|We are all the judge and jury. But we must examine the evidence before passing judgement. To take Valliant's speculations critically, one must first "take them," as it were. One must read the book before criticizing it. There's been enough shooting from the hip already. While this gives me and James plenty of opportunities to demonstrate the evidence James's book meticulously bases its conclusions upon, it would be far more interesting to debate this with informed participants who offer informed opinions and criticisms. So far I've seen precious few of these. Only one comes to mind, actually: Adam's illumination of a corroborating source for the name "Fronz," though even his providing of the corroborating source did not explain Barbara Branden's unique decision to refer to Rand's father exclusively by this name, since Rand did not do so and no other record does so. While James's footnote speculating that Barbara used the name to further her theory about Rand's relationship to her father and to Frank remains an interesting point even with the corroboration provided by Adam, Adam's point was informed and valuable. |
So far, we've seen attacks on the publisher, the writing style, the book flap, the editing of Rand's notes (without a single citation of a problem with those edits), the style in which the edits were presented (which were made in the standard, accepted form for such edits), irrelevant references to Rand's rhetoric concerning other philosophers, etc., and we have seen a lot of gross generalizations about James's motivations for writing the book (to paint the Brandens as total monsters and construe every one of their errors as "gleeful" participation in spiritual rape or to set Rand up as some flawless goddess, or to make a fast buck, or to set himself up as an Objectivist hero), ARI conspiracy theories, etc. I have had about enough of that stuff. So Michael, when you have the evidence in front of you and have the time to examine it, jury deliberations can begin.The rest I would regard as a rush to judgement in a kangaroo court were it not for the fact that the judge and jury are those who are witnessing these proceedings and I trust their ability to honestly weigh the evidence and separate reasonable doubt from objectionable cross-examination techniques.