I also think she makes it sound like having sex is the measurement of keeping romance alive.

I have also come to see that I must not have a full understanding of Objectivism, because it seems that I am mistaken that once a person has made a mistake and rectified it, that they are allowed to move on. I am very unclear as to what my next move should be. I have never read anything about a length of time that I should feel guilty after making a mistake. Is there some sort of guideline on this? It is amazing to me that after doing all I have done, I am looked upon as if I am still doing wrong. I ask honestly, when does that end?

I'm not in love with [my youngest daughter]. Nor with her two brothers or sister... I'm not in love with any of them.

But all that aside, I do think the author is right that we have to know the order of our values, and not sacrifice a higher for a lower. And we have to do what it takes to make our relationships thrive even with children. After all, we are living in the present.

To whoever said they didn’t think this was a big problem: it is. I see Mom’s all the time who have totally given themselves up in their relationship with their children. It isn’t just a problem with neglecting their romantic relationships, but with neglecting all their values. That doesn’t make a happy or healthy person. It makes a martyr, and it makes children riddled with guilt.

Nicole, you've done nothing morally wrong and have nothing to feel guilty about. You made an error, admitted your error and done more than is really necessary to correct your error.

As an example: while traveling, you accidentally shortchange a 7-11 clerk a dollar, complete your journey of 300 miles, and make the discovery of your error. Would you make any effort to correct the error? I don't think any rational person would expect you to go to any effort whatsoever, not even the 7-11 clerk or owners of the store. The action was unintended and the amount inconsequential.

This copyright issue is the same. Your action was without harmful intent and financially inconsequential. If the NYT were to pursue legal action, it would be irrational. If they were to pursue any kind of financial remuneration from you, they would be trying to take undue advantage of you, and you should neither agree nor offer to do so.

I believe that most likely you will never hear from the NYT. If anything, it is more likely that SOLO would be contacted, informed of the infringement and instructed to remove the article. But I doubt even that will happen.

Like all federal law, intellectual property law is convoluted and byzantine and the rules for the internet are still being written. I've had enough experience with both copyright law and large corporations to know that the best thing you can do now, regarding this issue, is absolutely nothing.

As I said previously, Nicole, you rock! Good luck with your exams and forthcoming nuptials with whomever the lucky guy is. :-)