I was out of town for a few days and am just getting back into this thread - it's really ballooned since my last comment! What I was getting at with my problems with the living room analogy is that there are different criteria to be applied to whom we might associate with in a business situation versus those whom we engage as friends and intellectuals. For example, if I owned a business and my best customer turned out to be a Christian fundamentalist, I would continue to do business with him so long as his conduct with my firm was kept at a professional level. I would not, however, invite such a man in my living room. That's the basic point I was getting at. And I certainly never meant to imply that a business owner can't refuse service to another.

I may have dropped some context in applying this principle to HB's email list, due mainly to a lack of familiarity with it. (How it works, what HB's goals are, etc). If so, I stand corrected.

Casey, you've got a one track mind and it's derailed. I think I've made myself clear enough though, so no more corrections for you.

However there is a related criticism I'd raise about ARI conferences. More than one ARI affiliate I know personally has had trouble figuring out just what it is they want, what standards are used to accept/reject content, etc. The process ARI uses for accepting/rejecting lecturers is evidently completely behind the scenes, evidently with no written standards whatsoever. So huge amounts of efforts can go into what is perfectly good content, and then it's rejected, without rationale or reference to any objective standard.

Again, I think there's a lack of vision here. Obviously ARI can't and shouldn't grant a conference slot to all comers (gotta answer the knuckleheads first...). Even leaving aside the fact that the content I've seen rejected is very good, far better than a lot of content I've seen accepted, the fact of limited slots is not a reason to turn perfectly good content away. Just a few minutes thought can yield a lot of different ways to make productive use of the creative work of these ARI-affiliated people (and you don't have to even think much because other organizations, such as Linz's for example, have already demonstrated the possibilities).

But ARI doesn't even try, and here's why: They are paranoid. They are motivated by the fear of sanctioning something that might have some tiny little blemish that's not Objectivism. This is really quite irrational, for a number of reasons, first and foremost is the fact that what Ayn Rand said Ayn Rand said--nothing short of a global disaster is going to threaten it.

It's this irrational kind of "quality control" that I think is at the root of many of ARI's problems. Rather than being eager to try new creative things, to explore new horizons, they are afraid and stifled, and therefore end up missing a lot of opportunities. Just to pick one example: no one is in a better position to publish a fantastic journal on Objectivism, and yet they didn't do it, a non-Objectivist did (JARS), and they end up reducing the potential quality of JARS by not permitting good intellectuals to publish there and still be affiliated with ARI. So in this instance their perverted ideas on quality control are not only harming themselves they're harming the movement, ironically bringing down the overall quality of available Objectivist material.

First, my thanks to Jason for clearing up a few misconceptions, many of which were my fault, regarding the details of his removal from HBL.

James, HB is of course free to kick anyone off his list for any reason whatsoever. And no, I don't believe that any form of humor is appropriate in any context, the Holocaust survivor example being an excellent instance of when *not* to tell a joke. But I hardly see how Jason's list, posted to his own website of Objectivist-themed humor (which I'm sure he never plugged on HBL), is comparable to that.

Jason's discussion of the "subject/object" distinction is crucial here. As he put it, "disgusting" he can live with, I assume because that word speaks to a difference of tastes, and any good humorist knows there will probably be someone, somewhere, who thinks his jokes are in poor taste. But I would also say that, in calling the list a "desecration" and kicking Jason off HBL, HB failed to make an objective assessment of Jason's motives in writing the list. It's quite clear from his writings both on his site and here on SOLO that Jason must have made valuable contributions to discussions on HBL.

This is why I don't think your comparison to a prankster who eggs a statue of Ayn Rand is very useful. Such a person would clearly be motivated by hatred and malice toward her ideas (and perhaps toward Objectivists in general). I didn't get that feeling from Jason's list at all, nor do other Objectivists who are more comfortable with jokes related to sexual subject matter. We can argue over whether HB mistakenly believed Jason to *be* such a prankster, but doesn't this just reaffirm the point that he let his own sensibilities get the better of his rational judgment?

My grandmother has a very different sense of humor from mine, and I would never tell the sorts of jokes I tell my friends in her presence. But if she retracted an invitation to visit her home because she had gone scouring the internet for some instance of bad behavior on my part, I would tell her that maybe she should devote a little less time to policing the online activity of her grandson, and a little more to profitable interaction based on our common interests and familial ties. Luckily, my grandmother doesn't know a computer from a toaster oven.

Reidy: "This is a contradiction: [Rand says] you shouldn't judge somebody's character from his ideas; [Peikoff says] you should."

I can see how you arrived at that conclusion, but I don't believe that's what Rand is saying in that quotation. She says that you can't determine a person's *psychological motives* based on his ideas. That's not the same as judging a person's character.

An example of judging a person's character is "X is evil because he's a Nazi." An example of determining motive is "X is a Nazi because his parents didn't hug him."

So I don't think there's a contradiction there.

Try this:

"My only claim with regard to that anecdote was that ARI lacked vision."

This is an absurd claim based on that anecdote. I think you'll agree I'm not making up what you just posted.

"The statement from them (sic) to me was that such a topic wouldn't be of enough general interest, and my thought on that was that they didn't understand their market."

Since you did not provide "them" (one person) or me for that matter with ANY CONTEXT and asked a yes or no question, and they gave you a yes or no answer (NO) and then provided you with a reason (which you agree with!) that it does not appeal to a general enough audience, your unstated thought that they didn't understand their market is pretty difficult to understand. (I even suggested that your topic, and any topic, can have a more general audience if presented properly!)

Just what in the hell did I make up? That you're really, really reaching for straws to make a case against ARI? (I think that's pretty obvious by now.) And I haven't insulted you once, bub. You'd know it if I did, believe me. I'm criticizing your method and offering you advice about having a thicker skin, taking more responsibility for advancing your own work and not blaming others for their lack of interest in it, and having a little more persistence in making your point before resorting to condemnation. Get the difference?

Casey: You're a tedious fellow. You could keep a dozen people busy just correcting your misrepresentations.

I never claimed anything you state. You made it all up. My only claim with regard to that anecdote was that ARI lacked vision. The statement from them to me was that such a topic wouldn't be of enough general interest, and my thought on that was that they didn't understand their market. Re-read what Jim wrote about engineers and my response, that's exactly what I said and only what I said.

For crying out loud, it's hard enough to get my own thoughts across without having you hijack them for your own purposes. How about you stop putting your words in my mouth.

