[lpkmckenna]

I've been putting off making this thread off for a while.

Ayn Rand seems to get a surge whenever the Democrats regain the Whitehouse. It happened when Clinton was elected (and I first heard of her) and when Obama was elected. Limbaugh and Beck have both endorsed her books, though obviously not her entire philosophy, and Rand-inspired signs are seen at Tea Party events.

There are obviously some Rand admirers here, including me. I'm curious to see what people here think about her stuff.

My political railroad from teenage conservative to university libertarian to adult liberal ran right thru her. On issues of ethics, I still tend towards "rational selfishness," and her endorsement of reason and science and atheism made a permanent mark on me.

I'm still very capitalist in orientation, but I'm much more concerned about externalities than she was. I tend to say: "Free market is like free puppy. Only a leashed and housebroken dog can be your best friend." Every time she trotted out the phrase "unregulated laisse-faire capitalism" I rolled my eyes. Even she would admit you can't dump your used motor oil in your own backyard in the name of property rights; that right there is a regulation.

Regarding her novels, I think The Fountainhead is a great book, but Atlas Shrugged is a mess. There is talk of an Atlas Shrugged movie, but I think that's impossible without a serious pruning of characters and subplots. The entire Galt's Gulch and pirate stuff is too ridiculous to bother. And maybe if Galt and Francesco were merged into a single character the movie could work.

So I'm an ex-Objectivist who "softened" into an "ethical liberal/fiscal moderate" who votes for the Conservative party. What's everybody else's story?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've been putting off making this thread off for a while.

Let's just say I'm glad that I didn't find her work when I was in high school. Surprising.

I wholeheartedly subscribe to her Atlas Shrugged archetypes, because I've known good examples of all of them, and her vision of the nature of man is right on. There are some folks who get things done, and others who use the government to steal, and others who use their authority to subjugate, and others, yet that use people's self-perceived strengths against them.

Most of us, I'd bet, would fall into the "Eddie Willers" class - just trying to get by, free-riding on the ideas and efforts of "managers" and others who have just a little bit more initiative than we do.

A few of us fall into the "creator" category, but not many people I'd guess. After all, if EVERYONE was a creator, then the archetype would fall apart in Rand's view, I suspect. Maybe not though, but she definitely figured that there was a good number of people who were "sheep."

The old man's parable about the 20th Century Motor Company and the children of the founder is one of the greatest, most prophetic monologues in Western lit, in my humble opinion. The monologue by the "corrupt" playboy about gold vs. paper money is likewise priceless.

Anyhow, it's obvious to me that many of the things she writes about have come to pass, but I still think her "philosophy" was an attempt to overstate her personal importance. "A is A" never made sense when she wrote about it, in my opinion. Aristotle, yes, not Rand. She just seemed too pushy about her opinion or gestalt as some kind of new type of philosophy. It's not new, it's natural - people have been living by her morality (consume what you produce) for thousands and thousands of years, usually not by choice.

In any case, there's a lot of good stuff there. I'm still learning, even 17+ years on with Ayn Rand. Again, though, it's a good thing I didn't read it in high school, or I never would have made it out of my own personal strike.

[SpaceMonkey]

Oh god.

[teszeract]

I did read Atlas Shrugged in high school, and was very highly impressed back then 27 or so years ago, and was her greatest local champion. Since then however, the world has changed considerably. I've tried re-reading the book and found it really difficult.

I now believe that her book was a counter-balance to the issues of the day, the other extreme, so to speak. And it falls to us to understand both ends of the spectrum and find balance.

I'm glad I found her books in high school - it was the best time for idealism.

[Kerrigan]

I'm going to agree with SpaceMonkey's appropriate reaction to this thread.

[andi*pandi]

I got bored halfway through one of the books, don't even recall which one, but it had something to do with trains.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

My political railroad from teenage conservative to university libertarian to adult liberal ran right thru her.

Did you suffer a brain injury in adulthood?

I kid, I kid. . .

[The Final Dakar]

Real mature.

[Cold Warrior]

Rule 9 still matters.

The path to derailment is paved with its violations. - The Book of Polwar Sorrows.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Rule 9 still matters.

My last ban says otherwise.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

My last ban says otherwise.

At least you're not whining like those libs always do.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by finboy 

In any case, there's a lot of good stuff there. I'm still learning, even 17+ years on with Ayn Rand. Again, though, it's a good thing I didn't read it in high school, or I never would have made it out of my own personal strike.

"Going Galt" was only a plot device, not something Rand actually advocated. When I hear people talking about doing it, it sounds like batsh!t crazy talk.

BTW, any Bioshock fans here? Did you think the game refuted Rand's ideas effectively?

