mind, you
think "Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand as interpreted by Jim
Klein".
Malrassic Park
<ga...@nospam.org> wrote:
.
>"Jim Klein" wrote:
.
Unless you can literally think with Ayn Rand's mind, Objectivism will
become your own subjective interpretation of it.
fred...@papertig.com
> Unless you can literally think with Ayn Rand's mind, Objectivism will
> become your own subjective interpretation of it.
Unless you become a subjectivist you can't be an Objectivist?
Fred Weiss
Jim Klein
> All I really was hoping for is that you would stop this dancing and
> evasion, and give one coherent reason why Diana should not have posted the
> information about the talks.
How can I give a reason for something that I don't think is true?
> Whether or not I need to read more carefully,
> you need to write more plainly and honestly.
What's the point of trying to write more plainly if you're just going to
make up what I wrote anyway?
> You are overthinking this
> whole issue.
Seems to me you're doing that, since you insist that I'm saying that Diana
shouldn't have written the post, even though that's not what I'm saying.
> It's plain to see that you reject Objectivism,
Actually, it's pretty plain that yokels like Fred and now Diana "reject
Objectivism," at least insofar as it's a philosophy even remotely like what
Rand wrote about.
> so why not just come clean and move on with your life?
Why don't you come clean and at least argue against what I write, rather
than what you imagine I wrote?
> Unless in the context of your
> mind, you think "Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand as interpreted
> by Jim Klein".
Actually, I think it's the philosophy of Rand as stated by Rand.
Besides, that's awfully hypocritical considering that you, no doubt,
consider Objectivism to be "the philosophy of Ayn Rand as interpreted by
Leonard Peikoff." But then, it's no secret around here that hypocrisy is
the most unnerving trait common to many ARIans.
You'll want to deny that, but I'll bet you think the definitive corpus of
Objectivism is Peikoff's OPAR. Yes or no? If not, what is?
Why don't /you/ try writing plainly and spit out what you have to say? If
you think I've got something wrong, then cite it and demonstrate that it's
wrong. So far all you've done is reword what I've written to match
something that you imagine I'm saying. That's fine for your imagination,
but it won't hold up under the light of a public forum.
So the question still stands---why did Diana choose /that/ to be the only
post worthy of her posting in a six month period?
Looks like a plain question to me, George, but still no answer. Apparently
I've struck a nerve since all of the responses have been about me, when
nothing about me is going to explain why Diana did what she did.
Y'know, it wasn't meant to be some earth-shattering comment, just some more
evidence that youse guys belong to a Church that is nothing like Rand's
Objectivism. Not a big deal...my cup runneth over with such evidence.
This was a relatively minor bit of evidence, only made semi-important
because of Diana's history.
So enough of your re-interpretation. Cite me directly and explain what I've
got wrong.
How's that for plain and honest? You up to the task?
jk
Jim Klein
> Unless you become a subjectivist you can't be an Objectivist?
Ha. Whether you realize it or not, that's basically the theory that your
Church has been forwarding since Rand's death.
Check the epistemology, like your "context of knowledge determines the truth
of something," or Betsy's "Relationships are man-made," or umpteen other
examples.
Evidence indeed.
jk
George Vernon Skivington
> Besides, that's awfully hypocritical considering that you, no doubt,
> consider Objectivism to be "the philosophy of Ayn Rand as interpreted by
> Leonard Peikoff."
No, I think it's "the philosophy of Ayn Rand", period. Whether or not
Peikoff is right on some point (as in fact I think he largely is) doesn't
have anything to do with what Objectivism is: it has to do with whether
Peikoff has correctly applied the principles of Objectivism.
> You'll want to deny that, but I'll bet you think the definitive corpus of
> Objectivism is Peikoff's OPAR. Yes or no? If not, what is?
The "definitive corpus" is the writings of Ayn Rand and those other
publications by other authors which had Rand's approval.
> So the question still stands---why did Diana choose /that/ to be the only
> post worthy of her posting in a six month period?
