Re: Lois reveres 's grave?

[Guest guest]

" judge and be prepared to be judged " eh? Terrifying.

[Guest guest]

" judge and be prepared to be judged " eh? Terrifying.

[Guest guest]

" judge and be prepared to be judged " eh? Terrifying.

[Guest guest]

At 06:57 AM 4/7/01 -0400, you wrote:

> " judge and be prepared to be judged " eh? Terrifying.

I don't think she meant it in the biblical sense of a final judgment. We

all evaluate each other all the time. We have to, really, in order to

function.

Example: a few years back, I (a software engineer) was assigned a QA

resource who was simply incompetent. I don't just mean that she wasn't as

good as I would have liked; I mean that she was truly incompetent and

actually added negative value to the team by creating more work for

others. It was important for me to be able to evaluate -- judge -- her

skill level accurately so that I could plan around it. If I had insisted

" Judge not! " and continued to treat her as if she had some idea of what she

were doing, the situation would have been much worse.

And should I prepare to be judged? Yer darn tootin' I should. If I spend

months goofing off instead of working, I shouldn't expect the kudos given

to someone who has worked hard. In fact I should probably expect to be

fired, if my manager has any sense.

I'm not an Objectivist, but I do believe in accountability. I don't see

anything particularly radical about it, either.

Hey, I just thought of a way to drag this back on topic! Accountability

is a vital part of the RR approach to ending addiction. Trimpey is big on

pointing out just how appalling and preposterous it is to be drunk (or in a

drugged stupor) so often. When you ditch the goofy disease model, or any

other approach which says our behavior somehow isn't our fault, you're left

with the realization that this sort of behavior is a crazy self-indulgence

at the expense of everyone and everything else.

That was a good realization for me. I'd grown up with the silly idea that

heavy drinkers are " sick " and " need help. "

[Guest guest]

At 06:57 AM 4/7/01 -0400, you wrote:

> " judge and be prepared to be judged " eh? Terrifying.

I don't think she meant it in the biblical sense of a final judgment. We

all evaluate each other all the time. We have to, really, in order to

function.

Example: a few years back, I (a software engineer) was assigned a QA

resource who was simply incompetent. I don't just mean that she wasn't as

good as I would have liked; I mean that she was truly incompetent and

actually added negative value to the team by creating more work for

others. It was important for me to be able to evaluate -- judge -- her

skill level accurately so that I could plan around it. If I had insisted

" Judge not! " and continued to treat her as if she had some idea of what she

were doing, the situation would have been much worse.

And should I prepare to be judged? Yer darn tootin' I should. If I spend

months goofing off instead of working, I shouldn't expect the kudos given

to someone who has worked hard. In fact I should probably expect to be

fired, if my manager has any sense.

I'm not an Objectivist, but I do believe in accountability. I don't see

anything particularly radical about it, either.

Hey, I just thought of a way to drag this back on topic! Accountability

is a vital part of the RR approach to ending addiction. Trimpey is big on

pointing out just how appalling and preposterous it is to be drunk (or in a

drugged stupor) so often. When you ditch the goofy disease model, or any

other approach which says our behavior somehow isn't our fault, you're left

with the realization that this sort of behavior is a crazy self-indulgence

at the expense of everyone and everything else.

That was a good realization for me. I'd grown up with the silly idea that

heavy drinkers are " sick " and " need help. "

[Guest guest]

Well said, .

Now get ready to be 'judged' for lacking pseudo-knowledge of and compassion for the genetically challenged.

Would we really want to live in a society whose moral accountability was based on individual taste? Wasn't it Bernard Shaw who said something like 'morals are but a reflection of a man's taste. Who are we to judge a man because his tastes differ from our own.'

I believe Rand's 'judgement' is more 'discernment' rather than condemnation (sounds like Herbert Spencer - "There is a principle that is proof against all argument and a bar against new information. That principle is 'contempt prior to investigation.')

So, we investigate, we observe, we discern, we accumulate facts. If the information reveals the person, situation, circumstance, etc. is worthy of contempt, then speak to it. Condemn it. I came, I discerned, I hold it in contempt. Get out of the 'whimpism' and totally self-serving position or attitude of non-judgment. Regardless of my past, my genetic challenges, my brown eyes, my financial condition, ethnicity, religious affiliations or membership in any 'spiritual program,' I can be held (and rightfully ought be held) accountable to the very limits of my mental and physical capacities. (Of course it is encouraged in groups based on one's 'powerlessness' that one deny his/her own un-aided mental and physical capacities. The very same thing active alcoholics and drug addicts believed about their drug of choice. Without 'this' I am nothing.)

