I am no longer directly in the business. A publisher of graphic novels wanted to do a bio of my son. Knowing me from my days as a publisher/editor/writer, he asked if I would write it for a percentage of the net. However, he is always on the lookout for writers and artists, particularly those that he doesn't have to play nursemaid to.His name is Scott

Herb7734, in your endeavors if you are considering an artist I would be happy to show you my work.
With regards,
Dobrien

Being Objectivists, our posts are wrinkle-free. :-)

Aha! Another old fart.
And here I thought that I was the only elderly Objectivist. I guess I couldn't tell your age by your posts.

I'm not young enough to be "sonny" - you've only got me beat by nine years. :-)

It is my date of birth.
Also, type it into your adding device and turn it upside down.
And yes, I am that old...sonny (daughter).

Herb, what does the 7734 stand for? Are there 7733 other Herbs on this site that I don't know about? :-)
The only thing that comes to mind is the old U.S. silver dollar standard, .7734 ounces of silver per coin.

yes, compromise is torture, a half-death of your dream! -- j
.

Long list? Me too.
Flynn's hero is a non-compromising, dedicated man. Sort of a Galt in international (CIA) law enforcement.

I have heard that he's good, but haven't read any of
his books. . long reading list, these days! -- j
.

I recently discovered Vince Flynn and am working my way through his novels. One more after the one I'm reading now, plus there's an author who took up where he left off after his death.

Hi There capitalist! . you will probably get some co-conspirators
here in the gulch ... I sure hope so!

you can check out my latest edit here:::

https://www.amazon.com/Wha-cked-Tucke...

-- j
.

Sounds good.

I noticed your offer and, will keep it in mind. I have ideas and you have skills...something could come of this.

I think that most Gulchers would agree with you about censorship. However, for some reason posts have moved amazingly far afield from what I intended as a light-hearted advertisement offering my services as a writer/editor. As to 5 negative votes -- I have been in the Gulch for a number of years and I don't recall ever seeing that.

Thanks for the clarification.

It certainly took on a life of it's own...wow.

No, they don't take down posts, but in some cases don't print them. At least that's my perception. As to negative comments about Rand, most people posting that sort of thing usually get sliced and diced pretty good. I have had that happen to me when I presumed to question her deification among some new readers of Atlas. The Gulch PTBs (Powers That Be) might hold something back that had already been discussed ad nauseum. I have found their editing to be quite fair including some of my posts getting excluded. That's OK to me because my brain keeps bubbling over with topics to an extent that causes me to self censor.

I acknowledged that the PTB of the Gulch were right. The damn post looked like it would go on forever and I just stopped responding to it. I learned my lesson. Not of fear but of boredom.

William;

I think The Gulch may, for now, be a special case, wherein intellectual honesty is appreciated. However, in concept, my objection remains. At some future date, when people who don't prize intellectual honesty populate The Gulch, they'll be able to censor speech to which they object.

On Quora it's impossible to say anything critical about Islam or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or black racism or socialism without being voted down and seeing your post disappear, usually within an hour, sometimes within a few minutes.

That led to my Quora post "Are Some Questions Too Bad to Ask." To which most answers were "yes." One person, trying to be reasonable, wrote that he only downvoted things he "really didn't like."

What would members of The Gulch do if someone posted diatribes against Rand's appearance or private behavior? Would they downvote the posts and make them disappear? Is there any value to be gained from this act?

Digits are cheap, almost free. "Disappearing" a post by popular vote doesn't really save any money and, if it's immaterial or factually incorrect the lack of readership is its own censorship, popular censorship is unnecessary because unpopularity accomplishes the same thing without resorting to the tyranny of the majority..

There are also people on the site who will up-vote you if, in their opinion, the down-vote wasn't appropriate.

Hmmm. I see a net of 5 downvotes will make a post disappear. That means mainstream scientists, if they chose to hang out in The Gulch, could downvote and "disappear" all skeptical mentions of anthropogenic global warming.

Or, if I were to discover a long lost Rand manuscript that indicated her conversion to Judaism late in life, the rest of the members of The Gulch could simply shout me down.

Is something untrue because it's unpopular?

I'm not sure any amount of censorship, even by the majority of readers, is good.

The only time admins of the site "censor" anything is if it violates the code of conduct: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...

You mean this site censors speech? I understand them hiding obscenities but, they'll actually take down posts?

That was my disappointment with Quora, the minders have agendas and they take down posts that don't fit their agendas and, if a few other members don't like your opinions, they can "downvote" your posts and make them disappear.