Zeus

My response here should read: "I agree with Ayn Rand and Mr. Swig." I must have been truly exhausted yesterday night. Well, that's what work, weightlifting, and running 3 miles will do to you.

Yes, you are completely wrong. Look here, many of the basic principles of Objectivism are facts of reality, and in the context of this forum at least, do not require a reference. Why? For the same reasons and in the same way that each time I say, "for a right-angled triangle, the square of its hypothenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides," I do not always have to specify that Pythagoras said so; and when I say "two plus two equals four," I do not always have to specify which Babylonian or Egyptian or Indian first came up with this principle. In objective communication, the knowledge of the audience determines context: there are some things which can be taken for granted on this board. And the principle I paraphrased, not quoted, is one of them. And anyone who takes a look at my record on this board knows I am very well-referenced. In fact, I hardly ever post without some concrete(s) side-by-side with my abstraction(s). No-one can today accuse me of rationalism or anything near it. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Which is why I took such a reflective stance toward your posts at first. As I have said, I agree with Ayn Rand, and I'm actually one of the few people I know who can actually answer the above questions inductively, as opposed to deductively. But it is 11:40p.m. here, and I have to go to work in the morning. If you show some remorse, I might find some time to answer the above in such a way as to add value to your life; otherwise, I'll pass.

Well, history will bear witness to my good-spiritedness, which this fellow had here spurned. No, this is not my position. I agree with Ayn Rand. In fact, it is an ignorant interpretation of my position, because it betrays ignorance of Miss Rand's work, i.e., ignorance of Objectivism. You have called Ayn Rand a Libertarian, or at least, someone who discovered a principle that is "a dangerous, morally relativistic, Libertarian fallacy that has no basis in reality." You have not rescinded this statement - among others - since you made it, in spite of all my tactfulness in this regard. Instead, you decided to rattle on foolishly. That is not the context in which the principle applies. The context would be if the robber asked you if you were armed and you lied, knowing you had a gun. Would it be moral to tell him the truth in this case? Context-dropping is a logical fallacy. Perhaps I should be the one to educate you on Miss Rand's work, since I have been reading them voraciously for 5 years. I have read VOS about 5 times and many essays in CUI 5 or 6 times, but some only twice. And that's just to name a few of the more well-known articles. And going by your conduct on this thread, you obviously haven't grasped Objectivism anywhere near my understanding of it. I will respond to your other post in a new post, for clarity's sake.

Like I said, that post will suffice. Feel free to post as much as you wish against my argument, but I really don't want to discuss it further. Those who can be reached have been reached.

Mr. Swig has been kind enough to give you yet some more context on this issue. I suggest you use this opportunity wisely. I hope your next post shall be a true post. Best wishes.

I see the problem: you don't have all the context you require to understand where I'm coming from. It's no cause for conflict though - you seem a measured, mannered fellow who can be reasoned with. The statement, "Morality ends where a gun begins" is Ayn Rand's, with only the slightest alteration by me. The full context is the novel, "Atlas Shrugged" (if I recall correctly). She wrote: "Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." I don't have my copies before me right now, so I can't confirm the exact source text. So, now that you have that lead, I hope you will hunt down the necessary information and re-read my posts on the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread. Some of my statements from that thread, one of which you quoted above, are rhetorical and must be taken and understood in their full context. I look forward to your return here and to your revision of this unfortunate statement from your last post: " While you profess not to be a Libertarian (and I have no reason to doubt your veracity) many of the views you hold are consonant with theirs." This is a very dangerous accusation, but, like I said, you probably didn't know enough to say better. And if this isn't the case, that would be a shame indeed.

