PARC is Out of Print

[Donovan A.]

For example, if they had been photo-copied pages, all in her own handwriting (Rand wrote-out practically everything longhand in her later years - even Atlas Shrugged), that would have lended more credibility to their accuracy. As far as I know, Jennifer Burns is the only independent scholar that has actually seen or reported on the contents of Rand's diaries, or parts of them, and I don't think she made a line-by-line comparison with PARC.

Jerry,

I agree that proof of the reliability of Jim Valliant and Casey Fahy's editing would require scans of the original handwritten journal pages.

There is no reason to take Jim Valliant's word for it. Where a great many related matters are concerned, his word has proven worthless.

All of this means that we won't know for sure any time soon.

My understanding is that Jennifer Burns saw some of the 1967-1968 journal pages. Dr. Burns' book wasn't intended to focus on Ayn Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden, so she didn't make a close study of these journal entries. (Anne Heller presumably would have done so, had she been granted access—but of course that is one reason why she wasn't granted access.)

On top of that, a line-by-line comparison with PARC would be a rather thankless exercise for anyone allowed to see the originals in the Archives. If there were any discrepancies between the original entries and Valliant's renditions, the Estate wouldn't give permission to quote the originals.

For some time to come, anyone who wants to quote the diary entries will be stuck quoting Valliant's out-of-print book instead.

Robert Campbell

This came up on a Facebook thread. When I asked " I'm curious to know why the ARI archives are not open to everyone? Why is Ayn Rand's diary/journal not available for anyone to read? In the Montessori community, a similar thing happened. Rita Kramer wrote a biography that dealt with the controversies surrounding Montessori's training methods and private life. But in the case of the Montessori biography, the archives are open to anyone. This is not the case with Ayn Rand."

Valliant replied: " you are simply wrong: the Archives are open to everyone, and Rand's journals are "available for anyone to read," despite what you've been told by less-than-honest critics of ARI.

Just drop a line to Jeff Britting, the Archivist, and he will tell you all about it.

This is just another outrageous myth, for the Archive policies have long been available to everyone, as well, and are a matter of public record. So, go find out the easily-available facts before smearing the Archive. Chris Sciabarra was allowed to look at the material -- he was not allowed to publish the yet-unpublished material, but that is standard practice. Ditto Heller. They refused the opportunities afforded them, and some seem to be ~ demanding ~ the right to publish someone else's copyright property. And, as the materials have been published, by an authorized source, even that (very standard) restriction is lifted and the originals are there for all to both see and use.

In fact, compared to the archives of Einstein and Disney, the Rand estate and archive have been working at light speed. The material has been observed and described by independent scholars such as Prof. Jennifer Burns."

After further questioning Valliant then said:

"Yes, I was perfectly clear, but, to repeat: nearly anyone may read the documents and look at the material, just as Prof. Jennifer Burns did -- and she is "not an advocate for Rand's ideas," either. "

- Emphasis added by me.

In reference to a quote I found by Peikoff I wrote:

"Since I have access to Mr. Valliant, I'm also curious as to what he thinks of the following quote/statement made by Dr. Peikoff in his 1983 course: Understanding Objectivism [CD 11 (Disc 2) Track 4: 11:04]:"

Question: “It’s easy for you to dismiss outright the Libertarian biographies of Ayn Rand because you knew her so closely. But there’s no other sources of such information maybe it would be useful if you could comment at length on at least one of these books so we can know which of these facts are true and which is misrepresentation. Ayn Rand is very dear to us as a great person not only as an author.”

