A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[remirol]

This can only be called a lie. Objectivism certainly recognizes this, and I've pointed that out in this conversation numerous times. If you violate my rights, I can sue you. Where you and I disagree is in your interpretation of increasing property values as a right. I do not believe it is one.

Not 'increasing' property values necessarily; my view is that if I pay $200k for a house, then I and my (poor) actions should be the only ones allowed to reduce that house's value to $50k, rather than the random chance of happening to purchase a house next to a future Ronossus-Weenie.

ETA: Of course, the correct decision in a world where I have no recourse against Ronossus is to not purchase a house, because of its inherently unstable value linked to its immobility, and the fact that I could be on the hook for something that rapidly becomes worth 1/4 what it originally was through no fault of my own.

That fact that I disagree with you on the nature of rights IN NO WAY proves or even implies that I do not acknowledge rights, or the self-evident fact that rights can be violated, and it is, at this point, dishonest to attempt to say that I don't.

Except of course that Objectivism allows my neighbor to do me harm in one manner, while not allowing him to do me harm in a less subtle manner.

You're obviously not paying attention to the conversation. It's simple: you can enter into contractual agreements. O'ism doesn't prevent you from being stupid. You make a bad call, you suffer for it. Of course, payday loans aren't always bad (they just usually are).

And you don't see this as a complete fail for Objectivism? I mean, seriously, the people who get screwed by car title loans and payday loans don't suddenly cease to exist just because they're now broke and carless. It's sure easy to sit back in our comfy chairs and type on the Internet about how "they should've been more careful", but it's not possible to be familiar with every scam out there.

Objectivism would create an environment where the best thing to be is a person who's smarter than everyone else, and could come up with ways to take advantage of everyone else quicker than they could come up with solutions. With 300,000,000 people in the USA alone, it would be trivial to keep finding people who hadn't heard about car title or payday loans. When that gets played out, come up with a new one... maybe Amway?

As Myriad put it: This is a recipe for a crapsack society.

 

[Akri]

It's a construction thing. You hire the cheap contractors, then they nickle and dime you to death with change orders. It's gotten so bad that a lot of companies will hire the second-lowest bidder to review all change orders. Then there are things like the loss of life during construction, downtime, and a host of other issues. Merely constructing a building big enough to be an eyesore bad enough to drive people away is an undertaking on a scale most people simply cannot fathom. Maintenance and use are other issues entirely, and issues I'm not discussing here.

Ah, I gotcha.

Yes. Within every society, there are those who attempt to screw people over for their own gain. I'm just looking at it from their perspective, rather than from someone who's trying to do the right thing.

You didn't answer my question. How would it be easier to use fraud to screw people over in an Objectivist society?

It's not so much the definition of that particular word, but more that the system doesn't recognize that it's possible to impinge on someone else's rights from your own property.

OK, what right is being impinged upon when someone does something that creates an ugly view, and how do you specifically define the limitations of that right?

Since Objectivism makes it easier to exploit that flaw, it is an issue with Objectivism.

Please demonstrate this claim. Note that Objectivism making it easier for people to screw people over in one particular area isn't good enough, as it may be much harder to do so in other areas.

Of course I can, I have, and I did; and the entire paragraph taken in context explains why.

No, it doesn't. It explains what you think the drawbacks of Objectivism are, but since we have ONLY discussed the drawbacks you can't say (based on our conversation) that Objectivism offers no advantages.

The drawback of making it easier for people to get screwed by those who are so inclined to take advantage of others is a major one IMO, and I can't see any advantages Objectivism might offer that would offset it.

First, you're moving the goalposts. Your claim was that Objectivism offered no advantages over our current society, not that it offered no advantages which would offset the drawbacks. Those are two different concepts. Second, how much do you know about Objectivism? Are you actually knowledgeable enough about the philosophy to determine if it offers any advantages?

 

[Dinwar]

The way it is now is relevant because if you want to change things,

You've misunderstood my intent in this thread. I am not advocating for O'ism--advocating for O'ism here is akin to advocating for animal wellfare at a dogfighting ring. The majority here have already determined that O'ism is evil, regardless of anything I say. I merely intend to combat the rampant and flagrantly libalous mischaracterizations of Objectivism. I know you hate the philosophy, and I know I can't change that. So I'm not going to try. All I'm trying to do is make it so that the outside observers understand that the representation of Objectivism provided by you and others is not true.

