[so] So/Sp Motivational Posters

[Speed Gavroche]

Scenarist? Anyway, that's just a red herring argument. You said Rand's novels contained "Santa Barbara sex." How many rape scenes are in that? And she did not write The Fountainhead for Hollywood. "Love Letters" was for Hollywood.

Here is what Ayn Rand wrote about her screenplay "Love Letters" - "essentially a very silly and meaningless story -- by the mere fact that it revolves around so unnatural a thing as somebody's amnesia. No, it has no moral lesson to teach, nor any kind of lesson whatever."

That is obviously nothing like her novels. So try to learn the difference between a Rand screenplay intended for Hollywood and a Rand novel.

Listen.

Every people who really want to read intense love story and sexual relationship are bored by her novels because it's completely boring and cliché. And also that no one of her character have any real consistency and is just here to prove her views and her ideas.

People who wanted a guru and wanted to be part of a group of sheep liked her books.

Sx last, so dom.

 

[Elfboy]

Listen.

Every people who really want to read intense love story and sexual relationship are bored by her novels because it's completely boring and cliché. And also that no one of her character have any real consistency and is just here to prove her views and her ideas.

People who wanted a guru and wanted to be part of a group of sheep liked her books.

Sx last, so dom.

um, I don't know how many objectivists you've met, but they are probably the furthest group in the world from conformist sheep

 

[Hive]

 

[Speed Gavroche]

um, I don't know how many objectivists you've met, but they are probably the furthest group in the world from conformist sheep

That's why the Ayn Rand sect finally collapsed. The independance of objectivists could'nt match with the exigency for dogmatism and fidelity form Ayn Rand. Randian and objectivist are actually different things. Most part of objectivist are not randian, there still be a few zelator of her personality, but not many.

 

[Mal12345]

I pointed that no one who truly know about instinctual variants theory would share your wrong wiews, that's not as populorum.

Then it was - nothing - because you still have not produced this crowd of Sx-doms who know "the truth."

Any Sx, actually. Marmie Dearest leaved me a Reputation wich clearly indicate that she find my views about Ayn R more credibles than the yours.

Did you say Don Richard Riso left you a reputation?

the enenagram, understanding yourself and the others, her main book, the introduction.

There is no introductory section to that book. I see a Part I and a Part II. Do you mean the preface by Charles Tart?

It's more or less explicitly said in every sites about enneagram, this one for example, expecially in movie character descriptions: http://www.cee-enneagramme.eu/formation-coaching-enneagramme-et-sous-types/les-3-sous-types/

I'm not afraid to check out a page just because you linked it. Hmmm. Nope, don't see anything there that supports your argument. I see it calls the sexual subtype "head to head" (tete-a-tete). (I don't care to add the circumflexes, thank you very much.)

Elsewhere, you are the only one dumb enough to believe that bitch is Sx/So.

Is this frustration I'm seeing?

A cigarette holder was considered as sensual in the mouth of Mae West, not in the Ayn Rand's mouth. Sx and Sx-aux was actor in theses movies, but nobody wanted Ayn Rand, and she just wrote her insipids novels.

Completely irrelevant. That is simply you saying that Ayn Rand with a cigarette holder doesn't give you, or your populist audience, a hardon. It doesn't matter to you that attempting to make and maintain an impression is what matters here, not the success or failure of it according to your subjective states of teenaged arousal.

Sexuality changes with the times and with the culture. If all we had to go by were feelings of arousal, then there could never be a stable theory of instinctuals. And of course we would have to throw out the minority opinions of those who failed to get a hardon from the picture of Mae West with a cigarette holder in her mouth.

Actually, it is. Every theorist agree that Sx is a primarly concern about desirability.

That's not what you said. Try reading your OWN stuff for a change. You might find the experience enlightening.

She hgas not uncertain idea about sexual relationships, she sincerly believe that she knew everything about and that she did'nt need to have real relationships to really know what she talks about.

I think I got this deciphered into plain English now. Yes of course Rand was infinitely confident in her sexual instincts with or without a relationship. But you stated that her sexual theory is shoddy, and that's the only correct thing you've said on this subject. It is an uncertain theory.

I've read that page several times and I ve no lesson to take from you.

Not from me, from the page you silly ding-dong. I didn't create the page.

Lol. I read online discussion about Ayn Rand since 2006.

Online discussions? Impressive...

An spelling lesson is apparently the maximum that allow you your igorance.

I can resist 10,000 of your other spelling and grammar errors. Why not allow me just this one time without insult?

 

[Mal12345]

Listen.

