Let's see... how are those ~ negotiations ~ with Iran going for Bush? Damn it, I didn't think we even had diplomatic relations with those guys! (More rewards for their intervention in Iraq, etc., etc...?)

Oh, and, as expected, Ms. Sheehan has left the Democratic Party after their inevitable "betrayal" of the cause. (Oh, yeah, actually wielding power, the Dems must give Bush what he wanted, after all...)

Maybe we should start another thread...

Absent the threats of Islamo-Fascism and ecocracy, I could at least understand the rationale for an all-out assault on Christianity and, as a corollary, voting Dem-scum across the board.

Let's start with IslamoFascism. The present mission (I refuse to call it a war) will not, and cannot achieve victory over the mullahs -- the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots; the Islamic Revolution (Hezbollah, the Mahdi Army, Iran), etc -- who even now safely consolidate even more power throughout the whole region. They are our enemy, and yet they run free; worse, their representatives in Iraq wield political power and enjoy our mandate as legitimate partners in an Iraqi state. Therefore the idea that we're securing a republic in Iraq, in order to fight jihadism, is a very dangerous farce indeed: in effect, we reap the whole bloody cost of the war while our enemies enjoy all the benefits. And these are no fringe benefits; they comprise the essence of what these beastly death cultists have been pining for since time immemorial: a unified confederation ruled and/or bullied by Islamic clerics. And they are so close...Pakistan, Iran, Syria (Iran's favorite secular pet), and now a year-long bid for Lebanon. To say nothing of Palestine, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, etc.. Can someone explain to me what we're actually doing now to stop them? And how it's supposed to stop them?

At present, I wouldn't necessarily vote for Hillary over Giuliani given all the above (assuming Giuliani can win the nomination -- not something I'm willing to grant). But that's because, your worries over a budding pacifist American ecocracy notwithstanding, I don't think any democrat with a hope of winning will do anything substantially different from a nominally pro-war republican. And in that case, I'd tentatively vote for Giuliani, who'll continue to fuck things up in the middle east but who won't be further socializing medicine -- if we can take him at his word. (On the other hand...I don't think too many republicans can be trusted on this score, and see every reason to suspect that a democrat will have a harder time passing left-wing legislation than a republican.)

Does any of the above somehow vindicate the American left? No. But it's horrible enough that I'm willing to see them in power if it meant the US would retreat to Kurdistan and pick up the pieces. To be clear, I think it's crucial that we remain in the region in some capacity, even if we're not fighting any kind of real war, and I doubt any democrat will be "pulling out" anytime soon. Kucinich won't be president.

Especially since Christianity is rampant among the Dem-scum in any event

Huh?

and the Reps appear to be less rather than more beholden to the RR now than in days of yore.

Ok, not the sort of thing you can necessarily gauge simply by following election stories over a year. Come to an American college campus -- say, Berkeley? -- then tell me you're less worried about christianity as an electoral force on the right. And the point is the coming generation, the next twenty years, not necessarily what happens today. All that said, if Giuliani can somehow pull off the nomination, that might help buy a little more time to gut the "moral majority" as a majority electoral force.

To concretise—Clinton over Giuliani in the present circumstances? Unthinkable to me.

I'm curious as to what you think the two would do so differently in foreign policy (that's the context you pose). Will Giuliani not send emissaries to Iran and Syria? Do you really think Hillary would take a pacifist line a la the anti-globalist, anti-war left? Care for a wager?

I may comment a bit more on Peikoff (re: moral bludgeon) later on, though we've already touched on that, just a teensy winsy bit. If memory serves.

Princess Di called me a "dishonest emotionalist" at some point. I'm not dishonest (and I thank James and Michael Moeller for their defence of me on this score), but in this instance "emotionalist" is true - I allowed my horror and disgust at the idea of blanketly voting Dem-scum and at its existential consequences, which I think have become irresistibly clear since the Dem-scum victory (and which horror and disgust I stand by utterly) to blot out any possibility in my mind that any Objectivist could honestly, independently believe there were sound reasons for such a course.

So my constant haranguing about emotionalism was true? My track record of being always right continues unabated? Yay!

Glad to be not just right, but to see that you've come around as well.

