Comments from NoodleFood

Note: This comment system was replaced with Disqus in May 2010.

Comment #1

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 14:54:49 mst
Name: softwareNerd

If we had a little more intelligent conversation like that, imagine how far we could go!

Comment #2

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 14:57:18 mst
Name: McGroarty

He'd be willing, with compensation, to rebut "you're" arguments.

Would you consider asking his price in order to rebut five major points to which you and he agree? I'd be willing to chip in if it's reasonable - and I'd bet others would be as well - if we can make a game of it. The deal would be that if you and he can agree to five points and if he can rebut three of them, he gets the cash. Otherwise, the ARI gets a donation. :)

Comment #3

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 14:59:48 mst
Name: Mike

"do a point by point rebuttal to all of YOU'RE published comments"

Diana isn't the one needing education.

Comment #4

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 15:46:05 mst
Name: Tom Rexton

"I have found you to be a nasty, loudmouthed asshole."

At the least he needs to learn some basic persuasive argumentative skills. He and his side will keep losing people to the arch-terrorists USA and Israel if he doesn't learn: If your aim is to convince someone of your argument, never viciously attack his person. He also needs to refrain from describing himself!

I suspect his rage and contempt reflects an underlying insecurity of his position on the issue. He can't bear the fact that there are intelligent people who disagree with him, because it undermines his own sense of certainty.

Comment #5

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 16:03:09 mst
Name: Blair

WOW! I'm jealous! I never get hate mail ;-(

Comment #6

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 16:18:16 mst
Name: L.S.

Absolutely retarded children should be educated separately from non-retarded children--and for all the reasons AR (and many others) indicate!

The idea that this is "Nazi-like" is patently ridiculous, and shows a real inability to look at reality rather than hodge-podge fuzzy concepts together based on emotionalism.

He presents it as somehow self-evidently a wrong viewpoint, while claiming to be familiar enough with Objectivism to comment on the PAR/PARC, TOC/ARI issues (?) Surely if he had all his marbles he'd be able to see the obvious egalitarianism inherent in some kind of co-education or forced association of ordinary children with retarded children.

Ditto the idea that making well-backed cultural value judgments is some kind of bigotry or racism.

Comment #7

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 17:11:36 mst
Name: Kurt Colville

What, no "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? A careless oversight by Mr. Hardesty, I'm sure.

Did he even know who he was addressing? What goober calls a woman "asshole"???

Comment #8

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 18:27:50 mst
Name: JR

I was a staunch supporter of Israel before I read some of the books (or at least ones that expressed similar ideas). For example, I bought into Joan Peters lie that there were no "Palistinians" in Palestine unti the Jews settled there, etc.

Based on my reading I realized there was another side of the story. Actually, I am still moderately pro-Israel and tend to support Israel over her Arab enemies. At the same, I realize the issue isn't as clear cut as some would have it.

As one example, there is no doubt that Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing in 1945 and expelled 750,000 Arabs from their land.

Comment #9

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 19:18:37 mst
Name: Steve D'Ippolito


Israel didn't exist until 1948. So either the date is wrong or it wasn't "Israel" that did this--or perhaps it was Jewish settlers in what was then the British mandate of Palestine.

Please clarify!

Comment #10

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 19:19:25 mst
Name: Steve D'Ippolito

Damn! I should have addressed that to "JR" not "RT"

Comment #11

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 19:31:59 mst
Name: JR


I typed the date wrong. See this -

Comment #12

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 20:34:51 mst
Name: Tom Rexton


I don't think such events have much of a bearing on which side to support. One doesn't just look at a some country's act in the distant past, and then based on that decide whether to support it. You must include its overall policy with respect to individual rights, then AND now, and especially compared to the others' (Palastinian state, or whatever).

The same reasoning you've use equally applies to the US: do you only "moderately" support the United States against the terrorists and their supporting regimes because before 1865, the US sanctioned slavery in the South and because the US expelled thousands of Indians from their lands during the century-long settlement of the West? Do these US gov't acts make it impossible for the issue to be "clear-cut"?

Does a country have to have a perfect, consistent record of protecting individuals for it to receive your "full" support, even if it is being attacked by one that EXPLICITLY REJECTS the principle of individual rights? The issue is as clear-cut as it could be. I don't think there can be any doubt as to which side recognizes and protects individual rights, even if not so consistently.

