william.scherk

It's great. Using the unlicensed version, I was able to do this "Cabbage Dinner" from the larger "Colossal Collage" (below): I can honestly recommend it too. It's a good use of $29.95.

From Wynne's little-known Vegas heyday; never wore makeup, never needed it. The mark of a true babe: ,

Premier Kathy is just your average openly-gay granny. Her opponents next election time will be Unwed Mother Andrea, and Tiny Tory Tim representing traditional family values, a wannabe Reagan minus the charm and speechwriters.Here's a mildly-glamourized gay grandma pic of Kathy Wynne, leader of the Liberal party, soon to be premier.

When, Carol, are we going to hear from you a nice twisty tale of the rise of Ontario's premier-designate? Or did I miss it already?

Reading only the link/topic and not the entries above, I would say Yes and No. No, psychology is not quite a science, but better labelled a field of inquiry. Much formal inquiry into human (and other) psychology aspires to use the hard tools of science (thesis/hypothesis, experiment, theory, refutation, yadda yadda), but cannot attempt what a physics or a chemistry must do and has done: approach and describe and explain universal regularities in the physical world -- regularities that are explained/theorized at different levels of analysis ... giving us Relativity, special and general, as well as the law of gravity, law of this and that ... and so on across the fields with Physics and Chemistry. The question about psychology is not actually clear about its intent. It seems to me to be a 'truth' question at root, a question of reliability and explanatory power. The intent could very well be to elicit a No answer to the question here: Is Psychology True? Now I will think about that underlying question, then read the commentary, then post again. In the meantime I expect that the answers given have made everyone feel good about their assumptions and their certainty. Yes and no forced choice questions have that knock-on effect.

Happy birthday and best wishes to a fine communicator. May her second century be as good as her first: happy happy sad happy sad happy. I know you were hoping for more concrete expressions of good will (like a new laptop) but we are living in perilous times, it seems.

Jonathan, you have witnessed a kind of catechism delivered via Jerry: Ayn Rand says thus. Hsieh says thus. Dr Shelton says thus. All the thus is just that -- thus spake so and so. No evidence given, no counter-evidence considered. Thus ... you have catechism class with Jerry Story featuring all he needs to know about beauty. Jerry will not be returning to discuss beauty with you, Jonathan. The subject is closed. The catechism is clear and succinct: beauty is what Hsieh, Rand and Shelton say it is; Jerry is merely passing along the dicta.

Scuttlebutt says he was checking out OL yesterday and was stung, STUNG by your comments. Stung to the heart. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/01/30/ron-jeremy-in-critical-condition-needs-surgery-report-says/?intcmp=HPBucket What can I say but oops, serendipity, not so schweet for Ron.

Lovely old phrase of caution, of an appeal to reason. From Robin J Elliott, "You take it from whence it comes. Losers generally hate winners. So when you're attacked and discredited by a loser, take it as a well-deserved ..." Don't forget the goal and tactics of information patrol. In most cases of active daily cognition we evaluate incoming information happily on the fly, using rules and procedure hammered into place by habit. We make snap judgments in each hour. We must -- we are under siege by information. It must be sorted. It ought to be sorted efficiently. Bad sorting is deadly to the enterprise, however, as exemplified by Leonard Peikoff in the laundromat of life, letting all and sundry know, declaiming the precise way in which one must fold an 'artibrary nonsertion' correctly. I would rather die than think too long about the warty add-ons Peikoff has left on the body of Randian thought. Some are more gruesome than others. Warty growths of uncertain usefulness for daily patrols and confrontations with information, with the barrage. A category uncalled for, in my opinion, are these theses, these extrusions of the Heir. He falls victim to hasty sorting and slotting. I say shoot his message if we must shoot something. It is worse than shooting the messenger. It is like shooting up DHL, Post Fffice, Purolator etc, and the janitors. Needlessly aggressive and out of proportion to the offence. Robert Campbell has amply demonstrated that 'arbitrary assertion' is over-determined, a hasty generalization, of limited utility -- as is the practice of 'charity refutation.' This is, in my opinion, a cul-de-sac of thought, a no-exit zone for the unwary. It does no good work to replace one shitty over-generalization with another, to my mind. Indulging Peikoff too much on his blunders is like walking in the ditch: the sidewalk is more comfortable and efficient. Why we need follow him down his occasional sucking rabbit-hole has not been adequately explained to me so far.

