Who is John Galt?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Could this be the question of the moment?

-- Andre Coltrin (andre@coltrin.org), November 25, 1999

Answers

Along the same lines: is our fearless Diane really Dagne Taggart in disguise?

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), November 25, 1999.

Hunt down Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and your questions will be answered, as well as a number that you don't have NOW.

Warning, this book will CAUSE more questions than it answers, and you WON'T like the questions.

CHuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 25, 1999.


I would say "Amen" to that, but objectively speaking, it probably would not be appropriate.

-- (normally@ease.notnow), November 25, 1999.

Good one, "normally." ROTFL!

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), November 25, 1999.

Andre, The answer to your question who is John Galt. Many of us are John Galt. He embodies the spirit and intellect of quite a few people who visit this forum. I am John Galt. You may be John Galt. IF the SHTF we will be needed to fix things. I have a thought for all of you tonight. Many people have said Y2K is no big deal because we would have seen problems already in calculations that crossed the Y2K threshhold. (look into the future past 01/01/00. I contend that there have been many and a lot more may hit December 1. The software that runs my business does no calculations more than 30 days out, and I think quite a few businesses fall into this. If after the first week or so of December there have not been a number of failures we can all take a small sigh of relief. But, that said the end game is not up until probably mid to late February. One last thing for Andre. As you search for John Galt keep this in mind. Ayn Rand in my opinion doesn't own him. There are and always have been huge holes in her philosophy. Over the last couple of years I've attempted to close a couple of them on my own. And I must say I think I've been successful to some extent. I am John Galt Are you John Galt? That is the real question.

-- (hank.reardon@not.now), November 25, 1999.


I'm not sure who is John Galt but I am Ragnar Danneskold.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), November 25, 1999.

Good answer Hank. And long time no see. Only those that have realized the falsehoods being preached now, and struck out on their own at all costs and ignoring the "public" need, will understand who we are.

So enjoy the book. But finish it by Friday for your own safety.
John 9.5

-- John 9.5 Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), November 25, 1999.

And I am...

-- Midas (midas_mulligan_2000@yahoo.com), November 25, 1999.

Not if she works for you Ed.

Since Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books and I would like everyone to understand a little bit about Rand's philosophies. This book is a must for anyone fed up with the Welfare Generation. Before you start building the gallows, let me say that I do not mean the poor people that get stuck on welfare, but the perpetrators of the whole system. This book is must reading for anyone that is a Republican or Libertarian. The principles involved in this book are very close to both parties feelings of the welfare state.

To understand the book in it's totality, one must also understand Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Rand was not simply a capitalist, but one that understood the basic underlying philosophy of capitalism. To wit: Selfishness is a virtue.

Atlas Shrugged is the story of rugged individuals, in a society that demands conformity. Not only that, but a society that has made selfishness and productiveness into an evil. It shows the world a logical conclusion of what can happen when the system of capitalism, which is based on hard work, is perverted by the idea that people are owed a life.

The main reason for this philosophy I believe are those famous words, that man has a "right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." These right have been twisted. The manner in which those immortal words are now read is that man has a right to Life, at the expense of his neighbor, Liberty, to do whatever he wants so long as the government gets it's share, and a guarantee of happiness, no matter what it costs the world.

Rand has taken this to the logical extreme, what can (and in my opinion will) happen when the masses realize that they can vote themselves unlimited bread and circuses. Once people are punished for being productive, by being belittled for their accomplishments, ridiculed for their ideals, and made to pay for the lives of people that contribute nothing to their own happiness, they will STOP being productive! Who wishes to work hard, only to see the lazy and unimaginative inherit the fruits of our labor?

This novel is a testament to the bankruptcy of culture and work ethic that has slowly infected the United States. Set (for the most part) in New York City, this book follows the decline and fall of the United States of America. Following the trail of one Dagny Taggart, VP of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad, it shows a United States that should be familiar to us today.

