caroljane

Heh. To me, I was tickled to see the following words on SLOP: There's some blathering after that, but this one--on SLOP--sounds kinda nice. My name is even spelled right this time. I wonder what the savages think... Michael Perigo dumped the whole thread, apparently as soon as he saw it. One of my posts was something like, "Janet, I don't think Lindsay is going to appreciate you using SOLO as your default posting site and garbage dump." She then criticized my grammar, which had been deliberate by me. I started posting on what we can call the "Internet" almost 25 years ago and have been at it pretty much since. This is the first time anyone got really vicious with me. --Brant The entertainment just doesn/t stop, however. She referred recently to her "bogsite" where all truth is revealed. Ask anyone of workingclass British extraction where the bogsite is, and what to use for bog paper. She once mentioned that she spent "a fortune on analysis" and if this is not a Jungian slip in the bog, I don't know what is.

Yes, I did mean Baker, I lost myself.confusing Baker, Bell, Courtenay..such great british Toms, and so few worthy to be the Doctor. They do all look a bit alike.

Nevertheless Dennis, I maintain my position, and furthermore I think that the "speculative nonsense and the worst kind of baseless psychologizing" is the assumption that unwanted fetuses kill all possible future happiness or career achievement for all their parents,and the presentation of kids or achievement is, or even was in 1965 or 1983, the either/or situation Rand said it was. Susannah Moodie anybody? Mary Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley? Fay Weldon, who produced several excellent novels, journalism and screenplays along with four sons and is still producing? Er, J.K. Rowling? I leave out my personal heroine, L.M. Montgomery, whose career was well established long before she married. But the "lady novelists" of yesteryear did not produce their novels instead of children, but often along with them. It is true that children risked the physical lives of the mothers, and I along with many am glad that Jane Austen never managed to catch a husband as she could have died in childbirth before she ever published. But productive, ambitious, talented people will manage to be productive despite the hindrances of everyday life, even a hindrance that yells for food every four hours. I repeat, Rand's statement was wacky. The fact is that none of the women you mentioned developed a philosophy that stood in radical opposition to thousands of years of cultural tradition, and none of them wrote Atlas Shrugged. Different people have different needs. Ayn Rand was a genius, and wanted to devote her time and energy to using her mind to maximum capacity. First, true, none of them developed overt philosophies. None of them wrote Atlas Shrugged. But some of them wrote novels that qua novels were better. Shakespeare was a genius, and wanted to devote his time and energy to maximum writing capacity, so he lit out for London, but he found the time and energy to provide for the wife and children he had been trapped into at age 18, and to spend early quality time with them, at the age when his genius was most ripe to be murdered by such life conditions. Perhaps there are several plays he did not get to write while he was changing napkins, and we are all the poorer for it. Mozart was a genius, and he spent a lot of his young life fretting and fussing over his wife and kids, writing silly jealous letters when he should have been writing more symphonies, didn't he realize he could die at any time? The man was just not rational. Ayn Rand's precious, precious time which she used exactly as she wished, was perfectly apportioned according to her own needs.Only the genius can turn the tap of genius on and off, and only the genius knows the conditions which much exist, for the tap to flow at all.

When I first joined OL, this was my avatar. I kept it for over a year, I think. Peter Taylor signed on and started complaining about it, he said it lacked benevolence, if I recall rightly. So I kept it even longer. Then, finally, I switched it, I think to Rowan Atkinson as the Ninth Doctor. Then at some point Phil complained he was being chased by a wolf pack, so I switched to a schnauzer. Jonathan switched about the same time to some other breed of dog. Now Phil’s gone, then recently Peter made some dumb comment about the old avatar, so now it’s back. And it’s staying till I’m good and ready to switch it. I like it, dammit! You are quite right dear. I have had a few complaints about my facing leftward and altruistic looking clothing, plus a few kinky inquiries about what is under the petticoats, but I have held firm to my avatar choice Still, I wouldn't mind seeing Tom Bell at some future time *he was such a good actor, was he in a Taste of Honey?) if your principles would allow you.

No to be threatening or anything, but I met my new grandson Callum recently. ( Son of Stu with the great Tardis whirlaway painting, and the bookend Tardis in the living room) Callum is small but mighty. he fits snugly into the living room Tardis. sleeping there peacefully until his next incarnation or until nighttime when he awakes and sings until morn, his poor parents are exhausted.) He will be the 13th. Doctor. Civiliation can advance no further than thus.

