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: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 140

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz-
 Jody, I don't believe Joe's comments were aimed at you, but at David Brown.
I hope not.  I did not necessarily think they were, but I wanted to make sure.  I will never let another person, Barbara or anyone else, take criticism for anything I have done.(Of course, when I wrote that post I was under the influence of a glass of a good Washington state Lemberger, so I suppose it is evidence that I should check myself into rehab.)


Post 141

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 7:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hahahaha! Of course, everyone should check into rehab. Even abstainers. We know there's a drooling beast within them just craving a drink. The whole world is alcoholic, I tell you. Satan is everywhere.

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 142

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On another matter, the ongoing discussion of that demon rum, alcohol, degree of consumption of it by visible figures in the past or present of Objectivism:

Words can hardly be found to say how profoundly boring and uninteresting it is to me the timing or amount or existence of the alcohol consumption of Ayn Rand's husband. [It's being beaten to death simply as a sideshow regarding the accuracy of one point in a book or books about AR.]

Nor do I have the *slightest* interest in Lindsay P's drinking habits one way or the other, or whether they might play a role in an overreaction or two.

Don't care.

Don't want to know.

Don't want to read about it or see it debated endlessly by people with too much time on their hands.

Am apathetic.

Am an evader.

Going to sleep now....

Phil

(Oh, by the way, did I mention my attitude toward whether or not Ayn Rand took stimulants or speed to write through the night or whether Barbara Branden had a smoking relapse after recommending a book that helped her break the habit? I don't give a flying #@$% ... )

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 143

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 7:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now, now, Linz, bear in mind what many of my critics remind me -- even though I repeatedly acknowledge it in the book -- many of the specific allegations that Ms. Branden makes may be the result of psychological distortions, not overt dishonesty, no matter what their nature or suspicious origins.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 144

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On the similarity between the O'Connor and Linz allegations, I am reminded of the adage: "Character is destiny."

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 145

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

She chose to leave SOLO.  She chose to make it as damaging as she could.  She chose to violate our wishes.  She chose to create a conflict of interest between herself and SOLO.  And you have the audacity to say we owe her a forum?

Newsflash!  Barbara left SOLO.  When told it was unnecessary and she could remain, she still left.  She had every chance to change her mind.  And now she spits in our faces while violating our property rights.  She hurls insults at us through other people's accounts.  And you think it's bad policy to not let her?  Unbelievable!  The king of benevolence, who goes on and on about how we need to stop people from being unpleasant, thinks we should make an exception for Barbara.  You don't care that she's malicious and rude, or that she's violating our rights in the process.

And on top of all this, you can't even read my own post.  I said she's not allowed to post, either herself or through others.  You've gone and interpreted that as nobody is allowed to mention her (or in your PPS, allowed to mention her future works).  Bullshit.  If you're going to struggle to misunderstand, don't expect me to take you seriously.


Post 146

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 9:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> " [1] we need to stop people from being unpleasant...[2] [You]interpreted that as nobody is allowed to mention her"

Joe, neither of these is exactly what I said. The exact wording or qualification is important.

> "If you're going to struggle to misunderstand".

Nor is this fair, because it hints at or implies deliberate intention to not know or evasion on my part.

> "don't expect me to take you seriously."

Always your privilege and choice. End of discussion.


(Edited by Philip Coates
on 9/11, 9:58pm)


Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 147

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is everybody having fun all of a sudden?

Where's the music?

I continue to hold loyalty to Barbara (btw - she is not writing e-mails to me at the present - so this is solely a personal decision and I do not foresee it changing, even if she should request me to).

I have respected the position of the owners of this site and have not transmitted messages from Barbara, yet I defend her. Note to Phil - that is how you do it. I even received a "salute" from Linz for my posture, which is one more indication to me of his big heart.

I believe that Barbara should come back to Solo. Joe and Linz have stated clearly that all she needs to do is say that she wants to come back. She will not do so. Since the call is hers, one can only speculate as to why. Some say that she is malicious (and there is quite a silly victory dance going on all of a sudden). Another reason could be that her feelings are hurt. Another might be that she is furious for her own reasons. Regardless of what they are, we can only speculate for now. However, my view is that the place to discuss all this is here on Solo, out in the open.

I feel  bit alone right now, but that is nothing new in my life. I will not let this whole affair turn into a Barbara bash-bash party without speaking up.

I fully understand Joe's anger as administrator - and he has restricted his commentary on her character to her behavior on the posting issue. I highly respect that, although I do not see the malice he does (I see hurt, anger, misguided intentions, maybe, but not malice). Anyway, that is one class of dealing with this issue - the high road.

