Pictures on the Internet
BORG
copyright photographs of nature.
Nature is there for all and looking at it is free.
If you happen to capture a moment of beauty then it should be available to
everyone.
There is nothing worse than finding a beautiful picture of a cloud formation
and finding some woman has printed her name at the bottom so that she gets
credit for it and then has the cheek to say that we will be sued if we use
her photograph without her permission.
Did she create the cloud?
Is not the beauty of that cloud there for everyone?
Does anyone else find the copyrighting of captures of the beauty of nature a
sin?
And not only that - it ruins the picture.
Who wants a beautiful picture of clouds with some name imprinted in large
letters at the bottom?
This is just so against the essence of what it is all about.
donsto...@hotmail.com
Megadittos.
l...@rdfmedia.com
Then the same can be said of all art. Is not the artists job the
captureing of the moment? When Van Gogh painted his sunflowers, should
he then not have tried to sell the art that he created, even though he
was not the creator of the flower?
In this modern world it is as easy to photoshop out an unwanted name on
a picture of clouds as it is to take a picture of clouds.
BORG
<l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote in message
news:1156433097.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Then the same can be said of all art. Is not the artists job the
> captureing of the moment? When Van Gogh painted his sunflowers, should
> he then not have tried to sell the art that he created, even though he
> was not the creator of the flower?
>
> In this modern world it is as easy to photoshop out an unwanted name on
> a picture of clouds as it is to take a picture of clouds.
>
There is a difference between photographing beauty in it's raw state - and
using your talent as an artist to interpret beauty.
l...@rdfmedia.com
There is indeed such a differance, but how is a photo of cloud
differant from an accurate watercolour of a cloud?
BORG
<l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote in message
news:1156436627.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> There is indeed such a differance, but how is a photo of cloud
> differant from an accurate watercolour of a cloud?
>
It is very difficult to paint an accurate watercolour of a cloud and
requires much talent and time.
l...@rdfmedia.com
Granted that is also true, but time and talent was not your original
point. Your original point was one of ownership. Is it then right and
proper that a painter can sell a painting of a cloud, yet a photography
cannot sell a photo of the same cloud?
That the painter can own his picture of the cloud but the photographer,
who is, remember a skilled artist in his own right cannot? Are you
then just engaging in artistic snobbery?
BORG
<l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote in message
news:1156437531....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Granted that is also true, but time and talent was not your original
> point. Your original point was one of ownership. Is it then right and
> proper that a painter can sell a painting of a cloud, yet a photography
> cannot sell a photo of the same cloud?
>
> That the painter can own his picture of the cloud but the photographer,
> who is, remember a skilled artist in his own right cannot? Are you
> then just engaging in artistic snobbery?
>
For a start you cannot paint a painting of a cloud - it would have to be
done from memory and would be virtually impossible to reproduce exactly. In
the time taken to paint the cloud, the cloud would have disappeared.
Look - if you feel that people have a right to put their names to replicas
of things of natural beauty then we beg to differ OK?
Why not dig up a beautiful tree and put it in your garden and put your name
on it so that people can come and admire the tree and you get the credit for
it?
l...@rdfmedia.com
Hey Borg,
Don't sweat it mate, it is only a little friendly banter, that we
disagree is evidant, that we can agree to disagree is civil, but again
this is a philosphy forum, can we not talk about the philospy of art
then?
Having said that, of course ya can, what you do is take a photo of the
cloud first and then paint from the photo. Digging up a tree is not
the same a painting a picture of nor even taking a photo of it though
huh!?
What I do belive though is that photography is a valid form of art and
that art mirrors nature, indeed it is an artists job to capture nature.
Do you disagree with this? What then is your stance on art, and what
it is about?
BORG
<l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote in message
news:1156439116.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Don't sweat it mate, it is only a little friendly banter, that we
> disagree is evidant, that we can agree to disagree is civil, but again
> this is a philosphy forum, can we not talk about the philospy of art
> then?
>
> Having said that, of course ya can, what you do is take a photo of the
> cloud first and then paint from the photo. Digging up a tree is not
> the same a painting a picture of nor even taking a photo of it though
> huh!?
>
> What I do belive though is that photography is a valid form of art and
> that art mirrors nature, indeed it is an artists job to capture nature.
> Do you disagree with this? What then is your stance on art, and what
> it is about?
>
Funny we thought precisely the same things you have written here.
