softwareNerd

I don't like the idea of parallel discussion in two threads. (Sort of the opposite of the current spring cleaning ). Yes, I do understand the two key motivations: quality of discussion and funding. I was curious about the funding aspect. If most patrons would go back to being regular members without Premium Forums, then we need those forums. I suspect that patrons would remain patrons anyway. That's why I raised that question in my previous post. As for quality... A discussion among patrons is likely to be more polite and productive, since the trolls are kept out. Problem is that many of the younger non-patron members would be kept out too. I think that moderating the trolls and sundry pests out of existence is important but it is not "the fountainhead" of quality, so to speak. As Jennifer noted: "... patrons don't often start new threads. They devote most of their time to answering questions ..." I think therein lies at least part of the problem of quality. Ofcourse, patrons have no obligation to start threads. Also, replying to a thread is easier; takes less time. However, the starting point to quality is to create a decent number of quality discussions. The forum has moderators; it needs writers. To that end, the Egosphere move is a very welcome addition. As I said in another post, I'd love to see at least selected entries from Egosphere be born into forum discussion threads.

David, Instead of having the EgoSphere off the main page (or "in addition to"), have you considered feeding them in as new posts in the forum? To give them visibility, they could feed into a special sub-forum (within Premium, or even right at the top). The advantages to a user: they would show up when I do "View New Posts". I bet it would encourage many more comments. (Assuming you want that ) Edited to add the following: Some EgoSphere blog entries may not be directly relevant to OO.net. So, those might need to be filtered out. Also, the authors might prefer "traffic" (e.g. comments) coming to their blogs, rather than to OO.net So, maybe an occassional post -- a few a month -- from EgoSphere authors can be fed into a special sub-forum.

Welcome to the forum.

Why don't you vote, Hal? The reason I've heard most often from Objectivists is that they do not want to sanction evil: Both sides (all three, in your case) are so bad, that the "lesser-evil" argument is trumped by the "don't support evil" one.

When I search Google for "Ayn Rand" or for "Objectivism", I see the OO.net ad However, in the the main search listing: 1) "Ayn Rand": OO.net is not listed on the first page 2) "Objectivism": OO.net is number 8 on the list. In my opinion, this does not reflect its real relevance to someone searching for the term "Objectivism". In this blog, Scoble from Microsoft gives an example of how a change of 'Title' tag helped bring a law-firm site to number 1. Here, at OO.net, the title for the forum pages says "Objectivism Online Forum..." However, the main site says "ObjectivismOnline.net". I wonder if adding a space in the title of the main page would make a difference? The original paper about search by the founders of Google might have additional ideas (I have not read it yet). Many people ignore the ads. When they search, the top-ranked sites gets their main attention. OO.net should be among the top 3 in the "Objectivism" search. This ought not require gimmicks that temporarily "trick" a search-site "crawler", but it might require something to help their computer make a more "intelligent" decision.

True. In fact, it oftens means the person who wears the mantle of "representative of the public". In Ghana's case, some two-bit dictator, no doubt.

Well put Jennifer, thank you. So many otherwise intelligent men want to raise other men to their mountain top by marching them up at gun point.

It is a reference to Ayn Rand's essay "The Comprachicos", reprinted in "The New Left". Ayn Rand says:

If one knows the economist one is looking for, then this site has an index of economists. Entries sometimes point to a short bio. Often, there are links to online versions of that economist's texts.

David, The links from the main page (www.objectivismOnline.net) to the individual Wiki-changes, are not right. Insetad of staring with the root-context of the Wiki, the URL starts with "localhost".

This is a polemical point, but since Daniel began the thread speaking of a "debate" he was having... If I had a dollar for every person who thought they could get away with a real crime, I'd be a millionaire today (quite literally).

A recent post in a regular forum, referring back to a thread in a premium forum got me wondering: Do "Patron" members think they derive value from the existence of the Premium forums? If so, what is the nature of the value to you? I see two features: 1) Special placement at the top of the forum list 2) Disallowing non-patrons from posting. (This feature has advantages and disadvantages). Ofcourse, there's the dollar question. Do the premium forums offer so much value that discontinuing them would prompt you to shift back to being a regular member. What do the paying members think?

Many governments have claimed that any land that is not yet owned by anyone is owned by "the public". Now, Ghana is trying to take this to the next step by claiming that any intellectual "property" that is not owned, is owned by "the public". Here is an article . The government is trying to push a bill that wants people to pay royalty for the use of folklore. Not just that, if you want to translate an old folktale into another language, you might have to apply for a permit! Frankly, when I read the story I thought it was a joke. So, for anyone who has doubts like I did: check the World Intellectual Property Organization. Search for "Ghana" and "folklore", and you'll find the draft proposal!