Because of the lengths of these posts and because of the limited time available to me, I will let this last post of mine on this subject stand against any future opposition. To answer your first charge, the Taliban was a specific government. The Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan. Now, in response to your request for evidence of government-sponsorship of the various attacks, failed and successful, that you mentioned, I put forward the following: You ask about, "...the dress rehersal attacks on the World Trade Center back in 1993 masterminded and carried out by Muslims that most definitely hid their plans and goals and went to prayers while doing so?" I point you to this site: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSU.../narayanan.html You ask, "...about the shoe bomber who attempted to destroy an airliner while traveling to the U.S. under false pretenses?" I point you to these sites: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=423 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSU.../narayanan.html You ask, "...about the numerous plots that have been foiled both before and since 9/11, such as the millenium plot to simultaneously detonate numerous airliners at LAX?" And I point you here: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSU.../narayanan.html You also ask "...about the recently-foiled plot to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge?" And I point you here: http://www.highvolumemedia.com/thebullhorn...error/Page4.htm You also ask about when, "...July 4, 2002 a Muslim immigrant opened fire on the ticket line at the Israeli Airline counter at Los Angeles International Airport, killing 2 and wounding 4. He came to America from Egypt, but there is no evidence the government of Egypt sent him the gun he used in the attack." and about when "In 1999, the Muslim co-pilot of an Egyptian airliner that took off from New York seized control of the plane and crashed it into the Atlantic. He is heard on the cockpit voice recorder saying, "I put my trust in Allah". He killed 217." And I point you here. http://hometown.aol.com/missiletwa800/egyptair.htm Some of the links I have provided above convey similar information, so I ask you to consider them as a unit when you search for my corroborating evidence. Then, finally you say: "Then we have John Allen Mohammad, the Muslim convert who murdered 11 people in DC and Maryland." Now, this is an atypical case, one which involved the use of methods never seen previously (in the operation of Islamic terror), and which are usually employed by serial killers. I'm not saying that Islam is not somewhat responsible for this, but I think that considering the number of murders committed by serial killers everywhere claiming to be motivated by various "ideals," we can agree that this is not typical of Islamic terrorism. Please see my comments above, where I provide evidence. No, sir, determinism does not live here anymore. Like I said earlier on this thread, I do not believe that Muslim immigration should be unrestricted. What I said was that restrictions should revolve around physical ties to terrorist groups and/or the states who sponsor them. This is not new in American immigration policy: On the current Application for Permanent Residency, those vying for it are asked if they have any ties to the Communist Party. This question can be duplicated for Islamic fundamentalist organizations and the countries which sponsor/support Islamic terrorism. Note that these countries (like Syria and Iraq under Saddam) are not necessarily Islamic countries. In order to keep context, I also want to remind you of how this exchange began: I had taken issue with Oakes advocacy of restrictions on Third World immmigration (which is wider than Muslim immigration). Please see above. No, I disagree: the sanction provided by the US is in appeasing the states, not in allowing Mexicans over the border, or in letting Indians or other nationalities into the US. American immigration policy, overall, while wanting, is basically good. But, the problems that its own loopholes creates are beginning to undermine it. People calling for unconsidered restrictions are only causing more damage. If immigration were open (see Robert Tracinski's Open Immigration) and evil states were ruthlessly destroyed, there would be no talk of further restrictions. The United States would not even get as many immigrants as it does now, since most countries, witnessing the uncompromising American response to despotic, warlike nations, would sit up and put their houses in order. Fewer dictatorships and mixed economies means fewer immigrants. Ignoring the somewhat cavalier last paragraph, this is a good point: a brutal strike would end the lives of some would-be Muslim immigrants. But, at least, there would be no appeasement, i.e., no sacrifice, involved. The U.S. would not be sacrificing itself to the evil states; the evil states would no longer sacrifice their best citizens; and immigrants from not-so-evil states (Mexico, India, and others) would not be sacrificed to bad foreign policy (immigration or diplomacy [war]). But, if we were to impose an unenforceable, niggling restriction on good men only to appease the warlike tyrants, there would be nothing but sorrow, tears, and blood all around. Besides the previous point, there is also the issue of why "nuking" some of the states you mentioned above would be impractical: the American oil interests resident in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and in case of such a strike, Libya, Iraq, and Egypt. Bringing down the states by severe bombing need not end those interests, but nuking them certainly would. And why cut your nose to spite your face? Also, the Iranian citizenry is now noticeably pro-US. I would rather that any attack against Iran be ruthless but very well-calibrated. I would even prefer the "nuking" of a Syria, which does not harbor any interests I am aware of. Furthermore, the proximity of Israel to these countries also makes an uncalibrated nuclear strike seem unworthy. But, do not take my comments here to mean I am opposed to whatever action is required to ensure zero American casualties. On the contrary, I am in support of any means necessary to end the terrorist threat. But, as in all things, one must not evade any facts: one must be objective.

