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 9Page 16Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 320

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My husband, the adorable (and brave) Jim Valliant, wishes to inform his many fans (and others) that he has not lost interest in this discussion. His temporary absence has been occasioned by an unexpected trip to the hospital due to a serious flare-up of a nearly life-long medical condition. He assures me that he will return very soon! (Well, friends, as his wife, we'll just have to see about how soon.)

Linz: he will bring a note when he next returns to school.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 321

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Isn't that precious?  And it's a "discussion" again, too.

Just when I was all ready to be civilized and substantive and explain his book to him...


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 322

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ms. Valliant,

I hope your husband is feeling better soon, and that he will join us again here as he is able and time permits.

Robert Campbell


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 323

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Allen,

Nothing's preventing you from making your case here, even while Mr. Valliant is unable to participate.

I'm still interested in hearing what you have to say; I'm sure many other participants are, too.

When you cited Rand's salvo in the first issue of The Objectivist Forum, I certainly took your point: As far as Rand was concerned, it wasn't Objectivism unless she had personally vetted and approved it.  So anything said or written since March, 1982, cannot be Objectivism.  It doesn't matter who says or writes it, even if it's coming from the heir to her estate.  Hence the Ayn Rand Institute ought to announce that it is advocating Peikovianism and Hullianism and a bunch of other isms that aren't the same as Objectivism.

But that's a point I could have made, and that thousands of others could have made. 
And none of us knew Rand personally, or observed the dynamics of her Inner Circle.  Hence the disappointment.

Robert Campbell

(Edited by Robert Campbell
on 10/24, 11:58am)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 324

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

In response to your #305:

Is Objectivism a Religion? is long out of print, one of just two books by Albert Ellis that are not kept available by his institute.  It's very expensive to buy used, but copies are still in many libraries.

The public debate between Ellis and Nathaniel Branden, which took place in 1967, was indeed a fiasco.  According to Ellis's account in the book, the auditorium was packed with NBI folks, who cheered after virtually anything that Branden said.  Ellis also complained about Ayn Rand interrupting him while he was speaking.  Since his Rational Emotive Therapy lays great stress on the negative effects of anger, Ellis couldn't have been pleased with his own performance, in which he manifestly blew his cool (and the book remains decidedly angry in tone.)  In the end, I rather doubt that either Ellis or Branden wanted a tape of the proceedings released--and the tape that Ellis requested for his own use was edited, in the manner you described.

I am not a fan of Ellis's conception of self-esteem (he believes that the best policy is never to "rate" yourself at all).  In the book he attempts to refute Objectivism across the spectrum--on epistemological, ethical, and political points, as well as psychological and sociological ones. His epistemology is a form of logical positivism, which philosophers of science had largely taken apart by 1967.  And his confident assertions of the economic strength and stability of the Soviet Union would be sufficient cause for him never to want to republish the book.

However, around 1/4 of the book makes criticisms that I'm inclined to take seriously.  Among those that still deserve attention are Ellis's charges that Objectivism is sexually puritanical (to which Branden replied by defending Randian sexual psychology).  Looking back today on these exchanges, after Barbara Branden's biography and Nathaniel Branden's memoir and now Valliant's opus, the reader can only see irony after irony.

Robert Campbell


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 325

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reply to post 314

Michael,

I know that you have admitted what Nathaniel Branden did was wrong and have been virtuous enough to condemn it.  Your commitment to the truth and your own integrity require that. 

 

What I disagree with you about is the scope and breadth of Branden’s immorality and the level of scienter involved.  I think PARC reveals previously unknown insights into the relationship of Rand and Branden, from Rand’s point of view.  PARC also shows that the Brandens’ attempt to reveal the truth contained yet another cover-up. 

 

What I truly love about PARC is Rand’s notes and how consistently and with such great integrity that Rand applied her own ethics in a painful situation. From her notes we know that Rand believed NB had hurt her deeply, and more than anyone else ever had.  [PARC page 264]

 

I don’t find Branden’s affair, per se, to be immoral.  Branden had every right to seek his own long term happiness.  If Branden had only told Rand before beginning the affair, or at least soon after it began, then the issue would be between them.  If Rand could not accept it, that would be Rand’s own fault.  I think Rand’s notes in PARC make it clear that Rand could and would accept the end of the relationship, if it was ended honestly.