Geez, I don't even have any time left to properly insult you for being such a knucklehead.

Peikoff urges caution when judging "motives" -- just like Rand does.

Circular reasoning? You claimed that you were shocked at ARI's close-mindedness after approaching an event organizer with a question and getting a "no" answer. That's a ridiculous basis for impugning ARI as close-minded to new applications of Objectivism, period -- no matter what other evidence there might be for such an allegation. You can't add that anecdote to any list of evidence -- it's worthless as evidence of anything. And it shows that you're close-minded in your conclusions about ARI that you would even stick to such a story as evidence for such an allegation. You have to try harder than that to call attention to your work. That's all there is to it. There's nothing circular about it. Deal with it or don't, but don't blame ARI for your lack of persistence or interest in pursuing it further with ARI. If you do insist on citing that incident as evidence for your conclusions about ARI, I wonder about the standard of evidence you are using in general, and I reiterate my suspicion that your criticism of ARI is an agenda and not a fair appraisal of the facts.

Casey: Given the trend of your previous posts, it's hardly a good argument to assume that yours is the proper reaction and then credit ARI with having your type of reaction. Indeed, I'd say that your reactions have been quite a bit worse than what I have come to expect from most ARI loyalists (leaving aside very a vocal minority). Usually, they are more fair-minded and objective.

Yes, I've given you much more context, but the only purpose was to answer your arbitrary and completely unwarranted insults. Evidently you think these were not unwarranted, and to me that's just a nail in the coffin: you have not learned your lesson.

Roth criticized me in my criticism of HB, saying that "integrity" wasn't the word I was looking for. Well he's right actually, at the heart of the matter is really the virtue not of integrity, but of pride. The typical view of pride is actually the opposite of pride. Nothing could be more anti-pride than the stubborn refusal to correct yourself when you're wrong.

Valliant asks why one might agree with Bidinotto that Rand's statement on pp. 169 - 170 of Answers contradicts what Peikoff says in Fact and Value (http://peikoff.com/essays/fact_value.htm).

Rand says that you might correctly start with an idea and ask why anybody would believe it, because in this case "...you are not passing judgement on a person." She then goes on to advise against making it any more particular than this: "To deduce the motives of a man from his writings is improper and nonobjective because there could be ten milliion motives for the same kind of action...You cannot deduce a man's motives from what he said, except in the generalized way I described. But, even then, you shouldn't make a claim about the only possible motive..." (emphasis in the original).

Peikoff's most succinct statemen of his position is "... every identification of an idea's truth or falsehood implies a moral evaluation of the idea and of its advocates" (his emphasis).

This is a contradiction: you shouldn't judge somebody's character from his ideas; you should. Dance around the fire chanting "context" until you drop and it's still a contradiction. Show me passages where Rand agrees with Peikoff and you'll make the situation worse rather than better.

Shayne,

For the record, I was responding to this statement of yours:

"I too am an engineer ARI could easily have had coming to their conferences. I did go to two, and at the last one, asked the organizer whether they might be interested in a talk that integrated and applied Objectivism to engineering and/or software development. The immediate answer was: No, it's not something that would be of enough interest. Not: "I'll get back to you after we consider it", not: "well let's see how good your talk is", just a flat "No.""

I now have the benefit of a much more elaborate context than this organizer of a conference who was in the middle of organizing the conference had. You must see that I was reacting to your citing this incident, and that this was the only basis for your shock that I had been given. And, I'm sure you must see that one answer from one conference organizer is too little to base "shock" upon. In fairness to ARI, I think they deserve a bit more context, too, and a bit more of a chance than this before the whole institution is tarred, one way or the other. No? I mean, come on! My girlfriend said no at least a dozen times before she said yes, and I didn't ask her in the middle of a conference she was organizing. Persistence, and a respect for the other party's context, goes a long way toward getting heard.

Casey: Your point is fine but it's contextual. My expectation of ARI was that they would be greatly interested in applications of Objectivism to other areas, like science and engineering. In that context and for my purposes, I was willing to propose something for them to look at and see if it was worth presenting.

But it's not my goal in life to present these ideas to other people (by presenting them I gain deeper understanding and for that reason it is valuable). I'm an engineer. My main purpose is to use the ideas to build things to make their lives better. If I were a novelist, then yeah, I'd have to find some way to convince people to listen. I'd have to be more tenacious. In fact, I do have to have this spirit when it comes to my products. But I don't have a particular reason to press the matter of the deeper philosophy behind the products.

The real point here is: I expected ARI to have the vision I do about just how relevant Objectivism is to a variety of crucial fields (engineering and science are not peripheral fields that you have to convince people as being important), and I was and am shocked that they don't have this vision at all. Really, I think they have strayed in a sense. Ayn Rand was primarily a novelist. I.e., for her, philosophy was a tool to help her do her job. That's how I look at it. For ARI, I think they tend to see it as an end in itself.

That sounds intriguing. But, to be interested on behalf of an institution, one might need more than just an intriguing suggestion of what your presentation would entail. I think the most important work that Objectivists, at ARI or elsewhere, do is that which is accessible to anyone, not just an inside baseball audience. I can't think of any subject where this would not be possible to do. It takes a lot to get anyone interested in anything. Try getting a novel published. Often, it's just a case of the individual (say a given editor at a publishing house) not caring about the subject matter. You have to keep trying until you reach someone who DOES have an interest. That's just the nature of things, and ARI didn't invent this fact of life. Again, I repair to the example of Valliant, the relevance of which you don't seem to observe.

OK, I think that that is possibly all that Shayne was trying to say, despite the running context of this thread. But, it seems to me that it is up to engineers to explain the relevance to people who are not engineers, and to make a more compelling case, in a less spontaneous manner, if they expect not to be shocked by a lack of interest.

BTW, attorneys as a rule are not that interested in biographies of philosophers, but that doesn't mean they can't have such an interest or that they should blame others for insufficiently encouraging them to pursue such an interest. The reason I challenge Shayne to be a little more personally motivated before complaining about a lack of encouragement or support is that he DOES show an inclination to valuable rational thought, unlike some who post in the manner of teenagers egging a house.

Jim: I wouldn't point it out to Casey because by his latest comments he doesn't deserve it, but your last paragraph is EXACTLY what the issue was and is: They lack vision. And I'll leave it at that.

Thanks.