Another animal altogether is this booze bottles as painting instruments thing.

This whole approach is what I find flawed with Valliant and Casey. They are not content to try to prove their point, which is the hearsay nature of the evidence about Frank's drinking (and also the nature of the "proof" of their side - pure hearsay). No. They want us to believe that he used empty booze bottles to paint with on top of everything.

Dayaamm!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

How many bottles of thinner did he actually need? And does oil and acrylic paint store well for easy use in booze bottles? What happened to the booze? Did he paint with that too? And, most of all, where did he shove his canvases for storage? (Ahhh, the possibilities swim before my eyes...)

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

How can I ever take these guys seriously? When they start sounding like they might have some kind of point, they come out with this kind of shit. I know I am not alone in this evaluation either.

Is this to be the new face of Solo - what it is now to become?

Pure silliness instead of search for truth?

Come on guys. There are real issues to deal with.

I want to discuss some of them, but the level has to get a bit higher than painting with empty booze bottles. (Look at the long, detailed posts on how "rational" it is to paint with booze bottles! LOLOLOLOLOL - Pomo Pomo Pomo Pomo Pomo - I can't stop laughing...)

I heard somewhere that Objectivism is a philosophy of reason...

Michael

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 148

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil wrote:

> "If you're going to struggle to misunderstand".

Nor is this fair, because it hints at or implies deliberate intention to not know or evasion on my part.

 
I see, but you're allowed to call Jeff Perren a rationalist over on the NOLA thread? Calling someone a "rationalist" is criticizing their thinking error, but calling them an "evader" is an unfair insult?


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 149

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They want us to believe that he used empty booze bottles to paint with on top of everything.
I never got the impression that Valliant is making the strong claim that Frank certainly used the bottles for painting.  I think this is just being pointed out as one possibility.  It sounds conceivable to me, and Casey's example from Google makes it seem more conceivable to me.  Another, different possibility I've heard Valliant mention is just that over many years of non-alcoholic drinking a certain amount of bottles just happened to accumulate.  It's my impression that Valliant's just saying there are some other possible explanations for why the bottles were there.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 150

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James wrote,

"Jonathan, you have the logical onus issue backwards. It is those who ridicule the very idea that O'Connor could have ever used such bottles in any way in his work who have the laboring oar."
I agree that the discovery of rows of liquor bottles in Frank's studio doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he drank heavily, just as I would agree that finding a bong in an apartment wouldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole tenant used drugs. In fact, perhaps my old classmate's mother wasn't gullible after all, but was very logical and legalistic in adhering to high standards of evidence when accepting her son's story about using a bong to boil down linseed oil. Perhaps she recognized that the onus was on her, and that she couldn't demonstrate that her son had never used it to do so.

"The alleged discovery of bottles in O'Connor's studio is weak circumstantial evidence in any event, since we are forced to speculate to a significant degree as to their origins, various types, and uses generally."
"Alleged discovery"? Are you now claiming that Peikoff may have lied about the existence of the bottles, or that he accepted, without proof, the statements of others as to their existence and then concocted his explanation without knowing for certain that the bottles existed or that Frank actually used them to mix paints?

"That it is proof that they had all contained alcohol which had all been consumed by O'Connor in the recent past is quite a leap, in any case. Whatever one's definition of 'alcoholism,' I think we all should expect a different quality of evidence than this for it."
And I have no doubt that in the event that you would catch your children with a duffle bag full of bongs, rolling papers, lighters, syringes, burnt spoons, mirrors, razor blades, baggies and portable weighing balances, you would extend to them the same legally-minded leeway. "Oh, all this stuff is for a science fair project," I can hear you saying to them, "Well then best of luck, children!"

J



Post 151

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Danial,

With all due respect, bullshit.

They are being silly. period. Whitewash mentality.

Reminds me of a police report in Brazil during the military dictatorship stating that a guy who was shot in the head 6 times died by suicide. Yeah, it's possible, maybe. You really gotta want to kill yourself.

Do you know anything at all about painting? Or just speculating to a silly extent like they are? You can buy that level of crap. I won't.

(And that doesn't mean that I agree with ANYBODY'S appraisal of Frank. It's all hearsay on all sides, anyway. Valliant does not mention this much, but HIS SIDE also is HEARSAY - nothing more. He compounds the weakness with speculations about painting with empty booze bottles. Gimme a break! What could have been a serious rebuttal turns into pure crap.)

I long for a bit more seriousness in this discussion.

Michael

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 152

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK, in your earlier post it sounded like you were saying that Valliant's making a stronger claim than he really is.

