~~ I don't think that I'm the only one who's getting an awful lot of information to make conclusions about from so much continual, ongoing (never-ending?) so-called 'clarifications' involved about what was supposedly clearly meant by implication, though was ambiguously put, yet, on the other hand, supposedly 'clearly said' instead of, as the opponent does, hinting at, in so many levels of verbiage re "When you said that I meant that you hinted that I insinuated that...[ad infinatum]..." --- Talk about an obvious defense-orientation at "I'm RIGHT, goddamit!" This not only gets old across several posts; it becomes totally irrelevent to whatever the original point was (there was one, wasn't there?)...not to mention b-o-r-i-n-g.

~~ To stay close to 'truth', logic, and 'relevency' (not to mention rational arguing), wouldn't it be best that everyone just go back to the tried-and-true method of text-arguing where one's argument against another 1st starts with an actual QUOTING of what one's arguing against? Rather than all this chronic equivocational-filled paraphrasing of what someone must've meant followed by (occasional; VERY occasional) apologies for 'misinterpretations' or 'misconstruing's or...what the ****-ever?

~~ In THIS thread, so much 'cross-analysis' seems to have turned into nothing but '1-up'-manship.

~~ Stick to original quotes...and don't 'read into' another's interpretations to complain about something irrelevent. --- Sheeeeesh!

LLAP

P.S: If you, dear reader, haven't done any of the above, this post is not for you; ergo, you'll have no 'reason' to respond. If you respond however, I suggest that you think about why you feel the shoe fits you. --- I'll not respond to 'academic' questions about this post.

P.P.S: I can't remember when I've read so much amongst peoples who long ago made it clear to all that they've each nothing to say to each other.

... but historic.

An eloquent and clarifying post, Bill -- and informative! Thank you.

I notice just for the record that 1)you've altered your beef now from "There is a major flaw in his analysis. Due to that mistake of fact he is wrong" to "he left a false impression about this." So you almost seem to have taken the point. 2) Good to hear TOC's agnostocism on the other more substantive issue is not your own; and 3) Re: 'Creswell's Ignorance': my name is spelled with two 's's, not one.

May I second Shayne and ask you what the lie was? Have you thought about what's going to happen to your credibility if you don't deliver? Did you notice that this post contains no declarative sentences and that you thus cannot call anything in it a lie?

Peter?

You cannot hide the misleading nature of your post with more childish insults. Let's go back to not talking, shall we?

It wasn't an apology, it was the clarification you should have asked for instead of accusing me of lying. And you say I fly of the handle...

I think what I wrote was clear enough that it didn't mean what you attributed to it, that you read worse than you write, and you have a lot of gall to give me lectures about writing more clearly given your writing.

You fly off the handle at the faintest breeze of criticism, and you can say that I am overdoing it when you insinuate an attack on someone's scholarly integrity? Darkly "hinting" (the only noticeable hints) with words like "treason" was a bad mistake, no doubt, and if that's an apology and a retraction, then enough said.

But it's not whether I liked it or not, you did not "write clearly enough" for the truth.

If you know where Valliant's original comment was on this that I'm referring to, by all means, post the link. I'm having a hard time finding it.

I don't think it justifies the hysterical foaming and accusations you're throwing at me, but I do see possible ambiguities in what I wrote. I didn't mean to imply that Valliant's comment was treason, I meant to imply that rewarding ARI intellectuals in this way was treason. And by "gave to them" I didn't mean Valliant--I don't regard him as an ARI intellectual. And instead of "hinted" it would have been clearer to say "suggested as explanation for policies of exlusivity".

Yes I didn't comment either way on whether he wanted exclusivity or not, but unlike you, when I mean to imply something, I say it. And I didn't mean to imply the opposite by not saying it. I agree he doesn't and has said so--he both disagrees with ARI policy here and refuses to evaluate them negatively for their policy--that is the one constant with Valliant--he always refuses to evaluate ARI one way or another. At least, as far as I've ever seen. There's always new unfounded speculations about why what they're doing doesn't deserve any suspicion or condemnation. And then with TOC his approach is exactly the opposite: straight for the jugular.

