In response to a commenter who claims that ARCHNbloggers like myself are too "cowardly" to go on Objectivist sites and debate their philosophy first hand, here's a couple of screenshots of my user activity on a couple of O-ist sites from a few years back - Rebirth of Reason (formerly SoloHQ), and Objectivist Living.
There's nearly 2,000 posts there, covering a period of around a decade, all under my own name - which is more than can be said for this particular fellow, who in a totally non-cowardly way prefers a pseudonym.
So, so much for that. Will I now rise to his challenge of going on and doing it all over again on Objectivist Answers? Well, clearly I hardly need to, and for now I have better things to do. I'm not even spending that much time in the last few years on the ARCHNblog. It was fun while it lasted, but there isn't that much that interests me about Objectivism these days - I've heard it all before.
But never say never...
274 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 274 of 274@Gordon
"And right on the money."
Pure delusion. Two of them(Barnes and Parille) have straight ran while I'm still in the saddle and still in the field. And they ran on their own turf. LOL!
Take a look at this clip Burkey. Take its advice to heart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU_RHpAEDWQ
Ah, a hero in his own mind, a wanker in the minds of others.
There is strong evidence that QH with his grandiose delusions is not quite compos mentis.
Hahaha. Proving my point about this site and its hateful nature with every stupid, useless, petty insult.
And proving my point about why it takes courage to go onto enemy territory.
Cause humans will do what they typically do. Act tribal and like animals, particularly when they are in majority
Like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4
@Dragonfly, interesting possibility. I was thinking more in terms of narcissism, conceit, posturing, unwillingness to understand others and wilful blindness. But it could be more.
QH every dare that you make every time that you call someone coward is anoter cause to be amused by you. You are providing a lot of amusement.
@Flack
If you say so Flack. You can shut up now if you want, and cut all the childish, petty comments and nattering instigation(over something that, as you have already been told, had nothing to do with you).
The situation is settled now. Both Barnes and Parille have caught rabbit in their blood and ran, and I have made my points and backed them up and taken on all comers.
So I'm good to go.
He's making a laughing stock of himself. Nobody will take him serious anymore after all his evasions and inane bragging about imaginary victories.
"So I'm good to go."
It would be nice. But somehow I doubt it.
No, they couldn't be bothered with you. The rest of us are staying around for sport. We thsnk you for being such a nice chew toy. We'll get bored with you eventually of course.
Look - a sea lion!
http://wondermark.com/1k62/
"I addressed and destroyed that question by pointing out that I've asked several questions to various people on here and they refused to answer, so if it's not a problem or evasion when they do it, then it's not a problem for me to do so either."
That's not destroying the question at all. That's BARELY addressing it.
Where's your own anti-muslim efforts, QuantHayseed? Sure, nobody can make you answer, but if you DON'T answer, then what right do you have to complain about how anyone else handles islam? None, really. So are you just a gasbag complaining about people not doing stuff you'd never actually do yourself?
If you HAVE done anything except yap here, then surely you'd be proud of it, I mean if you think anonymously crusading this site is "heroic" you ought to be absolutely proud of taking it to the muslims. But so silent bout it? Yeah, looks like you're just talk and no spine.
@Flack
"No, they couldn't be bothered with you"
This is false from you. If I remember correctly this is the third, fourth, or fifth time you've been wrong about something.
But at any rate, yeah they did "bother" with me, but they were refuted or addressed and then they stopped, which justifies one holding that they ran.
Quantum Cupcake, November 26: "So I'm good to go."
Response, November 26: "It would be nice. But somehow I doubt it."
Q.E.D.
@Burkey
You already pulled this bit of stupidity earlier Burkowski.
Do you even know what "good to go" means? Do you need me to explain it to you?
Yawn.
@Gordon
Good. Then stop responding Burkey. The less whining and stupidity you guys spew, the better.
"The less whining and stupidity you guys spew, the better."
Cupcake, heal thyself. Or perhaps, as jzero suggested a while back, get some help.
@Gordon
Yawn.
Q.E.D.
@Gordon
Yawn.
Oh my! Get this through your head, every time you call someone a coward you make yourself look ridiulous. It's immature behaviour. Your moral judgmentas are not respected.
And descriping your own actions here as heroic only makes you look sillier and more pretentios still.
@Flack
Your last comment was very irrational. It had nothing to do with my last comment to you, which was pointing out you being wrong about something. You simply ducked that, or evaded it, and then concentrated on something said previously, that is thus not even currently relevant.
