You probably aren't aware that her husband, Larry Gould, was one of the panel on Rand's epistemology seminars (1979-81) that are now part of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (even though that material is not part of Objectivism, since she didn't approve it -- so go figure!). No, Roger, I wasn't aware of that. That's irrelevant, however, considering that I never denied that Ellen was there. My point is: Does her being there that mean I should accept as a fact her claim about Patrecia? If someone else who was there, but who you knew nothing about, posted to SOLOHQ that Patrecia was a big idiot, would you simply accept that as a fact on that basis alone, contrary to someone else's description? I hope not.
Frank was "serious and thoughtful...with reasoned convictions." Yes, and he was in his 70s at the time of the split. By that time, one could reasonably be expected to have some sort of philosophy of life worked out. Too bad Patrecia did not survive to her 60s so that we could see how she turned out.You and I seem to have different views of human character, Roger. I don't think a typical person's character changes fundamentally from age 30 to age 70. People learn a lot more during that period, and they may change their positions on certain issues, but they don't go from being frivolous and shallow to being thoughtful and deep. Your character is the product of your basic premises, which tend to be adopted at a fairly young age. That's why most Objectivists first embraced the philosophy when they were teenagers, and why Ayn Rand thought it was crucial to reach students and create "new intellectuals."
I think it is a serious mistake to accept at face value the obviously emotional pot-shots of a jealous woman against her rival as being an accurate assessment of her rival's character. Doing so may not make one a "true believer," but it certainly makes one a bit too gullible, in my book.Well, that's the question, isn't it? Namely, are the passages cited in this article the "obviously emotional pot-shots of a jealous woman against her rival"? In my view, the answer is NO. If Patrecia were indeed a shallow person (which isn't disproved by Ellen saying Patrecia had a good sense of life), then decrying Patrecia as a shallow person in that context isn't a "pot-shot" and doesn't prove AR's jealousy. It only proves that AR felt betrayed by NB's romantic interest by a woman such as Patrecia, and that AR was indignant about being lumped into the same category with her. That's all.
As for being a bit too gullible in your book, I guess I'm fortunate that your book means nothing to me, aren't I?