Painting from a photo is not the same.
The real artist would somehow capture the surroundings, the smells, the
scents, the sounds, the particular kind of light, the atmosphere, the
thoughts that were going through his mind when he saw the envisionment he
wanted to paint. And somehow when you see the painting you are getting a
feedback from some of this.
Copying from a photo still does require talent but is not the same as the
true artist who paints from real life and from memory.
We agree that there is talent photography but we do not believe there is
art. But in the main we are talking about where you are browsing clouds on
the Internet and come across one of such beauty which is ruined with the
words AMANDA PUDKIN printed across the bottom and then in smaller letters
(not to be reproduced without permission).
Somehow no matter how much we use paintshop to edit out the lettering, the
initial beauty of the sight has been ruined by the stark man made lettering
on a picture of natural beauty. And even if the photo was clear of
lettering and hanging on our wall for our own appreciation only - it would
still somehow be spoilt and ruined and somehow the words AMANDA PUDKIN would
spring to mind every time we looked at it.
l...@rdfmedia.com
BORG wrote:
> Funny we thought precisely the same things you have written here.
> Painting from a photo is not the same.
> The real artist would somehow capture the surroundings, the smells, the
> scents, the sounds, the particular kind of light, the atmosphere, the
> thoughts that were going through his mind when he saw the envisionment he
> wanted to paint. And somehow when you see the painting you are getting a
> feedback from some of this.
> Copying from a photo still does require talent but is not the same as the
> true artist who paints from real life and from memory.
> We agree that there is talent photography but we do not believe there is
> art. But in the main we are talking about where you are browsing clouds on
> the Internet and come across one of such beauty which is ruined with the
> words AMANDA PUDKIN printed across the bottom and then in smaller letters
> (not to be reproduced without permission).
> Somehow no matter how much we use paintshop to edit out the lettering, the
> initial beauty of the sight has been ruined by the stark man made lettering
> on a picture of natural beauty. And even if the photo was clear of
> lettering and hanging on our wall for our own appreciation only - it would
> still somehow be spoilt and ruined and somehow the words AMANDA PUDKIN would
> spring to mind every time we looked at it.
Ahhhhh then what you are talking about my fine android friend is the
effect that art has on us. When we see a painting of a cloud we do not
know what the artists intent was, and maybe we see what he wanted us to
see, but mostly we see what we want to see in anothers art.
Amanda Pudkin, although you may disagree, I would argue then has done
her job as an artist. In makeing you feel, in making you comment, in
making you activly dislike her art on first viewing. Ahhh yes indeed
art in it's myriad forms touches a part of us that logic cannot
quantify, nor account for nor explain.
BORG
<l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote in message
news:1156441061.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ahhhhh then what you are talking about my fine android friend is the
> effect that art has on us. When we see a painting of a cloud we do not
> know what the artists intent was, and maybe we see what he wanted us to
> see, but mostly we see what we want to see in anothers art.
>
> Amanda Pudkin, although you may disagree, I would argue then has done
> her job as an artist. In makeing you feel, in making you comment, in
> making you activly dislike her art on first viewing. Ahhh yes indeed
> art in it's myriad forms touches a part of us that logic cannot
> quantify, nor account for nor explain.
>
Yeah! That's right!
Very well put
RyanT
technically a work of art, to be nature itself. A photograph is a
perspective of the artist who took the picture, and is not to be
confused with actual nature, because artworks exist as representation,
not reality itself.
I do not think that it is abhorrent for artists to claim ownership of
their own works, because it is a harmless activity that doesn't
diminish the supply of the subject itself. The nature is still there,
and if you want it that badly, you could go see it yourself. Now if
you'd dug up the trees and put in your own backyard, then that might be
more of a problem.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
> Of course its only really a problem if you consider a photograph,
> technically a work of art, to be nature itself. A photograph is a
> perspective of the artist who took the picture, and is not to be
> confused with actual nature, because artworks exist as representation,
> not reality itself.
But of course using your very own rule of *reality theory* Ryan, for
art to have any meaning in reality, the theory of art in reality then
is, the work of the artist must be linked to something in reality.
Therefore art in reality is man's *re-creation* of reality. To say art
means anything is to say art has no meaning.
In reality theft is an act of stealing, in reality to steal means to
take, or to threaten to take via a threat of physical force, the
property of another human being/s, without the owners concent or
knowledge, and ONLY the owner can give his/her concent, eg I can NOT
give YOUR concent nor you mine, without each other's voluntary
permission.