I very much admire your ability to revise deeply-held appraisals of people, especially when your positions appeared only more entrenched with time, even irrevocably so. There's no honor lost -- and only more honor gained -- in an apology such as yours, which is specific and straightforward about the fault and without all the standard, phony, self-flagellating fanfare of self-recrimination.

Thank you for those comments. I'm glad you chose the word "honor." "Honorable" is one of my favourite words. Being honorable is far more desirable than never owning to an error, and sometimes requires it. Whenever one is in error in fact. I do try to remember Rand's statement to the effect that in any argument, both sides win—the winner is vindicated and the loser learns something.

I believe I did issue my own blitzkrieg of insults in the wake of our long exchanges.

I believe you did.

Those were inspired by being called a cultist, and I'm happy to retract them now (since you've proven them false).

Thank you for being honorable.

It would be even more absurd for you to somehow magically drop your views on the war, Peikoff's (and others') arguments and your evaluation thereof. I'm not with you on these issues (though, truth be told, my positions are less defined and worked out than Peikoff's or Diana's, and in some cases differ from them) -- but I wouldn't respect you if you weren't holding vigorously to the substance of what you believe is right.

More vigorously than ever, all these months after the Dem-scum victory. Absent the threats of Islamo-Fascism and ecocracy, I could at least understand the rationale for an all-out assault on Christianity and, as a corollary, voting Dem-scum across the board. But those things are not absent—they are real and must of necessity dominate the context in which we're having this debate. In such a context I believe it's madness to vote that way—for the ecocrats and the appeasers of Islamo-Fascism. Especially since Christianity is rampant among the Dem-scum in any event, and the Reps appear to be less rather than more beholden to the RR now than in days of yore. To concretise—Clinton over Giuliani in the present circumstances? Unthinkable to me.

I also objected, and still do, to the moral bludgeon in the fatwa, which is why I call it that. I know you guys said Peikoff meant only to say that it's immoral to be immoral (my paraphrase)—I thought that extremely dubious. Why would he bother saying that? If Peikoff had simply done as he'd done when announcing he was voting for Kerry I would have had no problem. I would have shrugged and thought, "There he goes again." As it was, the thing read like a decree.

So no, I haven't changed my view on the substance of the argument.

Thanks for your gesture. I'm glad to have you back.

And don't worry about Mistress Phyllis. She poos on every parade, by her own admission. When she's not pooing she's scolding. When she's not pooing or scolding she's whining. Kinda like a dysfunctional pet. We love her just the same. I think.

Linz

I very much admire your ability to revise deeply-held appraisals of people, especially when your positions appeared only more entrenched with time, even irrevocably so. There's no honor lost -- and only more honor gained -- in an apology such as yours, which is specific and straightforward about the fault and without all the standard, phony, self-flagellating fanfare of self-recrimination.

I believe I did issue my own blitzkrieg of insults in the wake of our long exchanges. Those were inspired by being called a cultist, and I'm happy to retract them now (since you've proven them false).

I always viewed your stance on the "fatwa" and your prolonged attack on the Hsiekovian malice as two separate (though not totally unrelated) issues: the former mistaken but still justifiable, the latter absurd and unjust.

It would be even more absurd for you to somehow magically drop your views on the war, Peikoff's (and others') arguments and your evaluation thereof. I'm not with you on these issues (though, truth be told, my positions are less defined and worked out than Peikoff's or Diana's, and in some cases differ from them) -- but I wouldn't respect you if you weren't holding vigorously to the substance of what you believe is right.

Oh, and let me also respond to Phil's accusations of simultaneous and telepathic hsiehkovian invasion of the SOLO playground: up yours, Phyllis. We happened to still be browsing SOLO by dint of something called habit. It doesn't actually require a huge time-investment to follow your schoolmarmish antics. (Two turns of a mouse thrice a week usually does the trick.) And if we happen to like cheesecake and hate cauliflower, it only proves that we're (a) actually human, and (b) far more civilized and advanced in culinary matters than someone of your terminally schoolmarmish propensities.

I wasn't witness to the fracas itself, but I recognize a fair-minded retraction when I see one. Kudos for apologizing while not retracting your own opinions on the subject under debate.