Why are you bothering to ask? Why don't you ask her, if you have this
fascination with her motivation for breathing. Don't you realise how
patently stupid it is to ask *others* to conjecture about the reasons for
another person's actions, especially a person who at least I have never seen
in my life? Do you really expect us to believe that your reason for asking
that question is really to acquire information about her reasons? If so, it
suggests that you are remarkably stupid since nobody here could possibly
answer that question, and you ought to know that fact, unless of course you
have some bizarre Kelleyite beliefs in mind-reading.
> So enough of your re-interpretation. Cite me directly and explain what
> I've
> got wrong.
Since you've never made a concrete factual statement in your life, AFAICT,
that's impossible. I can point to your innuendo's regarding people like
Fred, Diana and Peikoff and whether they are applying the philosophy of Ayn
Rand, but since you're just spewing unjust innuendi, that would surely not
persuade you. If you were to make a concrete claim of the form "Peikoff is
wrong about X", that would be an example of one of your errors. However
since you don't make concrete statements and you only imply concrete
statement by making them, you are, of course, correct that you have never
said anything.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Malrassic Park wrote:
I didn't say 'subjectivist.' But if you interpreted something
objectively, would it thereafter be an interpretation?
George Vernon Skivington
> Check the epistemology, like your "context of knowledge determines the
> truth
> of something," or Betsy's "Relationships are man-made," or umpteen other
> examples.
See? Concrete example! You aren't saying that Betsy's "Relationships are
man-made" is wrong, you're just saying "Check it". Be a man and make a
claim.
Jim Klein
> Don't you realise how
> patently stupid it is to ask *others* to conjecture about the reasons for
> another person's actions, especially a person who at least I have never
> seen in my life?
Listen, rookie...what I ask about and why I ask it, is no secret around
here. Do your homework--not only have I written more posts on this board
than nearly anyone else, I've devoted several of them to explaining why I
do what I do.
I'm here to talk philosophy, and that's what I've been doing. And I'm
talking about what I believe to be the most important issue regarding
Objectivism these days---whether it's philosophy for a church, or
philosophy for an individual human mind. Whether it's philosophy by rote,
or philosophy by thought.
You guys sound like robots because you /think/ like robots...all programmed.
Meanwhile, take a look at what /you've/ been talking about. I'm flattered,
I admit, but that doesn't help you.
Anyway, it so happens that by coincidence, you got something right:
> Why are you bothering to ask? Why don't you ask her, if you have this
> fascination with her motivation for breathing.
What you got right, is that I do have a fascination with Diana...not with
her breathing, but with her philosophy. I watched Donny Watkins re-bite
the dust, and I'm highly interested in the phenomenon.
Like I said, there's no secret around here about my position regarding the
Church of the Invertos. Just like Roy Buchanan..."That's What I Am Here
For." The mere fact that my words have meaning--that sycophants like you
are so busy trying to prove them wrong--demonstrates that I'm
saying /something/.
Seems to me that those who strive to be objective, would want to know who
speakeths the truth and who doesn't. How 'bout you?
I've written thousands of posts, and some of them have been pretty crazy.
Every single word I've written and not retracted, I stand by to this day.
Or I'll retract and correct them now, if I'm pointed out to be wrong. So
you can go to it, any time you wish to look at the facts.
Oh yeah...while you're looking through the archives, if you bother to check
the evidence at all, don't miss what Brother Horse's Ass tried a year or
two ago. He pulled up some of the /wildest/ things I've written over the
years, and cut the context to make them appear totally out to lunch.
But unlike you philosophical cowards, I was willing to address any one of
them in open discussion...even with a lout like Stephen. So what did he
do? Just what you're likely to do...take off and run. Just what Brother
Fred did, when /he/ brought up 5 supposedly wrong positions I hold, but
wouldn't talk about them in open discussion either.
Of course there are issues I'd like to discuss with Diana. Unlike most of
the faithful, she has something to say. Or at least she used to.
Lemme know when you start to get it, George.
And put your brain in gear before engaging your mouth.
jk
Jim Klein
> See? Concrete example! You aren't saying that Betsy's "Relationships are
> man-made" is wrong, you're just saying "Check it".
Wake the fuck up, willya?
How's this for a claim: Betsy Speicher is not only a nitwit when it comes
to philosophy, she's also an outright liar.