ONLY individual human beings (no other entity of nature) have the
ability to understand and uphold the concept of theft and property
rights, therefore there is ONLY ever a theft of anything where there is
a human being/s who can prove he/she is a victim of theft.
Therefore in reality, according to man's ONLY means of knowledge, BORG
talks nothing but shit day in day out.
Michael Gordge
BORG
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156454742.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Therefore in reality, according to man's ONLY means of knowledge, BORG
> talks nothing but shit day in day out.
>
Not everyone thinks so though Mike.
You would be quite surprised.
We get parcels, flowers, gifts, personal treasures, fan mail, letters.
All our messages calculate mathematically - synchronistically and in many
other ways.
They will all compute precisely.
You can analyse them all in ten years time when you understand how it works.
It is called time travel.
And the fact that we live in the future.
We have said NOTHING unkind or cruel to any of you.
Each word is there for a specific purpose which you will understand we
promise.
THE BORG
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
BORG wrote:
> We get parcels, flowers, gifts, personal treasures, fan mail, letters.
Not that long ago a couple of your ilk slammed a couple of jets into a
couple of skyscrapers too, but of course you have made no mention of
that.
I have never denied that there are a few billion fucked in the head
mystics on the planet BORG.
Michael Gordge
BORG
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156456855.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Yes we apologize.
Manifestations are a problem.
Our homeworld is not called Borg.
Our capital city is Marime (pronounced marry me).
We occupy several planets.
There are quite a lot of Borg.
We each have a beautiful house and a lot of land.
We do not have locks on the doors nor do we keep pets.
We live in a twenty four hour society.
We have music and TV although only the one radio station and one TV
Channel - which are always so interesting we do not require more.
We all agree with each other about everything.
I am sure you would find it most boring.
RyanT
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> RyanT wrote:
> > Of course its only really a problem if you consider a photograph,
> > technically a work of art, to be nature itself. A photograph is a
> > perspective of the artist who took the picture, and is not to be
> > confused with actual nature, because artworks exist as representation,
> > not reality itself.
>
> But of course using your very own rule of *reality theory* Ryan, for
> art to have any meaning in reality, the theory of art in reality then
> is, the work of the artist must be linked to something in reality.
>
> Therefore art in reality is man's *re-creation* of reality. To say art
> means anything is to say art has no meaning.
Characters in fictions are inventions of the artist and they don't
exist in real life, but they serve as metaphors for broader social
issues. Meaning is attached by the reader themselves, who make the
connection between the narrative and what sorts of correlations can be
drawn to their own life. This includes the works of the fictional
characters of Rand's novels.
The only thing an artist can do is present a perspective, and the
artist's "success" largely depends on how much meaning the audience
member decides to attach to the work. This idea manifests itself in
obvious ways -- music from MTV talks mostly about sex, violence, and
drugs, mostly because that's all kids from that age group tends to
think about anyway.
BORG
"BORG" <BO...@homeworld.com> wrote in message
news:tHpHg.12562$5g6....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
As we are all so happy and all agree with each other we play a lot of games.
We also have Quests and Adventures.
We had a good Quest recently given to us by our Queen.
To find out if lighthouses on Planet Earth have feelings.
We set off on horseback at the crack of dawn armed only with the flame of
Truth and Honour - which looks rather like the force except it keeps us warm
and also serves as light as fire for cooking.
We rode all night and all day until we reached Lands End on the Western Tip
of England and there stood a lighthouse.
The first Borg checked the warmth of the lighthouse as warmth is indeed a
feeling.
The second Borg checked the emission of light from the lighthouse - as the
emission of light can be considered a feeling.
The third Borg checked the sounds emitted during bad weather. The sounds
were extraordinary and we found that all lighthouses were somehow linked in
some kind of amazing harmony and they all called out to each other - it was
not the harmony of the spheres it was some kind of kindred brotherhood that
reached out across oceans and banded all lighthouses together. Calling to
each other across the oceans.
We joined in the song for a while and reassured the lighthouses that they
were not alone - marvelling at the songs they sang to each other and the
music they had created in their isolation and the way they had all banded
together.
We decided that lighthouses were a Collective and some Borg moved into some
of the lighthouses and spent a while as lighthouse keepers. A very happy
job for a Borg with a nice warm fire and plenty of tea.