Although set in the early part of the 1900s, most productive members of today's society can see that the ideas expressed are still applicable to today. Dagny sees a society slowly being eaten by a cancer, a cancer of goodwill toward men, and helping one's neighbor. Trying to save a railroad slowly being destroyed by the loss of trained men, adequate materials, and inept management, she stumbles upon a secret. A secret so great, that none will believe that it is coming for us.

The people in this fictional US have started turning to the far political left, demonizing the inventors and factory owners. The few that are left strive to fit in with a new society, that claims we must help our neighbor, even at the expense of ourselves. As the rate of inventions slow, and the infrastructure begins to unravel for want of talented workers, a common refrain is heard throughout the nation. Whenever something goes wrong, or someone asks a question that can only be answered by pointing to the inherent flaws in the left-wing system, someone always answer, "Who is John Galt?"

And just who is this John Galt? We see his name a lot in the book, but what does he stand for, who is he, and what does he want? He is the enemy to Dagny, the destroyer of all she has worked for all her life. Or is he? He is the man that stopped the engine of the world, the man that pulled the plug on the creativity of the generation. He co-opts the inventors, the factory people, the people that take pride in their work, and invites them to join him on a picket line of the imagination.

This picket line is real, although it is never really seen. The people walking it are the true creators of wealth in the world. The scientist who develops a new form of steel, the designer of a more efficient engine, the mine owner who does not deal in delays, but in finished product. The minds that drive the world, that fuel it's expansion.

Why should a man work, if it only benefits his neighbor and not himself? Why should a man work, if he can collect the profits of the man that does? Why should a man work? A man works to live. Work is life.

Too many people in Rand's fictional US have lost this goal, this drive that keeps them moving toward a life of productivity. They have learned that the politicians are scared to the people, because the people have the power to ruin or save their existence. A profound insight into the workings of the typical political mind, this books shows the folly of allowing public opinion polls and the fear of losing a seat in Congress to pass the laws that people must live under.

This book is a classic, in that is shows the folly of all these things. It shows the true power of the productive mind, and the productive mindset. The most moving phrase that I have ever heard, is uttered by the characters in this book: "I swear by my life... and my love of it... that I will never live for the sake of another man... nor ask another man... to live.. for mine.

-- (Ladylogic46@aol.com), November 25, 1999.


And like Rand, the speeches go on and on and on and on.

You know even a few of us Democrats and Independents think we've got a screwed up welfare system.

-- Becky (rmbolte@wvadventures.net), November 25, 1999.



A book and a philosophy I truly hate. It completely leaves God and transcendence out of the equation.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 25, 1999.

Good point Mara (hope i got the name right) This is what I see as being one of the holes I mentioned. I think the reason for it is simple timing. During the 30' 40's and much of the 50's I believe people thought physics was about a complete science. As we have come to find the universe is much more ordered than originally suspected. Things are to perfect to simply ignore the role of God. And before I get flamed I'm not speaking of a perfect society but of the uniformity of space, nuclear forces, gravity, etc. Another thing only touched upon by Rand is children. When you bring another life into the world you selfishness must take a back seat to that life. That doesn't mean living vicariously through your children but I do think you sacrifice a certain lifestyle for them. Hello to John9.5Galt and the other John Galts as well. Wish there was a place we could move to and live the life.

-- (hank.reardon@not.now), November 25, 1999.

It just isn't fair that many have more than they need and won't share. Let's pass laws to stop their further production and acquisition. We will make them stop so those with less talent will feel better about themselves. The government knows what is best for everyone. Wesley Mouch

Ayn didn't write those exact words....I just did...WM

-- stopthemotoroftheworld (jg@ayn.rand), November 25, 1999.


And people wonder why this forum has so many lurkers. Where else could you be scrolling thru the contrails and remarking on the frailties of the human race and come across a deep and esoteric thread like this!!!

Ladylogic, if you don't mind I would like to forward your synopsis of Rand's work to a email friend of mine in Wasington (philosophy major). That is one of the best evaluations of Rand I have ever read. And yes, Chuck. The book does raise more questions than it answers.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), November 25, 1999.


