I have yet to misrepresent you in any way, nor would I intentionally misrepresent you or anyone else.
First, I never stated, in any of my posts, that you had claimed Mr. Branden to be a sociopath. That is my own opinion, based on personal observation and an understanding of Branden's writing. It is not based on anything contained in PARC, nor even any of your "Branden quotes."
Second, I never said that I knew Ayn Rand better, or over a longer period of time, than many of her associates now living on the west coast. Nor would I make such a claim. But I do know many of the people who did know her over a longer period of time, some of whom no doubt claim to have enjoyed your book. Those same people, especially Leonard Peikoff, are prone to wild over-enthusiasm, handing out profuse compliments as a way of life, when it suits them, but always demonstrating enormous arrogance. I have never had much use for such people, and I haven't since 1975. Yet, that is the very sort of people Ayn Rand chose to surround herself with. At one point I was part of that crowd and decided that my own integrity was worth more to me than being part of "the Inner Circle."
Finally, it is so thoughtful of you express concern over an embarrassment you are so certain I will encounter, here among some rather astute folks. But, I haven't even begun to state my serious objections to your book. Therefore, your contention that everything I will say has been said and royally refuted heretofore is, shall we say, presumptious. You still, apparantly, do not know who I am and, apparantly do not believe it to be relevant. I urge you, sir, to ask Dr. Peikoff, who will confirm that I was studying Objectivist Epistemology, in his graduate seminar, before there existed a text. Or not, as you see fit. Whether or not you stay around is of no consequence to me. I will not misrepresent you, but since you seem to want to put words in my mouth, I will be sure to continue to make hardcopies of every page in this thread. I make no claim to be a lawyer, but I do know this much: the truth is an absolute defense against any accusation of libel. And to prove libel, one has to show not only misrepresentation, but also malice, as I am sure you know. The only down side, if one is innocent, is the cost in both money and time. Once again, you don't know anything about me or how well prepared I might be to deal with you, should it become necessary.
Have a good weekend.
(Edited by John Allen on 10/20, 9:29am)