Doings of Barbara Branden 1968 – 1986?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Ellen Moore (RIP) always "seemed rational enough," but was, really, always irrational because that was out of her Rand ideational base which was in itself distorted.

. . .

she was smarter than what she ended up saying

Brant,

Damn you.

Too often you manage to say in a sentence or two what it takes me paragraphs and paragraphs to say.

 

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've been remembering stuff from the Moore days on Old ATL - including the "Helena Handbasket" takeoffs.  We never did find out who was the brilliant parodist who wrote those.

Peter, did you save the "Helena Handbasket" posts?  I probably have them on an old external storage disk, but I don't have time to look for them.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Jeff R. wrote those, I believe.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Damn you.

Too often you manage to say in a sentence or two what it takes me paragraphs and paragraphs to say.

 

Michael

That's because you're evil. 

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

That's because you're evil. 

--Brant

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

18 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Jeff R. wrote those, I believe.

--Brant

No, JR didn’t write the "Helena Handbasket" posts.  There was much discussion about who was the author.  JR denied multiple times, on list and off, that he wrote them.  So did George.  David Brown was a primary suspect, though he didn’t post on ATL.  I'm almost sure that he, too, denied authorship.

JR wrote the "Roland Pericles" posts.

Ellen

[Peter]

On 8/7/2020 at 11:04 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I've been remembering stuff from the Moore days on Old ATL - including the "Helena Handbasket" takeoffs.  We never did find out who was the brilliant parodist who wrote those.

Peter, did you save the "Helena Handbasket" posts?  I probably have them on an old external storage disk, but I don't have time to look for them.

Ellen

I will check but I remember Helena Handbasket as . . .  Roger Bissell. 

[Peter]

On 8/7/2020 at 11:04 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I've been remembering stuff from the Moore days on Old ATL - including the "Helena Handbasket" takeoffs.  We never did find out who was the brilliant parodist who wrote those.

Peter, did you save the "Helena Handbasket" posts?  I probably have them on an old external storage disk, but I don't have time to look for them.

Ellen

Gosh. On his last letter to this thread, he did not sign his name but He admitted who he was to me. I found the incriminating evidence and the confession. Beware! You are now entering “Jimboland.” Peter

 From: "Jeff Olson" To: "atlantis" Subject: ATL: Two quickly brush-stroked rights-theories (was: Doris' Epiphany) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:52:07 -0700

Mr. Geek inquires: "I'm new to the list. Would you give me the quick brush strokes on either or both of these theories?"

   First, Mr. Geek, may I ask if you're related to "Lilah Kerrug," "Helena Handbasket," "Sheila Ikes Ithot," "M. Bobcrist Jorrhay," "Roland Pericles," or even "Jason Alexander" (the one who *actually* has quotemarks around his name)?  If so, then the odds of your appreciating these two theories are greatly improved.  If not, please disregard the above.

   The "Holistic Theory of Rights," often advocated by myself, has also been called "a bunch of crap," "stupid," and "total bullshit," but I prefer "holistic" because it's slightly more euphonious and also less destructive to my self-esteem.

   Basically, this theory considers the expression "right" as a metaphor for -- or a shortened version of -- "what it is right (or good) for an individual to be able to do in a social context."  When we say X  has a "right," in other words, what we really mean, by this theory, is not that a right actually exists as a natural attribute of X (or his action), but rather that, by all known reasonable standards, it is right for X to be to take certain actions without interference from others.

   The means we use to argue for X's rights reduce to arguments drawn from observation and analysis of human nature, not from a discovery of a "rights-attribute" within human beings.  This theory would not speak of "fetal rights," for example (except as a metaphor), but rather of the nature of the fetus and adult human beings, and of their relationship to each other.

   From this analysis, we would attempt to determine if it were a good or "rightful" thing that a fetus should be able to alter a mother's use of her own body.  We would compare the mother to the fetus in terms of such characteristics as consciousness, will, reciprocity, self-realization, decision-making capabilities, and potential - characteristics which most of us agree are valuable toward the end of becoming a self-determined being whose actions are, because of the being's ability to act according to its intelligently informed will, generally deserving of respect.

