In fact, I think Robert is correct in accusing you of being selectively/intentionally dense.

"It would have been fifteen if you'd kept a grip on the spelling. I would never drop a word like that into a topic without spellchecking it first. A man's got to know his limitations."

Well, I don't feel particularily chagrined by my mispelling. Considering that my knowledge of Heidegger was once prety phenomenal (hahaha), and my writings and use of his work landed me in Grad School.

Dyslexia kind of works that way, Tom. I generally think attacks on spelling and grammer are prety much the last refuge of fools in any case, thats why I never employ that sort of thing.

"Is Ayn Rand simple to understand? Sure. Were a lot of her ideas adopted from other philosophers? Sure. She particularly cites Aristotle until she's blue in the face."

Usually incorrectly, but hey... Thats whats so great about Ayn Rand, all she ever wrote was fiction...

"All the best truths are simple truths, and can be stated simply."

Okay, whatever. You get 10 points for the most profoundly meaningless utterance of the day. 'All the best clouds are purple clouds.'

"When someone tries to bury an idea in loghorrea, it is a damn good bet that somewhere in that noise he is trying to put something over on you. Or trying to score with girls at the local campus coffeehouse."

Yes, Tom, this is why it takes 8-15 years of intense study to be really good at Physics, Math, Philosophy, Biology etc. Afterall, the truth is simple, right? Thayt-Thar eduuuu-caytion stuff is 'jus fer tha birds. Riiight?

If the only way you can attack a point is by attacking being literate and educated and arguing a case in detail, then you are sort of defeating the point of arguing anything at all.

"Ayn Rand, among many others, did not need to try and impress people with polysyllabics. "

But what I'm telling you Tom, is that Ayn Rand is like a bad copy of other ideas that were much more sound and well-thought-out, and developed over centuries of peer-review. You should pay attention to this. Her trappings of common sense simply aren't. Their a dumbing down- the same sort of crap that people like Dr. Phil do with Psychology.

"From what I can tell, you haven't read Rand at all, or you wouldn't be connecting her to philosophers like Plato and Nietzsche. Your comments on Rand and morality (morality is based on the protection of the group??) pretty much nail it."

And here is where a point goes zooming by you. Probably because your dodging. Rand liked to eviscerate those who came before her in her prose, it sort of prevented the largely philosophically illiterate followers of hers from delving too deeply in those pools, IMHO. If you read those Rand attacks, you generaly find the origin of her thought.

Ayn Rand began her 'career' as a Nietzschian. While she and the 'Objectivist' kaffe-klatches backflip to distinguish themselves from Nietzschian philosophy, they are often very close.

And of course Ayn Rand would not 'buy' into any morality that was justified as maximizing the good of the group, thats precisely my point.

"Innocent Iraqis died in the war. The other 22 million or so are free. This calculation is made in every war for a just cause, and grownups have to make these calculations"

Bullshit, Tom. Unless fighting for survival, nobody has the moral right to kill people based upon THEIR surmise of whats best for a group. Its a sort of screw-ball collectivism.

And yes, Tom, I have read a Lot of Ayn Rand- probably less than you... But I also have read a LOT of western philosophy from Heraclitus on through Russel.

Davin L.