Peikoff: “Well I would regard commenting on these books that are forthcoming on of which I know really as an issue of the sanction of evil and I would not do it. I know the authors in some cases. These books got willful falsehoods, motivated by malice mixed into the text. I simply would not ever make a comment on a book that I know is of that nature. I appreciate the interest in Ayn Rand’s biography and I certainly do intend to authorize a biography, where I believe that it will be done objectively and not by not for any reason of personal malice and in that case when that happens I will certainly open up all of her papers etc. to such a biographer. But I can tell you that I’m speaking now in December of 1983, I have not done that, and I will not not, now not nor ever have a comment on some of the forthcoming biographies. For the reason that I mentioned, I would consider it immoral on my part to comment. To even get to the point of distinguishing this page was true and this page was false. On exactly the grounds that I would not take some libel from the Nazi party against the Jews and say: well now on page 34 maybe he made a good point, but the first 12 pages are dishonest. In its inception and by its method it is corrupt and the same thing exactly in this case”

This was Valliant's reply:

"What Heller could have done, of course, is all that we are talking about, not what she did do. Sciabarra, too, refused what was offered him for some reason, unlike Burns. Also, with "nearly," I only meant to include the idea that one must fill out the appropriate forms, disclose one's purpose, sign the agreement regarding use, that kind of thing, that's all.

Peikoff's statement speaks for itself. I did not know Rand, and barely knew Mr. Branden, so I could not rely on personal knowledge in order to evaluate Ms. B.'s assertions (which began well before the book was published), as Leonard Peikoff could. So, far from immoral, the process I went through was a moral one. Following a detailed analysis, we come out agreeing about the dishonesty and lack of objectivity of those works, but he was clearly speaking for himself and his own context, right?"

- I saw no need to reply to this. But finally the best part! Thanks to Valliant, I checked out some things Jennifer Burns had to say and I posted the following:

"I've been doing a little homework. All of the following is from Jennifer Burns Blog:"

"As it turned out, the archives were open, and willing to have me, with stipulations. The primary stipulation was that I not use the archival material to write a full length biography, since the Ayn Rand Institute had commissioned an Objectivist literary scholar, Shoshana Milgram, to write an authorized biography. Because my focus was on Rand in relationship to a particular aspect of American history – the American right – my work was classified as a “special study.” I was also told I would not be shown certain material related to legal disputes and a few items of sensitive nature pertaining to persons still living. Other than that, I had free rein in the archive. (Along the way, I did in fact stumble across some material I wasn’t supposed to see – more on that later)."

http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/64-in-the-rand-archives-part-1-gaining-access

"Perhaps no part of Rand’s legacy is more controversial today than the editing of her letters and diaries. When the Estate of Ayn Rand released two huge volumes of her letters and diaries in 1995 and 1997, Rand fans were thrilled. It didn’t take long, however, for suspicions to surface. Sifting through earlier published excerpts of Rand’s journals, NYU scholar Chris Sciabarra discovered that the journals had been edited. As I write in my forthcoming book, “After several years working in Rand’s personal papers I can confirm Sciabarra’s discovery: the published versions of Rand’s letters and diaries have been significantly edited in ways that drastically reduce their utility as historical sources.”"

http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/65-in-the-rand-archives-part-2-the-edited-letters-and-diaries

"for the first time, the Estate of Ayn Rand had granted publishing permissions to an outside scholar who had authored a full length, critical study of Rand."

"Here I will offer a few predictions (always risky for the historian!):"

"1.) I believe the archive will continue to offer access to scholars interested in Rand’s work, and by scholars I do not mean those exclusively associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, but persons enrolled in or working for a degree granting institution or those who can demonstrate, through the formulation of a cogent research proposal, that they have a serious intellectual interest in Rand."

"Though I do not know the details of her arrangement with the archive or the Estate, it is my understanding that authors working on projects which may compete or conflict with hers [Knapp 's] will not be given access to the Ayn Rand Archive (this is the reason Anne Heller was denied permission to view Rand’s papers.)"

"3.) The Estate’s tenderness around the personal aspects of Rand’s life leads me to predict it will be many years before there is a full and impartial outside account of the Rand-Branden affair. This is rather a shame, since I know from my research the Archive has ample holdings that would more than satisfy the widespread curiosity and controversy about their relationship and its ending. Both because of my agreement with the archive and since my interest in Rand was primarily intellectual, this material informs only a small portion of my manuscript. I hope and expect that within my lifetime, another writer will give this aspect of Rand’s life the attention it deserves."

