new Atlas Shrugge movie has 0% on RT

It means that just because there's a lot of shit out there that you can fill your craw with, you don't have to gorge on it all. It's not TV, you have the choice, and you can consume things at your leisure - it's not gonna be gone 4 days later. And no, you don't have to read every "intellectual snob book" someone on the internet thinks is good. Maybe just one of them...

  On 4/16/2011 at 3:35 AM, chenGOD said:

It means that just because there's a lot of shit out there that you can fill your craw with, you don't have to gorge on it all. It's not TV, you have the choice, and you can consume things at your leisure - it's not gonna be gone 4 days later. And no, you don't have to read every "intellectual snob book" someone on the internet thinks is good. Maybe just one of them...

so you are saying what i said,

but you are saying it like an argument, grr !!

you will never win chengod.

No, what you said was "i'm a voracious consumer of ideas, but i have little patience. i don't care about some dusty old book that a bunch of boring people like. i can barely get through an "interesting" book like the electric kool-aid acid test these days. internet is too distracting."

I'm saying - exercise some patience, develop your thoughts on your ideas and then move on to something after ruminating upon it for a few days. the internet will still be there. Try reading that "dusty old book" and don't just condemn it because it's liked by people in "mainstream academia".

I'm afraid that in the future if a message isn't under 140 characters it will get ignored by the large public. The attention span of people today is scary.

  On 4/15/2011 at 11:37 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

shouldn't you at least "know your enemy"? because believe it or not, the upper echelons might legitimately believe what its saying, and are actually intelligent to boot. might be worth giving it a look sometime.

there are plenty of ways to get to know rand without having to suffer through 1,200 pages of just awful, awful writing.

  On 4/15/2011 at 11:20 PM, ghOsty said:

I'll stick to Huxley, Orwell and Vonnegut

yeah you're DEFINITELY not gonna like rand then.

the weird thing is if you compare harrison bergeron to atlas shrugged it's not too far off, it's just vonnegut never says "FUCK EVERYONE ELSE OVER ON YOUR WAY TO THE TOP" he just says be who you are.

rand is a cunt.

  On 4/16/2011 at 6:34 AM, chenGOD said:

No, what you said was "i'm a voracious consumer of ideas, but i have little patience. i don't care about some dusty old book that a bunch of boring people like. i can barely get through an "interesting" book like the electric kool-aid acid test these days. internet is too distracting."

 

I'm saying - exercise some patience, develop your thoughts on your ideas and then move on to something after ruminating upon it for a few days. the internet will still be there. Try reading that "dusty old book" and don't just condemn it because it's liked by people in "mainstream academia".

i do read dusty old books. i should probably read more! the internet can easily become a giant time-sink (note my postcount), but i do get a shitload of ideas off it. the ideas from a good book can be deeper, heavier, or simply less everywhere, which makes books worth it.... but, this particular book didn't strike me as a huge goldmine. worse, it sounds insufferably dull! i have a bunch of unread books i actually want to read, and i have a hard enough time sticking to that. if i felt like boring myself, i'd read the book on sound algorithms and fourier transforms 'n' shit. i'd get loads more use out of what's in there.

  On 4/16/2011 at 7:48 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 4/15/2011 at 11:37 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

shouldn't you at least "know your enemy"? because believe it or not, the upper echelons might legitimately believe what its saying, and are actually intelligent to boot. might be worth giving it a look sometime.

 

there are plenty of ways to get to know rand without having to suffer through 1,200 pages of just awful, awful writing.

that's more succinct.

  On 4/16/2011 at 10:58 AM, hahathhat said:

  On 4/16/2011 at 7:48 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 4/15/2011 at 11:37 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

shouldn't you at least "know your enemy"? because believe it or not, the upper echelons might legitimately believe what its saying, and are actually intelligent to boot. might be worth giving it a look sometime.

 

there are plenty of ways to get to know rand without having to suffer through 1,200 pages of just awful, awful writing.

 

that's more succinct.

im not saying read the entire book...im saying there's a gap between "i know some people that have read this, therefore I wont bother", vs. "I have some knowledge of what its about and yes, this confirms its a POS"

not tryin to smack someone down or anything.