Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

d'Anconia

Regulars
  • Content count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About d'Anconia

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. Keeping Romance Simple

    But if you don't understand the damn question, how the hell can you know that it doesn't interest you?
  2. Michel Thomas

    Wow, for what it's worth, I ate up that post like it was just one paragraph. A lot of very interesting and helpful information! Thank you very much!
  3. Michel Thomas

    There seems to be a certain language teacher who was associated with Michel Thomas going on "strike". Two infact! http://www.learnetarium.com/2011/05/boris-shekhtman-method-continued.html There also is a matter of sales. The courses, including mine, are finding a large audience. However, most of the people comprising this audience do not pay for the courses. They get them off of pirate sites that steal our work and enable anyone to download it gratis. The authors receive nothing in return. This is theft, pure and simple. You may justify it anyway you wish; it remains theft. I just Googled " Paul Noble+ bit torrent" and was not surprised to get over four million hits. Just imagine how many illegal downloads that represents. No one is immune to this phenomenon. I estimate that over 50% of my courses are illegally downloaded. The number for Michel Thomas's courses is even higher. Shocking as it may seem to those not active in this work, except for making a name for oneself, the authoring of anything which may be digitally copied is not too lucrative. The good old days when authors lived off of royalties in their dotage is long gone. The internet has changed all of that. I definitely do not recommend anyone else to follow in my footsteps in this matter if you hope to earn a living from such efforts. My future efforts at teaching will not be vulnerable to online piracy. I suggest others follow suit. My current teacher, Boris Shekhtman, requested my assistance in sharing his method. His work has demonstrated that students are able, with the correct support, to quickly achieve high level proficiency in foreign language communication. With all due respect to the Michel Thomas approach which I still consider the best way to learn the basics, the foundation, for any language, the method of Boris Shekhtman allows the student to quickly, comfortably and with excellent grammar and pronunciation communicate with native-speakers. Such communication is on a very high level which is rarely, if ever, attained in many years of professional study. This method has now very much influenced the way I teach languages. However, in view of the rampant piracy that has infected the web I told him that I believe that issuing CDs or other courses that may be digitally pirated would be a mistake. He saw the logic of this and decided to continue with in-person teaching and carefully controlled sharing of our work. The work will be only shared with people who will respect the efforts of those who have developed it over the past 40 years. It will not be available for pirating of any sort. Mr. Thomas told me many times in the 1990's that he was afraid that if he allowed his courses to be openly sold on cassettes ( now CDs and downloads) that his work would be stolen. In my enthusiasm I spent two years planting the seeds that resulted in the present courses. In retrospect, I now realize that his fears have been realized. I shall not make that mistake again with the work of Boris Shekhtman There is also a parasite of a public school teacher bullshiting in the comment section.
  4. Jackie Evancho - Someone An Objectivist Can Admire.

    EDIT: Actually never mind... that post made little sense.
  5. What are you listening at the moment?

    I'll help! I just find this type of "heavenly" music very beautiful.
  6. But the nihilist assumes here that just because the universe is "super super large" it means that it's more "important", in some vague sense removed from humanity. I think a single computer chip is grander than the whole universe because it was created by thinking minds and not mere chance. I don't see anything of importance in moving a mountain, even if it might look grand.
  7. Liberal has issues with Objectivism

    I don't understand this... why not allow this debate to continue. All you've done is given this guy an excuse not to continue and answer the arguments put forth and an excuse for himself to continue holding false ideas while pretending to himself that he just wasn't allowed to continue. Other liberals&co. viewing this thread also have the same excuse.
  8. Sadly it seems to me that many of them actually relish in this belief, but you are right, some of them are definitely genuinely depressed. But I don't really see how they come from a lack of a given purpose to "meaninglessness". I don't see why a self invented purpose would be inferior to one given by a deity.
  9. I hope this is the right section of the forum to post this. I keep running in to people saying that human life doesn't matter in the so called "grand scheme o things". I never really got where this argument came from. It presupposes that there is an actual attribute of "mattering" that exists like mass does. But as I see it, mattering is an evaluation and not an attribute, i.e. it has to matter to someone, otherwise it's a floating abstraction. So denying the mattering of the only entity with the concept of mattering is faulty since one must deny the source of the concept. As an aside: one person used this false logic to say that since our lives are meaningless we should be utilitarian and help the most people possible... but I don't see how this follows since 1000*0=1*0. You might as what is the point of this thread. I'm looking for corrections and additional arguments for this point - or against as I think it's an important issue.
  10. AYN RAND MARILYN MONROE

    Well... whoever says that Ayn Rand was heartless and cruel should be shown this article.
  11. DonAthos: Totally that! I agree with your post completely. That's the exact compliment policy I was thinking about and I agree that love interests should not be treated as some sort of archetype that you need some sort of strategy for.
  12. But I wouldn't want someone like that... It would be too bad if I liked the person and they turned out that way, but alas. If I am wrong and there is no malevolence of cowardice in it I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, but I think that in a lot of cases there is at least one of the two present. It was obvious to both of them and they knew it. I'm not saying you should constantly be complimenting someone. Just that the reason for not complimenting shouldn't be fear. It was obvious to both of them and they knew it. I'm not saying you should constantly be complimenting someone; just that the reason for not complimenting shouldn't be fear. A bit coarse, but I think I agree, at least if we agree on the meaning of "looser tendencies”. What do you think constitutes them?
  13. I have a feeling you people have misunderstood me a little. I'm not saying one has to pour out ones soul to a person on the third date, leave flowers at their doorsteps every night and sing baladas under their window with a French accent. I think that's not needed anyway, since, if the love is mutual, it will become self-evident over time. And I have nothing against playful "coquetry", I think it's very sweet actually since there's nothing dishonest about it. What I'm against are the games that are motive by fear of the other person losing interest in you just because you don't "keep them guessing". Going on about taking a relationship seriously is a bit redundant anyway... it doesn't really need to be said I don't think. Complimenting with the intention of getting someone to like you more is dishonest, and I'm not defending that at all. But if one has a genuine compliment to give that's not just out of the blue in the situation shouldn't be held back because you think that the other person might get to confterable with you. The part about constantly keeping the other person on the edge and purpesfully making them unsure is what I detest.
  14. Oh, I wasn't sure if you were addressing me with the you's, It seemed unlikely, but I wasn't sure. Yes, identifying the games to the other person is probably the best thing to do; it either saves you from a person that wasn't worth your while anyway, or reassures them that they don't have to play such games if they were perchance convinced by other people that it's necessary for keeping someone’s interest. I think that a lot of the times it might be that they were misguided by the overwhelming hordes of people telling them they will lose the other person if they show their affection too honestly. This article is an example of a “love game advocate”: http://www.sunday-guardian.com/young-restless/games-people-play-cruel-but-what-is-love-without-them She asserts that “deep inside” we all like these games and proceeds to give horrid advice on that basis.
  15. Well I'm not really saying people should know you inside out from the beginning, and I'm not suggesting using honesty as some kind of a manipulative tool, if that's even possible. I'm not sure if you very implying that that's what I was saying. I'm just bothered by people who are interested in someone seriously and feel the need to play "hard to get" to show their supposed strength. I don't see anything strong about suppressing your feeling for someone and putting them, whom you supposedly value, through cruel games. It just seems extremely monstrous to me.
×