"4.) As for the published letters and diaries of Ayn Rand, that they have been edited is now widely known within the Objectivist community and is freely spoken of within the Ayn Rand Archives. I have heard some talk of a “scholar’s edition” of these materials, complete with footnotes and annotations. However, since recent work published by the Estate continues the practice of editing Rand’s words, I do not expect a revised edition anytime soon. However, to the extent the Archive remains open to outsiders, this problem can be surmounted. Rand’s legacy will thus exist on two levels: one for the general reading public, and one for the scholarly community."

http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/74-in-the-rand-archive-part-iv-prognostications

"When I began researching, my primary understanding of Rand’s life came from the two Branden memoirs, Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Randand Nathaniel Branden’s Judgement Day: My Years with Ayn Rand. In my first stage of research, one of my primary goals was simply verifying if the essentials of the Brandens’ stories were correct. I was surprised to discover how accurate both books were. I did not discover any major errors or distortions in basic chronology or timing."

"Here, my guiding philosophy was that unless something I found contradicted the Brandens’ memoirs, it would not be a focus of my published work. Though my interest in Rand was primarily intellectual, rather than on the personal nature of all her relationships, part of my job as a historian is to set the record straight and I would have done so had I felt the Brandens were untruthful in their description of Rand or their relationship with her."

"That said, there were several aspects of Barbara Branden’s memoir which material in the archive definitely falsifies: the most famous of these is the typewriter story. Material from the archive indicates this legend is long established in family history and originated with Rand herself, though it is unclear if the youthful Rand was experimenting with tales of origin, or if the distortions of memory played a role (think of a game of telephone, stretched across generations)"

"In both cases, these errors are explainable and even predictable, given that Barbara Branden’s account was based upon oral history and Rand’s own memories about herself at a young age, which are naturally selective and subjective."

"Overall, what I saw in the archive confirmed for me that while the Branden’s memoirs are useful sources, they should not be taken as the final word on Rand’s life."

"|2010-02-21 14:12:53 Jennifer Burns - responding to comments: Neil: There is scattered material on NBI finances in the archive, and some legal files there may also shed light on this matter, but I believe most legal material is currently off-limits to researchers."

http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/79-in-the-rand-archive-part-5-on-the-brandens

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That phrase "outrageous myth" is typical Valliant.

Scholars have been allowed to look, but not use the material in the Archives for years while ARI-sanctioned less-than-scholars, time after time, have been allowed to publish butchered versions of Rand's unpublished stuff.

As Valliant has proven through his own accuracy-challenged approach to scholarship, he falls within the "ARI-sanctioned less-than-scholar" side. So, as he says, it is just simply "outrageous" to him that a "myth" would develop that the Archives are off limits to anyone not toeing the party line.

And, of course, there is only one cause: people who hate Ayn Rand and want to smear her--most likely after reading the Branden books.

The is a perfect example of cult mentality.

Michael

[Donovan A.]

Later in the same thread I wrote to Valliant:

Quoting Valliant: "This is just another outrageous myth, for the Archive policies have long been available to everyone, as well, and are a matter of public record. So, go find out the easily-available facts before smearing the Archive."

My understanding has been that the archives have not been open to anyone. If that is not the case, thank you for letting me know otherwise. But, how is what I asked/stated a smear? I was operating on what I've been told, which may be false or not fully accurate. Are you stating that I can go read something from Rand's journal in the archive, but I'm not approved to quote certain things without permission?

Do you have a link to the ARI archive policy or must I call Jeff Britting to get a copy of the policy?"

Valliant's reply: " Irresponsible criticism is a smear. Yes, you must contact Mr. Britting, but he can send you the pdf very quickly:

Postal Address

The Ayn Rand® Archives

c/o The Ayn Rand Institute

2121 Alton Pkwy, Suite 250

Irvine, California 92606-4926

Fax/Web/E-mail

Fax number: 949-222-6558

Web site: www.aynrand.org/archives

E-mail: archives@aynrand.org"

I took Valliant up on his statement: "you are simply wrong: the Archives are open to everyone, and Rand's journals are "available for anyone to read," despite what you've been told by less-than-honest critics of ARI.

Just drop a line to Jeff Britting, the Archivist, and he will tell you all about it."

I sent an email to Jeff Britting on Sat, July 31, 2010 5:34:42 PM which stated the following:

"Hello there,

I would like to request a copy of the ARI Archive visitation/publication policy.

