Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RadCap

Regulars
  • Content Count

    639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by RadCap

  1. Where have you been?

  2. Actually this is not true. Blatant means "without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious; "blatant disregard of the law"; "a blatant appeal to vanity"; "a blazing indiscretion." " In other words, at least in my dictionary, self-evidence is not a synonym of blatant. Thus my statement "blatantly false" means it is obviously false. To be self-evidently false, the falsehood would have to be evident in the statement itself. And it is not. The evidence is on The Forum. As prior posters stated, no such claims were made against Ms. Hsieh and she had supporters on The Forum. None of thi
  3. Given your emphasis on my use of the term "blatantly" I am a bit unclear as to the nature of your question. Are you asking me to identify why Ms. Hsieh's statement is false? Or are you asking me to identify why a statement - any statement - can be "blatantly false" as opposed to merely "false"? Since you allowed Ms. Hsieh's accusation against other persons to stand here, the "rational value" to be gained is the identification of whether such accusations are true or not. And this can only be done through the identification of the facts which lead to the conclusion Ms. Hseih continues to
  4. Are you suggesting Betsy not be allowed to express any idea outside her own forum? Are you suggesting that she should not be allowed to address accusations which are made against her here? Are you suggesting such attacks are appropriate but a defense against them is inappropriate? And why no similar 'outrage' at Ms. Hsieh expressing her ideas here when she too has her own site on which to post and which she too can control as she sees fit? Why are you so eager to silence Betsy Speicher?
  5. This is a blatantly false statement. What prompts Ms. Hsieh to make such fantastical accusations?
  6. Hi, I am offering a pristine CD set of Dr. Peikoff's course entitled: Eight Great Plays as Literature and as Philosophy. This series is a great analysis of eight of history's greatest plays, and Dr. Peikoff does an amazing job of not only bringing them to life but of dissecting them with a brilliant philosophic and artistic eye. Definitely a series to treasure. And offered at a great discount to boot! Check it out here: EBAY OFFERING Here is a brief description of the series, taken from Dr. Peikoff's site: Eight Great Plays — As Literature and As Philosophy This course is
  7. There is a woman who used to do animation for South Park who now has a site with her own creation called "Making Fiends" ( http://www.makingfiends.com ) that I find amusing. Its style is very simple and somewhat dark - similar to Edward Gorey. But what i like is the main character of Charlotte. She is an innocent, untouched by any evil that exists - and remains that way through all her encounters with the antagonist, Vendetta as well as her evil fiends. It is Charlotte's indomitable spirit that I enjoy about the simple series. (I have followed the series since its creation a while
  8. I cant tell you if the overall movie is going to be good or not, but I worked a few days on Lemony Snickets and I can tell you this - I have done work on films on the east coast and west for years and in a number of capacities, and this was the first picture I said "Wow - I am on a REAL Hollywood set now". It was back to the good old days of the studio system productions. The production values are amazing. They built a whole lagoon and dock with boat etc - a whole city block in a stage. A whole dead wheat field with a general store and a railroad with train. Even the smaller scenes were
  9. http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=260000 This is the scope and vision that should have been at the heart of the WTC rebuild From the BBC: "South Korea's Samsung Corporation has won the contract to build the world's tallest building, the Burj Tower in Dubai. Samsung won the $306m(£160m) deal, after an 11-month bid process. The concrete and steel tower will be part of an $8bn(£4.2bn) 500-acre project in the United Arab Emirates. Workers have already started to clear the ground for the 800-metre high, 160-floor skyscraper and it should be completed by November 2008. Constru
  10. Well, the auctions are over. I want to thank everyone who bid and/or won for making it a very successful auction. It certainly will prove to be helpful. Thanks!
  11. Well, all the options to use Buy It Now have either been used or ended by bids, so that means I'll see everyone on the other end of the auctions. As a reminder, that is sometime mid-day SUNDAY (check the specific auction for the time relative to your time zone). Besides enjoying the process of selling here, I am somewhat impressed with the USPS as well. I am using their Media Mail for the first time and it seems to be pretty speedy for the price. For instance, I sent a box from LA on Wed 17th, and it has already arrived (today) at its destination in Chicago. Since the PS indicates the
  12. This seems like a really smart idea. I do have one question for you concerning a part of the service. I am asking this publically, because I suspect others may wonder about it as well. I know you specifically indicate that copyrights are respected without exception. Concerning the leasing etc of purchased audio series and the like, though, have you actually confirmed with the copyright holders whether the right to lease etc such materials is granted in/by the sale of those items? If it is, I am surprised no one has created such a service already. I would imagine the demand for such a s
