Tryptonique

Harsh? Not in the least. *grins.* You seemed quite reasonable. I have seen some people that are utterly scathing and you didn't seem of that nature at all. If I did...you have my full apologies. I didnt' see your post and Betsy's...but it just occured to me (as you can see in my last post) that I might have misread what you actually said (and meant). I think I had my own reasons for doing so (such as the quote/euphamism thing) but the assumption was hasty nonetheless and immature. My apologies, Jroberts. -E

Screening is perfectly fine as a company. If ARI had wanted to delete certain parts...that would be fine. It has every right to do so. If the chat is going to be a part of ARI's website or something that officially represents the institute (on this site or any other) then they have a right to excerpt parts or delete as they see fit. I see that part as being like a film director or newspaper editor. Maybe some of the questions weren't really on target or irrelevant to ARI's purpose and so they delete them. That is their discretion 100% and rightfully should be left up to the institute. I think some people (myself and GC) assumed that screening with the pupose of possibly "correcting" what was said was like the thought police asking Winston to rewrite history....or "fake reality" as Ayn Rand called it. This correction would obviously mean that ARI would put words into the mouths of their employees that weren't actually said. I think that is what GC meant when he said that the implication was that ARI would "lie about the transcript." The reason why I personally came to this conclusion was due to the fact that there were quotes around the word "correct." When people do the quote thingey around words it is a classic way of making a euphamism or implying double meaning. Ayn Rand herself utilizes this tool in her essay Doesn't Life Require Compromise?(The Virtue of Selfishness page 68). She uses quotes around the word "compromise" to designate two different (and contradictory meanings) of the word. The presence of the quotes made me think that such a double meaning was intended. If JRoberts had no double meaning to what he said....then that means that I misinterpreted him. If that is the case then I am very sorry. The way it was stated was like he had already concluded that the screening was indeed fact. Not only was the action ascribed (screening) but motive was attached as well (so they could correct any potential mess ups). The phrase "I'm still confused about this "seems to refer to his speculation...as if he is confused by the facts he has ascribed to situation (without any warrant whatsoever I might add). Otherwise...why wouldn't a logical person simply email ARI and ask why they wanted to approve the transcript? I'm sure they don't bite if you ask a question. Why not ask Bearster or GC straight up, "Why did ARI want to screen the transcript?" If they said, "I don't know...I can't speak on behalf of ARI" then instead of continuing to speculate, he should have then gone to ARI if it was really a matter of concern and not a time wasting flight into the realm of speculation that it turned out to be. In fact...GC said that he didn't care to speculate about ARI's motives...which indicates that he didn't know what their motieves are (you don't have to speculate if you actually know...obviously ) Unless your questioning implies some sort of immorality or wrong doing...like "Why did you murder someone?" there is no reason to shy away from going to the source of a question. As this discussion has revealed, there are logical and perfectly acceptable reasons for ARI to screen for the purpose of correction. After all, we edit our essays in college...and nearly every entertainment media has someone with the responsibility of editing. So why not ask ARI or make your question more narrowed down (less speculation, more question)?

I didn't see any evidence that would point at ARI screening what it's employees say. If there was, it is his obligation to provide it...seeing as he is positing a hypothesis that is quite accusatory in nature. The lack of evidence was where my problem lies...not with the scientific method. Trying to apply the scientific method to prove unicorns true (when there is no evidence of their existance) is a bastardization of that method. Trying to posit an illogical hypothesis (one without any evidence at all) like "ARI is trying to screen what its employees say) is counterproductive and only leads to problems.

*laughs.* They are far from Sleaze rock. They do some really interesting stuff actually. If you have Windows Media Player...go to this site: http://launch.yahoo.com/artist/default.asp?artistID=1035926 Check out the video for "Fiction." I would definitely say that I like Orgy. Especially their last album. I have LOTS of admiration for what Jay Gordon is doing. He was dropped from Korn's Elementree/Reprise label, so he started his own label and put out his new CD. He is a businessman all of the way. He is also signing other bands. The G-synth player Amir has designed his own guitar (The Jackson Disruptor) and is just cool as a musician. http://www.amir-derakh.com/amir.html He and Ryan Shuck have their own side project that you might be interested in checking out if you have a basic flash player. If you do...go to: Julian-K's website The music will come on automatically. All in all...the music is really interesting and they have their own unique vibe.

