Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Axiomatic

Regulars
  • Content Count

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Axiomatic last won the day on January 16 2011

Axiomatic had the most liked content!

7 Followers

About Axiomatic

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

2431 profile views
  1. Great post. This is a good question I would like answered also.
  2. Yup, I have since come to the same conclusion after going through their website a bit more thoroughly.
  3. I would like to again nominate Dwayne for the position of another moderator position due to his consistent rationality, skill in dissolving disputes and his time-zone relation to knast.
  4. Thats obvious and resonable Does that mean that the moderator must 'switch modes' between being informal and acting in the professional capacity , or do you mean that he just must act formal all of the time? This is certainly reasonable Thats pretty ambiguous. So a moderator can use his position against people arbitrarily for his own personal disagreements or not? Would it not be more prudent to lay down precisely what general instances a moderator may exercise their powers. For example, if someone persistently attacks O'ism or prominent O'ists or indeed other users with ad homenin attacks that add no value to rational discussion, can that be an instance where a moderator can use his powers or not? Thats also pretty vague, but I get your general point. I hope you mean in this instance that in by 'as moderator' you mean when exercising powers of moderation and that one does not need to be uptight and 'professional' in every instance of discussion in chat. That would make the position of moderator of chat very undesirable indeed.
  5. Consensus is not proof of anything. If everyone you knew agreed that the world was flat in the face of evidence to the contrary, would you consider that the truth?
  6. Yup, I second this motion! Dwayne for mod please!
  7. ^^^^This The mans love of Astronomy got me interested in it. Its such an important science too!
  8. I completely agree Fahrenheit was much more poignant than 1984 or BNW. While 1984 and BNW both focused on the malevolent aspect and methods of state control, Fahrenheit 451 was set in such a future but focused more on the cultural vacuum left over from citizens outright rejection of the intellect, with malevolent state control portrayed accurately as the end result fitting of such a vacuum.
  9. Wow, this guy worked in 'military intelligence'. I thought this was a joke at first but no this is for real. He has a degree in political science!? This has got to be a plant or a mistake of some description, otherwise this might indeed be a snapshot view of the kind of candidates America can expect in the future. Reminds me of that movie 'Idiocracy'.
  10. I stumbled across this website not so long ago and have recently read an article about the work. Was wondering if any scientists on this board would care to comment on this apparently new way to produce energy from hydrogen. I'm pretty sure it has met with a lot of derision so far, but I don't know enough about this to comment. http://www.blacklightpower.com/ Article I read: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6bcdajsb
×
×
  • Create New...