   Since this theory incorporates all relevant factors in making such an assessment of what is "rightful," I call it the "Holistic Theory of Rights" (capitals optional).  (After you've applied this theory, it is recommended that one top off one's analyses with a healthy and organic Brussel sprouts sandwich and some form of natural vegetable drink.)

 Ross' "Time Stream Theory," on the other hand, is neither organic nor naturally healthy (or particularly good-tasting); nor does it involve an attempted fundamental revision of how we perceive rights.  Instead, it simply adds an element of time to our consideration of what is rightful for human beings.  This theory (which I'm already beginning to resent because its title is more euphonious than mine), considers the implications of time on the identity of conscious entities, and suggests that just as there exists a relationship between identity along a continuum of a being's development, there also exists a relationship of rights -- such that the past, present, and future rights of an individual do not exist as separate points, but rather as related developments along a continuum.

 Employing this theory, then, we might argue that a person's present rights should be considered in the future, when the individual may be, for instance, in a coma or is otherwise non-copasetic (JR, please note that this is an accepted alternative spelling; also, that I know where you live, and -- perhaps more importantly -- what you drink); similarly, since fetal events have some bearing on the present "rights-bearing" person, the "time-stream" or rights-continuum also extends backward in time, permitting a retrospective attribution of rights to the fetus.

   Thoroughly confused by this theory?  Good, because I would strongly prefer that it not upstage my own.  I would say more, but the temptation to (further?) distort Ross' theory would be too hard to resist....

  Hope this provides the "quick brush strokes" you were looking for. Jeff

 From: Victor Levis To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: RE:  Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:31:38 -0500 At 10:11 PM 3/27/2003, William Dwyer wrote: >>Tim Starr wrote, "I don't think you have successfully demonstrated the existence of a third alternative, a monopoly that is non-coercive in the sense of one that doesn't suppress competitors via initiation of force. > >As another counter-example to his premise, I cited a proprietary community in which the owner allows only one protection agency to operate on his property.  The protection agency has a  non-competitive monopoly that is also non-coercive (i.e., that does not involve the initiation of force), because it is maintained via the legitimate exercise of the owner's property rights.

 Bill, you are perhaps assuming your conclusion here.  I do NOT think that the owner's prerogatives are absolute.  For example, he may post at the entrance to his community, "The Jones Co. is the sole authorized justice company on these premises."  Such posting is informative, but it does NOT eliminate the natural rights of visitors.  For example, if the Jones Co. was called because a visitor was accused of trespassing on someone's lawn, and the justice firm proceeded to hold the accused visitor prisoner for a year without trial, subjecting him to torture (perhaps forcing him to read 'The Philosophy of Helena Handbasket' over and over again) and/or other indignities, then it would be initiation of force for the Jones Co. to fire bullets at Eddie Willers, sent by the Objectivist government of Jimboland to get the visitor out of there.

 The Jones Co. is the owner's agent, and has no more rights than the owner himself does.  Owners of property do not have the absolute right to make (or re-make) criminal law on their property.  That is because there are in fact at least TWO rights involved here:  one, the owner's right to enjoyment of his property free of aggression; two, the VISITOR'S right to not have his body attacked unjustly.  And of course, ALL the people in that community have a right to physical safety from unjust attack.

 >>Tim wrote, "seems to me that to withhold information needed by others to secure justice for themselves is to become an accessory to the injustice they suffer." > >I don't think this follows, any more than to withhold the _retaliatory force_ needed by others to secure justice for themselves is to become an accessory to the injustice they suffer.  By this latter criterion, the military draft would be justified. > >Remember, there is a difference between committing injustice and refusing to prevent or rectify it.  The first is the presence of a negative; the second, the absence of a positive.  It is only the former that constitutes a violation of rights.  The simple refusal to prevent a violation or to rectify it by refusing to provide the necessary resources or information is not itself a violation of rights.

