TOC 2008 SUMMER SEMINAR SCHEDULE

[Jerry Biggers]

The TAS 2008 SUMMER SEMINAR SCHEDULE OF LECTURES AND SPEAKERS HAS BEEN POSTED

(here: http://www.atlasevents.org/schedule/index.html

Capsule summaries for each of the lecture topics are displayed by clicking on the title of each individual presentation).

Some prominent and very popular speakers from many of the past summer seminars are notable by their absence on the 2008 Seminar schedule: NATHANIEL BRANDEN, BARBARA BRANDEN, TIBOR MACHAN, ROGER BISSELL, ROBERT CAMPBELL.

RETURNING lecturers include: Robert Bidinotto, David Kelley, Ed Hudgins, William Thomas, Fred Seddon, William Kline, Shawn Klein. Logan Clements, Alexander Cohen, and many others.

The "Participants-Sponsored Sessions" time-slots are also listed. In the past, these sessions have often offered some of the most stimulating presentations of the Summer Seminars. Of course, the titles of such proposed sessions are usually not available until a week before the actual seminar - and attendees can often find available space for their own presentation after the Seminar starts.

As FOX NEWS would say, "We report....You decide." It would be interesting to know what OL posters think about the lecture topics and the speakers (Please see the TAS website address for more details.)

Will you be attending?? If so, why? If not, why not?

Edited February 14, 2008 by Jerry Biggers

[jordanz]

I think the schedule looks awesome. I'll be there.

[Roger Bissell]

The TAS 2008 SUMMER SEMINAR SCHEDULE OF LECTURES AND SPEAKERS HAS BEEN POSTED

(here: http://www.atlasevents.org/schedule/index.html

Capsule summaries of the lecture topics have not yet been posted).

Some prominent and very popular speakers from many of the past summer seminars are notable by their absence on the 2008 Seminar schedule: NATHANIEL BRANDEN, BARBARA BRANDEN, TIBOR MACHAN, ROGER BISSELL, ROBERT CAMPBELL.

Much as I appreciate seeing my name "in lights," surrounded by people who have been actual headliners at IOS/TOC/TAS, I must offer a bit of a correction to Jerry's generous remark above.

Although I have spoken to two previous Advanced Seminars, I have only done one "official" presentation to a Summer Seminar per se, and that was more of a concert with extemporaneous comments than a lecture. Also, sadly, the concert was only attended by about 30 people, and while they seemed to enjoy themselves very much, my session can hardly be categorized as "very popular." (Most of the TOC bigwigs were off to a Sponsors dinner or something like that, if I recall correctly.) Also, sadly, the performance was poorly recorded, and Ben's piano playing is hardly in evidence on the CD sold by The Objectivism Store. (Though you can hear my comments and my jazz singing and stentorian light opera singing quite well.)

Yet another correction or clarification: had I been able to get my accompanist to...accompany me to Portland, Will would have been quite willing and happy to program us for another evening of jazz and romantic music. It was my philosophical, technical material that was rejected, and that was not the first time my lecture proposals were turned down. (I did two lectures as Participant Sponsored Sessions, but these were not listed in the official schedule; they had small but appreciative audiences -- again, just not large enough to qualify as "very popular.")

RETURNING lecturers include: Robert Binidotto, David Kelley, Ed Hudgins, William Thomas, Fred Seddon, William Kline, Shawn Klein. Logan Clements, Alexander Cohen, and many others.

MORE DETAILS TO FOLLOW:

As FOX NEWS would say, "We report....You decide." It would be interesting to know what OL posters think about the lecture topics and the speakers (Please see the TAS website address for more details.

Will you be attending?? If so, why? If not, why not?

Becky and I will not be attending. We cannot afford the cost of travel, food, accomodations, and tuition. Had I been accepted as a speaker, the lowered expenses would have made it manageable for us.

As for the topics and speakers, I'm not wildly excited about any of them, though I'd be interested in hearing David Kelley's series on "Counterfeit Reason." I'll probably order the CDs, once they become available. Also, I think that Alexander Cohen's overview of Objectivism should be quite good, worthy of attending, especially for newcomers.

I think that putting the three philosophical content lecture series in the same time slot, mid-afternoon, was a double mistake. First, it puts theory-hungry people in a real and frustrating dilemma. Second, it is in a "poison" time period, difficult to concentrate. (Of course, that is not true for all people; biorhythms and blood sugar levels do not follow the same pattern for everyone.)

A final, wry thought: I think that Lindsay Perigo's two proposed topics would both have been among the most interesting features of the Seminar -- but only worthwhile if they had been offered by someone else! I could probably have done a decent job on the music one, and Robert Campbell on the "own worst enemy" one -- though others could have done well on them, too, I'm sure.

REB

P.S. -- I have had further correspondence with Will Thomas, and I now have enough additional insight and clarification that I think my future proposals will stand a better chance of being accepted. I don't know whether I will be able to attend the 2009 East Coast Seminar, but the 2010 Seminar (presumably out West) will be a realistic possibility.

[Chris Grieb]

I do have noticed the time changes. It isn't right after lunch. My guess is that people had a hard time with the morning lectures.

I am getting everything together to go to Portland.

I'm sorry about some of the missing lecturers espically Tibor, Robert and Roger but the new ones sound interesting.

[merjet]

I think the lineup looks pretty weak. Kelley's "Counterfeit Reason" sounds interesting, but I can listen to the tapes. Most likely I will not be there, for the first time in 15 years.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will not make any comments about the drawing power of the speakers. As to content and the quality of the speakers I know about, I am drooling. I love this stuff.

(Also, I am getting in touch with my inner beast. )

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I am pleased to see that both Joe Duarte and Walter Foddis are on the program, talking about issues in psychology.

I worked hard in previous years to get them on the program, organizing a joint talk with Walter in 2003 and a joint talk with Joe in 2006 when each was up against substantial resistance to inviting him to speak on his own. The effort has paid off.

Also pleased to see Robert Bradley there. Rob was one of the speakers at the Atlas Shrugged commemoration. His big book on the fall of Enron will be out soon.

I expect Alex Cohen to handle the introductory course well.

And the removal of Lindsay Perigo from the program leaves no visible holes.

I probably won't be attending this year, because I am now slated to start a Summer School course before the Summer Seminar ends. If I am able to get there, it will be for a day or two.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

The TAS 2008 SUMMER SEMINAR SCHEDULE OF LECTURES AND SPEAKERS HAS BEEN POSTED

(here: http://www.atlasevents.org/schedule/index.html

Capsule summaries of the lecture topics have not yet been posted).

Some prominent and very popular speakers from many of the past summer seminars are notable by their absence on the 2008 Seminar schedule: NATHANIEL BRANDEN, BARBARA BRANDEN, TIBOR MACHAN, ROGER BISSELL, ROBERT CAMPBELL.

Much as I appreciate seeing my name "in lights," surrounded by people who have been actual headliners at IOS/TOC/TAS, I must offer a bit of a correction to Jerry's generous remark above.

Although I have spoken to two previous Advanced Seminars, I have only done one "official" presentation to a Summer Seminar per se, and that was more of a concert with extemporaneous comments than a lecture. Also, sadly, the concert was only attended by about 30 people, and while they seemed to enjoy themselves very much, my session can hardly be categorized as "very popular." (Most of the TOC bigwigs were off to a Sponsors dinner or something like that, if I recall correctly.) Also, sadly, the performance was poorly recorded, and Ben's piano playing is hardly in evidence on the CD sold by The Objectivism Store. (Though you can hear my comments and my jazz singing and stentorian light opera singing quite well.)

Yet another correction or clarification: had I been able to get my accompanist to...accompany me to Portland, Will would have been quite willing and happy to program us for another evening of jazz and romantic music. It was my philosophical, technical material that was rejected, and that was not the first time my lecture proposals were turned down. (I did two lectures as Participant Sponsored Sessions, but these were not listed in the official schedule; they had small but appreciative audiences -- again, just not large enough to qualify as "very popular.")

RETURNING lecturers include: Robert Binidotto, David Kelley, Ed Hudgins, William Thomas, Fred Seddon, William Kline, Shawn Klein. Logan Clements, Alexander Cohen, and many others.

MORE DETAILS TO FOLLOW:

As FOX NEWS would say, "We report....You decide." It would be interesting to know what OL posters think about the lecture topics and the speakers (Please see the TAS website address for more details.

Will you be attending?? If so, why? If not, why not?

Becky and I will not be attending. We cannot afford the cost of travel, food, accomodations, and tuition. Had I been accepted as a speaker, the lowered expenses would have made it manageable for us.

As for the topics and speakers, I'm not wildly excited about any of them, though I'd be interested in hearing David Kelley's series on "Counterfeit Reason." I'll probably order the CDs, once they become available. Also, I think that Alexander Cohen's overview of Objectivism should be quite good, worthy of attending, especially for newcomers.

I think that putting the three philosophical content lecture series in the same time slot, mid-afternoon, was a double mistake. First, it puts theory-hungry people in a real and frustrating dilemma. Second, it is in a "poison" time period, difficult to concentrate. (Of course, that is not true for all people; biorhythms and blood sugar levels do not follow the same pattern for everyone.)

A final, wry thought: I think that Lindsay Perigo's two proposed topics would both have been among the most interesting features of the Seminar -- but only worthwhile if they had been offered by someone else! I could probably have done a decent job on the music one, and Robert Campbell on the "own worst enemy" one -- though others could have done well on them, too, I'm sure.

REB

P.S. -- I have had further correspondence with Will Thomas, and I now have enough additional insight and clarification that I think my future proposals will stand a better chance of being accepted. I don't know whether I will be able to attend the 2009 East Coast Seminar, but the 2010 Seminar (presumably out West) will be a realistic possibility.

Roger, It is the quality, more than the quantity of your presentations, that stands out. As anyone present would testify.

In the past, upon seeing the list of lecturers and their topics, I have often thought, "Wow! Now I really want to go to the Summer Seminar!" For some reason, I have not had the same feeling, this time. Most of the topics to be discussed sound good, but I do not feel the same degree of intellectual excitement. It could just be me, though. Perhaps others are feeling more enthusiastic about the agenda.

[Jerry Biggers]

The choice of lecturers for the TAS Summer Seminar seems to have taken a rather curious turn. I am not going to let this go without an explanation from TAS. I have sent the below email to the principals at The Atlas Society for an explanation. When I receive a response, I will note it here, also.

Gentlemen:

I am writing to inquire as to why a number of well-known and very popular lecturers from past IOS/TOC/TAS Summer Seminars have not been included as presenters in the upcoming 2008 Summer Seminar. I am referring here to Tibor Machan, Robert Campbell, Roger Bissell (and, of course, Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden).

In the case of the first three, all of them presented proposals for consideration, but were turned down. All have been published in academic or scholarly journals, and as contributors to edited collections of essays. In the case of the Brandens, their contributions to Objectivism (and to TOS) need no elaboration.

In the case of Tibor Machan, he has been noted as the most prolific of libertarian scholars with over thirty books that have presented the case for individualism, rights, liberty, objectivity (in epistemology), egoism, and other issues and concepts congruent with Objectivism [i.e., Ayn Rand (2000), Classical Individualism (1998), Objectivity (2004), editor, Ayn Rand At 100 (2006)]. On top of this, he has been a very popular lecturer at past TOS events due, in part, to his dynamic expositary delivery method which engages the attention of his audience.

But I am sure that you know all of this. As a Sponsor of The Atlas Society and its goals, I am eager to see it utilize the talents of those who exemplify and elucidate Objectivist philosophy. Therefore, I am very curious to know why TOS has chosen to deny itself (and 2008 Seminar attendees) of the already demonstrated services of the above lecturers.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Jerry Biggers

[Judith]

I would very much like to attend. The lineup looks interesting. I've also travelled to Portland on business a number of times and I like the area, and I'm particularly happy with the accommodations this year.

Unfortunately, the timing is looking iffy for me. I'll probably not know until the last minute.