Thanks for your comments,

>From:

>Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Re: Lois reveres 's grave? >Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 09:51:14 -0400 > >At 06:57 AM 4/7/01 -0400, you wrote: > >"judge and be prepared to be judged" eh? Terrifying. > >I don't think she meant it in the biblical sense of a final judgment. We >all evaluate each other all the time. We have to, really, in order to >function. > >Example: a few years back, I (a software engineer) was assigned a QA >resource who was simply incompetent. I don't just mean that she wasn't as >good as I would have liked; I mean that she was truly incompetent and >actually added negative value to the team by creating more work for >others. It was important for me to be able to evaluate -- judge -- her >skill level accurately so that I could plan around it. If I had insisted >"Judge not!" and continued to treat her as if she had some idea of what she >were doing, the situation would have been much worse. > >And should I prepare to be judged? Yer darn tootin' I should. If I spend >months goofing off instead of working, I shouldn't expect the kudos given >to someone who has worked hard. In fact I should probably expect to be >fired, if my manager has any sense. > >I'm not an Objectivist, but I do believe in accountability. I don't see >anything particularly radical about it, either. > >Hey, I just thought of a way to drag this back on topic! Accountability >is a vital part of the RR approach to ending addiction. Trimpey is big on >pointing out just how appalling and preposterous it is to be drunk (or in a >drugged stupor) so often. When you ditch the goofy disease model, or any >other approach which says our behavior somehow isn't our fault, you're left >with the realization that this sort of behavior is a crazy self-indulgence >at the expense of everyone and everything else. > >That was a good realization for me. I'd grown up with the silly idea that >heavy drinkers are "sick" and "need help." > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Well said, .

Now get ready to be 'judged' for lacking pseudo-knowledge of and compassion for the genetically challenged.

Would we really want to live in a society whose moral accountability was based on individual taste? Wasn't it Bernard Shaw who said something like 'morals are but a reflection of a man's taste. Who are we to judge a man because his tastes differ from our own.'

I believe Rand's 'judgement' is more 'discernment' rather than condemnation (sounds like Herbert Spencer - "There is a principle that is proof against all argument and a bar against new information. That principle is 'contempt prior to investigation.')

So, we investigate, we observe, we discern, we accumulate facts. If the information reveals the person, situation, circumstance, etc. is worthy of contempt, then speak to it. Condemn it. I came, I discerned, I hold it in contempt. Get out of the 'whimpism' and totally self-serving position or attitude of non-judgment. Regardless of my past, my genetic challenges, my brown eyes, my financial condition, ethnicity, religious affiliations or membership in any 'spiritual program,' I can be held (and rightfully ought be held) accountable to the very limits of my mental and physical capacities. (Of course it is encouraged in groups based on one's 'powerlessness' that one deny his/her own un-aided mental and physical capacities. The very same thing active alcoholics and drug addicts believed about their drug of choice. Without 'this' I am nothing.)

Thanks for your comments,

>From:

>Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Re: Lois reveres 's grave? >Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 09:51:14 -0400 > >At 06:57 AM 4/7/01 -0400, you wrote: > >"judge and be prepared to be judged" eh? Terrifying. > >I don't think she meant it in the biblical sense of a final judgment. We >all evaluate each other all the time. We have to, really, in order to >function. > >Example: a few years back, I (a software engineer) was assigned a QA >resource who was simply incompetent. I don't just mean that she wasn't as >good as I would have liked; I mean that she was truly incompetent and >actually added negative value to the team by creating more work for >others. It was important for me to be able to evaluate -- judge -- her >skill level accurately so that I could plan around it. If I had insisted >"Judge not!" and continued to treat her as if she had some idea of what she >were doing, the situation would have been much worse. > >And should I prepare to be judged? Yer darn tootin' I should. If I spend >months goofing off instead of working, I shouldn't expect the kudos given >to someone who has worked hard. In fact I should probably expect to be >fired, if my manager has any sense. > >I'm not an Objectivist, but I do believe in accountability. I don't see >anything particularly radical about it, either. > >Hey, I just thought of a way to drag this back on topic! Accountability >is a vital part of the RR approach to ending addiction. Trimpey is big on >pointing out just how appalling and preposterous it is to be drunk (or in a >drugged stupor) so often. When you ditch the goofy disease model, or any >other approach which says our behavior somehow isn't our fault, you're left >with the realization that this sort of behavior is a crazy self-indulgence >at the expense of everyone and everything else. > >That was a good realization for me. I'd grown up with the silly idea that >heavy drinkers are "sick" and "need help." > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Well said, .

