From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown (FLAME)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:03:18 GMT

In article <106925@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>Pardon my flaming, but this guy is *really* getting on my nerves.

aw, poor baby. sorry if you find logic offensive.
but then, since you have been on the attack since your first post on this
issue, i am hardly surprised.

>Consider this post my personal stand against an especially
>offensive variety of intellectual incompetence.

your arrogance is exceeded only by your lack of logical reasoning
capabilities. or maybe not. let's call it a tie.

>For what it's worth, my hair waved in the breeze while I wrote it.

that must have been from the draft blowing through your ears.

>Those disinterested in my personal debate with Mr. Kozierok
>should tune out now. But I promise, I will pursue this particular
>dead end no farther after one final comment...

"personal debate"? you said it was a flame in the subject line.
more evidence of your superior "intellectual competence"?

>In article <1993Jan13.022916.23365@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>>...  everyone else has the right to voice their
>>opinions about what [Roark] would do too, because what Rand's character
>>would do is only the interpreter's opinion, in this case yours.
>>but of course you attacked anyone who gave you their assessment
>>of what Roark (Rand's) would do.
>
>Last time: I am not now, nor was I ever, interested in "what Roark
>would do"

thanks for the "intellectual competence" here, since your first
six or so posts on the subject dealt with exactly that. in fact,
you even posted some snide spew about "sacred cows" which suggested
that you picked Roark specifically to prove your point. but thanks
for coming out.

>particularly considering that he is fictional. Nor am
>I interested in what you, or Rand, or anyone else would do.

then you should be examining your belly-button, not lamely
attempting to conduct a philosophical discussion.

of course, none of this prevents you from making foolish,
grand, sweeping statements about all objectivists.

>I presented a fictional scenario, using a familiar character
>to be cute, and raised the question of what position "objectivism"
>would take with respect to a certain course of action (letting
>the guy in the water drown).

i hate to disrupt your flame with logic here, since i know how
irrelevant the latter is to your way of thinking, but what happened
here was:

1. you used the name "Roark" for a ridiculous straw man
2. someone tried to address it based on how Roark would react
   based on the Roark he knew from "The Fountainhead"
3. you arrogantly made some insulting comments and proceeded
   to tell us exactly why Roark was doing what he was doing
4. i posted saying you should use a different name *so as not
   to confuse people*, after you confused yet another person
   and claimed there was no difference
5. you again claimed there is no difference and that i am dense.

i think it is rather obvious who is dense.

>You continue by quoting me:
>
>>>He is no more made of
>>>straw in my scenario than countless Randian villains are made of
>>>straw in her fiction. To argue whether or not the "real" Roark
>>>would have done this or that is a little silly, now, isn't it?
>
>and reply
>
>>no, the paragraph above is. 
>>because the first "fictional character" was made up by Rand, and she
>>decided what its attributes were, and therefore, what it would "say"
>>and what it would "do"...
>
>Look, guy, you just don't get it, so I give up. You obviously
>cannot, or will not, or want to pretend that you cannot, grasp
>the concept of a hypothetical example presented to raise an issue.

of course i do, you arrogant so-and-so. i just have a real objection
to your use of the name Roark, because you use it to mean two
different things. the fact that you refuse to admit the stupidity
of this and instead choose to flame me says more about you than me.

>If it helps, try reconsidering my points, substituting the name
>"Philbert Desenex" for "Howard Roark"; it doesn't make a damn bit of
>difference to my point, as should be obvious to anyone with any
>grasp of philosophical debate. Jeez!

you're right. i have no grasp of philosophical debate. that's why
*you* are the one who repeatedly spouts venomous rhetoric 
and ignores relevant arguments. having saved many of the recent
posts, i could list them, but i won't bother. as just one example, you
vilified objectivists for "arguing from extreme ends of the
spectrum" while ignoring the arguments from the middle of the
spectrum.

and your "grasp of philosophical debate" is demonstrated by the 10
or so valid counter-arguments to your moronic claims about objectivism
that you have not addressed. and by your ability to confuse at least
three people about what you were trying to do.

>>... you have no business stating what Rand's Roark would do.
>
>*groan*
>
>It makes my stomach hurt to think about the kind of density that
>allows you to make this sort of remark. It puts Reardon Metal to shame.

sure.

summary: you hate objectivism and objectivists; you like to make
this fact obvious, as if you think anyone else cares; you have no
logic to back up your poison.

>>if you *still* don't understand the difference, well, i give up.
>
>Good, let's leave it at that, then.

it's been a pleasure. congrats on the first blatant flame on
a.p.o. (that i have seen). i'm excited that i might end up
on a trivial pursuit game piece one day named as the recipient of same.
Andy Warhol would be proud.

also, thanks for removing all doubt that the stereotype of a.p.o.
posters being reasonable people is unfounded. it's important to
get these things straight early on.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism