Rand is a disease commonly contracted in the early twenties; if untreated, it can lead to mental infirmity.
I'm coming over there to smack you, Labs.
She defined my epistemology, Cala. Be quiet and eat your bean pie.
Labs has been drinking heavily to mark the occasion.
Because, look at the video of Rand, and then look at AS's self-presentation, in the supergirl costume, and tell me.... Well, just tell me.
My cousin John Hospers had an actual fling with Rand, but he learned better.
Slol, you're belligerent, combative.
Clearly, you are the superior man.
You called it all, slol.
Emerson, you're related to John Hospers? Jesus. You're a national treasure.
You're a national treasure.
Don't bait me, man.
I'm watching the first bit of the Wallace interview Pam linked, and wow, Rand's eyes do not remain focused on a single point in space. Maybe she'll look less shifty as the interview warms up.
Wiki has Hospers' bio wrong -- Orange City is not near Des Moines. The Wiki guy probably said Des Moines because he figured Orange City had to be near someplace, and Des Moines was the only place he could think of for it to be near.
Hospers is a wasted connection for me, given my feelings about libertarians. If only he were a fun anarchist or something.
L is a fixed point under iterations of F.
Do we like the thread's move towards modal logic jokes better than the move toward six degrees of in bed w/Ayn Rand?
I am just so happy someone got that joke that I will now dance around in joy.
Maybe she'll look less shifty as the interview warms up.
I don't think so; she's got the crazy lady look down. But being actually crazy might be cheating.
What struck me was, this is the first time I've seen Mike Wallace or ilk begin a report talking about what small numbers of intellectuals think -- and he's talking about objectivism. I wanna puke.
Someone should do an Althouse/Rand mashup.
Oh deer, anudder reelik uf zee cold var. Speer me!
Somewhere here I have a Wodehouse paperback. Small pockets of intellectuals find that he called it. He called it all.
A comment (the sole comment, so far) at that site, the link to which I shouldn't have followed (that costume! Jesus.):
Imagine what inroads Randian thinking could have made if it had found an accommodation with the faiths and moral codes of Jews and Christians!
I confess I cannot even conceive of such an accommodation. I'm willing to attribute this to a failure of imagination on my part. Guess I'll leave the heavy thinking to the intellectuals.
For real, that costume gives me the creeps.
Waitaminute. Wodehouse didn't actually write about Rand, did he? He spoofed various turgid spinoffs of Muscular Christianity, but not actually Objectivism, right?
Is there a cliff notes version of Ayn Rand? I feel that I would be doing a disservice to my health, if I were to read the original, but I also feel that one needs to be prepared to refute her claims. Venture Capitalists seem to love her.
In fairness, it's not really the costume, is it? It's the person in it.
Wodehouse didn't actually write about Rand, did he?
Wait, there was supposed to be more there:
Wodehouse didn't actually write about Rand, did he?
Rand didn't actually write about the war on Islamic jihad, did she?
Is it possible to be talked out of Objectivism? Or must the desire to change come from within?
Is there a cliff notes version of Ayn Rand?
A creative genius, outcast and looked down upon by the parasitical society he scorns, rises up and overpowers his enemies through the sheer force of his genius and lack of concern for others. Also he rapes a girl, but it's okay because she's totally into it.
Also he rapes a girl, but it's okay because she's totally into it.
I thought that was Gone with the Wind.
This is why it appeals to nineteen-year-olds.
I was sucked in by Pam's sidebar and stumbled over this sentence:
The shenanigans of Democrat Presidents going back to JFK's stolen election are wildly known
Is there a cliff notes version of Ayn Rand?
I remember in my one and only undergraduate philosophy class, one student asked during a discussion section (lead by the TA), "Why don't we read any Rand in this class?"
And the TA said, "Because this is a philosophy class."
You mock, slol, but the early Wodehouse might have slipped her name in, and the late Wodehouse would have totally overlapped with her popularity. He did write over 80 novels, after all; it's hard to have read all of 'em.
I only read The Fountainhead, but I hear Atlas Shrugged is similar.
You mock, slol
Never. "There is no time at which trousers do not matter" is easily up to Rand's top-most notch.
I like it that there is no charge for the Cliffs Notes to Ayn Rand.
This could have gone out to Ms. Rand, though:
"It is a sad but indisputable fact that in this imperfect world Genius is too often condemned to walk alone--if the earthier members of the community see it coming and have time to duck" (Leave it to Psmith 152).