 Unless it is a condition of a contract.  If I sign up with the Levatter Rights and Security Company, I may conceivably be asked to agree that I will give testimony in Levatterian courts, if I am subpoenaed.  The clients may feel that the information gained from all mutually obliging themselves thusly is of greater benefit to them than the inconvenience is a cost. Victor Levis

 From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:33:00 -0800 Tim Starr wrote: >OK, fair enough, but I don't think you have successfully demonstrated the existence of a third alternative, a monopoly that is non-coercive in the sense of one that doesn't suppress competitors via initiation of force.

 How about a "proprietary community"?  How about an agency which grows by acquiring jurisdictional rights over land (from the owner of those rights)?

 We may imagine Galt's Gulch growing in just this fashion.  The land is fully privately owned at the start, and newcomers have to agree to follow the rules.  They can own land, but the jurisdictional rights are not for sale.  (This is similar to buying land but not owning the mineral rights beneath the land, or buying land through which a stream runs, but owning only partial water rights to the water that comes in.)

 Bill wrote: >As another counter-example to his premise, I cited a proprietary community in which the owner allows only one protection agency to operate on his property.  The protection agency has a non-competitive monopoly that is also non-coercive (i.e., that does not involve the initiation of force), because it is maintained via the legitimate exercise of the owner's property rights.

 Victor Levis wrote: Bill, you are perhaps assuming your conclusion here.  I do NOT think that the owner's prerogatives are absolute.

 The owner's prerogatives need not be absolute in order for the owner to maintain a monopoly government on his own land. It is of course true that the monopoly government (or "defense agency" if you prefer) of a proprietary community is not _necessarily_ valid. But that's not what we need to prove.  We need only show that it is _possible_ for a monopoly government of a proprietary community to be valid. --Jimbo

 From: "William Dwyer" To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: RE: Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" (TS) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:17:34 -0800 I argued, contra Childs, that a producer could have a monopoly on the sale of his own product that is neither competitive (in the sense that it depends on out-competing other producers of the same product) nor coercive (in the sense that it depends on the initiation of force).

 Dan Ust replied, "Competition is much wider than this.  Yes, a local diner does compete with another diner when it sells the same dish, but they also compete by selling different dishes."  Etc.

 Of course, of course!  Again, I was responding to CHILDS' argument that if a monopoly on a particular product is not coercive (based on the initiation of force), then it is competitive (based on out-competing other producers of the same product).

 My point was simply that a producer could have a monopoly ON HIS OWN PRODUCT that does NOT depend on out-competing other producers of that same product, since they would not have a RIGHT to produce that product if the original producer did not give them permission to do so.

 For example, no one would have a right to produce and sell Rand's novel _Atlas Shrugged_ without her permission.  Her monopoly on the production and sale of _Atlas Shrugged_ could be maintained simply by the exercise of her property rights.  It would not depend on out-competing other producers of the same product.

 To be sure, she WOULD be competing with producers of OTHER novels, and would not therefore have a non-competitive, non-coercive monopoly on the sale of novels AS SUCH, but, as I say, this point is irrelevant to my argument against Childs.

 I wrote, >As another counter-example to his premise, I cited a proprietary community in which the owner allows only one protection agency to operate on his property.  The protection agency has a non-competitive monopoly that is also non-coercive (i.e., that does not involve the initiation of force), because it is maintained via the  legitimate exercise of the owner's property rights.

 Victor Levis replied, Bill, you are perhaps assuming your conclusion here.  I do NOT think that the owner's prerogatives are absolute.  For example, he may post at the entrance to his community, "The Jones Co. is the sole authorized justice company on these premises."  Such posting is informative, but it does NOT eliminate the natural rights of visitors.  For example, if the Jones Co. was called because a visitor was accused of trespassing on someone's lawn, and the justice firm proceeded to hold the accused visitor prisoner for a year without trial, subjecting him to torture...then it would be initiation of force for the Jones Co. to fire bullets at Eddie Willers, sent by the Objectivist government of Jimboland to get the visitor out of there."