Now get ready to be 'judged' for lacking pseudo-knowledge of and compassion for the genetically challenged.

Would we really want to live in a society whose moral accountability was based on individual taste? Wasn't it Bernard Shaw who said something like 'morals are but a reflection of a man's taste. Who are we to judge a man because his tastes differ from our own.'

I believe Rand's 'judgement' is more 'discernment' rather than condemnation (sounds like Herbert Spencer - "There is a principle that is proof against all argument and a bar against new information. That principle is 'contempt prior to investigation.')

So, we investigate, we observe, we discern, we accumulate facts. If the information reveals the person, situation, circumstance, etc. is worthy of contempt, then speak to it. Condemn it. I came, I discerned, I hold it in contempt. Get out of the 'whimpism' and totally self-serving position or attitude of non-judgment. Regardless of my past, my genetic challenges, my brown eyes, my financial condition, ethnicity, religious affiliations or membership in any 'spiritual program,' I can be held (and rightfully ought be held) accountable to the very limits of my mental and physical capacities. (Of course it is encouraged in groups based on one's 'powerlessness' that one deny his/her own un-aided mental and physical capacities. The very same thing active alcoholics and drug addicts believed about their drug of choice. Without 'this' I am nothing.)

Thanks for your comments,

>From:

>Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Re: Lois reveres 's grave? >Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 09:51:14 -0400 > >At 06:57 AM 4/7/01 -0400, you wrote: > >"judge and be prepared to be judged" eh? Terrifying. > >I don't think she meant it in the biblical sense of a final judgment. We >all evaluate each other all the time. We have to, really, in order to >function. > >Example: a few years back, I (a software engineer) was assigned a QA >resource who was simply incompetent. I don't just mean that she wasn't as >good as I would have liked; I mean that she was truly incompetent and >actually added negative value to the team by creating more work for >others. It was important for me to be able to evaluate -- judge -- her >skill level accurately so that I could plan around it. If I had insisted >"Judge not!" and continued to treat her as if she had some idea of what she >were doing, the situation would have been much worse. > >And should I prepare to be judged? Yer darn tootin' I should. If I spend >months goofing off instead of working, I shouldn't expect the kudos given >to someone who has worked hard. In fact I should probably expect to be >fired, if my manager has any sense. > >I'm not an Objectivist, but I do believe in accountability. I don't see >anything particularly radical about it, either. > >Hey, I just thought of a way to drag this back on topic! Accountability >is a vital part of the RR approach to ending addiction. Trimpey is big on >pointing out just how appalling and preposterous it is to be drunk (or in a >drugged stupor) so often. When you ditch the goofy disease model, or any >other approach which says our behavior somehow isn't our fault, you're left >with the realization that this sort of behavior is a crazy self-indulgence >at the expense of everyone and everything else. > >That was a good realization for me. I'd grown up with the silly idea that >heavy drinkers are "sick" and "need help." > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

<snip>

> I believe Rand's 'judgement' is more 'discernment' rather than

condemnation (sounds like Herbert Spencer - " There is a principle that is

proof against all argument and a bar against new information. That principle

is 'contempt prior to investigation.')

Has ANYONE ever found a reliable source that attributes the quote

above to Herbert Spencer? It seems that the qoute and attribution appear

only in the Big Blue Bible.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

<snip>

> I believe Rand's 'judgement' is more 'discernment' rather than

condemnation (sounds like Herbert Spencer - " There is a principle that is

proof against all argument and a bar against new information. That principle

is 'contempt prior to investigation.')

Has ANYONE ever found a reliable source that attributes the quote

above to Herbert Spencer? It seems that the qoute and attribution appear

only in the Big Blue Bible.

[Guest guest]

> " judge and be prepared to be judged " eh? Terrifying.

sixth grade mentality

[Guest guest]

> " judge and be prepared to be judged " eh? Terrifying.

sixth grade mentality

[Guest guest]

....and a third grade response.

>From: watts_pete@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Lois reveres 's grave? >Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:51:42 -0000 > > > > "judge and be prepared to be judged" eh? Terrifying. > >sixth grade mentality > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

....and a third grade response.