You're right that it's not just Objectivists who are interested in my ideas. On the contrary, it seems that Objectivists mainly are interested in applying Objectivism to the same things Ayn Rand applied them to. They're not interested, in the main, in going anywhere else (there are exceptions, and they are like water in the desert to me).

However, only an Objectivist or near-Objectivist can really appreciate what I'm trying to do, since it rests so firmly on Objectivist epistemology. It is the explicit tie between the epistemology and application that I was thinking of presenting to Objectivists. What I present to non-Objectivists implicitly has the tie, but I don't bother making it explicit to them, for obvious reasons.

Casey,

I don't get that reading at all from Shayne. His first response to being moderated on the old SOLO forum was to create a bulletin board of his own to talk with people and issues of interest to him.

I also don't think you get the orientation of scientists and engineers. We can take or leave participation in philosophy publicly. In fact, most of the time we would prefer that others did it right so we could get on with our own work. I did that for four years while participating in the first 300mm high volume semiconductor factory startup in the world.

In Shayne's case he wasn't complaining about the fact that they said no. He was shocked by the fact that they considered philosophy of science and application of Objectivism to engineering to be unimportant in principle.

Jim

Casey: You should have taken me up on my offer to tell you privately about what I was doing because you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself. I have a slide presentation and a draft article (well, it's longer than that but shorter than a book) documenting one of the sets of ideas. And, in spite of the fact that I'm not that keen on making them public at the moment, I have in fact given this presentation to fellow software engineers at a local users group. The main complaint I got from them: they liked the ideas, they wanted the end-product. So the presentation exists and in fact has been given and even put into a preliminarly book form.

Your lecturing me on putting ideas into practice is even more ironic. I don't merely have a presentation of ideas and partial book, I have a physical implementation based on these ideas that has taken me and my partner years to build and although not wildly profitable yet, it has in fact led to a small return (we are still working on it).

There is nothing in what I said that led you to your bizarre and completely false conclusions about me except your own agenda, which has proven itself to be exceedingly biased.

Regarding your psychologizing of me, claiming that they rejected my idea and it "hurt": That is just beneath contempt. The more you talk like this, the less I care about what you think.

My statement was that apples and oranges are improperly tallied up in a case that is being made against ARI. Binswanger's sense of humor does not belong in a "case" against ARI that includes the issues of the Reismans or the "intellectual heir" situation. Yet they are lumped together as if they do belong in the same case file. This implies an agenda-driven methodology that is not primarily objective or fair.

I'm not loyal to ARI any more than they are loyal to me -- which is, not at all. But when I see the sense of humor of a 70-something year-old man thrown into a pot with the Reisman conflict and the intellectual heir business, I suspect an agenda is at work. You can say I have an agenda if you like, but at least I'm giving you the evidence for suspecting an agenda is at work in your analysis of the facts.

I'm sorry to say that you're sounding more and more biased all the time here. (And I consider that a deviation from your usual standards.) You DO in fact have a personal ax to grind here, it seems. Your project was rejected and it hurts. But having ideas and presenting them to others are two entirely different things, my friend. As an author, I can't tell you how many people have approached me and said "Hey, my life story would be a great novel, and since you're a writer..." or "I'm the idea guy, you're the writer, so let's get together..." Ideas that are not worth their own author's DOING THE WORK are entitled to bupkiss from anyone else in regard to a level of interest. If your ideas are only interesting to Obectivists I submit they are not interesting at all. Rand never wrote only for Objectivists -- and the result was a lot of people who ended up calling themselves Objectivists! And claiming that pursuing any further a presentation of your ideas is not your primary interest doesn't help your case. Anyone looking at your statements about your rejected proposal would immediately see through how unserious you are about such a proposal -- including anyone associated with ARI. It's embarrassing that you would consider them worthy of attention, to anyone who actually does the work of presenting ideas. Don't get mad at me -- or ARI -- get mad at yourself (if you really care about presenting these ideas) for not presenting them in a more serious way if you want them to be taken seriously by ARI or anyone other than yourself. Sorry, but you needed a dose of strong medicine here.

Writing about the Brandens is not James Valliant's "primary purpose" -- he's a district attorney, for cripes sake!! The difference is, he didn't expect any endorsement before he went ahead and DID THE WORK, and he didn't complain about getting no endorsement (he expected the reverse) but still went ahead and DID IT ANYWAY. You don't get any points in the public forum for your private contemplations about things, and you shouldn't coyly ask if someone would be interested in seeing your ideas presented before you can answer that question yourself positively. I think everyone could learn a thing or two on this count from James Valliant, and even, hopefully, derive a little motivation from what he did before sour-graping anyone or any institution for not giving them enough support. That lesson is: if you have no interest in promoting to others your own ideas, why should they have any interest in them? If you depend on others' interest in your ideas to be motivated to present them, something is wrong. Certainly, no institution encouraged Ayn Rand to present ideas that clashed with the entire culture around her.

And I mean this in the most tough-love way -- in the film "Million Dollar Baby" there is a plaque on the wall of the Hit Pit where boxers train: "The only difference between winners and losers is that winners were willing to do what losers won't do." You obviously have a good mind, and, quite selfishly, I challenge you -- do something with it. I can't stand to hear someone with a good mind give lame excuses for not using it, especially when they use the lack of endorsement or encouragement from OTHERS as an excuse. JUST DO IT. OR -- don't complain about it. But to not do it AND complain about how others are the reason for not doing it is just beneath you.

Casey: That is a clever argument. It's wrong, but it's clever.

It is true, ARI is made of individuals. I myself like a lot of them, as individuals. I like most of the total intellectual output of ARI-affiliated intellectuals (I'm greatly enjoying Bernstein's new book so far). Indeed I think ARI has the best intellectuals. All of this is in fact part of why I'm so critical of ARI. I'm critical of them, precisely because they are important. For better or worse, they are, at the moment, the de-facto "keepers of the flame".

It is true that I don't think of judging ARI by making a column of good and bad things and tallying them up to a final score, the winning score meaning that they are good or they are bad. And as I consider it, the method strikes me as pragmatism. If you asked me whether the bad outweighed the good I'd think that was pragmatism, but I could answer: they've done a lot of good, they're doing a lot of harm too.