Every people who really want to read intense love story and sexual relationship are bored by her novels because it's completely boring and cliché. And also that no one of her character have any real consistency and is just here to prove her views and her ideas.

People who wanted a guru and wanted to be part of a group of sheep liked her books.

Sx last, so dom.

EVERY people? I don't think so. I truly don't see how you can speak for everybody.

Did some of them seek a guru? Of course, 20,000 of them at the movement's peak. And it is certainly more effective for that guru to have an alluring personality, which is an Sx-dom, especially Sx/So. The Sx/Sp is too conflicted to do a good job with a group.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

You are really a waste of time.

 

[Mal12345]

That's why the Ayn Rand sect finally collapsed. The independance of objectivists could'nt match with the exigency for dogmatism and fidelity form Ayn Rand. Randian and objectivist are actually different things. Most part of objectivist are not randian, there still be a few zelator of her personality, but not many.

The movement collapsed due to the Rand/Nathaniel break-up. The remnants which were left over also suffered from various schisms over the years. But the Randroids are still out there, believe me. The original cult-like mentality still remains.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

The movement collapsed due to the Rand/Nathaniel break-up. The remnants which were left over also suffered from various schisms over the years. But the Randroids are still out there, believe me. The original cult-like mentality still remains.

It was supposed to learn me something? I know all that.

 

[Mal12345]

You are really a waste of time.

In case you hadn't noticed, I had to edit one portion of the long response because I didn't understand your Franglais the first time. In the edited portion I agreed that her sexual theory is shoddy. It is uncertain, but I agree that she wasn't uncertain about her theory.

 

[Mal12345]

It was supposed to learn me something? I know all that.

Then why did you write "The independance of objectivists could'nt match with the exigency for dogmatism and fidelity form Ayn Rand"? By the way, it's n't not 'nt. It's a contraction of "not," therefore the apostrophe stands for the omitted letter.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Then why did you write "The independance of objectivists could'nt match with the exigency for dogmatism and fidelity form Ayn Rand"?

Because it's true. Every truly free-spirited objectivist finally leave the sect, Rothbard for example.

 

[Mal12345]

Because it's true. Every truly free-spirited objectivist finally leave the sect, Rothbard for example.

The Rothbard thing occurred before the Great Schism. The movement could survive without that intellectual influence. It could not survive without the sexual romance between Rand and Branden. She was Sx-dom.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

The Rothbard thing occurred before the Great Schism.

It never came to your mind that the multiplication of theses sort of defection had something to do with the shism?

 

[Mal12345]

It never came to your mind that the multiplication of theses sort of defection have something to do with the shism?

You're so on the ball here that you missed the edit I made to my last response.

 

[Mal12345]

The Rand movement did not split due to the multiplication of defections. The Great Schism occurred due to the break up of the romantic hero-worship relationship between Rand and Branden. The schisms which occurred later were [intellectual and] minor in comparison to that debacle. The Sx-dom aspect both made and broke the Movement. If anybody is So-dom, that would be Nathaniel Branden who wanted to start a school and an Objectivist movement which later became a personality-cult because of Rand's Sx-dom influence.

 

[brainheart]

I'd read all of this about ayn rand but I've already endured atlas shrugged, fountainhead, and a couple of her shorter propaganda tracts- I mean her, er, novels. What I will say about her writing- it's the most pedantic, unromantic, unliterary prose ever. She repeats her self ad infinitum, her characters... If I was ever forced to meet them I'd be inclined to knock their teeth out. Well... Howard roark was decent, fountain head had its moments.

What's stalin's instinct stacking? That's who she reminds me of.

Oh, and what you quoted mal, about the sexual instinct repulsing- no writer has repulsed me more, I'll give you that. There is nothing sexy (I'm just saying, not in regard to instinct) about that woman, as speed says, she has no clue how to write about love and sex.

 

[brainheart]

(also, I think katharine hepburn was one of the hottest, most vivacious women ever. She had real sexual energy. It's obvious to anyone who's watched her films from the forties.)

 

[Speed Gavroche]

The Rothbard thing occurred before the Great Schism. The movement could survive without that intellectual influence. It could not survive without the sexual romance between Rand and Branden. She was Sx-dom.

She divorced, so she is Sx. Brillant. And she divorced because she was disatisfied in the relationship, proof that she was not that invested.

 

[Hazashin]

(also, I think katharine hepburn was one of the hottest, most vivacious women ever. She had real sexual energy. It's obvious to anyone who's watched her films from the forties.)

She may have been very sexual, but I personally don't find her attractive. I'm sure I'd find her body language very attractive, though, if I were to see her.