Since all of your objections to my posts are based on your fundamental misunderstanding of my intent, I'm going to ignore them. If you choose to continue the conversation, please bear the above in mind.

the next closest airport is also unsafe, because the new transmitter for "radar-phone" service was built nearby and jams the airport's radar (if I own the land, I can emit whatever electromagnetic radiation from there that I want to, it's not as though the electromagnetic spectrum were some sort of commons, right?)

The standard view is that you'd own certain frequencies, within a certain area. Interfering with those frequencies would be no different from interfering with your use of any other property.

Or you could take the roads hoping that none of the 2,400 toll booths en route would decide to charge the 20,000% "peak time premium" that day (it's my road and I can charge whatever I like, or you can just turn around, right?).

You can certainly try. However, this is an extremely short-term view of things and will almost certainly end up with you impoverished and someone else owning the road. It's STUPID to chase profits like that.

Or if you want to be able to visit Mom without those risks, you can move closer to her... and work in Ronossus because that's where the only business in your line of work that's hiring in the area is located.

You're goinig to have to explain to me how this is a flaw in O'ism. I currently live 2,500+ miles from my parents due to the career I chose. I knew this since I was 5, and have missed the final days of two grandparents due to my choice. That's the world as it is today, the one you are advocating for.

My response to this criticism, and its ilk, is "Suck it up and act like an adult." Choices have consequences, and objecting that O'ism doesn't prevent you from suffering those consequences is to demand that O'ism somehow make reality different than it is. Your objection isn't with the philosophy, but with the nature of reality itself. I have no sympathy for such "criticisms".

 

[remirol]

You didn't answer my question. How would it be easier to use fraud to screw people over in an Objectivist society?

I hate to break this to you, but people get away with things all the time, because the people assigned to watch over them are fallible. There's not only no "inevitably" about it, there's a significant doubt... especially since government not being involved in social welfare will remove a great deal of the regulations which currently prevent me.

...

OK, what right is being impinged upon when someone does something that creates an ugly view, and how do you specifically define the limitations of that right?

And quickly we come around to the Tragedy of the Commons again, and how it appears that Objectivism doesn't handle it very well, if at all.

...

First, you're moving the goalposts. Your claim was that Objectivism offered no advantages over our current society, not that it offered no advantages which would offset the drawbacks. Those are two different concepts. Second, how much do you know about Objectivism? Are you actually knowledgeable enough about the philosophy to determine if it offers any advantages?

Irrelevant. The point is that it doesn't appear that Objectivism offers any advantages over the current system we have, and comes with some pretty significant drawbacks like having a lot more ways for smart people to screw over dumb people legally -- which our current society frowns on, and that's why things like car title loans and payday loans are illegal in many states.

1. Anytime you want to start listing advantages so we can see if any of them offset the drawbacks, feel free.
2. Irrelevant; see below.

You've misunderstood my intent in this thread. I am not advocating for O'ism--advocating for O'ism here is akin to advocating for animal wellfare at a dogfighting ring. The majority here have already determined that O'ism is evil, regardless of anything I say. I merely intend to combat the rampant and flagrantly libalous mischaracterizations of Objectivism. I know you hate the philosophy, and I know I can't change that. So I'm not going to try. All I'm trying to do is make it so that the outside observers understand that the representation of Objectivism provided by you and others is not true.

Since all of your objections to my posts are based on your fundamental misunderstanding of my intent, I'm going to ignore them. If you choose to continue the conversation, please bear the above in mind.

Let's see. Ask questions about what seem to be clear flaws, Objectivist takes his ball and goes home. Kevin was right, indeed -- it's a waste of time. I don't hate Objectivism, FYI; I don't consider it of much practical use, but I don't care enough about it to hate it. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Akri]

You're goinig to have to explain to me how this is a flaw in O'ism. I currently live 2,500+ miles from my parents due to the career I chose.

Bah, that's nothin'--my fiance left his dad and grandparents in DE to follow his mom and several other family members to Alaska, and then left Alaska to return to DE for work.

 

[Dinwar]

Let's see. Ask questions about what seem to be clear flaws, Objectivist takes his ball and goes home.