Agree with Mara + Metaphysics and objectivism are too sycronistic to separate.

One of the most empowering things Rand ever wrote that Are nation should take into consideration (Esp. Pres. Clinton).

" whenever you lie to someone you are making them your master"

Harsh words,but if you think about it...........

-- d----- (dciinc@aol.com), November 25, 1999.



After you've read Atlas Shrugged, read "Ishmael", by Daniel Quinn.

There used to be, and still should be, a place for everyone on this planet.

-- (look@many.angles), November 26, 1999.


"As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation -- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight --Ayn Rand

-- CD (not@here.com), November 26, 1999.

I am a Kook, not an animal!

Kook

-- Y2Kook (y2kook@usa.net), November 26, 1999.


Anyone that knows that A is A.

-- A (A@AisA.com), November 26, 1999.

Another useful book (in a similar vein) is "The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman" by David Boaz (Editor) Available from Amazon $19.25 320 pages (February 1997) Free Press; ISBN: 0684832003

-- Midas (midas_mulligan_2000@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

Long ago and far away DLG-N 25, I was Ragnar Danneskold.

I am still looking for my good buddy George who signed Fransisco De Anconia

-- woody (woody11420@aol.com), November 26, 1999.


John Galt is a naove pipe dream.The very idea of corporate leaders being the hope of humanity is ludicrous.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

"Atlas Shrugged", authored by the same lovely mind that brought us "The Virtue of Selfishness"

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 26, 1999.

"...the cancer of good will towards men, the cancer of helping your neighbor..." Kind of says it all. Rand (ne' Rosenberg, no?) was just the pop culture student of Nietsche, with his misbegotten concept of the Ubermenschen. Rand's boring theoretical treatises (remember Galt's 76 page speech towards the end? 76 pages!) failed to deal with one important variable: REALITY! Bright teenagers (I was one) like Annie Rand because they don't know beans about the real world, and because they have been trained since birth in our system to be selfish. So here comes this 'spoiled brat' Rand telling them selfishness is good! To hell with Christ, in other words. Go read about the real Rand, how she was an adulterer, breaking up Branford's (?sic) marriage, how she was a poisonous, joyless little gutter snipe, and you will come to understand the true face of all earthly utopias: inhuman systems of hatred that masquerade as virtuous. Whittaker Chambers, in his 1958 review of 'Atlas Shrugged' for National Review, noted "on every page of this book a loud voice can be heard commanding 'to the gas chambers--GO!' Chambers was right: Objectivism is dreck.

-- Spidey (free@last.Amen), November 26, 1999.

Discussion of which subject leads to rapid (and rabid) polarization more quickly - Atlas Shrugged or Y2K?

Reading (and completing) Atlas Shrugged was truly a difficult task. Emotionally draining, no doubt about it. Horribly boring at times. Devoid of a spiritual center. Yet rewards are there for he/she who grinds it out.

Zoobie (naive pipe dream) & Mara touched upon two points which I agree with. A world without THE Creator makes no sense to me.

Not my philisophical cup of tea, yet I do recommend it highly.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), November 26, 1999.


Whittaker Chambers, in his 1958 review of 'Atlas Shrugged' for National Review, noted "on every page of this book a loud voice can be heard commanding 'to the gas chambers--GO!'

This is possibly the most insanely inaccurate review of any book I have ever seen. If you can find one passage in Atlas Shrugged where Rand or any of her heroes (not her villians, of course) commanded anyone to "go to the gas chamber", I'll send you $10.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), November 26, 1999.


Zoobie...touched upon... A world without THE Creator makes no sense to me. wow.As a Buddhist/athiest that strikes me as kind

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

..of ironic.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

Sorry Zoob. Poor sentence/thought structure on my part. You made no reference to a Creator, obviously.

Your point about the pipe dreams was somehow married to Mara's point about God.

That's what I get for stealing my employers money - Surfing & posting on company time. My bad.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), November 26, 1999.