If you have seen my past posts (and Jim's too I think), you'll see a different picture than the one you paint. You'll see that when we're arguing with anti-ARI zealots, we emphasize the good aspects of ARI to try to temper their bias. And when we see ARI loyalists like you, we emphasize the bad aspects to try to temper your bias. For me this is not out of some twisted egalitarian desire, it's just a reflection of the fact that ARI is mixed. I do the same thing when arguing about politics and the USA, depending on who I am arguing with I might empahsize different aspects. To a socialist I might emphasize America's strengths, to a Pollyanna Objectivist, I might point out that the truth is far worse than he has discerned.

So your argument, while clever, is not based in truth.

Casey,

It's certainly your prerogative to say I have an anti-ARI agenda. I don't think I do, but if I did it certainly wouldn't be as virulent as Watkins and Hsieh's generalized anti-TOC stance or Valliant's anti-Branden stance. The problem is that it doesn't matter if someone has an agenda if truth is on their side. Whatever biases that person may have are a minor mitigating side issue to the truth of the case they are making.

Now in cases where arguments go to motive, just as in criminal cases people look for patterns of behavior and general epistemological attitudes toward evidence. I don't think that is an indication of an "agenda". It's simply someone marshalling evidence in their evaluation of a person and organization as well as seeking additional context when judging an individual issue.

I do think your characterization of me not taking into account positive aspects of ARI are untrue as evidenced by the posts on this thread.

Jim

Casey: Where exactly do you get the idea that haven't "broken ground" and produced independently of ARI's endorsement? As a matter of fact, I have developed my ideas for my own use and they have been quite fruitful (I could tell you some specifics in private but I'm not going to publish them here), my question to ARI was a testing of the waters to see if there'd be any point in making them available to others. Since it is not my primary purpose to teach others but to be an engineer myself, I was not inclined to try all avenues in publishing my ideas so I dropped the idea there (after all, if *Objectivists* wouldn't be interested, who would be?). On the contrary, since I spoke to ARI I've been more inclined to keep them to myself.

Further, your overall line of logic on this is utter nonsense. Obviously ARI should not say "yes" without seeing the work. Obviously I knew that, any moron would know that, I obviously wasn't looking for a sight-unseen endorsement. You say: "Before seeing such a work and having something to judge, ARI should be expected to say 'no'." Ridiculous on its face! They should be expected to say whether or not that kind of thing, if good, would be of interest or not. They at least had the sense to tell me that the subject matter wasn't of interest to them, not launch into some ridiculous line of illogic as you do.

Casey, it's not helping your case to accuse me of having a biased agenda and then have your second paragraph be full of biased nonsense.

Just a quick comment. As I've seen the general anti-ARI case presented over the last months I've noted what I think is an invalid methodology: namely, the generalizing of an anti-ARI case. Everything, no matter how unrelated to other issues, is lumped into a column of evidence against ARI. Binswanger's old-fashioned standard of humor is entered as a hash-mark in the anti-ARI column of evidence. (But Binswanger's willingness to publish a comment criticizing Mayhew's liberties with Ayn Rand's words is NOT entered into any pro-ARI column.) If one doubts that the humor issue is NOT evidence against ARI, Reisman and the "intellectual heir" issue are immediately brought up as though they somehow bolster the humor issue. Whether it is intentional or not, this epistemelogical approach indicates an agenda, not a fair accounting of the evidence. ARI comprises individuals with different tastes and opinions and track records that need to be appraised independently.

Also, it seems to me that if I wanted ARI to consider a project involving science or technology or engineering, it would be the responsibility of the author of such a study to actually break ground or, indeed, "author" such a study before expecting a sight-unseen or hypothetical endorsement. Before seeing such a work and having something to judge, ARI should be expected to say "no." And the proposed author of such a study or talk should expect, of himself, to produce it before and independently of ARI's endorsement, if it is worth anything to him. If such a study is not worth that effort to the author, why should it be even more positively endorsed by ARI in advance? Years ago, when I had a "blog" before they were called blogs, I included HB on the mailing list of escapingamerica.com. He requested that I remove him from my mailing list without ceremony. No biggie. His prerogative. I don't consider that to be a judgment from ARI as an institution since Peikoff later wound up reading James Valliant's early work about the Brandens that were published on my website, and the rest is history. If James V. had approached ARI at a seminar and asked "Hey, you want to do something about the Brandens?" I think we all know what the answer would be. He did it anyway, and guess what? Peikoff handed over Rand's notes for the project. That certainly colors my overall judgement about ARI and the individuals associated with ARI.

James V,

It isn't just more science. It's a commitment to excellence and rigorous debate that's needed. I think ARI is going in the right direction on this. I'm ecstatic that ARI has Travis Norsen on board and he's writing in various places about philosophy of science, including Don Watkins' Axiomatic magazine. He's a real physicist, unlike Stephen Speicher and Lewis Little who go around the internet posting quack science like the Theory of Elementary Waves.

I've been informed that Speicher and Little are not associated with ARI, that's good. Their fault, however, is not that they tried to say something new or did not get it authorized by ARI. It's that they didn't publish and peer review or at least self-publish and answer objections.

Back to the question at hand, if ARI principals like Binswanger can't exercise some amount of temperance about something as simple as a joke list, it's a sad day.

I don't make much of the fact that Mayhew edited the Q and A without annotation. I'm just glad the book is out period. But Mayhew should either answer the objections of scholars and Objectivists who would like to see the unedited transcript or simply state that he is unwilling to do so without retaliating against those who have honest questions.

Incidentally, your willingness to debate these issues has increased your credibility with me (not that that matters too much ) and I'm sorry if I have made a presumption which you regard as unfair.

Jim

Jim,

I too am an engineer ARI could easily have had coming to their conferences. I did go to two, and at the last one, asked the organizer whether they might be interested in a talk that integrated and applied Objectivism to engineering and/or software development. The immediate answer was: No, it's not something that would be of enough interest. Not: "I'll get back to you after we consider it", not: "well let's see how good your talk is", just a flat "No."

I dispute whether such a talk (if it were good) would be of enough interest, there are a lot of Objectivist software engineers, not to mention the fact that there are even more Objectivist engineers. That and the fact that most of Ayn Rand's heros are engineers of some sort means it's a fertile area to talk about.

Jim,

Gosh, yeah, more stuff on science.

From personal experience I know Peikoff to be a straight shooter. Hardly news to you, I know...

So, it is actually a sort of shit buffet?

- Jason

Shayne,

I did not mean to include you in the remark about "motives." I am so sorry for the contrary implication. I need not "speculate" about your character -- it's shown its high quality already, sir.