Also it's irrational because that is something you've already said that I already addressed, so you are repeating yourself over and over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI
"you are repeating yourself over and over."
Who is saying this? Did I read it right??
QH, your whole purpose for being here, to upbraid people is pretentious. No one here is in the least bit impressed by your denunciations. They are scorned as the acts of a fool.
Do they impress visitors to the site? I doubt that they impress many. Your interpretations of the effects of what you have done are self flattering delusions. In short you are a complete poser.
@Flack
Cool. But you are repeating the same crap over and over again.
The last thing you just said is pretty much a repeat too.
So if that is all you got, I guess I might take another 4 or 5 day hiatus and check back in after that, since your repetitious natterings are boring.
Yes little toy.
QH sez:
"So when you ask where is my anti-muslim efforts, that is confused on your part, since it is immaterial if I have such a thing since we are not on a website of mine where I have attacked, in such a vicious manner, a worldview for years, so as to make such a question to me, relevant."
No, when you say it's irrelevant, that is confusion on YOUR part, because you are really really confused.
You say Nyquist could better use his time taking on Islam instead of Objectivism, great. BUT THE SAME GOES FOR YOU. That's what everyone's been saying but you're too dense to get, or maybe you do get it, and you're just evading. Like you raving away at this site is somehow any more important. So if you think taking on Islam should be a higher priority for Nyquist, but YOU don't do it, you spend time bitching here, that makes you the hypocrite everyone knows you are.
All your criticism is like that. You don't say one damn thing you think is wrong about ARCHN but what you aren't doing it just as much. You complain about hate, but you show nothing but hate. You say things don't make sense but you don't actually make sense yourself. You say people are wasting time but HERE YOU ARE AGAIN. Everything you bitch about you are guilty of yourself.
@Anonymous
I think you're confused about the situation here, so let me explain it.
You ask where is my anti-muslim efforts, but that misses the mark of what I've been saying.
My position is that we are on a site where Greg Nyquist and a few other cohorts have trashed, attacked and taken a piss all over Objectivism and Objectivists for almost 10 years.
My position is that, besides that being highly irrational on several levels, it also is a waste of time and poor allocation of efforts, since why attack a worldview like Objectivism that has so many positive ideals and is barely believed in by anyone in the world, rather than a worldview like Islam that is believed in by over a billion people and has caused so much misery and repression in the world.
So when you ask where is my anti-muslim efforts, that is confused on your part, since it is immaterial if I have such a thing since we are not on a website of mine where I have attacked, in such a vicious manner, a worldview for years, so as to make such a question to me, relevant.
Zzzzzzzzz.
I think the site ate my earlier reply. Oh well.
QH sez:
"So when you ask where is my anti-muslim efforts, that is confused on your part, since it is immaterial if I have such a thing since we are not on a website of mine where I have attacked, in such a vicious manner, a worldview for years, so as to make such a question to me, relevant."
Ok, 1st prize for awkwardest sentence, really. But the only confused one is you.
Because if you're saying that Nyquist is picking on poor, nice Objectivism (ha) and should better spend his time taking down evil Islam, THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO YOU. Why are you wasting YOUR time here instead of fighting Islam? See? You can't make it out like somehow it should be a bigger priority for Nyquist WITHOUT ALSO bringing up the question of why it isn't a bigger priority for YOU. You don't exist in some sheltered cupcake sanctuary where you can hide from the same demands you're making. So where is your own anti-Muslim work, for the umpteenth time? Put up or shut up.
There's nothing you say here that doesn't turn back against you. You talk about hate, but hate is all that comes out of your mouth. You demand others fight Islam, but you're too chicken to enter the battle yourself. You call people cowards, but don't have the guts to stand under your own name and identity. (It isn't brave to bitch at people when there isn't a chance of any repercussions as a result of your bitching. You aren't a hero if you aren't taking some kind of risk.) You say taking Rand on is wasting time BUT HERE YOU ARE wasting time.
You're doing more to turn people away from Objectivism than this place ever could just by being the perfect example of how somehow someone can be a total hypocritical jackass while following a philosophy that's got so many "positive ideals".
Well that's twice I tried to leave a reply and twice it's vanished after seeming to post, so I dunno if it's a glitch or I'm being censored or what. Anyway, I'll try this with a "name" to see if it works, and just say that QH doesn't seem to get that what he says about anyone here applies to him, too. Or he does get it but he's evading.