I can't resist these Atlas Shrugged threads. Here's one of my favorite quotes, from Francisco d'Anconia in the second party scene:
"There was a time when men were afraid that somebody would reveal some secret of theirs that was unknown to their fellows. Nowadays, they're afraid that somebody will name what everybody knows. Have you practical people ever thought that that's all it would take to blast your whole, big, complex structure, with all your laws and guns--just somebody naming the exact nature of what you're doing?"
Followed not long after by the scene's denouement:
People were running out, running to telephones, running to one another, clutching or pushing the bodies around them at random. These men, the most powerful men in the country, those who held, unanswerable to any power, the power over every man's food and every man's enjoyment of his span of years on earth--these men had become a pile of rubble, clattering in the wind of panic, the rubble left of a structure when its key pillar has been cut.
By the way, Lars, I heard a rumor this morning. Your handlers will not be picking you up on December 31 ... you'll be on your own with the rest of us. Que sera sera.

Got rice?

-- Alan Rushby (arushby@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.


Evolutionarily speaking:

Their is probably a natural human evolution from selfishness to selflessness. A baby is the center of his or her world. As that baby matures and becomes an adult its center changes, especially if the adult has childern. The life of the adults child becomes most important. The adult has now evolved to be selfless.

Whether this evolution is true for you are not, a purely selfish world, person, group, or society can not exist in nature. Yes, life is organized in "selfish" groups, see Dawkins - THE SELFISH GENE. But where Dawkins and Objectivism miss the boat is that each selfish-group is ALSO organized within larger groups, which are also selfish, and these groups are also organized within even larger groups which are also selfish and so on. Eventually the most macro-selfish group is what some will call God. While God is selfish, he/she/it is selfish to all that it contains. Since that which God contains is also its environment (I believe), it therefore is ultimately both a selfless and selfish God.

Read "Phenomenon of Man" by Pierre Teilhard De Chardin.

-- The answer is always both (eco@macro.org), November 26, 1999.


In Rand's own estimation, Atlas Shrugged is one of her works of "fictional philosophy", and as such, unfortunately is neither a cogent, useful philosophy nor readable, enjoyable fiction.

The major shortcoming is that Rand has it completely backwards. Whether this is due to her own naiveti or by design, I cannot say. She believes/writes that politics/government tells business/capital what to do, and in doing so disincents and ultimately destroys the economy.

At the core, government is, always has been, and maybe always will be the tool of business, i.e., the moneyed interests. Global moneyed interests used government to introduce and enforce the welfare state in America and the global moneyed interests worked behind the scenes to set up the Totalitarian collective experiment known as the USSR. Currently, these same interests are using what they have learned to date to collectivize most of planet.

Rand's conceptual socioeconomic model is horribly flawed. She builds a top-down world of government thugs, inept, fawning business men, and jealous, dependent masses. The true model is a hierarchy of super-wealthy elites, a large, largish, well-paid support structure consisting of well-paid technicians and assorted functionaries, the working poor, and the idle poor.

The elite and their agents build railroads where and when they want them. The tier below the elites will oversee the building and personally profit from the building as a function of the monetary system that the elites have constructed. The tier below them will perform the actual labor, supporting both themselves and the idle poor.

Objectively, government and business aren't even a partnership. Government is a tool, a plaything for the true power centers of this world. And whether these people may be called capitalists is moot. Sometimes they ARE capitalists in the best Randian sense, but only when it suits them. Sometimes they are robber-barons, and sometimes they are war-mongers, feudal lords, Communists, Fascists, or Totalitarians, so long as it supports, fine-tunes, and/or extends power and control.

Rand makes it out that government is the bad guy and capitalists are the good guys. The reality is that even the most well-designed, exemplary of governments are inevitably co-opted and used as a tool of social control, sometimes violently and sometimes not. For in the elites' opinion, power not claimed and used is power wasted.