For you and you alone right now...ask for the evidence and you shall
receive. Or go get some yourself...check the thread about the Microsoft
amicus curie brief, or her "explanation" of why she made a mistake about
feuding, when challenged on it years later. Unlike Betsy, I don't rely on
figuring that nobody will go and check.
In her defense, though, anyone married to Stephen has a prima facie excuse
for being dishonest!
About relationships, there's a whole thread that /Betsy/ started, titled
just that..."Relationships are Man-Made" or something very similar. Do
your own goddammed homework.
The "Check it" was what YOU should do, assuming you have any desire at all
to be rational. CHECK THE EPISTEMOLOGY! There are hundreds and hundreds
of threads covering this stuff.
> Be a man and make a claim.
I guess I was right again...you are refreshing. I've been accused of
just /so/ many evils around here, but you're the first to charge me with
not making any claims.
I know that says nothing about me, but I wonder what it says about you!
jk
George Vernon Skivington
> How's this for a claim: Betsy Speicher is not only a nitwit when it comes
> to philosophy, she's also an outright liar.
Forget the first claim because that's just typical meaningless babble on
your part. I'd go with the second claim, since that statement has a meaning.
I am disappointed at your cowardice, since you've changed topics in order to
avoid a public drubbing, but I suppose if I were in your position, I would
cover my tracks as quickly as possible and shift attention the best I could.
I thought you had some bizarre idea that people like Fred, Diana, Betsy etc.
were practicing something that isn't Objectivism, but since that's clearly
untrue and it would be suicidal of you to advance such a laughable claim, it
is wise of you to change the topic.
So what you need to do now, since I've decided to not pursue you on the
ludicrous other claim that you've danced arount (without ever directly
making) namely that "that ain't Objectivism", is show that Betsy lied about
some point of philosophy.
You're dancing around this "Relationships are Man-Made" issue: you are
making no claim, other than that there was such a thread, and that Betsy
started it. BFD.
I realise that you are a grizzled old veteran who knows everything about
Objectivism, vastly more than Ayn Rand even knew, and so I will extend you
the mock courtesy of pretending that you gain points for being one of the
longer-standing trolls here. This should satisfy your irrational need for
the unearned. Something that emerges from looking at your posts here over
the years is that your only purpose is to emotionally convey your intense
hatred for Objectivism, via the weasel technique of saying that A is not A.
I will admit that some Objectivists have made tactical mistakes in their
interactions with you, because they didn't fully grasp how clever your
dishonesty is. The only claim you've been willing to make here is that Betsy
lied about some philosophical point. You've promised to present the
evidence, and since that's the strongest claim you're willing to make, I'll
go with that one just in the interest of publically humiliating you. It
seems like a pretty stupid claim to put your energies into, since it only
addresses Betsy's character and not the philosophy Objectivism which is your
real enemy, but it's you dime, oh wise and grizzled veteran.
Ken Gardner
"George Vernon Skivington" wrote:
> Forget the first claim because that's just typical meaningless babble on
> your part. I'd go with the second claim, since that statement has a
> meaning.
[...]
> You're dancing around this "Relationships are Man-Made" issue: you are
> making no claim, other than that there was such a thread, and that Betsy
> started it. BFD.
FYI, there was such a thread. It was very confusing, and many people did
not exactly express themselves well. Betsy was one of them. As I remember
it, the argument was whether the largeness of the earth relative to the moon
(or maybe it was the earth and the sun -- this was years ago) was something
that existed in reality or something we create. At times, Betsy and a few
others seemed to be arguing the later position. I stressed the word
"seemed." Some people (notably Arnold B.) were all over the place on this.
Betsy may have been as well. As I said, this was years ago.
[...]
> I will admit that some Objectivists have made tactical mistakes in their
> interactions with you, because they didn't fully grasp how clever your
> dishonesty is.
I don't think it is a question of dishonesty. I think it is primarily a
question of Jim being unable to argue logically, concisely, and without
engaging in psychologizing and other ad hominem. It gets old real fast.
You want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but after a while you realize
it's hopeless. You will soon reach that stage as well.