I was referred to make this request of you by Mr. James Stevens Valliant.

Thank you."

Note: I have yet to receive any response from Mr. Britting. If anyone has a copy of a current or past ARI archive admission policy, I'd like to take a look.

I also defended myself from the accusation of smearing the archive: " I don't think I was being irresponsible. You are the first person who has contradicted my knowledge. But again, thank you for correcting me. It was not my intention to misrepresent."

Edited August 5, 2010 by Randall

[kiaer.ts]

"Hello there,

I would like to request a copy of the ARI Archive visitation/publication policy.

I was referred to make this request of you by Mr. James Stevens Valliant.

Thank you."

Note: I have yet to receive any response from Mr. Britting. If anyone has a copy of a current or past ARI archive admission policy, I'd like to take a look.

"Hello there"?

That's not a form of address to which I would expect an academic to respond in all seriousness.

[Donovan A.]

"Hello there,

I would like to request a copy of the ARI Archive visitation/publication policy.

I was referred to make this request of you by Mr. James Stevens Valliant.

Thank you."

Note: I have yet to receive any response from Mr. Britting. If anyone has a copy of a current or past ARI archive admission policy, I'd like to take a look.

"Hello there"?

That's not a form of address to which I would expect an academic to respond in all seriousness.

I'm not a graduate student nor an academic, which is exactly the point. Valliant's claim was that the archives are open to anyone to read. Do you seriously think the friendly greeting I sent Mr. Britting is the reason why I am not getting an answer?

Edited August 5, 2010 by Randall

[kiaer.ts]

"Hello there,

I would like to request a copy of the ARI Archive visitation/publication policy.

I was referred to make this request of you by Mr. James Stevens Valliant.

Thank you."

Note: I have yet to receive any response from Mr. Britting. If anyone has a copy of a current or past ARI archive admission policy, I'd like to take a look.

"Hello there"?

That's not a form of address to which I would expect an academic to respond in all seriousness.

I'm not an graduate student nor an academic, which is exactly the point. Valliant's claim was that the archives are open to anyone to read. Do you seriously think the friendly greeting I sent Mr. Britting is the reason why I am not getting an answer?

By "anyone" you mean even the rude random caller making demands on his time? In what finishing school were you taught that only graduate students and academics should make even a basic attempt at politeness? Your sincerity would be a bit more credible had you shown any yourself when writing to Britting. His time is valuable to him and you made it quite clear you weren't even going to acknowledge that value with an attempt at courtesy.

You got exactly the response you invited.

[Donovan A.]

"Hello there,

I would like to request a copy of the ARI Archive visitation/publication policy.

I was referred to make this request of you by Mr. James Stevens Valliant.

Thank you."

Note: I have yet to receive any response from Mr. Britting. If anyone has a copy of a current or past ARI archive admission policy, I'd like to take a look.

"Hello there"?

That's not a form of address to which I would expect an academic to respond in all seriousness.

I'm not an graduate student nor an academic, which is exactly the point. Valliant's claim was that the archives are open to anyone to read. Do you seriously think the friendly greeting I sent Mr. Britting is the reason why I am not getting an answer?

By "anyone" you mean even the rude random caller making demands on his time? In what finishing school were you taught that only graduate students and academics should make even a basic attempt at politeness? Your sincerity would be a bit more credible had you shown any yourself when writing to Britting. His time is valuable to him and you made it quite clear you weren't even going to acknowledge that value with an attempt at courtesy.

You got exactly the response you invited.

I didn't call him, I sent him an email and I don't think my message was rude at all. But if you think my request was impolite or insincere, then I will send him a more formal request. Thank you for your suggestion.

[Robert Campbell]

Randall,

Thank you for challenging Jim Valliant on access to the Ayn Rand Archives.

Let's take another look at Mr. Valliant's declaration:

you are simply wrong: the Archives are open to everyone, and Rand's journals are "available for anyone to read," despite what you've been told by less-than-honest critics of ARI.

Granted that Jim Valliant knows far less about the Ayn Rand Archives than he pretends to, he does know some basic facts. The Archives have not been open to everyone, and are not open to everyone today.