 

The duty of my love for another is my duty I “owe” to my own values and my own selfish interest.  I claim my highest values because I chose them.  They have no claim on me, other than that I chose them. 

 

I believe that a mere innocent mistake or error of fact has no significant moral implications.  More than that, even an Objectivist can have a moral lapse, by choosing not to think, or choosing not to think carefully.  An Objectivist can give in to a temporary whim or desire that is not in his long term self-interest.  I recognize the immorality of such temporary moral lapses, but quickly move on. As long as the person recognizes the immorality and takes steps to seek their long term best interest in the long run, I would still consider such a person an Objectivist.

 

I consider myself to be a committed Objectivist, but will not bore you with all the luggage from my past that I carry with me and my struggle to stay in focus and seek my long term selfish interest.  I remind myself that even Roark tore down part of one of his buildings to fix a mistake.

 

However, I feel quite differently when a person makes a long term well-considered choice to commit an immoral act.  The length and breadth of the act itself coupled with the importance of the mistake in that person’s own self-interest, is relevant to my opinion.

 

Nathaniel Branden made a conscious choice as to his conduct.  He chose dishonesty and deceit repeated that choice over a prolonged period of time.  He gave careful and full deliberation to choice to deceive Rand.  The deceit was not only prolonged, but the deceit was directed at Rand, who Branden had declared as his highest value, or at least among his highest value.  In addition Brandon had all the intellectual capacity, epistemology and philosophy to see his immorality and take steps to correct it; concepts he had learned from the very person he sought to deceive. 

 

And how is it possible that he has not thought about and clarified to himself his attitude toward me in all these years?  Ayn Rand as quoted in PARC page 263

 

Rather than correcting his immorality, Branden took intentional steps to prolong it.   As Rand’s notes make clear, he even sought “her help” in his deceit, asking for her assistance with his problem, while all the time lying about the nature of his problem and the nature of their relationship.. 

 

This is not a case in which Branden could have been unaware of the scope of his immorality.  Rand explicitly and expressly confronted him and over and over and over again as he sought to evade.  Rand's notes in PARC prove that point. 

 

When someone betrays his morality to such a degree he is immoral, and not an Objectivist.

 

A person who gives into a momentary impulse to steal, has committed a theft, which is immoral, but I would not necessarily call that person a thief.   However when a person makes deliberate plans to steal, numerous times, over many years, that person is a Thief.

 

If Rand were in the wrong, I would admit it.  It would be my love of myself and Rand’s own philosophy that would cause me to want to admit it.  Without truth, I can not reason, and without reason, I have no hope.  If I am wrong, I am grateful to anyone who points out my errors.

 

The Brandens are still alive.  PARC proves that there former statements (books and articles) contain falsehoods.  I keep waiting for them to correct the record.  I know that BB gave a general refutation, but she did not respond to any specific points.  

 

I wish Rand had written her own autobiography,  but Rand had no duty to me, nor do the Brandens owe me any duty.  I simply suggest their silence has not gone unnoticed.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 326

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reply to post 315

Robert,

I agree that Objectivism [MSK kindly corrected my use of a lowercase "o" and he was right.]  does not rely on Rand's personal morality.  Nor do I believe Pythagorous needed to be a mathematician for me to agree with his Pythagorean theory. 

If the concept of "perfection" is to have any useful meaning, it means what is humanly possible, not some Platonic concept. 

I require moral perfection from Objectivism.  I don't require any individual to do anything other than respect my rights.  I suggest that everyone has a moral duty to themselves to seek their own long term happiness, and therefore they should be an Objectivist.

I draw a large distinction between a temporary lapse and a well-considered decision to be immoral. However, both are immoral. 

I'm no Howard Roark or John Gault, but I strive to live by that morality because it is my own selfish interest.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 327

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 5:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dr. Campbell,

 

Actually, there is one thing “preventing me…” whether the ‘adorable’ and Valliant Jim is here or not:  my own word, that I would be back to post, upon only one condition.  That condition hasn’t happened; in fact, I got branded (with a _d_) as a lunatic for stating it, so technically, according to at least one of your members, I am not only in violation of my own terms, but here I am again looking for attention.  Since I am here, however –

 

 

Perhaps thousands of other folks could, even would, have made that specific point with that specific quote; but in this thread, of which I’ve now had a chance to read a bit more, I cannot find where anyone has, with or w/o the 1980 quote from TOF.  I find that remarkable, actually much more than remarkable, in light of my having been laughed at (and recommended for ejection) for using it.