Judith

[Jerry Biggers]

In response to my inquiry of yesterday, to The Atlas Society as to why certain past speakers (e.g., Tibor Machan, Roger Bissell, Robert Campbell, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden) were not on the agenda for this Summer's 2008 Summer Seminar, I received today the following explanation for posting here on Objectivist Living, from Will Thomas, Director of Programs for TAS:

Each year, we at TAS try to work out an attractive Summer Seminar

program, within the constraints of running the Summer Seminar. We are

fortunate to have an enthusiastic community of speakers who propose

Summer Seminar talks. That same good fortune means, however, that each

year some good speakers with interesting talk ideas get turned down. And

not every popular speaker proposes to speak in every year.

[Brant Gaede]

In response to my inquiry of yesterday, to The Atlas Society as to why certain past speakers (e.g., Tibor Machan, Roger Bissell, Robert Campbell, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden) were not on the agenda for this Summer's 2008 Summer Seminar, I received today the following explanation for posting here on Objectivist Living, from Will Thomas, Director of Programs for TAS:

Each year, we at TAS try to work out an attractive Summer Seminar

program, within the constraints of running the Summer Seminar. We are

fortunate to have an enthusiastic community of speakers who propose

Summer Seminar talks. That same good fortune means, however, that each

year some good speakers with interesting talk ideas get turned down. And

not every popular speaker proposes to speak in every year.

They could be seriously short of money.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

You're right--they are short of money. But this is not new. TAS pays the average Summer Seminar speaker less now than it did 10 years ago. It doesn't cover some speakers' travel now (I'm pretty sure that 10 years ago it covered travel for all of them). Speakers whose travel expenses TAS will be covering usually need to propose two different talks on different topics. And so on.

These factors explain some of the recent decisions. But not all. For instance, they don't explain why Roger Bissell has been turned down whenever he has proposed to talk about something other than music. Or why he was turned down this year when the Seminar is on the West Coast and so is he.

Robert Campbell

[Barbara Branden]

I have not been accustomed to speaking every year at the Summer Seminar. And I did not submit a proposal for a talk at the 2008 Seminar. At the moment, I'm trying to write four articles, one book, and to do a gigantic editorial job -- all at the same time -- which gives me no time to prepare a TAS talk.

Too bad that I won't be giving Perigo an opportunity for another prebuttal.

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

I will be in Portland unless I have bad health problems.

On the money situation TOC is offering a more expansive rooms for those who want. I would suspect that the speakers will desire better accomendations.

Does anyone know if Perigo was paying his way from New Zealand?

[Robert Campbell]

Chris,

My understanding is that TAS was going to pay Lindsay Perigo's way from New Zealand.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

Unfortunately, due to illness, I could only attend a few sessions of last summer's seminar in Towson, MD. I had wanted to get a better picture of the TAS financial condition. At the Sponsors' Dinner, they presented some slides about issues related to TAS growth. Unfortunately, the slides were displayed in quick succession and were difficult to completely read. As I recall, they did not specifically discuss the level of contributions. One slide did show the division of their expenses in a pie chart.

What I remember is that one slide showed that 50% of TAS funds were being devoted to The New Individualist publishing expenses. I am not surprised by the percentage because the magazine clearly indicates that a lot of time, effort and money is going into it. I hope it is paying off.

There was no mention during the presentation, of the status of the long-awaited completion for publication of The Logical Structure of Objectivism. However, David Kelley did give a lecture earlier in the week that was based on "work in progress" from LSO. Unfortunately, I could not attend that day due to what I thought was the flu (but was instead, the initial stage of Lyme Disease infection) so I do not know what he said about the status of LSO.

I have heard elsewhere (from a "reliable source" ;) ) that the Summer Seminar is "self-sustaining,"

and does not use other TAS funding.

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

I've also heard that the Seminar is self-sustaining.

In fact, one person tried to use this as an argument against reducing or eliminating my very modest financial contributions to TAS in protest against the Perigo invitation ;)

If it is self-sustaining, the Seminar's projected revenues must themselves be pretty modest.

Some further inquiries about The Logical Structure of Objectivism would be worth making.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

I think they hope the conference will break even.

I am going to ask about "Logical".

