[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 180

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Allen, "I did, however, notice more typos than appeared in any book or article, or Letter, etc., ever published while Rand was alive."

I'm dieing to know what the "etc." is?

Can't you "interpret the various nuances present in the words of" James Valliant? 

Or is that bound to be obvious only to someone who HAD met him in his living room? 




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 181

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant—please be accurate. Barbara is not persona non grata here. SHE LEFT. She declined our invitation to return. We repeated the invitation and held the door open for her for some time. Then we took her at her word and closed her account. THEN she started posting via other people. Not unreasonably, we drew the line at that, but we said she was free to send a statement to us, or that anyone wishing to be her conduit could do the same. We've shown her every consideration (some tell me, way too much). We even invited her to come back on this very thread—no response. So yes, if she's using a conduit, we would like to know about it.

Linz



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 182

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 6:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant,

I'm sorry the authorship of my first post is bugging you so much that
 your "lease" has been shortened ;-) .

I wrote it.  Barbara Branden had nothing whatever to do with it.  I have not laid eyes on Ms. Branden, nor spoken to her, nor written to her, nor had any sort of contact with her that I know of since 1968, and probably farther back than that.

I did read her biography of Rand, shortly after it was published.  Before it was published, I read Peikoff's repudiation of that bio in the pages of "The Intellectual Activist," or whatever it's title was or still is.  That condemnation was one more of the things I could not forgive Peikoff for.  I have heard from a third party, that Ms. Branden and I feel approximately the same way about LP's publication of THE EARLY AYN RAND.


Somebody else asked about "nuances."  I have never seen any of the journals, nor am I likely to be admitted into their presence, even if I so desired, which I don't.  OTOH, I am very familiar with that light blue paper and with Rand's distinctive handwriting.  For almost 2 years I saw it on a average of every two weeks.  That was not an especially fun time in my life, but that is all you are getting for now.  Anyone who cannot accept that I am who I say I am, and that it is just barely possible that I might know and understand more about Objectivism than you do, is not obliged to read my posts --- though your own time is not mine to influence.

[Let me rephrase a bit: rather than "more about Objectivism" I should say "things and events concerning Objectivism you might not know about" and "have a perspective on HER PERSONAL philosophy, including her attitude about sense of life issues, which you probably do not have."]

Brant, just one more thing: why is the Barbara Branden issue so important to you?  The way I write has been influenced by countless teachers, and even authors, since before, and certainly after, I was first published at age 11, in the pages of Oklahoma Wildlife.  And, please, do not now leap to yet another conclusion that I am an environmentalist, or a hunter, or some such.  It happens that during my years in California, I wrote tech manuals for HP.

If the powers that be want to barr me from posting here, so be it.  It won't change reality in the slightest.

JA, now heading for some supper and some TV time.






Post 183

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz, My friend, I would suggest to delete the posts of this Allen guy.
This is a serious forum. When are we going to stop this children shit here!
I feel to old to be here.

(

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 10/19, 7:33pm)




Post 184

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr Linz, we have  a jobba to do here why we lose so much time with these losers.



Post 185

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for saying that, JA. Now that my head has stopped spinning I can get objective. More in a bit, but I've another post to do here first.

--Brant




Post 186

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My apologies to Barbara Branden

Dear Barbara,

I am sorry I went off the deep end thinking that you might have had anything to do with John Allen's first post on SOLO on this thread. The first thing that went wrong was I misread that post to the effect that the poster had known Ayn Rand before the affair rather than before the Break. That was just next to impossible. Then I noted or imagined stylistic similarities between the post and the way you write. JA has since pretty much established himself as a real person and he has credibly stated that you had nothing at all to do with his post.  That's that and I am ashamed to have thought there was a serious possibility you had anything to do with any of this.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 10/19, 8:26pm)




Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 187

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hype, like I said.
For the book flap to say that Valliant's show won two CINDY awards isn't "hype."  It's just a true statement.  Not misleading in any way whatsoever.

I can't believe anybody could possibly think this point is some kind of valid criticism of PARC.




Post 188

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel,

Whoever said "hype" was criticism? I certainly didn't.

Are we now going into "Valliant is perfect" mode? What would a person who did that be called? A Valliantroid?

//;-)

Michael




Post 189

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, Linz, Joe stated after Barbara had Mr. Brown post her blocked post on Drooling Beast that he and you had withdrawn your invitation to come back to SOLO. That was very, very wrong of her. But you are right that you invited her to come back and comment on this thread, at least. I do think people should be able to paraphrase her here or even briefly quote her as opposed to something at length. Think of all the newbies who won't know what is going on. Not my call, of course.

--Brant 




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 190

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
She can come here & speak for herself.

Linz



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 191

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I thought "hype" had a negative connotation.

On dictionary.com, definition # 2 for hype is:

Exaggerated or extravagant claims made especially in advertising or promotional material: “It is pure hype, a gigantic PR job” (Saturday Review).

And definition # 4 is:

Something deliberately misleading; a deception: “ [He] says that there isn't any energy crisis at all, that it's all a hype, to maintain outrageous profits for the oil companies” (Joel Oppenheimer).

Definition 1 mentions "excessive" publicity, but definition 3 doesn't seem to have any kind of negative connotation.  So I guess that's the way you meant it.

Yes, I have now entered Valliant Is Perfect Mode.  He has replaced Richard Feynman as my greatest hero and I will give him the benefit of any doubt.  Try to insult him and I'll immediately pull out the dictionary and analyze your words.




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 192

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Think of all the newbies who won't know what is going on. "
I envy the newbie who gets to bypass this new schism. Let's finish up the first one, put this one behind us, and get to work.



Post 193

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Come on, James.

You owe me this one. Play your cards right and a fan club is born - all members with dictionaries in hand!

Hell, you could even set up a tie-in with a dictionary publisher and rake in a commission off the top.

//;-)

(Daniel - hype used as an entertainment industry word means more of an advertising slant than false information, although it does not exclude false info. That's just not essential to the concept one way or the other.)

Michael




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 194

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 9:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Allen,

I apologize for questioning your bona fides, and look forward to reading more of what you have to say about the substance of Mr. Valliant's book.

I have concentrated up to now on the relationship between Mr. Valliant's outlook on Ayn Rand and the one that is actively promoted at the Ayn Rand Institute.  I am convinced that they are not the same, although I continue to disagree rather sharply with Mr. Valliant on a number of issues, including his understanding of what Rand meant by "moral perfection."

I do plan to bring up Rand's views about psychology on SOLO HQ at a later time, so I am interested in learning about your critique of them.  I am also curious why you regard Nathaniel Branden's personality as "sociopathic"--not least because you appear to be in agreement with Mr. Valliant on that issue.

Robert Campbell




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 195

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 9:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Valliant and Mr. Fahey,

Since you're back here on SOLO for a spell, I'd like to ask you, once again, how Rand's published slam at Bertrand Russell, on pp. 50-51 of the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, does not constitute an argument from intimidation.

I asked whether either of you knows which doctrine of Russell's Rand was referring to there.  Neither of you answered.  Should I take that to mean that neither of you has a clue?

My concern is not how much you know about Russell's philosophy.  In your lines of work you may not need to know much about it.  My concern is how effective Rand was at communicating anything besides a slam at Russell--or at anyone else who might not dismiss his idea out of hand.

Robert Campbell




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 196

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 2:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. Campbell,

Apology accepted, with my thanks.

I have just a few more things to say ("egad, he's gonna waste even more of our precious time... Somebody get the hook!) before I hang it up for the night.

My original intent had been to comment on Lyndsay's review, especially his beginning to the effect that he was one of [the members of this group?] who had vowed not to read Valliant's book, but was persuaded to change his mind and was glad the he had read it afterall.

Had I taken the time to read each and every post that followed his, I would have known that Valliant had been commenting throughout this thread.  Probably I would not have exploded in quite so insulting a manner -- or not.  I do have a very low opinion of his book, in terms of both style and substance (and LENGTH), in addition to an intense dislike for his publisher, of which I have never heard before going to their web site.

 At the time of my visit to Durban House's web site, PARC was still in it's pre-release promotion phase.  A little checking revealed them to be in Dallas.  Further checking on a few of their books gave them the appearance of a vanity press sort of outfit, but what really bothered me was why, if indeed Valliant had been selected as the "editor" of Ayn Rand's personal journals, was his editorial debut devoted to a "final destruction" of the Brandens after so many years.  Was there no end to the greed of ARI, no depth to which LP would not stoop to get back at his own cousin?  The more I thought about it, the angrier I became, because I already knew that certain bona fide scholars were being denied access to Rand's papers.

Such total control reminded me very much of Rand, herself.  I had been one of the original researchers for LP's OMINOUS PARALLELS, and I knew first hand exactly why the final product read so much differently from the early excerpts that appeared before I'd moved away from NYC.  [I'll get to the answer, guys, so don't anybody hassel me with barbed questions; it probably deserves a thread of it's own.]

So, turning to Michael's accomplishments of the day, you managed to get an admission regarding the principals of Valliant's production company (which still exists, or did the last time I visited it's web site).  Well done.  And, not so trivial as some around here believe.

Perhaps some thought will be given to "why" my first post took the form that it did.  It got your attention.  And, Mr. Fahy, we may yet obtain a few more revelations from attorney Valliant.  As a prosecutor, he most likely makes the strongest case he can to get a conviction, which ought to mean he puts only credible witnesses on the stand --- credible, that is, to the jury.  He tries to avoid the sort of surprises that happened in the Michael Jackson trial. 

[I know, Fahy:  you and Valliant had an essay on the web that, so he says, led to his invitation to do this book.  So, you've got a vested interest in my being all wet.  I can't help that, nor can I help you deal with it.  But, do try.] 

Well, I'm here for exactly the same reason, in reverse.  I'm not here to get any points from Fahy (notice that I bothered to spell your name correctly) or anyone else who has already "moved on" from their evaluation and consideration of Valliant's book.  As long as you let me stay, I'm here to say what I think needs to be said about Valliant's take ("case") against the Brandens and his alleged "defense" of poor, maligned, ad hominemed and persecuted to death Ayn Rand, who claims, we are told, to have been totally blind-sided by NB -- to which I say, and am reasonably certain I can prove, BULL SHIT.  (Incidently, I'm betting that Mayhew leaves out most of the particular Q&A session in which AR uses the same term regarding some lady professor at Columbia, back in 1976.  I was in the audience, on a visit to New York, when she said that and some other rather amazing things having to do with "sense of life," her own in particular.)

BTW, a major difficulty with this, and any message board, is that we aren't posting in real time.  That's a made to order recipe for misunderstandings and incorrect conclusions.

 -- more, later...

John







Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 197

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 6:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Allen,

People who knew Rand, better than you did, have enjoyed the book, and you have failed to raise any point of any substance. You also don't seem to know the extended history of discussions of the book on this site. The classy form of attack on the publisher and me personally that you attempt and propose has been handled repeatedly on threads here. You might wish to avoid the embarrassments of your predecessors on these sort of things.

http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0611.shtml

http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0524.shtml

http://solohq.com/Articles/Perigo/The_Passion_of_the_Critics_of_Ayn_Rands_Critics.shtml

You are free (as any reader can see) to make whatever errors you want, but please do not misrepresent what I wrote. I never called Branden a "sociopath."

Unless you can contribute something new or substantive, this writer will not be responding.

Mr. Campbell,

I hate to disappoint, but you got an answer, or as good an answer as you will get from me. Your question has absolutely nothing to do with my book in any case. Perhaps you can show me how it does. Otherwise, good luck in seeking your answers elsewhere...

MSK,

"Perfect"? Is that what he said? It's painful to even ask such a lame question, but what exactly was the error or "hype" on the book jacket, again? If Objectivists know me, it's probably due to that interview with L.P. in a show that won an award for the way we used his home, his art and various visuals, and the way we integrated them into what he was saying...


The rank smell of desperation is now getting stale around all such irrelevancies, gentlemen.




Post 198

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

You just asked:
It's painful to even ask such a lame question, but what exactly was the error or "hype" on the book jacket, again?
I never said there was an error. But I will not insult your intelligence by answering this. The answer is given properly in my posts above and all you have to do is read them (which I gather to be the source of your malady - i.e. having to read them again for not having understood correctly the first time). Surely you don't have problems with the English language.

Michael




Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 199

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,

Then, how exactly was Daniel claiming me to be "perfect"?



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.