I was only pointing out that Valliant's claim was weaker than what it sounded like you were saying it was.  Valliant doesn't want us to believe that Frank used the empty bottles to paint with, as you had said; he only wants us to believe that this is one possibility among several possible explanations for why those bottles were there.  That's different.

Your long laughter and the "silly" and "bullshit" stuff are coming off to me as the argument from intimidation.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 153

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Because of the level of antagonism involved, I must support Joe's policy regarding Barbara Branden. I was so involved with the issue under discussion I put up Barbara's emails to me without deleting the last paragraph in the first one as I should have. That at the time was my understanding of the policy regarding her. If I had done that though, Joe would still have objected for the reasons he gave. In other words, the restrictions are tighter than I thought. Barbara's biggest mistake was having David Brown (got the name right?) put up her blocked "Drooling Beast" post in the "Drooling Beast" thread. She was absolutely wrong to do that and it left her without a leg to stand on.

But nothing of this makes the Valliant crowd right about Valliant's thesis about what a liar the Brandens are and how much damage they have done to Objectivism because of a biography and a memoir that didn't sanitize Ayn Rand, but tried to present her as a human being in human relationships. Nathaniel's memoir was self-serving, yes, but a memoir is always just that. It doesn't mean that there was an intended gross misrepresentation of Ayn Rand or that it lacked its significant value. Barbara's biography was written out of love for Ayn Rand, whatever mistakes one might be able to distill out of its pages. Put a blowtorch on any biography and something will fall out of it dead. That includes my grandfather's (Irving Brant's) biography of James Madison.

Read James Valliant's book "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics," yes, I am recomending it, then read or reread Barbara's biography "The Passion of Ayn Rand." Consider the tone, the focus, the perspective and the grace or lack thereof. A case can be made that Nathaniel's "Judgment Day" had a lot of unacknowledged anger for Ayn Rand (he had been through love and hell with that woman), but I don't see how that that was Barbara's case. Barbara said to me __________ and _______________ in a just received eMail. Since I can't quote or paraphrase her even, let me do something else that Joe said I could do.

"The subject she most enjoyed during her high school years, the one subject  of which she never tired, was mathematics. 'My mathematics teacher was delighted with me, When I graduated he said, 'It will be a crime if you don't go into mathematics.' I said only, 'That's not enough of a career.' I felt that it was too abstract, it had nothing to do with actual life. I loved it, but I didn't intend to be an engineer or to go into any applied profession, and to study mathematics as such seemed too ivory tower, too purposeless--and I would so today.' Mathematics, she thought, was a method.
Like logic, it was an invaluable tool, but it was a means to an end in itself. She wanted an activity that, while drawing on her theoretical capacity, would unite theory and its practical application. That desire was an essential element in the continuing appeal that fiction held for her: fiction made possible the integration of wide abstract principles and their direct expression in and application to man's life. She wanted to define a moral ideal, to present her kind of man--and to project, through fiction, the living reality of that ideal. She wanted to project it, using as her tool the precise, unsentimental mind of a mathematician."

THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, page 35.

I just opened the book and started quoting the above. There are many Objectivists today who have never experienced Ayn Rand first-hand, unlike myself and Barbara Branden and still quite a few others. Would it be a value to them to rid the earth of her biography as if it had never been written? What would you have left if so? Even Nathaniel Branden's memoir? Would you say as the Valliant crowd is wont to say, "SHUT UP BARBARA AND NATHANIEL BRANDEN! WE DON'T NEED YOUR LYING LIES!"?

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/11, 11:55pm)

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/12, 12:01am)

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/12, 12:06am)

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/12, 12:12am)

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/12, 12:54am)

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/12, 4:38pm)


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 154

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 12:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel,

Not argument from intimidation. Just tired of the bullshit and hairsplitting.

When a "possibility" in a serious discussion reaches the level of using empty booze bottles to deny drinking and state instead that they are instruments for painting, this deserves all the hooting and foul language it garners. What do these guys want to prove anyway? The hearsay was already established.

This is pure wanking.

I seek real ideas about real issues. Even more. About important issues, which this is not.

Who can take this crap seriously except those with a Randroid bent?

I can't.

Sorry if that intimidates you. Not my intention.

Do you have anything important on your mind we can talk about? Anything at all except an in-depth analysis of this "possibility"?

Michael


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 155

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 12:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry if that intimidates you.

Of course that doesn't intimidate me.  What kind of weakling coward would I be if I were actually intimidated by anything anyone said on an internet posting board.

