RoR: Forum

In my opinion the extrapolation you have made from the underlying principles of what Rand wrote is correct. However, this irks the ever living hell out of me. You have not posted this as an interesting exercise in wording to illustrate a point, you have posted it as a direct quote. It is not. Rand didn't say this in the work given(even if its true). Manfred F. Schieder said it by way of heavily borrowing from another's text and making minute alterations. YOU are the one quoted here.

Post 1

Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 2:44pm

I agree. This is not a quote of Rand. Quotes posted here have a strange tendency of showing up in other venues such as Wikipedia, and it should be removed.

Post 2

Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 4:18pm

Deleted

Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 4:36pm

I've corrected the attribution. Please be more careful.

Post 4

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 7:50am

To Ryan Keith Roper and Ted Keer: Sorry, but both of you should make your homework, for the quote IS from Rand's article "Collectivized Ethics" and you can read it for yourself on page 82 of the paperback edition (Copyright 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 - Ayn Rand and The Objectivist Newsletter Inc., published by "A Signet Book from New American Library"). I also have a newer, hard-cover edition (on page 106, also from The New American Library, Inc.) and, of course, also as it was originally published in the January 1963 issue of "The Objectivist Newsletter".

All I've done and properly called the reader's attention to it, was to state, as an introductory remark: "What follows is from Ayn Rand's article "Collectivized Ethics". Just change "aged" by "poor", as Obama insists his health-care "program" is prepared for, and Rand's words become totally actualized." The rest IS from Rand herself.

I have translated this book myself into Spanish and published its first foreign language edition in 1985 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, so I KNOW what I'm talking about. (The newly translated edition - 2006 by Grito Sagrado - of course contains the same paragraph, for we respect every little - to us every big - word that Rand ever said or wrote). I would never - NEVER - pass the words of another writer/thinker, not even if he were a Communist or anything else (the Bible, for example), as mine. It's simply intellectual honesty!!

So, BEFORE STATING ANYTHING WHERE YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG, READ THE TEXT FROM WHERE IT COMES FROM. That's the least you can do, to not drop a clanger!!!

Post 5

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 8:03am

Teresa: Please change the author's name of the quote back to the original "Ayn Rand" and state the title of the article from where it was taken, for the quote is by no means mine - see my reply to Ryan Keith Roper and Ted Keer - since it comes from Ayn Rand's article (as originally mentioned). All I did, as I warned the reader, was to call his attention to read "poor" instead of the original "aged" to which Rand referred (which, of course, doesn't change the sense of the quote): I'm very sorry, Teresa, but you too should make your homework. Tell me, is there really not ONE copy of Rand's works around you?? It was all merely a matter of having a look at Rand's book before unduly changing anything - worst of all, changing the quote's author!

What IS correct is that I ADDED the quote to the pages of "Rebirth of Reason". But that was correct from the very beginning!

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 9/14, 8:07am)

Post 6

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:06am

Well, this certainly seems to have struck a nerve. I never said that Rand didn't write the original passage. I said that you made alterations to the original passage and continued to attribute it to Rand. That is exactly what you said that you did. A quote that "I changed a little, but told you so its ok." isn't a quote. You don't attribute something as a quote if you altered it, thats just simple intellectual honesty as well.

I've stopped myself from posting the definition of quote since you've described yourself as some kind of expert in the field of transcription. So you should know that if you change it it isn't a quote. It was a sloppy attribution and before you go adversarial and spam the caps lock take a second to think that it may not be worth getting emotional over.

Oh, and you wrote the first two lines of text completely and you've attributed that to Rand as well.

Post 7

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:14am

I do apologize in part, Manfred. But you are still in the wrong and the text is still inappropriate as it stands.

I was confused by your introduction, it does make it sound as if you had rewritten Rand, but I should have checked her text.

But I would still suggest that a quote is simply that, a quote, not a quote with an argumentative preface.

Perhaps you could simply quote her, and then add your own remarks in a separate post afterwards?

Until then it is incorrect to have this post labeled as a quote and to attribute it to Ayn Rand. Rand herself did not say "What follows is from Ayn Rand's article "Collectivized Ethics". Just change "aged" by "poor", as Obama insists his health-care "program" is prepared for, and Rand's words become totally actualized:" Academic practice allows you to make a brief contextual correction to a quote like a change in spelling, punctuation, capitalization or disambiguation of a pronoun - and this is done using [brackets] to mark the editorial change. But what you have done is to insinuate your own unbracketed remarks in a way that is both confusing to the reader and highly dubious intellectually.

You can bet that Rand would have screamed bloody murder at what you have done here.

As it stands, what you have posted is not a quote of Rand but a quote of yourself commenting on a quote of Rand.

It should either be reattributed to yourself, your comments be removed leaving only Rand's words, or it should be posted in some other forum than quotes.