Just drop a line to Jeff Britting, the Archivist, and he will tell you all about it.

Oh yeah. The same way Jeff Britting answers all of Jim Valliant's queries...

This is just another outrageous myth, for the Archive policies have long been available to everyone, as well, and are a matter of public record. So, go find out the easily-available facts before smearing the Archive. Chris Sciabarra was allowed to look at the material -- he was not allowed to publish the yet-unpublished material, but that is standard practice.

Since Chris Sciabarra has published descriptions of his experiences with the Ayn Rand Archives, Valliant is familiar with these descriptions, and they contradict what Valliant is now saying, the only reasonable conclusion is that Valliant is lying.

In fact, the Archives made Chris Sciabarra the "generous" offer that he described in some detail in this 1999 article:

http://www.nyu.edu/p...says/randt1.htm

In return for doing his own investigative work, for no pay, to find out what two documents in the Archives' possession actually meant, he would have to agree never to publish about them—and two of his collaborators, who had not been involved in these negotiations, would have to agree never to publish on the subject either.

Ditto Heller. They refused the opportunities afforded them, and some seem to be ~ demanding ~ the right to publish someone else's copyright property.

Valliant doesn't say what "opportunities" Anne Heller was afforded. To my knowledge, she had no opportunity to see anything in the Archives, nor was any such opportunity offered to her on a conditional basis. She was able to get an advance copy of McConnell's oral history book, and Jeff Britting answered some of her questions.

And, as the materials have been published, by an authorized source, even that (very standard) restriction is lifted and the originals are there for all to both see and use.

This is a complete and total lie.

Jennifer Burns has stated that, had she been interested in quoting Ayn Rand's original 1967-1968 journals, instead of Jim Valliant's rendition of them, she would not been granted permission to do so.

Every time that she has quoted from a passage in Ayn Rand's journals that diverges from the published rendition in the Harriman book, she has done so by virtue of signed permission from Leonard Peikoff to quote that specific passage. Dr. Burns has in her possession notes about further differences between the original journals and the rewritten versions, but she can't publish any direct quotes from the originals not already included in her book.

In fact, compared to the archives of Einstein and Disney, the Rand estate and archive have been working at light speed. The material has been observed and described by independent scholars such as Prof. Jennifer Burns.

Given the reaction that Jennifer Burns' book got from The Objective Standard, and from Leonard Peikoff himself, it is unfortunately not very likely that any other independent scholars will be allowed into the Ayn Rand Archives during the remainder of Leonard Peikoff's lifetime.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ted K,

I would not have recommended including "Hello there" as a salutation in an email to the Ayn Rand Archives.

All the same, I emailed the Archives on February 28, 2010 to ask whether the Archives has in its possession recordings of the 1966, 1967, and 1970 Ford Hall Forum Q&A sessions—or complete recordings of the 1973 and 1977 Ford Hall Forum Q&A's.

I didn't ask to see or hear the recordings—just whether the Archives has them in its possession.

I haven't heard back.

Robert C

[Donovan A.]

"Access:

Our access policy statement is available for the researcher. At present, due to preservation tasks, physical access to the Archives is limited to the Ayn Rand Institute staff and affiliates. However, research inquiries from university-affiliated graduate students and scholars are encouraged and will be accommodated whenever possible. For information on its future opening date, please consult the News & Announcements section for updates."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_archives_about

[Robert Campbell]

Randall,

This statement is several years out of date.

No one seems to be in a hurry to put the Archives' current policy in writing.

Robert Campbell

[Donovan A.]

Ted K,

I would not have recommended including "Hello there" as a salutation in an email to the Ayn Rand Archives.

All the same, I emailed the Archives on February 28, 2010 to ask whether the Archives has in its possession recordings of the 1966, 1967, and 1970 Ford Hall Forum Q&A sessions—or complete recordings of the 1973 and 1977 Ford Hall Forum Q&A's.

I didn't ask to see or hear the recordings—just whether the Archives has them in its possession.

I haven't heard back.

