Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <9770@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 21 Jan 90 13:32:45 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9673@hoptoad.uucp> <1990Jan14.191035.20625@twwells.com> <9682@hoptoad.uucp> <1990Jan17.081149.1051@twwells.com>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 50

In article <9673@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>: >: No.  First, it's a fan club.  Second, Objectivism is not philosophy.

>: In article <1990Jan14.191035.20625@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com
>: (T. William Wells) writes:
>: >Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that
>: >moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On
>: >all counts.

>In article <9682@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>: Funny, this is just the kind of quasi-religious didacticism that
>: leads me to believe that objectivism is not philosophy and that
>: it's basically a Rand fan club.

In article <1990Jan17.081149.1051@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com
(T. William Wells) writes:
>One of my points of contention with my fellow Objectivists is
>that I advocate trying to understanding other's points of view.

It's certainly not in evidence in this posting, or in the one quoted
above.

>I've added to my understanding that you refer to calling a
>bullshitter a bullshitter as "quasi-religious didacticism".

Such unbounded magnificence of perception and judgment can only
draw our awed appreciation, nay, envy.

>Oh, BTW, you really should go look up "didactic". A counter-flame
>hardly counts as didactic.

Read the message you flamed; it quoted nearly in full above.  It was
not in any sense a flame, unless expressing any viewpoint that
conflicts with yours is a flame.  There is neither personal attack nor
inflammatory language in it.  A counter-flame only follows another
flame; therefore, yours was not a counter-flame.

And as for didacticism, I am curious what dictionary has a definition
that excludes statements such as "you are simply wrong.  On all
counts." The OED's embraces such statements fully, as they "have the
character or manner of a teacher or instructor".  The very essence of
the pejorative use of "diacticism" is that the didactician is assuming
a superior stance and the ability to pronounce judgment without
providing any supporting statements to establish the truth of their
judgments.  What did *you* think it meant?
-- 
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

"Don't talk to me about disclaimers!  I invented disclaimers!"
    - The Censored Hacker