And where's smacintush?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

"Going Galt" was only a plot device, not something Rand actually advocated. When I hear people talking about doing it, it sounds like batsh!t crazy talk.

BTW, any Bioshock fans here? Did you think the game refuted Rand's ideas effectively?

And where's smacintush?

People who've never even heard of Rand "go Galt" all the time. One of the reasons that it made so much sense when I finally read it was that I had known plenty of people who withdrew their energy from the system and started sticking it to "The Man" by doing what they wanted to do and not doing what the system would have them do. It's a failure of the price system (as the economists would say; Veblen would say it might be the rise of the leisure class, but I've never known that many wealthy people who had time for professional hobbies).

Brilliant musicians who drop out of the biz and record/write only for themselves. Writers who write for their friends and family and don't share it with other writers or for-pay readers. Researchers who spend years understanding the last few days of the Civil War in a particular part of Virginia so they can link it to their ancestors. People who spend time learning how to build hot rods, or supe up bikes. What they did in their off-hours meant more, and had a more lasting impact, than what they did at their "day job." Amateur astronomers who discover comets.

"Going Galt" in "Atlas Shrugged" is a metaphor, to be sure, but one that has a great deal of relevance to our current situation. If you know anyone who is currently underemployed (such as every Millennial that you ask :-) _) there is probably some ghost of Galt with them.

Bioshock is just a game. It was fascinating to unravel the whole Andrew Ryan thing (I've played through both games a couple of times, and read a lot of what's out there on the Randian implications) but I don't think any coherent thought went into structuring the game around the logical extension of Rand's philosophy. It was used as a device, that's all.

Finally, for you guys who are sitting back and rolling your eyes at this, how about putting some intellectual heft into the alternative side and filling us in on your chief criticisms of the books? Is it that the words were just too big for you? More than three characters is off-putting? You don't like architecture or trains? What?

[mattyb]

Rand fails because she couldn't imagine globalisation and the impact on businesses.

Plus, and she isn't alone in this, most people think that a free-market is un-regulated.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Rand fails because she couldn't imagine globalisation and the impact on businesses.

Plus, and she isn't alone in this, most people think that a free-market is un-regulated.

I think the UN, World Bank and IMF are even better examples of Rand's descriptions of looters/moochers than DC (maybe the DC of old was much worse in terms of backroom deals). In fact, she was prophetic in this case, since most of the UN infrastructure didn't exist when she was putting Atlas Shrugged together.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[screener]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Is it that the words were just too big for you? More than three characters is off-putting? You don't like architecture or trains? What?

Wow, the arrogance.

[msuper69]

I liked all of Ayn Rand's books and have read them more than once.

I am at odds with her Atheism but still agree with her thinking on the sacredness of a person's work and don't believe in giving away what I've accomplished through my hard work to others just because they feel entitled.

I know it's contradictory but I've learned to live with it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

And where's smacintush?

I've been trying to avoid this place.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Bioshock is just a game. It was fascinating to unravel the whole Andrew Ryan thing (I've played through both games a couple of times, and read a lot of what's out there on the Randian implications) but I don't think any coherent thought went into structuring the game around the logical extension of Rand's philosophy. It was used as a device, that's all.

I tend to agree, though I admit I don't generally put a lot if intellectual analysis into a game.

Finally, for you guys who are sitting back and rolling your eyes at this, how about putting some intellectual heft into the alternative side and filling us in on your chief criticisms of the books? Is it that the words were just too big for you? More than three characters is off-putting? You don't like architecture or trains? What?

I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, but I was reading it for a reason other than just entertaining myself. However, I can certainly see how people might not like it. Not everyone likes reading 645,000 word books, and there are no sparkly vampires in it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I think the UN, World Bank and IMF are even better examples of Rand's descriptions of looters/moochers than DC (maybe the DC of old was much worse in terms of backroom deals). In fact, she was prophetic in this case, since most of the UN infrastructure didn't exist when she was putting Atlas Shrugged together.

I agree again.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

I am at odds with her Atheism but still agree with her thinking on the sacredness of a person's work and don't believe in giving away what I've accomplished through my hard work to others just because they feel entitled.

I have a newsflash for you: orphans don't feel entitled. The homeless don't feel entitled. The sick don't feel entitled. But they are, in fact, entitled to the assistance of society.

Rand's atheism is the best thing about her. She makes the so-called "New Atheists" look like bandwagon-jumpers, 60 years late to the party.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I have a newsflash for you: orphans don't feel entitled. The homeless don't feel entitled. The sick don't feel entitled. But they are, in fact, entitled to the assistance of society.