Robert C

Hi Robert,

I personally called ARI today to follow up regarding the email I sent. I understand that what I wrote was informal and in retrospect it probably should have been more formal. However, I do not think what I wrote was rude and or unworthy of a response from Mr. Britting as Ted apparently thinks. If anything, I wish Ted would have offered me a higher level of politeness and courtesy in this thread, especially since he seems to be such a strong advocate. For the record, I sincerely do care about benevolence, civility and respect and I think my history here on OL reflects my commitment.

Valliant stated that I should "just drop a line to Jeff Britting, the Archivist, and he will tell you all about it." This did not make me think it was necessary to write a very formal email request. All I was asking for was to see a copy of the access and publication policy. I was not at all under the impression that I needed to formulate my message as if I was writing a University admittance paper. My mistake, no rudeness was intended! That being said, an associate of mine has sent a more formal email request for the policy.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Randall

[Donovan A.]

Given the reaction that Jennifer Burns' book got from The Objective Standard, and from Leonard Peikoff himself, it is unfortunately not very likely that any other independent scholars will be allowed into the Ayn Rand Archives during the remainder of Leonard Peikoff's lifetime.

Robert, where can I find Peikoff's reaction and the article you are referring to in the Objective Standard?

[9thdoctor]

where can I find Peikoff's reaction

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7941&view=findpost&p=85284

[Donovan A.]

This is a direct link to the Peikoff Podcast:

http://www.peikoff.com/2009/12/07/do-you-plan-to-read-either-of-the-new-ayn-rand-biographies/

[Neil Parille]

The Archivists such as Britting and McConnell certainly appear to be a cut above the Valliants and the Mayhews. Nonetheless, 100 Voices (due in November) will probably be treated with some suspicion given the ARI's track record.

I think the Archives should put a few complete interviews on the web so that people can decide for themselves.

100 Voices is 688 pages long, so I'm wondering if it's something of a substitute for the full-length bio that has yet to appear.

I don't get the impression that the Archives have sought to interview people with whom Rand broke. Does anyone have information about this?

-Neil Parille

Edited August 6, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Robert Mayhew's review of the Burns book is available here (no charge);

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/ayn-rand-jennifer-burns.asp

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Robert Mayhew's review of the Burns book is available here (no charge);

http://www.theobject...nifer-burns.asp

Robert Campbell

I certainly agree with Mayhew that Burns' could have better focused on Rand's ideas, but he couldn't resist a swipe at the Brandens with the canard that they broke with Objectivism in 1968. If it's your wont to kick people out of Objectivism then own up to it, don't pretend they decided to give it up and did. I'm sure this'd be news to Barbara, who's been an Objectivist all her adult life.

--Brant

Edited August 6, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Mayhew will now always be remembered for using that Oscar Wilde quotation in his review.

Every great man nowadays has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography. . . . Formerly we used to canonise our heroes. The modern method is to vulgarise them. —Oscar Wilde, “The Critic as Artist” (1891)

Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was a great novelist and philosopher, who, in her lifetime, attracted what could be called “disciples,” and it was Judas who wrote the biography. Mr. and Mrs. Judas, in fact, as the first biography was The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden (1986), followed by ex-husband Nathaniel Branden’s memoir, Judgment Day: My Years with Ayn Rand (1989). The Brandens broke with Ayn Rand and her philosophy in 1968, and their accounts of her life are riddled with the bias and smears one would expect from embittered ex-disciples. Whereas formerly they coauthored a book in which they treat Rand as a hero, in these later works they vulgarize her.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I got halfway through it and I had to stop for a while. It's too preachy.

It's full of crap like this:

Clearly, when Rand objected that Hayek's conception of individualism lacked a moral base, she meant that he failed to provide a demonstrably true moral foundation...

In other words, Jennifer was wrong to say that Hayek grounded his views on morality because it was not the "true" morality. He even chides her for not wanting to delve into and preach the "true" morality:

Burns does acknowledge that "Rand and Hayek had very different understandings of what was moral" (p. 105), but she does not bother to ask and answer what those differences are, or how Rand came to her conclusions, or why Rand insisted so fervently that such questions matter.

