Ayn Rand and cults generally, In which I have a bet with Jimbo Options

[Peter Damian]

See Jimbo's talk page, and the [[Ayn Rand]] article which I have rewritten. The bet is how long it will stay in its rewritten state. I love the remark that 'Aristotle was sorely over-rated'.

'Aristotle was sorely overrated'. Ha! Wikipediot. Obscure greek Homer 42k, famous american Homer 65k. I would have bought this argument when Wikipedia first began. But as I pointed out above, the project is now mature, and we still find it difficult to attract editors who can write accessible material on more encylopedic subjects. The reason is abundantly clear: the place is infested with cranks, advocates of strange fringe theories, mystics, lunatics of all kinds. No sane intelligent person would go near the place with a bargepole. In any case, I have now re-written the introduction to Ayn Rand that makes it less obviously written by Rand fanatics. Let's see what happens from there on. If the introduction stands relatively unchanged, I lose my bet. If it is torn to shreds and returned to the unreadable ungrammatical state as before, I win, bigtime. Peter Damian (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...es_in_Wikipedia

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[maggot3]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.

Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic.

This post has been edited by maggot3:

[Peter Damian]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.

Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic.

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

I'm not at all interested in the underlying content issue here. You're simply not acknowledging my point: it is wrong for you to insult a tenured academic who is expert in the area in question and at the same time whine about academic respectability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I have never noticed you had any interest in underlying content issues. Peter Damian (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hicks, by the way, also received a grant

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1917-S_hicks.aspx

from the Objectivist Centre.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Lar]

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

[Peter Damian]

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat. And what is the block for? 4 academic philosophers on the Rand page supported my re-write of the introduction. 1 idiot troll opposed. Wales supports the troll. I lose the battle. As for the war...

[Lar]

'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat.

No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I don't threaten.

Guess what, you might be right about the Ayn Rand article. But if you actually want to fix it, you're going the wrong way about it. And you know it, since you stated:

On being difficult to work with, that is the whole and entire point. I have no desire to 'work with' anyone here. Why on earth would I?

We get it. You're not there to write an encyclopedia, you're there to count coup, make bets, score points, posture for the viewing audience there and here, and the like. Spare us.

If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already.

[tarantino]

If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already.

Is that the sole reason you're there. Lar, to write an encyclopedia?

[Lar]

If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already.

Is that the sole reason you're there. Lar, to write an encyclopedia?

No. But it at least is one of them. I'm not sure Peter can actually say that and have it be true. Regardless of how much good writing he does! It's not, based on my observations, very likely that his reasons for doing the writing are to advance the project. Of course that means I may have formed an incorrect theory of mind.

All you care about is the crappy civility thing.

{{citation needed}}

Well fuck off, Lar.

As charming as ever, aren't you?