Zare var zeeze two ult komrads taulking politiks, unt vone akz zee udder: "Tell me komrad, vat iz zee definition uf capitalizm?" Zee udder zinks fur a minit unt sez: "Capitalizm iz zee exploitation of man by man." Hmm, zinks zee udder. "Zenn vat iz zee definition uf communizm?" Aftare a minit, zee udder sez: "Zee reverse."
I mentor a guy in prison who is going to college. (I'm not sure what my prisoner did. I think it must have been some sort of violent act, because he seems really disgusted by the drug trade, and I don't see him as a cheat. Both of his ex-wives cheated on him with his best friends, so I'm thinking that he must have offed one of them.) I went out to visit him on Saturday with one of the members of my team, and we heard that one of the inmates had the complete works of Ayn Rand in his room. (Note that prisoners are only allowed 10 books, 20 if they're in college.) Our prisoner borrowed one of them and analyzed something she wrote about ethics for one of his critical reasoning papers. He quite properly shredded it to bits.
Yglesias is telling people he's moving to Portland OR. To me, mocking a nice little city like that is cruel.
I posted this on the official Yglesias thread too, but probably no one's reading it.
if the earthier members of the community see it coming and have time to duck
Well, quite. And so, with the earthier members of the community, to bed.
Not, "with." But, "at the same time as."
I initially read "I mentor a guy in prison" as "I met a guy in prison."
No way. The earthier members of the community snore.
53: That would have been a new development with Church Doctor Boy.
I thought Bostoniangirl's guy was a doctor? The story makes perfect sense now that I know he is in prison.
The Doctor/Prison dilemma is resolved when we realize he's obviously Becks' OB.
AWB finds naughty notes. Heebie talks about kids boinking watermelons. The links here are the best.
So we've had a couple people opt out of going to Event X at the last minute. Inviting the extremely attractive freshman girl I met the other night is a bad idea, right?
(Just making sure.)
49: One of Sausagely's commenters gets it right.
The pearl sucks. Move there if and only if you like dog shampoo parlors on every block.
It is unfathomable ot me that the place could be the sixth bloggiest neighborhood, unless people are constantly posting about dog shampooing.
The links here are the best.
No other site has links this glowy and masculine.
People who love people may be the happiest people in the world, but people who work modal logic jokes into Unfogged threads must be a close second.
63: Just when I think I've got this figured out...
Are we to understand that Girls 1 and 2 both canceled?
No, these are people from my school. I haven't heard from Girls 1, 2 or 3 but I assume they're still coming.
See, we should have just told him to get it done, details be damned.
Whatever you do, don't have a foursome for your first time.
You could invite the attractive freshman and Girl 3 (mutual friend of you and of Girls 1 and 2), so you would have a backup threesome opportunity if the primary one did not play out as anticipated. Do you have access to a jacuzzi?
Teo, any updates after you told Girl 1 that you liked her?
But if you do have a foursome, be sure to film it.
Hmm. If you happened to film the session during which it turned out your kid was conceived, would you show it to the kid at some point?
75 would've been a great Ask the Mineshaft, if only for the wild and rampant speculation about who had submitted the question.
If you happened to film the session during which it turned out your kid was conceived
Interesting. In my country, we have contraception.
I am boggled at the mental process that led, in less than two minutes, from 74 to 75.
32: Recovering Objectivist Will Wilkinson tries that some times.
78:
1: Teo is talking to three different girls
2: Maybe he can swing a foursome. And videotape it.
3: Dude, he'll never be able to top that. He'll never want to have sex again, because it could never be as good.
4: Shit, then he won't have kids.
5: Maybe he'll knock one (or more!) of his partners up.
6: Would you show a kid the night they were conceived?
7: How could you not?
Easy. (Scarily, I wondered everything up to Step 6 myself.)
32: No, you have to have the that before there's any point to argument.
"the that" is that in which thatness inheres.
80: Wow. OK, I'm still boggled, but now I'm also impressed.
I was going to suggest "The only reason they didn't elect you to Student Council is because you're too real, man," as the Cliff Notes version of Ayn Rand but teo's version is perfect in every way. I want it on a sticker.
84: Thanks. Maybe I should sell t-shirts.
Here's that mashup I suggested. Teh interwebs are fast.
Okay, I poked the freshman girl and she didn't poke back, so that narrows down my options a bit.
Wait, wait, wait. You actually used the "poke" feature on facebook?! Teo, teo, teo, mah boy...