 

Why?  Well, there is actually much more going on in that quote that just WHAT Objectivism is and who should or should not use the term.  There is the analogy to Marx, and the specific language AR chooses, “flight of fancy,” to name but two more points.  Also, there is the overall tone AR uses, which was characteristic of her in certain situations.  And several more points, all there to be seen and which I had hoped would be seen but apparently were not – by anyone in this group.

 

So what?  you might ask.  Because, each and every one of those points, and more, were ticked off to me one at a time by Anne Heller, in a conversation I had with her, perhaps one year ago (give or take a month).  Furthermore, Anne Heller had never seen any of that forward before I sent it to her.  What did that tell me about her as a biographer?  What should it be telling each and every reader of this post?  [I mention Anne Heller, because she couldn't get past the palace guard, yet she grasps features of Rand's writing immediately.  If she and I compare notes on Valliant's book, I feel certain she and I will have interpreted Rand's quoted entries in very much the same way, yet quite differently from how Mr. Valliant sees them.]

 

Please don’t say, “But we know all of that, already!  When, if ever, is Allen going to say anything that ALL OF US don’t already know?” 

 

That is precisely the point:  you don’t know.  Neither did I, not with full certainty, until I read and re-read that forward to the first issue of TOF, back in 1980.  But, there is plenty of evidence within the portion I quoted from TOF that puts paid to numerous interpretations made by Valliant of Rand's Journal entries.  Any long-standing member of this group should be able to make the connections without my help.

 

One more little point of interest:  I’ve encountered “Lysandra,” aka “Ellen Stuttle,” before.  “She” is a big fan of Nathaniel Branden – maybe even his “biggest fan.”  Lonnie Leonard may well have been in “her” ‘70/’71 pre-professional training course given by Allan Blumenthal.  But, I know for a fact that LL was already in NYC, with a private practice in place, during the same time frame that Albert Ellis “debated” Branden before a packed house.  The guy I shared an apartment with attended that “debate.”  He was also, before and long after the Ellis debacle, a patient of Lonnie Leonard’s, and my understanding was that Branden had talked Lonnie into coming to New York.

 

So, for now, I'll go back to waiting.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 328

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam-
Jody - you suggest, "Go and do a little research and find out who now has possession of those tapes and how they aquired them."

Sounds interesting, but I have other priorities - 3 tight deadlines this coming weekend. Could you post some URLs?
No problem, I had intended to do it last night, but at that time I did not have the time, so here is the story:
http://solohq.com/Articles/Branden/Holding_Court_-_June_6,_2005.shtml

Of course, since Barbara said it, by the recent logic here, that makes it ipso facto a seedy and malicious lie, so I'm sure I'll be attacked based upon that premise which I do not accept.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 329

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Allen,

What the FUCK are you talking about?

OUT with it, man!

DO it, or DON'T. You keep making vaporous promises of something to come and if you're not ashamed of your own inability to back them up by now I presume you must still have something to offer concerning your insider's wisdom about the real deal behind the events referenced in PARC.

EH?

(I hope I'm not conveniently scaring you away with my frustrated directness here. I promise to respect an honest argument with corresponding respect.)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 330

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 11:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Jody.

Had I been in Ms. Branden's position, I would have donated the original tapes to some reasonable repository - perhaps the Library of Congress - on condition of maintaining scholarly access. In any case, even now Barbara Branden has her copy, so she in a position to show where Valliant is wrong (if he is) - for example, that Ayn Rand did call her father "Fronz." Since both she and Valliant have access to the tapes, the issue can be decided on the evidence.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 331

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fahy,

Did someone make you master-of-ceremonies of this particular thread?  If so, they made an horrendous error in judgement.  I would be hard-pressed to recall anyone more obnoxious than you during my 15 years of posting on the Internet.  Nonetheless...

I don't think that I ever said, here or anywhere else, that I had any special, insider wisdom about the "real deal _behind_ the events discussed in PARC."  What I did say was that I was in New York before, during and after The Break, and that I personally knew many of the principals involved.  I_do_ have a certain amount of knowledge, however, which I gained by virtue of that fact. 

