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 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 80

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 2:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

You mostly answered it when you said that an unnamed student was quoted and the quote was the student's understanding that there were "right" books and "wrong" books - with no context or explanation of what that means. And no direct connection to Rand or that she ever told people not read certain books.

I've worked on Wikipedia articles for years and know to take any bio with large grains of salt. I read his article and know a total hatchet job when I read it. That tells me what I need to know about his being "respected."

Ellen Plasil is having a normal reaction for someone in our turn-the-other-cheek, blame not least ye be blamed culture, to the idea that people SHOULD be judged on their behaviors and character and her reaction indicates that there could be a fruitful discussion as to what an appropriate level of judgment should be. As you say in lawyer-speak, "it is probative" - meaning I want to introduce it as evidence despite the fact that it isn't.

You acknowledged that Hari misunderstands and mischaracterizes Rand, and you didn't, but could have said that this "respected" journalist, based upon a reading of those articles, is filled with vile and bitter hatred for Rand and comes across as very, very far from being an objective source of information.

To summarize: No evidence at all from those sources that Rand ever told people not to read certain books, no evidence from any source except Rothbard's unsupported word in a single article, whose claims came a decade or so after being kicked out of that inner circle and that he was clearly hostile towards Rand.

Post 81

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 3:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve, if you are talking about the 'article' on Johann Hari, you mean puff piece, not "hatchet job" — and I would give you good odds she wrote most of it himself.

Hari is repugnant, a "fat-faced, ugly," "four eyed" "fascist." He's a cross between Perez Hilton and Paul Krugman. He's a name dropper and a scold. His notoriety as a favorite enfant terrible of the left of flows from his aggressive "out-ness" (who could have guessed?) which he wears in the same way an Ellsworth Toohey wore his unimposing lack of physicality, as an insult.

A three-year-old when Rand died, he is happy to use innuendo against her, but flatters such respectable people as the addict and public fellator George Michael and the suited monkey and beribboned clown Hugo Chavez. Accordin to wikipedia, he "has been named by the Daily Telegraph as one of the most influential people on the left in Britain, and by the Dutch magazine Winq as one of the twenty most influential gay people in the world." The spiritual bastard son of Al Franken, his photo speaks volumes.

Post 82

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

You're right. I confused Peikoff with Leonard. Thanks for catching that. According to Barbara Branden (and my cursory googling), Lonnie Leonard didn't know Rand. This of course makes Plasil's account less probative than it would've been had her doctor been Peikoff. 

It bothers me to spend so much time on this topic. I'm guessing no one here is interested in asking Rand's still-living associates about her alleged book bannings and other shananigans. Until then, I say this thread needs to die.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 1/27, 3:09pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 83

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 3:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re:

... a "fat-faced, ugly," "four eyed" "fascist." ... his photo speaks volumes.

Ted seems very confident that facial features reveal character.
(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 1/27, 3:37pm)


Post 84

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If anyone has e-mail addresses for still-living associates of Rand, I will e-mail each of them to ask whether Rand indeed forbade the reading of certain books, and (if any surviving associates answer yes) whether these surviving associates have any documentary proof of the matter.

Please send names and e-mail addresses to me privately via RoR's Message function.

Post 85

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
... a "fat-faced, ugly," "four eyed" "fascist." ... his photo speaks volumes.

Ted seems very confident that facial features reveal character.
(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 1/27, 3:37pm)


But these are allegations that I have read. What could possibly be wrong with repeating them?

Post 86

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 4:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You repeated a set of allegations; I asked about an allegation. Can the difference matter?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 87

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are no contradictions Kate. Examine your premises.

Post 88

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wanting to know whether something is true differs from alleging that it is true. Or shouldn't that matter?

Post 89

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kate, what are the reasons for which you think I posted that post? There are three paragraphs. What would you say were their explicit or implicit topic sentences? What point do you think I was trying to make with each of those topic sentences?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 90

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kate,

There are no fewer than four books on Rand's life and work written either by noted scholars or individuals who were very close to Rand and knew her well. Yet you're compelled to ask a question based on a quip by someone who didn't know her, probably never read her, and has absolutely no clue what Objectivism is.

There is no difference in the context between Ted's example and your question given the evidence. You choose to ask a question based on zero evidence, and Ted posted a claim with the same evidence level.  Check you premises.

Your question is loaded because you offered nothing to substantiate it's relevance, other than your claim of someone else's claim.



 


Post 91

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In Post 88, I should have specified that I was responding to Post 87 instead of to Post 81 (to which you now refer).

To tackle the three paragraphs of that post:

Post 81's first paragraph consists of a single sentence, so that must be the topic sentence of that paragraph. In that sentence, you make the point that you believe that Hari wrote most of the article about himself.

Post 81's second and third paragraph do not present a clear enough sequence of argument for me to determine the topic sentence (either explicit or implicit) of either paragraph. Therefore, I do not know what point you were attempting to make with the topic sentences of those two paragraphs.

Post 92

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 6:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Exactly, Teresa. Thanks. The innuendo was glowing in the dark. If that post had been any more ironic it would have gotten up and walked away.

Post 93

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 7:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tonight I found Nathaniel Branden's e-mail address and sent him an e-mail asking: /a/ whether Rand forbade her students to read certain books, and /b/ if he answers "yes" to the first question, does he have (and would he provide a scan of) any written proof that she did so?

If he answers -- though I do not expect him to answer a complete stranger -- I will ask his permission to post his reply here.

Post 94

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I was talking about his article on Rand as being a hatchet job, not the obvious puff piece on him.

Post 95

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, and although I addressed you, Steve, it didn't occur to me that you might take my comment about fat-faced four-eyed fascists fersonally.

Post 96

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 9:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted ???? did I take something personally? I think that was Kate.

Post 97

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Why is it that absolutely everything someone says here is taken as a potential hidden insult or accusation? And I don't just mean this thread, either.

Yes, Steve, the implied sentence after "Yes, and although I addressed you, Steve, it didn't occur to me that you might take my comment about fat-faced four-eyed fascists fersonally" was so it is strange that Kate did, when she wasn't even addressed. Since you saw the implication, why the worry?

But even then, what possible reason could there have been for anyone to be fersonally offended by a post the last word of which was fersonally?

What's next, a post from a teary-eyed Nancy Pelosi about a climate of rhetoric?

Lighten up, everyone, god dammit.

Or I will secretly insult you to death.

Post 98

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I didn't take your comment personally, Ted, and I wonder what led you to the erroneous conclusion that I did so take it.

Post 99

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 3:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


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


User ID Password or create a free account.