>From: watts_pete@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Lois reveres 's grave? >Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:51:42 -0000 > > > > "judge and be prepared to be judged" eh? Terrifying. > >sixth grade mentality > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

....and a third grade response.

>From: watts_pete@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Lois reveres 's grave? >Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:51:42 -0000 > > > > "judge and be prepared to be judged" eh? Terrifying. > >sixth grade mentality > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

,

and a first grade neener neener from you. Do you want to bag the

nursery? Maybe in utero? Implantation or fertilization?

My response in any case was to the original sentiment, not to you.

Any fool can point a finger. Does Rand think ppl need to be told to do

this? This is the moral equivalent of Mao's " Political power grows

from the barrel of gun " . The most facile of platitudes endorsed my

millions as high wisdom. The only thing " terrifying " about it is not

only do ppl not see beyond it but actually think it a form of

enlightenment.

Does anybody need to be told that it is reasonable to expect employees

to be capapble of their job? God help us if we need to turn to a sage

to know that. The issue is concerning moral judgement, and in my

opinion Rand's platitude is so facile, and so lacking in understanding

of what I understand Jesus's original saying to mean, that I can

barely bring myself to explain why. The main point is this, imho:

" Always remember that you just might be wrong. Justice should always

be tempered with mercy, and should never be irredeemable (hence my

opposition to the death penalty). It is like the " walked in his

moccasins " phrase. How can you ever really know that if you were not

this person, you might not have behaved in exactly the way they have

done? That within your own experience, that you yourself really behave

in a better way in regard to the temptations you have than they do to

the ones that they do? Arent you maybe just lucky to have maybe

different demons to wrestle with? And if you treat others

imperiously, you will inevitably be treated the same way yourself; you

can expect no mercy that you are not prepared to give, and that mercy

promotes a merciful world in which your own failings are treated

mercifully.

Jesus spoke in a world of brutal retribution, where " judgement " often

meant ppl routinely tortured to death, and " an eye for an eye, a tooth

for a tooth " was actually in itself a comparitively merciful

sentiment. Perhaps it might be better translated today as " Condemn

not " . In addition, imho he referred to the *crime* and not the

person. Imo it is very, very right to judge and condemn a

*transgression* as appropriate, the point is to treat the transgressor

with a greater mercy than the transgressor may have done - for that is

the only way that you know that you are the one who is just.

I judge and condemn Rand's philosophy - but I know if I were her I'd

think the same way too, and hence I try not to hudge and condemn Rand

the person.

[Guest guest]

,

and a first grade neener neener from you. Do you want to bag the

nursery? Maybe in utero? Implantation or fertilization?

My response in any case was to the original sentiment, not to you.

Any fool can point a finger. Does Rand think ppl need to be told to do

this? This is the moral equivalent of Mao's " Political power grows

from the barrel of gun " . The most facile of platitudes endorsed my

millions as high wisdom. The only thing " terrifying " about it is not

only do ppl not see beyond it but actually think it a form of

enlightenment.

Does anybody need to be told that it is reasonable to expect employees

to be capapble of their job? God help us if we need to turn to a sage

to know that. The issue is concerning moral judgement, and in my

opinion Rand's platitude is so facile, and so lacking in understanding

of what I understand Jesus's original saying to mean, that I can

barely bring myself to explain why. The main point is this, imho:

" Always remember that you just might be wrong. Justice should always

be tempered with mercy, and should never be irredeemable (hence my

opposition to the death penalty). It is like the " walked in his

moccasins " phrase. How can you ever really know that if you were not

this person, you might not have behaved in exactly the way they have

done? That within your own experience, that you yourself really behave

in a better way in regard to the temptations you have than they do to

the ones that they do? Arent you maybe just lucky to have maybe

different demons to wrestle with? And if you treat others

imperiously, you will inevitably be treated the same way yourself; you

can expect no mercy that you are not prepared to give, and that mercy

promotes a merciful world in which your own failings are treated

mercifully.

Jesus spoke in a world of brutal retribution, where " judgement " often

meant ppl routinely tortured to death, and " an eye for an eye, a tooth

for a tooth " was actually in itself a comparitively merciful

sentiment. Perhaps it might be better translated today as " Condemn

not " . In addition, imho he referred to the *crime* and not the

person. Imo it is very, very right to judge and condemn a

*transgression* as appropriate, the point is to treat the transgressor

with a greater mercy than the transgressor may have done - for that is

the only way that you know that you are the one who is just.