(Yes, I recognize I'm preempting your jokes, apo.)
I find it creepy. But, perhaps the standards at Teo U are more relaxed and, you know, creepy.
It doesn't seem any creepier to me than the whole idea of facebook itself. The people (okay, girls) I poke don't seem to mind; they usually poke back.
Let me try to understand. You use this "poke" feature as the first line of contact? Prior to "friending" someone?
In my country, we have contraception.
Contraception that's 100% reliable? That's one hell of a country.
94: Not necessarily prior to friending, and never as an absolute first line of contact. It's a way to judge interest; if she doesn't poke back or otherwise respond, she's not interested and I should stop bothering her (this has proven to be 100% accurate for my admittedly very limited sample). If she does respond, she's not necessarily interested, but she might be.
If you stop interacting with someone, how do you know that she in fact wasn't interested?
There were times when I didn't, and they all ended badly.
97 is what I was getting at, pretty much. It just seemed weird to me not to immediately suggest another in-person interaction.
"So are you going to hear X speaker on Thursday? I hear it could be interesting and apropos to what we were talking about the other night. Oh, and do you own a video camera?"
e.g.
99: That assumes that my judgment of the signals in the initial in-person interaction was accurate, which I've found to be a very bad thing to assume.
Basically, I have a really hard time distinguishing polite friendliness from sexual interest, and this is an easy way for me to make sure I'm not wildly misinterpreting. It's quite possible, of course, that I'm missing out on some genuine opportunities this way, but I've see no evidence of that.
You oldsters should listen to Teo. He knows these things.
Contraception that's 100% reliable? That's one hell of a country.
Because my intent was to make a point about family planning and not just to tweak ogged, your criticism is entirely germane.
I have a really hard time distinguishing polite friendliness from sexual interest
Just check to see if the guy you're talking to has an erection.
Welcome to the Objectivism Wiki. The purpose of this site is to create a hierarchical, user-contributed reference on the philosophy of Objectivism.
Either this is an altruist honeypot, or someone didn't get the memo.
87: FL is a lot burlier than I'd imagined.
16: So F is a contractive mapping ....
I tried to read Atlas Shrugged once because I was head over heals in love with a boy who was madly in love with Ayn Rand. I tried really hard, but found it utterly unbearable.
I believe it was this, together with our disagreement about the virtues of Rush Limbaugh, that ultimately doomed the romance.
In BASIC, POKE (location) (arg) alters the value stored at (location). Which is roughly what he's trying to do.
Meanwhile in pointless geekery - the Rand simulator.
def Rand(labs)
for book in (works) readlines
n+1
for years in life while sceptic==0
rand
if n>20 then crazy(labs)
()
Whoa, I had this "poke" thing totally backwards. I thought it was to alert people that you were online so you could exchange messages in realtime. Lucky I never used it.
The new feature that lets you tell the news feed "Stop telling me that someone has become friends with someone I don't know, and stop telling me that someone has deleted 'and if you're feeling lonely' from his favorite music, you idiot" is great. Unless that's not actually a new feature.
I used to wonder whether I'd shortchanged myself by not reading Rand. She was, after all, voted the greatest author of all time in an amazon.com reader survey a few years back. (Or maybe it was just Atlas Shrugged as the greatest book? I can't clearly remember.) And I personally knew several people who themselves would gladly so designate her.
I've since realized that most people are just stupid.
People do outgrow Rand—anybody know what's happened to Arthur Silber?—and often come to understand exactly what was wrong with its appeal, the way some people do instinctively.
I would think the great majority of young Objectivists male. I wonder how much its appeal for them is enhanced by having been written by a woman, so that a woman who will appreciate their awesomeness becomes imaginable.
(I am terribly embarassed to say this, but I find both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged terribly entertaining crap -- they're just so ebulliently nuts. I have copies of both kicking around from somewhere, and have on occasion picked them up again when in need of something insane to read during a bath.)
Most fans I've known have been female. I don't know whether that matches the broader demographic trend, however.
Did you feel they were crap when you first read them? I remember when I would just take books in without judging them, so that the question may not necessarily have a yes/no answer.
The ones I knew in college were pretty evenly split between the sexes. If you separate out the "Man, isn't getting raped hott," bit of it, the "if you're smarter and more competent than anyone else, that also means you're prettier and men will worship you sexually" is perfectly straightforward teenage girl fantasy material.