Rand's atheism is the best thing about her. She makes the so-called "New Atheists" look like bandwagon-jumpers, 60 years late to the party.

Where did I say those people aren't entitled to some assistance?
The type of person I am referring to is someone who is able to work but is unwilling to perform said work and expects me to support them.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

However, I can certainly see how people might not like it. Not everyone likes reading 645,000 word books, and there are no sparkly vampires in it.

Rand is a long-winded, pedantic writer. She says in 100 pages what a good writer says in 10 sentences. And John Galt is less realistic than a sparkly vampire.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

Where did I say those people aren't entitled to some assistance?

That's what Ayn Rand says. Do you agree with her or not?

The type of person I am referring to is someone who is able to work but is unwilling to perform said work and expects me to support them.

You mean those people who are on welfare because they can't get a job. Yeah, what losers.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I have a newsflash for you: orphans don't feel entitled. The homeless don't feel entitled. The sick don't feel entitled. But they are, in fact, entitled to the assistance of society.

Where does this "fact" come from? Why exactly is a reasonably able-bodied person of reasonably sound mind entitled assistance?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Where does this "fact" come from? Why exactly is a reasonably able-bodied person of reasonably sound mind entitled assistance?

The hell is wrong with you? Do you think a homeless man addled with mental illness is a "reasonably able-bodied person of reasonably sound mind?" Do you think an orphaned child qualifies as a "reasonably able-bodied person of reasonably sound mind?"

And how about the reasonably disable-bodied? Or the reasonably unsound minds? Are they not entitled to the asssistance of society?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Every time she trotted out the phrase "unregulated laisse-faire capitalism" I rolled my eyes. Even she would admit you can't dump your used motor oil in your own backyard in the name of property rights; that right there is a regulation.

Do you have a relevant source for her view on such a thing?

Seems to me that actual harm to another person or persons would have to be proven, rather than relying on the precautionary principle (which she did not support) to justify governmental controls.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The hell is wrong with you? Do you think a homeless man addled with mental illness is a "reasonably able-bodied person of reasonably sound mind?" Do you think an orphaned child qualifies as a "reasonably able-bodied person of reasonably sound mind?"

Slow your roll Chester, I'm tryiing to have a polite conversation/debate(ish) here.

You never said anything about "addled with mental illness". You said homeless.

And how about the reasonably disable-bodied? Or the reasonably unsound minds? Are they not entitled to the asssistance of society?

So, are you going to actually answer my question? You are welcome to answer it in two parts if you'd like: one answer or the able, one for the disabled.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You never said anything about "addled with mental illness". You said homeless.

If you have spent much time around homeless people (and I can't say that I've spent a lot), you'll notice that the vast majority of them are what some might describe as "off".

Now whether that's a product of the homelessness or vice versa is another matter. However I for one would be quite willing to say, with no research or scientific backing whatsoever, that "the homeless" as a group probably has an extraordinarily large proportion of mental illness present in it.

I'm less concerned about them and more concerned about people who actually do feel "entitled." In my experience that's often lower middle class, often in rural areas - farmers, fisherman and other "workers of the land" who have essentially had their livelihoods made financially unpalatable. So they have a great point - why should they be punished because the great offshore foreign trawlers took all the fish, or because the tobacco markets have gotten belly up, or because it's so much cheaper to make cotton in the third world, or because the lumber season is only 8 months long, etc. etc....but those subsidies - in unemployment benefits or subsidies or whatever - are the largest source of handouts IMO.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Do you have a relevant source for her view on such a thing?

I'll search for the actual quote, but in the meantime, I do specificially remember her once complaining that laws preventing pollution were not being enforced, but it was an off-hand kind of statement in an essay complaining about the "ecology movement" as it was then called. The essay is probably from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. (What a preposterous title for a book. )

Seems to me that actual harm to another person or persons would have to be proven, rather than relying on the precautionary principle (which she did not support) to justify governmental controls.

You're nuts. Do you think you should be permitted to dump oil in your own backyard until your neighbours sue you?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You never said anything about "addled with mental illness". You said homeless.

Who are these mentally- and physically-capable homeless people you seem to have seen?

So, are you going to actually answer my question? You are welcome to answer it in two parts if you'd like: one answer or the able, one for the disabled.

Why is "anyone" entitled to governemnt aid or protection of any kind?

For example, why are businesses "entitled" to police that protect their property, courts to enforce their contracts, military to defend them from foreign invaders?

We are all "entitled" to this or that government service because society is worst off without those services.

[screener]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We are all "entitled" to this or that government service because society is worst off without those services.

He'll probably ask for proof of this because he lacks the imagination to see what the country would be like without it.