I suppose it's subject to different interpretations, but I think it's more thematically consonant with Epicurus than Rand. Epicurus teaches you to enjoy life, but to a large extent that's done by avoiding suffering. Rand would have you always straining yourself to achieve greater values, and if that means putting up with the many downsides of having a pretty woman for your wife, well so be it! Do you think Roark would put up with Dominique if she weren't a looker? It's a trick I learned 6 incarnations back. Just reverse the polarity of the neutron flow! Now, if you tell anyone the secret, expect a visit from a squad of Daleks. No, no, of course I would never tell. Um. some of us were saying that as much as we love Ranting Screaming Doctor avatar, , we;; we were feeling nostalgic, and maybe some kinder gentler doctors could soothe our nerves (we all miss the braw wee doggie)..just mentioning...

No, Adam. On Rand bio I have only read the excellent and affecting Passion of Ayn Rand. i am aware that it is part memoir on the part of the author , and it is the richer for it. Have you read Heller's book? Do you recommend it?

Just listened again. Especially love how "your life" rises in the reprise. You seem to have worked some Time Lord science on my computer since I can now see all the videos you post right through, no more whirlies. I know you can't tell me how you do it because then you would have to kill me.

O Ninth, you are my strength and stay. The Coasters of course, I have always so loved that happy, silly,exuberant song. It's kind of Objectivist in a way isn't is? " Don't let your friends say you have no taste, go ahead and marry her anyway. Carol not even that ugly actually

"I don't want her, you can have her, she's too fat for me" -"Too Fat Polka" (Trad.) as interpreted by the immortal Walter Oscanek "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife. so from a personal point of view , get an ugly girl to marry you" -(it was the 60's, who remembers who sang it?) "You're beautiful, and I will never be with you" James Blunt, who was with her, her, and her. Is there a moral or psychoepistomoligical consensus in Objectivist thinking on such matters? Discuss quietly amongst yourselves, or complete your assignments.

I was going to go further on my last, but on reflection I will cool it a little. Dennis is psychologizing me, and stereotyping me to boot, and categorising me in his own ways. Which is fine, and his right. I do the same to others. Instead I will say I am sure that rand said many sensible things about parenting. I believe she wrote a letter to Barbara Branden's mother, congratulating her on the way she had raised Barbara. I guess she did not think much of the parenting of her own mother, but I'm sure she approved the methods of others. Does anybody have any input on this?

Nevertheless Dennis, I maintain my position, and furthermore I think that the "speculative nonsense and the worst kind of baseless psychologizing" is the assumption that unwanted fetuses kill all possible future happiness or career achievement for all their parents,and the presentation of kids or achievement is, or even was in 1965 or 1983, the either/or situation Rand said it was. Susannah Moodie anybody? Mary Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley? Fay Weldon, who produced several excellent novels, journalism and screenplays along with four sons and is still producing? Er, J.K. Rowling? I leave out my personal heroine, L.M. Montgomery, whose career was well established long before she married. But the "lady novelists" of yesteryear did not produce their novels instead of children, but often along with them. It is true that children risked the physical lives of the mothers, and I along with many am glad that Jane Austen never managed to catch a husband as she could have died in childbirth before she ever published. But productive, ambitious, talented people will manage to be productive despite the hindrances of everyday life, even a hindrance that yells for food every four hours. I repeat, Rand's statement was wacky. To say that Rand’s statement was wacky is to imply that women face no genuine conflict between devotion to family and devotion to a career in today’s world. You cannot seriously believe that. There are always exceptions, and I really don’t care about the details of why this or that novelist was able to write books despite the duties of motherhood. It’s all a matter of individual context. Perhaps some had husbands who assumed the major parental role. Perhaps others had enough money to hire full time help. Perhaps others lived utterly miserable lives but somehow managed to turn out half-decent fiction by starving themselves or going without sleep for months at a time. Perhaps others took a cavalier approach to raising children that yielded the likes of Chaz Bono. It doesn’t really matter about the details. The fact is that none of the women you mentioned developed a philosophy that stood in radical opposition to thousands of years of cultural tradition, and none of them wrote Atlas Shrugged. Different people have different needs. Ayn Rand was a genius, and wanted to devote her time and energy to using her mind to maximum capacity. Changing diapers and teaching table manners did not appeal to her as intellectual pursuits. The point is not that that “unwanted fetuses kill all possible future happiness or career achievement for all their parents.” Rand didn’t say that. She did say that children can represent a huge burden on a couple just starting out in life, and obviously there is plenty of evidence to substantiate such a view. Your whole position seems to imply that there’s no way women can be perfectly happy and fulfilled without motherhood. A century ago, most everyone would have agreed with you. Today, such a viewpoint has to be classified as not only wacky but rather narrow minded. I frankly expected better from you. Well, I expected better from you, too. Rand did not say "unwanted fetuses kill ...etc"). That is of course my paraphrase, but it is the black-white import of her statement. It is that baby's life, or yours. If you have it, you will sacrifice your own life to it. My whole position may seem to you, to imply that a woman's life cannot be happy and fulfilled without children, and your inference is dead wrong. My role models, women I believed to be the happiest and most fulfilled, were all childless, unmarried women, throughout my childhood and later. I have always known that a happy and fulfilled life is about the happiness and fulfillment of the individual. Being without children on its own, does not make anyone happier, than being the mother of many does, to the individual. It is not the defining aspect of happiness or fulfillment in life, for women or men. I still believe this, which I believed for a certainty when I was 18 and never intended to get married at least until I was 35, and did not epecially like children but thought I might have one, if it was convenient. There is no one overriding defining requirement for happiness in life, as you well know professionally and personally. Rand said there was only one, productive achievement, and she was wrong to be so blackwhite there, too.

