caroljane

[quote name='Selene' timestamp='1296584556' post='1231 Atlas Shrugged at CPAC Shocked and appalled! I knew our prime minister never moved far from his libertarian roots, but this is beyond the pale. When I turn on CPAC I want to see subcommittee hearings and meaningless rhetoric, not Dagny Taggart prancing around in bustiers. I am contacting my MP, Jack Layton, and expect questions to be asked in Parliament.

Another sample of intellectual contortionist thought from GHS. Anarchy is a clear enough concept for non-contortionists to grasp. I don't give a shit what intellectually dishonest libertarian anarchist contortionists like GHS have said, anarchism means no government, of any kind, period. GHS's "anarchism" is just a weaselly way of backpedaling toward something sensible without actually arriving. Check your premises, you intellectual hack. Shayne There is a lesson for you to learn here Jackie. l'enfer, c'est les autres et l'etat, c'est moi

Behind every Objectivist MAN there is an objectionist WOMAN pushing and encouraging him on to bigger and longer lasting accomplishments! Sometimes the man gets behind the woman! Some men find that encouraging too! Women? They just enjoy it. Men? They've got this enslaving idea they have to be productive. They really get screwed when she ends up on topic! That's a sight for any him to behold if he's got a mirror on the ceiling. Anyway, that's why there aren't so many Objectivist women. They're too busy with Objectivist men. --Brant Mr. Gaede, If this is your coy circumlocutious way of indicating you are indeed the billionaire in our midst, I renew my offers of long walks on beach and epistemological mud wrestling. If not, and if you are the username "Generic Viagra" on another site, who complained about the lack of pictures accompanying the Popperian analyses,I suggest you try the brand names. all--all night--all night long!

I know this is a serious thread, Adam, but I was "not resisting" your comment that your father took you to mosques over 900 years ago. Once a proofreader, always a proofreader.

He's not the first. In 1979 Bobby Orr, believed by many to be the greatest player in the history of hockey, retired due to a hopelessly ruined knee. Three years earlier he had signed a then-record, $3-million guaranteed five -year contract with the Black Hawks. He played only 26 games for Chicago. Believing that he should not be paid for not playing, he never cashed one cheque.

Wow, guess you see a lot of changes in the old neighbourhood these days, eh? Couldn't resist.

If I equated a philosopher's being dead with "uselessness", I would have to throw most works of philosophy in my home out the window. Nor am I in any woodworks; I have always been standing out in the open here. You construct an unnecessary opposition here. For discussing relationhships seriously is independent of one's philosophical position. All that counts is one's commitment to the topic. I'm very interested in the topic of "mixed" philosophical positions in a relationship because I have lived in such a "mixed" marriage for many years now and have always found it to be enriching and inspiring. I'm no advocate of ideological inbreeding, on the contrary, the mutual influence can create a dynamic which helps each partner evolve, at least this is the experience I have made. Thanks X. I know of such relationships in real life and suspect that many if not most of our partnered correspondents here (mostly male) have knowledge of this subject. Let's face it, there are way fewer Over-40 objectivist women than men THOUGH I DO NOT HAVE THE DATA ON THAT.

Just want to say that I'd like to see these answers too, Adam. That's 2 Canadians asking you - don't make us call in the other one! We are Few but Feared! Sororraly, Carol

8(B) Yet false dichotomies and excluded middles make you think of Heidi Montag and Pamela Anderson. Somebody stop me.

Incredible. Your Trope trauma reminds me of the Mohammad-was-a-pedophile "discussions" of modern Islam which we see in more than one place. Michael is a foe of Bullying and Bigotry wherever he sees them, everyone is welcome here to fight his own good fight.

Michael, The page will be left up on the site. I just won't go back there. Assuming the haters don't swoop in and rape it to pieces (and there are some other Objectivists and Objectivist-sympathetics there), the summary's vitals should stay intact. Hopefully, at least.