116: I got them as a teenager handed on from my big sister, who caught the disease from a college boyfriend (she got over it quickly, and a short bout of Objectivism happens to lots of people) so I was primed to be respectful. They still came off pretty silly, as did the underlying 'philosophy', but I probably wouldn't have described them as ridiculous until a year or so after I read them.
It's all perfectly straightforward fantasy material. If society is keeping you down, it is because you are creative, misunderstood, and that society would quail at your genius. You could make them recognize how awesome you are if only they had eyes to see. And if you rape the woman, she'll like it!
To a 20-year-old who just received his first C ('because the professor was too dumb to understand my genius') and was scorned by the beautiful girl in his class, this is chicken soup for the soul, made out of fierce death chickens of doom.
Right. But it's well gender-balanced fantasy material; the female characters get a fair share of being the misunderstood and scorned because of their genius but sexxxxxy Ubermenschen.
This discussion of fantasy material applies to so much of libertarianism.
Are we still supposed to tell you to go away, LB?
Nope, I got my briefs served. I should still be working, but I'm not careering madly toward an unmeetable deadline.
108: Nope, contractive mappings are sufficient, not necessary for a fixed point. But it does require F to be an automorphism on some subset of its domain.
Completely understandable of Labs, since really everyone dabbles with a little automorphism at some point or another.
Someone should tell Labs and Pam that the quote "my parents are Ayn Rand and God" has its origins in a grammatical mistake, an apocryphal title page to a book that read: "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." The mistake is supposed to show the value of the serial comma.
"Fierce death chickens of doom," appropriately illustrated, would make a hell of a t-shirt. Possibly with "I got my briefs served" on the other side.
Well, I never met a girl-O'ist, although I get the breadth of the appeal you refer to. I heard Brooke Gladstone do a nice piece a few months ago about how Star Trek appealed to many girls, despite or because of it's characters, in a way I wouldn't have thought of.
Speaking of juvenille fantasy material and briefs, is w-lfs-n a comic book fan?
"Fierce death chickens of doom," appropriately illustrated, would make a hell of a t-shirt
mcmc mighte be "commissioned," depending on the degree of conviction the artist must have for the vision. If we require Ditko levels of belief, well...
One of my professors in college--an eccentric but very charismatic libertarian--encouraged everyone to read Rand. At the same time, he always said "Keep in mind. She knew nothing about sex, love, or relationships."
For a while, under this professor's influence, I was enthusiastic about Rand's essays. The rhetoric was appealing at first, then, as soon as I realized it was just rhetoric, the thrill was gone. But I never managed to read the novels and I have a high tolerance for crap.
(From the Atlas Shrugs blog, I infer that inflatable hooters are an integral part of Objectivism.)
116: People keep telling me that however nutty Rand was, she was an entertaining potboiler, but I've never seen it. From The Fountainhead:
He watched as the pain's unsummoned appearance with cold, detached curiosity; he said to himself: Well, here it is again. He waited to see how long it would last. It gave him a strange, hard pleasure to watch his fight against it, and he could forget that it was his own suffering; he could smile in contempt, not realising that he smiled at his own agony. Such moments were rare. But when they came, he felt as he did in the quarry : that he had to drill through granite, that he had to drive a wedge and blast the thing whithin him wich persisted in calling to his pity.
Pages and pages, reams of that shit. And that's basically as good as Rand gets. It baffles me the way James Frey's bestseller status or the popularity of "My Humps" baffled me.
I skim a lot, and there's some really entertaining craziness there.
How can a parent, any parent, quote this line approvingly: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." It's like she's telling her children to go fuck themselves.
Rand demonstrated her disdain for family quite often, too. One of the big moments in Atlas Shrugged where the hero casts off the bonds of the weak happens when he tells his mother he is not supporting her anymore. After all, its not like she ever did anything for him.
Objectivism: The go to philosophy if you want to abandon your aging mother.
"Keep in mind. She knew nothing about sex, love, or relationships."
I'm not falling for your little trick. Rand probablyunderstood "relationships" perfectly, but she's a shit writer for other, unrelated reasons. Nice try.
I'm shocked, Emerson. Rand clearly violated the no-relationships principle (A≠A) first by marrying and then by becoming involved with another man. At the same time! She was a serial violator!
Oh, man, I just clicked through the link. Whatserface said the 'my parents are Ayn Rand and God' thing? No apparent grasp of the whole antireligion facet of Randism? I hate people who can't keep their own insane philosophies straight.
