RoR: Forum

James,

The word games was not in reference to Peikoff's statements and policies. It was about the "you guys" stuff.

I'll think about the hint. The Hollywood-type build-up's working pretty good, though.

//;-)

Michael

Post 281

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:49am

MSK,

I see, so, then, how has Casey, for example, "aligned" himself with everything Peikoff has ever done or said?

To be honest, the nature of this "build-up" is causing my interest to decrease. It is in good cause, however, so I will wait.

Post 282

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:52am

Oh, don't force it, James.

Who said "everything"?

I certainly didn't. You just did.

Word games.

Michael

Post 283

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:11am

MSK,

That's not "forcing" anything. You were associating "us guys" with practically the entire handling of the Rand estate. That was no "word game" but your specific accusation here. Isn't that what you said "ain't going away"?

Post 284

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:19am

James, James, James,

There goes your precision again...

"Entire handling"?

You're forcing the words again to mean what they don't.

More word games.

I ain't playing that way.

Michael

Post 285

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:27am

MSK,

Then do be specific about your allegation. You say that Casey's "alignment" with Peikoff causes some kind of guilt by (what?) association. You made an accusation. If not "everything," then how about just something.

Anything.

Post 286

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:34am

James,

You see, this is the kind of thing I was talking about. Talk in circles and things might go away - or maybe you will be able to turn them into something else. They don't and you can't (at least with me).

My "accusation" is that if you align yourself with someone who has a solid reputation for acting in a certain manner, the public will judge you by the same standard that they judge him.

Pretty obvious, isn't it?

That's about as precise as I can make it. Now what do you want to force it to mean?

Michael

Post 287

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:54am

MSK,

Your original accusation was THAT empty, then? Does your own credibility get measured by the lies the Brandens told Rand?

Post 288

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:55am

Well, I have met the man, on two occasions: 1) a reception party for James's wedding and 2) during the taping of "Ideas in Action." He was a very cordial and nice man and I found him to be a very pleasant fellow.

So what was it I was being aligned with now?

Michael, can we judge you by the fact that you are "aligning" yourself with Barbara Branden and her stellar reputation for credibility? Two can play that game, and the results for you won't be very pretty.

Come on, Michael, you are SO proud of your critiques of PARC you MUST have one itsy-bitsy little point SOMEWHERE that you can recall for us now? Come on: just one. Is that SO hard to do?

Post 289

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:34pm

Of course you guys are judging me like that. Either that or you think I am woefully misguided and taken in by Barbara.

Of that, I have no doubt whatsoever - since the beginning.

I don't mind, though. Go for it. I might only be a Don Quixote in search of a windmill, who knows?

btw - Whoever said Peikoff was rude or unpleasant? I never did... (More insinuations and word games, er... mind games, I guess...)

Michael

Post 290

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 1:32pm

MSK,

I would not be engaging you if that were the case, Don Quixote.

Of that, be certain.

The question remains: should I?

Casey never implied that you were saying that Peikoff was rude. He was joking about the "alignment" you had alleged.

Sense of humor flagging, Michael?

Post 291

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 1:36pm

That was a joke?

Dayaamm!

I must be getting rusty...

Michael

Post 292

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:49pm

The PARC claims that neither of the Brandens is a credible witness and their accounts must be completely discarded, for whatever truth they mouth about Ayn Rand one can get the same thing from better sources.

The Passion of Ayn Rand is based mostly on taped interviews with AR conducted by Ms Branden around 1960, her memories of the author and about 200 interviews of people who knew AR or came into contact with her if only through her books.

Leonard Peikoff has the very tapes Barbara Branden used in writing her biography. If James Valliant wanted to seriously buttress his thesis why didn't he refer to those tapes? It is easy enough to strip out BB's questionable psychological explanations of AR's persona, even any generalizations about AR's character. You can go through the book and cross them out. So why didn't James Valliant take the next step and refer to the tapes to prove how lying and deceitful and unreliable Barbara Branden was as Ayn Rand's biographer? I realize that she did not do a good job of particularly referencing the material in the biography, but almost all of AR's early life must have been from those taped interviews.

--Brant

Post 293

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 7:24pm

Leonard Peikoff has the very tapes Barbara Branden used in writing her biography. If James Valliant wanted to seriously buttress his thesis why didn't he refer to those tapes?

Excellent question Brant. I would like to hear the answer to that one. Perhaps the answer is that he had access those along with whatever other material he desired as long as he cherry-picked what furthered the ARI agenda.

Post 294

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 7:54pm

So tell me this attorney. If you found yourself in a case where you were the D.A. and the prosecution had the control to cherry-pick the evidence presented to they jury, evidence that NO one else was allowed to put their hands on, what would you say of such a trial? As a jury memeber what would you do knowing that the prosecution had the ability to do this? I, for one, would insist that someone subpoena all the evidence, or else thow the damn case out of court. But oh yes!, we're just supposed to take the prosecutions word that he has honestly and objectively examined it. Of course in this case, I admit that it's equivocal naming you the prosecution, as you could just as well be labelled the defense.

Post 295

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:04pm

Brant,

I don't understand your question. If PARC is about insinuations, not naming sources, uncorroborated-self serving assertions, and internal contradictions of the Brandens, how will quoting AR saying "I met Frank on the set of The King of Kings" buttress HIS thesis. PARC is about NB and "BB's questionable psychological explanations of AR's persona," not a biography.

Post 296

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:21pm

PARC is about NB and "BB's questionable psychological explanations of AR's persona,"

PARC is just as much a selective psychological explanation of AR's persona. If the author and/or Peikoff wishes to dispel this myth, then they can lay ALL of the cards on the table and it can simply be settled once and for all. As for me, when the dealer cherry-picks the deck, I'm out of the game. Why do you think Peikoff as ARI personified pilfered BB's private property(the interview tapes) and why is it, if AR is objectively exonerated in her journals and the archives, that NO one who hasn't drank the cool-aid is allowed to examine the sacred calf?

Post 297

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:43pm

Jody,

Are you talking about the tapes BB used to write "Who is Ayn Rand" and "Passion of AR" and NB used to writes his two books on AR as "evidence that NO one else was allowed to put their hand on."

"pilfered BB's private property" This means steal, when did that happen? It seems like you've had some Kool-aid yourself.

In the court of #294, your request would denied by a judge as not probative to the case. Then he'd ask you where did you get your law licence.

Post 298

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:12pm

Brant and Jody,

I cover this all explicitly in the book. Please reread those sections of it.

I get weary repeating myself, but I will: my book is NOT a biography of Rand or anyone else. As I say in the book, those recorded biographical interviews are the single best source of biographical material about Rand. I would have used them extensively had I been writing a biography. As I also state more than once in the book, there is certainly a great deal of truth in the Brandens' books, and much of that truth comes from this material.

It is in areas where those tapes cannot be their source -- their personal "memoir" material -- where they are most suspicious, also as I say in the book. I also indicate the difficulty in determining what is and is not sourced from these tapes in many instances, for those who have not heard this material.

In my book, I call for access to those tapes to be given to all scholars.

These are just some of the things I say about all of this... in my book.

Post 299

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:42pm