Thanks for the info. Good to hear that. I was wondering if the movie would be as good as the books. Would you say the movie is appropriate for a 7 year old? As for the theme, I agree. It is: good vs. evil. And, the good guys win

Our son does most of his reading on his own. All the same, we like to read to him sometimes, and he enjoys it too. Also, reading to him gives us a little more understanding of what inputs he is receiving. A big reason to read to him is that it invariably offers opportunities to add commentary. Disclaimer: Reading is fun. So, nothing about the following should be interpreted to mean we turn this into some type of boring lesson. [end of mind-body dichotomy disclaimer] Sometimes a book might contain wrong messages. If I come across them, I might make a quick point about the wrong message. Usually, the message is not fundamental to the book he's reading -- else he'd not be reading it. So, in order not to detract from the story, I might make just a passing remark to indicate that the author's premise should be re-examined. (Not in so many words... he's about 7!). Far more interesting are the opportunities for additional positive commentary about "the good stuff". For instance, at one point in a Lemony Snicket book the heroes lie and steal the villain's boat. "Were they right to lie?", I asked my son. His immediate reaction was to say "no", and I perceived a slight look of guilt start to cloud his face. I explained to him why it was not just okay to lie, but it was the exactly right thing to do, and that the heroes were so smart to realize that. etc. etc. He understood, and was happier than ever about what they'd done. Go Baudelaire orphans! Anyhow, the point I wanted to make is a simple one: reading a book to a child, presents one with more so-called "teachable moments" than one would get from "real" life. Properly interpreted, a "teachable moment" is just a way to say that abstract ideas can be absorbed better it they are backed by examples, and the examples are best if they are "lived". Real experiences are the best. Literature can be a pretty good additional source. The broad implicit message of this type of teaching is: the abstract idea is tied to reality. If one is teaching philosophy, the broad implicit message is: philosophy is useful (i.e. practical). Any parents here have their own "teachable moment" experiences to share?

That was funny! If there really is no way, then there really is no way. Be good.

Not sure how you could be sure. Fact is, I would not feed my kid rubbish of any kind.

My son (almost 7) has just finished the first three Lemony Snicket books and has enjoyed them thoroughly. He stayed up extra late today because he simply could not bear to put down book three without knowing how it would end. I admit that I picked up the first book with some hesitation. Knowing that the parents of the three main characters die in a fire in chapter 1, and knowing that my son cannot even stand to see Nemo (as in Disney fish) separated from his parents, I wondered whether the book was appropriate. After reading a bit, I was satisfied that it was. I even read most of the first book aloud to him -- ready to pack it away for later in case it upset him. He was glued to the story. The books are very well plotted -- for that age-level. The villain is always trying to make life hell for the Baudelaire kids and even to kill them (he kills others in the process). They have some close shaves, but come out on top. I'd highly recommend it to the 7 to 9 year age-group.

Humans need physical rest -- as in sleep. I'd hazard a preliminary hypothesis that non-physical rest is a human need somewhat in the same sense as art is a human need. Non-physical rest consists of "doing some else for a change". It can even be something that is physically strenuous. For instance, someone who's career involves little physical exercise may "rest" by running. Like art, well-chosen recreation is enjoyable and adds to one's sense of well being.

It also offers reasons and explanations. These are more generally applicable.

Welcome to the forum. Try to figure out some key reasons for that feeling. Once you have translated the feeling into a question, feel free to ask it here.

Just a quick reference, in case you have not read it: Ayn Rand's article on stamp-collecting.

I don't know why the signature would be sent (from the site to your browser) any differently from the rest of the post. That is interesting.... ponder, ponder! However, I can see your signature, when I browse using IE. So, the issue seems to be on your end -- likely something about IE's config, but I can't imagine what.

Welcome back Burgess.

One unavoidable result of a mixed economy is that people are forced into conflicts with each other. A manufacturer is forced to pay a higher-than-market price for goods bought and sometimes forced to sell at a higher-than-market price to his customers. People in one county are forced to subsidize a highway passing through another county. People in one city are forced to subsidize schools in another city. The difference between the Objectivist and the bum is that the Objectivist does not want the system and even fights against it to the best of his ability. Even though in one particular instance an Objectivist may appear like the beneficiary, when one looks at his entire life, it is completely the opposite. The Objectivist is not a moocher. There is a broader point to be made here. When Ayn Rand says that "he regards it as restitution", she is not talking only about a "state of mind". If one truly regards this as resitution, that implies that your life, and your actions demonstrate it ... in other words, you are not a bum. The bum is the reason Social Security exists in the first place: he is the problem, and the Objectivist is the solution.