Anon 2,
One of your posts appeared briefly, then disappeared. Don't know why, maybe DB does.
OK, sorry, the overzealous spam filter struck again. I've restored anon's comments.
Anon:
>You're doing more to turn people away from Objectivism than this place ever could just by being the perfect example of how somehow someone can be a total hypocritical jackass while following a philosophy that's got so many "positive ideals".
I say again: one of the reasons I have such a liberal moderation policy is that our pro-Randian commenters are such perfect, if unwitting, advertisements for the effects of Rand's ideas.
@Anonymous
"You say Nyquist could better use his time taking on Islam instead of Objectivism, great. BUT THE SAME GOES FOR YOU"
You appear too obtuse to get it. Let me try again. The above is not relevant to me, since you are not on my website where I am attacking or trying to refute or tear down (X), such that one can then ask why you are not instead attacking or refuting (y).
If that is not simplistic enough, I will dumb it down for you with an analogy. In order for your query to be relevant to me, I would need to be in the business of (X). But as far as you know I am not, so such a question is not relevant to me.
Nyquist and his cohorts are in the business of attacking and trying to destroy a given worldview or philosophy, since as proof of that, we are on their very website where they have done that. So the question of why attack this instead of that is relevant to them.
"but don't have the guts to stand under your own name and identity."
I laughed so hard when I read this. How can any fool be that obtuse and hypocritical?
A person complaining about someone not posting under their own name and identity, who themselves are not posting under their own name and identity. And even worse, isn't even using an identifiable moniker, but simply putting anonymous. Geez dude, you can't make up such epic fail
@Anomymous
I've answered your misguided query to me not once but twice.
So let me ask you a question. What in the world is your problem?
When I read your post, I got the impression of a person who is a raving lunatic foaming at the mouth.
Your posts were filled with hatred and anger, you cursed like common ghetto riff raff, and you caps locked all over the place, which is text based screaming.
So your posts are very justified to be labelled as the posts of someone who comes off as a lunatic. But what makes your behavior even more bizarre and irrational is that there is no currently understood reason what your problem is, who you even are, or what the hell you're even commenting for.
For example, my actions are rational in that they are explained or have a reason for them. Which is that I am on this site because I admire Objectivism quite a bit and agree with many of its tenets and positions, and I feel it has been very, very unfairly treated and attacked on this site and want to defend it to some extent and defend people like Dr. Yaron Brook who I feel has also been very unjustly attacked and maligned, given that as far as I know, he's never done anything to any of the main people on here, yet he was contemptuously treated and insulted several times in one blog posting.
But you!? There is no current understanding why you are so hostile and worked up over a situation that has nothing to do with you and is not your business, bur rather is Daniel Barnes's business since it was his post I was responding to initially, and who I was talking to directly to begin with.
There is no current understanding where your allegiances lay or what side you're on, why you care, or where you even came from.
You just crawled out of the woodwork's like some roach running from raid and started attacking me. No attempt was made to be civil as far as I can recall. No attempt by you was made to be impartial, nor to offer anything constructive or of any intellectual worth.
You just dived into a situation that has nothing to do with you(like Flack and Burkowski and Jzero) and started ranting and raving, acting a fool, and instigating a situation further that you could have either left alone or attempted to diffuse by steering the interaction to more worthwhile vistas(something I have tried to do several times by the way).
Who are you? Don't know. Why do you care? Don't know. Why are you so worked up and angry? Don't know. Where did you come from? Don't know.
Dude, your behavior is so crazy, you're more worked up then Barnes, and it's his site(or at least he's one of the main Nyquist cohorts) and this contention was between me and him. Yet you're more worked up and angry than he is! LOL!
Zzzzzzzz.
Oh, you.
Zzzzzzz.
QuantumHaecceity, nobody cares. I'm telling you right now, except for the people who argue with you for chuckles on these threads, nobody cares.
Put down the Rand novel.
Turn off the computer.
Go outside.
Walk to a psychiatrist's office.
The therapy will do wonders.
The joke about him is that he fancies himself as an expert on Objectivism but has never read Rand's fiction. He has been influenced by her essays and regards them as the ultimate expression of her philosophy and thinks he does no need to read her fiction to understand her. Yet he misses spotting major parts of Objectivist dogma such as her mania for judging other. He has created his own weird strain of Objectivism which is at least as nutty as the mainstream version. To use a word coined on another site, a true objecticrank.