Carol, What's to stop you? Fire away... 11. You sanction the immorality of self-mocking irony, by partaking in a poll such as this. T OK! 12. You don't quit your job when your boss refuses to adopt the identification of "Value Trader" instead of "Shift Manager".

ze 10. When attending parties, you don't use your cognitive resources to explain the productive achievement and lovability quotients of fellow guests. Don't get me started!

You forgot to mention my Respectability!

There is also a wonderful novel about them, "Greenlanders" by Jane Smiley. Her best I think.Sorry to interrupt, back to topic everybody!

Michael, That is really interesting. Still, I would think of it as enabling, facilitating or jump=starting the writing--not teaching it per se. I agree entirely that knowing what you want to write is always there. Even when you don't consciously know that you want to write about it.

"Maybe we should ask her..." Michael, you are right, my definition of portrayal is the mainstream one, based of the reader's participation in the story through the ways it is presented by the author. Some writers are tour guides. They describe the scene and the characters, then lead you through the story giving illuminating extra information and pointing out salient features, interpreting and clarifying when necessary. I think AR falls loosely into this group. As a screenwriter she visualised her scenes concretely, creating striking images that linger in the reader's mind (this was what I was thinking of when I said Atlas Shrugged would make a wonderful graphic novel or series of them). In her novels she portrays (gives the main scenes to) her lead actors, and those are the images that remain most strongly in the reader's mind. It's a truism that creative writing cannot be "taught" but only criticized, praised or edited into improvement. To me, judging a literary work is a very subjective, collective, individual, fun thing to do.

You know I knew this anyway. As I said before on another thread, you believe in free speech, and you walk the talk. Love, Sis

Michael, Wow. I'm speechless. Luckily I still have use of hands though. Now I'll think of you not only as Brother Mike but as Officer Atlas on 24/7 duty at every intersection. And this thread is in Humour--whatever goes on in Dark Places? I hope I never know. I think you and Kat need a nice, long vacation in the beautiful Maritime provinces of Canada with all your Stuart cousins except Eugene. The only intellectual conflict there occurs at the curling rink.

Ted, Does this mean anything? And are you sure it's 100% correct? Think about it. Michael I don't know about the 100%, but this means something about the topic and is on point. Literary portrayal is the demonstration of a theme through the actions of the characters. The Reardens and Taggarts had unhappy marriages which were shown and I remember them vividly. Ragnar and Kay were happy and the reader was told about it, which I had totally forgotten. It's fictional hearsay.

Bob, Really? He sure started with a steaming pile. Michael Michael, I only intrude on this thread because it seems here your reactions based on personal empirical experience seem to overwhelm your approach to an impersonal topic. This is because I saw somewhere (pls correct if wrong) that you worked in PR. I did that, well "Corporate Communications" for 15 years, beginning with working in a government office. You seem to react to spin and source first, and to facts second. I can understand that, but the facts remain, whatever the Rumplestiltskins do with them, and I for one am interested in finding them out insofar as is possible.

That girl better cover her ears when she goes shooting. I know from bitter experience. My hearing is 60 percent shot because when I was younger and stupider I used to go shooting without using sound deadening devices on my ears. Ten years down the road my hearing took a turn for the worse. Even with hearing aids I have a hard time hearing speech. Ba'al Chatzaf WELCOME BA'AL!! WHAT DO YOU THINK, OLDFIELD OR TEMPERLEY, LACE OR SATIN???

Not in this world, no. Plenty of Eddies do live moral, happy and fulfilled lives. But there was no place for him in Galt's Gulch, and Ayn Rand knew it. Her great philosophical and creative imagination was directed against the world she did not want to live in, filled with people she did not want to live with. She created the fictional heroes she needed, and sketched the things that would not happen in an ideal world. To ask her to build and populate that world with bricks and mortar, and flesh and blood, would be too much to ask of any human being, however brilliant, however correct.

Bitch, bitch, bitch. Tomcat, tomcat, tomcatat. I have been acquainted with many, Sir. Everyone knows who Rules!