Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aynfan

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/05/1942

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Occupation
    Producer, Director, Theatrical Consultant and Writer.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Kingsport, TN
  1. the two of you are a one man band.
  2. You put those words together not I. I was referring to orthodoxy of opinion and in drawing conclusions. If you won't hear me, hear Rand, she tells you "no amount of past thinking, of established virtues, of acquired knowledge will guarantee that a man will remain rational and virtuous next day, next year or in the next emergency; the act of focusing one's mind and of facing reality remains an act of volition, to be performed anew in every hour and issue of one's life." This what passes for wisdom in your rathole? Objectivism is not a food, so this is not only a mixed metaphor it is not ev
  3. Is that the royal we, or do you speak for the collective?
  4. 1. Prove it 2. You know nothing about Kelley. 3. You wasted your own time by composing this vacuous post. 4. Your fear that Objectivism can not stand against agruments attacking orthodoxy polutes this space. 5. Stick your fingers in your ears, and repeat as loud as you can, "la, la, la, la" so you can't hear me.
  5. Fred I will take a page from your book and call you paranoid and delusional. I think Hernan hits the nail on the head when he suggests that you reacted badly because he was challenging your 'religion'. As to Kelley and the TOC, you have recited well the 'party' line. When you have been to that site and can provide chapter and verse your complaints, I will listen to you on the subject. Conquer your fear, you won't be turned to stone. I know. They are omniscient You, and many others, in the Objectivist collective need to find the freedom of action and thought that Objectivism was
  6. This is a bit enigmatic. Would you care to explain what you mean by it?
  7. You don't get out much. People have questions about more peculiar issues than this one. This is a rather common question as a matter of fact, although usually framed in a different way, such as 'The world is scewed up, why try to fix it, why not just get what you can and screw everyone else?" It was with your friend. I did not know that going on and on about something was a crime here (if it is there are a lot of criminals hanging around the place), nor did I realize that you had been appointed keeper of the time clock. You are a master difficult to please. If the subject did not inte
  8. As I said before you came late to the discussion and did not read the entire thread. I did pronounce predation to be evil, in those words, if you do not believe me you can find it by reading the thread. Initially when dealing with strangers, I assume error rather than evil, in every case. In order to judge error fairly, my method is to hear an entire argument, understand to the full extent of the ancillary issues involved, and ask Socratic questions that if taken out of context could suggest sympathy or erroronious notions on my part, but are in fact not what I believe. It's sometimes call
  9. Then you get no further comment from me. I consider your judgement a tantrum and inconsequential.
  10. The great irony in your absurd accusations is that both Fred and myself have bent over backwards in cutting slack to others, to the point of roundly being accused by some of being too "tolerant!" Shades of David Kelley! In your case, however, there is no room for slack. You claim to have been an Objectivist for 40 years, yet you seem to have ties to the Libertarians, anarchists, anti-abortionists, and everything Kelleyite and anti-ARI and anti-Peikoff. Whatever it is that you are, you are not an Objectivist, and after 40 years of such pretense there is no hope for a change. So take your b
  11. Well, at least you are aware enough to know it is a tenet. I suggest, in the future, you adhere to it. As to Kelley, you have only the ARI side of it, but that is probably enough for you. In your case there is abundant evidence of your abusive dismissals of others. Those that defend your actions, share your guilt. Again, instead of trying to win a war of wits with me for which you are ill suited, your time would be better spent telling me where my assessment of your behavior is unfair or in error.
  12. Instead of taking potshots and me you would do better to answer the charges I leveled against you. You and others like you who level these obnoxious assessments of others, do nothing but sow resentment of Objectivists.
  13. And 40 years of your view of Objectivism has led you to support Libertarian candidate Gary Nolan for President and link to the Kelley's Objectivist Center instead of ARI. Get real. Whatever kind of Objectivist you think you are, it has little to do with the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. I do not support Gary Nolan, I don't what were you got such an idea. Although he is a better candidate is some respects than George Bush who most here intend to vote for. As to Kelley he makes a great argument for not assuming that those who are in error are evil. You don't know me or what I believe, the assump
  14. Oh yes, I didn't address this did I? You have groupies, how nice for you. Is there affection for you mirrored in the eyes? I did grasp the Roman General "connundum" coming to the same conclusion you did, which you would know if you weren't too lazy to read the entire thread. It wasn't a very difficult problem.
  15. I should hope so. But that point was already made when you arrived at the post. I do not doubt your intellectual potential/capability, I accuse you of abusive behavior. When I said you can't prove it, I was referring to: You can not prove the man to be neurotic or twisted, only in error; just as your view of yourself only in a comparison to others is in error.
  • Create New...