william.scherk

Nope, that was never an option. If I don't believe in copyright laws, then I would hypocritical to pursue a course just because it is my ox that has been gored. Sorry, George, I hadn't even considered that. You are both published by Prometheus -- and they acknowledge that she plagiarized your work? "I would like to start a public campaign to push them along on the path to justice." Sign me up.

Jon Stewart adds his commentary on the tut-tutting: For the citizens of the land of the free: <embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:371002' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed> For the collectivist also-rans in Royal Soviet Canuckistan: http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---january-13-2011/#clip399109

George, what were and what are your legal options? It seems a suit was/is in order . . .

I find it troubling and indicative of something even more troubling. I mean, the whole idea of a leader hugging, whew, creepy. At all the funerals I have been to, there has been a sign on the coffin -- No HUGGIN. And at memorial services, well, the best thing is just not to get too close to anyone. If they make a move to hug you, put your hand up and firmly push them away. Then offer to shake a hand. But not too warmly. Basically the idea is to distance yourself from physical contact with people in times of sorrow. Well, you could start with a Letter To The Editor. With the blue crayons.

Kimmler, has your controller awoken you from sleeper mode? Or do you get a kick out of taking on juvenile 'true believers'? Tony, the question is a real one posted for consideration by Diana Hsieh's Rationally Selfish podcast kingdom. Using a survey widget, Diana is able to poll her listeners to see what concerns them in the realm of ethics. So far the question has received thirteen votes, which means it might appear on one of her podcasts. See here for the question, and here for the vote tallies on prospective questions. Certainly Kimmler is trying to find wacky things, and trying to associate Objectivishism with kook nuts. But the questions do show a weird penchant to ask ethical questions using over the top hypotheticals. I suggest we pharyngulize that poll so Diana might answer it on her grim and righteous weekly podcast. But I think she can see that its a stupid question, or rather a deeply flawed formulation of an interesting ethical question that haunts a certain kind of Objectivish obsessive: what to do with people who make mistakes . . .

All the speeches were good, but your President did the job he is paid to do.

I'll accept a justifiable hit on this one, for my being sloppy in my use of language. [ . . . ] As Heinlein taught me, "Beliefs get in the way of fact." You might also like that other Heinlein quote on belief, from Time Enough For Love: "Beliefs get in the way of learning."

I accept on faith the Christian dogma that Christ rose on the third day? Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me. I am puzzled here, Neil, by your answer to Xray. She writes that if you accept as true that Christ rose from the grave on the third day, yes, you are logically justified in your belief. So, there you go. If you accept the premise as true -- that Jesus Christ rose on the third day -- then Xray says you are logically justified in your belief in god. Looks to me like you have found support for your belief. But, what do you do with that support? Well, instead of 'I accept as true that Jesus rose on the third day?,' you change the wording and meaning of what she wrote: 'I accept as true on faith the Christian dogma that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day?' And then you deny the import of the redacted phrase --'Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me.' A problem with your 'it's news to me' is that you are on record as accepting as true that Jesus rose on the third day. It's in your book, in Chapter 10, "Heresies":

Are you sure about this, Brant? I was thinking of the "good Germans" who supported Hitler . . . Ah, Godwin's Law. Thanks. Godwin's "law" is moronic drivel. It's fitting that you would invoke it. Ah, Whistler . . . il serait difficile de rendre justice à vous avec une caricature. Dans votre première, la forme sans intermédiaire, vous semblez être un exemple d'autodérision; ce qui semble incompréhensible pour nous, pour vous, c'est la sagesse, et vice versa. Here's a bit of background from the history section of Wikipedia's relevant page: Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.

The new rankings are out. The top ten are, in order: Hong Kong Singapore Australia New Zealand Switzerland Canada Ireland Denmark United States Bahrain A blogger at Canada's National Post could not help but smug it up that Royal Soviet Nazi Canuckistan had outranked the USA: When the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation began compiling their Index of Economic Freedom a decade ago, Canada consistently ranked behind the United States and other developed nations on such measurements as regulatory freedom, commitment to free trade, property rights and freedom from corruption. In this year’s rankings, however, we are ahead of the Americans: We’re sixth, they’re ninth. Why the change? Much of the switch in fortunes is the result of America’s decline since the global financial crisis began in 2008. But our own score jumped modestly from last year, as well. In part, the report tells us, this is because Canada’s “straightforward regulations and the competitive tax regime facilitate entrepreneurial activity and lure dynamic investment.” Give credit where credit is due: Over the past decade, the governments of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper both have avoided the pitfalls that led to the U.S. decline two years ago. Before the downturn began, the Liberals resisted the temptation to loosen credit rules that would have made it easier for borrowers to acquire American-style sub-prime mortgages. Now, during the current recession, the Tories have refused to pander to populist demands for punitive new financial regulations — which would have frightened away investors, as they have in the United States.

