[continued from previous message]   
      
   > It's quite revealing that you'd identify with Rand's most perfect (IHO)   
   > character, but don't think he's good enough either. But I'm afraid I   
   > can't see any match at all, other than Galt convinced a group of people   
   > to move to a hidden site and   
   > waited for the world to die without them; which you claim to have done   
   > to aapc.   
      
   Hmm... I hadn't thought of that.  Thank you for pointing it out.   
      
      
   >> If we must pseudo-psychoanalyze me by comparing me to a literary   
   >> character, I identify most with the following: Goldmund (from Hesse's   
   >> "Goldmund & Narcissus"), Wolf Larsen (from Jack London's "The Sea   
   >> Wolf"), Manfred (in Byron's dramatic poem of the same name).  I would   
   >> expand that list to include the cinematic character Arthur Parker from   
   >> "Pennies from Heaven" as well.   
   >> For the benefit of illiterates like George and his Donkey, allow me to   
   >> briefly describe the relevant characteristics of each of the literary   
   >> and cinematic characters listed above.  Goldmund is an artist during the   
   >> late Middle Ages who abandons the monastic life, pursues his art at the   
   >> expense of financial security, and achieves, the Jungian process of   
   >> "actualization" through a series of romantic encounters.   
   >>  Wolf Larsen is   
   >> a Darwinic Atheist who identifies with the Rebel-Hero, "Lucifer," from   
   >> Milton's "Paradise Lost," whose dying words (actually, word) dismiss   
   >> religion and morality as "Bosh."   
   >> Manfred is the ultimate Byronic hero,   
   >> who refuses to accept Divine judgment at the end of his life, declaring   
   >> that his deeds were his own.   
   >> And Arthur Parker was a Depression Era   
   >> sheet music salesman who defiantly clung to his belief that life must be   
   >> like it is in the songs -- even when facing the gallows for a crime he   
   >> didn't commit.   
   >   
   > So you identify with characters who (1) are financially unstable, (2 and   
   > 3) reject religion (and ethics), and (4) have a delusional view of the   
   > world. That's illuminating, but it doesn't answer the question we were   
   > debating.   
      
   It most certainly does.  The characters I identify with are *not* in the   
   least way similar to anyone in Ayn Rand's books.   
      
   What is the point of trying to fit me into a mold that was cut out for   
   somebody else?   
      
   RHETORICAL QUESTION ALERT: The answer, of course, is that it provides   
   you with an excuse for stamping your foot and shouting back "I'm not   
   Toohey!  YOU'RE Toohey!"   
      
   My list of literary characters that I identify with provides you with   
   ample opportunity for launching character attacks (as hinted in your   
   above response).  And I am the first to own up to my character flaws.   
      
   I'm sorry that you only know of these characters from my description of   
   them, or from a cursory Google search, but were you a more literate   
   individual, you would have taken advantage of the opportunity I have   
   openly afforded you.   
      
      
   >> In short, I'm an Epicurean-Pantheist-Luciferic-Byronic Romantic who   
   >> always seeks to find the ideal in a less than perfect world.   
   >>   
   >> As to my alleged "lying."   
   >   
   >> This is another example of George's "IKYABWAI" ethical system at work.   
   >   
   >> "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is a catchphrase question that PJR   
   >> would often put to George.   
   >   
   > So you're copying "PJR" again (which is probably one reason Will came up   
   > with the theory that you're mostly a "second-hander" like Keating.   
      
   We've been over this in the past, George.   
      
   I'm not copying PJR.  I'm referencing him.   
      
   When a catchphrase like "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is picked up by   
   various members of a group, it's a strong indicator that there is more   
   than a grain of truth behind it.   
      
   In terms you might better be able to understand, I am not just asking   
   you why you lie so much -- I am pointing out that others here have   
   accused you of doing just that.   
      
   >> Why I revived it in PJR's absence, George   
   >> immediately began tit-for-tatting it back to me.   
   >   
   > No, Lying Michael; I don't use that phrase. Whenever I catch you in a   
   > lie I simply note it by calling you Lying Michael, and move on.   
      
   Really, George.  You're acting like a butthurt little boy again.   
      
   When I pose the rhetorical question of "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?",   
   you respond in typical tit-for-tat fashion by addressing me as "Lying   
   Michael."   
      
   An adult would choose to refute the point I'd claimed they'd been lying   
   about -- assuming that my accusation was untrue.  Refutation goes a much   
   farther way to establishing one's innocence than yet another variation   
   on IKYABWAI.   
      
      
   >> I don't lie in Usenet groups (well, maybe a little one now and then for   
   >> humor's sake -- told with a wink to those perceptive enough to pick up   
   >> on it) -- it's too easy to get caught.  Conversations here are archived,   
   >> and anything one says can and will be used against them at a future   
   >> date.   
   >   
   > As I've explained to you many a time; nor is it a good yet here you are,   
   > trying it yet again.   
   > The question, as Will asked, is why you do it.   
      
   And where is the archival evidence to back your statement up?   
      
   One only has to look at this particular exchange to see that you are   
   simply repeating back what I said to you, and redirecting it back at me   
   (IKYABWAI).   
      
   As previously noted, you repeatedly show yourself to be incapable of   
   expressing a single original thought.   
      
   >> I also find George's description of how abused children are prone to   
   >> becoming lying adults telling -- as George also had an abusive parent   
   >> (actually both of George's parents were abusive).   
   >   
   > No, Lying Michael, that is not what I said (which is probably why you   
   > tried snipping it.) I said it's reasonable to think that all children   
   > try lying to escape punishment at some time. Whether they continue it,   
   > as children and later on as adults, is contingent on how well it worked   
   > for them.   
      
   Why do you lie so much, Dunce?   
      
   Don't you realize that I can easily reference the statements you've made   
   in *this* thread?   
      
   Here is what you said, and I quote:   
      
   "Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape   
   punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad   
   learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at   
   least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie   
   successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie   
   successfully, and escape punishment, more than once."   
      
      
   >> It seems that George   
   >> has finally answered PJR's ongoing question of "Why do you lie so much,   
   >> Dunce."   
   >   
   > I've answered that question many a time, usually with "Why do you   
   > project so much, Piggy?" - the same phrase I use on you when   
   > you copy it. Of course, with him (and with you) it's as much conscious   
   > preemption as much as unconscious projection, but   
   > there was no point trying to explain all that to him.   
      
   You are wrong, George.  It's merely the recognition of something that is   
   obvious to everyone here -- that you are a pathological liar.  In one   
   post in this thread, you claimed that abused children were prone to   
   becoming liars in adult life.  When I referred to your statement, you   
   denied it, claiming that you'd only said that all children lied at one   
   time or another.  I only had to return to the beginning of this thread   
   to pull your original statement and post it here for all to see.   
      
   You lie.   
      
   Not once.  Not twice.  But over and over again.   
      
   The sad part is that I don't think you're even aware that you are doing   
   it.  Lying has become such an ingrained part of your personality   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)