Yes, but there are many ways to personally attack without using "you", and checking for the word, which often is appropriate to use, doesn't help when the attacks are deliberate. A thread initiator who does that should not be encouraged to use the "hide" function as a tool to suppress his target. We saw (a few ago) how another thread initiator used it that way in his own emotional outbursts coupled with taunting and mocking over how he was using it. (He seems to have since left the forum.)

Most of the entire thread has been off topic from the original topic; this particular subthread left the topic days ago with your own attack on Ayn Rand and subsequent very personal attacks, which a moderator called you out on almost 4 days ago. They included your own "let's you and him fight", which term2 and I have not been doing, egging on the posts. My posts have been direct responses, not "roaming".

ok

I'm not a moderator, I am the person who posted the topic which gives me a certain leeway as to how it's treated.I think that you and ewv are turning it into something other than its original intention. If you wish to continue your debate, I only suggested that you post your own subject for discussion rather than monopolyzing mine..I wouldn't care so much if you stayed on topic. One of the things I find of value is what the Gulchers think about something I post. I have found a good deal of learning. But if my topic is cars it doesn't help to veer off on to sailing ships.
See?

I assume you are some sort of moderator on this forum and therefore feel the need to exert some control over what people do on it. I am not really sure what the problem is, but if you are in control, then what you say goes.

The problem with the bible is that it is taken to be an instruction book upon which to base one's life. As such it is pretty much a failure. I'm not going to go over all the pros and cons which have mucked up philosophical discussions over the centuries only to say that if you want linguistic beauty in English, I suggest Shakespeare's sonnets or his plays, most of which are filled with morality.lessons. As a fellow atheist I am sure you've likely been over this at least a thousand times.

ATTENTION TERM 2 While I eschew censorship, this endless string between you and ewv is getting far off the topic. If you and ewv wish to continue this seemingly endless thread, I suggest one of you post your own topic of discussion.

TO EWV ATTENTION PLEASE
Since I am against censorship, I have, to date, refused to block your posts on my topic. Your posts have roamed far afield from the original subject and are no longer relevant. If you wish to continue this seemingly endless string, please set up your own discussion and refrain from posting anything more to this discussion.

ewv, I apologize for the insult.
I believe I said it was a historical artifact - not history.

The Bible, as an allegory, it is filled with poetic, insightful and enlightening messages.
It is not an allegory, it has many of those things but it is not filled with them. It is a set of stories, compiled at various times best seen as myths with merits as literature and as a guide to the history and anthropology of those times.

As an atheist outside academia I am a comparatively frequent reader of the Bible. I read to pick out the stupidities and the gory bits to quote at enemies (wink), but mostly as the language has such beauty and dignity. This attraction is a characteristic of the King James largely absent in other translations. While the translation team (yes it was a team) was excellent, the language would have been close to that spoken at the time.
I recall when I listened to an audiobook of The Scarlett Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I just had to read some of the passages as well as listen.

As to the Bible as history, it is part of history, but as a reliable source - mixed, sometimes agreeing with other sources, or not. As history, maybe better than 50%; but as science, worse.

Herb7734, to divert further from your post if I may, there are many naturalistic explanations for the origins. I like the the Magic Mushroom of John Allegro, The Book of J by Harold Bloom is more conventional.

No big deal. I guess delete means delete

You can put the rest of it back as a new post if you want to. Just leave out the email address.

Good idea

Thanks for the email address. Now you should probably delete and replace the post because spammers troll websites for addresses.

It takes more power to rule over educated people with at least some self esteem

So it's best to avoid them. But their power seeking is a long way from the plantation slave mentality ruling over an imagined biologically inferior subspecies.

Yeah. Funny thing is that AS is so close to reality in this country that I find it hard to think of it as fiction. Apart from timing issues, things are moving lockstep with what she portrayed with the possible exception of John Galt. I don’t see at present anyone intellectually consistent enough and doing what he did in the USA Today.