Are you sure about this, Brant? I was thinking of the "good Germans" who supported Hitler . . . Ah, Godwin's Law. Thanks.

Neil: I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion. ... If it's just to make fun of me and make yourself feel more secure in your worldview, I think a lot of people including atheists could agree that's just pathetic. The fallacious argument is that Starbuckle's motives are contemptible, so his arguments are worthless.

Doubtful. But, according to you, the only person who expressly invited your appearance at OL was the person who sent you an email. Me, I figure the continua kissed and a ketosis-staggered Prime Mover's orgasmic orgone cosmic ray shot through the heavens and the desktop servers and united eleven dimensions of desire to make fun with all of us.

Here is what you wrote on your blog: I maintain Google alerts to send me email whenever there’s online discussion of my works, my projects, or my web presence. On December 11th Google sent me an email that a discussion had been started on the website “Objectivist Living” with the title, “Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?” In the same queue was an even earlier email from David M. Brown, a fellow libertarian novelist and long-time correspondent, suggesting I participate in the discussion. If Starbuckle is the same person you outed as a longtime correspondent, then your answer is to be found in the invitation itself. Have another gander at that fateful email and quit poisoning the well. If you have a look at the initial post, Starbuckle asks a few questions. If your increasingly loony answers led to making fun, so what? You expected folks to think you were crazy anyway . . . did you expect that OL folk would not make fun of your pretensions -- once they eyed your heaping selections from the Buffet Of Woo?

For those who would like a snapshot of Neil's beliefs, I have excerpted a few stand-alone comments from this long thread. The context of each of the remarks can be found in the hyperlinks at the edge of the quote box:

Are you sure about this, Brant? I thought a 'Good German' was someone who rejected any kind of shared 'national' responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust by denying support for the atrocities. -- 'I didn't vote for the Nazis' -- 'I never knew about Dachau -- 'I protested Kristallnacht' -- 'I had nothing to do with the bad things' -- 'the Nazi's didn't hurt me. How could I have known? There is a website called "the Good German Syndrome" that follows this trope to its logical end. The trope might apply to Carol Jane and me and Joel -- if there were the modern equivalent of Nazi Death Camps in Canada, and if we looked away as our non-Aryan concitoyens were marched off to their doom . . . Carol Jane hasn't yet had a Nazi Death Machine come for her, whether by Federal, Provincial or Local gauleiteren. But the Nazi Death Machine also hasn't yet come for her neighbours, so she can hardly be expected to ignore something that isn't happening. Please either reject that appellation or explain it. Otherwise you will sound as fucking nutjob kooky as Shayne does.

I am glad you jumped into the pit, Steve. I was surprised to hear of a Facebook discussion where OLers were named and excoriated off premises, but understand why Neil would want a gated alternative to The Spanish Inquisition, where he could expect more support and less dogpile. It can't be easy being billed as the only libertarian writer alloyed with The Prime Mover.

Have you had much success with conversational astrophysics on the internet forums so far, Dennis -- and can you give us a link to some of the work you may have published to date? I should note, not unkindly, that you probably mean to use the word tenet rather than tenant. A tenet is an item of opinion, premise, principle and so on. A tenant is an Objectivist who has been prevented by Socialism from owning a home. Not meaning to be a Grammar Fascist, but hey . . .

The Government Is Spraying Us With Biological Warfare Agents! The Government Is Poisoning What We Eat and Drink! Government Agents Are Like, Everywhere, Man! The Government Is Transmitting Thoughts Into Our Brains! The Census Is a Tool for Government Oppression! The Government Controls the Media! Yep. It happens. So, blow that whistle, Whistler. Blow and blow and blow. We will support and defend your right to read Cracked, and stand by you as you gibber and twitch and emit beeping sounds.