Post 8

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:20am

No, Ryan, I did not change Rand's quote to look as if it were mine. It's just that - please look at the only possibility you have under "Contribute Content" - Add a Quote - Rebirth of Reason offers no other possibility to signal to the reader that he should be aware that he, the reader, has to change one word or so in a given quote. This is also the reason why I had to add "(of such a grand scale public goal)" for there is no other possibility to call the reader's attention to the paragraph written by Rand foregoing the quote itself. Blame it on RoR for not allowing to add a comment previous to the quote itself. Just look at the "Contribute Content" form and you'll see that there is just a one line display available and that's that, not the space available for when you want to add an article. So it's either using just that one line or not mentioning the quote at all. Surely those who wrote the program should have thought of adding a possibility to mention a comment, but they didn't. As I just said: that's that.

Post 9

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:42am

I'm just going to brainstorm this.

Step one: Post the quote as a quote. Without alteration. Attribute it to the author.
Step two: Click the "Discuss this quote" link.
Step three: Make the point you made within the context of a discussion about the quote, which is what you were doing in the first place.

Blaming the system is a bit of a cop out. "Imperfect systems" don't give license to be misleading, even unintentionally and with a completely solid point.

Post 10

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 4:24pm

Manfred, adding your own ideas to Rand's won't stand as an honest quote from Rand.

You aren't linking to a source, which would verify your claim.

Please leave it as it is, or I'll recommend that you be moderated.

You must understand, intellectuals, students, teachers, and scholars from all over the world get ideas and quotes from this site. I can't have you adding your own words to things Rand said, and then claim it came from Rand.

Don't touch it.

Post 11

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 4:44pm

"Quotes" are to be used as just that QUOTES. They aren't to be used for editorializing, making argument, introducing your own thoughts regarding a quote from someone else, starting a fight, or anything other than to give a word for word quotation with a linked citation for verification and further study.

Is that clear?

If you want to make a comment about a quote you submit, use the forum for that quote.

Another member brought this to my attention. Things posted on the front page here sometimes end up as source material for other popular sites, with a link back to this one. Please don't make us look sloppy or sophomoric, Manfred. Thanks.

You're free to properly edit the quote to remove yourself from the context, then add Rand's name as the author, but after your stubborn insistence to include yourself, I'll be forced to verify pretty much everything you submit from now on. Thanks for the extra work, Manfred.

I'm happy to remove your own words from the quote, re-attribute it to Rand, and call it a day. It's up to you.

Post 12

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 6:11pm

Manifred, I understand your intention, but there is a better way to use the quote mechanism.

Take a look at this quote I put up a while back.

I created the quote which has no information that is mine, and then after that was up, I went to RoR's front page and created the first post to discuss the quote I'd put up. I almost always do that so that people have some context and a bit of review so they can decide whether or not to waste their time.

In that first post I am free to extrapolate, agree, disagree, suggest better wordings, or anything else. The RoR Quote mechanism automatically throws quote marks around the text which is part of the problem with your usage.

Post 13

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:05pm

I appreciated Manfred's point and had no trouble understanding which part of his posting was the quote by Ayn Rand. I can't see how anyone after a careful reading of that post could misunderstand it and mis-attribute Manfred's words to Ayn Rand. It's likely that the readers of Manfred's translations of Ayn Rand number in the millions. The response to a technical posting error was reactive, crude and thoughtless.

Post 14

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 2:09am

Steve and Mike: Steve, thank you for your suggestion and showing the way how should I proceed on quotes the next time. As you mention, the RoR Quote mechanism, that automatically throws quote marks around the text, produced the problem with my way of using it. I had never the intention of misleading or troubling anybody.

Further on Mike clearly read the way I had included my "warning" to change "poor" for "aged". Mike, as well as Steve, also clearly understood that I started from a deeply held conviction of mine: the understanding that the RoR community is made of people that understand what is meant, that a word to the wise is enough. I've always appreciated this and always will do, which is also the reason why I appreciate RoR so much to spread my articles as widely as possible, just as Mike says. I also translate my articles into Spanish and, sometimes, German, and they are published by webs such as a subsidiary of the Ludwig von Mises Institute [USA] and further ones in Latin America, which does a lot of good to spread Objectivism and the ideas of liberty.

Should Teresa or somebody else from the RoR's staff want to feel forced to verify everything I submit from now on, so be it. I write articles since 1985 - when I was still living in Argentina - and NOBODY (no newspaper, no magazine, no web or blog) ever censored what I wrote. No problem with me should this be changed now at RoR. I will then just stop submitting articles to RoR, which I have always considered to be a great vehicle to promote Objectivism. I will be so sorry, but I just never accepted any censoring, even while I wrote on Objectivism and Liberty during the days of dictatorship in Argentina (and nobody came at that time to my home to shut my mouth).

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 9/15, 2:11am)

Post 15

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 3:41am

Not everyone reading quotes on the front page is throughly familiar with Rand. Manfred, the only one attempting censorship here is you.