Comment #13

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 21:27:18 mst
Name: RT

Apparently Mr. Hardesty is indeed "grammatically challenged", having a real difficulty with "your" vs. "you're":

"I have since received a further message from Mr Hardesty, which reads in full: Your [sic] an establishment buffoon incapable of thought or reason, thanks for more evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy and utter third-rate mindedeness of the neocons and their holohoax mythologists."

Comment #14

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 21:34:36 mst
Name: JR


It depends what you mean by support. Israel is less socialist than other nations in the middle east, but it is still socialist.

Actually, I oppose all foreign aid (whether to Israel or any other nation). I think we should bring all our troops home.

Comment #15

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 21:54:17 mst
Name: Jeff Montgomery

For the love of Reality, I wish people would learn the proper use of apostrophe's!


Comment #16

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 21:54:42 mst
Name: Tony Donadio

JR wrote: "As one example, there is no doubt that Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing in 1945 and expelled 750,000 Arabs from their land."

Source, please?

Comment #17

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 2:21:12 mst
Name: Tom Rexton


By "support" I mean by its Webster dictionary definition "a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right". Do you, for instance, "support" the United States against the terrorists and their supporting regimes? And I don't mean do you agree with the current policy of the Bush Administration. I mean do you think it is RIGHT that the United States (or Israel) defend itself against the terrorists? Or do you think the United States somehow "deserves" 9/11 and that the terrorists are RIGHT?

Comment #18

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:46:36 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh

RT, forget Mr. Hardesty's difficulties with grammar... That link you posted...


...also indicates that he's a Holocaust denier.

"From the beginning Faurissson's civil rights were the issue, why else was being PROSECUTED BY THE STATE FOR HIS DISSENTING VIEWS ON THE NAZI HOLOCAUST ?????????????????????????????? The very fact of the existence of these laws in many countries is evidence that the conventional story of the holocaust is a fraud. Why would you seek to legally proscribe 'falsehoods' that are allegedly easily refuted ?"

What a lovely non sequitur that is! (Not that I'm in favor of any laws against Holocaust denial, but that's beside the point.)

Comment #19

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 16:32:01 mst
Name: Trey Givens

A loudmouthed asshole?

Maybe he's upset because his anatomy is really messed up.

Comment #20

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 1:54:22 mst
Name: DancingCurvy

Dear Diana,

I find you to be unexcusably outspoken in your attitude to That Other Objectivist organization.

Some of your blogs resemble riling preludes to witchunts. Perhaps this is what sometimes gives you the outward appearance of a loudmouth. :) You ranted in one of your blogs something to the effect of "I will not stop severely criticizing TOC until they stop advocating their pretense at Objectivism" Though I personally believe you have a point in criticizing the philosophy of those Objectivism-liters, this hatred displays a strange fascination in hastening their demise, a fascination that is even less warranted, given that you YOURSELF used to advocate the same approach you are now denouncing. Perhaps this hatred serves to excuse yourself from the person you once were and the ideas you once held? Well this is no place for psychologizing. And by the way, though this style does drive me nuts, I do enjoy most of your blogs, and wish you success in your academic endeavors; I am just confused as to this anti-TOC hatred.

I have a quick question about Objectivism, which you may be inclined to answer; I thought I read somewhere that in some form, you were answering questions about Objectivism? This question was on my mind:

1) It has been stated by Leonard Peikoff, I believe, that an advanced technological civilization cannot exist under a dictatorship. Does the lack of such a civilization under a dictatorship happen ONLY because dictatorships simply seize and remove technology from the control of its private owners, or because they create a fear of law that *prevents* technology from coming into existence *in the first place?*

Keep up the Good work, The-Fraction-Of-Diana-That-I-Like. (As Roark said, in effect, to Dominique in The Fountainhead--I will wait to accept you as a whole.) But Diana, I will continue to ENJOY you as a fraction. And I beg you not to be impelled to contact law enforcement after reading that last sentence.

From john paschalis

Comment #21

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 2:18:36 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh

DancingCurvy: Perhaps you missed this announcement right below your text box, as you were typing in that long message unrelated to its blog post:

"The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board, so please do not post random questions or comments on any old blog post. If you have an out-of-the-blue comment or question, please follow the procedure outlined in Questions for NoodleFood: <>"

Oy! My pets are peeved! :-)

As my only feeble protest, I'm not going to respond to the substance of your message. Feel free to pose your questions via the method outlined in that post above if you'd like it posted to NoodleFood -- not just the one about technology, but also the more personal question about my strong feelings toward The Objectivist Center. (Basically, you just need to e-mail your questions to me.)