Yep. Obviously, Ted. Indubitably. Incontestably. Without a doubt. Anyhow, those who are mousing around trying to find the stupidest wackjobs in America uttering the craziest rants . . . can anybody top this?

Well, not quite yet. Assuming uniform physical law is what led to the inference of dark matter. It is the assumed ubiquity of gravitational forces that led to the puzzle. Science doesn't have to fudge the physical laws yet. You and the 'real' scientists are just dealing with the implications of observations within the paradigm. You can keep the socks on. Can you cite a single instance of an 'extra force' that has been suggested by physicists recently? Maybe you mean particle, rather than force? You really just wing this stuff sometimes, don't you, Neil? If you don't have a grasp of Reich, it's okay. If astrophysics strikes you as ridiculous, fine. If you think Reich's woo can be fudged into your wacked out cosmology, no problem. You have already managed to cram in M theory, astral travel, Geller, Hoffman, holographic pixies, god, your grandma, interstellar Bach and the kitchen sink -- not to mention the giddy notion of a self-denying psychic GHS. If you want to romp free, romp free, my brother. It's a buffet of possibilities in eleven dimensions. Throw in the universal orgasmic energy of Reich, a little Psionics, a little polygraphy, a pinch of fairy dust and Mary Poppins too. It must be a thrilling place, your mind. Me, I'd get dizzy and throw up, but if it works for you, as it obviously does, let her rip. Write a story, sell it, move to Alpha Centauri, and leave us fools behind in the dust.

<br>Oh, good. I lose my bet, then. <br><br> What did you think of that book, and has your opinion changed much since your unusual experiences?<br><br>My favourite chapter covers Wilhelm Reich. I wonder if you have any brief comments on Reich. Was he an inspiration to you, and do you think his orgone theory can fit in your cosmology?<br>

Yeah. My sentence was full of a few too many data points. I meant to point out that Campbell was head booster for a short time only (breaking off with Hubbard in 1951) -- and that if Neil thought Campbell bought into the gush about e-meters, that was historically inaccurate since the e-meter came after Campbell ditched Hubbard and Hubbard moved the cult to Wichita. As you allude, Campbell went full-bore into Kookdom thereafter, with his psionics and other magical machinery emerging a bit later. From the histories I read, it's obvious that Campbell alienated every one of the early SF greats who published in his magazine once he kooked out. It would be sad to think that Neil respects the subsequent kookout and disremembers that Campbell thought Hubbard an authoritarian cultist whackjob. In one backstage exchange with Neil, while probing his self-professed early skepticism, I wondered what kind of skeptical books and other materials he had been reading back before he began to become suffused with woo. I mentioned (Paul) Kurtz / (Martin) Gardner and hoped to find out which if any published works helped him navigate around crackpottery. He replied that he read everything, and I left it at that. In retrospect, that was a dodge. He never read Gardner at all, I bet, let alone Gardner's masterly takedown of Hubbard and Dianetics first published in 1952 (Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science), from which the Dianetics chapter is available here. Neil: Then Starbuckle dismisses John W. Campbell because he . . . found in the early drafts of Hubbard's book Dianatics some valid criticisms of psychiatry . . . and a brilliant suggestion of conducting psychanalysis while using a polygraph to detect peaks in patient stress. Scherk: Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. The book says fuck all about using a polygraph.

It's more like Philosophical Homeopathy from my perspective. In this instance, Kant is dropped in the water and the full potency of his evul gets stronger with dilution, ultimately powering the Nazi machinery at Belsen . . . But what can we expect -- Peikoff's biggest homeopathic remedy for the philosophical ailments of the ages was the crankish Ominous Parallels. What always strikes me as funny/deranged about orthodox Objectivism is that its head doesn't write, but instead plays the part of a low-wattage Ham Radio enthusiast, broadcasting his maunderings every Thursday from the bunker. How in heck he expects that dose to even penetrate discourse is utterly puzzling to me.

Nope. The car-bomb exploded on Jan 1. The 'friend' posted Jan 8. The dateline on his story link was Jan 6. Today is Jan 10. The Copts use a different calendar than most Western Christians. Christmas Eve is celebrated on the seventh day of January. News of the solidarity masses appeared immediately, and continue to appear . . . Live a little. Learn a little. Count little. Post a lot.