Maybe look at the slums of Rio to see the possibilities of certain ideologies.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

If you have spent much time around homeless people (and I can't say that I've spent a lot), you'll notice that the vast majority of them are what some might describe as "off".

I've been around a few, and I agree.

Now whether that's a product of the homelessness or vice versa is another matter. However I for one would be quite willing to say, with no research or scientific backing whatsoever, that "the homeless" as a group probably has an extraordinarily large proportion of mental illness present in it.

I would again be inclined to agree. However, a large percentage is not all, and within that percentage there are going to be varying types and severities of illness. It is unlikely that the illness is the major factor contributing to their homelessness in ALL of the cases.

I'm less concerned about them and more concerned about people who actually do feel "entitled." In my experience that's often lower middle class, often in rural areas - farmers, fisherman and other "workers of the land" who have essentially had their livelihoods made financially unpalatable. So they have a great point - why should they be punished because the great offshore foreign trawlers took all the fish, or because the tobacco markets have gotten belly up, or because it's so much cheaper to make cotton in the third world, or because the lumber season is only 8 months long, etc. etc....but those subsidies - in unemployment benefits or subsidies or whatever - are the largest source of handouts IMO.

Perhaps I'm not following you…how exactly do they have a "great point"? How do any of those factors justification for handouts?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You're nuts. Do you think you should be permitted to dump oil in your own backyard until your neighbours sue you?

Again with the tone… Because I may disagree with you, there must be something "wrong" with me?

Nevertheless you are misrepresenting what I said. I was merely making a general comment based on your specific example. If there is indeed credible proof that my dumping oil of a certain amount in my backyard actually causes harm to people or their property, the government does have a role.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Who are these mentally- and physically-capable homeless people you seem to have seen?

Where is this data you have those shows that all homeless people are mentally and/or physically disabled?

Why is "anyone" entitled to governemnt aid or protection of any kind?

For example, why are businesses "entitled" to police that protect their property, courts to enforce their contracts, military to defend them from foreign invaders?

We are all "entitled" to this or that government service because society is worst off without those services.

(still referring to entitlements here)

Society? Society is just a word for a group of individuals. Are you suggesting that all individuals within this society are better off with these services?

How exactly does "society" benefit? Is this an economic benefit? Spiritual? Moral?

Why does the benefit of "society" take precedent over the rights of the individuals within it?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Perhaps I'm not following you…how exactly do they have a "great point"? How do any of those factors justification for handouts?

Two separate questions here. The "great point" is that they perform jobs or services that are probably considered valuable to some extent, and are probably considered necessary to some extent...but which are difficult if not impossible to make money doing, for any number of reasons.

The justification is a different beast, right? Social, economic, political, you name it. If it's cheaper to just import food from abroad, should we stop subsidizing local producers who would otherwise just fold? I can't say that I have much of a handle on the issue to be honest.

[lpkmckenna]

There is now a trailer for the Atlas Shugged Part 1 film, which opens April 15th.

That looks pretty damn dull. And I'm not sure this novel fits the 21st century era anyway.

[screener]

Interesting comments about the trailer.
This link in the comments section was really interesting.
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer
But, then she was a young idealist and became more realistic later on in life.
Right,
ExecutedToday.com � 1928: William Edward Hickman, Randian superhero?

Perhaps recoiling from the self-righteous public baying after Hickman’s blood, a young Ayn Rand took such a shine to Hickman as to base upon him a murderous protagonist in a 1928 work, The Little Street. The budding apostle of selfishness decried in her journals

[a]verage, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, ‘dignified’ housewives … How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone’s fate?

Though The Little Street never saw print, the hero disdainful of the petty bonds of moral hypocrisy is the go-to trope of Rand’s later novels. If you can bear them, you’ll find Rand speaking of “nonproducers and parasites” who are “a drag upon progress … a menace to civilization” in much the way the Times speaks of Hickman.

Rand wrote that “other people do not exist for [Hickman], and he does not see why they should … He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.

It’s a pretty near definition of sociopathy likewise imputed to the hero of her later novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”

The last sentence sums it all up.
I don't get this hero worship of Rand, unless they're just as twisted in their thinking.

[smacintush]

All of her comments about Hickman that I've read have been in the context of research for a book, not as a model for human behavior. She also called him a degenerate.

Unsurprisingly, most critics and critiques of Ayn Rand that I've heard tend to either be personal attacks or come from people who obviously haven't taken the time to actually understand her philosophy. Those that have reject it from the perspective of their own baseless prejudices, which is hardly compelling.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

And I'm not sure this novel fits the 21st century era anyway.