You forgot the middle part, where you started changing the rules of the game to fit the answers you wanted. If you ignore all that, yeah, you can come out looking like the hero of the piece. It's just not honest.

Kevin was right, indeed -- it's a waste of time.

This is just about the only valid statement either of you two has made. And it's not us making it irrelevant. If you want to discuss O'ism, I'm willing to do so--PROVIDED YOU DO SO HONESTLY. Sorry, but this forum has demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in doing so, and I've no patience for people who expect O'ism to follow different rules than any other philosophy is expected to follow. And moving goal posts is dishonest.

I don't hate Objectivism, FYI; I don't consider it of much practical use, but I don't care enough about it to hate it. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Then why are you afraid to give it a fair hearing? FYI, demandinig I explain how O'ism would work in TODAY'S society is refusing to give it a fair hearing--because today's society isn't an Objectivist society, so you're expecting me to defend a position I DO NOT HOLD.

 

[Myriad]

My response to this criticism, and its ilk, is "Suck it up and act like an adult." Choices have consequences, and objecting that O'ism doesn't prevent you from suffering those consequences is to demand that O'ism somehow make reality different than it is. Your objection isn't with the philosophy, but with the nature of reality itself. I have no sympathy for such "criticisms".

I agree with that sentiment.

I've shown that almost everyone in the world is one sentence away from Objectivist perfection. Just agree of your own free will to abide by your nation's laws and system of government.

Or if one chooses not to so agree, then suck it up and live with the consequences. (Which are, live under the same system, but regard it as coercive and intrusive upon your rights.)

The world is under no obligation to offer a better alternative.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[remirol]

You forgot the middle part, where you started changing the rules of the game to fit the answers you wanted.

This is a lie.

And it's not us making it irrelevant. If you want to discuss O'ism, I'm willing to do so--PROVIDED YOU DO SO HONESTLY.

Where "honestly" means we don't ask hard questions. No thanks.

Sorry, but this forum has demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in doing so, and I've no patience for people who expect O'ism to follow different rules than any other philosophy is expected to follow. And moving goal posts is dishonest.

Have you considered that maybe Objectivism is just a pile of fail?

Then why are you afraid to give it a fair hearing?

This is a lie.

I have no time for you any longer. Bye.

 

[Dinwar]

I've shown that almost everyone in the world is one sentence away from Objectivist perfection. Just agree of your own free will to abide by your nation's laws and system of government.

This violates the Objectivist view of government. Government, being an entity with a monopoly on the use of force (well, outside self-defense anyway), is held to a different standard than a private corporation. So no, you haven't shown it. All you've shown is your lack of understanding of the Objectivist views of these issues.

Here's a hint: Metaphysical vs. man-made.

 

[Dinwar]

This is a lie.

Considering several people have pointed out specifically where you've done so, no, it isn't. You are demonstrably guilty of this charge, and the degree to which you refuse to see it is the degree to which you are allowing your biases to prevent you from objectively analyzing this conversation.

And it's not a lie that you're afraid to give O'ism a fair hearinig. You refuse to do so, demanding that I do such insane things as try to defend Objectivism by the standards of Socialism (which is what you demanded when you told me O'ism fails because no one today believes it). I may be wrong in my interpretation, but it's hardly a lie--and sinice you insiste you don't hate the philosophy I can think of no other reason for your refusal to analyze it fairly and objectively.

Have you considered that maybe Objectivism is just a pile of fail?

Yes. However, considering the only demonstrations of this are deeply flawed, I've concluded that it is not. Have YOU considered that maybe it ISN'T?

It's okay that you're walking away from the conversation. I've little patience for people who dishonestly change their arguments when they prove to be flawed, so we weren't going to go much further anyway.

 

[Myriad]

This violates the Objectivist view of government. Government, being an entity with a monopoly on the use of force (well, outside self-defense anyway), is held to a different standard than a private corporation. So no, you haven't shown it. All you've shown is your lack of understanding of the Objectivist views of these issues.

Here's a hint: Metaphysical vs. man-made.

I didn't claim that any present government conforms to any Objectivist ideal.

Only that you can't take away anyone's right to voluntarily agree to it anyhow. Who once having so agreed, can then live entirely within Objectivist principles of honoring ones agreements.

It's your free choice. No whining about consequences, please.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Akri]

...

Fair enough, I missed that comment.

I hate to break this to you, but people get away with things all the time, because the people assigned to watch over them are fallible. There's not only no "inevitably" about it, there's a significant doubt... especially since government not being involved in social welfare will remove a great deal of the regulations which currently prevent me.

OK, so which regulations are preventing you from committing fraud now, and how are they doing so? Once I have that information I can address your issue with Objectivism.

OK, what right is being impinged upon when someone does something that creates an ugly view, and how do you specifically define the limitations of that right?

And quickly we come around to the Tragedy of the Commons again, and how it appears that Objectivism doesn't handle it very well, if at all.

...

So you complained about the "artificially-limited definition of "property"", which does not consider a drop in property values to be a violation of property rights. I asked you for a better definition of "property" and you refused to provide one, instead saying that "It's not so much the definition of that particular word, but more that the system doesn't recognize that it's possible to impinge on someone else's rights from your own property." So I ask you to define the right that isbeing impinged (whether you consider it "property rights" or otherwise), and now your response is to point to a section of your post that talks about the Tragedy of the Commons?

Do you consider it a violation of your rights for an ugly building to lower your property values, or not? If you do then you need to define the right being violated (otherwise I'm going to assume, based on your conduct so far, that you're using a vague definition so that you can claim any action violates your property rights when it suits your argument to do so). If you don't think it's a violation of your property rights then, from an Objectivist standpoint, it's not wrong to construct such a building.

1. Anytime you want to start listing advantages so we can see if any of them offset the drawbacks, feel free.

No thanks. I don't think you'd consider such a list honestly. Note that you also cannot take my refusal to offer such a list as evidence that Objectivism has no advantages, for the same reason that me not listing the advantages of democracy would not mean democracy had no advantages.

2. Irrelevant; see below.

It's impossible for your level of knowledge about a subject to be irrelevant when determining if your not seeing something about a subject is meaningful. "I see no evidence that humans are related to apes" is only meaningful if the speaker has seriously researched the issue. "I see no advantages to democracy over a monarchy" is only meaningful if the speaker has a decent understanding of democracy and monarchy. "I see no drawbacks to building this stye of bridge here" is only meaningful if the speaker is knowledgeable about the construction of the bridge type in question. If the speaker in any of these examples is not knowledgeable in the area they're talking about then they are simply arguing from ignorance.


Let's see. Ask questions about what seem to be clear flaws, Objectivist takes his ball and goes home. Kevin was right, indeed -- it's a waste of time. I don't hate Objectivism, FYI; I don't consider it of much practical use, but I don't care enough about it to hate it. Sorry to burst your bubble.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dinwar]

I didn't claim that any present government conforms to any Objectivist ideal.

I never said you did. I said that your view of how to live perfectly in line with O'ist principles violates O'ist principles.

Only that you can't take away anyone's right to voluntarily agree to it anyhow. Who once having so agreed, can then live entirely within Objectivist principles of honoring ones agreements.

In most cases, I would be inclined to agree with you (though we'd have to discuss specifics). Not all, though--fraud is one example where your agreement doesn't necessarily mean you have to accept all the consequences. And the government is a unique case, due to its unique monopoly on force.

It's your free choice. No whining about consequences, please.

The difference between what you're proposing and the consequences of, say, my career are that what you're proposing is the subjegation of some to the whims of others, where as my acceptance of the consequences of my career is my acceptence of reality. There's a world of difference between F=MA and "The Speed Limit is 55 mph". You are putting the demands of humans on part with laws of physics, which is incorrect. that's why I brought up metaphysical vs. man-made. Rand wrote an essay on this topic. If you'd read it, you'd know that O'ism considers your view wrong, and the reasons for it.

And since you're saying you can do this in today's society, it's fair to ask what woulud happen if you refused. So, what would? Do you think we'd be allowed to simply live our lives free from the unchosen burden of laws issued by a government we don't acknowledge? If not, there's probably a flaw in your thinking.

 

[remirol]

No thanks. I don't think you'd consider such a list honestly.

*snort*

Another big win for Objectivism; two proponents resorting to accusing someone asking questions of dishonesty. Yes, it was indeed a waste of time for me to attempt to try to ask questions having not fully absorbed into the very fiber of my being the utter truth of Rand's books and the essence of Pure Objectivism, without which I cannot possibly comprehend anything said to me by any True Objectivists.