The full context of my statement requires that you examine what I wrote on the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread in conjunction with what I have written on this one.

I also read the work Mr. Valliant published online a few years ago, in this connection. In his preamble, he mentioned that Dr. Peikoff would not be on the side of any form of dignifying response to the Brandens.

The pleasure is mine. Also, remember to consider other options (i.e., to assert, co-opt or create new facts) in the matter. For instance, do you cook? If not, take it up. You'd be marvellously and pleasantly surprised at how much you can save and how much you are missing. Do you shop for bargains? Do you buy $120 shoes for $40? Used DVDs and CDs? Store brands rather than third-party? Do you insist on taking dates to not-so-expensive but quality places? Or do you rely on winning them over through largesse? In any case, I wish you the best.

Would someone please fix the quotes? Thanks.

But, all the above examples are state-sponsored, except perhaps for the lone shoe bomber. Which is very likely why he failed. And as for the Muslims dancing in the streets, as truly despicable as it was (and I almost lost my job, at the time, campaigning for a US reprisal), many American liberals danced in the privacy of their bedrooms. I may be misinterpreting your tone here, but I get the impression that you're raising "deceit and treachery" to the status of essentials. Heck, even Objectivism sanctions deceit, but it depends on whom this deceit is being practiced on. Moral action, since it is based on knowledge, is contextual. But, this is not an overriding problem with your post. Now, you're talking. This is a strong point which I have considered at length. Because of this, I almost began to think that all advanced immigration problems belonged to the ethics of emergencies. But, this one too fails. For one, why would the good Muslims be left out? Because there is still a danger that some bomber would sneak in, right? But this then leads to the question: Can a bomber not sponsored by a nation-state succeed? If an example or two of such phenomena is found and presented to me, I will stop arguing against the halt of Muslim immigration. But no-one here has come forward with contextually-viable concretes, which is why I almost lost my temper when arguing with Oakes. The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive; in the absence of such proof, the negative position requires no evidence to dismiss the positive claims. I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but, to quote Dr. Peikoff, who was quoting Hegel, the True is the Whole. All existence is a system. The America that will do the right thing by war against terror-states will do the right thing by immigration. If there is no proper foreign-policy regarding war, there can be no proper foreign-policy regarding immigration. Note that the altruistic, anti-business liberals and conservatives both support vigorous immigration restrictions but oppose a vigorous, ruthless war on Islamic terror. The altruists always know whom to sacrifice first: The Creator. You believe that America has the right to take her time in appeasing evil states, yet you vociferously defend her right to [let me grant] unavoidably deny admission to good men. Yet, it is individuals who make or break whole cultures. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Ayn Rand, Kant. The fate of millions depends on any one of these types of extraordinary individuals. After all, if Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff hadn't emigrated to the US, how would you have been so sure about what method to apply in fighting Islamic terrorism? You seem to have dropped the "Islamic" in front of the "terrorism." What about Christian abortion-clinic bombers? What about Timothy McVeigh, an American libertarian? What about the Unabomber, who is an environmentalist? Even if Islam is more evil than those other belief-systems, that doesn't remove the fact that only state-sponsorship makes for terrorism. I quote Leonard Peikoff again: [Emphasis added.] I took a quick look at the statements listed by you there and tried to verify them by checking them against what I have observed when amongst my Muslim friends. So, let me see... Do the liberals you know condemn terrorism unequivocally? What do these liberals say about the portions of the Western philosophical texts (such as Hegel's and Hobbes') which say that the individual must be submitted to the state by any and all means, including force? Furthermore, what do the Christians say about the portions of the Bible that exhort the deaths of unbelievers? I don't know my Muslim friend's [the one who got married] view of the fatwa, but I know he was for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but when the latter started getting messy, he started to talk about how it was "arrrogant" of Americans to believe they could just walk into nations to change entire mindsets. I chalked that up to his philosophical resistance to a superior force. But, had the US acted ruthlessly, I doubt that he would have dared voice his opinion. At most, he would have returned to his native country of his own volition. Well, he and his wife have been perhaps my most dependable dancing partners for the past two years. And they love to dance, as I do - and not "innocently" either. My now-married friends lived together for a year-and-a-half, unmarried. He confessed some guilt to me, but he knows my views, and that they are radical. I told him that his guilt owed to his religion and to his upbringing. He is slowly relinquishing some of his altruistic positions. But, it's not an easy task. Not in all Muslim countries or communities. I went to school with many Muslims. My father, an agnostic who is seriously opposed to Islamic fundamentalism and quite pro-Bush, went to a Muslim elementary school. My grandmother (a wealthy businesswoman) died a Christian, but was born Muslim. I do not know enough to say either way. Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives, if I remember correctly. So, in a sense, technically, one cannot cheat on one's wives. See answer to #4. This might be true in principle, but I have not observed this first-hand. I guess in the more fastidious Muslim societies, this is true. I have seen many women in purdah - but this is partially true of Mormons and fundamentalist Christians too. My friends met on the internet. When my friend was buying his car, I accompanied him to the car dealer myself, where he wilfully engaged in such business. He, two weeks before his wedding, took motorcycling classes, got certified, and plans to soon buy a motorcycle which he and his wife will ride in bliss. I don't know either way, but I have seen many Moslem men wear gold, even Arabs. This would be very hard to verify. Perhaps it is a principle, but I'm almost certain that Christianity contains such nonsense too. I have never bothered to ask this question; perhaps one day soon. Wow, what an exhausting post! I'm sure it's riddled with errors, but I'll post it anyway.

