RussK

Although I don't know if the guy is trolling or not, I was (am) sympathetic to your conclusions. Furthermore, I'm still waiting to learn the details concerning the behavior of Objectivists, including a few who were "confused about their sexuality." There are many prevalent things and behaviors of the homosexual community that do not mix with Objectivism, and the accusation of confused sexuality is often used to table people who don't conform to stereotypical homosexual behavior.

This is an important point. For example, I have thought about joining the OList for palio dieting, but I haven't gotten around to doing it. I am not a supporter of full palio dieting or some of the proponents' conclusions, but I do find a lot of their tips and recipes of great use. However, it would be wrong for me to join that list, it not being a general forum, and start talking or debating about palio, as it would disturb the quality they are trying to achieve. Hence, I will be joining as a lurker. I look at these rules as nothing but quality (and pest) control.

The rules make it quite clear that it is a forum for homosexual Objectivists, not simply a resource for homosexuals. Anyone who does not have a significant grasp of the philosophy, or, isn't homosexual, can choose to be a lurker if they want to use the list as a resource. Such rules exist to preserve the quality of the list. I also take exception with your definition of 'independent-minded' and the implication that the rules, as well as the participants, of the list are somehow anti-intellectual or less independent. If you have a problem with the phrases "You are not... if..." or "The false advocates of ... ." then I don't think what you mean by "intellectual" and "independent" mesh with the Objectivist definitions. Notice I took out references to Objectivism in those phrases, and I did it for a reason: anything can take its place (alive, writing, rights respecting) resulting in a basic intellectual, independent judgment. All that I can gather from your use of those concepts is some sort of bohemian, anti-authority 'open-mindedness'. The rules are not a violation of core tenants; they are an example of them in practice. No one is being asked to follow blindly the conclusions of another.

I'm not a Google fan, and I'd like to say that I'm not a user, but I do have a bs email account with them that has maybe three items in the inbox, a google voice account that I use as a second phone number, and a calendar account that I just configured a few days to test it out; I also have been using their search on my TocuhPad because I have been too lazy to change the default selection. Really though, it would be fairly rare for one to legitimately claim that they don't use Google, even if they don't have accounts with them: google has been very successful, and they are embedded almost everywhere on the internet. Google is AOL not in the sense of it being a "walled garden" of the same degree, as no major service today is like that, including Facebook; their walled affect is lesser in degree than AOL, but more than facebook. What constitutes "wall" here has of course changed in meaning since the days of AOL, but it still has to do with control. Today, a great deal of diversified content, and the sharing of such content, is allowed; but one of the major things that is now controlled is how content is, for lack of a better word, cross posted. Take youtube (Google) for example, do they allow cross posting from other social networks of the same media? Yes, such examples mostly show lack of development on APIs and such, but that is the only type of control I can even think about being comparable to AOL; no service really tries to block or firewall access to the outside anymore. Facebook, however, has done quite a good job in opening itself up. Their so open that competing social networks are increasingly taking more of a slice of status updates every day. As mentioned above, specialized social sites are where it's at now--they do such a better job--and the API lets them post to Facebook. We'll have to see how open Google is to the idea of other social networks dominating the content they are hosting when they release their API. So, add the above to user base and portal service, as well as acquisition activities, and Google makes a good challenge for the title of modern day AOL. I also must add something that just came to mind. What I said above, that "no service really tries to block or firewall access to the outside" isn't accurate. Has not Google done exactly this by censoring searches of the Chinese at the behest of the Chinese government, up until very recently?

I didn't know about this prospect when I posted, but I have since caught a quick blurb about it on the radio. I wouldn't have a problem if they attempted to recoup that money; maybe they should get with some others, like volunteers who participated, so they can increase the claim. I have also, since my last posting, slightly changed my outlook regarding the idea of the state and other local government bringing claims against Anthony. A few mornings ago I was watching Mike and Mike on ESPN and they were responding to viewers' statements asking why congress was wasting money on the Roger Clemons perjury case. Their response was along the lines that, even though money would be spent on the trial, and wouldn't resolve much of what Clemons was brought to testify about, the government must maintain justice as best they can, and that means going after perjury when they think it has occurred. In that light, I think that it would be great for who ever was negatively affected by Anthony, and has a fairly strong case, to go after her with as much effort as is possible.

A civil case, of some sort, may happen; but what would be the effects? As far as I know, Casey Anthony isn't very wealthy. If the state of Florida sues they'll just be spending extra tax funds on two new trials: a civil suit and a bankruptcy.

Why don't you think homosexuality and Objectivism mix very well, and what about these Objectivists' behavior make you think they're confused about their sexuality? After clicking on the URL you provided, and noticing the title, I lost all motivation to entertain the idea of reading past the author's name or to bring up SOLO and Lindsay Perigo. As mentioned above, a mailing list you may be interested in is OHomos *edit: I don't use that mailing list, so I don't know much about its content. I just know that the OLists are filled with some very knowledgeable people.

They haven't released an API yet. My opinion of Facebook is that it is now mostly just a social network portal, where various other social networks can post to, forming a general stream of 'status updates' from multiple sources. Social networks have become very specialized now, such as foursquare, getglue, untappd, etc... Zuckerburg knows this and that's why a lot of the stuff used on Facebook, outside of messaging and chat, is third party from API. The Facebook team, it seems, hasn't done much in terms of adding content to the service since Places, which pales in comparison to the functionality of foursquare. The latest addition, Skype integration, is simply a continuation of API type integration. softwareNerd: I disagree. Facebook has tried to become the modern day AOL, but that title has to go to Google. Google is the most visited domain and they make their own services or acquire others, in addition to trying to compete directly with Facebook.