On Mar 3, 7:52 pm, "George Dance" wrote:
> On Mar 3, 8:42 pm, "Randroid Terminator"
hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Mar 3, 6:26 pm, "George Dance" wrote:
>
>>> On Mar 3, 7:05 pm, "Randroid Terminator"
hotmail.com> wrote:>>>> On Mar 3, 12:44 pm, "George Dance" wrote:
>
>>>>> On Mar 3, 10:48 am, Malrassic Park
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2007 07:08:50 -0800, "George Dance"
>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>On Mar 1, 6:25 pm, Malrassic Park
hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:35:27 +0000 (UTC), George Dance
>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Feb 27, 6:47 pm, Malrassic Park
hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:36:07 +0000 (UTC), George Dance
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Feb 27, 4:38 pm, Malrassic Park
hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> .
>
>>>>>>>Re:
>>>>>>>Big Sister Is Watching You
>>>>>>>By Whittaker 'Gas' Chambers
>>>>>>>December 28, 1957
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>> It is simply a great article
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> I don't care what Whittaker believed in, he was a great writer. Don't
>>>>>>>>>> you think?
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>Not judging by that piece of tripe. The thesis - that rejecting God
>>>>>>>>>makes one a Nazi - is ludicrous, the style is unbelievably convoluted
>>>>>>>>>and turgid - I noticed at least one sentence that couldn't even be
>>>>>>>>>parsed - and the fact-checking is nonexistent.
>>>>>>>> It is not an exact duplicate of the original article. Obvious errors
>>>>>>>> were made in the process of copying the text to a harddrive.
>>>>>>>It's 'obvious' that there are errors in the article; it's not
>>>>>>>'obvious' that those were made in copying. I don't think that /
>>>>>>>National Review/ is paying anyone to copy their articles online
>>>>>>>without proofreading them; it's more reasonable to think that
>>>>>>>Chambers made them himself.
>
>>>>>> You can't say that for certain unless you saw the article posted at
>>>>>> the website, instead of the one I copied to usenet.
>
>
>>>> I cleaned up the most obvious errors before posting the text. See,
>>>> George?
>
>>> You didn't 'clean up' the errors I pointed out previously. They're in
>>> both the webbed version and your posted version (and most likely, in
>>> the original magazine version as well).
>
>> The errors you mentioned have nothing to do with typographical errors.
>
> Of course they're not typorgraphical errors. They're errors Chambers
> made, because he was too lazy to check a fact - just as you
> perpetuated them, because you were too lazy to check a fact.
>
>> Making fun of Rand's heroes is not an error.
>
> But misspelling their names is - one that makes both you and WGC look
> incredibly stupid, BTW.
Spelling "typorgraphical" like that makes you look incredibly stupid,
BTW.
>> You have a funny idea of what constitutes an error.
>
> So you already told me: "Nobody cares about fact-checking, except
> you."
You are flaming Whittaker for an alleged spelling mistake.
>>>> That is just one example of how you thought you knew something and
>>>> yet
>>>> you didn't.
>
>>>> You were wrong, George, that's not allowed on Usenet.
>
>>> Yet the errors are still sitting in both versions, for anyone to
>>> read.
>
>>>> So begone.
>
>>> Hmmm ... I'm seeing a pattern here: you use "Randroid Terminator"
>>> when your meds wear off, is that it? Anyway, you were wrong (again);
>>> so you be gone.
>
>> I can't fix the errors that led to your adhd or dementia or whatever
>> afflicts
>> you mentally.
>
> However, you can pop a few more meds and turn yourself back into
> Moronic Prick; just as obnoxious, but a bit less obviously
> irrational. So why don't you?
I decided you must have adhd, because you can't seem to focus
on one single issue at a time but always diverge into uninteresting
side-issues.
>>>>>>>Some of those errors are laughingly stupid. For example, Chambers
>>>>>>>goes out of his way to poke fun at the names of some of /Atlas
>>>>>>>Shrugged/'s characters. Not only is that a pointless criticism, it
>>>>>>>isn't even an effective criticism if the review can't even get those
>>>>>>>names right.
>
>>>>>>>> And you
>>>>>>>> should check your own facts: it was a book review, not a doctoral
>>>>>>>> thesis, nobody cares about fact-checking, except you.
