So... what's the big deal with Ayn Rand??

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-16 04:04pm

Rand had her flaws - but nothing like the breath-taking ignorance on display in this thread.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-16 04:07pm

Rand had her flaws - but nothing like the breath-taking ignorance on display in this thread.

All of which is neatly contained in that sentence.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-06-16 04:08pm

The Question wrote:Rand had her flaws - but nothing like the breath-taking ignorance on display in this thread.

If you disagree with someone, then say why and make your arguement, but don't spew random insults in an otherwise normal thread, mmk?

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-16 04:15pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
The Question wrote:Rand had her flaws - but nothing like the breath-taking ignorance on display in this thread.
If you disagree with someone, then say why and make your arguement, but don't spew random insults in an otherwise normal thread, mmk?

Dude, I'm just feeling lazy.

If someone said to you - "the thing I don't like about football is the designated hitter rule" - at that point is it worth your effort to continue, or just roll your eyes and walk away.

Then ignore the thread instead of polluting it~Olrik

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-16 04:18pm

If someone said to you - "the thing I don't like about football is the designated hitter rule" - at that point is it worth your effort to continue, or just roll your eyes and walk away.

Care to explain how that analogy is even remotely relevant?

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-16 04:31pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
If someone said to you - "the thing I don't like about football is the designated hitter rule" - at that point is it worth your effort to continue, or just roll your eyes and walk away.
Care to explain how that analogy is even remotely relevant?

When someone starts spouting off about what they hate about something and they're not even in the ballpark - so to speak

- it's best just to walk away.

Which I'm doing now, at the oh-so-polite request of whatever jackass likes decorating other people's posts with his fingerprints.

Thank you for your cooperation. Have a very nice day~Olrik

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-16 05:02pm

^^^

Nice one, Olrik.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-16 06:03pm

The Question wrote:Rand had her flaws - but nothing like the breath-taking ignorance on display in this thread.

Interesting. You do nothing whatsoever to illuminate the situation. No information, no helpful corrections, no points or counterpoints, nothing. Yet you feel compelled to whine that someone may not like your non-point, even though such pointless insults are against the stated policy of the board and you already knew that.

In fact, I have noticed that this is not an isolated incident, and that a disturbingly large proportion of your posting activity falls into this general behaviour pattern: instead of making an argument, you simply sit on the sidelines and take potshots, apparently to denigrate the intelligence or knowledge of others without exposing yourself to counterattack. Very courageous of you

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-16 06:30pm

Darth Wong wrote:
The Question wrote:Rand had her flaws - but nothing like the breath-taking ignorance on display in this thread.
Interesting. You do nothing whatsoever to illuminate the situation. No information, no helpful corrections, no points or counterpoints, nothing. Yet you feel compelled to whine that someone may not like your non-point, even though such pointless insults are against the stated policy of the board and you already knew that.

In fact, I have noticed that this is not an isolated incident, and that a disturbingly large proportion of your posting activity falls into this general behaviour pattern: instead of making an argument, you simply sit on the sidelines and take potshots, apparently to denigrate the intelligence or knowledge of others without exposing yourself to counterattack. Very courageous of you

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were under the impression I'm preaching the gospel of Rand. I ain't. I'm just amused by how far off the mark most people are in describing what she wrote and advocated, and educating the masses isn't something I'm interested in.

I prefer informed discussion - regardless of what side one takes - not arguing for the sake of arguing.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-06-16 06:35pm

Personally... I found the "kiki is Posessed by Rand" storyline from SluggyFreelance to be highly entertaining. It was one of his Guest Weeks, IIRC.

I believe there was a comment made that Ayn Rand was so stuffy because she had a constipation problem.

In other words, she was full of *it.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-16 07:01pm

The Question wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were under the impression I'm preaching the gospel of Rand. I ain't. I'm just amused by how far off the mark most people are in describing what she wrote and advocated, and educating the masses isn't something I'm interested in.

Then what are you interested in? Apparently you like springing into a conversation with backhanded comments and fleeing when confronted.

I prefer informed discussion - regardless of what side one takes - not arguing for the sake of arguing.

Then why don't you discuss it with someone who shares your obviously superior mental capacity.

You're nothing but a posturing troll.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-16 08:30pm

The Question wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:In fact, I have noticed that this is not an isolated incident, and that a disturbingly large proportion of your posting activity falls into this general behaviour pattern: instead of making an argument, you simply sit on the sidelines and take potshots, apparently to denigrate the intelligence or knowledge of others without exposing yourself to counterattack. Very courageous of you
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were under the impression I'm preaching the gospel of Rand. I ain't. I'm just amused by how far off the mark most people are in describing what she wrote and advocated, and educating the masses isn't something I'm interested in.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You enter a debate not to inform or participate, but simply to take potshots.

I prefer informed discussion - regardless of what side one takes - not arguing for the sake of arguing.

Then why didn't you add any information to this one, instead of taking empty potshots?

I am leaning toward a debater classification of "camper" for you.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-06-16 09:34pm

The Question wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were under the impression I'm preaching the gospel of Rand. I ain't.

The hell you're not, you Objectivist lackey.

Now either provide some specific examples of whatever's offended you so much or admit that you're just upset that we wrecked your Goddess's philosophy.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-16 09:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:
I am leaning toward a debater classification of "camper" for you.

I soooo give a rat's ass.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-16 09:42pm

My God, Storm Rucker is the Viet Cong of debating.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-06-16 10:33pm

The Question wrote:Rand had her flaws - but nothing like the breath-taking ignorance on display in this thread.

So sayeth our Guest Randroid.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-17 12:44am

I think that The Question has demonstrated his debating style sufficiently. Thread closed.