Someone on this board referred to me as a "pleebe" [as of the summer of 1968].  For the record, I was never a pleebe;  I arrived in New York as a protege of LP's, which is the only reason I was able to bypass a two-year patient waiting list and go directly into both private and group therapy with Allan Blumenthal [July, 1966].  I admit that I was hurting pretty badly at the time, but that did not make me ignorant of Objectivism, or oblivious to what Brant G. has already described as the tense atmosphere of NBI.  Dr. Reed should remember it as well, since his profile states that he, too, was there.

Brant has already told you that he attended lectures that would later become Ominous Parallels and that Peikoff announced his intentions for such a book at the end of that five-lecture series.  I helped research the material for that book, and I happen to know why it took so long to hit book store shelves, rather than LP's original time table of two years or less:  he let AR edit the book, an error which cost him his entire approach to what could have been a book with far broader appeal.

I will also say that it was from LP that I got an almost blow-by-blow description of the demise of NBI.  Even more revealing is that no one, at least not anyone I knew at the time, was so _gleeful_ over the downfall of the Brandens -- but LP certainly was, and it was obvious to me that more than money was involved, more than just "the writing on the wall."

There is much that I agree with, factually, in Valliant's book, and a great deal of interpretation with which I don't.  But is is obvious to me that even AR never understood Mr Branden, or never wanted to, which to me is the more likely explanation.  In my opinion, AR always heard what she wanted to hear and saw what she wanted to see.  I would give as evidence for that the lengthy quotation with which both Lynz and Valliant end their respective works.  Since Linz's is available, literally at the touch of a buttom, I strongly suggest that people re-read it carefully.  Note that the passage pertains to "youth."  And note, as well, the term "metaphysically right," used in the sense of a feeling, since the entire passage is really descriptive of sense of life issues.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no such _thing_; there is no empirical basis for the concept of "metaphysically right."  Reality does not make value judgements; existence just _is_, period.  Reality is neither right nor wrong, good or bad, for you or against you, benevolent or malevolent.  If you don't agree with what I'm saying, but instead agree with Rand and with what she states is the consequence of her view -- that it leads to the impossibility of believing that evil has any real power on earth, then anyone who lost a loved one in the Holocaust, or in the collapse of the WTC, on in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, etc., is _wrong_ to feel pain over that loss.  I submit that as being the height of self-delusion.  Even worse, I would say it is the denial of one's own humanity.  And, that is the essense of why I am no longer an Objectivist.  It splits you in two.  It says, "Listen to your gut, to your emotions--but not very much.  Not so much that it makes any difference."  Does that sound familiar?  Maybe a bit like Kipling, for instance, whose poem was AR's favorite?  I'll do without that particular "koolaide," thank you very much, as Jody so aptly puts it.

Mr. Fahy, you may keep your profanity to yourself, or... take it somewhere else, where it more properly belongs, where someone might legitimize it with the description of "directness."

-John Allen

 


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 332

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,

Thank you for the pointer to Barbara Branden's explanation of the way Leonard Peikoff got hold of the tapes of BB's biographical interviews with Ayn Rand.

Which leads me to ask:

What does the Objectivist ethics have to say about bringing a meritless lawsuit, in order to get opponents to capitulate to one's demands or face financial ruin?

I'm curious to know Mr. Fahy's opinion, in particular.

Robert Campbell


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 333

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Allen,

In response to your post #327:

An obvious forerunner to that quotation from the first (1980) issue of The Objectivist Forum was highlighted, not all that long ago, on a blog maintained by an ARI-affiliated philosopher.

See http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/07/ayn-rand-on-david-kelley.html

There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings -- or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods.

Rand said it (to wild applause from her followers in the audience), during a question and answer period.  My recollection is that "The Moratorium on Brains" lecture was a response to Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls, which would make the year 1971.

By contrast, your #331 gives readers here your unique perspective.

Fot instance, I've long thought that Leonard Peikoff's articles in The Objectivist, from the early stages of what would become The Ominous Parallels, were better than their counterparts in the final book, and much better than the material he added to it later.