>>>>>>>Speak for yourself. If you don't care about fact-checking, say "I
>>>>>>>don't care about fact-checking." Don't try to tell me what everyone
>>>>>>>cares and doesn't care about.
>>>>>>>> Turgid prose is
>>>>>>>> only an issue of style.
>>>>>>>Style is an essential part of what makes 'great articles' and
>>>>>>>'great
>>>>>>>writers.' Someone who writes sentences like -
>
>>>>>>>"And in reality, too, by contrast with fiction, this can only head
>>>>>>>into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and
>>>>>>>feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in
>>>>>>>morals, vicious (as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be). "
>
>>>>>> Sounds good to me. And it ties in the Nietzschean interpretation
>>>>>> Whittaker held about Rand.
>
>>>>>>>- certainly has a style; but not that of a 'great writer' - that of a
>>>>>>>pompous windbag completely lost in his own verbiage.
>
>>>>>> I like it
>
>>>>> Of course you do; 'the enemy of your enemy is your friend', and all
>>>>> that.
>
>>>> Must every single one of your statements contain the word "you" or
>>>> "your"?
>
>>> Of course not. 8D
>
>> Is an 8 followed by a D supposed to depress me?
>
> Tilt your hed to the left and look at it again; then you might
> understand. 8)
>
> Psychological tactics
None of which make a bit of difference to me.
>> are lame. Ever try reason?
>
> Sure; I even tried it with you, but you'll have none of it; you prefer
> flame wars instead. So I'm giving you what you wanted.
Oh I see, calling you a Randroid two months ago means I wanted to
start a flame-war.
DAMN.
Like I said, you are sensitive to a fault.
>>>>> and I'm not a 'pompous windbag.'
>
>>>>> Says who?
>
>>>>>>>> Your comments on the article lack substance.
>
>>>>>>>The substance of Chambers' article - that the philosophy expressed
>>>>>>>in /
>>>>>>>Atlas Shrugged/ is no different from Naziism - is as vapid as its
>>>>>>>style.
>
>>>>>> Nazism, not Naziism. If you can flame Whittaker's style, then I can
>>>>>> flame your spelling.
>
>>>>> The first 3 dictionaries I checked - Oxford, Winston, and Funk &
>>>>> Wagnalls' - give both spellings. Then again, you don't care what
>>>>> dictionaries say, do you?
>
>>>> Are you asking, or assuming with yet another ad hom?
>
>>> I'm reminding you that less than a month ago you were flaming me for
>>> quoting from a dictionary: "Who cares if you quoted anything
>>> Canadian, but especially a dumb dictionary for God's sake." It's not
>>> my fault if you can't remember that far back.
>
>>> The point (which I'm sure went right over your head, as usual) being:
>>> Don't engage in a spelling flame unless you know how a word is
>>> spelled. Understand now?
>
>> It doesn't surprise me that you would quote me out of context. I
>> realize
>> it's because you are a second-handed writing primarily for an
>> audience,
>> for the attention, and you believe they find you entertaining or some
>> such.
>
> The fact that you'd try a spelling flame now, without looking first
> into a dictionary to see how the word in question is actually spelled,
> shows that you're as conmptuous of dictionaries as ever.
'conmptuous' huh. In fact I have often cited
M-w.com (merriam-
webster's
online dictionary). Find another accusation to throw at me. I'm sure
you will.
>> Fortunately for me, I am not an attention-whore.
>
> Of course you are.
>
>> And once again you are forcing me to waste my time looking up some
>> silly reference in an old post from last month.
>
> No, I'm not. Since you won't even check /AS/ to see how the names of
> its characters /AS are spelled, and won't look in a "dumb dictionary"
> to see how "Naziism" is spelled: why would anyone think you'd go back
> and check the 'context' of that old post?
>
>> I said who cares if
>> you
>> quoted the Oxford Canadian Dictionary or any dumb dictionary, when
>> the context involves your citing of other individuals besides Rand
>> and her followers. Remember?
>
> I brought it up, two posts ago. Remember?
Your citing a dictionary and a Catholic online encyclopedia doesn't
convince me that you can relate to any perspective outside of Rand's.
Then you changed the terms of the agreement by looking up your
posts from over the last month instead of during the present month
(which was Feb.). And now, weeks later, you are still trying to
hide the error of your ways behind endless accusations against me.