This will be my last post to you in this vein. I have better things to do with my time. I just want to reiterate that Objectivism is NOT The Savage Nation. Rationalistic sloganeering in order to please fascists is not the approach used by men of reason. I leave you with a few quotes from Dr. Peikoff's End States Who Sponsor Terrorism, which I think you should read very carefully:

Look, I am beginning to lose patience with this package-dealing. The destruction of Muslim terror-states is the necessary action, not the restriction of immigrant (Westernized) Muslims. Restricting immigration is useless: the most determined will make it to American shores; the truly convinced Muslims do not want to leave the Arab world anyway. But, most of all, since these Muslims are not coming here to seek handouts from you (if you have any to give them, that is), why should you seek to violate their rights and their employers' rights to work and hire freely? You are still dropping context. Retaliatory force against whom? The evil states, or the good men?

I have all of the above except for Study Methods & Motivation. I would suggest you get Leonard Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism and Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic. The main thing, in my experience, to remember when trying to break any bad habit is to "catch yourself" before or while you are committing it and to try to remember all the facts that are, and will be, affected by your behavior. And then, simultaneously, form a new habit that counters the bad one. For instance, if you are overweight, but would like to stay fit and make love to beautiful women, then, each time you're about to gorge yourself, try to remember (some of) the uniting characteristic(s) of the men that beautiful women make love to (e.g., James Bond, Howard Roark, and Seal are all physically active men). Then, begin, say, to eat ONLY protein at night (after 6), subscribe to Men's Health, and take up the treadmill. Reading Ayn Rand while on the treadmill is a great motivation to go to the gym. As you start to see results, you'll find that you'll become more and more morally disgusted by binging. If you're a big spender, begin to keep a record of all your weekly - or daily - transactions, even if you're still spending. After a while, you'll find that the facts of the case (in this case, your account balance and how quickly you cut through it) will become more and more real in your mind. Sooner or later, you'll begin to cut non-essential items out of your "budget." Also, observe that the most successful men in the world are usually the most financially disciplined. It is because money is a store of value, and these types of men are valuers. The results are not immediate and can take quite some time and stamina. But, if you remember to assert consciousness inductively, the worst "demons" can be banished.

Islam is an ancient religion that was on its way out while the West was in colonization of the Arab world. What brought it back to prominence? The ideas of a Westerner, Immanuel Kant, who disarmed the West philosophically, leading to the death of scores of millions from Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism. Islamism is simply the latest in a series of reversals and spin-offs from Kant's handiwork. As for patriotism tests, what's to ensure that the bad immgrants won't lie? I agree with background checks. But, these should be conducted on every immigrant, not just the ones from the Third World. In any case, we already have "patriotism tests," which are part of the process of naturalization. And as I had inductively shown the last time, what about the rational immigrant from the Arab world/Third World who is caught up in the appeasement of Islamic terror-states by the US? Is he to be sacrificed? This individual, too, cannot "sacrifice [his] own safety to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent." Morality ends where a gun begins.