..an honest, self-examined, strong, bold, man of vision and integrity. 

Perfect?  No.

But heroic.  We can disagree with him here and there, now and again, but love him you must.

Scott

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Gloucester:
We speak no treason, man: we say the king
Is wise and virtuous, and his noble queen
Well struck in years, fair, and not jealous;
We say that Shore's wife hath a pretty foot,
A cherry lip, a bonny eye, a passing pleasing tongue;
And that the queen's kindred are made gentle-folks:
How say you sir? Can you deny all this?
Act 1 Scene 1
In a number of sonnets I've taken the part of Richard III.

http://theeleutherian.blogspot...

The quotation wasn't?

That is a provocative question to provoke enmity.

http://theeleutherian.blogspot...

Who do you see as the false Richard Gloucester?

This thread reminds me of the scene of Reconcilement from Richard III:

KING EDWARD IV:
And now in peace my soul shall part to heaven,
Since I have set my friends at peace on earth.
Rivers and Hastings, take each other's hand;
Dissemble not your hatred, swear your love.

RIVERS:
By heaven, my heart is purged from grudging hate:
And with my hand I seal my true heart's love.

HASTINGS:
So thrive I, as I truly swear the like!

KING EDWARD IV:
Take heed you dally not before your king;
Lest he that is the supreme King of kings
Confound your hidden falsehood, and award
Either of you to be the other's end.

HASTINGS:
So prosper I, as I swear perfect love!

RIVERS:
And I, as I love Hastings with my heart!

KING EDWARD IV:
Madam, yourself are not exempt in this,
Nor your son Dorset, Buckingham, nor you;
You have been factious one against the other,
Wife, love Lord Hastings, let him kiss your hand;
And what you do, do it unfeignedly.

QUEEN ELIZABETH:
Here, Hastings; I will never more remember
Our former hatred, so thrive I and mine!

KING EDWARD IV:
Dorset, embrace him; Hastings, love lord marquess.

DORSET:
This interchange of love, I here protest,
Upon my part shall be unviolable.

HASTINGS:
And so swear I, my lord
[They embrace.]

KING EDWARD IV:
Now, princely Buckingham, seal thou this league
With thy embracements to my wife's allies,
And make me happy in your unity.

BUCKINGHAM:
Whenever Buckingham doth turn his hate
On you or yours,
[To the Queen.]
but with all duteous love
Doth cherish you and yours, God punish me
With hate in those where I expect most love!
When I have most need to employ a friend,
And most assured that he is a friend
Deep, hollow, treacherous, and full of guile,
Be he unto me! this do I beg of God,
When I am cold in zeal to yours.

KING EDWARD IV:
A pleasing cordial, princely Buckingham,
is this thy vow unto my sickly heart.
There wanteth now our brother Gloucester here,
To make the perfect period of this peace.

BUCKINGHAM:
And, in good time, here comes the noble duke.
{Enter GLOUCESTER.}

GLOUCESTER:
Good morrow to my sovereign king and queen:
And, princely peers, a happy time of day!

KING EDWARD IV:
Happy, indeed, as we have spent the day.
Brother, we done deeds of charity;
Made peace enmity, fair love of hate,
Between these swelling wrong-incensed peers.

GLOUCESTER:
A blessed labour, my most sovereign liege:
Amongst this princely heap, if any here,
By false intelligence, or wrong surmise,
Hold me a foe;
If I unwittingly, or in my rage,
Have aught committed that is hardly borne
By any in this presence, I desire
To reconcile me to his friendly peace:
'Tis death to me to be at enmity;
I hate it, and desire all good men's love.
First, madam, I entreat true peace of you,
Which I will purchase with my duteous service;
Of you, my noble cousin Buckingham,
If ever any grudge were lodged between us;
Of you, Lord Rivers, and, Lord Grey, of you;
That without desert have frown'd on me;
Dukes, earls, lords, gentlemen; indeed, of all.
I do not know that Englishman alive
With whom my soul is any jot at odds
More than the infant that is born to-night
I thank my God for my humility.

http://theeleutherian.blogspot...

