Question on Kolker
acar
silent for an extended period. Does anybody have information on Bob?
Mark N
> Bob kolker used to be a regular contributor here and he was was never
> silent for an extended period. Does anybody have information on Bob?
Bob has abandoned his old friends at HPO. :-( He is currently a regular
poster to this forum:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php
He posts under an alias. See if you can spot him. I think you will know
the lion by his claw.
Mark
acar
> acar wrote:
> > Bob kolker used to be a regular contributor here and he was was never
> > silent for an extended period. Does anybody have information on Bob?
>
> Bob has abandoned his old friends at HPO. :-( He is currently a regular
> poster to this forum:
>
> http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php
>
> He posts under an alias.
That's a relief. I was afraid that he might be ill or dead. I always
enjoyed his uninhibited, yet civil style.
> See if you can spot him. I think you will know
> the lion by his claw.
>
One Objectivist board is enough for me. Good luck to Bob.
.
.
.
.
M Purcell
I miss him too, the last time I looked (over a year) the other
Objectivists didn't think he was a good Objectivist.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mark N
I don't think Bob has ever characterized himself as an Objectivist.
Mark
Charles Bell
> I don't think Bob has ever characterized himself as an Objectivist.
Oh, but anti-Objectivists loved to claim him as one! And two of them
here miss him so much.
M Purcell
My mistake, I forgot that. I know Bob is one-of-a-kind, as all of us
are.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
..
>On Dec 15, 2:48�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 3:17�pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>> > Bob has abandoned his old friends at HPO. :-( He is currently a regular
>> > poster to this forum:
>> >http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php
..
>> > He posts under an alias.
>> That's a relief. I was afraid that he might be ill or dead. I always
>> enjoyed his uninhibited, yet civil style.
>> > See if you can spot him. I think you will know
>> One Objectivist board is enough for me. Good luck to Bob.
>I miss him too, the last time I looked (over a year) the other
>Objectivists didn't think he was a good Objectivist.
There is a blogger on Blogspot who wrongly characterizes Kolker as a
Randroid. I believe it was on the Randzapper blog.
M Purcell
>
> There is a blogger on Blogspot who wrongly characterizes Kolker as a
> Randroid. I believe it was on the Randzapper blog.
Kolker reminded me of Roark; original, self-confident, and rational.
acar
Don't get carried away.
(Since he is not dead I can say anythig I want!)
.
.
.
Charles Bell
> Kolker reminded me of Roark; original, self-confident, and rational.
"The only way to quell an Islamic domain is to eliminate it in the
entirety. Had we 20 A-Bombs instead of 2 in WW2 we would have killed
10-20 million Japs. Back then we had the will, but did not have the
means. Now, we have the means to eliminate ALL our enemies.
Unfortunately we don't have the will." --- Roark or Kolker?
M Purcell: horse's ass or horse's ass?
Oh, anti-Objectivists love to claim Kolker as an Objectivist!
M Purcell
> On Dec 16, 1:54�pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Kolker reminded me of Roark; original, self-confident, and rational.
>
> "The only way to quell an Islamic domain is to eliminate it in the
> entirety. Had we 20 A-Bombs instead of 2 in WW2 we would have killed
> 10-20 million Japs. Back then we had the will, but did not have the
> means. Now, we have the means to eliminate ALL our enemies.
> Unfortunately we don't have the will." � --- Roark or Kolker?
Sounds like Kolker.
> M Purcell: horse's ass or horse's ass?
Are you capable of any other type of argument?
> Oh, anti-Objectivists love to claim Kolker as an Objectivist!
Do tell.
acar
>
> Oh, but anti-Objectivists loved to claim him as one! And two of them
> here miss him so much.
I'm one of those. ("So much" may be exaggerated. He did'n't like me
either.) I know that he is a liberatrian of sorts. not an
Objectivist.
You are following Rand's advice to judge but from your gut. That is
not how she intended it. She wanted you to be objective and tell the
truth.
.
.
.
acar
Kolker could be pretty bad. Never as bad as you, though.
.
.
.
.