But, the US also has spies, so deception is not unique to evil: espionage is a military tactic. And a military presupposes a nation-state. You will have to provide evidence of what you have written above about Muslims. I personally know Muslim immigrant doctors who feel about America much the same way as many Americans do. In fact, I attended one's wedding 2 months ago; he married a Christian. Besides, as I have written in many places on this forum, to sustain the [what I consider rationalistic] deductions you have made above, one would have to show that a Muslim could act militarily - and successfully - against the US without the support and sponsorship of a nation-state. End the evil states, not the good men. In fact, you have no right to do the latter. I do not see Muslim immigration as separate from the immigration of followers of any other belief system, so long as they have no physical ties to force-initiators of any stripe. I abhor many Christians, but there are also many I find to be superb people.

Oh yes, third-world immigration restriction is a must indeed... Indian software engineers, go home! African doctors, go home! Asian scientists, go home! Mexican workmen, go home! First-world University professors of evil ideas and no-good, native-born Americans with no jobs to offer anyone, you MUST STAY! Heil somebody!

But what is David Veksler's position on this matter? The buck stops with him ultimately, and I don't see him rushing to silence this non-entity who has just sacrificed the board he owns.

Well, even if that were the case, knowing that Mr. Speicher is an elderly, highly-accomplished citizen who is now in retirement; knowing that he was benevolently engaged in teaching and explaining advanced Objectivist concepts to the younger people here; knowing that his level of intellectual consistency was extremely high; knowing that you cannot explain these difficult concepts yourself, couldn't you have sent him a courtesy PM on the matter? Couldn't you have chosen better here? Well, we have lost the benefit of his wisdom. If this matter is not rectified, the board's death knell may have been sounded. My advice: you tender an unreserved apology to him (which he may or may not read or respond to), but at least you would have shown some kind of remorse. The quicker the better.

Thanks for the information, Volens; and welcome to the board.

I have nowhere said that "culture" is not a valid concept. In fact, I refer to it all the time. I said I consider "cultural capital" invalid. Capital, as can be gleaned from the above, and as is present in rational literature, presupposes a creator who produced the wealth. Thus, "cultural capital" means 'wealth produced by some people in a culture,' which boils down to the individuals. Thus "cultural capital" obliterates the fact of some individual's creativity, which is injustice. "Cultures" cannot produce wealth; only individuals can. A is A. Please see above. Furthermore, one can see in "Ominous Parallels" that it was the raising of "culture" to a primary that, in part, caused the Third Reich. The Nazis appealed to the "blood" because they sought to claim the achievements of Aristotle for themselves. To be is to be individual. Please see above.