There are plenty of the other characters in the book present in our society right now.

The next big recession will probably spawn directive 10-289.

I hope it's better than college dorm room bull sessions! But you are right that the idealistic, creative expression from younger people is missing. We used to have both informal and organized enthusiastic discussions all the time -- and they were a lot better than the typical time-wasting bull sessions that so many students drifted into (mostly as an alternative to working).

Not many on this forum show an interest in Ayn Rand's ideas. It used to be that interest in an Ayn Rand novel led to all kinds of enthusiastic questions and discussion -- not repetitious conservative politics and axes to grind.

As for the characters: Dagny, and Hank Rearden are at the top for me. There were many others that are admirable but don't have the personal connection for me. And John Galt was more abstract, being introduced in personal action only near the end where there wasn't much space left for the more personal character development showing what he was like in the way we saw with the others.

I think is a mix of bosses being protectionist and the desire in corporations for there to be stability and predictability So as to meet quarterly projections. If employees deviate from bureaucratic directives, it introduces potentially unwanted variations in outcomes

That said, I always thought it best to find people who can do what I do on an equal or better basis. That gives me the time to learn new things

Corporate mud level bosses are quite protectionist and fearful of underlings. Too bad really

Ayn Rand described what must 'happen now', but implementing it requires putting it into non-fiction. As part of that, it would help if talented authors were to help motivate it with good, idealistic stories depicting it in action.

I have never enjoyed working for or with large corporations, but it is because of their 'politics' and atmosphere. The corporate attitude of following bureaucratic policy and submitting to mindless authority is not an attitude of workers being an inferior species; they know very well that the people they demand conformity from are capable of normal human thinking -- and sometimes better than the boss in charge, which tends to get in the way of authority for conformity.

The mythology of the Bible is mixed with some background accounts sometimes partially related to real events at the time. Those references have sometimes been correlated with other, more objective sources of historical evidence. It is interesting to learn what we can about antiquity, leaving the mythological supernaturalism and behavioral injunctions out of it.

But it doesn't make the Bible "history" and the essence of stripping myth from the historical relations is not linguistic "interpretation" of words from ancient languages. However interesting it can be to understand more of ancient human history, the major historical significance of the Bible is its long history of enormous destructive influence on western civilization. There is not "actually quite a bit in there that is in alignment with Objectivist thinking", which claim is simply bizarre. Nor is it "filled with poetic, insightful and enlightening messages".

Rejecting the Bible as a non-objective source of history, let alone its role as "sacred text" and "a way to explain a philosophical or historical viewpoint" is not an "ignorant" "knee-jerk reaction", which accusation in megamail's post is a gratuitous, manipulative insult.

No one is "making Ayn Rand's books the exclusive ideas and cutting off anything new in any realm". No one does that and there is no good purpose to posting such a slur on this forum, posing as mature advice that "must be remembered". Adding that "there are no ultimate answers" also adds nothing of value; the vague use of undefined "ultimate answers" typically implies an irrelevant mystical notion of the nature of knowledge superseding what is known objectively and with certainty, whether from Ayn Rand or any other legitimate source.

-- or sitting on the rocks looking out at the ocean. It's not caused by Atlas Shrugged, but part of it is not needing socializing.

The animals depend on which type: You mean the ones that are value seekers in accordance with their own nature, not the ones who become politicians.

I am not about to take on the bible and several thousand years of religion. There are many stories based on fact in the bible, but by the time they were written down as a guidebook for religion(s) they became much altered in order to fit the narrative. But why would we even consider it when we've got two great heroic guidebooks and many books of polemics to do the job. However, We must remember never to make Ayn Rand's books, whether fiction, philosophy or fact the exclusive ideas and cut off anything new in any realm which is what some devotees do. There are no ultimate answers. If there were we'd be at endgame with all the knowledge in the universe, and there's a long, long road ahead before we get there, if we ever do.