Do you have anything important on your mind we can talk about? Anything at all except an in-depth analysis of this "possibility"?
I've never offered an in-depth analysis of this possibility; the purpose of my post was to clarify Valliant's position, which I thought had been stated incorrectly.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 156

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 6:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,
I don't believe for a second Drooling Beast was written out of benevolent motives.
No it wasn't.  But it did give you an opportunity to act benevolently.  You let your erstwhile friends deliver the worst blow they could to you, yet gave them the same benefit of the doubt to come back and let bygones be bygones that they had denied to you.  You also gave all of us your confidence that we would see this article for what it was.  Even an objective newbie to the forum, like myself, could see the injustice of "The Drooling Beast" without knowing the personalities involved.

You may have lost the camraderie of two friends, Linz, but benevolence, rough-edged or otherwise, has shined here.  You let them make the choice to stay or move on, and as snakes in the grass are wont to do, they moved on to darker places.

Andy


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 157

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 7:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan, I only suggest that there may have been more than one use or purpose (or origin) to the bottles. (As in other artist studios I've seen.)

And, once more: the life of Ayn Rand is less important than her ideas. This does not mean that her biography is unimportant.


(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/12, 7:25am)


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 158

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant, you wrote:
But nothing of this makes the Valliant crowd right about Valliant's thesis about what a liar the Brandens are and how much damage they have done to Objectivism because of a biography and a memoir that didn't sanitize Ayn Rand, but tried to present her as a human being in human relationships.
Bravo. I am one also who will not go along with intellectual sanitizing (which has extended to contamination, actually - see the booze bottle issue).

Please do not infringe the Solo policies any longer in you posts, but please do not shrug. The truth matters - it is objective - it is not to be twisted and distorted for any reason whatsoever. We can help keep that focus amid others who maintain that the Branden works are "monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents" (PARC , p. 6).

Valliant published statements like that, then states here on this thread:
... many of the specific allegations that Ms. Branden makes may be the result of psychological distortions, not overt dishonesty...
This is a very insidious propaganda technique. It implies objectivity, but it is a smear technique. He states clearly that she is dishonest (and he is wrong), but he will try to say in other places that MAYBE she isn't, so he can come off as objective.

I vastly prefer the honest approach of "saying what you mean and meaning what you say." In this present paragraph, I speak for the spirit of Solo since it is written thus in the Credo (but underneath it all, I actually speak for myself as my thinking coincides with that Credo).

I fully agree with Andy that Linz and Joe exercised benevolence in their acts - real benevolence - (but Linz not always in his rhetoric, thank goodness - you can call Linz anything, but boring is not one of them). However, this does not mean that I agree with the "snakes in the grass" routine. This is Linz's house, not theirs. There was a huge misunderstanding and lots of acrimony. The guests decided not to return. They stayed home. That is not slinking off like snakes in the grass.

Those pot shots through other posters thing was a complete tactical blunder and just plain bad manners in relation to the owners of the site (violation of property rights is technically correct, I suppose, but it really stretches the concept for me on a public e-mail forum - I see it as lack of good taste), but that still is not a potion for snake metamorphosis - heroine to snake in one instant.

I won't buy it.

They are in their own house right now and anyone at all can e-mail them (their e-mails are available on their profiles). Very few from the "outraged" side of Solo have, from what I have seen. Why not write them and try to convince them of something? I know I have. Does that mean that Linz & Co. are also snakes in the grass slinking off from them? Hardly.

(Why don't you, Andy, write to Barbara and ask why she is being a "snake in the grass"? You don't like the turf's owner in that case? It's easier and safer over here, isn't it?)

When people fall out, they rarely visit each other. They do stupid things sometimes, especially if the friendship is deep. Those are simple facts and easy enough for anyone to understand.

So "snakes in the grass" is just more smear stuff.

Once again I must hold up Joe's arguments as the correct approach. He sticks to the facts, evaluates those, and does not propose the absurd. I can disagree with the harshness of his evaluation, but I cannot refute his facts. And there is nothing absurd at all to talk about.

btw - A note to James Valliant. Now the story is that you personally have seen artists using booze bottles to paint with? I thought that pearl of Pomo technique came from Peikoff (or the housekeeper as stated in your book). Sounds like you're grasping at straws now (er... booze bottles).

Give it up. You have a strong case with the hearsay nature of the account (despite the rebuttal also being hearsay). You are undermining your own arguments by making them silly.

Michael

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 159

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 8:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I once took a pee in a booze bottle. Did Peikoff ever say there was pee in the bottles? Oh.
Did he ever say that there was paint, dye, thinner, anything in them? Oh. Just plain old empty booze bottles, then.

Let’s keep trying anyway. Hey, I got one already! Did the roof leak?

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.