Peikoff is very careful to disntinguish his words and thoughts from Rand's. Has anyone offered that title as a defense to ... now, what's the precise charge against Mayhew at this point? Did Peikoff even have anything to do his decisions?

O.K., forget the title. Peikoff does have to do the thinking for Rand's Estate. By Rand's request and permission, he does "stand in her place," in a very real and legally valid sense. Whether this means that he can do... what exactly are you accusing him of doing?... is obviously a different question.

First, perhaps it was dirty jokes and only dirty jokes that got Jason booted, but the fact remains that said dirty jokes were not brought to HB’s attention until that date when criticism of Mayhew’s edits were made. Someone (am I right that it was Mayhew?) brought this fact to HB, and not at any old time, but at the time and within the context of Jason’s criticisms.

Jim, you wrote: “…really think that Peikoff is actually misleading anyone by this?”

If you mean that everyone knows he’s full of shit on this anyway, good point. But you don’t mean that. You mean that everyone who reads, “Peikoff, Rand’s Intellectual heir…” figures it means “Executor of her estate” and no more. But this is plainly false. “Intellectual Heir” is an odd designation, the meaning of which, in Rand’s hands, we know precisely. It meant co-dedicating her magnum opus and telling the world, ‘this person speaks for me and for Objectivism.’ She once did these things with regard to an heir, so we don’t have to guess about what SHE would have meant by it. However, she never did or said these things about Peikoff. Therefore, “Intellectual Heir”, as used by Peikoff, is horseshit, bullshit, and a big piece of shit.

Jon

James V,

I understand your frustration and I think ARI has done many good things and has changed a lot since I was friendly with some of its principals in 1993. I want it to change more. Not because I have all the answers, but because I want Objectivism to grow and I don't care who gets the credit. Listen, I went to college in Southern California with seven of the finest engineers and scientists I will ever know. ARI had every chance to have all of us going to their Conferences regularly. It ended up getting none of us.

Part of this was because of the poor offerings in Philosophy of Science. A lot of it was because of the hermetically sealed, timid atmosphere in Objectivism at the time. We were also tired of the coverups, whispering campaigns and ostracisms.

Look, I'm an Iowa farm boy originally and I'm used to people looking me in the eye and telling me the truth and I won't shy away from it. If there's a problem with TOC I won't sugarcoat it. If there's something I like about ARI, I'll say it. But I cannot abide the supercilious, need to know attitude I've seen from Peikoff, Schwartz and Binswanger. I'm willing to deal with anyone else at ARI and I like the work they've done. But every time I think they've turned over a new leaf, I get a fresh reminder of this stuff. When are they going to learn?

Jim

James: As far as I can tell, you and I agree if not entirely then almost on all the principles here. I sympathize with your position, in particular, I understand the necessity of priorities and proportion in issues such as this. However, things like the Reisman affair are glaring problems that have been festering for years, obviously deserving of priority.

Regarding your other points:

Whether Jason got booted for humor or for questioning Mayhew is ambiguous. There is definitely reason to suspect he was booted for questioning Mayhew and the humor thing was just an excuse. What you regard as possible here depends on your assessment of HB's character of course, and that's a major topic in itself (a starting point though is the whole Reisman affair--you can't investigate that without also investigating HB).

Regarding the intellectual heir business, yeah, it's important. Does ARI think that anyone has the authority to speak for Rand or not? They act like they do (the Mayhew book being an instance where they've literally put words in Ayn Rand's mouth) but in fact no one does. Since Peikoff invokes his intellectual heir status as a special incantation for us to do what he says, I think he thinks it's important too.

You wrote:

> Frankly, the source and motive of this sort of thing is more
> glaringly worth note than the criticism itself.

I have a lot of respect for you and I mean this in a friendly way, but: I don't appreciate your ad hominem here. Again, it's a canned ARI reaction and it gets tiresome. Whether you got it from ARI or not isn't relevant, it's typical. Vastly unlike ARI, I'm willing to back up my criticisms of them, there's really no reason for you to fall back on speculating about what character or other faults of mine would lead me to say something or other--I'll tell you outright.

Look, I'm the one who said this, at least here, and I read no one's "talking points," and I have no "canned" response of this sort.

I think you guys are being unfair.

Of course, of course: where there is a valid question about someone's editing of Rand material (do give them a chance), or a substantive criticism arises, the person or persons involved should certainly should respond. I was myself convinced that no one was going to write anything about the Brandens' biographical work, so I did it.

But, in a context like Jason's, I do not think a response is necessary -- at all. We all know why his subscription was cancelled now. Binswanger doesn't need to argue the point.

In the case of Peikoff's use of "intellectual heir," you cannot be serious. Two fair-minded chaps like yourselves really think that Peikoff is actually misleading anyone by this? Or distorting the record? Or that the issue is that important? Frankly, the source and motive of this sort of thing is more glaringly worth note than the criticism itself.

I have lots of questions about lots of things. I also know that there are other priorities, and what seems important to one may not appear to be crucial to another. I don't imagine that ARI will be working off of, say, TOC's list anytime soon.

Shayne,

I agree wholeheartedly. What someone means by saying I don't owe you an explanation is that your relationship with that person is unimportant enough to keep you in the dark about facts material to their moral judgments, integrity, assertions and so forth. When someone does this, the proper response is to regard the moral judgments and/or assertions under this cloak of secrecy to be arbitrary and unsubstantiated.

Jim

"The offended party owes no explanation to the offender, does he? What kind of altruism is that?"

Many ARI loyalists use this as an excuse not a principle. Last time I heard it, Diana Hsieh was telling me that Peikoff didn't owe anyone an explanation about what he meant by "intellectual heir". Even though he's the one asking all of us to respect whatever it is he means by it.

When they indulge in the outrageous and the arcane, they owe an explanation, not only to those they're talking to, but to themselves. This "I'm not an altruist, I don't owe you an explanation" gag is really getting beyond silly.

Jason: Integrity doesn't merely mean "putting moral principles into action". It means acting consistently with one's ideas, which includes more than just moral principles. And I already agreed that it was perhaps OK to cancel the membership, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he did in regard to this situation.