[Philip Coates]

**A Largely Avoidable Problem**

> If it is self-sustaining, the Seminar's projected revenues must themselves be pretty modest. [Robert Campbell]

Since the number of people interested in Ayn Rand – and who have heard of TAS – grows year by year by word of mouth at least if for no other reason (the readership of Atlas Shrugged is at an all time high and so on) . . . logic would indicate that summer conferences [let alone financial support] should ***grow***.

Or at the very least, ***not shrink by nearly two-thirds***!!!

A drop in number of attendees from order of magnitude ~300 to ~100 means that they now have 1/3 the revenue from this (not to mention loss of momentum). But costs don't drop by 2/3, since they still have to pay the college venue, pay for its electricity and helpers and auditoriums, pay speakers - whose numbers don't drop simply because attendance has, etc.

It's their own damn fault that the attendance has dropped [and note that attendees tend to leave energized and more willing to be financial supporters]. They did a lot of incredibly stupid or unprofessional things with regard to running the summer seminar which no professional conference organizer at any other weeklong conferences I've attended over the years (academic conferences, National Speakers Assn. Computer conferences) would do.

Each of these drove down attendance:

1. No air-conditioning in auditoriums and dorm rooms when east coast mid-summer temperatures hit over 90 degrees and over 90% humidity.

2. Having lectures from early morning thru nine or ten at night. //A// Okay for one day or a weekend conference, but exhausting if done for six days. They know how to do a one day "Atlas Shrugged" celebration even...but that's *very different* from a week long event. //B// Crow epistemology - You can't retain that much material without more 'breaks' or non-intellectual or social 'filler'.

3. Canceling one after another the social, 'vacation' and non-academic "community building" and 'people meeting' and friends-forming and networking activities: the talent show, faculty-student softball game, dances. These are the things that make a week one remembers for years.

You can -buy- the tapes or wait for stuff to come out in print if it's all lectures all the time. And people are making that calculation and staying home.

The above is a partial list of organizational, business, and management mistakes.

All kinds of people run successful (and large) professional conferences. It's big business and a learnable skill. People have written about what makes for a successful conference. It's not like the preceding are concepts unfamiliar to professional "meeting planners". It's not like TOC was not told. I (and others!!) made all these points in the post-conference questionnaires for about five or six years running.

Then I realized they weren't responding, yet thought they knew better.

And I gave up.

(Color me Irritated and Frustrated)

[Chris Grieb]

Phil; Your comments are good.

I have wondered if they talk to people who have stopped coming.

I must report the comments about air conditioning were not true at Union and Towson. There were other problems about both places.

Have you tried to talk to Will about these suggestions?

[Jerry Biggers]

**A Largely Avoidable Problem**

> If it is self-sustaining, the Seminar's projected revenues must themselves be pretty modest. [Robert Campbell]

Since the number of people interested in Ayn Rand – and who have heard of TAS – grows year by year by word of mouth at least if for no other reason (the readership of Atlas Shrugged is at an all time high and so on) . . . logic would indicate that summer conferences [let alone financial support] should ***grow***.

Or at the very least, ***not shrink by nearly two-thirds***!!!

A drop in number of attendees from order of magnitude ~300 to ~100 means that they now have 1/3 the revenue from this (not to mention loss of momentum). But costs don't drop by 2/3, since they still have to pay the college venue, pay for its electricity and helpers and auditoriums, pay speakers - whose numbers don't drop simply because attendance has, etc.

It's their own damn fault that the attendance has dropped [and note that attendees tend to leave energized and more willing to be financial supporters]. They did a lot of incredibly stupid or unprofessional things with regard to running the summer seminar which no professional conference organizer at any other weeklong conferences I've attended over the years (academic conferences, National Speakers Assn. Computer conferences) would do.

Each of these drove down attendance:

1. No air-conditioning in auditoriums and dorm rooms when east coast mid-summer temperatures hit over 90 degrees and over 90% humidity.

2. Having lectures from early morning thru nine or ten at night. //A// Okay for one day or a weekend conference, but exhausting if done for six days. They know how to do a one day "Atlas Shrugged" celebration even...but that's *very different* from a week long event. //B// Crow epistemology - You can't retain that much material without more 'breaks' or non-intellectual or social 'filler'.

