This letter has been sent out to several participnnts....
I believe that at least two participants are calling gores a hypocrite, and they are correct.
Objectivism is the antithesis of both subject-dependent science and subject dependent-ethics.
In this sense, Rand's insistence on scientific object-independency (ie QM) is fairly orthodox.
On the other hand, her constructing of an objective, discoverable ethical system is quite remarkable, resembling that of Dworkin as proposed in 'Hedgehog'.
Gores, per citations, accepts neither, giving individuals the freedom to construct thar own, personal compendium of rights and wrongs. So when he begins to childishly scream and yell and call me a bad name for having said that, I'll look them up--if not beaten to the punch by a kind fellow member.
This means that he's either failed to understand Rand, or quite diametrically disagrees. Therefore, gores' claims to objectivist loyalty by virtue of his longetivity is absolutely worthless. Such conduct resembles the talking horse with nothing to say, and was therefore led away to the glue factory.
My Randian project is to reconcile her thought with mainstream philosophy--or what passes incorrectly as 'academic'. This isn't 'dissent', because I don't disagree.
Rather, what I see is a lexicon-reconcilliation issue that would confront any reader of non-Rand philosophy, regardless of political beliefs. For example, her 'epistemology' as 'thought' means something totally different than the same word outside of her lexicon.
That this project might come accross as 'dissent' to the likes of gores is understandable.
He is simply not the person whom you'd give the job of assessing others.
As for 'Libertarianism', nothing I've written falls beyond the pale as defined by Wiki. As for the definition given by Rand, libertarianism is positively apostate; therefore, any orthodox objectivist site should ban Libs as if they were admitted 'socialist scum'...which means about half of you, I suppose.
now this leads me back to the motives for all this name-calling and banning that he likes to do. He's not as smart as I, nor even was by the time I graduated from high school. He's not as smaart as you, either, but can only get away with banning newbies.
My solution, again, is to boycott gores.
Lastly, we have the selfishness issue, which stands at the heart of Rand's ethics. I write, you respond back , and i write again because of mutual enjoyment. So who, precisely, is self-entitled to prevent this, the enjoyment of others? Obviously a non-Randian!