Honesty-A message for the "experts"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud-that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee-that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or a fool who's source of of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling-that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), October 11, 1999

Answers

Huh? Say what? Cherri, you win the prize for the longest, most indecipherable single-sentence post ever. And the most convoluted definition of honesty. Go get a copy of Strunk and White's 'The Elements of Style', because you don't have any.

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), October 11, 1999.

That is a passage from "John Galt's speech" in Atlas Shrugged. Too bad Cherri and the other polly trolls (to be distinguished from the doomer trolls) have no idea what it means or how to apply it to the Y2K situation.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), October 11, 1999.

Then, Cherri, you're also a plagerist. Show your out-of-context quote as such, and with attribution. And, please, tell us what you think it means.

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), October 11, 1999.

It's also a run-on sentence.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 11, 1999.

Cherri's specialty is attempting to speak between the lines.

Rather than being upfront. This is a fairly common problem.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 11, 1999.



Cherri, Your elitism smells as bad as a three day old fish in the sun. I've not noticed anyone on this forum asking you to be our Savior and deliver us from your perceived notions of evil. As the old joke goes, get down off the cross, we need the wood.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), October 11, 1999.

Let me see if I have this right: Cherri steps up on the soapbox to scold or warn, in high-moral tones, "experts" about a lack of integrity by plaigerizing Ayn Rand without any attribution to the author?

"...neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud..."

Oh this is TOOOOOO FUNNY! It's almost as rich as the 'reassuring' social security letter fiasco.

-- (irony@itsbest.com), October 11, 1999.


Welllll - I'm not too sure where she wants to go with this, so let me ask a couple of questions - assuming she (the suposed Cherri poster) is actually trying to make a point.

If any administration except the Clintons' were in power, I would not fear the loss of civil liberties and the takeover of government powers. They - by their proven contempt for moral and civil laws, by their hyposcrisy, outright corruption and illegal behavior - all completely shielded by a fawning big media press club - mean that we cannot trust the government to either say the truth; to analyze events looking for the truth (rather than look at events to publicize their own agenda and their own propaganda), and to look out in the future for the country's good.

Instead they are willful and skilled socialist propagandists willing to do anything to expand their powers and maintain their control.

So, where is their "honesty"? All I have seen since 1990 - when the Clintons' campaign began - is deceit and public attacks on their critics.

--

Two. Does a computer - or any automated process - "know" the truth?

It is immune tolies, and will only work correctly, or fail in some way, regardless of what "some government expert" "thinks" or "feels" or "wants" or "believes". the computer is immune to propaganda and "press releases" from the powers that be predicting a "bump in the road". The computer will either work or it will fail - unlike the propaganda released daily by this administration, it's failures will not be controlled by the news media.

So, where is the value of their lies and misinformation - when they cannot lie to the machines?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 11, 1999.


Two. Does a computer - or any automated process - "know" the truth?

It is immune tolies, and will only work correctly, or fail in some way, regardless of what "some government expert" "thinks" or "feels" or "wants" or "believes". the computer is immune to propaganda and "press releases" from the powers that be predicting a "bump in the road". The computer will either work or it will fail - unlike the propaganda released daily by this administration, it's failures will not be controlled by the news media.

Robert,

What you said is like a double edged sword - it cuts both ways.

Computers will do what they will do no matter what anyone says.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), October 12, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