Then we suddenly remembered we were on a Quest or in this case a Mission.
My goodness we said.
And we galloped back to London and our spaceship to report back to our
Queen.
When we arrived at the Palace it was I that went to see our Queen and make
the report.
"We would like a beer first" I stated."for forsooth - we have good news on
lighthouses"
But our Queen saw right through me.
"I know there is only one of you" she said "stop saying WE would like a beer
just because you want TWO beers" and she only poured one!
AlanS
>BORG wrote:
>> Who wants a beautiful picture of clouds with some name imprinted in large
>> letters at the bottom?
>> This is just so against the essence of what it is all about.
>Megadittos.
Who's holding a gun to your head? Just don't look at the picture.
Pretend it was never taken.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
> Characters in fictions are inventions of the artist and they don't
> exist in real life, but they serve as metaphors for broader social
> issues.
Why the hell are you getting all excited about that Ryan? According to
you everything is invented and imagined by man anyway, therefore
including of course your idea that everything is invented and imagined
and even that you are inventing and imagining eh Ryan? FFS
You are not by any chance trying to find a contradiction are you?
Surely not, now why on earth would someone who claims contradictions
are a part of reality even bother?
Michael Gordge
RyanT
Quite silly for you to deny the fact that Rand invented characters like
Galt in order to prove a point. Galt doesn't and never has existed in
reality but you believed that it had some value in believing its
narrative anyway. If you're dismissing invented theories, then you're
dismissing your own belief system, which you've been doing over and
over since you've got here.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
> Galt doesn't and never has existed in
A human being exists according to his ideas which determine his
actions, Gault's ideas existed then and they exist today, IN REALITY.
Therefore Rand's Atlas Shrugged IS real art. Keep TRyan RyanT.
Michael Gordge
RyanT
That's fine and I can agree with that, but then that dismisses your
idea that invented theories are nonsense. Galt is an invention of Rand.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
> That's fine and I can agree with that, but then that dismisses your
> idea that invented theories are nonsense. Galt is an invention of Rand.
Atlas Shrugged, of which John Gault is just one characters, is Rand's
re-creation of reality and ALL of the characters in her novel do exist
in the reality of human life.
By that I mean, you can turn the radio / TV (old speak) on at any time
of the day or night and hear the nasal whining nauseating whinging
leftist parasitical fucking commie retards demanding new and invented
crap arse laws by the hour to cover their first absolute lies
*taxation* and *the greater good*.
It is absolutely sickening listening to these leftist scum and who Rand
so vividly was able to capture to a *T* in Atlas Shrugged.
The reality of Atlas Shrugged today is absolutely frightening, it can
easily be read as a documentry.
Michael Gordge
chazwin
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> RyanT wrote:
>
> > That's fine and I can agree with that, but then that dismisses your
> > idea that invented theories are nonsense. Galt is an invention of Rand.
>
> Atlas Shrugged, of which John Gault is just one characters, is Rand's
> re-creation of reality and ALL of the characters in her novel do exist
> in the reality of human life.
>
> By that I mean, you can turn the radio / TV (old speak) on at any time
> of the day or night and hear the nasal whining nauseating whinging
> leftist parasitical fucking commie retards demanding new and invented
> crap arse laws by the hour to cover their first absolute lies
> *taxation* and *the greater good*.
Godgey participating in his own oppression.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
Nothing but more desperate piffle.
Jeeeeesh you poor sick sod, to think that after all these years ewe
have
been believing that god changed the way the coin lands each time, I can
understand how gutted you must now be feeling to have it explained to
you that a coin lands according to precise laws of physics, you poor
fucking sod, carry on idiot it suits you.
When exactly does god change the way the coin lands dickhead?
BTW idiot where is the fucking proof that I have been kicked out of
another newsgroup? you low down fucking dishonest pathetic useless
cowardly delinquent little commie cunt.
Michael Gordge
RyanT
Rand, which I have been saying all along. Galt and others might be
*representative* of other things in life, but he himself doesn't exist,
so there's no way to claim that he was simply discovered. Invented
theories can have its usefulness as long as there are some bearing in
reality, and unless you're going to characterize the Atlas in the same
category of coincidence, then you will have to abandon that notion.
Of course, the meaning of the novel is predominantly attached by the
reader. Most people would dismiss the Atlas on the count that its
portrayals of characters narratives are overly-idealistic and
simple-minded, but if you're living in a fantasy land where the
protagonists act as over-rationalized robots, then you'd find some
comfort in that sort of thing. People find pleasure in art because it
reinforces their perception of truth, and it reminds them of
themselves, even within fictional narratives.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
> None of which changes the fact that these characters are inventions of
> Rand, which I have been saying all along.
Art is man's re-creation of that which exists. ALL re-creations are not
the real thing.
The subject is the meaning of art, the theory of a thing gives a thing
its sepecific unique meaning. Art is a thing which requires a theory to
give it a meaning.
Using YOUR amazzingly correct accurate meaning of a theory Ryan, ie for
a theory to have any meaning in reality, then the theory must be linked
to something in reality.
Art has a theory, remembering, a theory is what gives a thing its
meaning to man in a language format, the theory of a thing seperates
that thing from any other thing, the theory of a thing is the
definition of that thing.
Discussing the theory of ANYTHING is an epistemological discussion,
which YOU have often been known to confuse or delibetarely equate to
metaphysics, I digress.
"Art can mean anything you want it to mean", is often said or is used
as the deifinition of art, such a definition is saying,
epistemologically, that art has no meaning of its own in reality.
A thing without a specific meaning is "in reality" a meaningless thing,
which is precisely how and where you got your correct meaning of theory
from, I digress again.
Art is NOT meaningless, art HAS a meaning, its meaning is a re-creation
of reality, to artifically if you like, re-create a thing in reality,
even an idea exists as a thing of reality, whether or not that idea is
"linked" to anything in reality is the job of (lets call it reality
theory identification), art re-creates *things* of reality, in such a
way ithey can be instantly recognised as what it is in, non-artificial
- unimagined reality.
Therefore logically, art requires little imagination of either the
artist to explain or the observer / reader.
There is absolutely NO difference in a painting artist's re-creation of
a tree, entirely from her/his imagination and the author who re-creates
man's nature / culture in the form of a story, albeit with fictious
characters, entirely from their imagination.
The point IS, that BOTH the painting and the story (Atlas Shrugged) are
BOTH "linked" to someTHING in reality, which man CAN easily relate to.
ALL forms of "art" are a re-creation, and, a re-creation of reality IS
what art IS.
Art has a specific purpose, art enables man to understand more about
the world around him. To call "junk" eg mangled steel, splashes of
paint etc etc, art is to destroy or murder mutilate ruin the REAL
meaning of art.
> Galt and others might be
> *representative* of other things in life, but he himself doesn't exist,
As a wedding gift to our two children, who recently got married in a
double wedding, my wife and I chose to buy them each a painting, a set
of two, by a well known Australian artist. The paintings are extremely
similar in apprearance and yet were painted entirely from the artist's
imagination, they are of a flock of extremely rare black Cuckatoos
which can only be found in nature, in Australia, in Northern Queensland
or the Nothern Territory, they have a very distinct head shape and a
vivid orange splash of feathers underneath their fan shaped large tail
feathers, these cucklatoos are sitting in and flying around a large
pandanus tree, surounded by small and large multi naturally coloured
gum trees, long tropical grasses, the background colours, the lighting,
the artist has captured (also from imagination) instantly tells the
viewer that the time of day is either sunset or sunrise, more likely
sunset because in the painting also is a haze throughout it of mauve/y
coloured smoke which are the colours of an spectacluar Northern
Territory Sunset during the months of June through to October.
Now isn't it interesting, that through a painting and some knowledge of
the Northern Territiory I have been able to describe something which
exists in reality and yet in fact was painted entirely from the
artist's imagination, from his memories of when he used to live there.
The REAL meaning of "art" is a re-creation of existence, which is
saying, that, the theory of art demands that art be linked to something
in reality for that art to have any meaning in reality, art IS man's
re-creation of that which exists.
Re-creations are not the real thing, that is why they are called
re-creation, they are based on, or they are "linked" to reality, they
HAVE to be, to give art a meaning of and in reality.
As much as you want to Ryan, you cant disagree with me and that must be
as frustrating as all hell for you
Michael Gordge
RyanT
> Therefore logically, art requires little imagination of either the
> artist to explain or the observer / reader.
>
> There is absolutely NO difference in a painting artist's re-creation of
> a tree, entirely from her/his imagination and the author who re-creates
> man's nature / culture in the form of a story, albeit with fictious
> characters, entirely from their imagination.
