Diggs To Carolina

[Charles Woodson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

[Guiness]

Blood and bloody ashes. Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (it is time to toss the dice)

[Rastak]

Blood and bloody ashes. Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (it is time to toss the dice)

It's the dark one's luck Guiness....

[Rastak]

Blood and bloody ashes. Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (it is time to toss the dice)

By the way, I didn't realize you spoke the old tongue....lol...


Say, you aren't one of the forsaken are you?

[mraynrand]

"I'm suspicious of Ayn Rand. Check that. I'm suspicious of Ayn Rand followers. Check that. I'm suspicious of all followers of all political ideologies. Ayn Rand's principles can't be applied to the real world any more than Karl Marx's. The real world is messy, full of crack addicts who will break into your car if they aren't dealt with, and schemers who know to bilk any system, and lots of illegal immigrants. All kinds of problems where any ideology fails."

---

Who said I was a follower of Rand? It's hard to follow someone who is dead. I'm no more a follower of Rand than of Aristotle.

Most abstract philosophers put forth theories for human action that are difficult if impossible to put apply directly to the real world.

One thing that may cause you difficulty is equating political ideology with philosophical systems of epistemology and metaphysics. How people aquire knowledge and discern what is real and what is 'the truth' is of central importance to everyone. That's not political ideology - that's essential to personal philosophy. It may lead to a political philosophy, but political ideology could probably be viewed as an 'offshoot' of epistemology and metaphysics.

As an individual, Rand had plenty of problems and the translation or application of her philosophy into fiction and essays showed her distain for the poor in spirit and for religion of any type. Still, her objectivist philosophy, as describe concisely in John Galt's speech, or spelled out explicitly in several books like "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"
is interesting and somewhat 'novel' - at least it's a more clean and clear presentation of philosophical views she may have shared with other philosophers. I think Rand is an interesting 'leaping off' point for the study of Spinoza, Sellars, Aquinas, and Aristotle - or as a 'foil' to Descarte. (exisistence is primary "I am, therefore I'll think" as opposed to the primacy of consciousness from Descarte "I think, therefore, I am"). It's also fun to compare and contrast Rand with Hume (see Hume's Treatise on Human Nature - I'm convinced Hume, a great writer and philospher, could tie his shoes and subsequently convince himself that he didn't know if they were tied!)

You're right in one sense about absolutism and the similarity (certainly unintended by Rand) between Marxism and Objectivism Specifically, both do a good job at ignoring or at least minimizing the biological realities of humans.

Is Rand a 'second-rate' philosopher? Probably. I'm not a card-carrying philosopher, so I'm not entirely certain. I think your stuffy university types probably don't like her because she doesn't adhere to classic form and because she was a novelist. (I can't say I really enjoy the 'classic form' of Kant, but Hume is certainly a compelling philosophical writer)

Still, what I like most about her work is her belief in the heroic in man (or women), and enjoy her very stark characters, and her dogmatic defense of the individual, in her novels.

That was probably more than you cared to read, but I like to be explicit about why I like Rand, since I'm an admirer but not a dogmatic 'follower.'

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hah!

Since so many people in JSO forum were libertarian, I did asume that you might be political, if not actually training with the Michigan Militia this weekend. You did tie your identity to A.R., which is rather a strong personal statement.

Did not mean to harass you personally about being an ideologue. Thanks for interesting response.

[Patler]

That is the one thing that chaps my ass about ted thompson. He doesn't bring in cheap players who actually have a chance to produce or atleast push the current players to improve through competition in camp.

2005
Donad Lee - $475,000
Samkon Gado - $310,000
Robert Thomas - $724,000

2006
Rod Gardner - $855,000 -
Marc Boerigter - $782,000
Ben Taylor - $665,280
Tracy White - $555,720
Wayne Lucier - $425,000 (don't be surprised if he starts at C/G)
Jon Ryan - $292,000
Rhys Loyd - $275,000
Ryan Flynn - $275,000

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wayne Lucier? He's been in the league for a few years. He stinks. If he's starting, then we'll be hurting worse than I thought. I remember people hyping up Atlas Herrion at this time last year.

