Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Summer Seminar: Objectivism in Theory and Practice

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

How do you know he has oil connections? Are you psychic or did someone tell you. [Where’s the question mark?]But you know his connections, don't you. [isn’t this a question, also?]

Seriously, guy, Matt was making a simple example to illustrate why it is absurd to criticize Klein for not talking about his employer. It doesn't matter who does or does not have oil connections.

The honesty issue is important. The line "He always comes across as Professional, intelligent, and straightforward" just sound different coming from an employee.
Well, I called Kelley a "weasel," although it was in a somewhat non-serious fashion, and he defended Kelley's character because he knows Kelley personally. And this isn't even an instance of dishonesty. His name is all over the internet in association with TOC. He's not covering anything up.

Marx said that a mans [Possessive words require an apostrophe] thinking comes from his class, outside of his control. How does that fit here. [Where’s the question mark?] Klein is in control of himself, he's just paid by Kelley. Don't use terms you don't understand.

Christ, I know what Marxism entails. I hoped by the context of my post that all could see that I wasn't talking about class conflict or dialectical materialism or some other goofy Marxist theory. I was talking about a type of argument Marxists make very frequently. I have argued with so many Marxists I can't even count anymore, and literally all of them make that kind of argument. Against Bush, against Objectivists, it makes no difference.

Is your use of "also" an example of good English? I've never seen "a)" used by itself before.
Sorry, but apparently a "b" followed by a ")" makes some kind of smiley face, hence the random out of place smiley face in my post. So yes, also was appropriate there. The issue was my computer skills, not my mastery of the English language.

"Besides(why is this word here?), he didn't even make a full argument,"

Are you his mother? What ever I think of Klein its [“It is” is contracted into “it’s”] not that he can't argue his case.

The line of attack in your last sentence contradicts the argument of your first sentence.

Are you still upset about your Feb. 20th meltdown????

"Besides," in this sentence means "WGD's inane comments aside..." And no, there is no contradiction, because in the first part of my post, I was addressing your comments. The second part of my post added to the first by pointing out that responding to him was pointless, unless the goal was to dispute his facts, as his post was primarily factual.

Oh... What was the meltdown that I am upset about?

I am becoming increasingly suspicious that WGD's posts are actually jokes, designed to make the other posters here look bad, so this is my last. For the record, I am a full supporter of ARI, and I think WGD's comments do nothing but make those of us who support the Institute look bad. WGD, post whatever drivel you think is necessary, I will not respond.

P.S. Since you criticized my use of “also” and “besides,” and because I can be a stickler for grammar and punctuation sometimes, I took the liberty of pointing out a few of the more obvious simple errors you made. This, by the way, is one of the reasons I think you playing jokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shawn identifies himself as an employee at the bottom of the ad

([email protected]). Then Shawn gave his "facts" for his argument in the April post.

I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem when someone gives his opinion but covers up his interest.

If in a movie ad a review says "two thumbs up," that's a good review. But if the

review is from the vp of the studio, that changes everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Dude" this has been an argument about a non issue. I hope your arguments on

important issues are not as lame.

But for someone who has "argued with so many marxists I can't even count

anymore" you sure curled up in a fetal position quickly.

But at least you fought, Matt folded so fast, I don't know how he thinks he'll make

it as a philosophy professor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Dude" this has been an argument about a non issue. I hope your arguments on important issues are not as lame.

But for someone who has "argued with so many marxists I can't even count

anymore" you sure curled up in a fetal position quickly.

But at least you fought, Matt folded so fast, I don't know how he thinks he'll make

it as a philosophy professor.

WGD--are you aware that you've just made three completely unnecessary Ad Hominem attacks in one post? And offered nothing of value in the post in terms of a valid argument? Frankly, I'm reporting it--this is just uncivil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran into this Klein guy today. I am on the “send me updates” list at the Atlas Society Website, yes I knew it was produced by the TOC but the links there are quite valuable so I went there anyway. Along with sending me the requested updates they began to send me TOC updates, when I emailed them asking that they stop sending me these things Klein, the site manager there, told me, right after he said he was sorry that I do not support the TOC and find them to be appalling, that as long as I was on the Atlas Society update list I would continue to receive TOC propaganda. I then emailed him back this morning telling him to remove me from every list they have me on and to never contact me again and that I will not be visiting the Atlas Society in the future.