Shayne, you wrote:

"In my example, the court had integrity to the idea that a man forfeits his life"

When does a man forfeit his life? Under what conditions? Again, integrity means putting moral principles into action, and you haven't specified a complete principle. I don't think you can judge the integrity of the court unless you know the conditions under which they believe men should be sentenced to death. Similarly, I can't estimate Binswanger's integrity based on his canceling an HBL membership. Or, to be precise, there's no reason for me to assume he's not acting consistently with his principles. To me, the only thing that's questionable is his refusal to discuss the issue.

Regarding the pictures: I did make the point that "Word play and double entendres work because of the jarring contexts, not because of the literal picture they depict." Word play switches the mind's context from one expected context to another, often literally impossible context. With word play, the reaction of laughter (or a smile and a nod) might just mean that the listener is amused by the way the humorist was able to make two disparate contexts fit within one proposition. This is only possible with words, not pictures. In my list, however, there are several types of humor, not just wordplay.

James wrote:

"Take something you do regard as a rational cause for offense. Would you think you had some obligation to explain yourself when you took what you thought was the appropriate action about it?"

Yes, if the person who offended me followed up their actions with a reasonable explanation as to their real intentions, which is what I did and then received no reply.

"The offended party owes no explanation to the offender, does he? What kind of altruism is that?"

I thought you were proposing a discussion of why people might rationally find raunchy humor offensive. That might be an interesting discussion, but it would be more interesting to me if someone who is offended puts forward an argument as to why it's legitimate (i.e., rational and morally optional) to be offended.

"I think I was right, though -- you are the one who believes that raunchy humor is not an "optional" matter at all, nor is, it seems, the degree of raunchiness at which we all are permitted to take offense."

I already told you in a previous post, "I am open to the possibility that there are other, legitimate reasons for opposing raunchy humor." I wasn't lying to you. I could guess why people might be offended, but that's all it would be. For example, I could say that maybe those people somehow consider explicit sexual talk as part of the category of sex itself, and therefore do not want to share it with anyone else, in the same way they want to limit the sharing of the sexual act. But this is vague, probably psychologizing, and not very helpful.

It's just not interesting to me to guess. If you find someone who's offended by raunchy humor to post, or make a decent guess yourself, I'll likely join in.

Jason,

Of course, you are absolutely right about "intentions."

However, it really doesn't take guess-work to see how someone with a different sensibility or refinement -- and one within the range of rationality -- might possibily be offended by your joke.

You don't need me to tell you not to give a damn about giving offense to anybody in your writing, both style and substance, but that wasn't the issue. The offended party owes no explanation to the offender, does he? What kind of altruism is that? Was your subscription to HBL an entitlement to such an explanation? Wrong or right, I don't think he does.

Take something you do regard as a rational cause for offense. Would you think you had some obligation to explain yourself when you took what you thought was the appropriate action about it?

I think I was right, though -- you are the one who believes that raunchy humor is not an "optional" matter at all, nor is, it seems, the degree of raunchiness at which we all are permitted to take offense. Is that about right?

James (please call me "Jason"):

I'm not sure I agree with the approach. I don't believe that my list is offensive. And I don't know what the legitimate argument is in favor of its supposed offensiveness. (I tried to have that conversation with Dr. Binswanger.) I don't see the point in guessing why someone might be offended by raunchy humor and arguing in favor or against it. Perhaps someone who is offended by it might want to put forward a case against it? The burden is on the offended party to put forth their reasons.

Also, it doesn't make sense for people to get offended by my writing because they "assume" it was "meant to offend". People shouldn't judge my words primarily based on what they assume my intentions to be. They should judge them first based on what they mean. Or, at the very least, take the time to reconsider if I actually explain my intentions.

Jason: I agree that "integrity to facts" isn't a philosophically precise formulation, but integrity is still the issue. In my example, the court had integrity to the idea that a man forfeits his life, but didn't have integrity to the principles of method that would permit them to properly determine the facts of the case.

I don't see how your reply regarding the pictures addresses my point. I'll refrain from making it more clear by pointing out to you the literal meaning of some of the references in your jokes.

Shayne, I disagree with you here:

"It's true that he [Binswanger] thought it was desecration, and that if it was then it was right for him to boot you. But IN FACT it wasn't desecration, so in fact his booting you was unjust, regardless of the fact that he applied the correct principles. A court can apply the principle that a man forfeits his life if he murders another man to an innocent man by being sloppy with the facts, does that mean we praise the court for understanding the right principles? Integrity to principles without integrity to facts is outright dangerous."

There's no such thing as "integrity to facts" in the sense you mean. Integrity is the act of adhering consistently in action to moral principles. Whether moral principles adhere to facts involves separate moral and epistemological questions. A court can execute a man unjustly, but the injustice does not lie in the court putting its money where its mouth is. In this context, the court showed integrity to its decision. The morality of its *decision*, on the other hand, is what's in question. There are multiple examples in Ayn Rand's novels of characters with integrity but mistaken principles (i.e., not corresponding with facts). Andrei in "We the Living" comes to mind; Gail Wynand is another example. One can applaud integrity even while disagreeing with the moral principles. People with integrity understand the importance of principles. They at least can be persuaded, and I'd definitely take one over someone with "correct" principles but who doesn't act upon them.

Shayne, you wrote:

"I take it from your comments that you think that HB & Ayn Rand have psychological problems with sex because they don't like the raunchy humor?"

The answer is: I don't know. Perhaps "problem" is not the best word. Perhaps they lack, shall we say, the psychological training? More or less like public speaking skills? I'm just hypothesizing.

Shayne, you continued:

"To a man who characteristically concretizes his abstractions, raunchy humor is bound to be offensive, for that reason. Imagine if you put pictures next to your jokes--would that still just be good humor or would you agree that it'd be offensive? Why is it any different when you don't have the pictures?"

It depends on the pictures. Not to be sarcastic, but you actually have a good idea, there. Maybe I ought to add some. I'm picturing a naked man, a naked woman, and a copy of OPAR.

"Wait, honey, let me refer to the chapter on Sense Perception. Oh, yeah, that's it. You really know how to impinge on a guy's sense organs."

Word play and double entendres work because of the jarring contexts, not because of the literal picture they depict. So yes, it is different when you don't have pictures. I just don't want to paint myself into a pictureless corner. If I had any artistic talent, you can be sure I'd be drawing comics. Hey, maybe I could learn. Shayne, you're giving me all kinds of good ideas.

Jon: OK, you're right, I'm wrong, sorry. I was jumping to conclusions about HB's motive for kicking Roth. I think that is a small detail in the overall picture here, but that was the main detail you were concerned with when you chimed in.