Comment #22

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 3:42:08 mst
Name: Ian Hamet

Furthermore, as long as we're hammering pet peeves, DC, Diana only has one blog. That blog, however, has many years worth of POSTS, which is what you probably meant when you referred to her "blogs".

Comment #23

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 5:17:03 mst
Name: Orson Olson

Readers of this Diana post ought to treat themselves to a grand fisking of Fisk's latest book by a certified authority on the Middle East - the University of London's Efaim Karsh - himself the author of ten books on the subject, here

As for JR's contention that Israel - or rather the people who brought Israel to international recognition - is responsible for 750,000 people in 1945, certainly you mean 1948. Actually, it was the incitemen of nearby Arab states that caused this diaspora. These people bought into the notion of Arab war to wipe out the Jews - something Muslim ego's have forever nursed since.

Now, it's true there is a case for reparations. But how much has the world (mostly the EU/EC and US) already paid? Tens of billions of bucks - which these ingrates have squandered repeatedly on bad rule and permanent UN "relief camps"? And still they've bilked the world with phoney census numbers by 40%? When does it all end? With sweeping the Jews into the seas, of course!

(What a game; what stupid losers. I'm cynically out of empathy or concern for evil habitual and Iranian backed terrorists [ie, Hamas]. Let them go to Jordan - the nation that threw hundreds of thousands back: let them sue Arab states for peace for a change.)

Comment #24

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 at 8:22:41 mst
Name: Tony Donadio

JR wrote: "As one example, there is no doubt that Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing in 1945 and expelled 750,000 Arabs from their land."

A week ago, I replied: "Source, please?"

JR has posted a number of times to Noodlefood since then, but has not responded to my challenge.

JR: Given the extraordinary nature and extremely defamatory character of your claim, don't you think that you have an obligation to reasonable people to respond to challenges to substantiate it?

Please either do so, or retract it.

Comment #25

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 at 9:01:35 mst
Name: Tony Donadio

After posting my last comment, I realized that JR had posted a link in response to an earlier question by Steve. I'm sorry that I didn't realize that sooner.

I will look through the linked article when I have time, but I do have one question: who is Robin Miller (the author whose site you linked)? The bio page on that site simply says "being updated," so I have no idea who this person is or what his/her credentials to write on these topics might be. The source information appears to be heavily referenced, but not to sources that are readily available or linked on the net -- so fully substantiating any of its claims would require an extended library trip.

For example, the article you link states that "The Israeli myth that the Palestinians left on instructions from Arab leaders has long since been shown to be a fabrication," and footnotes the following work:

"Finkelstein, Norman, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, London: Verso, 2nd. ed., 2001. See "'Born of War, Not by Design,'" pp. 51-87," claiming that Finkelstein's work is "authoritative." After a quick web search, I found the following rather different perspective on Finkelstein's work (which identified the latter as a Depaul University professor):


From the above article, published by CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America):

"For example, Finkelstein’s chapter “Born of War, Not by Design,” about the 1948 Palestinian refugees, relies almost exclusively on Benny Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, which has been seriously challenged by mainstream historians for selectively using Israeli archival material. Finkelstein relies on information found in The Birth, but often distorts already questionable material. For example, Morris claims in one of his endnotes that Ben-Gurion said:

"[a return] is out of the question until we sit together beside a [peace conference] table...and they will respect us to the degree that we respect them and I doubt whether they deserve respect as we do. Because, nonetheless, we did not flee en masse. [And] so far no Arab Einstein has arisen and [they] have not created what we have built in this country and [they] have not fought as we are fighting...We are dealing with a collective murderer."

"Rather than checking the original source, Finkelstein distorts the secondary source. In order to demonstrate Ben-Gurion’s “extreme” “racis[ism],” he shortens Morris’s citation to read, “Arabs were not entitled to the same respect accorded to Jews because ‘so far no Arab Einstein has arisen...We are dealing with a collective murderer.’ ”

"Benny Morris himself has long been critical of Finkelstein’s scholarly research as it relates to his [Morris’s] work. He criticizes Finkelstein for “selectively quot[ing]” from his book and for not knowing “anything ...beyond what is found” in his books. His sources, according to Morris, are “dubious,” and he adds that Finkelstein fails to marshal “sources or materials from elsewhere that could serve to contradict my findings” (Journal of Palestine Studies, Autumn 1991). According to Morris, “for Finkelstein the only good Israeli is an evil Israeli.”"

Note that this is the author whose work, for Miller, is "authoritative," and which demonstrates that "The Israeli myth that the Palestinians left on instructions from Arab leaders has long since been shown to be a fabrication."