... as anyone who knows Linz might imagine. (That was an understatement, for those who don't.)

Cheesecake is optional, Phil. Sugar-free cheesecake is anti-life.

> Funny, when I started SOLO all I wanted was to find the passionately rational and the rationally passionate whom I knew had to exist somewhere. I had no clue there'd be pitched battles and seismic schisms over PARC, Drooling Beast, the Iraq War, Sciabarra, an inhouse fatwa or any of it. [Linz]

There is a reason for this. Do you know what it is?

No, Phyllis, I don't. But I do know four things for sure:

1) You'll tell us;

2) You'll be incontrovertibly right;

3) You'll be the only one who is;

4) It'll all be Linz's fault.

Hope that saves you some typing.

Linz

PS - I do agree with you on the following in your previous post:

The exact opposite of what Peikoff said in Fact and Value is the case:

Honest error is ***far more frequent*** than we like to think.

But dishonest "error" is far more frequent than you like to think, or face up to.

I appreciate James and Casey for their perseverance. And, full credit to you, Linz, as well – I admire you for your willingness to listen, evaluate, and put forth the statement you have made. I’ve no doubt it was not easy, but your apology speaks volumes and, without a doubt (at least in my mind), re-affirms your character, integrity, benevolence, and KASS.

Now, let’s jumpstart the “honest and robust” debates that SOLO was intended to be a forum for. ☺

> Funny, when I started SOLO all I wanted was to find the passionately rational and the rationally passionate whom I knew had to exist somewhere. I had no clue there'd be pitched battles and seismic schisms over PARC, Drooling Beast, the Iraq War, Sciabarra, an inhouse fatwa or any of it. [Linz]

There is a reason for this. Do you know what it is?

> in this instance "emotionalist" is true - I allowed my horror and disgust at the idea of blanketly voting Dem-scum and at its existential consequences...to blot out any possibility in my mind that any Objectivist could honestly, independently believe there were sound reasons for such a course. [Linz]

It may be raining on the parade to point out that this kind of public admission of a major error is way too rare in Oist circles (as well as outside), but congratulations to Linz for making this one nonetheless. I have criticized Linz for being emotionalist in the past on a number of issues, but on this one he is not and provides a good example of clear-eyed, self appraisal.

A lesson is that no matter how strongly we believe things are obvious and everyone should see it, in most cases there are all sorts of ways people can have blind spots, miss something simple, not put two and two together philosophically or factually, be compartmentalized...and otherwise engage in honest error.

The exact opposite of what Peikoff said in Fact and Value is the case:

Honest error is ***far more frequent*** than we like to think.

And that is where Peikoff makes his major error in that essay,not in philosophy but in psychology.

... to all who've posted so graciously.

I knew the usual suspect would piss on the parade, and that from a different angle there might be a concern that I had capitulated on the substantive issue at stake, or was about to KASS down generally. Neither is true. As I said in the main post, I have not changed my mind one iota on the fatwa, just on whether its defenders defend it in good faith. And there most assuredly will be no KASSing down on my part. More than that, if Princess Di attempts another flounce, I shall unhesitatingly snatch her tiara and petticoats off her and give her a damn good spanking before she gets away.

An additional word about judging the integrity of people's motives. My apology here doesn't mean I think one should never do it, just that one should adopt a "beyond reasonable doubt" approach before pronouncing a negative judgment. In this instance I came to realise my evidence fell short and that, further, the Hsiekovians had been arguing from an honestly independent stance, underscored by their near-unanimous balking at the final act of fatwa-compliance, voting Dem-scum across the board. (Some, I might add, came to this position kicking and screaming, but that was no reflection on their honesty.)

Princess Di called me a "dishonest emotionalist" at some point. I'm not dishonest (and I thank James and Michael Moeller for their defence of me on this score), but in this instance "emotionalist" is true - I allowed my horror and disgust at the idea of blanketly voting Dem-scum and at its existential consequences, which I think have become irresistibly clear since the Dem-scum victory (and which horror and disgust I stand by utterly) to blot out any possibility in my mind that any Objectivist could honestly, independently believe there were sound reasons for such a course. (It didn't help that some of my adversaries then attributed to me the position that one should vote Republican across the board, which was not my position!)