@Strelnikov
"Put down the Rand novel."
LOL! You guys are so funny. What a joke.
Just clueless hot "air" and doing exactly what I already predicted.
Meanwhile I've never read any of Rand's fictional novels, so yeah I had a good laugh at some fool chiming in with more completely false crap.
More laughable posts. Like Jzero's retarded whine fests, and Flack being wrong over and over but evading it and chiming in with more 3rd grade bile.
@Flack
"He has been influenced by her essays and regards them as the ultimate expression of her philosophy"
This, as far as I can recall, is a lie. Unless you can show otherwise, I never said I was influenced by her essays and regard them as the ultimate expression of her philosophy
You're a liar too huh Flack? What a surprise.
Of course you could simply shut up and stop embarrassing yourself like Barnes and Jzero have learned to do, but you're a glutton for "punishment" I guess.
How many times have you been wrong now? 4 to 6 times?
I'm quite curious why you don't simply shut up. You've made a fool of yourself enough, you're not saying anything worthwhile, the stupid, childish comments you make, I take to be a joke for the most part, and I don't really even take you seriously because of your behavior. Which simply reminds me of an annoying little gnat that keeps buzzing around, and even after swatting, it won't go away.
And then, again, this has nothing to do with you to be frank. Why you don't simply hush up is beyond me. You have nothing better to do?
Good little chew toy. You are frothing nicely. Now should I poke you some more? Not yet.
@Flack
Thanks for proving me right. Your last comment is a perfect example of what I'm talking about with you.
Your behavior has degenerated to nothing but childish, abuse filled trolling. And of course you evaded again. And you're a grown man?
Wow. Impressive.
Troll? You come here seeking to upbraid and denounce and seek revenge for being disrespected. Are you implying that you are not a troll?
"This, as far as I can recall, is a lie. Unless you can show otherwise, I never said I was influenced by her essays and regard them as the ultimate expression of her philosophy"
You admit to having never read her fiction. And now you are claiming not to have been influenced by her essays. Well if neuther of these where did you get you idea of what Rand claimed?
QH sez:
"The above is not relevant to me, since you are not on my website where I am attacking or trying to refute or tear down (X), such that one can then ask why you are not instead attacking or refuting (y)."
That's stupid.
No, we're not on your website, but you're still putting your words out there in public trying to "attack" and "tear down" Nyquist and Barnes, and just because you don't have an official "I hate Nyquist and Barnes" website doesn't mean you're immune from the criticism of being a hypocrite who doesn't do himself what he says others should do. That's just one big attempt to weasel around the issue.
QH: "A person complaining about someone not posting under their own name and identity, who themselves are not posting under their own name and identity."
No, I'm not complaining about you posting under a fake name. I don't care what stupid contrived name you call yourself. I'm just saying, if you call people cowards, which you do, then hiding behind a fake name makes you every bit the same amount of coward. And yes, I'm anonymous, but I'm not trying to call other people out in the first place by calling them cowards. That's all on you.
QH: "I've answered your misguided query to me not once but twice."
No, you avoided actually answering it, and attempted to justify your evasion with some bullcrap rationalization. That's not answering anything. You don't get to count that as a straight answer.
QH: "For example, my actions are rational in that they are explained or have a reason for them."
They're not rational reasons, though. And your tactics sure aren't rational, let alone effective.
QH: "There is no current understanding where your allegiances lay or what side you're on, why you care, or where you even came from."
We could say the same about you. All we know about you is you say you admire Objectivism (while appearing to be entirely ignorant of it) and that you dislike anyone criticizing it, and that you take anything the slightest bit negative as "hate".
That, and some cutesy nickname, isn't much to build any real identity on.
Also, do you just not actually know what an analogy is?
"The joke about him is that he fancies himself as an expert on Objectivism but has never read Rand's fiction. He has been influenced by her essays and regards them as the ultimate expression of her philosophy and thinks he does no need to read her fiction to understand her. Yet he misses spotting major parts of Objectivist dogma such as her mania for judging other. He has created his own weird strain of Objectivism which is at least as nutty as the mainstream version. To use a word coined on another site, a true objecticrank." - Lloyd Flack
YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME. I think Rand is an overblown crypto-Nietzchian, BUT AT LEAST I READ (most of) HER NOVELS (the one I couldn't get from the library was "Anthem", but then Zamyatin's "We" may be the best of the early dystopian novels, and I've read that.) I even read Pleikoff's "Ominous Parallels" for kicks - NONE of it (the novels, his book, some of her essays) made me want to become an Objectivist.
