NIJamesHughes

Actually, if you want to check for yourself they all three say : "edited by" meaning "someone changed this post," AND "NIJamesHughes" So I did in fact point out that I "changed the post," and that "I" changed the post. So it is just about deleting three posts.

such treatment??? I deleted 3 posts! I didn't call him names insult his mother or call him a communist, i just deleted three posts.

actually that is almost word for word what the last post said. besides that i address's betsy's post, and i don't really care if you think it was innocently, I just applyed the rules as they were written.

"implementation of the rules" is the key phrase in that paragraph. Your right the "evidence" has been destroyed; what I didn't realize is what a big deal was going to be made out of deleting a post that said something to the effect of-- how dare you exclude me from anything (not a quote by the way)

actually if you read #2 you would have noticed that i granted you the fact that you thought enforcing the rules was irresponsible, and thus conceded to you your premise and its conclusion (that the forum is valueless). Nice try though. On a further note, this will be the last time I haggle with anyone on anything of this nature so please, don't waste your time.

I did not replace SS's words with my own. I replaced them with the rule that provided for its deletion, as has been done by many moderators, many times. That being said, I covered both parts of your objection; 1) I didn't replace his words with my own and; 2) I did give the reason for the correction, by way of copying the rule that applied.

First of all, all I did was delete 3 worthless posts. Secondly, if you think that enforcing the rules is irresponsible, I'll give you that one. Third, If you want to bring my age into the (non)issue, I'll just go ahead and dismiss your irrationality out of hand. Fourth, If anyone else has a problem, why not PM me, rather than gossip and speculate? And lastly, if that is all the value the forum gives to you, no one should be bothered to see you go.

Mr. Speicher's post's that were deleted were in violation of the forum rules, specifically the rules that I replaced the post with.

Do you have any idea what "psychological immorality" Miss Rand is refering to here? The text does not provide an explaination.

I think that the movies value and apeal can be summed up by one of the opening lines from Napoleon. When he was asked by a student about what he was going to do that day he replyed with a militant "Whatever I feel like, God!" That statement is supported by nearly every modern philosophy, and that would be the base of its widespread appeal. I think of the movie and its success as a cultural barometer.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/...reut/index.html Our passive-aggressive war with Iraq and on terrorism in general has emboldened our enemy.

It is an insult if you commented without visiting the site. If you visited the site then it does not apply to you.

I really appreciate you taking some time to reply to this post, so, thank you. 1) Not really, but I remember seeing that title on a CD. 2) I don't drink often, but that night we were partying and it was fun, I enjoyed it. I know its not right to do a lot, and I don't. 3) I really wasn't thinking about anything when I hooked up with her except, wow she's very cool and she wants to make-out.... like I said I don't remember how it started, but i know i didn't mind because I think she is a cool girl. a) the girlfriend in question was one of 2 years, and repeated "i will change" phases. I know that shouldn't have matter but i believed her i guess. ok c) and ok. 4) This is probably the worse part, especially since I liked her before we were drunk, and still like her now. I did want out of the old relationship, but i think the problem i that i was trying to have it both ways.. kinda have angirlfriend and not have a girlfriend at the same time. and now that i think about it that is exactly what i was doing because i remember thinking to myself "i'll keep going out with her, and just work all the time and come home and sleep and hangout with friends when she is gone," so that is the piece of advice i appreciate the most. All in all that is a very good assessment from a one page post! I hope i have taken the appropriate steps to correct it. I have broken up with the old girlfriend, now i just have to fix everything with the other girl...

I emailed Irwin Shiff the followig and am waiting for a reply: I emailed earlier in regard to Irvin Schiffs books, but i have some reservations. Actually I have a proposition: I will buy Irvan's books and do everything he says regarding zero income tax filing, IF he will state in writing that he will cover the cost of any fines that i may incur and the taxes i did not pay. If what he says is true, i don't think he will have a problem agreeing to this. Thank you James Hughes

I think just about everyone has read my rough draft on romantic relationships and thus can tell that socially, i don't have a clue. So basically I'm just asking for adive/ the opinions of the people here, because i respect you. Here is the story on my journal, please tell me what you think. http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_shrugged/

Right, but the point is that non-competitive nature of marriage "till death do us part for better or worse even if you chop my face off" causes stagnation which leads to divorce. It is not just coincidence that 50-60% of all marriage ends in divorce.

The two classes you are analogizing are incommensurate. I have accurately demonstrated that the concept of competition applies to each. Thus they are not incommensurate.

True marriage doesn't remove competition from relationships anymore than gov. regulation removes it from business (think of speculators). But tha is what is designed to do.

Care to validate your claim?

When a business has no competitor’s because of government action it because a monopoly. Several things happen when this occurs. Service and quality go down. Prices go up. This is because a monopoly does not have to try to gain new customer’s or keep the ones it has; they are guaranteed patronage since no competition exists to take their business. A monopoly has no values. Competition prohibits the establishment of a monopoly. When businesses compete with one another for customers prices go down, quality and service goes up – the business values their customers. It seeks to gain or keep them by appealing to their needs. Under the pressure of competition business’s seek to do as much for their customers not as little as they can get away with. The results are the same when you apply the principle of competition to another field, relationships. If a relationship is closed (by marriage or unconditional exclusivity) there is no competition and thus there is no pressure to provide value. Thus the same effects of an economic monopoly set in to a romantic monopoly. When a partner thinks the other is “committed” they will not do what would otherwise be required in a competitive situation. New partners will go to great lengths to be appealing to their prospect, knowing that if they can not satisfy his or her needs and wants (that is be of value) a competitor will. The point at which the relationship becomes closed (though marriage or other agreement’s) both partners will exert less effort to be of value to the other, knowing explicitly or implicitly that they have “cornered the market,” the same way workers under a guarantee pay system independent of their performance will always be less productive. In a free market the most attractive individual, withing the context of a particular prospects values will win out, that is they will successfully enter into a romantic relationship. In this case all competitors strive to be and do their best, as defined by their partners values, in order to earn their business. In a romantic monopoly, however, the partners will do as little as the other will let them get away with, which leads to mutual dissatisfaction and eventual separation. The solution to the monopoly problem in economics is deregulation, to open the market to competition. And thus giving value back to the customers. Once again the best business and their customers benefit from the pressure of competition because of higher profit, lower prices, and better quality and services. In the same way a when relationships are open to competition all parties profit, with both doing as much as possible to them to be of value to the other. They constantly seek to make the other happy, resolve conflicts as quickly and painlessly as possible. Marriage then is not the solution to the happiness of couples, rather it is the pressure of losing a value.

I think that this is essential to a totalitarian state: "a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute...control over all aspects of life"

http://paynoincometax.com/ This site details why the income tax system is a fraud, and how you legally don't have to pay income tax, because no law provides for it. The author has a bet going with anyone. He will give $50,000 to the person that can find a law requiring anyone to pay income tax. Be sure to read the testimonials.

The part that I like is the arguement against all marriage as a legal institution, but i think he misses the point. He says that "hetero-marriage" should be regulated, because of whatever. I think this is wrong, and that marriage should not be legally recognized. We have conventional contractual agreements to settle partnership concerns.

dictionary.com to·tal·i·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t-tl-târ-n) adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: and specifically 2: of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life; Look over the list again and see if they missed anything

Right, we have those, too. WhatI meant with the list of agencies is what in America is no longer regulated? I can not think of too many things and the list seems comprehensive...