Charles Bell
It is interesting that although Kolker denied often enough that he was
an Objectivist, he is held as one by anti-Objectivists when they think
they can get away it. This is like the MSM picking out the one person
wearing a controversial T-shirt (maybe interpreted as racist or nazi)
in a crowd of thousands of Tea-Party protestors. Kolker only agreed
with some of the superficial aspects of political Objectivism (like
Agent Cooper, for example) and agreed with rational egoism generally
but was decidedly anti-Objectivist in all other respects (like Agent
Cooper, for example).
Charles Bell
> > M Purcell: horse's ass or horse's ass?
>
> Are you capable of any other type of argument?
>
A little troll like you is unable to discern the difference.
Charles Bell
True to form, you misuse, probably deliberately so, the word
"objective" as it is used in Objectivism.
Establishing a dialog with those who refuse the purpose of
establishing a dialog is fruitless. Rand and Objectivists generally
have had a different POV from me with respect to those who refuse
dialog by pursuing a sort of benign neglect, though certainly rarely
is the same treatment returned in kind, whereas I , as can be
practicably accomplished, prefer clear recognition and treatment of
the malignancy.
Kolker did have this same POV as I, but not being an Objectivist (at
all), he never turned his attention to anti-Objectivists, but rather,
more often, to anti-semites and, sometimes, anti-libertarians and,
rarely, to Objectivists, over metaphysics .
M Purcell
Appartently ad hominems are all you are capable of.
Charles Bell
.
>
> Appartently ad hominems are all you are capable of.
Who said anything about you being a homo?
M Purcell
How old are you?
Charles Bell
Why? Are you *actually* a homo looking for a good time?
Hominis jus homo animus supremus est.
M Purcell
Just estimating your IQ, you seem to have the intellectual abilities
of an eight year old.
Charles Bell
> On Dec 17, 1:11�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17, 3:47�pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 12:37�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 17, 9:56�am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > Appartently ad hominems are all you are capable of.
>
> > > > Who said anything about you being a homo?
>
> > > How old are you?
>
> > Why? Are you *actually* a homo looking for a good time?
>
> Just estimating your IQ, you seem to have the intellectual abilities
> of an eight year old.
Stupid -- won't tell -- prepubescent boy to your liking?
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
RichD
> On Dec 17, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > How old are you?
> >
> > Why? Are you *actually* a homo looking for a good time?
>
> Just estimating your IQ, you seem to have the intellectual abilities
> of an eight year old.
Welcome to Chuck World, composed of two types of inhabitants:
those who suck David Friedman's dick, and those who don't.
You have to admit, it simpifies things.
--
Rich
Charles Bell
> Welcome to Chuck World, composed of two types of inhabitants:
> those who suck David Friedman's dick, and those who don't.
>
And the lowest of the low: the ones that suck yours.
RichD
> > Welcome to Chuck World, composed of two types of inhabitants:
> > those who suck David Friedman's dick, and those who don't.
>
> And the lowest of the low: the ones that suck yours.
Thanks Chuck, you never disappoint me.
I love you, y Jesu te ama.
--
Rich
Charles Bell
> On Dec 30, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Welcome to Chuck World, composed of two types of inhabitants:
> > > those who suck David Friedman's dick, and those who don't.
>
> > And the lowest of the low: the ones that suck yours.
>
> Thanks Chuck, you never disappoint me.
>
We are given to understand, however, that you have disappointed even
the lowest of low in that capacity.
RichD
> acar wrote:
> > Bob kolker used to be a regular contributor here and he was
>
> He is currently a regular poster to this forum:
>
>
> He posts under an alias. See if you can spot him. I think you
> will know the lion by his claw.
ok, I looked at that, and I give up... how about a
clue? I searched "let's nuke a billion muslims to paradise
immediately", but no luck...
--
Rich
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>ok, I looked at that, and I give up... how about a
>clue? I searched "let's nuke a billion muslims to paradise
>immediately", but no luck...
His handle starts with a B.
Mark N
He's been pretty active in the Ethics forum lately. Also, as Mal said,
his handle starts with a B.
Mark