  13. Thanks Jason! I really appreciate it. It's nice to know it 'found a good home.' And good luck with "The Objectivist"! While I hate to have to sell all these items, the PROCESS of selling them is kind of fun. Each morning is like Xmas - with the anticipation and the surprise of what has transpired the night before.
  14. WooHoo - another one gone! Get your bids or Buy It Now, while they are still available!
  15. Wow - sold one already! Get the rest while you still can, before someone else beats you to them with the Buy It Now feature.
  16. Okay - they are all out there now. Have at em!
  17. As some of you are aware, I am going through some trying times, which are causing financial difficulties for me. I therefore find myself in the position of having to sell may Objectivist materials I have been collecting over the years. I am selling a total of eight (8) separate items on Ebay - begining TUESDAY (ie today - the day of this post) at 6pm (EST - 3pm PST). And they will each run until this SUNDAY, around the same time (so that hopefully the transactions will be completed and I can make rent). I am offering the following: Video RARE - WE THE LIVING - Film and Press Kit h
  18. testing Hmm - dont know why quotes are not working in our last two posts GC. You may want to check into that. Perhaps there is a limit to the number of quptes permitted in an individual post.
  19. I cannot speak for RCop, but if this conversation had occured in person, I would have said the exact same things as I have here. And I would have defended myself with the same words, as I am about to now. I said IF you were ACTUALLY interested in the answers you claimed to have been seeking you WOULD have read the thread I said ANSWERED those questions. So far, nothing you have said contradicts that statement. The fact that you IMMEDIATELY responded to the referal by indicating you had NO NEED to look elsewhere because you HAD the answer (nice how you left out THAT little part in you
  20. Do you believe if you act shocked and indignant, that will change the fact that you DID engage in personal attacks and swipes against me? Oh - and as of yet, still no identification and rebuttal of the supposed 'several malignings' of you. Which part is the magligning: Claiming you didn't bother to read the suggested thread which ANSWERED your questions - which you didnt? Claiming you want your idea whether that acceptance means you cant be an Objectivist or not - which you did? Claiming you rejected the objectivist claim about monopolies (there are no 'true' monopolies) on force - wh
  21. Stephen Would you consider it 'respectful' of me to suggest that YOU are not seeing MY perspective and that you are spending too much effort defending YOUR perspective instead of stepping back and trying to see what is going on from another perspective? Instead of making that suggestion, may I respectfully make an alternate suggestion: that I HAVE seen the 'other perspective' and simply disagree with it? And may I suggest that the effort I put into the recap was an (apparently failed) attempt to demonstrate I DID understand that 'other perspective' but found it lacking in its accountin
  22. Apparently either I am greatly misunderstanding the posts which have been directed towards me, or my posts have been greatly misunderstood. As such, I believe a recap is in order to determine which is the case. 1. My first post to this thread was a response to a question posed by Godless Capitalist. He essentially asked why he had a burden placed upon his ownership of weapons. I pointed out that a govt has a legal monopoly on physical force. 2. Praxus asked two questions, seemingly aimed at my response. 3. RCop responds to my quote of AR with quotes of his own, asking, among oth
  23. This is PRECISELY why I suggested you do a search. These questions have already been asked and answered (in great detail). My point was, IF you were ACTUALLY interested in an answer, you would have done the further reading. Instead of pursuing that course of action, however, you dismissed that idea, insisting that you already knew your answer. Furthermore, you explicitly indicated that you are not concerned with whether or not your answer is compatible with objectivism. Both of these facts say alot. As such, I will let them speak for themselves. The only thing I WILL say is that
  24. According to this 'logic' nothing should therefore be illegal. "Making murder illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a murderer is gonna come to the US and see that murder is illegal and say: "Damn, i dont want to brake anti-murder laws so I guess i cant murder anybody now"." or "Making rape illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a rapist is gonna come to the US and see that rape is illegal and say: "Damn, i dont want to brake anti-rape laws so I guess i cant rape anybody now"." or "Making theft illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a thief is gonna come to the U
  25. Hmm - you say you know the definitive answer, but then you imply that this answer may be in opposition to Objectivism. Since the question related to the objectivist position, it does not appear that your 'definitive answer' provides an answer in the context it was asked.
×
×
  • Create New...