Bob G

Thank you for your help. Actually, I only saved it once. I didn't get to edit it at all.

I just saved a message because I wanted to make sure I spelled the recipient's name correctly. So I go to open the saved message, the only message that I have worked on for over a week, and it informs me that: "You cannot send another PM until Oct 16 2009, 02:18 AM". I have sent no message!!! I can't even work on the save message. This is a bug? I hope that it just isn't stupid.

Wasn't the best word choice, admittedly. He does seem to have a overall theme: do what he wants you to do and suspend your judgment and use his, or a majority of Objectivists, or whomever he picks next. You could call that a program, possibly. But he does show a strong emotion connected with your decisions, both what they are and that you made them yourself.

That "other Objectivists" agree or disagree is irrelevant. This is not a democracy. His argument is an appeal to authority. He is again attempting to undercut your judgment. Why are you accepting these "arguments" from him or anybody? Further, he is scrambling to come up with as many "arguments" about your failings as he can. This is not about the girl. It is about you and your willingness to accept whatever he wants without argument, without your judgment. It is not good for you to accept his program as reasonable.

I am suggesting that over time, as isp contract would go through the normal legal process that contracts for new sevices go through, the terms and conditions will tend towards a fairness for both parties. These are new services, and the provider has given himself as much leeway as possible, which I am not criticizing. There is a difference between challenging an approach (which you interpreted as self-serving, incorrectly) and finding a chance to insult with impunity. Benevolence would lead a person to grant a benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Why begin with an insult? Why continuing insults? Apparently that is your modus operendi. Insult everyone you can, when ever possible, regardless of the context, what they have explicitly said, regardless of your lack of knowledge of that person. Further, there is nothing in my statements to support the claim that I want to violate anyone's rights. Rather, my concern, as stated and recognized by other posters is that I only wanted the service I for which I was paying. Others have pointed out that the contract I had did not, in fact, protect me. My misunderstanding.

In a free society, markets and contract law tend to move in tandem. A free society needs contract law. Free men need to know the rules They can have legitimate disagreements about those rules, courts settle the disagreements. A competitor can offer a better contract, certainly, but if you are in a contract, the court is your protection. David, do you generally indulge in grautitous insults?

Thank you for the reference. See above for comments.

Unfortunately, you selected something that benefits you. That doesn't present the principle. I will say this, in a rational legal context, we would address the courts about our concerns, so would the providers. Eventually, reasonable contracts would emerge. Today, we can expect regulators. In a way, I do not feel sorry for the isps since they do accept the situation and do not support freedom.

*** Mod's note: Merged with earlier thread. sN *** First, please understand that I am not advocating any form of government regulation or laws, except perhaps that of contracts. My problem is this. I am an end user. I choose what I wish to see on the internet, not my isp or the sites at the other end. I do. In this sense, the isp is passive. It passes my request for the site and the site's response back. What the isp uses is its private property, but this is the business it has chosen to be in. Nowhere in the contract that I have seen has the isp declared that it reserves the right to unilaterally do anything to the traffic I initiate. No where does it say that it can choose to treat me differently than any other customer. How then can it legitimately do otherwise. I am opposed to the attempts to socialize the web. I do believe that the isps who take it upon themselves to treat some of their customers as second class should not do so. This may mean different kinds of contracts, etc. Ray Niles says that treating their customers differently is good business sense. I disagree. Comcast may have violated its contrct with its end user. I think that not addressing this point in their writings, those fighting the attempt to socialize the web are confusing at least some people.

Phibieakappa has some excellent points, to which let me add An important point is always the knowledge context, in the broadest sense. You cannot evaluate someone negatively for not being an egoist or rationally moral before rational morality existed, i.e., before Ayn Rand discovered it. Altruism was the only morality. Somethings are clear indications of evil, simply because they show an explicit rejection of the value of life, e.g., power for the sake of power, slaughters, and, generally, murder (context may count). What many people regard as greatness is not rational, and thus not moral. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the benefit the world has received from the actions of some ambitious men of very questionable morality, e.g., Alexander the Great. Wars of conquest are not good (was Persia really a threat?). Yet, spreading Greek civilization was a good thing.

Some things about your brother's actions make me concerned. He wants you to substitute his judgement for yours. When you won't, he calls you names, belittles you, and tries to make you doubt yourself. None of these actions are appropriate. He is giving commands, not even in a polite manner. He claims that you don't know the girl. Okay, but an Objectivist recognizes the context of knowledge and, if anything, attempts to help fill it in. You don't get mad at anyone because they don't know something, especially if they are honest about it. His actions toward you are entirely emotional. His statements aimed at hurting you and disparaging you. He is unwilling to talk to anyone. He appears afraid to sit down and calmly discuss what is dividing people who are very important to him. No doubt he is feeling betrayed. Quite possibly he is also feeling a loss from ending the relationship. Unfortunately, he is taking it out on his loved ones. Maybe he will cool down. Your discussions in the future need to be about the way he has acted, not about the girl. She is past. I disagree about the suggestion that you chose the girl over your brother. He began by giving commands and making accusations. Maybe you didn't figure out then that you were reacting to him, but you were. If he hadn't gotten mad. If he had talked to you as if you had a brain and wanted to act rationally, then things would be different. But he acted immediately on his emotions, and has refused to stop doing so. Advise is generally not good. Even so, you might consider stopping the discussion about the girl, saying that she is gone, and focus on wanting to talk about the relationship between you. This is an example of the fact that just reading something is just the first step. Integrating the material into your life is next, and often difficult.

I had the opportunity to be part of a conversation with the person who set up the Beck appearances for Yaron Brook. The point was that the Beck program is an opinion program on a news channel. It was understood that Beck would know that Yaron would speak his mind and represent Objectivism and ARI. This is not the 700 Club, but a show on a major cable network. There is no reason to think that appearing on the show implies any endorsement of the positions of any other person who appears on that show, including the host. The only recognition that appearing on a show implies is that the guest expects that there will be viewers. I expect that Yaron doesn’t actually care if Beck agrees with him or even likes him. Yaron just wants the opportunity to present his ideas. If he had several different options, Beck might not be the first choice, but I expect that the criteria would include the size of the audience, not their acceptance of him. Just what show could he go today that isn’t dominated by crazy religious or crazy Obama people or maybe people too afraid to express their distain for both?

Evelyn Beatrice Longman is a favorite of Lee Sandstead. He was writing a book on her and has done a lot of research. He has gathered a lot of photographs of her work, and especially this one, see http://www.sandstead.com/images/genius_of_..._communication/. Lee had a great series on the Travel Channel called Art Attack. Apparently, they haven't renewed it. He is traveling the country giving lectures. Look at his schedule.

QuoVadis, I am happy that you responded to this thread. I appreciate your input. First, I am not a chef. It is interesting that this is an issue in your profession. I understand your annoyance with the pretentious and those who aren’t willing to work for their fame. But, let’s admit that there is a lot of pretension in cooking as in every other area of endeavor. Let’s admit that true creativity in cooking is rare as it is in every other profession. Let’s admit that there are lots of young people who want fame without doing anything to deserve it. Let’s admit that there are a lot of good cooks, of the same level as picture painters, or others who make stuff for us to put on our walls, but are not artists. Let’s ignore all of that and talk about real values, real creativity, the real. Let’s consider that a cook can understand his craft, his tools, his “substance”, i.e., the material he works on, to attain a level of creativity that is an art, or maybe, artistic. I do not agree that time is an issue. Besides, I know people who remember their best meals. I remember some. Many crafts are considered artistic. Cooks are not digging ditches. I think that there are artistic elements to many professions, for example, a furniture maker, a jewelry maker, a perfumer, and many others. My focus would be the creative end of the profession. The innovators, the edgey cooks, the ones pushing the “envelope”. I am thinking of the experiences of eating where one takes a mouthful, stops, leans back and experiences the wonder of living. There can be an experience of greatness in taste. “Recreation” is an interesting issue. No, it is not a recreation of reality, it is actually working with reality to create some thing for us to taste, something different than the cook started with. How is music a recreation? It is using the medium, as is perfumery or cooking. This is of the medium. Bottom line for me right now, I am not ready to claim that the sense of taste has the requisite makeup to have an art. If it did, cooking could, in certain circumstances, rise to the level of art.

Artistic expression is linked to a sense. The visual arts, the crafts like furniture design that can be artistic, and music comes by hearing. These two senses, sight and hearing, are considered the dominate ones for man. What about the other senses, could we consider certain things we smell, taste, or touch artistic? We know, for example, that smell can elicit strong memories or emotions. Sexual attraction is supposedly conveyed through certain chemicals emitted by our bodies. My reason for this a thought that the creations of a master chef, playing on our taste buds and our sense of smell, might raise to an “art form”. I put that in quotation marks because art, the real thing, must address our values in some significant method, even though we might not understand it now, e.g., music. I am not going to suggest that a dinner that might be called “artistic” reaches our core values. I am suggesting that the creation of a food dish can have artistic elements, art for the taste buds and the nose. Overblown? Appropriate for some circumstances? Recognition for a branch of human achievement that is often overlooked? Anyone…. Remember that composers were considered at the level of stable hands in the 18th century. During the Renaissance, painters were considered tradesmen because they worked with their hands.