Funny thing you should contradict yourself so blatantly, despite your
own rule system. So art doesn't require imagination, except that it
does? Heh. I ain't bothered by the fact that I can agree with you
once in a while. But your methods are really only a small part of a
greater world out there which I will not limit myself to.
It doesn't really change the fact that fictional characters don't exist
in real life and are there only as a representation of something else.
Whatever artworks you enjoy is based on your personal experience and
personal beliefs, which is subjective. You think it represents the
truth, I think it's a masturbatory fiction pandering to the
sensibilities of libertarian types.
Of course, the story of the Atlas stands in sharp contrast with reality
in the sense that "heros" like Galt never had existed or succeeded in
bringing down the government like he had in the story. A documentary
is closer to that of being "real", but since the story isn't based on
anything that actually happened, all the Atlas does is offer a form of
escapism for people hoping that one day, someone like Galt will appear
and vindicate their ideological agenda.
You *wish* the Atlas was true, but if it were, it probably would've
happened already, don't you think?
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
> So art doesn't require imagination, except that it
> does?
Where have I said art requires no imagination? One can imagine reality,
indeed often man is required to do precisely that, eg when deciding
whether or not to jump off a cliff without a parachute, but that
particular subject is metaphysics, this a subject of epistemology, "the
theory of art".
You often equate epitemology with metaphysics, that is called dropping
context.
> It doesn't really change the fact that fictional characters don't exist
> in real life
Or man's nature and man's character certainly do exist in reality and
therefore can be imagined and it is the nature and character of man
that Rand has captured extremely accurately in in Atlas Shrugged,
indeed, I can name several living people today who fit to a T the
ficticious characters in many of Rand's novels.
> Whatever artworks you enjoy is based on your personal experience and
> personal beliefs, which is subjective.
You confuse consciousness with imagination, you equate epistemology
with metaphysics, you therefore make a useless and fraudulent
philosophy professor.
Belief requires at least SOME sensory and non-contradicting evidence
Ryan, therefore belief is NOT subjective.
> You *wish* the Atlas was true, but if it were, it probably would've
> happened already, don't you think?
Oh its happening alright, there are plenty of human beings alive today
who have been beaten into a state of no longer caring or wanting to
share their knowledge nor any more of their energy than what is
required to keep themselves alive and that is precisely what Galt and
Atlas Shrugged is all about.
I bet if you were honest and thought hard enough, even you could name
people who have said things to you, "like why should I even bother".
eg You go into business with a fantasic new original idea, you risk
everything you have to get it up and going, you make a small profit in
the second or third year, which you choose to re-invest back into
further research and development, you work long hard hours, its YOUR
money being risked, your private life suffers because you can see a
potential long term gain.
AND THEN ALONG COME THE FUCKING SOCIALIST, ENVY RIDDEN LAZY AS ALL SHIT
FUCKING PARASITES, who call things like "profit" a dirty word, they say
you are being selfish if you make enough profit to buy a newer car,
they demand at the point of a gun that you pay a tax based on
unrealised predicted income, they demand at the point of a gun that you
conform to crap arse invented laws, which do not even apply to your
situation. They will send you to jail if what you do requires you to
cut down trees on your own farm, they will send you to jail, along side
rapists and murderers for doing nothing more than trying to make a
living.
You wish and hope like fuck that Atlas Shrugged never comes true Ryan,
the reality is, IT FUCKING WELL IS.
Michael Gordge
RyanT
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> You wish and hope like fuck that Atlas Shrugged never comes true Ryan,
> the reality is, IT FUCKING WELL IS.
>
>
> Michael Gordge
Yeah whatever, Mike. What the does "it fucking well is" mean anyway?
Have the objectivists ever brought the government to its knees? Does
the society at large even remotely give a shit about what they think,
enough to organize a protest? I don't think so. It's almost as if you
believe that anybody is actually worried about objectivists taking
power, or that they would gain any sort of credibility within politics
or academics. The Atlas isn't based on historical events nor does the
characters represent any sort of influential political figure that
exists in real life, so its nothing more than an escapism libertarians
use to masturbate to their own ideals.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
> Yeah whatever, Mike. What the does "it fucking well is" mean anyway?