However I don't think my conclusion was baseless, most of what I said stands.

Shayne: "You [Jon] were right about a few details, you're still missing the big picture."

No, sorry. All I stated on this thread was that you were jumping to conclusions about Binswanger. Despite your continual stubborn protestations (and speculation at one point that I *might* be a troll), Roth proved I was right--completely. I never opined on whether Binswanger was overreacting to Roth's list by canceling Roth's subscription, so I'm not "missing" anything.

As for misspelling your name, that's an honest mistake. Consider it fixed.

James: Maybe an example will clear things up. If someone walks up to you and asks you a question packaged with insults etc., I agree, you shouldn't answer (or at least, it's your option whether to answer or not, based on the context). However, if you are running an organization and a valid and important *criticism* comes to your attention, it doesn't matter where it came from, you should answer it. That doesn't mean you are answering the insulting *critic*; the fact that it first came from him is a non-essential. It's completely irrelevant.

Regarding my "anger" and "hostility": if a particular expression of mine here or anywhere seemed baselessly hostile, how about you just ask me about it. Probably the thing that makes me most outraged is the combination of Mayhew's rewriting Ayn Rand and his tactics with Roth. If you don't see my rational basis for that outrage I'm at a loss. And yes, there's a context here of past similar actions by ARI that amplifies my outrage somewhat, but still you should see some basis I'd think.

Shayne,

Gad zooks, man! It is perfectly appropriate to refuse to answer even a valid question if comes packaged with insults or attacks. Indeed, answering such a person implicitly sanctions their approach. There's nothing "pseudo-righteous" about that, is there?

I think I've asked you before about the source(s) of your anger at ARI. If you wish to continue this discussion off-line, I'll understand. I still cannot see the basis of your hostility.

Jon: You were right about a few details, you're still missing the big picture.

Speaking of details: presumably you've been reading my posts carefully before arguing against me, so I find it odd that you've still not caught the fact that you've been misspelling my name.

I'm glad Jason Roth chimed in. He was very honest, and he confirmed what I said earlier.

Roth: "Dr. Binswanger most likely did not know that I was the person who wrote the list when I subscribed to HBL. As I mentioned on my site, I sent him the link a few years ago, but it's doubtful he remembered my name years later when I subscribed."

That's one of the possibilities I mentioned might be the case.

Roth: "Next, we can assume that Dr. Binswanger did not kick me off the list because I brought up the 'Ayn Rand Answers' issue. At least, that was not the sufficient reason. He did, after all, post my comments verbatim to HBL."

Exactly...Binswanger was just offended by his list. No need to leap to the conclusion that Binswanger won't tolerate criticism of Mayhew's editing (unless you already want to believe that).

For the record, I'm not offended at all by raunchy humor in general. I just don't find the jokes on Roth's list funny.

James: You shouldn't view it primarily as answering critics. You're answering criticisms, and either those have a basis or they don't. If they do, it doesn't matter who first posed them, they stand on their own, and so would any answer.

I'd agree that answering irrational criticisms posed by irrational critics gets you nowhere.

And this tells you who they owe the explanation to. If the criticism is valid and important, they owe it to every rational man to provide one. To focus on the character of the person who posed the criticism (such as focusing on Roth's taste in humor) is a cheap, cowardly evasion deserving of disgust. Which is why I'm disgusted.

So I'd say you're terribly wrong here. You are supporting one of the distinguishing faults of ARI: to remain close-lipped, hiding behind a veneer of pseudo-righteousness. And it's not really fitting for you, I think you represent the opposite, rational approach of boldly facing rational criticisms (not irrational critics) instead of sticking your head in the sand. That was what your book was largely about, at least for me.

"It's earlier than you think."

So it would seem.

Shayne,

When do they "owe" an explanation and to whom? How were your unanswered questions originally presented to them and by whom? This matters to me.

One certainly need not -- and should not -- answer questions with a built-in assumption of evil-doing. My own recent experience suggests to me that fairly answering certain hostile critics will get you no place, fast. It also teaches me that some patience and understanding is rewarded. But, given your current stance, can you see why they might not be receptive to your own inquiries?

The context of someone's silence is crucial in weighing its meaning.

James: I think your policy of reserving judgment is the right, benevolent, rational one, assuming you are dealing with someone who hasn't earned the opposite with you, and most important, assuming you don't perpetually reserve judgment. There has to be a time limit to this kind of thing, and if they don't explain in a reasonable amount of time, they don't deserve your reservation of judgment.

So I don't necessarily disagree with your stance, but since with me ARI has earned a suspicious eye because of numerous other things, I don't think there's anything wrong with my stance either. I won't eat my hat if I end up being wrong as I hope to be wrong, just as I've hoped to be wrong about the numerous other things ARI stays tight-lipped about.

My interest in this is the result of my disappointment that the dialogue about Mayhew's book never took place. But, Shayne, I think we should reserve judgment about this until we hear the answers.

Jason: Judging by the average comedian, I'd say that raunchy humor is not merely an optional kind of humor, it's required in order to be funny!

I take it from your comments that you think that HB & Ayn Rand have psychological problems with sex because they don't like the raunchy humor? Is that an ad hominem argument for raunchy humor?

My opinion on explicit humor is this: To a man who characteristically concretizes his abstractions, raunchy humor is bound to be offensive, for that reason. Imagine if you put pictures next to your jokes--would that still just be good humor or would you agree that it'd be offensive? Why is it any different when you don't have the pictures?

Mr. Roth,

In my original post, I mentioned Rand's view of porn in order to indicate where we might start to look for those "other, legitimate reasons for opposing raunchy humor." I know it's not exactly the same thing, but the same principles probably apply. I am open to the idea that it is our sensibilities that need refining here, Mr. Roth, but, like you, I do not understand the inevitable logic of it.

Rand felt that sex was "too good" and "too important" for any explicit, physical depiction, presumably outside of some other, scientific/medical (?) context.

And, let's face it, all porn in the 60s and 70s was foul and degrading. To me, however, a sufficiently reverential treatment of sex is not offensive. It is certainly not meant to offend or even to disrepect sex, something that seemed to be the subtext of almost all porn thirty years ago. (And before I start sounding like an expert on the subject, let me say that I have seen very little porn, but I have friends who have professional reasons for viewing almost all of it. They have provided me with explicit descriptions. No, really...)