[Guiness]

Say, you aren't one of the forsaken are you?

I'm no Darkfriend!
*throws Rastak against the wall*

I'm no Darkfriend!

I'm a card carrying member of the Band of the Red Hand. Los Valdar Cuebiyari!

Yourself?

[Rastak]

Say, you aren't one of the forsaken are you?

I'm no Darkfriend!
*throws Rastak against the wall*

I'm no Darkfriend!

I'm a card carrying member of the Band of the Red Hand. Los Valdar Cuebiyari!

Yourself?

LOL, I read book 1-3 10 years ago and got bored silly on book 4 and quit...so recently I started a big home remodeling project and started listening to the series again on a portable mp3 player starting with book 1. I'm on book 7 and having a great time. Great story, Jordan is a very detailed author.


"Burn you Rand, blood and bloody ashes!"


edit: sorry for all of those who have no fricking clue what we are talking about.....I'll stop now!

[retailguy]

Packers should have brought him back for veteran minimum and atleast let him compete in training camp.

That is the one thing that chaps my ass about ted thompson. He doesn't bring in cheap players who actually have a chance to produce or atleast push the current players to improve through competition in camp.

If you were Diggs, WHY would you do that? GB already stated you weren't the guy by waiving you. Why not get a fresh start? If Diggs was willing to take less money in GB he wouldn't have been waived.

It takes two to tango. I'll bet TT was willing, for the right price.

[Joemailman]

When Diggs came back from his injury last year, he wasn't made the starter. Diggs just doesn't have the speed that the Packers want in this defense. Diggs had his best years when playing directly opposite the Tight End. The linebackers don't do that in this defense. They usually start out well off the line of scrimmage. It would have been a waste of money to bring him back.

[Fritz]

I always liked Diggs but it was clear that for whatever reason he wasn't seen as a "fit" in the current defense. So there was no sense to try to keep the guy.

I hope Favre comes back, yet this is all getting sadder and sadder. There is a small part of me - a small part - that wonders if the best thing wouldn't be to just get his permission to trade him. If Tampa would give up their late first-round pick, then everybody could be happy. GB gets another first rounder which is sorely needed, TB gets a QB who can get them to the SB, and Favre gets to play for a winner, and one that is not too far from home.

[Bretsky]

I always liked Diggs but it was clear that for whatever reason he wasn't seen as a "fit" in the current defense. So there was no sense to try to keep the guy.

I hope Favre comes back, yet this is all getting sadder and sadder. There is a small part of me - a small part - that wonders if the best thing wouldn't be to just get his permission to trade him. If Tampa would give up their late first-round pick, then everybody could be happy. GB gets another first rounder which is sorely needed, TB gets a QB who can get them to the SB, and Favre gets to play for a winner, and one that is not too far from home.

I FEEL THE SAME WAY FRITZ; Ted Thompson has broken me completely.

I use to be the anti Wist; somebody noted last week in regard to TT I'm sounding like a wittier Wist. My morale is about the same as his views.

[Tarlam!]

I've already stated before that I don't understand how it's "selfish" to feel that I don't need to make a bunch of personal sacrifices for "the good of the company." Yes, in my life, *I* am more important than the corporation. But maybe that's just me...

I think it depends on how you look at the "I". I think corporations need great "I"s if the are to become great. Those "I"s become great through personal sacrifice, a lot of the time. So, to do the right thing for "me", oftentimes, I will need to make personal sacrifices.

What made Favre so great? Alot of things. His talent, his determination. But his legend is that of an iron man. Willing to play injured to carry the team on his back.

He has always been self sacrificing anyway, except he did it to serve his immediate purpose of winning today. The shift that I expect from him (maybe wrongly) is that he would continue to play selflessly and assist in the development of his heir-apparant.

For this, I know he will receive 10 million dollars, collect a bunch of records likely to stand eternally and bow out with the adoration of the Green Bay Packers faithful. He may even get the great feeling of watching his protogé win a SB.