In short, you are attacking truth in the name of truth. Classic case of what is called 'stolen concept' in Objectivism. The nature of stolen concepts is their 'stickiness': the attackers are unable to free their minds of the very concept they are attacking. It even sticks in their mind so much that they base their case on it, like in denying truth in the name of truth. You are mixing up truth with mere belief/personal opinion/subjective value judgements. . TIA for providing the link. But of course there are opposites. For example, the 'reality' of surgically interfering with body fat is to oppose another reality that was there before: fat one wanted to have removed. Therefore, on the factual level, there exists no such thing as 'simulated reality': there is only reality. Another illustrative example is lying: the liar is trying to conceal a fact, a truth that he/she wants to keep hidden. But the act of lying itself belongs to reality. Round 2! Goodwill and intellectual acuity and subtlety: Xray 1 Janet (she will fill in the score, and then forget what it was, and say that somebody else filled it in)

I am a big fan of good Alternate History scifi. I think Sparta would be a nice place for fox-stealing visits, but I wouldn't want to get gnawed to death there.

Don't worry, everybody. if our mothers had not had us, there would be no us, which is logically impossible and quite unthinkable but here we are. Somebody else would have had us and we would still be us. I think I have told this story here before. My mother was talking about the mixup that led to her not receiving the letter that would have summoned her to Ottawa in 1947, to work in the Civil Service. All her friends got their letters and went, but hers sat in her Aunt Ruby's farmhouse kitchen under an almanac until it was discovered when she died ten years later. Greataunt Rube was not much of a reader and thought it was from the Income Tax so she did not do anything about it. "Just think, Carol Jane," Ma said. "If I had got that letter I would have gone to Ottawa and never met your father. I would have married somebody else and your father might have been a rich banker or a politician like Jeanette married." "But Ma, if my father wasn't Dad, I wouldn't be me. Your daughter would be a different person." "Oh no, Carol Jane, it would have been you. You were meant to be born."

As to the depression and unhappiness of poor young couples saddled with parenthood, and the lifelong ruin of their dreams, I think Rand may have been surprised, if parenthood had somehow been foisted on the young O'Connors against their intentions. From what I have read of Frank, he was a wonderful man whose main job was to look after his wife, and I think he could have easily looked after a child also. And been a fine father. Just a baseless speculation. Her decision was entirely right, for her. She did not want to be a parent. But for her to be so emphatic that accepting parenthood is accepting total self-extinction, was foolish and unrealistic.