I think a lot of us have seen music videos at some time or another. Which ones do you really think are high quality? Some Music Vids that I really enjoy are: 1) "Fiction" -Orgy 2)"Tear Away" -Drowning Pool This song has the seven most beautiful words I have heard in a modern rock song ("I don't care about anyone else but me") as its chorus. 3) "1979" - The Smashing Pumpkins What would you guys add to the list (or what do you think about the ones I mentioned)?

Why would you posit a hypothesis that you yourself don't actually believe? It would make more sense to simply ask "Why does ARI want to approve the transcript?" instead of making a hypothesis that you don't even believe. If you apply the logic you seem to be demonstrating...you might as well said: "So ARI wanted to prevent the space aliens from reading the secret Snish code and kill anyone who opposed their will to power? " because hey....you probably don't believe that statment either, but it is still a hypothesis you are throwing out on the table. If you actually expect a response to every motive that you don't believe and want refuted, then you are seriously wasting everyone's time. There can only be one full and complete truth on what ARI's motives were. There can be infinite other non truths that you don't believe but could still possibly question. See the flaw in your logic when you try to apply it? What interests me more is when you put your whole post together: What I get is: 1) You came to a logical conclusion. If it is in fact truly logical you came to the conclusion rationally and with powers of intellect...not mysticism. 2) You don't believe the conclusion that by your OWN WORDS you came up with. "Just because I came to a logical conclusion" means that you did in fact come up with a final verdict. How can you not believe it? 3) If you think your premise needs to be checked, that is fine. In this situation...the only reason your premise would be off the mark is if you lacked information (which GC or Bearster could provide). The easy answer is don't formulate a premise until you have adequate facts to support such a premise.

That makes total sense, Stephen. I appreciate the time you put in to make a well thought out response. Everyone else: Anyone here like Orgy?

Rational cop: If you want to post pics on discussion boards, I recommend a good image host called Photobucket. www.photobucket.com 1) It is really quick to sign up with. 2) It gives you the UBB code for message boards, a URL that you can email to friends/family/whatever, and Livejournal/blog code if you have one of those. 3) Photobucket has a lot of space for you to upload and it is FREE:) That way you won't have to worry about the notorious "red X" when your picture doesn't properly post:)

Thank you:)

If you use some basic logic, you wouldn't come to the conclusion that ARI had anything to hide. 1) Considering that a large purpose of the chat (if you were there you would know this) was devoted to the OAC....it would totally not be in ARI's best interest to screw with the transcript considering that there were 50 people who easily could have logged their own transcripts. Unethical alterations of transcripts aren't really a viable way to attract Objectivist intellectuals to apply for your school. 2) Nothing was said at the chat that would in any way point to something that "needed to be corrected." If you weren't in the chat...why assume that there was anything to correct? Sounds like some melevolent universe proponents are coming out of the woodwork.

Your sense of life is directly correlated to the way you intellectually see that life. What justification are you using for throwing aside the intellectual aspects of the music? That is like asking us to throw away our reason in favor of "feeelings." Not a question I would have expected from a fellow Objectivist....which is why I'm a little befuddled.

AIM: Tryptonique email: [email protected] MSN: [email protected] YIM: ColonelPanda

1) I'm my University's productions board. The reason I'm not thrilled about the Del show is that we are wasting 9 grand. To be blunt...he isn't worth the money. 2) Its a mushroom hat. Sorry, but Em doesn't really have much in the way of personal values. Yes...he has drive/ambition. Yes he wants money from producing his goods. What is he selling though? 1) A song about slitting his girlfriend's throat and dumping her in a lake in front of his daughter. Is that the value you are referring too? http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eminem/97bonnieandclyde.html 2) Another song...this time about the mentally insane raping his little sister, sodomizing his cousin, slitting his mom's throat, and advocating violence against cops/everyone else. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eminem/amityville.html 3) Robbery. What an Objectivist value *sarcasm.* http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eminem/murdermurder.html Need I continue? Eminem's lyrics are crap. Yes...he made it out of 8 mile....by peddling refuse to the hungry masses willing to eat it up. Remind you of a certain Fountainhead character?