Krattle, Your post was excellent, well, personally, I don't understand anyone liking Shostakovich, but that is personal, and who cares about "my understanding"! But, I do disagree with your first sentence. I am very interested in suggestions. I think that is the best way to find new music. Just naming a composer is of limited helpful. Many composers have hundreds of works and starting cold makes it very difficult to pick a composition. As long as one understands that a suggestion is merely a statement of personal preference, not a command, or expectation, or anything other than a personal preference, it is a help. Although I have lots of music, I always want to find composers I don't know. (I want all kinds of suggestions, like, I have run out of sci-fi and mystery authors.) Allow me to vent on one of my favorite subjects? Just think what it was like in the 19th Century, when there were great composers presenting new music throughout the year! There were new music inventions, new approaches that were melodic, new creations. With our present day ability to distribute music, we could have a level of enjoyment that we can only imagine. We live in such value deprivation.

What I find very interesting in this extended discussion is that every piece, except for Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, is instrumental. I love instrumental music, and much (but not all) of the music all of you have mentioned. But, I find that the human voice is the most powerful musical instrument, powerful in the sense of moving my emotions. I didn’t start out that way, I mean for over 10 years after I learned to enjoy classical music I disliked vocal music. Then I offered, i.e., leased, the Blumenthal music course and heard his examples of vocal music, and I became hooked. If you want to listen to some of the greatest music written, in terms of melody, creativity, drama, and sheer power, listen to Verdi and Puccini. They are the best, but there are many others. No one has mentioned chamber or piano music either. If you like Grieg, listen to the “Lyric Pieces”. Rachmaninoff’s solo piano music is marvelous (the 2nd Symphony is a must, too!). Fellow music lovers, there are literally thousands of pieces of music you have yet to enjoy. I have gotten all of my music onto my computer (including my 1500+ LPs - I am an older guy) and have something like 4 months or more of 24/7 music. Most of it is good. Go for it!

This is fun. I started off thinking that the posters who chose a song from the last couple of decades were missing a lot (I’m an old guy). Then I thought of my mother’s reaction to Elvis singing “Blue Moon”. So, I am willing to go listen to the recent songs. You know what would be fun. Let’s all get together and play our songs for each other! Myself, I have probably a couple hundred favorite love songs from opera, foreign language songs (none of which I speak), tin pan alley, to 50’s and 60’s rock and pop, down to and including “To Know Him is To Love Him”! But, I suppose if I had to choose one, that I always love to hear, it would be “The Girl From Ipanema”. The original song by the Gilbertos with Stan Getz. Aside from its wonderful melody, the texture of the voices and their incredible phrasing in this rendition makes it a marvel (in spite of all the elevators you have ever ridden in!).

I am not a musician, just a listener, a long time listener. In the past I have talked with one or two professional musicians who were performing “modern” music, and I was surprised and intrigued with their attitude toward that music. They considered the music a technical challenge. It was a thrill to them to be able to play it properly, hit their marks, you might say. There is nothing wrong in principle with music that is technically challenging for the professional. Classical music, say 19thC, has many parts of concertos for example, that are there just to challenge the performer. But that is not the purpose of music. Remember, Ayn Rand talked about the question of how the sounds, etc., of music reach our ideas, our values, and then our feeling. It is the emotions that music must reach. Being able to listen, follow, or figure out a piece may have some intellectual pleasure, but once you have that language integrated, the music then has to “move” you. You have to feel the music. Much of 20thC music leaves me angry because I feel defrauded, or depressed, an emotion that the 20thC seems to relish. Samm, I am impressed with your plan for a piece moving from the atonal to a victorious melodic conclusion. I am not sure that I want to hear the beginning. But I greatly admire your thought, and hope that your future brings many melodic triumphs.

Chops, it might have helped if you had mentioned some composers you liked and disliked. The range of people that have been mentioned encompasses a range of styles. Several composers mentioned are, in my judgment (which is unknown to everyone), far wide of “romantic”. I love Brahms and Chopin, but can’t stand Hovhaness, or Durutle, or even Mahler, for that matter. I have found only one Samuel Barber piece that I consider “romantic”, and it is ultimately depressing. I have an addition to the list. This composer is very mixed. He wrote several symphonies that are trash. Later in life, he heard one of his own symphonies and is quoted as saying, “If that is modern music, I don’t like it.” Unfortunately, he wrote only a couple pieces that will move many romantics. His name: Ralph Vaughan Williams. He died in 1958. I especially recommend the “Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis” (1909). Also listen to “The Lark Ascending” (1914). You will find melody and drama and triumph.