On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:15:33 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:44:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

There's no doubt that Rand's ideas have a considerably following

In English please.

to this day, particularly among secular political conservatives. Of
course now
we're in a place where Weil never actually goes.

Prove it. prove that there are millions of "Rand followers".

I never said she had millions of "followers," so let's start by debunking
that strawman of yours.

I said:
Your description of Rand is your own and you are free to hold it. Millions
of people disagree with you. Maybe her time will come when people finally
give up on the liberal socialists and the conservative socialists, i.e. the
GOP and the Dems, I don't know, but I can hope. Freedom and personal
responsibility work.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your intent. I can see now that you
actually meant something different than I interpreted.

I based this on the my knowledge of her book sales, which continue to sell
very well and have not been out of print since first published.

I've owned two copies of Atlas Shrugged, a copy of The Fountainhead
and a copy of We The Living in my lifetime. That's four copies from
someone who doesn't buy into her philosophy. I don't think you can
necessarily use book sales as a barometer in this case.

GZ said she was muddle-headed. That is clearly bull****.
Agree with her or not, nobody can claim she was muddle-headed.

I agree that she's not muddle-headed. Just dogmatic.