I judge and condemn Rand's philosophy - but I know if I were her I'd

think the same way too, and hence I try not to hudge and condemn Rand

the person.

[Guest guest]

,

and a first grade neener neener from you. Do you want to bag the

nursery? Maybe in utero? Implantation or fertilization?

My response in any case was to the original sentiment, not to you.

Any fool can point a finger. Does Rand think ppl need to be told to do

this? This is the moral equivalent of Mao's " Political power grows

from the barrel of gun " . The most facile of platitudes endorsed my

millions as high wisdom. The only thing " terrifying " about it is not

only do ppl not see beyond it but actually think it a form of

enlightenment.

Does anybody need to be told that it is reasonable to expect employees

to be capapble of their job? God help us if we need to turn to a sage

to know that. The issue is concerning moral judgement, and in my

opinion Rand's platitude is so facile, and so lacking in understanding

of what I understand Jesus's original saying to mean, that I can

barely bring myself to explain why. The main point is this, imho:

" Always remember that you just might be wrong. Justice should always

be tempered with mercy, and should never be irredeemable (hence my

opposition to the death penalty). It is like the " walked in his

moccasins " phrase. How can you ever really know that if you were not

this person, you might not have behaved in exactly the way they have

done? That within your own experience, that you yourself really behave

in a better way in regard to the temptations you have than they do to

the ones that they do? Arent you maybe just lucky to have maybe

different demons to wrestle with? And if you treat others

imperiously, you will inevitably be treated the same way yourself; you

can expect no mercy that you are not prepared to give, and that mercy

promotes a merciful world in which your own failings are treated

mercifully.

Jesus spoke in a world of brutal retribution, where " judgement " often

meant ppl routinely tortured to death, and " an eye for an eye, a tooth

for a tooth " was actually in itself a comparitively merciful

sentiment. Perhaps it might be better translated today as " Condemn

not " . In addition, imho he referred to the *crime* and not the

person. Imo it is very, very right to judge and condemn a

*transgression* as appropriate, the point is to treat the transgressor

with a greater mercy than the transgressor may have done - for that is

the only way that you know that you are the one who is just.

I judge and condemn Rand's philosophy - but I know if I were her I'd

think the same way too, and hence I try not to hudge and condemn Rand

the person.

[Guest guest]

At 09:24 PM 4/7/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Does anybody need to be told that it is reasonable to expect employees

>to be capapble of their job? God help us if we need to turn to a sage

>to know that.

You might be surprised. I dunno what it's like over there, but some

people in the USA seem to believe that jobs should go to whoever

needs them most rather than to those who are most qualified.

If you'd prefer a moral example, though . . . there are those who

say that we shouldn't judge (a woman who murdered

her two children because they were getting in the way of her new

romance). But I feel fairly comfortable saying that those killings

were wrong, regardless of her circumstances at the time.

[Guest guest]

> >

> If you'd prefer a moral example, though . . . there are those who

> say that we shouldn't judge (a woman who murdered

> her two children because they were getting in the way of her new

> romance). But I feel fairly comfortable saying that those killings

> were wrong, regardless of her circumstances at the time.

>

Here are two bits of interesting trivia. 's father was a

very powerful and influential figure in the Christian right-wing of

the South Carolina GOP and he sexually abused his daughter. The

Oregon (or Washington) teacher who seduced her 14-year-old student

was the daughter of Schmidt, an ultra-right Congressman from

Orange County, California, a member of the Birch Society in

fact.

[Guest guest]

> >

> If you'd prefer a moral example, though . . . there are those who

> say that we shouldn't judge (a woman who murdered

> her two children because they were getting in the way of her new

> romance). But I feel fairly comfortable saying that those killings

> were wrong, regardless of her circumstances at the time.

>

Here are two bits of interesting trivia. 's father was a

very powerful and influential figure in the Christian right-wing of

the South Carolina GOP and he sexually abused his daughter. The

Oregon (or Washington) teacher who seduced her 14-year-old student

was the daughter of Schmidt, an ultra-right Congressman from

Orange County, California, a member of the Birch Society in

fact.

[Guest guest]

You know what would be really cool is a picture of Bill tripping, there must

be one out there somewhere he did it for 4 yrs. And did you know Ayn Rand was

a Dexedrine popper? (so I've read)