I note that Casey begins a sentence re PARC's critics on the Parille thread with, "I would swear that they are beholden to something other than their own minds and the facts clearly presented ... ." Precisely what I was saying of the Hsiekovians! As I say, I'm not opposed to such judgements per se and clearly at least one Hsiekovian isn't either, but in a court of law I wouldn't have been able to make that particular judgment of mine stick, and I'm now persuaded that it was wrong, period. Leaving me no option but to say so!

Linz

PS - Funny, when I started SOLO all I wanted was to find the passionately rational and the rationally passionate whom I knew had to exist somewhere. I had no clue there'd be pitched battles and seismic schisms over PARC, Drooling Beast, the Iraq War, Sciabarra, an inhouse fatwa or any of it. But I guess it goes with the territory. And sometimes the passion will be irrational. Even from Linz. Though this last seldom, of course.

PPS - Edited to add: Full credit to James and Casey for the hard yards they put in in the hours leading up to the apology. And everyone else who tried in vain to effect the same outcome!

and waffles and waffles and waffles...

> You don't like cheesecake? That does it. I'm flouncing off. [Casey]

Yes, but I am in principle PROFOUNDLY in favor of dessert. I am, In fact, a dessert-VALUER. Which means I'm not as immoral as someone who is a tolerationist and sanctioner of non-dessert consumption in principle.

Or someone who displays a craven indifference to all heroism, all virtue, all values, and all kassness....in the realm of recreational foods. A spineless, weak-kneed, jello-like pussy in the realm of sugary foods who barely even crawls into the category of the subhuman.

SillyGism:

1. To be non-cheesecake-consuming is not to be anti-cheesecake.
2. To be be non-cheesecake-consuming is not to be anti-dessert qua dessert.

However:

3. To be anti-sugary-dessert is to be anti-dessert QUA dessert.
4. To be anti-dessert is to be anti-balancing of food groups.
5. To be anti-balancing of food groups is to be anti-nutrition.
6. To be anti-nutrition is to be anti-food QUA food.
7. To be anti-food is to be anti-survival.
8. To be anti-survival is to be anti-life.

Therefore:

0. Anyone who is anti-sugary dessert is anti-life and therefore evil.

Can I offer you a vegetable? I'll add whipped cream.

I agree.

Anyone -- my friends included -- who said anything like "Linz is dishonest" should post their reconsideration as they return. Seems to me, this accusation just lost whatever evidence it claimed to have...

Bloody hell, it's good to see this post and all the replies upon logging on this evening. Here's to a mending of the rift and more KASS to come!

Phil writes:
"There was another Mike M...Moeller...who is still missing...whoops he's already lurking. Why have you not rejoined, young man? Do you have an explanation?"

No explanation necessary, Phil, I never left. Although I didn't agree with the group-think charges as I stated in my exchange with James V., I was on Linz's side during the Great Election Debate and I still am--nothing has changed for me. My schedule, unfortunately, has left me with no time in recent months to participate, that's all.

I am glad to see many of the ARI people return. However, I must add that some should proffer an explanation. Linz man-upped in a big way, here. Some, Dan Edge comes to mind, said some nasty things about Linz that went well beyond the election debate. If they are to return, they should state why. Did they change their mind about Linz? Does the interaction with others outweigh their perceived negatives of Linz? Whatever the reason, I think they should be stated--personally, I don't like false pretenses.

Regards,
Michael

PS. I'll get a photo up.

Welcome back all of you!

Wm

Islam insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

You don't like cheesecake?

That does it. I'm flouncing off.

> bigger things are at stake

there are no bigger things

Can you keep your farts any shorter... and less smelly? I'm sure they could be forgiven avoiding all this subtextual cauli-talk about your penis, but I rather think (albeit in my 5:30am inebriated state) that bigger things are at stake here...

Even though I've fought with most of them on many different issues and most of them are likely to disagree with -any opinion or fact- I have to offer, even about the weather or trends in the price of oil, I think the seriousness level and intellectual level of Solo will be improved by the return of the ARI group (most of whom are well-trained in Objectivism by taking one of more of the Peikoff courses). Solo had declined greatly in intellectual level over the last few months. Lots of redneckism.