Sort of like you with me here. I'm a "liar" because I didn't write clearly enough to your liking. Instead of asking whether I meant such and such, you go straight for the jugular.

This kind of behavior comes from holding loyalty to people above reason. "Yet it would perhaps be thought to be better, indeed to be our duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy what touches us closely, especially as we are philosophers or lovers of wisdom; for while both are dear, piety requires us to honor truth above our friends." —Aristotle

"... he [Valliant] hinted that making historic documents exlusively available to ARI-sanctioned intellectuals was a kind of reward ARI gave to them (he spoke of this approvingly, evidently unconscious of the issue here). I submit that this kind of thing is treason to Objectivism..." No part of that was true. For instance, he does not want exclusive availability, nor is that really the case, etc. He did note how you constantly assume that it's "ARI" doing things like "rewarding" people. (Also, he never "hinted" at anything, and he was far more "conscious" of these issues than you seem to be even now, but I'll let those distortions slide for now.)

All of those were lies about which you already had the evidence.

Saying all of this without also indicating that my adorable husband advocates the complete "availability" of all of these materials to all scholars is despicable.

In response to Shayne's request I compared the 33 sources in _Ayn Rand Answers_ with the listings in the Ayn Rand Bookstore Catalog.

It is unclear because of the advertising format how many of these are available. Nineteen of the Q & A's are definitely available. They include eight of the Ford Hall Forums and nine of the Q & A's from Leonard Peikoff's courses. They also include the 1963 lecture "America's Persecuted Minority" and the "Faith and Force" lecture.

I would classify five of them are probably available. They are the remaining Ford Hall forum talks listed with the combined sets of all of the Ford Hall Forum talks, but don't specifically show Q & A's in the individual advertisements. I didn't do a statistical comparison of the percentage of material in the book that comes from the Ford Hall Forum talks, but my memory ofreading of the book is that it is higher than the percentage of 13/33. As to the non-Ford Hall Forum talks, there are three that I am unsure about in addition because the advertising indicates availability, but doesn't indicate definitely that they include Q & A's. An additional two are the "outtakes" from the fiction and non-fiction courses. I know that the Brandens were edited out of those in some way, but have forgotten the details. I'm unsure whether their questions were left in, with someone else reading them. So the status of those is unclear.

Six of the sources are definitely unavailable. I would love to be able to hear them. Perhaps ARI will release them at some later time.

Anyone is welcome to go to the link in my previous post and do their own analysis.

My point is this. George Reisman left the false impression that none of these materials were available. Many of them are and have been for years. Scholars can compare what was on the recording with what Mayhew has written in those cases. If you value Ayn Rand you can use Mayhew's book as a source. If a particular answer troubles you it is likely (but not necessarily) available to check. Scholars can certainly do this comparison to check his honesty. If there is something that inspires you there is a good chance that you can get that CD. You can listen to an entire Rand speech and hear the context of the question and her answer. And that is of value to me, and anyone who values Ayn Rand and her ideas.

Bill

You said I lied. What was the lie?

Since we're not talking, Shayne, you can only have intentionally created a misleading impression about my husband's position, from what I can tell.

As I've said before in so many words, I don't care about your thoughts on these issues and won't engage you--but if you have any sense of decency at all, either specify the alleged lie or withdraw the accusation. Not that I should have had to ask.

Shayne,

I will do an analysis of the percentage of the materials that are available. It is a fair request. But now I'm going to bed. I will post it sometime tomorrow. Peter pointed out that they are not all available, and I think that the percentage might be higher than you think, but I will take the time to do the analysis comparing the talks excerpted with what is available.

Bill

I had major problems doing so, but I've solved them. Cut and paste is a marvelous thing.

Shayne,

Your overwrought and hyperbolic distortions, lies, and insults just cannot stop, can they? You drop the whole context, all the qualifications, etc., and then spit out context-free distortion-slime like that?