No doubt, capitalism is a superior basis for an economic system, yet it is not without it's flaws. Rand would have us believe capitalism has no shortcomings, no dangers, no potential for abuse. IMO, capitalism without accountable constraints will destroy this planet and everyone on it.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), November 26, 1999.


Oh how my objectivist brothers taunt me,saying I might have done as well as they had I shorted all my partners, crushed my fancies,and gone to fecken business every day! (bowderized Robert Service) Greed will bring it all down,Selfishness will insure that WTO and MAI will kill in the name of internationalist profit and future generations and Mother Nature will suffer environmental sickness due to the inability of congress to address the rapicious and disloyal unelected bureaucrats who at this moment are driving the spike into our national body politic(watch Seattle on 30 November)First Nafta,then WTO then MAI---Corporate slavery is waiting and freedom is retrograding.Welcome to unchecked capitalism and the NWO,Kiss our World goodbuy,John Galt.

-- H fats Kissinger (nationalismisbad@NWO.org), November 26, 1999.

I read (and finished) Atlas Shrugged as a teenager. Ayn Rand was a rabidly God-HATING atheist, and refused to continue any conversations in which His name was brought up. I thought the book was boring dreck then, and I still do.

-- Liz Pavek (lizpavek@hotmail.com), November 26, 1999.

Along the same lines: is our fearless Diane really Dagne Taggart in disguise?

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), November 25, 1999.

Please!!??!! Read the book again. Not even close! She makes a good Lillian Reardon. I certainly hope you do not see your self as a potential resident of "Galt's Gulch". That you would even consider it would go beyond any pretence of rational belief.

The continueing existance of this forum, no matter what the justification, excludes you from from even the consideration of residency in Galt's Gulch.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 26, 1999.


Did Dagne like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 26, 1999.

I certainly hope you [Ed Yourdon] do not see your self as a potential resident of "Galt's Gulch". That you would even consider it would go beyond any pretence of rational belief.

The continueing existance of this forum, no matter what the justification, excludes you from from even the consideration of residency in Galt's Gulch.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 26, 1999.

Well, that takes the cake. The mistress of drivel, unfounded attacks on knowledgeable people, failure to follow through on promises, and general incompetence, is now an expert on Rand and/or Objectivism?

Sorry, Cherri, you would be excluded on many counts from the Gulch. On the other hand, I don't know any reason that Ed wouldn't get in, and I'd be waiting to welcome him.

As for what Rand might think about Y2K: it has already been suggested in this thread that she would find it an eerie fulfillment of her dystopian (that's the opposite of utopian, for those of you in Rio Lindo) vision in Atlas Shrugged. However, let me provide another, possibly even more relevant, quote:

It's the chance dangers that I'm afraid of -- the senseless, unpredictable dangers of a world falling apart. Consider the physical risks of complex machinery in a hands of blind fools and fear-crazed cowards. Just think of their railroads -- you'd be taking a chance on some such horror as that Winston tunnel incident every time you stepped aboard a train -- and there will be more incidents of that kind, coming faster and faster. They'll reach the stage where no day will pass without a major wreck.

I know it.

And the same will be happening in every other industry, wherever machines are used -- machines which they thought could replace our minds. Plane crashes, oil tank explosions, blast furnace break-outs, high-tension wire electrocutions, subway cave-ins and trestle collapses -- they'll see them all. The very machines that had made their life so safe, will now make it a continuous peril.

(Atlas Shrugged, p. 749, 40th paperback printing)

Sounds a lot like Y2K, doesn't it? Oh, I forgot: Cherri is a polly. Aren't you, Cherri?

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), November 27, 1999.


Nathan:

In Rand's own estimation, Atlas Shrugged is one of her works of "fictional philosophy", and as such, unfortunately is neither a cogent, useful philosophy nor readable, enjoyable fiction. The major shortcoming is that Rand has it completely backwards. Whether this is due to her own naiveti or by design, I cannot say. She believes/writes that politics/government tells business/capital what to do, and in doing so disincents and ultimately destroys the economy.