Jim Klein is a one trick pony. His basic spiel is that anyone associated
with ARI is not a "real" Objectivist and is essentially corrupting
Objectivism. He is now angry with Diana Hseih because she now aligns
herself with ARI after years on the outside.
>The only claim you've been willing to make here is that Betsy lied about
>some philosophical point. You've promised to present the evidence, and
>since that's the strongest claim you're willing to make, I'll go with that
>one just in the interest of publically humiliating you. It seems like a
>pretty stupid claim to put your energies into, since it only addresses
>Betsy's character and not the philosophy Objectivism which is your real
>enemy, but it's you dime, oh wise and grizzled veteran.
Betsy hasn't posted regularly here in years. IMO, it is chickenshit to
argue against someone who is no longer here to defend herself.
Ken
Malrassic Park
<kesga...@charter.net> wrote:
>Jim Klein is a one trick pony. His basic spiel is that anyone associated
>with ARI is not a "real" Objectivist and is essentially corrupting
>Objectivism. He is now angry with Diana Hseih because she now aligns
>herself with ARI after years on the outside.
Good riddance. They can have that old "uh huh" queen.
Malrassic Park
<kesga...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>FYI, there was such a thread. It was very confusing, and many people did
>not exactly express themselves well. Betsy was one of them. As I remember
>it, the argument was whether the largeness of the earth relative to the moon
>(or maybe it was the earth and the sun -- this was years ago) was something
>that existed in reality or something we create.
Silly. That is not a question about objectivity, it is to assume that
the mind has the ability to create its own world of the senses as
metaphysically distinct from the usual external one. The apparent size
of the moon on the horizon...
George Vernon Skivington
> FYI, there was such a thread.
Yeah, I remember it vaguely. Back before 9/11.
> It was very confusing, and many people did not exactly express themselves
> well. Betsy was one of them.
That's par. Jimmy was particularly inarticulate. I did learn a lot about
Philosophy as a Means of Word-Twisting from his posts, though, to give
credit where credit is due.
> I don't think it is a question of dishonesty. I think it is primarily a
> question of Jim being unable to argue logically, concisely, and without
> engaging in psychologizing and other ad hominem.
It is indeed a question of dishonesty, just as Jimmy has asserted that Betsy
is an outright liar (which is subsumed in the broader term "dishonest").
What I'm wondering is how he could argue that Betsy is a liar, without the
same reasoning leading us to the conclusion that *he* is dishonest (I'm
quite willing to entertain the idea that he is a deliberate liar acting out
some Machiavellian fantasy, but that is a pretty strong conclusion, and the
strongest claim that the facts at hand support is that he is severely
intellectually dishonest. I think he knows what he is doing and is unwilling
to face the horrors of his self-contradictions, so he denies that knowledge
and quickly changes the topic.
> You want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but after a while you
> realize it's hopeless. You will soon reach that stage as well.
I have no illusions about it being possible to reason with him. I am simply
curious to know if he can deal *directly* for two or three posts. Already we
know he has punted on the main issue, namely whether there is some
philosophical claim made by an ARI supporter which is contrary to
Objectivism; instead, we have the weasel question of whether Betsy lied.
Okay, it's a crappy hand but he can't win. I expect that he will fold; he
may go down in flames denying all along that his pants are on fire. We'll
see.
> Betsy hasn't posted regularly here in years. IMO, it is chickenshit to
> argue against someone who is no longer here to defend herself.
For which reason, I'm wearing boots, gloves and a respirator.
Jim Klein
> Betsy hasn't posted regularly here in years. IMO, it is chickenshit to
> argue against someone who is no longer here to defend herself.
I hope she didn't die or something; even I'm not that ruthless.
As I've written before, I happen to respect Betsy for certain virtues
that /I/ value highly, though any dishonesty overweighs quite a bit.
Still, to me (again as I've written before), I think the issues and values
involved in building a life with another person and what that entails
(usually involving procreation), are /the/ fundamental values for a human.
On that, Betsy reigns the champ AFAIK.
Anyone who understands Stephen, knows that!