The way traditional society is pathologically uptight about sex -- in conjunction with the way the "rebels" from the traditional norms have degradingly mistreated sex -- in conjunction with all of the ugly associations with so much explicit "sex talk" -- all make obvious to me how someone could regard any "raunchy talk" as offensive and assume that it was meant to offend.

How do we insult someone the hardest? Of course, with profanity like "sod off," and "f--- you," etc. These associations may be something important to break, but these associations are real.

This might get us started...

Neil: I agree that there's no reason to suspect anything "nefarious" about ARI because they've cut Ayn Rand's words and inserted Mayhew's (or who knows whose). But at best this is a care of extremely poor judgement on their part. It worries me that they are the ones who control access to Ayn Rand in the original.

> First, Mayhew told me via e-mail that it was he who included the
> link to my list, and that Dr. Binswanger removed the link before
> posting Mayhew's comments to HBL.

I stand corrected. More importantly, if HB disallowed ad hominem attacks on you into his forum, then he partly lived up to my expectations (him not being willing to listen to your rationale is still a problem). Still, I think it would have been appropriate to let you see the HBL response to your question before asking you to leave.

And I still have a problem with HB's booting you over your humor. It's true that he thought it was desecration, and that if it was then it was right for him to boot you. But IN FACT it wasn't desecration, so in fact his booting you was unjust, regardless of the fact that he applied the correct principles. A court can apply the principle that a man forfeits his life if he murders another man to an innocent man by being sloppy with the facts, does that mean we praise the court for understanding the right principles? Integrity to principles without integrity to facts is outright dangerous.

> Ah, the non-subjectivist, non-anal retentive Objectivist.
> Wherefore art thou?

"It's earlier than you think."

James Valliant wrote:
>I don't know if you are accusing me of being a "subjectivist" or "anal retentive," so I will still respond."

No! I'm not accusing you of that; quite the opposite, you seem to be very reasonable. (Which I've also concluded after getting about halfway through your book so far.) The misunderstanding is probably my fault, for throwing in the paragraph about the three types of Objectivists, when it didn't really belong. That paragraph had nothing to do with you, but rather the various people who have reacted to my list in various ways.

I understand that some people are offended by raunchy humor. However, before I consider that an optional choice, not to be disparaged, I need to know what about raunchy humor offends them. Being raised in a different generation, or by particular parents, isn't enough for me. For me, one of the fundamental issues in humor is the difference between the object of the humor and its content. (As you pointed out in your comment about the "dead baby" jokes.) If a person has, in fact, differentiated between the two, and still has a problem with *all* raunchy humor, then it would appear that they have a larger psychological problem with sex. Nevertheless, I am open to the possibility that there are other, legitimate reasons for opposing raunchy humor.

Interestingly, Dr. Binswanger never specified whether he thought my list was an act of desecration to Objectivism, to sex, or to both. I guess I always assumed he meant both.

Utility Belt,

If his defense was credible, i.e., he really juggles eggs.

Mr. Roth,

I don't know if you are accusing me of being a "subjectivist" or "anal retentive," so I will still respond.

I did not take offense at your list, as you know, and I added the presence of a "Survivor" precisely to add context and to invite the very distinctions you draw, and I mentioned black humor for the same reasons that you did.

There are moral options, and I hope you can see that I regard raunchy talk as one of those "options."

But, can you see the other side of that coin, namely, the reason why someone with another context would see it as offensive?

Or, is that non-optional? Intrinsic? Why is that?

>>>No, I do not believe that Roth was intending to "desecrate" Objectivism, but I can see why Binswanger sees it as a "desecration."

Quite on the contrary, he probably thought he was making a joke that fellow Objectivists would enjoy and appreciate. Obviously he misjudged his fellow Objectivists...

To extend your statue-egging analogy, would you have still kicked the guy out of your house if he protested that he had just been juggling eggs in front of the statue, and hit it by accident?

For some reason, I feel myself getting sucked into this discussion. I'll post this (long) comment for the record.

For the sake of fairness, I just want to clarify a couple points. First, Mayhew told me via e-mail that it was he who included the link to my list, and that Dr. Binswanger removed the link before posting Mayhew's comments to HBL. (It was stated earlier in this thread that Binswanger posted the link on HBL, but that's not the case to my knowledge.) Second, and this is just my own educated guess, Dr. Binswanger most likely did not know that I was the person who wrote the list when I subscribed to HBL. As I mentioned on my site, I sent him the link a few years ago, but it's doubtful he remembered my name years later when I subscribed.

Next, we can assume that Dr. Binswanger did not kick me off the list because I brought up the "Ayn Rand Answers" issue. At least, that was not the sufficient reason. He did, after all, post my comments verbatim to HBL. According to him, it was the list itself that led to his decision. There are a lot of sheep in Objectivists' clothing out there, attacking and misrepresenting Objectivism, and he probably thought I was one of those people. If he truly thought the list was "an act of desecration", why in God's name would he want to have me as a member? That is understandable. (Unfortunately, it's also a huge misinterpretation of my list.) My main disappointment was that he did not choose to discuss the issue with me after I wrote to him. If I were ever to accuse someone of an "act of desecration", I sure as hell would (a) be damn certain of it, or (b) not avoid a discussion about it until I became certain. Clearly, he acted as though he were certain.

I want to voice my agreement with James Valliant's "My Two Cents" post, and to thank him for writing:

"...Roth’s motive was not to 'desecrate' but to cause laughter, even to honor Objectivism as a living part of his existence. I did not laugh, as I say, but I did see the compliment he was trying to pay Objectivism."

It's too bad he didn't laugh, but no one's perfect. (Let's see if anyone arrests me for violation 92.544.59B, "Use of a Floating Concept in Jest.")

It's also nice to see someone who knows what he's talking about when it comes to humor (also from James):

"I'll admit that I laugh at Addams Family dialogue and even dead baby jokes. The macabre black humor of it is my way of dismissing the seriousness, the probability, of the horrors they imply – in a way, an acknowledgment of the obviously 'over-the-top,' un-serious motive of the teller. But the same laughter would vanish if I felt the motive to be different."

It's interesting that James should also write this:

"In your view, is there such a thing as inappropriate humor at all? A Holocaust joke? A Holocaust joke in the presence of a Survivor?"

Curiously, I think one of the reasons some Objectivists are offended by my list is that they see it as "an Objectivist joke in the presence of a non-Objectivist". I hate to shock these people, but it'