If I can read (and laugh at) the novels, then so can Quan.
Off topic but FYI: Nathaniel Branden has died. He was 84.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/03/nathaniel-branden-rip
Nice write-up here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/nathaniel-branden-1930-20_b_6265196.html
Branden was responsible for much or most of the dissemination of Rand's ideas in non-fiction form. Rand's main effect has been as a myth maker with the main vehicle for the dissemination of her myths being her novels. The formal philosophy never had many adherents but arguably the fact that there was a formal philosophy and a movement spreading it greatly increased the influence of her myths. Perhaps the main effect of the philosophy is that it gives even people who reject most of it the feeling that the values that it propounds can be rationally justified.
"Nathaniel Branden has died. He was 84."
It should be interesting to check the reaction at ARI. My prediction would be: uncharitable at best, indecent at worst.
Now Peikoff is the last of the 1950's coterie - except for Allan Greenspan, whose career took a different path. Perhaps when Peikoff passes on, official Objectivism will finally stop fighting decades-old wars over the biography of Ayn Rand. Perhaps.
This may be an appropriate time to remember Branden's essay "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Still essential reading.
As for that essay, I liked this bit:
"Enormous importance is attached in Rand's writings to the virtue of justice. I think one of the most important things she has to say about justice is that we shouldn't think of justice only in terms of punishing the guilty but also in terms of rewarding and appreciating the good. I think her emphasis on this point is enormously important.
To look on the dark side, however, part of her vision of justice is urging you to instant contempt for anyone who deviates from reason or morality or what is defined as reason or morality. Errors of knowledge may be forgiven, she says, but not errors of morality. Even if what people are doing is wrong, even if errors of morality are involved, even if what people are doing is irrational, you do not lead people to virtue by contempt. You do not make people better by telling them they are despicable. It just doesn't work. It doesn't work when religion tries it and it doesn't work when objectivism tries it.
If someone has done something so horrendous that you want to tell him or her that the action is despicable, go ahead. If you want to tell someone he is a rotten son-of-a-bitch, go ahead. If you want to call someone a scoundrel, go ahead. I don't deny that there are times when that is a thoroughly appropriate response. What I do deny is that it is an effective strategy for inspiring moral change or improvement."
I wonder who could benefit from that piece of thinking...
@Flack
"Well if neuther of these where did you get you idea of what Rand claimed?"
Some examples would be Dr. Diana Hsieh, Dr. Tara Smith, Dr.Allan Gotthelf, and Dr. Andrew Bernstein. And of course Dr. Peikoff.
@Strelnikov
"If I can read (and laugh at) the novels, then so can Quan"
Nope. I don't think fiction is a mature, sober, sophisticated, rigourous and academic way of exhibiting and explicating a philosophy.
@Anon2
"but you're still putting your words out there in public trying to attack and "tear down Nyquist and Barnes"
Nah. I wouldn't call it attack or tearing them down so much as it's calling them out on their bad behavior and >defending< against their attacks.
"then hiding behind a fake name makes you every bit the same amount of coward"
I think someone else already said this, and I already addressed it, and so I don't feel like addressing this same repetitious thing again.
"You don't get to count that as a straight answer."
I do get to count it as an answer(s). You don't, and that's your issue, not mine.
"We could say the same about you."
Nah, you can't. Your post is so weak and pathetic I don't think you should have bothered even submitting it.
Not to mention you evaded my query's to you about your ridiculous and irrational behavior. Yet, you are a person whining about me evading. Geez dude, are you for real? How can someone be this easily hypocritical?
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI
QH says: "Nah. I wouldn't call it attack or tearing them down so much as it's calling them out on their bad behavior and >defending< against their attacks."
Of course YOU wouldn't call it that. But it's still the same: you're posting it, and now everyone else has the right to call YOU out for YOUR bad behavior, and you STILL don't get to say "not relevant to me" just because you don't have a website.
Well, you can say it but it just isn't rational.
QH mentions: "Not to mention you evaded my query's to you about your ridiculous and irrational behavior."
