I seem to have hit some nerves, here. But I must say, the light is now brighter.
No, I most definitely am not either of the Brandens. And, yes, Michael, I am one of the "old guard," as you put it and I'm very glad to meet you, too.
Yes, guys, I do have one helluva story, which I promise not to embellish. It has been a painful road, which brings me to Mr. Engle (I think it was), life IS definitely too short to stay angry for as long as I have, which is the main reason I haven't frequented the Rand-devoted sites on the web. In fact, I've pretty much stayed away from orchestrated Objectivism since moving to California in 1983. (I left CA in '89, about 5 months after my first wife shot herself to death with her own S&W 38. We had been married less than 6 years. I now live southwest of Denver, in an area called Wet Mountain Valley.)
But every once and awhile something comes along where I have to make a stand. I'm glad to say that even my second wife now understands that.
Dr. Campbell, I'm very pleased to meet you. I, too, think that Rand was (and is) wrong on several important, MAJOR points, from metaphysics all the way through art. I look forward to having an opportunity to discuss those things you no longer agree with, AND to hear about your own field of work.
So, thanks for the compliments, gentleman. I have no idea what special rules you may operate by, here, and it may not matter. I only know how to be me, for better or worse.
I will put some "stuff" in the extended bio box; I no longer have a web site (or a blog).
A few more points: Nathaniel Branden might remember me, if only because I am fairly certain he spoofed me once about six years ago, via e-mail. Barbara wouldn't, because we only met once, in 1966. I will, however, confess that I have more respect for her than for Nathan, whom I consider to be a sociopathic personality, whose wit is exceeded only by his immorally earned self esteem.
What I think of LP and his gang on the west coast, we will get to eventually.
Was it Mr. Engle (sorry if I am spelling your name incorrectly) or Brant who keeps chiding me over the miniscule relevance of those CINDYs. You see, I take them as representative of Mr. Valliant's entire methodology, along with 100 other little things, which in themselves seem perfectly innocent and innocuous.
At this point, anyone interested should look at pages 210 through 215 of Vallient's book. That is where his ignorance of psychology REALLY starts to show. (Michael, that's where the "repression" thing comes from.
... to be continued...