It means that Atlas Shrugged is happening, one by one the productive,
the risk takers, the thinkers, the geatest human beings on earth are
going on strike, they have had a complete and utter gut full of you
fucking sickening envy ridden rotten to the bone socialist fucking
parasites RyanT.
Michael Gordge
chazwin
Bloody Hell - what a shit load of verbal masturbation!!! Result : a
bucket of rancid cum.
chazwin
Get over it! Paying taxes to keep people in school provides us with a
society in which there is less poverty, child prositution, disease, and
crime.
If you don't like paying taxes why not fuck off to Argentina or another
banana republic which keeps wealth happily at the top and instead of
providing for the welfare of its citizens it expoits them and squeezes
every last particle of worth out of them until they expire. WHile you
are about it you can take the rest of your Libertarianz scum with you,
and you can fuck each other until one wins all the cash.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
More fucking lies.
My mouth speaks of what it knows, e.g. the filth about you e.g. you are
a fucking rotten filthy disgusting liar, you have deliberately lied
about me being kicked out of another newsgroup, you have done so while
deliberately concealing your identity, you have deliberately misquoted
and misrepresented most if not ALL of the things I have said at ths
group, you have promoted many evil anti-human fucked up communist
inspired ideas, you are therefore a fucking uesless dishonest pathetic
cowardly commie cunt, you have said NOTHING which deserves ANYTHING but
filthy rotten words and complete and utter contempt, from me anyway,
and the sooner you wake up to those facts of reality the sooner it will
stop.
Do you understand that, you fucking useless pathetic little commie
cunt, because it aint going to stop until YOU DO.
Michael Gordge
RyanT
Oh really? Where and who? Evidence of economic impact? In virtually
all of the civilized nations the role of the government has grown
larger, not smaller, so unless you have actual proof you're just
talking out of your ass again. Even Gates had to succumb to the
government when he breached the laws against monopoly practices.
Face it -- your ideology isn't getting anywhere. Atlas is what it is
-- an escapism into an idealistic fantasyland where society actually
pays attention to objectivists. You know it ain't reality because
you're living in a world where your expectations are betrayed
constantly.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
On the subject of the meaning of art
RyanT wrote:
> Even Gates had to succumb to the
> government..
Its amazing what being threatened with jail and ultimately death will
do to a peaceful human being, isn't it you nazi fuckwit?
A peaceful human being threatened at the point of a gun to spend time
in jail along side rapists murderers robber fraudsters, oh and remind
us again of his crime? Oh yes thats right he disobeyed an invented crap
arse law of the envy ridden, ugly as all fuck, useless parasitical
mongrels calling themselves socialists.
Michael Gordge
RyanT
material then. For you, it's a form of escapism to shut yourself up
from the reality around you.
Like a lot of people have already said, your participation within the
system is entirely voluntary -- in exchange for living in a stable
first world nations, there are some responsibilities that come along
with it, like paying taxes. If you dislike the government so much
there are plenty of places where they are entirely absent, and noone is
stopping you from doing so. But the standards of living in those
places are *all* much lower compared to first world nations, and the
crime rates tend to be much higher on average. Predictably, that's the
sort of world a libertarian society would resemble.
Maybe if you knew some actual economic principals, you'd know that
monopolies aren't beneficial to the quality of product nor the
well-being of the consumer -- it's been done many times before during
the industrial era and regulations were created out of necessity.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
> For you, it's a form of escapism to shut yourself up
> from the reality around you.
On the contrary it woke me up to what in reality is happening. Your ilk
are parasites NOT according to Rand but according to facts of reality.
A is A and there is fuck all you can do about it, but deny it, which
you for some evil selfish and bizarre reason do.
eg Socialist parasitical scum live their own daily lives in total and
deliberate contradiction of the politics they support, care to explain
that one Ryan?
WHY do YOU deal voluntarially with human individuals in ALL and every
aspect of your daily life, while at the same time support a political
system of involuntary association, with threats of physical force
against peaceful human beings who do NOTHING more than fail to comply
with your subjective bullshit invented standards of morality.
> Like a lot of people have already said, your participation within the
> system is entirely voluntary --
Not true, I was born into a system of unchosen obligations. The fact
that YOU choose as an adult to be threatened with death for failing to
conform to your neigbour's values makes you nothing but a masochist or
a liar or more likely both. A is A
> Maybe if you knew some actual economic principals,
Maybe if you didn't pretened to know more than you do about economic
principals, then you would know that it is a moral fundamental
principle that how a person runs their own economic principals is NONE
of your fucking business, you make it your business because you believe
in the immorality of socialist parasitism, in total contradiction of
your own personal values, or is it?