No, I don't know them personally and I'm sure they're grand folks to visit
and have fun with. But contrary to the charges, I'm here to talk
philosophy, and I've made it abundantly clear what /philosophical/ issues I
think they both have wrong. If some grand ill has befallen Betsy, then I'm
sorry to hear that. If she chooses not to defend herself, then that's her
business. None of that changes any of the evil that's been done to Rand's
philosophy at the hands of Pope You-Know-Who and people just like the Big-O
Speichers. I don't wish any of them bad will, but I'll be goddammed if
I'll just sit by silently while things addressed by Rand are twisted and
turned to the point where they mean the very opposite of what she intended.
Chickenshit is you, Ken. You make it sound like I'm always picking on
people and making everything personal. I've even written about that, about
why /sometimes/ it's just necessary to point to the instances of rotten
philosophical manifestation, and so I do. Philosophy manifests in
individuals, and /sometimes/ there's just no better way to demonstrate a
particular principle, than to hold someone's actions and ideas to the
light. But that's not my modus operandi, and I almost never do such
attacking before the other person has well had chance to show that he's not
worthy of attack.
Hell, I slipped just recently--with Ed Howell--and made an ass of myself.
Considering how nearly every word of mine gets analyzed and over-analyzed
by a bunch of churchgoers worried that I might ruin their scam, I'm pretty
careful about the words I choose. Don't blame me that I can identify a
simple truth---that the previously brilliant Leonard Peikoff turned
Objectivism into a religion, or that guys like you parade around as if your
philosophy has something in common with Rand, when it almost never does.
Hey, it ain't me, it's YOU--nearly alone among all civilized Americans--who
stands in /support/ of perhaps the greatest philosophical injustice of our
time...the incarceration of Dr. Jack. Not the greatest injustice because
he means anything more than the 100s of millions slaughtered by any other
Freedom Regime, but because of the /reason/ he was incarcerated, because of
the /philosophy/ behind such an incredibly evil action.
And yet here you are, not only willing to let it happen (as we all are), but
actually pretending there can be some "argument" that a person's life isn't
his own. Sometimes I wonder how you rationalize it. Do you think maybe
Rand would've agreed with you, or do you think she would've disagreed but
just taken it as some minor "optional value" or something?
YOU call ME chickenshit? What a hoot. What a badge of honor that must be
for me.
Meanwhile, George, you got lucky. I've got to dash out of town for a
minute, and so you get a temporary bye. My advice is to get down on the
research, and fast. But don't bother unless you're going to THINK about
it. Shrieking that what I say must be wrong because I'm some kind of
asshole, is very old news around here.
I don't care to defend to anyone that I'm not an asshole, but I'll stand up
and defend that what I say is true. I fairly reek of honesty and
integrity, and one of Rand's beliefs was that such characteristics do not
make one an asshole. You might ask yourself: why is it that one group of
people--just one among the many with whom I interact--are so intent on
proving that I'm an asshole? What do I say that causes them to fall into
the swamp of ad hominem? One thing you'll see if you really do that
research, is that I don't attack another poster without entering a
philosophical principle at issue. Posters here, like you George, will go
on and on about /me/ but totally fail to address the principle at issue. I
don't think you'll see very much of that from me.
Well, I once had it out with Dismuke where the only principle at issue was
our respective talent at slamming! But that's Dizzy; he's a special sort.
Maybe he'll come back just to rag on me; I could use the break.
What you are deciding, George, is whether you'll live your life as a fool.
We'll see what you choose, at least in this limited context, and then
compare it to Rand's philosophy. Then we'll know what "real Objectivist"
means, when you use the phrase. I found out what Betsy Speicher means by
"Big-O Objectivist," and to this day it almost makes me sick to my stomach.
jk
fred...@papertig.com
As compared to what? You seem to be suggesting that an interpretation
is inherently subjective. Is it possible in your view to interpret
something objectively, i.e. based on the facts and all the relevant
evidence - and free of personal prejudice or preconceived notions?
Fred Weiss
George Vernon Skivington
> I've got to dash out of town for a
> minute, and so you get a temporary bye.
A minute, huh? It sounds to me like you're trying to delay the ass-whupping
that you so richly deserve. When you do decide to come back, don't forget to
put your money where your mouth is.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:14:08 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com
>> wrote:
.