And Linz was right to withdraw and apologize for his psychologizing and ad hominems -- about all of this collection of people re group-think and lemmingism on the 'don't vote for Republicans' issue. However, I suspect it will be a cold day in hell before he realizes that he (and many of them) have made the same mistake of psychologizing and ad hominems with regard to "tolerationists', people who disagree on the war, TOC people, libertarians, etc.

What was weird and eerie is that normally people take offense at different rates and take the drastic step of leaving or disassociating themselves from someone at different rates. Individual differences. Or someone makes the distinction between the attitudes of the owner/host and the value of intellectual debate or dialogue with other posters on a site. And the same thing about individual differences in returning or not returning. Some don't accept an apology, or not right away, or have other things on their mind. This group possesses mental telepathy and so all heard of the apology the same night. And were all sitting at their computers at the same time so that they can instantly respond to breaking news with regard to Lindsay Perigo's personal attitudes toward them. They all rejoined simultaneously. No one was away on vacation or away from their computer or delayed even by more than a dozen hours or weeks later. No one was reluctant. They all returned overnight between Thursday and Friday.

The "six pack" who left almost simultaneously over this some months ago and all just returned in an 8 hour period are Jim V, Casey, Diana, Dan, Boaz, and Mike Mazza. -- Jesus Christ, I wonder if they all like cheesecake and dislike cauliflower?

There was another Mike M...Moeller...who is still missing...whoops he's already lurking. Why have you not rejoined, young man? Do you have an explanation? And that only leaves Fred who is still missing without having offered a legitimate explanation. Not liking to have one's picture taken and posted because silver emulsions and garlic are used is not a sufficient explanation.

But if they return this group would be an eight pack not a six pack so it would throw my math off. Can I be allowed to continue to refer to them as a six pack because I find it funny without being accused of dishonesty or evasion or malignant evil? Linz? Princess Di?

To be serious, on the Peikoff fatwa, if I recall correctly, a number of them did not agree with Peikoff or took offense. So Linz's accusation that they were mindlessly following a pope was ridiculous *just on a factual level*. The idea that they all like cauliflower or will simultaneously eat cheesecake is false. However, if I defend Chris Sciabarra again or offer a proposal for how to spread Objectivism, you can be sure that *all* or at least half of the Six Pack will post rebuttals in quick succession - a delay of even twelve hours in condemning me or smacking me down is a failure to get with the program.

Since I am a designated enemy of Objectivism.

And since I don't like cheesecake.

To be blunt, I am worried that this change of mind is only temporary. If it is, me and my tiara and petticoats will depart again. I really hope that's not necessary though.

Is that hedging her bet or what? Lindsay, don't hold your breath... no matter how much of a dragon she thinks you are...

You're a good man.

Proud Member Of The "Nuke-Them-Till-They-Glow" School Of Foreign Policy

. . . as I think I do. I did not predict I would write this, but I am very impressed by the plainness of the apology. And its openness. Not much to discuss, Atlas Scotwhateveryernameis . . . for me, I mean.

WSS

[Jody G! Jenna W! Marnee! Adam, Dan of Steel, where are ye all you lovely people? Facebook it is not, nor a picnic, but hope to see you in SOLO chat some weekend sometime. If only we could rent a picnic menu from the Gilded Fork . . . and a virtual box or two of dry Canucki wine]

Me too.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

This conversation has certainly NOT been "dropped" by anyone, I hope, and Linz, I'd wager, will not diminish one bit of his KASSness.

"Their umbrage-taking on this occasion was justified. Therefore, I withdraw the charges of group-think, lemmingism, prostitution, etc., and apologise to those whom I accused of these things. I make no apology for my view of Peikoff's "advice," but accept that I went a step too far in saying no one could possibly agree or empathise with it out of independent conviction."

Not that this seems to be of any great import to anyone but me...

There are two possibilities here:  that Linz has compromised his principles in order to keep desirable people here, OR he has really and truly reconsidered the possibility that one cannot conclusively divine the motives of a person baed upon a position they take on a particular issue.