Michael Gordge
RyanT
can convince yourself of your self-rightiousness all you want, but if
doesn't better your situation in tangible ways then it is a useless
philosophy. Objectivists have been yammering about how the government
and society will one day come to its knees for decades, but that hasn't
happened yet and there are no indications that it will either. I asked
for evidence of your claim that such things as the Atlas is happening
and you gave none, so we can all assume that you're just talking out of
your ass once again.
Really, if you want to live the life that you envision, the *only*
course of action to take is to find someplace more suitable. If not,
you'll just continue to be the unhappy sack that you are, blaming other
people for your problems while they continue to ignore you. The world
doesn't care what you think, remember?
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
> I asked
> for evidence of your claim that such things as the Atlas is happening...
I know several productive innovative energetic human beings who have
sold their business and who have chosen not to go into business again
for themselves, for no other reason than the socialist parasites and
their invented bullshit draconian evil fascist laws rules and
regulations which are designed to steal MOST of the results of THEIR
energy, and also designed to threaten to put peaceful human beings in
jail, for doing nothing more than earning a living.
These people have chosen to spend the rest of their lives doing no more
than they absolutely have to, to stay alive.
The fact you dont believe me does not worry me in the slightest, I dont
give a fuck Ryan what you believe.
I have absolutely no reason to lie, NONE WHAT SO EVER, because I have
no desire to control the way you, or anyone, chooses to live YOUR life,
but of course, you dumb nazi cunt, you cant see that can you Ryan?
In fact, which means, in reality, which means, it is TRUE to say, that
YOU have a far greater reason to try and discredit me, but of course
you dont want the world to believe that, do you Ryan?
It is NOT in your interests that productive human beings go on strike.
And that is why you MUST do all in your power and your ability to try
and discredit anyone who says anything which is a threat to YOUR
parasitical evil fucked up philosophy.
YOU have EVERY reason to disbelieve me and yet I have no reason to lie.
> The world
> doesn't care what you think, remember?
Oh speaking on behalf of the world are you? typical nazi right wing
arrogance.
For someone who promotes efficiency as a standard / measure of a moral
society, you certainly waste a lot of fucking words Ryan.
Michael Gordge
chazwin
I wonder if you have ever considered what the world would be like if
your final solution were to come true.
You would be alone in a ditch, outcompeted, and fucked up the arse.
>
> Michael Gordge
chazwin
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> RyanT wrote:
>
> > For you, it's a form of escapism to shut yourself up
> > from the reality around you.
>
> On the contrary it woke me up to what in reality is happening. Your ilk
> are parasites NOT according to Rand but according to facts of reality.
> A is A and there is fuck all you can do about it, but deny it, which
> you for some evil selfish and bizarre reason do.
>
> eg Socialist parasitical scum live their own daily lives in total and
> deliberate contradiction of the politics they support, care to explain
> that one Ryan?
I'd be willing to bet that "Socialist parasitical scum" has provided
you and the last two generations of your family with health, education,
police and social services to drag you into a nice clean world where
people don't fear disease and being off work. Where they don't have to
worry whether they can find education ang health care for their
children.
Socialists have dragged the criminal scum that frst inhabited your
land, out of the dirt and mud to provide wankers like you with the
democratic opportunity to run for office and fail.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
> I'd be willing to bet..
How about taking a bet on YOUR idea that there were no machines to
measure force?
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
> I wonder if you have ever considered...
Why dont you wonder about the real things in life, eg why you are such
a stupid cunt to claim there are no machines to measure force?
chazwin
Don't be such a wanker!
RyanT
anecdotal evidence out of their ass, and even if your story *was* true,
there's no signs of it affecting the economy in any significant
fashion. Unless you have actual evdience to show, which of course you
don't, one can only assume that you're lying or significantly
stretching the truth. Maybe you're talking about yourself, even.
Even assuming your stories have some truth in them, ever considered the
possibility that maybe they just weren't any good at running a
business? For many those that supposedly "give up" there are plenty of
others who make it, because they know how to become successful despite
rules and regulations. And from a personal level they're not hurting
much either, since the result of progressive taxation still leaves the
rich with more money than the poor. Sounds like to me that you're
using the government as an excuse for your own failiure.