>> >Malrassic Park wrote:
.
>> >> Unless you can literally think with Ayn Rand's mind, Objectivism will
>> >> become your own subjective interpretation of it.
.
>> >Unless you become a subjectivist you can't be an Objectivist?
.
>> I didn't say 'subjectivist.' But if you interpreted something
>> objectively, would it thereafter be an interpretation?
.
>As compared to what? You seem to be suggesting that an interpretation
>is inherently subjective. Is it possible in your view to interpret
>something objectively, i.e. based on the facts and all the relevant
>evidence - and free of personal prejudice or preconceived notions?
Then list the Objectivist standards for creating an objective
interpretation.
fred...@papertig.com
> Then list the Objectivist standards for creating an objective
> interpretation.
Pick up any good book on logic.
Here are two classics reviewed by Harry Binswanger:
http://www.papertig.com/Publishing_TIA_Logic..htm
Fred Weiss
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>http://www.papertig.com/Publishing_TIA_Logic..htm
I see nothing about rules of objective interpretation at that page.
Malrassic Park
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Why are you bothering to ask? Why don't you ask her, if you have this
>> fascination with her motivation for breathing.
>What you got right, is that I do have a fascination with Diana...not with
>her breathing, but with her philosophy. I watched Donny Watkins re-bite
>the dust, and I'm highly interested in the phenomenon.
Diana's infamous "uh-huh" philosophy? She can do what she wants on her
blog, but I expected more philosophy from a philosopher with a ph.d in
the subject. Uh huh.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>http://www.papertig.com/Publishing_TIA_Logic..htm
Oh I see it now: the reference to your online bookstore. Free
advertising for you. Awesome...
fred...@papertig.com
Well, you have to read the books.
After you're done, report back.
Fred Weiss
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:05:07 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com
>> wrote:
.
>> Malrassic Park wrote:
.
>> >> Then list the Objectivist standards for creating an objective
>> >> interpretation.
.
>> >Pick up any good book on logic.
.
>> >Here are two classics reviewed by Harry Binswanger:
.
>> >http://www.papertig.com/Publishing_TIA_Logic..htm
.
>> I see nothing about rules of objective interpretation at that page.
.
>Well, you have to read the books.
>After you're done, report back.
You're just trying to sell me something from your store.
fred...@papertig.com
I did rather cleverly weave that in, didn't I?
Fred Weiss
Mark
typical meaningless babble
your cowardice
avoid a public drubbing
in your position, I'd cover my tracks
bizarre
laughable
one of the longer-standing trolls
your irrational need for the unearned
your intense hatred for Objectivism
how clever your dishonesty is
in the interest of publically humiliating you
stupid claim
oh wise and grizzled veteran
and so forth. This post is what is "bizarre." Or rather, as Jim
points out, all too typical on this list.
"I thought you [Jim Klein] had some bizarre idea
that people like Fred, Diana, Betsy etc. were
practicing something that isn't Objectivism, but
since that's clearly untrue and it would be suicidal
of you to advance such a laughable claim ...
Actually, Fred Weiss, Diana Hsieh, and Betsy Speicher are poor
Objectivists if they defend, as they do, most everything the Ayn Rand
Institute puts out these days. See ARI Watch at http://ariwatch.com
.
Mark
George Vernon Skivington
> I've got to dash out of town for a
> minute, and so you get a temporary bye.
Mr. Klein, that is a very long minute. Since I have to dash out of town for
a couple of days (and not just minutes) as of tomorrow afternoon, if you do
deign to provide the promised proof that Betsy is an outright liar enough
before the time I have to leave, I will respond. Otherwise, you will wonder
whether my non-response is an indication that I am evading the truth. Just
to be clear, you should expect a reply from me by Monday morning, again, if
you do bother to provide something for me to reply to. I just don't want
*you* to think that *I* am the evader.
Jim Klein
>> I've got to dash out of town for a
>> minute, and so you get a temporary bye.
>
> Mr. Klein, that is a very long minute.
It's a phrasing common among certain socio-economically stratified dialects.
Sorry if I misled you. Did you really think I was going out of town in a
minute? Maybe you need a programming upgrade!