I had written a fantastic response to your post only to have to reboot my PC because of a broken link I had tried to copy and paste from Google. But, let me try to reproduce it... ------------------------------ As your quotes from Ethnic America demonstrate, Sowell is pro-capitalism. (I am aware of the thread running through his books - I have read a few of them myself.) But this does not translate to individualism. I do not believe concepts such as "cultural capital" are valid. Why? Because they do not pertain to fundamentals. I mean, did Aristotle's "fellow" whites in Ancient Greece help him discover Logic and the innumerable facts of Biology he unearthed? Or did he do it all by himself? Virtually all the "white" creators in Western Civilization faced rejection, ridicule, and/or martyrdom from their fellow "white" men. Where was "cultural capital" then? My point: Is achievement individual- or group-based? These "ideas prevalent in [the] culture," are they produced by racial committee or are they the products of an unacknowledged individual working hard and swimming furiously against the cultural mainstream? Would the Greeks simply "valuing education" and being "willing to work" have resulted in Western Civilization? Education in what? Work for whom? Besides, the "group-achievement" theories only serve to sacrifice the best among the "low-achieving" groups. The creator in these groups is beholden to "helping his brothers out." This means that whatever grand achievement he does have, or plans to fulfill, is sacrificed to the "society's need to see group X do Y." His strengths are sacrificed to the weaknesses of others, simply because they possess the same skin color as he does. Plato and Kant would have been proud. If one focuses on black trash, what about the white trash? Why do they get off easy? Why do they get out of the brow-beating and the tongue-lashing? This is racism: Newton's intellectual stature is conferred on some undeserving moron, simply because he shared Newton's skin color. Where is justice? Sowell often, inadvertently, confesses the effect of the societal strain on him - the creator - when he calls those leftist group-worshippers who claim to want to see blacks succeed, "bean-counters." But, even if he doesn't realize it, so is he. He too wants to see "blacks succeed." So, he uses some of the language of the group-worshippers. He gives undeserved air-time to cretins like Pat Buchanan and nobodies like Charles Murray. If I were him, I wouldn't even adopt that presumptuous tone which sometimes comes across as 'speaking for' blacks or 'leading' blacks. Why would he do what [Edit]some[Edit] white people don't want to do? This type of white person would argue that "if Sowell says it, it wouldn't be considered racist." But, why should Sowell sacrifice himself to the sentiments he will and does face? Simply because he's black? As Ayn Rand noted, reason is an individual faculty; and this absolute cannot be circumvented: one either preaches this or one doesn't. Objectivists cannot allow those whom Miss Rand characterized as the "alleged defenders of liberty" to claim holy ground. Objectivists must stand firm on this point or all else is lost. Sowell gives his enemies some fuel: he feeds the idea that a man must live for certain others, which in his case is those who share his skin color. This is incalculable damage to his cause, although he probably isn't aware of it. Just to make sure that you see the banality of preaching "responsibility" and "valuing education, " I ask you to observe the Carribean-immigrant family Farley (the MIT mathematician Jonathan, the TIME music critic Christopher, their parents and siblings) and check out the disastrous views that Jonathan holds and spreads. And they "value education" and are "willing to work," so what gives? If one wishes to oppose welfare, the proper attitude is: "Destroy welfare; you have no right to take my money without my consent." An improper attitude is: "There are too many blacks on welfare." The latter involves a package deal. No-one should lose any sleep if some people don't do their best. Just fight for your rights and all will be well. I hope I've made my case. Please let me know if there are any questions I haven't answered.

I am a fan of Sowell's too. I also disagree with Mr. Swig on this one. Sowell's life (My Odyssey) is a study in modern heroism. But, Dr. Sowell is not an individualist. He does not preach it, even though his work is pro-capitalism and among the very best in his field in modern times. He's a neo-classical economist whose work would fall under the same banner as Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises. He uses terms like "blacks" and "whites" a lot, many times without qualification, and although I don't think he's the bad type of racist, I do think that he has a racist streak. I am using the word "racist" here in the strictest sense, i.e., as Ayn Rand used it in her essay, Racism. Which is why individualism is so demanding: you either believe that reason is an individual faculty or you don't. Economics is still waiting for that genius who will begin his extended study of the subject not from the observation of groups but from the observation of the individual. After all, to be is to be individual. To find out anything about chairs, you have to study this chair. To know about messageboards, you have to study this messageboard. Ayn Rand says as much at the beginning of What is Capitalism?

As perhaps the only Java/J2EE developer who fights for Microsoft, I've had this conversation so many times, you wouldn't believe it. I recall taking a class in database systems, as part of my grad degree a few years ago. The Comp. Sci. professor was very good, a highly-disciplined and informed man with a thick Turkish accent. I enjoyed his lectures, which he peppered with sharp non-technical observations that were usually spot on. However, he made a statement about the future of programming languages, a statement with which I disagreed. We had been discussing the emergence of a language (say, 6th generation) that would be so human-readable that coding would become like writing or talking. One of the students brought up the work Microsoft was doing in that area via Visual Basic. To which the professor scoffed: "All these attempts to make programming easier....it's code, it's supposed to be cryptic!" I now understand, looking back, the philosophical premises that led him to that conclusion. His statement could easily apply to some present-day musical lyrics or to some philosophical writing (e.g. Kant, Hegel), but this is not to say he was Kantian or Hegelian. On the contrary, his notes, manner and teaching style were very clear and ruthlessly well-organized. I think he'd absorbed that traditionalist, "this-is-how-we've-always-done-it" attitude from his colleagues. It is no surprise how, in spite of what Microsoft has shown to be possible, there are still many programmers who pride themselves (sometimes in a petty way) on the ability to memorize "cryptic" commands in UNIX or some application executed on commandline. But, I guess they too are not to blame ultimately: they're just trying to do their jobs as effectively as possible.