Abortion, that endless source of delightfully thorny questions, of men talking about things only ladies can have done to themselves ... I will be honorary lady here and suggest that thorns will never be absent, even when no abortion is performed or contemplated. Example one is the first map below of the law as it stands in the world. A so-called right, freely exercised, to have an abortion does not fully obtain but under a few legal regimes. The map shows Canada and America green against the red of Mexico. We know the legal regimes are different between America and Canada, that here there is and are no law or laws forbidding abortion by provinces, since federal abortion law was struck down by the Supremes. Effectively abortion is treated as a medical procedure between a woman and a doctor. It is still a national affair, and residents of Prince Edward Island have issues of access, but no law is considered even close to being thought of, let alone passed. The national affair around abortion is all wind and has zero chance of putting abortion on the Conservative government's agenda. Down with you guys in America that unbroken green is toned up or down in relation to a raft of law devoted to ovaries and their products. Virginia, home of the Transvaginal Express state law, is a counter-example to the green. With you menfolk, it is still a national and state affair and gynecological lawmaking has been furious and sadly closely correlated with, you guessed it, Republican state assemblies. Anyone care to guess how much Roe v Wade means to 'accessible' abortion in Montgomery, New Orleans, etcetera? I think we have a certain red/blue map in our minds. When will Republican men stop their snuffling and poking at parts of the body that do not and never have belonged to them? Why does this amorphous entity Gawd have so much say with you people, speaking of lawgivers and nosy crotch-snufflers? I am now off to volunteer hosing down the abortion clinic sidewalks of blood. This added map makes graphic the degree of USA ovarian-product crotch-snuffling obscured in the 'green'- as-Canada map above. This map explores the patchwork crazy-quilt of so-called parental-consent strictures governing abortions performed on minors.

Er, Source: Objectivist Contradictions

A few phrases have emerged"little stuff" for the ultimate constituents of the universe, "charity refutation" The term "little stuff" I do remember hearing -- plenty of times -- while Rand was alive. Larry and I and others used to talk about her "little stuff" theory. Big stuff from "little stuff"? "The Little Street"? Any irony going on? I would settle for a pratfall. But in the meantime, behold, a new addition to my Soundcloud, a robotic voice intoning Robert Campell's ... well, it starts like this: Is This What They Teach at the Ayn Rand Institute? https://soundcloud.com/bill-scherk/is-this-what-they-teach

This is a little early to include in Greatest Hits, but I thought we captured the principles behind Charity Refutation, and I would like to capture some search engine action. I took the pithiest one-liners from the All-stars (from MSK to Daunce to Ghs) and made poetry. For 'research' only.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/527836_10150701763884173_2117387733_n.jpg We're making advances Recalling an early scene Remember you in the times We don't realize Will never be the same Rehearsing the old moves What do the chosen Choose for you You'll never get much of me There's just enough To go around You think you're god's little gift to the world God's little gift To the world Return to the holy land Let's see what you've planned No amount of destruction Will change your mind Will you ever see A neurotice old romance Is claiming new men Soon we'll be a page In your history But we'll never meet again You think you're god's little gift to the world God's little gift To the world Everyone I know Has gone insane Like a girl that screams In your ear She's got the secret Of the year Well here is an army to fear God's little gift to the world god's little gift to the world God's little gift To the world Return to the holy land Let's see what you've planned No amount of destruction Will change your mind Will you ever see It's a rotten old romance And it's claiming new men No amount of seduction Will ease the pain We'll never meet again You think you're god's little gift to the world God's little gift To the world

All I can do with a topic and statements here is re-create a theme or two in prose-poetry, which I will do until my edit-window closes.

Schweet, appreciate the sentiments! I am older than I thought I would be when I died, and younger at heart than I have any right to be. My progressivism is persistent, chronic even, but itself is not progressive. I am actually less progressive now than I was at my socialist high point. That was in high school, grade nine Social Studies. It's kind of like a horrible non-fatal tropical disease. Hideous onslaught, and permanent damage, but generally nothing more awful now than occasional feverish episodes and deliria. I would not have wanted to be infected with the mirror of progressivism in grade nine. Because that would mean I would now talk like a Socred, and dress like Grace McCarthy. And a kiss on the cheek for Kat, our empress. Will do, sir, as best I can. [Full disclosure: I occasionally whine, whinge and fret backstage with Stephen. His corrections are like vaccinations, they make you think that one day we might end the long reign of Polio Unreason.] Vancouver is essentially bland, which is why it is a tourist paradise. Bland bland bland. Hockey Riot. Bland. Multilingual as hell. Bland. A shiver is in order as we are having unreasonable weather: fog in winter. I will probably rock next with the Mud Bay Blues Band at Pat's Pub. I have learned not to be snide or condescending to you when I think your claim or argument merit a correction. It's nice to hear a friendly from you, thanks. I wish I had a head of hair like yours. He apparently was a nice guy, a tractable donkey who loved sex and could endure discomfort and boredom better than most. His personality and his dong put him on screen too ... a Kojakish handsomeness, an ugly lovable dog. Yes, it would sicken me if he came after me. Like a star-nosed mole. Deeply. Funny thing was Los Popularos in the day was anything but a Punk band -- we were fused to the scene in town, but occupied our own weird disco country-tanged artpop niche. I know. And I knew you would bring it up. Schweet! I pose as a near-normal most of the time. Here on OL I can range freely and once in a while bash out a long structured piece of prose that pleases me. I really don't give a dang for labels. They can be destructive and constructive and everything in between. The only thing I ask from my labels is that they be accurate. It often helps to ask the stuff inside the jar what it is. Regards back atcha Jerry and see you in Vegas!