> Since I have to dash out of town
> for a couple of days (and not just minutes) as of tomorrow afternoon, if
> you do deign to provide the promised proof that Betsy is an outright liar
> enough before the time I have to leave, I will respond.
I don't recall you asking for it, but maybe I just didn't understand /your/
phraseology. This sounds like a request, but being the gentleman I am,
I'll wait for you to return and see if you /explicitly/ request such a
proof.
Didn't you wonder why I wrote, "For you..."? That was because I know
there'd be many requests otherwise, and I'm not really trying to bring up
personal muck. Betsy's gone through that before here, and everyone
familiar with her knows that she's willing to lie. Don't you also wonder
why I can post such things and not have an endless stream of challenges?
Like I said, wake the fuck up. But also like I said, ask and you shall
receive.
> Otherwise, you
> will wonder whether my non-response is an indication that I am evading the
> truth.
I don't leave such matters to wonderment. Evasion is the heaviest charge
among objectivist-types, and I wouldn't pronounce such a judgment in the
absence of solid evidence. Maybe I'm just much older than you, but I'm not
in the rush you are...at least not on stuff like this.
I understand that if you keep posting, I will learn whether or not you are
an evader. In the meantime, I don't spend time wondering about it. After
all you've given me enough to work with, without wondering!
> Just to be clear, you should expect a reply from me by Monday
> morning, again, if you do bother to provide something for me to reply to.
My advice is to let it go and do your own damn homework. And yes, I'll look
into the trademark thing tomorrow or the next day. I /do/ do my homework,
at least when it's about something /I/ say. If I find I was wrong,
there'll be a retraction within minutes.
The offer still stands; ask and you shall receive. If you want to save
Betsy even more humiliation than she's suffered here, then take my advice
and let it go for now. If you're in the mood to embarrass her, then go
ahead and ask.
What you won't manage to do is embarrass me by finding a lie that I've told.
There simply are none, and that's a choice of mine. You might find me
imbecilic or foolish--or like I said even an asshole--but you won't find me
intentionally telling a falsehood. Betsy did, and no doubt does. That's
why I can post that she's an outright liar without being laughed or
ridiculed off the board. That's why Betsy isn't here screaming about such
a terrible charge, even though she knows people make it.
Now...if you've got anything philosophical, this would be a great time to
divert attention to that. Notice that my comments weren't any sort of
character assassination against Diana Hsieh, but directed at some
(admittedly loose) philosophical issues. Rather than dealing with those,
you decided to jump into the swamp of character assassination against
me...the usual ad hominem bullshit we see around here, as if to show that
if an asshole is against the ARI, then the ARI must be something grand.
It so happens that I'm no asshole at all, but I already explained that I
don't care to defend that claim. The point is once again philosophical,
that ARI-types don't like to appeal to objective facts. Instead, they
focus on subjective judgment--very UNobjective judgment, it so happens--to
try and make the point that their opponents are not offering facts.
Which once again brings us to that most basic philosophical issue,
epistemology. My gripe with what the yahoos are teaching, is that it makes
innocent folks--like you, probably--take a very ANTI-factual approach to
making judgments.
Which, in turn, is very anti-Objectivist. Which, again, is my point.
> I just don't want *you* to think that *I* am the evader.
While I admire your wisdom in respecting my judgment so much, I think that's
basically a poor approach.
Why don't you just see to it that you're NOT an evader, and not worry about
what conclusions others draw?
Did you EMail Gordon, yet? If not, I'll get on that too. But just so you
don't get edgy, I may be off the board for some number of hours greater
than 5 and less than 36. Sorry I can't offer more precision.
jk
Jim Klein
> A minute, huh? It sounds to me like you're trying to delay the
> ass-whupping that you so richly deserve.
That's how I know you need work!
> When you do decide to come back,
> don't forget to put your money where your mouth is.
I haven't EMailed Gordon, yet; have you? Wanna up the stakes?
jk
Jim Klein
> I haven't EMailed Gordon, yet; have you?
Hey, George, I wanna give you first crack to EMail him since I don't want
you to think Gordon tried to fix the bet for me. Not that he ever would,
but maybe you're as mistaken about him as you are about me.