 Of course!  I was simply pointing out that it is POSSIBLE to have a monopoly that is non-competitive (in the sense that it does not depend on out-competing other producers of the same product) and non-coercive in the sense that it does not depend on the initiation of force).  That monopoly would be represented in my example by a protection agency that did NOT violate the rights of its suspects.  I was not saying that any protection agency the owner chose to hire would fulfill those conditions.

 >Tim wrote, "seems to me that to withhold information needed by others to secure justice for themselves is to become an accessory to the injustice they suffer."

 I replied,  I don't think this follows, any more than to withhold the _retaliatory force_ needed by others to secure justice for themselves is to become an accessory to the injustice they suffer.  By this latter criterion, the military draft would be justified. Remember, there is a difference between committing injustice and refusing to prevent or rectify it.  The first is the presence of a negative; the second, the absence of a positive.  It is only the former that constitutes a violation of rights.  The simple refusal to prevent a violation or to rectify it by refusing to provide the necessary resources or information is not itself a violation of rights.

 Victor replied, "Unless it is a condition of a contract."

 But the violation of a contract IS the presence of a negative, in that it amounts to the initiation of force.  If I violate a contract, I'm gaining a value from someone without his consent.  The context of my discussion with Tim assumed that no such contract existed. - Bill

From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Lilah Kerrug on logical fallacy Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:31:42 GMT

 Apologies. I sometimes have 100 messages waiting to be read. I don't answer immediately because message number 75 may have answered as I would have, but I haven't read it yet, in order to know this.

 I have been on the Net for five months and on Atlantis for one month, and I see I really need to budget my time or only follow some threads. I have fifty I have not read as of now.

 Lilah said: "This does not follow . . .(where). . . My rights end where your rights begin. I do not have the right to dispose of my rock by hurling it at your head with the intent of knocking you out with it (unless you are attacking me, of course). And I do not have the right to dispose of my gorilla by torturing and maiming it in a way that makes you wonder if you or someone you love will be next! I do not have the right to engage in sociopathic behavior toward my property, if it results in aggression or the threat of aggression toward other human beings. If I don't "see fit" to observe this limitation on my freedom of action toward my property, then someone else's with that freedom of action is _not_ a violation of my rights. Is anyone getting this yet? Lilah Kerrug Advocate for _Human_ rights"

 Lilah: If you see someone:

setting fire to a building,

abusing an animal,

abusing a child,

building a bomb (even if on their property),

pointing a gun,

then,

alarmed interference, including punching them in the nose, is a "justified"

initiation of force, to deter aggression, even if it is your nose.

 However, if it is not an emergency, I would call the cops, or help to create a philosophy that reconciles or condemns this type of behavior. I think we should keep emergency situations for another thread.

 I am beginning to see the reason some people on this list continue to bring up animal rights before we have discussed, the more important problem of fetal rights, To Death.

 Someone mentioned a sliding scale of rights (or quasi-rights, reserving full rights to rational beings) as a necessary part of a needed "package deal" to explain why we place a value on all forms of life, including a human fetus. Semi rights to lower forms of life is a natural progression to Human Rights because of the unique nature of life: Life can die, and we value life. Can anyone think of a term to designate the concept of "semi-rights" which does not bring into it, a mystical sense of reverence for all life, or outrage at its wanton destruction or abuse?

 From: NRoarkofConn To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: abortion reply to Debbie, Bill, Ellen Moore, and Roger Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 03:58:28 EDT Peter Taylor wrote: >In an interesting aside to this discussion, a disguised Roger Bissell once advocated that no one has a right to torture animals. I don’t think Roger was flat out ready to debate the idea of Rights being violated without the use of physical force, so he spoke through the lying and sissified Lilah :O)

 >  Lilah Kerrug once noted: “This does not follow . . . (where) . . . My rights end where your rights begin. I do not have the right to dispose of my rock by hurling it at your head with the intent of knocking you out with it (unless you are attacking me, of course). And I do not have the right to dispose of my gorilla by torturing and maiming it in a way that makes you wonder if you or someone you love will be next! I do not have the right to engage in sociopathic behavior toward my property, if it results in aggression or the threat of aggression toward other human beings. If I don't ‘see fit’ to observe this limitation on my freedom of action toward my property, then someone else's with that freedom of action is _not_ a violation of my rights. Is anyone getting this yet? Lilah Kerrug Advocate for _Human_ rights"  >  End quote

 Peter, the last clause in the next to last sentence above should read: ...then someone else's interference with that freedom of action is _not_ a violation of my rights.