When we are all in the midst of understanding one 'cognitive error/bias' at near the same time, it is like dawn, it comes on slowly, but the bells do ring in and the birds begin furious chatter and the Idea becomes suddenly sharper, brighter and clear. The epigrams below are roughly equally correct -- yours, MSK. . . yours to Wooster sharpness, Nth, Robert's stiffly whipped danger:fool icing so smooth so deadly, Reidy's clarity pointer on the mechanics of the fraud, Brant's awry aside on fecklessness, and then congress, coalition, hi-beams. a brief glimpse to a heart of things. Said he poetic-ishly I'd venture it's these "Little things" like snide charity refutations that reveal the blemishes of the ARian junta: AND what fun when such zingers as these come to the surface with such fizz and sparkle ... [to think that That Man considers this a swamp and that Meine Dame Doktora slinks about here anonymously. Philosophy Inaction, Magic Perfect Caveman, and gurglings as that man goes slowly farther down the drain.] What does "Charity Refutation" mean, especially in ARI-speak? Is it anything related to the principle of charity?I had wondered where Dr Mrs Doctor Diana ("did I mention I have a doctorate?") Hsieh came up with that term Charity Refutation. She uses it like a small cudgelAs with so many of her contacts since she converted to ARIanism, her direct source has not been named.Charity Refutation means doing somebody the favor of talking him out of fallacious beliefs that don't really deserve the explainer's attentionsA Charity Refutation is a refutation that is not necessary in any way, but a refutation that 'gives' back to the refuter something for the 'sacrifice' of refuting.Facebook fed her an ad from Prince Institute Stenography School, a profession which Comrade Sonia says is outside of her range of interestsHsieh only has herself to blame. The unfolding of the "Dear Abby of philosophy" schtick counts as information to Facebook.Charity Refutation means that a view is so plainly false it doesn’t even rise to the level of being worthy of discussion. In fact, oftentimes, one sanctions evul by debating it. Think religion, libertarianism, Kant, or TheBrandens™.From Peikoff's point of view, one simultaneously can't refute an arbitrary assertion, needn't refute an arbitrary assertion, and mustn't refute an arbitrary assertion.A Charity Refutation is an unnecessary, unwarranted, and unmerited refutation of an arbitrary assertion. Not of a false assertion—"the arbitrary" is neither true nor false. Offering a good faith noob some level of explanation: this is [also] a Charity Refutation.A Charity Refutation is something one needn't do. But one also can't do it, and mustn't do it. The utility of the idea is unclearMay you all have further gnosis on this and other sulfurous mysteries of ARiana.

MSK, my take is this: if an assertion is 'arbitrary' one can (pretend that/assert that) it carries no meaning ... it is the third class of statements; not true, not not true, not not even wrong, but ... empty of cognitive import or value. So a charity refutation is a refutation that is not necessary in any way, but a refutation that 'gives' back to the refuter something for the 'sacrifice' of refuting. Robert Campbell is the expert and has written a long piece on SOLO. I have that link somewhere, but if you need to check my premises ...

Too late ... I stepped in front of the gawd bus and invited Neil via Facebook. How about he posts the 1000th post and then MSK locks it? -- if there is a 1001th post, then we will know that gawds work in mysterious ways ...

Share with me your address backstage and I will send you an even more special gift by parcel post ... because, in the words of Elton John's lyricist: "That's what [mutually-trading independent instances of Man) are for ... the good times, the good times, I'll be by your side when you instantiate my values, that's what 'Friends' are fooooooor."

Carol, there is a new female member, who penned a beautifully snarky comment. I sent her a PM letting her know of your existence. Hope she comes back to read and post: Acerbic_Critique / M Anderson Eastman Acerbicity: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8887&p=176855

Well, I think we can do better, me. What if one of us invited in J Neil Schulman for a final valediction?

Jerry, thanks for the nice response. I get all het up, me, sometimes ... and I now think we see things in a similar festive frame from time to time. Secondly, you have struck my 'research bone' with that note on the Hollywood Reporter. I will see if I can dig it up. I should admit I was kind of sad that the second installment sunk like a stone. But a classic like Atlas Shrugged can obviously be remade. I think the best format for AS is as a mini-series on television (along with a modern media onslaught on all medis, with an advertising/promotions budget at least the size of the production budget. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but did Ayn Rand not put forward the TV-series notion and even begin to sketch out a treatment. Ellen, you know just about all trivia Rand-wise, is this correct, or am I misremembering from Letters and Journals?