sparky

You're missing the point. I am not arguing for or against Objectivists as dogmatic, just a couple examples of a rude and imperious (more accurate than dogmatic) responses and the resulting double standard regarding conduct. Words like 'losers' for example was my objection. It's pretty obvious that this assumes inferiority. I also mentioned that it's clear that you (as a group) resent anyone even holding out the possibility that Objectivism is wrong on any point. Nothing wrong with this, it's just a fact. Only the denial of it would be wrong. I happen to think it's wrong not to consider the possibility, that's all. I really don't know why you and others read so much extra into my post(s).

OCD is wrong/incomplete. OCD doesn't even include arrogance in the definition. Dogmatic should always refer to an arrogant assertion and an unprovable source. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Dogmatic: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University Dogmatic: adj 1: characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles [syn: dogmatical] 2: relating to or involving dogma; "dogmatic writings"

Dogmatic is often not used correctly (guilty myself sometimes). Dogmatic implies an unprovable source for a statement/belief. The above statement is not dogmatic, but fits the definition of "imperious" perfectly.

How is this type of behaviour not disciplined? I was 'reprimanded' for stating that a response that I found deliberately insulting and deliberately false was not worth a response, yet this above goes unchallenged. Do I need to outline how huge a double standard this is? Or do you simply want to operate this way? Edit: A mistake I see quite a bit here in this type of response is the implied assumption that a disagreement or ignorance with respect to Rand/Objectivism implies an intellectual inferiority. Ever consider any rules regarding this?

Closed, but not complete. OK, that makes sense, fine. The error in the view that Objectivism can never be wrong might be given some lip service here, but the forum rules state that anti-O statements must be confined to debates, and these actions speak louder (not to mention the hostility to opposing views). I also need to look up more on what Rand said about the closed issue, but I do recall something about the 'wording' being owned, but not the concepts or discoveries. Closing the body of work is obvious when somebody dies. However, there is no label given for extentions. One can only call themselves an Objectivist if they agree with it in it's entirety without modification. A semantic distinction, but it sounds very dogmatic and is counter productive.

That is a totally inaccurate summary and is not worth responding to.

Rewritten (in language that hopefully you can understand) Let's assume A or B, not C or D. Do you see room for E? Where?

This is fundamentally an opinion, not shared by everyone that calls themselves Objectivist. I have no such opinion either way. However, I understand what you're saying. This is a definition issue of what it means to be "closed". A definition is what it is, there's no disgreement here. You need to read a little more thoroughly. My entire post is not false. You're wrong. This is part of the problem that I touched on. The last part of my post however, wasn't properly written. What I meant to explain was, that if you apply the 'closed' definition erroneously to either stifle or eliminate debate regarding truths, whether fundamental or derived, this will kill or at lease severely limit the Objectivist movement. I was mistaken in implying that Objectivism included revisions/expansions. However, it is most certainly a mistake to assume that none are needed - not to complete Objectivism, but to more fully reflect reality.

In the history of anything that represents reality, perception of that 'reality' changes with progress/discoveries. For example, Newtonian mechanics is not incompatible with Einstein's relativity, yet relativity is clearly an advance in physics. I think you really have to be careful to make the distinction that Objectivism is closed only in the sense that Newtonian physics is closed and not physics itself. This has been pointed out. However, revisions to Newtonian physics are sometimes correct. I don't see this attitude here much (haven't read everything though). To assume Objectivism is truth is fine. To assume it's the whole truth is not rational. It must be extended and/or amended to progress or risk being retired as an historical artifact.

Interesting maybe, but there's some problems here... "But I think it is VERY important that knowledgeable Objectivists make every reasonable effort to be patient with non-Objectivists and newbies." Yes. This is the most productive method if the goal is new adherents. "But our default assumption should always be to initially err on the side of the person being merely confused or inarticulate as opposed to dishonest or hostile - because if the worst turns out to be the case, one can always ban them the next time." This is a not-so-subtle contradiction to the above. Assuming someone is either confused or inarticulate is hardly "patient". This attitude will drive would-be objectivists away. This shows clearly an presumptive disrespect for alternative viewpoints and is therefore irrational. This is anti-Objectivist in the sense that it assumes the dissention is not a case of honest error. In any case, the solution should easily be to refute or correct the position in accordance with Objectivism. This is of greatest value to newbies like myself.

The Coke thing is not third world. I believe the suit is primarily directed at the practices at the headquarters in Atlanta.

There are many who understand Objectivism but don't agree with at least some parts of it. Many alternatives have been devised to describe some facets of reality, all with some degree of "correctness". The history of science is full of examples like this. Even contradictory theories sometimes predict the same thing, depending on the situation. Anyway, the bottom line is that just because someone disagrees, it does not logically follow that they are either ignorant or evasive.

It would not make much sense to 'study' software by studying media. Optical media would be so different than magnetic yet the software is the same. Maybe 'irrelevant' is a better word. In any case, the far end of 'not important' is 'meaningless'.

Also, just a beginner to Rand/Objectivism, but I don't completely agree with this, but maybe it doesn't matter. I do agree that thoughts have a physical basis, but that physical basis is incidental and in a sense meaningless. Software for example can be stored in many media (optical, magnetic, whatever) with totally different physical representations of the SAME software. The concept of thought is the same. There is an existence of thought 'above' or at least independent of the physical. This is not mysticism, but I really don't know if it matters all that much, but I'm curious to hear comments.