137: Pam Oshry is the batshit craziest of the batshit crazy (except perhaps for Debbie Schlussel), and dumber than a sack of hammers. AND YET, she gets one-on-one interviews with John Bolton. She's the very embodiment of the modern Republican Party.
137 - The phrase comes from a famous example of why the serial comma is useful, an apocryphal book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God."
According to wikipedia, Rand was born into a Russian Jewish family, and YET she seems to have had no interest in Israel. This is obviously intolerable to Pam Oshry.
I know the serial comma joke -- I figured Labs was referring to the joke. Clicking through, though, Pam seems to have heard the joke somewhere and to be taking it straight, as if crediting Ayn Rand and God in the same breath weren't inherently absurd.
138: "AND YET" s/b "THEREFORE"
Ayn Rand did make a founding contribution to modern-day Republicanism by pioneering the advanced science of Confidently Making Shit Up (cf. Objectivist "therapy" or her pronouncements about Aristotle), which is of a piece with latter-day GOP speech on behalf of God. Oshry is probably sensing this congruence when she invokes the deity and the demagogue together.
Pam Oshry is the batshit craziest of the batshit crazy
Her commenters out-crazy even her. Her first commenter, the guy who wrote "Imagine what inroads Randian thinking could have made if it had found an accommodation with the faiths and moral codes of Jews and Christians!" also wrote:
"Were American whites ever to conclude that inter-racial peace is impossible, within two years there wouldn't be a black man left alive and free anywhere in this country. We're a numerical majority. We control the preponderance of the land, the wealth, and most important, the weapons. Our targets would wear their affiliation in their flesh."
He likes to imagine he's a Friar.
Her involvement with not one (1) but two (2) relationships may show that her early understanding of relationships was as flawed as the rest of her philosophy.
Didn't she write the lyrics for Rush's "Smell the Glove".
110: is that Python? If so, isn't it missing a colon and telltale indentation?
111: I think that's a legitimate use of "poke." As far as I can tell there's no one established use. The culture of poke is not monolithic.
I think I was inoculated against Rand early. My first encounter with it was when I was about 13, and I was at some summer program where two other obnoxious 13-year-olds would quote bits of Atlas Shrugged back and forth and challenge each other on how much of the book they could memorize. God, that was irritating.
I think my most amusing encounter with Rand was when someone tried to explain to me the Objectivist critique of quantum mechanics.
It's not python; in addition to lacking the telltale colon and indentation, this: "for book in (works) readlines" would be monstrously unsyntactic. There's really no way to construe it as even a mistaken line of python.
Ah, right.
"The Telltale Colon": one of Poe's lesser stories?
I remember taking a philosophy class at Arizona where The Fountainhead was required reading (along with Nietzsche).
When was this? Was it with Da/ve Sch/midtz?
I'd like to take this opportunity to rail against the poke, at least in the context of someone you might be interested in in some non-internet way. At best it signals a certain passive-aggresiveness; sometimes it signals a lack of sufficient interest in the recipient to say something remotely meaningful, and at worst it indicates a lack of anything interesting to say. Compose an email; at least if you give them an idea about who you are and they don't respond, it's probably because it wouldn't have worked and not because of mere apathy.
On any social networking site that allows one to block pokes/woos/winks, I do so. The only acceptable exception to the anti-poke doctrine is the situation in which you are doing this to an ex you are still friends with, in hopes of provoking the "oh, this person looks interesting and cute... dammit, <name>!" reaction. And then only if you're into that kind of thing.
Otherwise, no.
I'm not sure how to respond to that except to say that I disagree. I've found it to be a useful thing to do when I see that someone's online and want to signal interest but don't have anything in particular to say; it's like smiling or winking at someone in real life. I'm kind of surprised at all the anti-poking sentiment in this thread. I've never had anyone I've poked react negatively to the poke itself.
I've never had anyone I've poked react negatively to the poke itself.
Surely this should be the new hover text.
I've never had anyone I've poked react negatively to the poke itself.
How would you know if they did?
I mean, maybe I overstated things a little. But I maintain that it's categorically different from smiling and winking at someone in person because you miss out on all the other body langugage. Better to email.
As the initial source of the Poke hating (I think), I should note: I've never reacted negatively to being poked; however, I've never thought, "Hey, I should poke this person."
Certainly, this hangup could be my own failure to understand the full possibilities of the Poke. Teo: Poke away, by all means.