Blackalicious did a show at my school earlier this year. On may 5th we are bringing Del the Funky Homosapien. Ugh.

Another thing: It isn't like a rape...which is a crime of power over those are unwilling and unable to physically resist you. I believe Rand had a view that what was ideal was if a woman and a man had equal values. What made the sex act equal was that a woman chose to submit before the man. Just as the man ultimately CHOSE the woman as being valuable. Both choices are equal in the fact that they are made by rational actors. The sex act is just an expression. You can't really have TWO agressors of equal strength at the same time. One is going to be more dominant even if it is only a matter of degrees. You kind of have to get the job done at some point.... (not to be crude or offensive). You also have some serious desire. Because sex IS mutual....that might mean taking matters into your own hands and adjusting your partner so it feels better. That is an example of a lot of things such as knowledge, communication about what feels good, assertiveness, and openness. Roles can switch during the act of sex, obviously. A woman might indicate desire by intiating foreplay and end up totally sexually dominated (just one example). There are some really strong women who could lay the smack down (and moreover would not hestitate in the least) who still want to be conquered. It doesn't mean that they want to kick in the man's testicles if he is forcefully sexual (as that would seriously kill the mood). If a woman and a man have equal values and both have consented on a conceptual level (to a sexual relationship) then the physical level will be proportionally forceful to the degree of passion involved. It isn't matter of one being "weaker." If you are going after the old and the infirm (the weaker) because you aren't good enough to pull down the young and strong...you are a predator. Rand doesn't advocate predation as it is a form of being second hander-ish. I believe Rand advocates that both partners are equal in their values, their rationality, and their dedication to those actions in tangible action. You don't have to be equal in the physical sense to have a meaningful sexual relationship. This is my interpretation of it...someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of these areas. I AM quite new to Objectivism myself. sorry for the double post

A really cool set of articles on this issue would be: "Women and the evolution of world politics" from Foreign Affairs (September/October of 1998) by Francis Fukuyama and "The Myth of Women's Pacifism" by Mary Caprioli which can be found in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in World Politics 11th Edition by John T. Rourke

Anyone enjoy Marcy Playground? I really love John Wozniak's voice and his composition. It isn't difficult, but I really enjoy it:)

My review of the movie: Frankly, I thought the movie was sort of bland. It was a window into sadism and brutality of a bunch of ignorant 2000 year old civilizations. The cinematography was awesome and I LOVED the flashbacks. The time when Mary is trying to get up the strength to go help Jesus and has the flashback to when he fell down as a child was seriously seriously moving. Maybe I'm the only one that was emotionally touched by that moment, but I thought that demonstration of a mother's love for her son was very timeless. Frankly, Satan was the most interesting character in the movie. I wish Mel had done a movie on the biblical story of Satan and all the big bad stuff that Satan has done. That would have been entertainment. Satan doesn't really have much gender in the movie and frankly...I think he/she looks like Billy Corgan a bit. Her voice has some amazing affects and the black hood/slightly modified voice, and the way she moves in that cloak is simply one of the coolest things in that whole movie. Aside from that, I was really disappointed. This movie is a bloodfest and past that, it doesn't do much. You are left pretty hardpressed to say that The Passion had much going for it past the usual Christian bromides of "love thy neighbor."