 I still think that vicious treatment of animals is a tell-tale sign that we are dealing with a sociopathic person -- explicitly biopathic, and how can you trust such a person not to step over the line, when he is obviously mentally/emotionally disturbed and shows clear violent tendencies?

 But, assuming that such behavior falls into the wider category of threats of physical force against human beings, the real question is: do threats of physical force against human beings amount to the initiation of force? I say they do. What is the difference between aiming a gun at a person and telling them you will shoot if they don't give over their money -- and twisting their arm and saying you will break it if they don't give over their money? The latter is actual physical contact, but so what?? It's clear to me that there does not have to be actual physical contact for there to be the initiation of physical force. Whether this extends to the sociopath slam dunking his cat (having graduated from his childhood activity of pulling the wings off butterflies) is something we could debate, but I have always thought that gratuitous destroyers were "wild cards" that sane people would at least give a wide berth, if not a narrow jail cell.

 Very Sincerely, Roger Bissell aka Dancing Puppy formerly Lilah Kerrug

 From: NRoarkofConn To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Request to the List Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:10:10 EDT

 Jason Alexander wrote:  > "...and reason as his only absolute." I would like to know the various takes on this expression by Ayn Rand.

What do you think Rand meant by that? I don't want to know what is meant by "reason," but I would like to know what is meant by "absolute." This is not a trick question, but is a genuine inquiry. Thank you in advance for your help. Sometime, probably sooner rather than later, I'm going to have to answer the work Ellen Moore is doing on Reason. I want to be prepared.

 This is not a trick answer, but is a genuine response. You are welcome to whatever help it provides. However, I'd just say that it's always good to satisfy one's curiosity about the meaning of an ambiguous comment such as the one quoted above. If it helps in dealing with other people's perhaps divergent interpretations, so much the better....

 Since Ayn Rand has referred to quite a number of different facts as being absolutes, her remark about reason has to be understood in the context it was made. In Objectivism, there are two distinct ways the concept of "absolute" are used -- one metaphysical, the other epistemological. The first pertains to ~facts~, the second to ~truths~ (propositions about facts).

 1. Absolute facts: Peikoff in OPAR says that the metaphysically given is absolute, by which he means: any fact inherent in existence apart from human action is immutable, inescapable, necessitated by the nature of existence and, therefore, unchangeable by human (or any other) agency. Such facts are necessary, and no alternative to them is possible or imaginable. (p. 22) A number of such absolutes (facts) are mentioned in Galt's Speech:

 "Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute." (FNI, 216h, 173p) Rand also states in "The Cult of Moral Grayness" (VOS, 99h, 77p) that the revolt against reason is "a revolt against the absolutism of reality."

 2. Absolute truths: In his discussion of certainty in the chapter on reason, Peikoff states that all properly formulated truths are absolute (immutable) in the context of knowledge within which they were formulated. It is precisely the context that makes a valid conclusion invulnerable. Contrast this with the traditional, Kantian view that an absolute is a principle independent of any other fact or cognition, i.e., something unaffected by anything else in reality or in human knowledge -- in other words (following Hegel), a fact that has no relationships to anything (OPAR, pp. 174-5).

 3. Absolutism of reality and reason

From the above, it is clear that Rand used the term "absolute" to refer to various facts and identifications. Clearly, when she says man ought to hold reason as his only absolute, she has something specific in mind, but what?

Well, from the perspective of human survival, we know that we must remain in contact with reality if we are to survive. The absolutism of reality in this context means that we cannot survive without acknowledging and acting in accordance with the fact that reality is what it is.

 We also know that if we are to remain in contact with reality, we must use reason. The absolutism of reason in this context means we cannot acknowledge and act in accordance with the fact that reality is what it is unless we use reason.