Scholars like Sciabarra have had the documents in ARI's possession made "available" to them -- if they care merely to verify the work already published, but not publish it themselves. The owner of such intellectual property rights clearly has the right to make money from this -- and even to determine how and by whom it will first be presented, especially in a world in which Rand and her words will inevitably be distorted and lied about. No treason, just common sense. Different editors will approach things differently.

PARC presents Rand's notes in a way that brackets all editorial insertions of any kind and preserves her original notations in as raw a form as they will ever likely be reprinted. It urges that all of the Rand materials be made completely available to all scholars as soon as possible. The estate isn't profiting a dime from it. But PARC does provide the necessary context for understanding those otherwise out-of-context notes.

You still seem to be operating from a still-undefined and utterly arbitrary conspiracy-theory model of "ARI" and its vast, unified and nefarious aims.

I'm sorry you had difficulty logging on to SOLOPassion. Equally, I'm glad to see what you've written here. If it means what I think it does, I salute you. I'd love to hear from you privately via SOLO Mail or my regular e-mail address, editor@freeradical.co.nz

Linz

I was writing to a friend about this and realized another issue here.

ARI has several goals, including: to get Objectivism in the culture, to foster intellectuals, and to preserve Ayn Rand's historic documents. To the extent that they are in on this Mayhew thing, they are allowing their political agendas to warp and distort what is arguably their most important duty: To preserve Ayn Rand's historic writings and make them widely available.

In a proper organization, there would be no conflict of interest here. But evidently, ARI is run in a way that they permit such conflicts of interest. Actually James Valliant admitted such a thing in a different thread--he hinted that making historic documents exlusively available to ARI-sanctioned intellectuals was a kind of reward ARI gave to them (he spoke of this approvingly, evidently unconscious of the issue here). I submit that this kind of thing is treason to Objectivism, treason to Ayn Rand's legacy, treason to history in general, and treason to ARI contributors who value Ayn Rand.

Peter: I don't think your slamming Bill Perry constitutes any great height. I've seen no evidence that he's not open to reason (if he did, then at the end of discovering it I'd think your bashing was justified, but not before). And frankly your response looks like a lot of the TOC-bashing that's gone along with the PARC threads--too much passion, too little reason.

You had a lot of good points--why not just make them and see what Bill says? Maybe you'd see that he'd change his mind. In Objectivism, passion should follow conviction, not the other way around--the way to a man's heart is through his mind; you can't preach a man into having passion for your values.

I do agree with the essence here though: It would a very worthy project for people who actually value Ayn Rand to make her words available without as much cost and effort. What Mayhew has accomplished is less than a zero--he's taking something that would have been of great value and created an ambiguous mess of it, something that would have been better to have not created at all. The fact that he could not even be troubled to highlight where he edited Ayn Rand marks him as an incompetent fool at best--and a presumptuous, arrogant bastard at worst.

Depending on the extent of involvement of ARI and the exclusivity with which they treat the archives they gave to Mayhew, they certainly deserve to be condemned along with Mayhew for this atrocious act.

(For the record, a friend of mine estimates that only 2/3 of the Q&A materials used are publicly available; for the rest you have to beg ARI--but take that as hearsay, I don't know what the facts are and that was just a guess on his part. Bill Perry inserted the ambiguity here, he has the onus of clearing this aspect up).

Mr. Cresswell,

You are making some mighty large assumptions without knowing the facts.

You say:

"No surprise that he works for TOC - the only comments they care to make on recent books on Ayn Rand are both risible and wrong. Ayn Rand vilified (by the Brandens)? Ayn Rand bowdlerised (by Mayhew)? Why would anyone from TOC care about either -- it's not like Ayn Rand is any sort of value to them, is it?"

Well it is true that I work for TOC. But I have resigned effective a week from today. You also assume that I am an opponent of Mr. Valliant's book, but if you have read the threads here carefully you will find that I have encouraged people to read it. In addition Jim Heaps-Nelson mentioned that I encouraged him to read Brian Register's comparison of the two versions of Nathaniel Branden's memoir.