Linz has done ALOT of posting indicating that he is very, very unsatisified with positions taken that seem to toe the line.  It will be interesting to see whether any returning individuals are interested in explaining their position in a less accusatory environment, or whether Linz asks anyone to do so.   Frankly, I would find it queer if the issue were dropped with no further conversation.  Given the rift and the passions involved on both sides, it would smack of evasion.

My hope is that Linz understands that how you communicate and what you accuse someone of is serious, that such accusations are not necessarily "KASS" or the actions of "NEM" and that  umbrage taking is not de facto a pussy "American" response. 

It is nice to see so many people returning, and I look forward to their posts.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

*jumps up and spins around in happiness*

*becomes rapidly dizzy*

*falls over*

Yay!

Edit: I tend to react in very direct, exuberant ways when I'm happy. Subtlety is not my thing...

Melissa

"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."

Oh boy...a week after the scheduled SOLOC dates I have a *huge* Italian family wedding happening (thankfully to be done in better taste -- and with far less glitter -- than the Big Fat Greek one of cinematic fame). And no, the bride isn't me.

I don't know if I can handle that much revelry in a two-week period.

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

Does this mean SOLO will be active enough it will be hard to keep up with again? I suppose it's worth it. I'm impressed Linz, and welcome to all those flouncing back.

Welcome back everybody. The conference is starting to look enticing again.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Yes, SOLOC is the weekend of Sept 14.

Kelly

I suppose I'm back, though I don't know how much I'll be posting.

With bells on, ma dear!

I'd love to attend SOLOC in Atlanta. Is it still in September? If so, I may actually be able to make it as is looking like I'll be in Glynco during September. I should be able to get away for a weekend.

Can I keep the cat picture? He's much better looking. Goes better with "the boor," too.

Oh, and thank you.

Hooray for Dan, James, Diana, and John being back!!!! Does this mean some of you might come to Atlanta for SOLOC?

Kelly

Objectivist cultism and "robust and honest debate" don't mix and can't co-exist. ARIans can only survive in a world of censorship and excommunication. 

* Pokes head around corner *

Wow! A public apology. I'm impressed. Hat's off to you Linz. Must have been a Herculean effort by Jim and Casey. Now if I could just get Linz to take back his comparison of me to BB in the "Farewell" thread......

Hey, it's snowing in New York. What the hell's going on?

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

This is a most excellent development. Like Claudia said, "It gladdens my heart."

I have double-checked the “love is exception making” quote I am so fond of. It turns out it is said by Gail Wynand; which gives a twist to things.

Current developments should turn out to be interesting.

Guy

Well then, Princess Diana hereby flounces back, at least for an occasional post. I'm super-busy with my dissertation and other projects, so my time is highly limited.

Linz, I really appreciate your willingness to rethink this matter. To be blunt, I am worried that this change of mind is only temporary. If it is, me and my tiara and petticoats will depart again. I really hope that's not necessary though.

Yeah yeah, I'll re-add my picture.

Welcome back James. I was wondering how long it would take to sort out this sorry mess. Some of us have been dropping hints to Linz on various threads.

I suggest that Linz emails Diana. It may cheer her up after the death of her dog, Abby. The sad story is here.

I'll blame it on my Five Oaks Merlot.

Casey

p.s. Thanks.

Just wished I'd proof read it before I piss-arsed sent it... blaming it on the bottle of Craggy Range Merlot I had at lunch today...

Welcome back!

Welcome back James. Now, about an article for the magazine...

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

to witness the strong differences of opinion amongst Objectivists - a wonderful, refreshing and healthy thing for individuals to succumb to - especially when they end like this and goodwill prevails. Well done gentleman.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

I swear I didn't see your post before posting mine -- great minds.

Casey

It takes a big man...

Hey Mike and Diana -- the water is no longer toxic!

Let the debates begin, and good minds meet, and let reason be the final arbiter -- as it was in this particularly magnanimous conclusion by Linz.

Hoo-ray.

Casey

Thank you, Linz.

I am glad to be back home.

Linz.  Good on you for seeing, and publicly saying this.  I do hope they return as well.  Top effort.

Hayden

Here's to sharp tongues, thick skins, reason and persuasion.