Brant has already told you that he attended lectures that would later become Ominous Parallels and that Peikoff announced his intentions for such a book at the end of that five-lecture series.  I helped research the material for that book, and I happen to know why it took so long to hit book store shelves, rather than LP's original time table of two years or less:  he let AR edit the book, an error which cost him his entire approach to what could have been a book with far broader appeal.
So your comment here helps to explain why.

As for PARC, you say:

There is much that I agree with, factually, in Valliant's book, and a great deal of interpretation with which I don't.  But is is obvious to me that even AR never understood Mr Branden, or never wanted to, which to me is the more likely explanation.  In my opinion, AR always heard what she wanted to hear and saw what she wanted to see. 
I think a lot will become clear to readers who pay careful attention to what Rand is saying in her journal entries, and draw their own conclusions from them, instead of letting Mr. Valliant draw his conclusions for them.

I hope, though, that you will further elucidate your remark about Ayn never wanting to understand Nathaniel Branden.

Robert Campbell


 


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 334

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 2:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, might makes right--that is, if you think you are right use all your might to get what's right. Right? The same is true in international relations as in law. Rand was always quick to send in the lawyers. What is the morality of threatening legal actions that cannot be justified philosophically except it is okay to chase scum? Scum is scum so bring in the Huns. The entire Objectivist ethics is rationalization for political action qua Objectivism according to Ayn Rand--the ignorant of the way the world works say she was logically an anarchist. I say if you want your rights protected you had better be in control of the government--a power seeker at least through others. That is why Ayn Rand always approved of Alan Greenspan in spite of the fact he turned conservative in government service. She preached that power followed philosophy and that the right philosophy meant the right use and realization of power. She never consciously understood that good and evil or the potential at least are in us all including her--that what mattered was the ratio and that evil always must be self-fought and that government would always reflect that battle. The impotence of evil is true enough, but it only subtracts from an individual's potency to the extent indulged. Etc. BTW, I suspect her ideal was a static society, with all issues resolved, so she could finally rest. I mean, what, really, was John Galt going to do next?

--Brant


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 335

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant,

Nice to see you back on the board.  I don't have time, just now, to comment fully on your [excellent] observations.  So, just a few "bullets," as it were:

*  re impotence of evil vs. the ratio of good and evil in the individual:  to wit, Gary Cooper in "High Noon," Alan Ladd in "Shane," and [best of all] Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven."

*  re Dr. Alan Greenspan:  I don't think that he exactly fits into the routine classification of 'conservative.'  But he certainly gets my vote for integrity in fighting inflation, and bravery for facing the wachos on the Hill at least twice during every year of his tenure at the fed.  He also gets my vote for consistently pointing out to those same wachos, on camera, that "actions have consequences," and that economics is not quite so simple as most people believe.  And, he stands head and shoulders above anyone else in recent [political] memory for warning the country about fiscal responsibility and the impending disaster if a) inflation did not stay in check, and b) if "entitlements" were not reined in, and c) if common sense did not prevail in an overhaul of Social Security and Medicare.  This entire topic, The Greenspan Years, deserves a thread all its own, in which I will again, no doubt, be in the minority.  For the record, however, I am tremendously proud of him and feel honored to have known him, albeit not very well.  His service to the country I was once so proud of deserves, in my opinion, a profound Thank You from every citizen with a roof over his head.

Sorry to "post and run," but chores await.


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 336

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quickie thread hijack...

I think there is a lot of happiness about the fact that the new apointee is not going to show the breadth/depth of Dr. Greenspan. That is what I pick up from commentary- that the new man will confine himself more directly to banking issues. Translation: keep nose out of factors and situations we don't want the fed chairman bringing up until we figure out how to spin them (or kill entirely).

End hijack.


Post 337

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 3:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dear Hijacker,

Technically, Dr. G. overstepped the traditional boundaries of a Fed Chairman, especially during his last two terms.  I happen to be a CNBC junkie, and commentary there is to the effect that it takes 12 votes, with at least 19 members present, of the FOMC to make interest rate and monetary policy decisions.

Regarding the "popular commentary," I think you're spot on.


Post 338

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mrs. Valliant,

Please extend my wishes for a quick and painless recovery to James.

Michael


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 339

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for all the good wishes, public and private -- I'm feeling much better.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 16Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.