Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mccannon01 7 years ago
    It seems all these negative reviewers are plagerizing each other. Haven't we seen all this before? It's getting tough to finish a piece I've already read over and over. At least this guy did try to "review" something that won't even occur until part three. That is, why would Dagny dream of John Galt if she doesn't even know him in part two? Whatever, ad nauseum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 7 years ago
    Mccannon01 is on the mark. We have been subjected to a plethora of critical reviews that might as well be getting their talking points from the progressive caucus of the DNC. The distortions, misinterpretations and mischaracterizations are all too typical.
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DGriffing 7 years ago
    Taylor's review was filled with distortions, first and foremost about the book. For starts, Rearden did not despise his wife for her jealousy of his affair with Dagny -- his wife dispised him for his character and his dedication to his work. Rearden had an inner conflict between his superficial conventional philosophy and his core personality and beliefs which drove his action and his attraction to Dagny. Taylor doesn't appear to understand this or anything else about Rand or Shrugged, and only spews ignorance about the subject.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Nietzsche 7 years ago
    I think it worthwhile to explore what others think of Rand, her works and why. The comments following the review were equally interesting.
    Thanks for the link.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 7 years ago
      I agree, Nietzsche, but some of these reviews are becoming quite repetitive right down to the wording and sentence structure. However, the commentary following the review or article is often far more insightful and/or entertaining than the article itself. I'm grateful for the links from this site, as apparently you are, also. I'd like to join in on some of those discussions, but I barely have enough time to drop a few words on this site as it is.
      -Enjoy life!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  7 years ago
        Glad you enjoy the site, mccannon01. In my experience, the reviews for ANY subject are repetitive. Personally, I'm a big football fan and have a hard time engaging with the media and fans because they always end up using the same incorrect arguments over and over and over.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  bigjim 7 years ago
    Another article that I just couldn't make myself finish. And the title... oh man, I nearly laughed.

    And I must confess ignorance. Can someone please educate me on the "allusions to metal bondage"? I have no idea what that is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 7 years ago
      It's meaningless. It's part of the collectivist crypto-language of psycho-babble. They don't know what it really means, either. They just know they have to smile and nod in agreement because if they don't, they're afraid their friends will think they are ignorant.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 7 years ago
        I have to expand upon what I just wrote above. Although such phrases are meaningless they do contain a certain "power" of innuendo. Recall the conversation between Francesco and Hank where Hank insists the people he supports are like children and are powerless. Francesco responds by telling Hank they "have a weapon". This language of baseless innuendo is part of that weapon.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo