Plus the language one uses does not necessarily make someone non-reasoning... I can just as easily say "shit=shit" and it's as valid as "A=A".

And with regards to that, I can objectively say that I have seen more than my share of entries on this board from certain people who make themselves readily apparent that are unequivocally, entirely composed of, um, "A".

LetsShrug- I certainly wasn't comparing MemberC to Dagny. I haven't even figured out who memberC is yet. I am just saying that I would hope in an intellectual exercise, which is what I see this site as, we wouldn't exclude anyone's ideas simply because they haven't come around to agreement. If your comments are true that he has been disrupting things intentionally for over a year, than I would certainly think my comments about the moderator being able to ban someone would apply.
I agree that first impressions could run someone off, so if the person involved is being that pigheaded about things, and has been for years, I understand the idea of getting rid of someone like that.
If all you say is true, this person is certainly no Dagny. Dagny was my first crush, so I wouldn't want to sully her good name.

Can we please stop with the Dagny comparisons...MemberC is NO dagny... And can we stop pretending like this is was some sudden reaction...this has been going on for over a year with memberc... we've tried and tried and tried and NOTHING in his comments ever changes toward objectivism. He's poisoning the gulch well IMO. And no, I disagree that new members can see through his comments... first impressions can run people off.
If some are seeing this as an overreaction then perhaps consider that you haven't been reading all of his comments for the last 18 months.

So do I...glad I can help. :)

Well. Let's Shrug, you're just adding to my fun on this site. I love to laugh!

I'm new here, so take my opinion for what it's worth since I haven't earned any respect yet. However, I'd be concerned with any method to exclude someone's point of view simply because a few people clicked a button. I could easily see that process leading to some serious "group think" issues. Bad ideas can still lead to positive growth simply through the thoughts and discussions needed to prove that they are bad ideas. How many wasted days and prototypes did Hank go through before landing on Reardon Metal.
I am also fearful of CG's idea of having certain areas where certain words or thoughts aren't allowed. A very slippery slope.
I think anyone with the intellect to seek out this site also has the intellect to see the idiocy in certain comments. That being said, obviously if someone is being disruptive for its own sake, a moderator would have the ability to ban them since it is there site.
I just wonder how Dagny would have reacted if Galt had said "you either agree with me, or you're dead to me". Galt believed in his own persuasivness enough to feel he could prove his direction was the right path.

But I like the word shit. Sometimes shit gets a point across just fine. I stand by my shit.

"You often remind me of the person that walks in on a conversation about a topic that he knows little or nothing about and rather than listen, tries to participate as if he does have some knowledge."
I can't stand this behavior, esp in large meetings. Some people feel the need to talk just to talk, repeating points that were just made, etc. It's possible for me to do it about public policy because I don't follow it that closely, but I try damn hard not to make assertions outside my area of knowledge.

I may be guilty of jumping into a conversation that I perceive as "some politician used an inappropriate word; Yay! Let's talk about how other politicans can use that to advance their career." I may jump in saying this is a bunch of crap instead of digging in to see if there's something deeper under the juvenile serface.

Please ask me, in another thread if it makes sense to avoid tangents, if I'm saying something confusing or contrary to objectivism.

It's not being offended by the work; it is being offended that the word is being used in the place of some rational speech.

Go figure.

+1 for truth.

IMHO, you're comments and replies are so often off topic of the position or individual you reply to, and so poorly composed or thought out that they are extremely confusing and very often contain contradictory statements from other comments you've made on other threads and some of us find it difficult , even impossible to understand or reason out what point(s) you're attempting to make or contribute. Particularly as they might apply to AS, AR, or objective thinking.

You often remind me of the person that walks in on a conversation about a topic that he knows little or nothing about and rather than listen, tries to participate as if he does have some knowledge.

If you want to explain, I'll give you the benfit of the doubt that you're not just being mean-spirited.

If you're going to ignore them....why bother writing them?

I know, and that's sad.

Hahahahaha.

I found that out :)

huh? I don't understand.

Not pink. I love pink. Vomit green would be my choice.

I GOT IT, I got it! PICK ME, oh pick me!!

You're a failed Turing test.

Oh I cannot stop laughing. Plus, an enormous groan escaped when I had read a particular comment a little way above on this thread.... 🆘💰

It's a pun... Would a cave in a butte be called a butte hole?

Is this a paid feature. if so I should we establish my paid account. I let it drop when my credit card number changed.

Having these ilogical or anti Objectivist comments a different color would not be less helpful to me. I would rather be able just to ignore them. My complaint with them is signal to noise ratio.