The point I was making is that rap RARELY utilizes singing. Eminem or Tupac might be able to actually pull of singing...but do they? Does "Without me" or "white america" or any of the other songs that Em has done actually reflect any vocal talent? You dont' have to answer that. I was only in choir for one year during my senior year of high school and I tried out (and made) my school district's honor choir (which was directed by Dr. Mack Wilberg who is the assistant director of the Mormon Tabernackle Choir). I may not know squat when it comes to musical theory, but I have a good ear. No offense, but most rap is SERIOUSLY atonal, regardless of the abilities (or potential abilities) of the rapper. Now...as for death metal being compared to rap, I was comparing them in their atonal qualities. They lack RANGE. The guitars in death metal are just mashing away (usually on the same note or couple of notes/chords) which is lacking in range and gives the genre a horribly boring monotonous sound. Listen to Notorious B.I.G's song "Big Papa." Tell me that he actually moves from one note to another without cracking up laughing. He does't. That is my point in comparing the two. sure...the metal bands scream and the rappers don't....but they are both projecting a single unmelodic note which isn't really singing to begin with. In that respect, they are one and the same in my mind.

I look forward to reading it. I have checked your blog a couple of times, but so far...no dice .

Music is the sum of its parts...it is MORE than just one facet or another (like a diamond for instance if you want to get metaphorical). You have your guitar, keyboards, drums, bass, vocals, synths (if you want them), vocal effects (if you want them) like a vocoder, etc. All of those are different variables to making music. Obviously they are different from genre to genre. Classical can utilize a bajillion piece orchestra and a rock band might use 4 instruments. Obviously a difference. rap is the LEAST musical genre due to A) the lack of instruments, musical training, etc Most rappers reply on samples or fabricated music if they want ANY sort of music at all which is why the Neptunes are so popular nowadays. The are making a non musical genre musical by doing the work that the artists are incapable of. Rappers almost always have beat boxes, entourages that go up on stage, and canned music. When was the last rapper you saw with ANY instrument? The lack of vocal quality. When was the last time you really heard a rapper sing? It does happen on occasion....like Eminem on "Hallies song" for example. It wouldn't suprise me if Tupac also sang a song or two. The fact is though, is that their albums are dominated by monotonous tonal quality, rhymes (often slow like Biggies "Big Papa"),and no demonstration of range in the least. The reason why I don't like vocals in rap is the SAME reason I don't like vocals in camp metal. Bands like Emperor, Cannibal Corpse, Cradle of Filth, etc can't sing for squat. They just monotonously scream and scream....and the instruments that are played aren't played with any skill, just mashing. Rap is the same, but without the mashing and screaming.

Pinkerton rules. I love "Across the sea" and "el scorcho" and of course.. "tired of sex." I have been a weez fan for a while now and I agree that the green album was super weak. I was so disappointed that I never even bothered to pick up Maladroit.

I was responding to Mrs. Speicher when she mentioned Iraq funding homicide bombers. I was not aware of that as I had thought that sponsoring those groups was in the hands of the Saudis and not Saddam. I was wondering about that particular fact. As for the altruism point...I edited that out of my original post because I realized some interests that we definitely have that have been threatened by Iraq. I didn't mean it to be wrong (which is what it would have been as you pointed out) which is why I changed it prior to your post.

what I was hinting at....was that we would be MORE justified in invading Saudia Arabia than Iraq as there is more of a direct connection (at least in my mind as it was previously stated that bin Laden and the majority of the hijackers are from Saudia Arabia as well as the fact that Saudia Arabia directly sponsors such terrorism.). Iran is actually developing their nuclear capacities. Why not invade them? Since we have become the global police we might as well do it right, no? Of course we have the right to determine when and where the conflict shall be (and if it is in our best interest) unless the terrorists define the conflict before we do with another attack on our soil/assets. This is right in line with PNAC...our favorite conservative think tank. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm This think tank wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 urging him to invade Iraq. http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm What do you think on this issue? Should we sit by and let Iran and Saudi Arabia chill? We have more justification for going to war with those countries than we ever have for Iraq. Since when has Iraq taken American citizens hostage for a year? There are regimes that are FAR more hostile to American interests. Maybe it is time to take out the trash, hmmmm?

I thought Saudi Arabia was the one paying 25,000 to the families of homicide bombers. Oh well....we probably should invade the bastards....but that probably won't happen anytime soon. I wonder why?