Why should I have answered it? First off, you're hiding behind your fake name, so like I said, we know jack about you, so how do you figure I have any obligation to take your question seriously? And then you went all "hurr, don't know don't care" so it isn't like you seriously want to know anything. I didn't answer because it was obvious blithering drivel with a question mark tagged on the end.
Also, the plural of "query" is "queries". The apostrophe is horribly misplaced.
Here's the only answer you'll get: You're a walking example of the Dunning-Krueger effect and I felt the need to speak out against your sheer unmitigated lack of self-awareness.
"Dunning-Krueger effect"
Interesting. Hadn't heard of this before. But it's a pretty good diagnosis.
So you did not get you ideas about Rand from Rand herself. No wonder you have so many gaps in your understanding of her work.
You really must be desperate for something that gives all the answers.
@Anon2
"out for YOUR bad behavior"
Cool, just like I've called you out for your bad behavior.(Shrugs shoulders)
"Well, you can say it but it just isn't rational."
Meh, I disagree.
"First off, you're hiding behind your fake name"
The above is amazingly stupid, since the exact same thing can be said of Strelnikov, Jzero, Dragonfly and....you!
These posts you're rendering, honestly, their basically complete garbage. Like I said before, it's really not even worthwhile for you to submit them. Their just straight junk.
And you're still caps locking multiple times like a lunatic, since that is understood as text based screaming.
Multi caps locking, jaw dropping instances of hypocrisy, whining about irrelevant crap, not even having a single point worth having to use time to read, insults backed up by nothing.
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU_RHpAEDWQ
I'm sure like Gordon, you won't be taking it to heart, and you'll feel the need to render another post of worthless whining and tripe.
@Flack
"So you did not get you ideas about Rand from Rand herself."
No. I've read a good amount of her stuff. Non-fiction that is.
@Q:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
@Gordon
You should be careful not to repeat the claims of fools, lest you become a fool yourself.
Although you've done a good enough job with that already Burkey.
That's rather interesting that Barbara Weidman and Nathan Blumenthal died less than a year apart and at the exact same age.
QH moans: "The above is amazingly stupid, since the exact same thing can be said of Strelnikov, Jzero, Dragonfly and....you!"
Yeah, but I'm not the one who started off with an accusation of cowardice. That was you. Nobody else would have bothered to mention it, except you wanted to call people "cowards". So having brought it up, that opens you up to an examination of your own cowardice. And you fail at somehow being more brave. You hide behind a name like the rest of us, you can't show how you take on Islam, all you have to claim to be brave is that you're here, and big friggin' whoop.
What's going to happen? At worst, someone calls you a name. Like dumbass. Oh man, I don't know how you can live through that! You might lose an arm to all these words flying around! Yeah, it's not like you're risking anything. As bravery goes, that's pretty weak.
So when you say people are cowards, it's horsecrap, because you are too. When the rest of us respond to you and call you out on your own cowardice, it's not that we really care if you're a coward, it's showing how ridiculous your previous accusation is.
Also, I'm not bothering to follow your links. Whatever point you think you're making, if you aren't competent enough to voice it in your own words then it can't be all that impressive.
QH, you are trying to upbraid people. You do realize that people here see that desire as ridiculous. That every time you try to chasten someone is an occasion for scorn. That people have no respect for your moral judgments. You seek revenge and seek to count coup on those who have criticized objectivism. This desire is seen as deluded. You try to see people not wanting to bother with you as avictory, as you driving them from the field. Seeing it that way is stupid. You will never succeed in making anyone here feel guilty. You have no credibility. You will ony continue to put your folly on display.
@Flack
That was quite bizarre what you just did.
How did you manage to take my last comment and render what you did?
How did you go from me saying this to you:
"No. I've read a good amount of her stuff. Non-fiction that is."
...to you going off into a whiny rant? That was bizarre.
Considering how innocuous my comment was to you, you could have either commented on that or simply stopped.
You appear to have gone out of your way to say nasty crap, just to keep nasty crap going. Wow! That was remarkable.
And you wonder why I consider you guys to be such scuzzbags. LOL!
Just reminding you of what you are actually doing and your chances of success.
@Flack
You've made a fool of yourself as far as I can tell.
There's nearly 2,000 posts there, covering a period of around a decade, all under my own name - which is more than can be said for this particular fellow, who in a totally non-cowardly way prefers a pseudonym.
wholesale shirts for resale
wholesale t shirts with logo
Post a Comment