On Apr 17, 7:31*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/17/11 19:09 , Gary Forbis wrote:





On Apr 17, 4:30 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/17/11 13:54 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 8:52 am, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 4/17/11 09:29 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 6:13 am, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 23:44 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 22:37 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:26 pm, "D. Peter * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 20:08 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:03 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 15:43 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 10:55 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:55 am, Gary * * * * * * * *wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:29 am, Barack Hates * * * * * * * *wrote:

Obama and his band of liberal fools will dismiss this like they do
anything thats true

You realize it is a work of fiction don't you?

* * * * *and its a poor one at that. written by a drugged up sex maniac, that
worshiped serial killers. then ended up living on the socialist dole
its easy to start a cult in america, any demagogue can do it, look at
limpballs and beck. america has a lot of people will malformed brains,
lacking the gray matter necessary in the part of the brain that can
understand complex situations. so they flock to cranks, hoping for
some direction in life.

* * * * * And there you have it. No substance, only adhoms.

* * * * * No impact, here.

* * * * i cannot help what shape your brain is in, its a retardation, it
might be environmental, or genes, its hard to say. but its been quite
well reported what rand was. its just to complex for you to
understand.

snicker, i have always felt this was the case:
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the
brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative
brain is bigger in the section linked to fear:How Your Brain May Be
Different Than a Conservative's

* * * * *Try making an actual case, instead of simply making a personal
insult.

* * * *i did, and your response proves all of my points. none of what i said
were insults, it was all facts.

* * * * LOL!

* * * giggling is a sign you know

* * * *Giggling is a sign that you've done nothing but levelled personal
insults, and defended that as a rational argument.

* * * *Knowing that you're as empty as your handle is quite amusing.

* * * *Carry on.

* * *i posted lots of empirical evidence what rand was.

* * * All of it personal insults. What you do not do, is debate the
content, nor the ideas.

* * * You simply insult the person.

* * * The USENet equivalent of "So's your old man." You either have no
position of substance, or you're not willing to engage one for fear
of defeat in the arena of ideas.

In the case of Rand one has to debate philosophy becuase there
is no substance.

* * *Of course. Why am I not surprised. Deny the substance of the
argument, default to personal insult.

* * * Because there was no argument. Only a dismissal based on personalities.

* * * You've yet to address the substance of the work. You've only
dismissed the author.

What substance? *It's a work of fiction. *Tell me what substance you
see so we can discuss it.

* The work of fiction was written to

reenforce
the author's beliefs. *The beliefs themselves come from her life
experiences.
I have introduced her life experiences to explain her beliefs.

* *Which you have dismissed based on her upbringing.

It frames her beliefs. I haven't dismiss her philosophy based
upon her upbringing. I had used it to understand why she believes
what is obviously flawed philosophy. We can discuss the philosophy.
I've even suggested you start with it rather than a work of fiction
that
is used to support that philosophy.

Her upbringing
doesn't negate her writings. Nor does it negate her beliefs, nor the
validity of them. *If it did, you could dismiss every writing by anyone
who'd transcended their upbringing. Or anyone who hadn't. Or anyone
who'd ever written anything of fiction.

Part of understanding a work of fiction is understanding the author.

* *And yet, we revere Huxley for his vision, based on a work of fiction,
Orwell for his vision based on a work of fiction. Or any of a number of
writers throughout history who transcended their upbringing. Or writers
of fiction. Including Plato. *And Obama for his vision based on the
transcendence of his upbringing.

A philosophy isn't true or false based upon who believes it, but who
believes a philosophy is based upon their life's history. If a
philosophy
is false then its support by way of a work of fiction needs to be
understood
based upon the author's life. If you want a better author then
consider
Robert Anson Heinlein. You can still have similar themes but it's not
so bad. Wikipedia make the following statement:

Birth and childhoodHeinlein (pronounced Hine-line)[4][5] was
born on July 7, 1907, to Rex Ivar Heinlein (an accountant) and
Bam Lyle Heinlein, in Butler, Missouri. His childhood was spent
in Kansas City, Missouri.[6] The outlook and values of this time
and place (in his own words, "The Bible Belt") had a definite
influence on his fiction, especially his later works, as
experiences
from his childhood were heavily drawn upon both for setting and
for
cultural atmosphere in Time Enough for Love and To Sail Beyond
the Sunset, among others. However, he would later break with many
of its values and mores—especially those concerning morality as it
applies to issues such as religion and sexuality—both in his
writing
and in his personal life.

In general people will focus their energies on unresolved issues
because
they don't need to spend it on resolved issues. (Adage, "Why is it I
always
find things in the last place I look?")

* *Your dismissals are selective, and capricious based on what you do
and do not agree with, which you then attempt to validate by character
assassination.

Not so. The truth isn't character assassination. Further, since
you've
not tried to explain any of the "substance" you find and support it
you
don't present anything else to discuss. I like to understand why
people
hold false beliefs and poor philosophy. In this case her life's
situation
readily explains it. It doesn't make her beliefs false or philosophy
bad.

* *Your argument has no substance. Your dismissal is opinion. And though
your entitled to your opinion, you're also entitled to your asshole.

OK.

Neither of which do you have the right to inflict on anyone with a sense
of entitlement, without supporting fact.

What? Do others have this right, for instance Ayn Rand? Or you?

Or you may, and will, be
dismissed in your own right for your fictional writing. Even if it
transcends your upbringing.

You may dismiss what I write on any basis you want. Others will
judge for themselves.