For this and other disinterest in preaching the party line, Jennifer, according to Mayhew, failed miserably. This kind of argument makes it fair to presume that the only reason Mayhew thinks anyone should write a book about Rand is to promote Objectivism as understood by Mayhew.

To be fair, I don't think he minds a book about Rand from the aspect of studying her and her ideas within the context of the history of 20th century conservative thought. He just doesn't grok why anyone like a history professor would be interested in... er... history. You're supposed to use history to prove that Rand was obviously superior in every way to the rest of mankind. The only two alternatives for why Jennifer doesn't do that to this kind of mind is that either she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about, or she is, at root, an enemy on a smear Rand campaign and in collusion with the enemy camp.

I'll get to the second half of his review later, after the boredom passes. Mayhew's review literally bored me. I'm tired of the same old crap based on the same old zealotry and falsehoods.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I know that Mayhew once edited Rand's marginal jottings in a book by Hayek.

But what does he know about Hayek?

Robert Campbell

[Donovan A.]

Update: I still have not received a response from The ARI Archive. My associate also has not received any response.

Sent on: Thu, August 5, 2010 4:10:39 PM

"To Whom it may concern:

Dear Sir,

I would like to respectfully request a copy of the visitation

and publication policy regarding the ARI archives.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

GB (Full Name not Published)"

[Rich Engle]

Heh. You should've added a PS:

"When you call me up, ask for Mr. Blue, because I'll be holding my breath, waiting for you. "

[kiaer.ts]

Ted K,

I would not have recommended including "Hello there" as a salutation in an email to the Ayn Rand Archives.

All the same, I emailed the Archives on February 28, 2010 to ask whether the Archives has in its possession recordings of the 1966, 1967, and 1970 Ford Hall Forum Q&A sessions—or complete recordings of the 1973 and 1977 Ford Hall Forum Q&A's.

I didn't ask to see or hear the recordings—just whether the Archives has them in its possession.

I haven't heard back.

Robert C

Hi Robert,

I personally called ARI today to follow up regarding the email I sent. I understand that what I wrote was informal and in retrospect it probably should have been more formal. However, I do not think what I wrote was rude and or unworthy of a response from Mr. Britting as Ted apparently thinks. If anything, I wish Ted would have offered me a higher level of politeness and courtesy in this thread, especially since he seems to be such a strong advocate. For the record, I sincerely do care about benevolence, civility and respect and I think my history here on OL reflects my commitment.

Valliant stated that I should "just drop a line to Jeff Britting, the Archivist, and he will tell you all about it." This did not make me think it was necessary to write a very formal email request. All I was asking for was to see a copy of the access and publication policy. I was not at all under the impression that I needed to formulate my message as if I was writing a University admittance paper. My mistake, no rudeness was intended! That being said, an associate of mine has sent a more formal email request for the policy.

I think you meant to say, Randall, that you "wish that Ted had offered me a higher level of politeness and courtesy in this thread," not that you "wish Ted would have offered me a higher level of politeness and courtesy in this thread." Your statement amounts to an error of grammar. Should you wish to look for the proper rules, the relevant difference is between the perfect subjunctive which you should have used and the conditional perfect which you did use.

In any case, I am at a loss to see where I treated you rudely. This thread does not amount to formal correspondence. To be critical, and even unsympathetic, is not to be rude.

Jeff Britting very well may be the devil or one of his minions, but it behooves one to address the devil and his minions politely when making requests of them.

And of course, as with Robert's case, politeness in the request is no guarantee it will be granted. But at least one knows then with whom the fault lies for the lack of response.

[kiaer.ts]

Update: I still have not received a response from The ARI Archive. My associate also has not received any response.

Sent on: Thu, August 5, 2010 4:10:39 PM

"To Whom it may concern:

Dear Sir,

I would like to respectfully request a copy of the visitation

and publication policy regarding the ARI archives.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

GB (Full Name not Published)"

Randall, this is nice, and even overly formal. You should simply have said that "I am requesting" or "I hereby request" a copy of the policy. By saying that you "would like to request" a copy you are leaving it open for him, if he wants to, to say "well go ahead and do so."

If he doesn't respond to this request, it's on him.