|I will be replying on SOLOPassion in a little while.|
Allegations of "cutting and running" are made in way too facile a manner on these boards. My policy is to refrain from allegations of dodging an issue unless the poster simply drops out of sight (without a reasonable alternative explanation), or brings up red herrings, or keeps right on posting and never responds to the issue in a substantive way. I am aware that thoughtful posts often take time to prepare.
As for zealots and frothing, read the posts in the thread on Peter Cresswell's essay on SOLOPassion, or the thread in response to my essay on charges of pseudo-scholarship--and tell me how you would describe some of them.
John Newnham's quotation from Rand is of course crucial to the closed vs. open-system debate (as is the even more strongly worded variant now published in Ayn Rand Answers). What would it mean, though, for anyone alive today to keep in strict compliance with that dictum? Can the people who write for the Ayn Rand Institute actually comply with it?
To be continued...
PS. John, your apology is gratefully accepted.
PPS. Phil--you and I probably aren't going to end up in full agreement about ARI and its institutional culture. I know of good scholars and decent folks at ARI. I do wonder sometimes whether they ever try to take the frothers and the pit bulls aside and counsel them to cool their jets. Of course, maybe some do and they get the same response you most often get, when you remind other posters to be civil :-(
(Edited by Robert Campbell on 4/07, 12:33pm)
(Edited by Robert Campbell on 4/07, 12:41pm)