 These are both immutable, metaphysically given facts, and our identifications of them are invulnerable, contextually valid truths. To survive, we must hold reality is the object of our awareness and we must use reason as our means of awareness. They are both inescapable, unchangeable, fundamental requirements of human survival.

 My conclusion is that "only," in this context, does not mean that one cannot properly hold other absolutes in regard to other issues, but that it is an immutable fact that reason is the one and only one process or means by which one can know reality and use that knowledge for survival. So, to hold reason as one's ~only~ absolute has to mean: to acknowledge and act in accordance with the necessity of using reason and only reason as one's ~means of awareness of reality~ (i.e., one's means of survival).

 I hope this helps you in your preparations. Best regards, 

[Peter]

I also found the thread, "Roy Child's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" but it is huge and Helena Handbasket's name only appeared once. Maybe some other time. 

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Gosh. On his last letter to this thread, he did not sign his name but He admitted who he was to me. I found the incriminating evidence and the confession. Beware! You are now entering “Jimboland.” Peter

HUH????

Peter, what "incriminating evidence and confession" do you think you found?

Roger admitted to being "NRoarkofConn."  Roger was also Lilah Kerrugh.  (I got taken in by that false identity for a wee while and had some off-list exchange with "Lilah," I don't remember about what.)

Roger did not admit to being "Helena."  As I recall, he was as puzzled as everyone else about who wrote the "Helena Handbasket" posts, and anyway there were features which I think Roger couldn't have done.

Btw, about suspicion being directed at JR or George, I think that that was retroactive suspicion, i.e., the idea that one of them might have done it as a lurker (same as the suspicion about David Brown, if I have his name correct).  I think the HH posts had stopped before George and JR started posting (as themselves).

Also, what do you mean in calling what you posted "this thread"?  You have a series of out-of-sequence stuff, some of it from 2003 and from Jimbo's retained list, not from the New Atlantis list.

One of the people whose posts you've copied was Victor Levis.  Victor, for a time, did a "Helena Handbasket" imitation series which then had me and some others wondering if he'd done the original, but he said that, no, he hadn’t.

Ellen   

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Lilah Kerrug on logical fallacy Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:31:42 GMT

Apologies. I sometimes have 100 messages waiting to be read. I don't answer immediately because message number 75 may have answered as I would have, but I haven't read it yet, in order to know this.

 I have been on the Net for five months and on Atlantis for one month, and I see I really need to budget my time or only follow some threads. I have fifty I have not read as of now.

 

Ah.....

Note the time stamp:  Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:31:42 GMT

And your statement "I have been [...] on Atlantis for one month".

I think the "Helena Handbasket" posts had stopped before you joined Atlantis.  Thus, you wouldn’t have saved them in your files.

Ellen

[Peter]

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

think the "Helena Handbasket" posts had stopped before you joined Atlantis.  Thus, you wouldn’t have saved them in your files.

Ellen

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

HUH????

Peter, what "incriminating evidence and confession" do you think you found?

Roger admitted to being "NRoarkofConn."  Roger was also Lilah Kerrugh.  (I got taken in by that false identity for a wee while and had some off-list exchange with "Lilah," I don't remember about what.)

Roger did not admit to being "Helena."  As I recall, he was as puzzled as everyone else about who wrote the "Helena Handbasket" posts, and anyway there were features which I think Roger couldn't have done.

Btw, about suspicion being directed at JR or George, I think that that was retroactive suspicion, i.e., the idea that one of them might have done it as a lurker (same as the suspicion about David Brown, if I have his name correct).  I think the HH posts had stopped before George and JR started posting (as themselves).

Also, what do you mean in calling what you posted "this thread"?  You have a series of out-of-sequence stuff, some of it from 2003 and from Jimbo's retained list, not from the New Atlantis list.

One of the people whose posts you've copied was Victor Levis.  Victor, for a time, did a "Helena Handbasket" imitation series which then had me and some others wondering if he'd done the original, but he said that, no, he hadn’t.

Ellen   

Nope. Bissell  is , , , come on Roger.