This has got to be one of the very wackiest things Ayn Rand ever wrote. Having observed several of those doomed couples on Death Row over the years in their lives of hopeless drudgery, and the even worse post-death slavery of several single mothers, I have to say that they seemed to enjoy their non-lives more than Rand ever did hers, most of the time. I completely agree with Rand’s arguments here. It’s not as though Rand was alone in her warnings about the potential damage children can have on a relationship. Ellen Peck’s courageous book, The Baby Trap, published in 1976, presented the case for childless marriage, and gave a lot of young couples the confidence to defy conventionality.and think twice before starting a family. Peck’s message was a simple one: consider the consequences before yielding to social pressures just because everyone says that’s what you should do. Some recent studies have provided further evidence in support of Rand. Kids Curb Marital Satisfaction Kids are Depressing, Study of Parents Finds If Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor had chosen to have children, it is quite possible that the financial pressures would have severely curtailed her writing career, with disastrous consequences not only for her but for the millions of people whose lives have been infinitely enriched by her words and ideas. Many of the recent studies of Rand's life have highlighted some of the suffering she endured, especially in her later years. It is pure speculative nonsense and the worst kind of baseless psychologizing to assume that she was, therefore, an unhappy person throughout most of her life, or that she did not experience extraordinary levels of joy and satisfaction. Nevertheless Dennis, I maintain my position, and furthermore I think that the "speculative nonsense and the worst kind of baseless psychologizing" is the assumption that unwanted fetuses kill all possible future happiness or career achievement for all their parents,and the presentation of kids or achievement is, or even was in 1965 or 1983, the either/or situation Rand said it was. Susannah Moodie anybody? Mary Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley? Fay Weldon, who produced several excellent novels, journalism and screenplays along with four sons and is still producing? Er, J.K. Rowling? I leave out my personal heroine, L.M. Montgomery, whose career was well established long before she married. But the "lady novelists" of yesteryear did not produce their novels instead of children, but often along with them. It is true that children risked the physical lives of the mothers, and I along with many am glad that Jane Austen never managed to catch a husband as she could have died in childbirth before she ever published. But productive, ambitious, talented people will manage to be productive despite the hindrances of everyday life, even a hindrance that yells for food every four hours. I repeat, Rand's statement was wacky.

Best of luck in your chosen career. The language training will be an enrichment for your whole future life, whatever it holds. And please do not let Brant talk you into dropping just one, teeny-weeny bomb on Canada, to make up for 1812. Obviously there was no point in staying around Nashville, considering how the Preds are doing lol.

I don't think that's true. Killing doesn't equal the enjoyment of inflicting pain. I don't get any feeling of sadistic inclinations from Bob K. On the other hand, I agree with those who think that he means his extolling of the warrior ethos. For instance, look at all the stuff he's posted about ancient Sparta. You could find a lot doing a search. Ellen Yes, I was inaccurate. I certainly enjoyed the Scots killing the English in Braveheart, though I could not watch the actual gore.And Grampy Kolker did not spend his youth setting fire to the tails of cats, I am sure. I hope this will stop future internet-fuelled speculations that might arise from researches into his life and work." Aspersadism: When Physics get Physical."..."Did Baal Bomb the Bail-Bond offfice in Baylor, TX?"--no, no, this must not be.

To please people here is not a hard job, good union wages too. The only requirement is, you have to have a relationship with verifiable facts, with Reality, . It's all relationships, really. Nepotism, it's everywhere.

You know what irks me most about ole Janet who is not even in on this one? Her sources of amusement, that proles should wield shovels and get paid for it, is hilarious to her. That a hacker wipes out someone's blog is a great comic moment, As a comic in all seriousness, to quote the great Bobby Bittman, I'm just saying.

Seymour has a hard time with facts. Aside from your mention of "Mexican boys" and Seymour's acquiescence to your 'boys,' there is nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING that suggests Foucault was a pedophile. Nothing in the Faux Roman (which I linked to above) nor in his numerous biographies (or biographical sketches) suggests he had sex with boys. It is appalling the amount of sleaze and rumour that gets ladled out here at times. Not that I have anything against sleaze and rumour in general, as I am broadminded. but I have to second in this case. The casual linkage of homosexuality with pedophilia, and the apparent assumption that boy children would enjoy sex with adults more than girl children, or that homosexuals exhibit more pedophilia than heterosexuals (I think the reverse is true) is surprising to find here. And icky.

I think that is the attitude of most of the regulars here, one reason it is rewarding to interact with them;

Try using the middle or bottom of your head, or if they don't work, just leave it out and write whatever comes on to your fingers. I have had to use this technique a lot since my head doesn't work weekends or holidays, and slacks off during the week too to be truthful.

My intent was not to say that Medusa herself was a whack job, merely to liken a certain confirmed whack job to her by reference to Medusa’s defining ability, her “super-power” if you will. I suppose GHS had better go into hiding, being now subject to pursuit by the various societies against defamation of nuts, crackpots, loons, cranks, cuckoos, ding-a-lings, screwballs, and dingbats. Nuts in particular, as nutritionists agree that they are a proper part of a healthy diet. Ninth Doctor, Your time is running out. As the legal representatives of loons, peaceful lakedwellers and legal tender, beloved of countrymen and slot machines alike, we demand an enhanced apology. Be advised that we are in talks to represent nuts, dingbats and certain ding-a-lings, and the forces ranged against you, already insurmountable, are soon to become even more insurmountable. MG Snowe LLB, QC Snowe & Snowe "When the allegations pile up, it's time for a Snowe job!" - A. Selene, grateful client