I am telling you all this for two reasons. One, to warn you not to get on the mailing list at the Atlas Society, I would recommend that you do not visit their site at all and two, because it discredits Klein, he felt sorry that I support ARI (i.e. the choices that I have made, (i.e. for who I am)).

I would also like to add that while I find some of WGD’s posts to be a little extreme at times, his judging of Klein’s character seams quite correct. Also, after the posts that Klein made I find that knowing he works for Kelly discredits him quite severely, not because it is his job to support Kelly by posting these comments around the internet but because anyone who avidly supports that man has something wrong with them. I think we are all aware of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to apologize to David for having a flame war on his excellent site.

Also Matt and Mike, I don't know you and you don't know me. I'm used to sparing

with people I know. I though this site was like a Dojo, where you fight to develop your skills and have fun. After words like weasel were used, I thought it was approprate for "wars."

No apology for anything I said about Klein or Kelley. They wish to destroy

Objectivism and rip people off.

Apprentice "...I'm reporting it..."

What? Are you six years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not change the actual quality of the movie, or in this case the quality of the event. Do you think that A isn't A if someone with a vested interest identifies it as A?

I agree with WGD in his evaluation of Kelly and Klein. I also agree with him that information about someone being paid can be relevant. No, it doesn't change the actual quality of a movie of the positive review comes from the V.P. of the studio--but it may give one valid reason to doubt the objectivity of that review.

On the other hand, I am not convinced that that information was needed in this case. Even if it was slightly relevant, it was certainly not the strongest argument possible for the same conclusion. And I agree with many of the other members that some of WGD's statements have been, and continue to be (up through "What? Are you six years old." even after he apologized for his previous flaming), ad hominem in nature. He has been warned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with WGD in his evaluation of Kelly and Klein.  I also agree with him that information about someone being paid can be relevant.  No, it doesn't change the actual quality of a movie of the positive review comes from the V.P. of the studio--but it may give one valid reason to doubt the objectivity of that review.warned.

AshRyan--This is why I have no problem with Joerj11's assessment of the situation. He stated the logic behind such a claim and did it in a constructive manner. WGD did not--he chose to spend his time, instead, insulting members of this forum.

WGD--I was merely giving you the courtesy of the knowledge that you were reported, by whom, and a basis for understanding why. I thought I should take responsibility for my action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, I'm sure he just emails both the TOC updates and the Atlasphere updates out through a single list. (If he's sending the emails individually, he'd better be getting paid a LOT of money.) If you're concerned to keep up with the Atlasphere, why not just bookmark the page and ask to be removed from his lists altogether?

If he refuses that, he's just being a dick, and you should block his email address.

EDIT: oops, I didn't notice that you'd already asked to be removed from the list. Well, like I said -- just block his email address and you won't have to worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have blocked his email, well two of them now. I don't know if this is intentional, but he has used two separate addresses to send me this info. It may be just part of the system that they use, but like you said I’m sure they all use the same list, which means he has refused to remove me from the lists that I asked to be removed from.

Added: He sent me another email asking me to direct my request to be removed to another email located on the same site. Hmmm. I’m sure that makes all the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally, I do not respond to ad hominem attacks--what's the point? However, I thought it important to make clear that I have never hid or in any way denied the fact that I work for The Objectivist Center. In fact, I thought it so obvious from the initial post, that there was no reason to mention it. And of course, as a few posters have mentioned--it is irrelevant to the misuse and context dropping quotes used to unfairly attack Kelley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sklein,

I did not know that you worked for TOC just from your first post, and I do not find it to be "obvious" from that post now that I know you work for them. You do show that you have an Emil from their organization but you could just be a supporter of them, another reason one may post what you did. I think your excuse is pretty lame and of the guilty fashion, otherwise you would not have responded to this “ad hominem attack” like you “normally” don’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...