At this point, no, I don't care to consider such a list, and you can continue carrying on your mutual backpatting with Dinwar. Have fun.

 

[Akri]

Another big win for Objectivism; two proponents resorting to accusing someone asking questions of dishonesty. Yes, it was indeed a waste of time for me to attempt to try to ask questions having not fully absorbed into the very fiber of my being the utter truth of Rand's books and the essence of Pure Objectivism, without which I cannot possibly comprehend anything said to me by any True Objectivists.

You may notice that Dinwar and I aren't cutting off communication with everyone who criticizes Objectivism without a good understanding of the philosophy, just you (I'd say "you and Kevin" but I don't think he wants to talk to us, so there's no communication to cut off). There's a reason for that.

 

[remirol]

You may notice that Dinwar and I aren't cutting off communication with everyone who criticizes Objectivism without a good understanding of the philosophy, just you (I'd say "you and Kevin" but I don't think he wants to talk to us, so there's no communication to cut off). There's a reason for that.

Yes, there is; you only want to talk with people who accept the philosophy as gospel truth, rather than people who see some pretty obvious holes in it and chose to ask questions about those holes. Then, you'd prefer to accuse us of dishonesty and malfeasance rather than coming down from your ivory tower and talking with the little people.

I get it. Only Objectivism experts can post in here. Rest assured, I'll limit myself in the future.

 

[Akri]

Yes, there is; you only want to talk with people who accept the philosophy as gospel truth

I guess that must mean Myriad and I are Objectivists. I wonder if Myriad will find that fact as surprising as I do?

Edit: and yes, it is fair to accuse you of dishonesty. You're being dishonest with this very post (either you haven't read the thread, and thus can't honestly claim that we're only willing to talk to people who accept Objectivism, or you have read the thread and are telling a deliberate lie).

 

[Myriad]

I never said you did. I said that your view of how to live perfectly in line with O'ist principles violates O'ist principles.

But you have not said how. If you could, I rather suspect you'd have done so, rather than offer "hints" about metaphysics.

In most cases, I would be inclined to agree with you (though we'd have to discuss specifics). Not all, though--fraud is one example where your agreement doesn't necessarily mean you have to accept all the consequences. And the government is a unique case, due to its unique monopoly on force.

The redress for fraud or default is via the courts. The justice system is how governmental force is conveyed into private disputes. For example, if I join a homeowner association and agree to keep my lawn mowed, and I don't keep my lawn mowed, and I physically resist the HOA's efforts authorized under the agreement to redress that (which might be anything from hiring a landscaper to mow my lawn for me and sending me the bill, up to and including seizing my property), they will call upon the courts to force me to comply. If the courts could not do that, then the HOA agreement would have little practical meaning to begin with, as I could thwart them by simply defaulting. That would permit me to abuse the commons, which is what the agreement was supposed to prevent in the first place.

Agreeing to abide by the government's laws and decisions is no different, and no less valid, than any other agreement I enter into. The court system handles claims of default (such as fraud) on either side, if and when redress within the terms of the agreement itself has failed to resolve the issue.

The difference between what you're proposing and the consequences of, say, my career are that what you're proposing is the subjegation of some to the whims of others, where as my acceptance of the consequences of my career is my acceptence of reality. There's a world of difference between F=MA and "The Speed Limit is 55 mph". You are putting the demands of humans on part with laws of physics, which is incorrect. that's why I brought up metaphysical vs. man-made. Rand wrote an essay on this topic. If you'd read it, you'd know that O'ism considers your view wrong, and the reasons for it.

The grass won't stop growing if it has sun and water, and yet I can agree to manmade rules for keeping it mowed if I choose to. Your objection is not applicable here.

And since you're saying you can do this in today's society, it's fair to ask what woulud happen if you refused. So, what would? Do you think we'd be allowed to simply live our lives free from the unchosen burden of laws issued by a government we don't acknowledge? If not, there's probably a flaw in your thinking.

As I said, nothing at all would happen if you refused. The government would continue to treat you in the exact same way anyhow. There are no consequences for refusing; not positively declaring ones willingness to abide by a nation's rules is the status quo; so is your government enforcing its rules on you regardless. So you can hardly complain that the choice is coerced.

But by making the declaration of your own free will, you would thenceforth be living in Objectivist perfection. Any subsequent restrictions on your rights will then be either ones you already agreed to, or torts that you can take to court.

