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 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

Barbaraite

Gotta nice ring to it. Yep. I like it. Fits me like a custom made shoe ...

Michael

Is there any truth to the rumor that you called yourself a "Barbarian" until you learned its undesirable connotation?

NH




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert and Nathan - LOLOLOLOLOL...

I guess it's a Brazilian thing. Down there if you exclaim, "É bárbaro!", you are saying "That's fantastic!"

And Barbaraite sounds a whole lot better than Babsite, that's for sure.

Back to the cookout at the court. Let's see what other chunks of tasty morsels she will serve up at her barbaracue.

Almost finished staking out the intellectual grounds with barbara'd wire.

(Dayamm! I give up. I simply can't beat that Barbarian crack, Robert. LOLOLOLOL...)

Michael




Post 22

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:
(Dayamm! I give up. I simply can't beat that Barbarian crack, Robert. LOLOLOLOL...)
I actually posted my Barbarian crack at EXACTLY the same time as Robert, in Einsteinian space-time, without having seen his. Honest.

But I notice his was posted four minutes before mine. You know what they say about the 'New York minute.'

Science has no explanation for such things.

NH




Post 23

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 4:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill: "After all you were in Brazil when all this was going on.  Sometimes I wish I had been too. "

YOU wish it?!

OK, Brant, my mind is purged.

Thanks for the information, Nathan. I'm rushing right to the gym.

Robert, "Barbarians" is wonderful Except "followers" are about the last thing in the world I want.

Barbara




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You guys are a freakin' riot. Specially you, Bidinotto.

I've created an account at SOLO. Not sure what took me so long. Look forward to reading more from you guys.

More neo than barbarian,

Joshua




Post 25

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joshua!

It's great to see you here, my friend. 

Whatever you do, do NOT look at the Food board.  Nothing to see there, nothing at all.  The Food and Foreplay thread is merely tongue-in-cheek.  As the editor of the Atlasphere, I would never engage in such reprehensible activities as sexual innuendo, racy language, or anything less than completely wholesome.

Oh, and 4th of July is completely a ruse.  I was put up to it by Jason Dixon, an incorrigible creature.

:)

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 6/06, 5:46pm)




Post 26

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Welcome, Joshua!

And dear RRRRRegina, regarding,

Jason Dixon, an incorrigible creature

For what higher honor could I ask?




Post 27

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 9:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Many thanks Barbara! Looking forward to future columns.



Post 28

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 12:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara, this column of yours will be a big hit. Let me know if you need a jester.




Post 29

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 12:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Lance: " Let me know if you need a jester."

Don't you read Solo posts? I have dozens of them.

Welcome, Joshua. You're going to have a very good time. And do believe Jennifer: there's nothing to see on the Food board -- certainly nothing from Jennifer that's less than coy and demure.

Barbara




Post 30

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 5:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
0 :)



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi,

It is an honour to be in the company of such eminent thinkers such as Barbara Branden and Jennifer Iannolo :)




Post 32

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Apropos Barbara's brief discussion of rights here is Ayn Rand from The Virtue of Selfishness:

     A "right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) (Italics in original.)

I don't think Miss Rand here or anywhere else has actually defined a "right." What we have is descriptive material, and it may be enough. I contend that the first sentence quoted above only appears to be a proper definition--that it beats around the essence without getting into it.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 6/07, 11:41pm)




Post 33

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is an honour to be in the company of such eminent thinkers such as Barbara Branden and Jennifer Iannolo :)

Oh my.  Dave, your words are very kind, and I am honored to be considered in such esteemed company. 

Though I hope to one day be the world's most eminent food philosopher, I am now but a lady-in-waiting to the level of thinker that is Barbara Branden.




Post 34

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 12:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Okay, Brant, I've got your question.

Barbara



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 2:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Your welcome Jennifer.

Your website really hits the spot. I want to big it up :)

Gastronomic Meditations




Post 36

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know if this is the right way to submit, but I have a historical question for Barbara Branden: when/how did the word "Objectivism" originate in connection with Rand's ideas?  In particular, did it come from Hayek's use of the word in "The Counter-Revolution of Science" in 1955?

Peter




Post 37

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 9:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Dave.  :)  The new issue will be live in a day or so.

(Dave is not on my payroll.)




Post 38

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 10:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara writes:

Some time after the publication of Passion, I received a letter from the lawyer of Leonard Peikoff, the heir to Rand’s estate. The lawyer stated that I was to turn over my tapes to Peikoff and relinquish my copyright, or he would sue me for ownership. The interviews, he said, rightfully were the possession of the Estate of Ayn Rand, and hence Peikoff’s property as the heir to that estate. This was utter nonsense; I refused, and hired a copyright lawyer. Over the next months, as briefs and discussions mounted in number, my bills also mounted, although my lawyer charged me less than his usual fee. When I had spent $25,000, I asked him what it would cost me during the next period before we presented our case to the court. “About $100,000,” he answered. This was impossible for me. I had no alternative but to agree to Peikoff’s demands.
I really don't understand this answer. The American legal system seems to support Barbara's rights completely. Ayn Rand must have given hundreds of recorded interviews in her time. Does Peikoff lay claim to all of them? Or any of them? Or is it just Barbara's? As far as I can tell, Peikoff has no legal right to any. Considering what an unregenerate lowlife he is, he certainly has no moral right.

Isn't it universally understood that when someone gives an interview to someone else that this is an act of generosity or property-transfer in which a type of gift is given to the interviewer i.e. the rights to the answers, discussion, and general material? Can Peikoff somehow sue the estate of Johnny Carson to get the copies and rights to those three 1967 Tonight Show interviews? This seems bizarre to me.

It's also my understanding that when it comes to establishing rightful ownership, possession is 90% of the case. Those tapes were in the possession of Barbara for decades and thus are evidently not the property of Rand, Peikoff, Monty Python, or anyone else. (In addition, Barbara could have easily said she lost or destroyed the tapes. Would've served him right. I would've done it -- bet on it. ;-))

In the end, I don't understand how Barbara couldn't have won this case with no lawyer and no legal expense. It seems to be an open-and-shut case. On what basis -- other than personal malevolence and moral depravity -- does Peikoff even dare to file such a legal claim?




Post 39

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 11:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know if you've ever had to go through any vicious legal battles, Andre, but the state of the law is so fucked up nowadays that anyone with the financial means can bankrupt anyone else through the most frivolous of lawsuits. My family was victim to this twice -- from the same lowlife scum (who also happened to be close family, whose financial means were derived from a substantial amount of money that they had stolen from us over several years) -- specifically, my mother and grandfather. The experience was thoroughly heartbreaking and backbreaking to them. All because there is no clause (or if there is one, which I believe there is, it hasn't been enacted) that would allow a judge to force the plaintiffs of a frivolous lawsuit to pay the legal expenses of the defendant.

Had I been sufficiently wealthy and existent at the time, I would've contributed to Barbara's defense fund to make sure that Peikoff would've never gotten away with using Ayn Rand's money for such depraved legal bullying. In fact, I'm disappointed that wealthy Objectivists didn't step up and do so at the time. The only way to deal with such degeneracy is to never let it win.

Peikoff almost got his comeuppance when the Library of Congress threatened to sue him for $1.1 million for lying about the extent of his donation to them. Alas, they did not go through with the suit. Peikoff, of course, turned the whole affair into a heroic narrative positing himself as Galt; he forced them to come to his house to extract the manuscript papers that he stole, and filmed the whole thing. As my friend Stephen said: "Too bad they didn't tie him to an electric chair."

Alec    




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.