24 Sep 23
@wajoma saidInterestingly, earlier in the book Roark lost a lawsuit for breach of contract.
Well the jury decided otherwise, so: what the jury said.
Isn't that your fall back when your ambiguous quotes are knocked down, your direct route of Biggs is shown to be quite indirect, your absence of evidence, your absence of the unlikely convoluted plan that to be moderately successful would need detail and precision, when those are knocked down one by one, you know wh ...[text shortened]... you've tried it a couple of times, your fall back is: well the jury decided otherwise, end of story.
24 Sep 23
@no1marauder saidBy your own words, they went directly to X room by exiting the Capitol.
The "jury" was a figment of Ayn Rand's deranged mind. No real jury would have brought such a ridiculous "defense".
Stop the BS. Your disingenuous concentration on the minutiae doesn't change the facts, There was a plan that Biggs admitted he discussed with Tarrio, Tarrio himself said it involved "storming the Capitol", the Proud Boys gathered at a pre-designated spot, ...[text shortened]... by their ideological predilections as you are knows that they did exactly what they conspired to do.
24 Sep 23
@wajoma saidI can't read minds and don't feel like speculating on why Biggs went outside for a few minutes before re-entering and leading the Proud Boys to the room out of 500+ rooms in the Capitol where the Electoral College certification was being held. Maybe you think it was a coincidence, but no reasonable person is going to accept such an absurd assertion.
By your own words, they went directly to X room by exiting the Capitol.
24 Sep 23
@no1marauder saidSo you've seen Bigg's route during that event, break it out man, so we can all see just how 'direct' it was.
I can't read minds and don't feel like speculating on why Biggs went outside for a few minutes before re-entering and leading the Proud Boys to the room out of 500+ rooms in the Capitol where the Electoral College certification was being held. Maybe you think it was a coincidence, but no reasonable person is going to accept such an absurd assertion.
@athousandyoung saidMy good self, said: "Which you claimed was through your superior knowledge and as it turns out it was the search capabilities of some site."
I didn't claim anything. I provided facts about what Rand actually wrote instead of how you relied on vague memories of how you felt when you read the book once decades ago.
ATY: "I didn't claim anything"
Also ATY said: "We have clearly demonstrated that we got more out of that book than you did.
ATY got more out of the book by searching single words and taking snippets out of context, that is not the way you do fiction, I will repeat my previous advice, works of fiction are not your forte'. If you're serious about this try Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand compiled by Leonard Peikoff you wont trip yourself up on the colour of a fictional metal.
24 Sep 23
@wajoma said
My good self, said: "Which you claimed was through your superior knowledge and as it turns out it was the search capabilities of some site."
ATY: "I didn't claim anything"
Also ATY said: "We have clearly demonstrated that we got more out of that book than you did.
ATY got more out of the book by searching single words and taking snippets out of c ...[text shortened]... n Rand[/i] compiled by Leonard Peikoff you wont trip yourself up on the colour of a fictional metal.
ATY got more out of the book by searching single words and taking snippets out of context, that is not the way you do fiction
This reminds me of how you searched for a link to a single speech by Francisco D'Anconia and posted it out of context.
@athousandyoung saidThat was specifically the reason I posted the link to the whole speech. It's bit of a read and I warned people it was X words long.ATY got more out of the book by searching single words and taking snippets out of context, that is not the way you do fiction
This reminds me of how you searched for a link to a single speech by Francisco D'Anconia and posted it out of context.
24 Sep 23
@athousandyoung saidLooks like the government is the owner and Keating is working as an independent architect. Roark's agreement was with Keating. There is some sort of paper contract but Roark admits that it probably will not hold up in court because it's not a formal contract.
Searchable full text of The Fountainhead:
https://archive.org/details/TheFountainhead/page/n279/mode/2up
I'm reviewing the text at the moment to see if I can clarify exactly how the negotiations went with textual excerpts for support. As a famous Governor of California once said,
I'll be back.
The media totally controls the entire situation, both in the form of Ellsworth the newspaper columnist influencing the government to select Keating (using Roark's design, unknown to the government), as well as in the form of Wynand's column influencing the jury to acquit Roark.
Government employees change the design after accepting it. For example, they added a gymnasium using different architects than Keating. Note that it is pretty common for purchasers to modify things after they buy them; this is their right as owners of the property.
Keating attempts to persuade them to stop but fails. Roark makes a point of NOT blaming Keating, who is the one who he made the agreement with. He then goes on to dynamite the property.
24 Sep 23
@wajoma saidBut when I post a link to the whole novel it's out of context?
That was specifically the reason I posted the link to the whole speech. It's bit of a read and I warned people it was X words long.
24 Sep 23
@athousandyoung saidNot bad. The short answer is we don't know the extent Keating's authority.
Looks like the government is the owner and Keating is working as an independent architect. Roark's agreement was with Keating. There is some sort of paper contract but Roark admits that it probably will not hold up in court because it's not a formal contract.
The media totally controls the entire situation, both in the form of Ellsworth the newspaper columnist inf ...[text shortened]... g Keating, who is the one who he made the agreement with. He then goes on to dynamite the property.
24 Sep 23
@athousandyoung saidIn contrast to your previous post this is pitiful squirming
But when I post a link to the whole novel it's out of context?
24 Sep 23
2 edits
@wajoma saidIt’s pretty clear Keating had zero authority to demand conditions. The government bought the design he submitted with zero strings attached. Keating willingly accepted.
Not bad. The short answer is we don't know the extent Keating's authority.
Keating broke his silly unenforceable contract with Roark who then punished the perfectly innocent owners of the site.