In addition I will not be speaking at or attending the TOC Summer Seminar, as I am an employee until Friday I will not be making further explanations of this right now.

Mr. Creswell--HOW DARE YOU ASSUME THAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW MY POSITIONS ON THESE ISSUES.

You also state:
"No, Bill, it's not. But since Rand is not of any value to you I wouldn't expect you to understand that."

You don't even know me. I've seldom posted here or on the predecessor site, because I was an employee of TOC. What in the world makes you think that Rand is of no value to me? Because I worked for TOC? Lindsay worked with Joe Rowlands and Joe worked with Lindsay. I don't attribute Lindsay's views to Joe, or Joe's to Lindsay.

Now as to your criticism of what I wrote about Reisman. You are right to a large degree. It would certainly have been much, much better to have all the Q & A unedited. But this is not like the other material in the archives. It is available albeit at great expense in both time and money. But for him to state as both you and I quoted:

"Few things could be more valuable for advancing Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, rescuing contemporary culture from the philosophical poison that is destroying it, and, at the same time, giving a sense to those who never met her of what Ayn Rand was like in person, than making her Q&A sessions available to the public, in the original, spoken form in which they took place and were recorded." Reisman is leaving the false impression that ARI is hiding these from the public. What would be better than to listen to a specific Ford Hall Forum speech and then listen to the Q & A for that speech?

I would have loved to have a book of all the Q & A's unedited or a CD. That isn't what ARI and Mayhew chose to do.

Mr Creswell says:

"Perhaps you just wanted to be able to say for once in your life sentences like "Reisman is wrong" and "Reisman's analysis has a major flaw." You figured you would never have another chance, eh Bill? Is that what motivated this? Envy?"

Nope. George Reisman has done some excellent work. I've never met him or heard him speak. I just wanted to point out that he left a false impression about this, and others jumped on the bandwagon. Of course if I didn't use such language you'd accuse me of not having any passion. You can spew your snotty venom at anyone without knowing the facts and that is passion. If someone else criticizes a position of someone you agree with that even using the terms "wrong" and "major flaw in his analysis" that is "envy."

I did not intend to announce my departure from TOC in this forum, but I could not allow this to go unmentioned. It is exceedingly ironic that I have been pilloried for defending an ARI scholar while working at TOC. I am not attempting to hijack this thread into a discussion of my leaving TOC, the reasons for it, and what I think and don't think about ARI, TOC, SOLO Passion, ROR, Objectivist Living, Lindsay Perigo, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, James Valliant Michael Stuart Kelly or any other individual. I am leaving the D.C. area a week from today. I will take some time to drive across the country, move into a new house, and get setup. I will make a statement at some point, but it is going to be extremely limited. When I make it most of you will understand why.

Bill

Bill Perry is not just having difficulty getting on to SOLO. He's having difficulty understanding why this matters. No surprise that he works for TOC - the only comments they care to make on recent books on Ayn Rand are both risible and wrong. Ayn Rand vilified (by the Brandens)? Ayn Rand bowdlerised (by Mayhew)? Why would anyone from TOC care about either -- it's not like Ayn Rand is any sort of value to them, is it?

"This is a tempest in a teapot."

No, Bill, it's not. But since Rand is not of any value to you I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

"There is a major flaw in [Reisman's] analysis."

No Bill, there isn't. However, there is in yours.

You say, that all these answers are easily available and can therefore be easily checked*. Well, they're not. The answers come from over thirty different sources, not all of which are available to buy. To get all these answers in one place compiiled by subject-- which is a good part of the value of these Q & As -- one would have to buy all 30-odd tapes (and beg the rest), then fast forward to the Q& A section of each and re-tape into some sort of compiilation -- all just so that you can sit down with Mayhew's book and your new tape to see which is Rand and which is Mayhew channeling Rand.