Nothing of her's fits the 21st Century.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

There is now a trailer for the Atlas Shugged Part 1 film, which opens April 15th.

That looks pretty damn dull. And I'm not sure this novel fits the 21st century era anyway.

I don't see how someone who hated the novel could be excited about the movie.

Personally, I think it looks far more promising than I would have thought. Sure, there are some issues that won't translate well to the big screen, but that goes for nearly any book.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Nothing of her's fits the 21st Century.

You're kidding, right?

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

All of her comments about Hickman that I've read have been in the context of research for a book, not as a model for human behavior. She also called him a degenerate.

Degenerate in her lucid period.
Her true feelings are when she said,

[a]verage, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, ‘dignified’ housewives … How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone’s fate?

which you ignored.
Do you know Hickmans story, what he did, how he went to the noose a whimpering coward?
Why did she choose this sociopath?

Unsurprisingly, most critics and critiques of Ayn Rand that I've heard tend to either be personal attacks or come from people who obviously haven't taken the time to actually understand her philosophy. Those that have reject it from the perspective of their own baseless prejudices, which is hardly compelling.

Those that defend her philosophy, or any one else they disagree with always fall back on the personal attack bull.
It's her words that are questioned, this is personal?
Her philosophy includes hypocrisy, accepting social security and medicare under an assumed name for herself and her husband.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Degenerate in her lucid period.
Her true feelings are when she said,

She was speaking against the mob mentality, not trying to defend Hickman.

which you ignored.

Her true feelings which you ignored:

"[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

Do you know Hickmans story, what he did, how he went to the noose a whimpering coward?
Why did she choose this sociopath?

Why do you think that this is relevant? Do other authors not do the same thing?

Those that defend her philosophy, or any one else they disagree with always fall back on the personal attack bull.

Bull? You quoted a smear article about her:
* private journal
* from when she was very young and immature
* taken out of context
* by an author who is basing the article on someone else's smear book
* by an author who never even read the actual journal he was referring to, only a smear written by someone else.

It's her words that are questioned, this is personal?

As I said, taken out of context. Seemingly deliberately I might add. No it's not personal to me. I just think that her private notes from her youth taken out of context and written about by a people with an agenda doesn't somehow negate decades of consistent philosophical writings. Writings which are very, very clear on how people like Hickman are to be viewed and dealt with.

I also have no problem with the idea that one can take aspects of a person and idealize those aspects while ignoring that evil aspects of that same person. Nowhere does she condone what Hickman actually did.

Her philosophy includes hypocrisy, accepting social security and medicare under an assumed name for herself and her husband.

Ah, this gem. A classic example of not having a clue of what her philosophy actually says. Why don't you try forming your own opinions instead of basing your opinion on the smear tactics or misunderstanding of someone else?

He view on taking government assistance is very clear, written about multiple times and spoken about in speeches and interviews. It wouldn't take a very deep investigation or understanding of Objectivism to realize that her taking of that money was perfectly consistent with Objectivism.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

her taking of that money was perfectly consistent with Objectivism.

Wow,.
Under an assumed name no less.
Perfectly understandable.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Wow,.
Under an assumed name no less.

As far as the name, it was her personal choice. I don't presume to know or understand. I just don't think that it is relevant in the context that there is no contradiction to her philosophy and thus no hypocrisy. Assumed name is a bit of an overstatement however, O'Connor was her husbands last name after all.

Perfectly understandable.

What exactly is your problem with this? It's not hypocrisy for her to take SS or any other government service. Not in the slightest. So, where is the issue? Why is it relevant that she didn't use her main made-up name of Ayn Rand and instead used a different made-up name? Especially one like Anne O'Connor. A name that sounds similar to "Ayn" with her husbands last name attached to it? Hardly an elusive choice.

You issue seems to be, as I mentioned earlier about most critics, that you don't get her or Objectivism. So rather than try to demean her character based upon a misunderstanding of her philosophy, why don't you educate yourself? Either that or STFU.

It is also fascinating that people seem to think that because she was someone with a very particular, strict philosophy that she was supposed to somehow be perfect because of it.

She also had an affair, and she smoked heavily, which most Objectivists would agree was not in her best interest. They are called a mistakes, we all make them. To expect her to be perfect would be to expect her to be superhuman.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Either that or STFU.

You crack me up.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

You crack me up.

Eh, serves me right for not respecting my ignore list.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Eh, serves me right for not respecting my ignore list.

Sure does.
If all you can say about someone criticizing a personal hero is, you don't get them, or they should educate themselves then you should ignore them.
Better yet, do what Rand did and kick them out of the club.
Yeah, ignore is the selfish, screw everyone else thing to do.

Sometimes all I can do is