By not doing so, of your own free will, you suffer the consequences of having your natural rights constantly violated and abridged just about every time you are required (ultimately, by the threat of force) to obey a speed limit or any other law. But that's your free choice, so suck it up.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Beelzebuddy]

This is just about the only valid statement either of you two has made. And it's not us making it irrelevant. If you want to discuss O'ism, I'm willing to do so--PROVIDED YOU DO SO HONESTLY. Sorry, but this forum has demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in doing so, and I've no patience for people who expect O'ism to follow different rules than any other philosophy is expected to follow.

If I might inject myself into the conversation, I'm honestly happy to discuss Objectivism. It's a nice change in subject for the forum from the usual "hey guys there's totally no gods, amirite?" circlejerk. Unfortunately you don't seem to want honest discussion, but HONEST discussion, wherein we are all very uncritical and ask no hard questions. I'm sorry, but this isn't the place for slow-pitch philosophy. Not for Gaetan's moneyless system, not for theocratic utopias, and not for Objectivism.

Unfortunately discussion, much less honest discussion, is not what we've had here. It isn't our fault that Objectivism walks blindly into moral quandaries a child could come up with.* It's natural that we'd ask them without first needing to check if there's a satisfactory answer somewhere in the bowels of Randian literature. They're simple questions, which deserve simple, non-contradictory answers. "How does Objectivism handle the Tragedy of the Commons?" "How does Objectivism enforce adherence to its philosophy?" "How does Objectivism handle moral issues which appear to be permitted by the system?"

Yet none of these have been answered satisfactorily. We've been told we don't understand the philosophy, that these things could never happen and we'd know that if we understood the philosophy, and that we're not worth answering because we're just trying to tear down the philosophy instead of understand it. When we are answered, and respond by pointing out the new problems implied by that answer, we're told we're moving the goal posts and just trying to nitpick.

You claim to want to discuss the philosophy, then refuse to discuss it. You stomp your feet and demand specific flaws and hypotheticals, then ignore them or deflect them when they're presented. You may think you're using open-eyed reasoning, but the arguments you've given here are those of blind faith.

*[ETA] Just wanted to add I mean this literally. See for example the "I'm not touching you!" maneuver, ever a staple of dinner table aggression.

 

[Dinwar]

Another big win for Objectivism; two proponents resorting to accusing someone asking questions of dishonesty.

Ah, the Eirc Cartman approach. "I'm just asking questions." Because questions can't POSSIBLY be dishonest.

This statement prompted me to explain my position in greater detail. Objectivism consists of Set X (for the moment, what X is doesn't matter--merely that it exists, and has limits, is sufficient). I am asking that X be given a fair hearing. Asking questions about X is fair. Pointing to flaws about X is fair. Pointing to things that don't make sense about X is fair. And there is a difference between misunderstanding X and talking about Y--Objectivism is philosophy, and it can be a bit obtuse to those unfamiliar with it, just as they all can. Myriad has done all those things (except, far as I can tell, the last one), and while I disagree with Myriad, I am not accusing him (her? My apologies if I screwed that up) of dishonesty or refusing to give a fair hearing. Myriad is being fair, but critical. That's a good thing--people sitting around agreeing with one another is boring.

The dishonesty comes in when someone pretends to be examining X, then demands I defend Y, or when they break the rules of philosophpical discussions. Neither is tollerated in any other philosophical discussion, and I see no reason to tollerate them when the topic is Objectivism. Myriad has not done this--while he (she?) has drawn conclusions I think are invalid, they are an honest representation of what Myriad thinks I'm saying. The flaw is in my communication of the ideas, or in my ideas themselves, or in Myriad's interpretation thereof--but the flaw is NOT Myriad addressing some other issue.

So no, it's not that we demand only Objectivists participate. It's that this discussion is about Set X, and follows the standard rules for philosophical discussions. If you want to discuss Set Y, or break those rules, do not be surprised to find that you are called out for it. People on this forum do it often enough in every other discussion; I see no reason to be more tollerant here.

(I'd say "you and Kevin" but I don't think he wants to talk to us, so there's no communication to cut off)

I'll be honest--I'm not talking to Kevin in this thread. It'd be pointless. My reasons are exactly what I posted above.