So not easy at all. And why should it be necessary given that Mayhew could simply have made the book available either in the original form, or with notes indicating where and what edits were made, and/or with a compilation CD tucked into the back sleeve of the book. Such a thing would have been of incalculable value and intellectually honest -- but perhaps intellectual honesty is not important to Bill Perry, or to employees of TOC.

So not easy to do then, Bill. And not possible, given that some of the sources are not available. And not cheap. And hardly practical. And hardly likely for the wide audience that this book will have reached.

So you are wrong, Bill Perry. As you surely know you are wrong. Perhaps you just wanted to be able to say for once in your life sentences like "Reisman is wrong" and "Reisman's analysis has a major flaw." You figured you would never have another chance, eh Bill? Is that what motivated this? Envy?

Maybe you TOC employees don't really give a shit that Ayn Rand's irreplaceable answers on a wide range of topics have been bowdlerised? (Why should you care, right?) Maybe you don't care (on a related topic) that Ayn Rand's life has been lied about by biographers who had no compunction about lying to her for years? (Why should you care, right?) Odd that as a TOC employee you choose to comment on the former in order to say how much you don't care, while on the latter all TOC employees have to date remained silent, except to say that they really don't care, (And why should you care, right?) and to re-invite the liars for another round at your Summer Conference.

And why should you care about that, right?

If I was the sort of person who drew conclusions from such things, I would begin to do so about now.

Why would you care about Rand being bowdlerised -- it's not like her original words would be important to you, right? And why would you care about Rand being lied to and deceived by two people that have been shown to be liars and frauds and who deceived Ayn Rand for years, and us for even longer? Why would you care when it seems clear that TOC employees don't really give a shit about very about much at all when it comes to Ayn Rand, do they Bill?

Coming back to the immediate point, you proffer the thought about Rand's original and unbowdlerised words: "Maybe a CD of them combined would be a good thing." Oh, you think? Really? But if as you say the book is "merely an edited compilation of them," then the CD would "merely" be an edited compilation wouldn't it, and why bother, eh Bill? What employee of TOC would really want to be bothered with having to listen to an edited complilation of Ayn Rand's original words. Why bother, right?

Just so you know why some of us are bothered by this, Bill -- that is, those of us who do actually care about what Rand said -- what could have made this book so valuable is that it could have made available Ayn Rand's thoughts and opinions to many people who just can't or aren't going to go out and buy 30-odd tapes (even if all tapes were available to buy) and browse them in order to find out her thoughts on humour, dishonesty, Ronald Reagan, Jane Fonda, Wagner, Libertarians, the Brandens, Terence Rattigan, love and sex, abortion, drug use, communists, religious conservatives or The Institute for Objectivist Studies**.

Since many of those answers clarify many issues that many Ojectivists have been arguing about for years (not that that would interest you), making Rand's answers easily available and in their original form would be good for everyone who either values Rand's ideas or who wants the world to begin valueing them.

I understand, Bill, that no-one from TOC would fall into either category, so I can hardly expect you to understand, now can I?

"This is a tempest in a teapot," you say, Bill. Is there really anything about Rand that isn't a tempest in a teapot over at TOC. Anything about Rand or the way she and her ideas get treated that you guys really ~do~ get outraged about?

I guess not.

"Reisman says: Few things could be more valuable for advancing Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, rescuing contemporary culture from the philosophical poison that is destroying it, and, at the same time, giving a sense to those who never met her of what Ayn Rand was like in person, than making her Q&A sessions available to the public, in the original, spoken form in which they took place and were recorded.

That is true."

Yes. It sure is. On that we can agree.
=======================================
* You say that you didn't say they were "easily available"? But what's wrong with editing what you say, Bill, since your original words can be checked, right?
** Some of these are not true, but it's easy enough to check the original source, right?

If indeed all of these Q&A's are just those on the publicly available CD's, then indeed this is a tempest in a teapot--I'd still think Mayhew screwed up by not indicating which words were his, but the worst is that he'd undermined his own work and reputation by doing that (I still think that was a pretty stupid thing to do, obvious that you shouldn't do it), it wouldn't be the issue I was making of it and doesn't inpugn Peikoff or ARI except maybe for not expecting a higher standard.

