Sorry to disappoint you ladies and germs, but my Aggie Alumnus does not wish to continue this past this point. Below is a response to her non-response.
Stating:
A minor point: It is "Ms. Van Allen". The space in my name is misleading, but I don't drop the "van" or "von" like von Mises and van Hayek do. I just think my name sounds better as it is properly written and I'm arrogant enough to make sure people get it right.A quick history regarding the terms "von" and "van." It was conceived by the Junkers of Prussia, they were well-to-do nobles who were given titles to keep themselves busy -- and were basically military elitists. As far as your spelling, there is no "proper" way to spell your name, as both Hayek and Mises have been introduced both ways (Bismarck, Goethe, Schelling, Metternich - all come to mind in terms of well-known "von" and "van" who either dropped it entirely or used lower-case). Unless of course, you will do the research to prove your assertion.
Your points, Tim, are great for the purposes of your site. I have no interesting in rebutting your points because I consider them either irrelevant to my initial point, or something which we can't debate (I've heard your arguments in person about how you don't live in "America" but in the "United States of Tim Swanson" or that insurance companies can replace government).Talk about condescending, what are the purposes of my site? That sounded like Peter Schwartz who said: "Ayn Rand does not need me to defend her against lice." Although Ms. Van Allen (or von or van) herself is not a subscriber to Ayn Rand or the various Objectivist holier-than-thouists, her self-righteous attitude is "I have no interesting in rebutting your points because I consider them either irrelevant to my initial point..." -- then why make a claim and then not back it up? If I tried to make any claim in any of my history papers without any references I would have been summarily laughed at and given an F.
And bringing up various tangents that were not discussed in what I actually stated in my post is not a proper way to debate (although, you state you do not wish to debate). If that is the case, may I use statement I think you might have said at one point? All of this does get a little too personal, and in fact can become and ad hominem, so I won't proceed down the path that you have started.
Oh, and yes, I do contend that I and I alone have the authority to control myself. So in a way, I can indeed be Timland or Timotopia, but that is besides the points I brought up.
Furthermore, while I get utility out of debating liberals, I don't see much point in arguing with someone whom I will always disagree with and yet whom I don't consider to be intellectually threatening (i.e., I think liberal lies are dangerous which is why I loudly oppose them, while I don't think your world view, wrong as it may be, is dangerous).What liberals? You have not defined what a liberal is? Is Peter Jennings a 'liberal?' Are FDR or LBJ a 'liberal?' Is Bush a 'liberal?' What is the defining context for what a 'liberal' is and is not? Why aren't you a 'liberal?'
Finally, I am greatly amused by your remarks, and I'm flattered that you'd devote the time to dissecting my every word. You seem to give a few people quite a bit of utility from it, including me.
If you enjoyed that, you might be interested in reading: Historical Debates, including the tit-for-tat by Lincoln and Douglas, they actually tried to go line by line and dissect the others comments.
I don't write on my site anything academic, particularly well-constructed, or thoroughly researched. I write my opinions for fun. I'm glad you seem to have gotten some fun out of it.So when do you write academically or with thorough research? When do you want to be taken seriously? Posted by Tim at May 21, 2003 03:43 PM | TrackBack
I think we can all take "liberal lies" as a tautology, that's what they do.
Perhaps Tim should redefine his world view so as to be at least a little dangerous... thereby fostering a healthy discussion.
If your opinions aren't academic, well constructed, or thoroughly researched, maybe you should keep them to yourself or pick a topic that doesn’t concern the lives of so many people. If you want to write ideas off of the top of your head why don't you get a job at vogue where you can write whatever you want and no one cares because you’re writing about make-up and hair. Should you continue to write about politics, war, and government, I'd suggest your get your thoughts straight before you declare Tim an "intellectual non-threat". You've failed to define democracy, liberal, or any other term you throw around. You remind me of the women who signed The Man Show petition to end women's suffrage, which isn't such a bad idea.
Posted by: Ekeyraa at May 21, 2003 06:49 PMOn the one hand, adequately formulating one's arguments is rather important, particularly if those arguments purport to offer some sort of critique. On the other hand, writing for oneself in a blog entry can be a little more lenient in that working through issues on your own and writing as your thoughts lead you is not the same as offering a well-planned argument you've been polishing for some time. If one is to do both, however, I agree that no one is going to take you very seriously. Which is fine, if you don't mean for the thoughts you write about on your blog to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Sharleen at May 21, 2003 08:14 PMI don't want to beat the topic now that it is pretty much dead, but I should note that many 'German Americans' dropped the 'von' and 'van' throughout the 1910s because of anti-German sentiment leading up to and through World War I. Similarly more were dropped during WW II.
Posted by: Tim at May 22, 2003 05:55 AM