Heavy stuff...I'm impressed. You even managed to get the little thingee above the e in naivete.

-- Kiss me you fool (Hotlips@Hoolihan.com), November 27, 1999.


Steve,

Amazing how I predicted you would be the one to answer my post to Ed. And you would assume you belonged in the gulch, ahead of him!

What an ego. You, a person who gets offended by what people say about him and pouts, if you were so sure of yourself, the words of those you do not respect would have no influence on you. You, who most people of logic and intelligence ignore, which bothers you. You, who lives vicarously through the "achievements" of others. You do try though, which is more that most people do.

Liken Y2K to Atlas Shrugged? Yes, but in which likeness? You are completly missing who is stopping the gears and why. It is not the fact that 2 digit years were used instead of 4 digit years, that is a symptom. It is that Reardons metal was taken from him and is being given and used by those who would not and could not create it themselfs and are using it to make inferior products.

If I am the "nothing" you proclaim me to be, why do I get to you? Why do my words have an impact on you? How is it that they effect you? How is it that you allow me to control you, proven by the fact that you react to my words? How can I sit here and talk over the head of most of the people who post here without then being aware of it, you recognise it, but can not quite comprehend what I am doing?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 27, 1999.


How can I sit here and talk over the head of most of the people who post here without then being aware of it, you recognise it, but can not quite comprehend what I am doing?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 27, 1999.

Ah, Cherri, you sweet-talker, you. Flattery will get you nowhere.

-- John Galt, Jr. (Turn Left @The.Fountainhead), November 27, 1999.


Mi Comprendo, Cherri.

-- Laura (Ladylogic@aol.com), November 27, 1999.

If I am the "nothing" you proclaim me to be, why do I get to you? Why do my words have an impact on you? How is it that they effect you? How is it that you allow me to control you, proven by the fact that you react to my words? How can I sit here and talk over the head of most of the people who post here without then being aware of it, you recognise it, but can not quite comprehend what I am doing?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 27, 1999.

The only way you "get" to me is to make me laugh at your pathetically inept "analysis" of Y2K, not to mention your near-illiterate writing. In any event, according to your "logic", I am the one controlling you, "proven" by the fact that you react to my words. But don't worry, I won't interrupt your dream world any more; I expect you to get a rude awakening in January. Too bad you won't be able to post an apology to the "doomers", but that's life (or is it?)

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), November 27, 1999.


You, who lives vicarously through the "achievements" of others.

One more point, Cherri. Let's see your great "achievements", as indicated in your resume, so the readers of this thread can compare them with mine.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), November 27, 1999.


Humm. Thanks Ed. I think.

Read "The Fountainhead" years ago but never got around to "Atlas Shrugged." Year 2000 quiet time reading perhaps?

Anything that touches Cherri's hot button must be "interesting." She tends to be a bellweather. Or not.

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 27, 1999.


Alan Rushby--

It doesn't really matter, but I am mildly curious. What did you mean when you said---

"BTW Lars,I heard a rumor this morning. Your handlers will not be picking you you up on Dec 31"

Way too cryptic for disingenuous me. Feel free to email me if you care to elaborate.

Cheers, Lars

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 27, 1999.


Dian,Dagny Taggart was a driven,obsessive,railroad mogul fighting a whiny liberal government and industry. Dagney could only feel fulfilled when she was being roughly used as an object of someone else's sexual gratification.She also despised philanthropy and any act of charity.I'm not sure what Ed was implying, maybe he was inquiring if you like to mud wrestle.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 27, 1999.

One more point, Cherri. Let's see your great "achievements", as indicated in your resume, so the readers of this thread can compare them with mine.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), November 27, 1999.

Steve,

Unlike you, I do not have a "need" to prove myself to others.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 27, 1999.


Steve,

Unlike you, I do not have a "need" to prove myself to others.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 27, 1999.

Translated into English, that means "Cherri is a nonentity". Thanks for the confirmation!

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), November 27, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