I had understood from what had been said earlier that only part of the material was publicly available. So is it really the case that all of the materials are based on publicly available works?

Bill Perry is having a difficult time getting on to SOLO. I'm going to contact Duncan about getting his password changed so that he can get in. In the mean time he gave me permission to post his comments here which he sent to me in an email.  Here they are :

Dear Jason,

I've been reading the thread about Reisman's comment on Mayhew's book that you posted on SOLO Passion.  There is a major flaw in his analysis.  Due to that mistake of fact he is wrong and some of the commentators on the thread are wrong as well. 

Reisman says:  Few things could be more valuable for advancing Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, rescuing contemporary culture from the philosophical poison that is destroying it, and, at the same time, giving a sense to those who never met her of what Ayn Rand was like in person, than making her Q&A sessions available to the public, in the original, spoken form in which they took place and were recorded.

That is true.  But of course the Q & A sessions are available.  And they have been for years.  Anyone can listen to them and compare them to what Mayhew wrote.  All the people who are saying that they would run out and buy them have had the opportunity for a long time.  Maybe a CD of them combined would be a good thing.  Of course they are currently in the context of the talks that the Q & A's relate to.  The book is merely and edited compilation of them.  Some confusion occurs when when Mayhew refers to the ARI generated transcripts that he worked from.  But the recordings are the originals.  See this link to the ARI Bookstore.  This is a tempest in a teapot.

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/products.asp?dept=18

Shayne nails it. I can't disagree with a single word.

For me, the fact that Rand's words were "edited" kills the pleasure of this potentially great book. I feel cheated. It's kind of like being Tantalus -- so near to something marvelous, and yet so far.

I tend to think Ayn Rand's words are sacred: no one should dare to touch them.  A full and accurate transcript -- with appropriate editorial commentary -- is the ideal here. On issues of fidelity to history and intellectual honesty, ARI is immensely untrustworthy.

If the CD were available, would anyone buy the book? I could see buying a CD+literal transcript, but who would care about Mayhew's edits if the CD were available? Indeed, there's only one reason I'd buy the book: the CD was *not* made available. But I'm not buying the book, because I know in advance that I can't know which words were Rand's and which were Mayhew's.

If he'd at least indicated where he edited Ayn Rand, then the book would be of some value (though not nearly as much value as the original) but without this indication it's of no value to me; it just serves as a reminder of what could and should be made available, but wasn't.

But there's a stronger reason not to buy the book. Since it represents a devaluation of the original materials, I can only think of one reason the book was written in the first place: to give Mayhew a source of income, as reward for staying loyal to ARI. The softest way I can put this is: that's a flagrantly unprincipled misuse of Rand's works.

An alternative might have been to provide an accompanying cd of the audio. Or could not the audio have been released on its own as a couple of cds?

In any case Ayn Rand herself stated that her answers were in need of editing.

Provenzo evades (ironically, by mentioning) the most important point here: that Mayhew has added his own words without indicating which were his. That's really a bare minimum standard here--at the very least indicate what you contributed vs. what was a literal translation. That much is obvious. And I'd argue further: the original words should be there too.

Provenzo's main defense is that Mahew admitted what he did, presumably the premise we're supposed to buy into is that as long as you admit a wrong then it's not a wrong. Well I don't buy it.

Nicholas Provenzo (The Rule of Reason) on what Reisman said about the Q & A:

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/archives/2006_03_01_default.htm#1141697...

It may be a little over the top but I think he makes some good and important points, in opposition to Reisman's critique. Its worth reading in the very least to get a fuller perspective.

Excerpt:

So what has Mayhew then done? Given Rand's obvious absence, as a competent and knowledgeable Objectivist who has spent years researching her papers, he has acted as her editor. Does Mayhew ever claim that Rand would have approved of his edits? No. He explicitly states in his introduction that that she very well might not have. Does Mayhew ever claim that his book is part of Objectivism? No--he explicitly rejects any such implication.