But lemme know after you get back. I can EMail him, and he'll be honest.
jk
Mark N
Poor Gordon. Such pressure he's going to be under! What will he do?
I'm still trying to figure out if George was being serious when he said
that Gordon would not permit his "proof" to be quoted because it would
be embarrassing for him. Call me psychic, but I'm pretty sure that
Gordon would not be embarrassed by having his "proof" quoted. Hint:
Spend some time in the Google archives. ;-)
Mark
asuobje...@gmail.com
book of dinosaurs with my little neice. She turned to a specific page,
pointed to her favorite dinosaur, and said, "This one is called
somesuchasaurus." I replied that the dinosaur she pointed to is not
called somesuchasaurus, but was called somethingorotherasaur and I
pointed to the name underneath the picture. My little neice still
maintained that the dinosaur she pointed to is called somesuchasaurus.
I then read the description of the dinosaur to her, and the description
with the name somethingorotherasaur matched the image. She refused to
acknowledge this fact. Feeling flustered, I did a google search on the
name of the dinosaur and I was proven right. My little neice refused
to admit that the dinosaur she so liked was not a somesuchasaurus.
Malrassic Park and Jim Klein are exactly like my little neice, except
that my neice did not have malicious intent in her protestations. The
fact that MP and JK insist on replying to reasoned arguments with
personal attacks, snide comments, and arbitrary claims, does not mean
they have a point. There is no point in discussing anything with such
people. Knowledge is not what they are after.
With that said, let the fallacies resume from MP and JK. My bet is the
first one will be an ad hominem.
Jason Henry
Malrassic Park
wrote:
> My little neice refused
>to admit that the dinosaur she so liked was not a somesuchasaurus.
>Malrassic Park and Jim Klein are exactly like my little neice, except
>that my neice did not have malicious intent in her protestations.
Your protestations are about as juvenile as your speeling of the word
"niece."
asuobje...@gmail.com
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Thanks for proving my point.
Ok. What else would you like to discuss?
fred...@papertig.com
> Your protestations are about as juvenile as your speeling of the word
> "niece."
I think this is called a boomerang. You do that often, Mal. Sending off
a missive that ends up turning around and clunking you in the head.
Fred Weiss
David Buchner
> Reading this discussion reminds me of a time I was looking through a
> book of dinosaurs with my little neice.
That was a nifty story. My mom tells one kind of like it about me. It's
actually more on-topic in that other thread about religious
indoctrination. At some point, I figured out that Santa didn't make any
sense, and asked my mom if it all wasn't just a big fake. She admitted
that, yes, it's made up -- but it's fun and lots of kids have a good
time imagining Santa and it shows how much mommies and daddies want to
make life magical for their kids and so on.
I always wish it would end there, because it makes me sound like a sharp
kid. But I went away for a while, and when I came back I said, "Mom: I
decided you're wrong and there really is a Santa." And continued
believing in it for a few more years.
You new 'round here?
Ignore That Other Guy, but: What else would you like to discuss?
Malrassic Park
<buc...@wcta.net> wrote:
><asuobje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You new 'round here?
>Ignore That Other Guy, but: What else would you like to discuss?
Too late, he ran back to his dorm room already.
Jim Klein
"Hypocrisy is easily the most unnerving trait common to many ARIans."
Now here's a /purely/ ad hominem post...one trying to make the case that
what someone says must be wrong because the person resembles in character
some little girl somewhere. And what's the conclusion of the
post...that /another/ person engages in ad hominem! Too funny.
Nice job, Jason. In case you don't know, I'm not really looking for
additional evidence that whatever philosophy is forwarded by the Church, it
ain't Objectivism. As I've said for years now, my cup runneth over.
jk
f
t
b
f
t
b
f
t
b
Malrassic Park
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> With that said, let the fallacies resume from MP and JK. My bet is the
>> first one will be an ad hominem.
>
>"Hypocrisy is easily the most unnerving trait common to many ARIans."
>
>Now here's a /purely/ ad hominem post...
I'm glad somebody finally recognized that and had the nerve to speak
out about it.