155: They might, say, mention it. The reaction in almost every case has been either to poke back or to do nothing. I suppose some people who ignore it may do so because they dislike poking as a practice, but there's no way for me to tell (short of asking, which seems considerably weirder than poking) and I tend to assume that it represents lack of interest instead.
Better to email.
Yes, because e-mail is a perfect means of expressing all the subtle cues given through body language.
It's the ignoring because they dislike poking as a practice, either consciously or not, that I had in mind. However, I suspect that poke-hatred correlates with other attributes I find attractive, so I may be confusing things.
I'm also single, male, and at work at 10:25pm, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
But really, sending an email (or even an IM) is not that hard. You're smart and well-written/spoken. Exploit the comparative advantage!
How much do you use facebook, Jake?
Busted. I logged in for the first time in a month just after initiating this conversation. On the other hand, I spent far too much time on Friendster, MySpace, Match, OkCupid, etc. Facebook could be qualitatively different than these; I was assuming not.
But really, sending an email (or even an IM)
I could see an email, but an IM from a stranger? That seems a bit forward to me.
150: yes (though I had forgotten the name when I posted).
I could see an email, but an IM from a stranger? That seems a bit forward to me.
For sites that have integrated IM, e.g. MySpace. If only to establish that you can spell, and don't use such hideous neologisms as "ur".
God, Myspace is such a wasteland.(at least that's my impression from some casual surfing) It gives me incentive to stay married, as it seems 99 percent of the population is undateable.
162: I don't have any familiarity with any of those sites; from what I've heard, Friendster sounds the most similar, and it's definitely not primarily a dating site like Match or OkCupid. And there's a "message" feature, which is the obvious alternative to poking if you do have something to say. No need to resort to e-mail.
The main difference may actually be that facebook (at least in the circles I run in) is mainly for people who already know each other fairly well in other ways. There isn't a lot of meeting new people going on, so things like making a good impression aren't as important.
I have to admit, the concept(social/dating sites) doesn't seem bad. At least you can weed out people like Christian fundies and Cosmo readers.
Makes sense. Another exception was going to be people you already know; this fell under the ex-girlfriend. And by "email" I meant "message".
166: MySpace is a wasteland. It's a depressing truth that this is what people seem to want. I don't like it either.
Another exception was going to be people you already know; this fell under the ex-girlfriend.
In that case I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. I've been talking solely about people you already know.
Sorta OT: Man, the weirdest thing about facebook is high school friends whom I befriend seven years since I've last talked to them. Cf. this dude today:
Political Views: Conservative
Okay, heck, who knows what you mean by that, right? On to the employment section (he works in contracting/construction):
Position: Mexican Manager
Really? I mean, really? You whom with I played baseball and ate bubble gum and talked about Shakespeare think this crap is clever. Wow.
I don't know why it surprises me, but it does.
whom with
Heh. Also, you're not really supposed to eat bubble gum.
You whom with
Points for trying, I guess.
170: apparently not. Carry on, and sorry for the interruption.
172: does anything actually bad happen if you do?
Everyone says it's gross to just swallow it. But surely picking it out and wrapping it in a piece of paper is worse? It's not like chewing tobacco or anything...
150: 4 years ago (I think). Gonerill, were you in that class too?
Points for trying
I really did intend the syntax "you whom with" but google isn't really helping. I therefore introduce the neologism for you and yours to cherish, hold close, and, of course, poke.
Neologism is the aftermath of a poking, not a prelude thereto.
Is that really grammatical for you, Stanley? Wow.
181: I swore I had heard it; I'm less sure now. It looks so elegant to mine eyes! Fucking hell. I blame the Mexican they make me talk at work.
This looks like a good panel, too bad about the coast it's on.
180: well crap. I'm going to need a physical.
What's wrong with the west coast?
ben's missed link is here, you godlessful(?) heathens.
Your comments box stripped the indenting. And I need some sleep. That should be more like "for book in works:
#indent, readlines" where works is a list of books. And the variable labs should really take an attribute "crazy" that can be either 0 or 1.
Anyway, the point is that Rand readers tend to iterate over the complete works until they develop scepticism. If they reach the age of 20 first, they go crazy. Aside: I'm currently in Monte Carlo and it's essentially Oshry Heaven.
178: No, but I know Dave and his work.
Didn't antipathy to poking spread from dating sites where a "poke" or "wink" is free, but a message costs credits, so that poking is associated with being cheap?