Again, if you want to attribute the quote to Rand, remove your comments, and re-attribute it to her.

I received three complaints about your method of adding comment to Rand's quote. I agreed it was inappropriate. Why you're insisting on injecting yourself into the quote context is bewildering. There is no call to add your own thoughts to Rand's. That's what the forums are for.

How about if I took a quote from you, Manfred, posted it on the front page with my own little comment: "I had no idea that RoR was part of the Federal Government. It now practices censorship against some."

Would that be appropriate to the quote context?

Punctuation is specific to the language. It has meaning. You're trying to remove that meaning and include your own. The Quote gallery automatically includes quotation marks, which have a specific purpose. You want us to overlook that purpose, to sacrifice the meaning, for your benefit. It's inappropriate, Manfred, and violates the spirit of the Quote gallery.

Post 16

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 7:17am

Teresa: Please delete the whole quote, for: 1) Stating that it is my quote is untrue, for the quote belongs to Ayn Rand. I merely added an explanation to the reader that he should mentally replace "poor" for "aged", since Rand referred to the aged, though she could just as well had referred to the "poor", but if I had done so I would have corrupted Rands original wording. Further on, if I wouldn't have added (of such a grand scale public goal), nobody would have known to what Rand referred what she said, for I didn't mention all the preceding paragraphs from her article, and 2) I would have no problem if you added an explanation to any quote of mine, as long as it wouldn't be out of context (However, your comment that "I had no idea that RoR was part of the Federal Government, etc." would make no sense at all if placed preceding, ending or in the middle of any of my quotes, for it would be totally out of context.) My explanation, preceded Rand's quote and Rand's quote itself started after a colon and a single quotation mark. This was sufficient to tell the reader (Mike even went to the trouble of stating that he had no problem to understand what was meant) that NOW starts the quote, a procedure that is approved by the Webster's Style Manual. Rand's quotation is finished after an end point followed by a closing quotation mark that comes before the additional quotation mark that constitutes the usual final quotation mark used by the RoR Quote quotation mark.

Should you not be able to delete the quote, please let me know and I will do so. However, please inform me of how to proceed in this case for I wouldn't want, by so doing, to delete the comments in relation with the quote, since they belong to the readers that included them.

In view of this useless misunderstanding, I will refrain, as from now on, to add any quote that wouldn't come exclusively and directly from my own brain, i.e. I'll refrain from now on to add any "external" quote.

I rather doubt that there were many readers that didn't understand what I meant with my explanation preceding the quote, since there weren't any other protests but the ones by Ryan Keith Roper and Ted Keer.
(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 9/15, 7:45am)

Post 17

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 8:21am

Manfred, This is the craziest attempt to avoid correcting a technical error I've ever seen. I will say that your wording led me to believe that you had altered the quote within your greater quote. My fault. My comments regarding the issue with you attributing a quote you added analysis to solely to the original author still stand. The wording really threw me off.

As to asserting that Teresa is a liar. Thats just low. Especially considering everyone who disagreed with you in this post gave you the benefit of a doubt that this whole thing was an innocent technical error and not dishonesty. Thats more consideration than yourself or the posters that agreed with you seem willing to give anyone.

Post 18

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 3:18pm

My explanation, preceded Rand's quote and Rand's quote itself started after a colon and a single quotation mark.

Do you see the "quotation mark" at the very beginning of the passage below? Big, red marks? They're hard to miss. Then do you see the another pair of big red marks at the end? I rest my case. The whole damn thing looks like it comes from Rand, not a combination of Manfred and Rand. If you were submitting a quote from a conversation you had with Rand, that would be very different.

Refrain from adding your own comments to actual quote submissions. Aside from utter irrelevance, they're inappropriate to this site's design and intent. Sacrifice the vision others somewhere else, but don't do it here. The quote gallery wasn't designed for personal comments added to a quote. You've already insulted the owner by suggesting it's somehow his fault for not designing the site to meet your ends, instead of his.

What follows is from Ayn Rand's article "Collectivized Ethics". Just change "aged" by "poor", as Obama insists his health-care "program" is prepared for, and Rand's words become totally actualized: "'Medicare' is an example (of such a grand scale public goal). 'Isn't it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness? its advocates clamor. Considered out of context, the answer would be: yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And it is at this point that the mental processes of a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight - it's the good, isn't it? - it's not for myself, it's for others, it's for the public, for a helpless, ailing public... The fog hides such facts as the enslavement and therefore, the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice, and the sacrifice of the professional integrity, the freedom, the careers, the ambitions, the achievements, the happiness, the lives of the very men who are to provide that "desirable" goal - the doctors."

Mike was completely mistaken to encourage you, Manfred. You're wrong. I frankly don't care if you ever submit another word.

Post 19

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 10:41pm