3. Canceling one after another the social, 'vacation' and non-academic "community building" and 'people meeting' and friends-forming and networking activities: the talent show, faculty-student softball game, dances. These are the things that make a week one remembers for years.

You can -buy- the tapes or wait for stuff to come out in print if it's all lectures all the time. And people are making that calculation and staying home.

The above is a partial list of organizational, business, and management mistakes.

All kinds of people run successful (and large) professional conferences. It's big business and a learnable skill. People have written about what makes for a successful conference. It's not like the preceding are concepts unfamiliar to professional "meeting planners". It's not like TOC was not told. I (and others!!) made all these points in the post-conference questionnaires for about five or six years running.

Then I realized they weren't responding, yet thought they knew better.

And I gave up.

(Color me Irritated and Frustrated)

It is interesting (in a somewhat morose sense) that much criticism of TAS conference choices and policies are offered by OL posters. With the notable exception of the Perigo invitation debacle, the principals at TAS rarely reply.

Evidently, they are quite satisfied with the current growth rate (if there is one) and political/cultural influence (??) of TAS. If attendance rates for the Summer Seminars have been declining, they do not appear to be particularly concerned. As I mentioned earlier, they reported that 50% of their income is devoted to publishing The New Individualist.

As I stated earlier in the "Nathaniel Branden" section discussion of "Basic Principles of Objectivism,"

slightly altered):

But then, why should I be surprised? Before the 2006 TOC/TAS Summer Institute in California, I wrote the principals of TOC/TAS (Kelley, Thomas, Binidotto, Hudgins) a long letter asking them to consider presenting some sort of "lifetime achievement award" to both Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden (and to Tibor Machan for his voluminous scholarly books championing individualism and Objectivism). I stated that, in the Brandens' case, such an award presentation would be particularly appropriate at that time, due to a scurrilous book that had recently been published about them. Among other things, such an award would "send a message." The response from TAS? A polite letter from Wil Thomas stating that they could not do this because the Brandens were too "controversial," and Tibor was really, well, sort of a "neo-Objectivist."

Isn't that interesting? The Brandens were too "controversial" among some Objectivists, and Machan, even though he is the most widely published and prolific scholar in basic agreement with Objectivist philosophy, is apparently, just "not Objectivist enough." No matter that TOC/TAS published and marketed Nathaniel Branden's BPO audio lectures on CD, plus selling of his books and pamphlets. No matter that both Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden have attracted the most interest at many TOC summer institutes, and delivered the most-attended speeches. No matter, that Professor Machan has always been a major draw at the summer institutes, and is certainly one of their most eloquent speakers.

As if Ayn Rand and Objectivism weren't already considered to be a "controversial" philosophy, this organization got its start after David Kelley took the controversial step of addressing a libertarian meeting, and got excommunicated by the "Leonard Peikoff Institute." And then took the "controversial" step of inviting the Brandens to lecture at TAS events (and then compounded the "controversial" by selling their books and recordings).

Perhaps the principals at TAS ignore our criticism because they are confident that their current policies are both correct and fruitful. And/or they feel that we have nowhere else to go (which may be true, since a colorful individual "down-under," went off the deep end, or stopped his lithium. Or some such. ).

Edited April 21, 2008 by Jerry Biggers

[Philip Coates]

> Perhaps the principals at TAS ignore our criticism because they are confident that their current policies are both correct and fruitful. [Jerry]

The principals are good, well-meaning people with enormously high intelligence. I like all of them and have enormous respect for them as intellectuals, as thinkers, as Objectivist writers or speakers.

The basic problem is the gap between the Businessman and the Intellectual. My assessment over a dozen years is that the TAS principals are all -primarily- intellectuals with a great deal of hubris about their knowledge of how to run a complex enterprise. Unlike, say, a Yaron Brook, they didn't spend ten years in business, learning how to get the nuts and bolts of running an organization right. Nor do they fully grasp the crucial importance of focusing on the nuts and bolts before one focuses on the next speech or op ed or magazine article.

Nor do they fully grasp how difficult this is and how many skills are required.

Or how easily it can fall apart.

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

Your comments about 2006 reminded me of a more recent incident:

At the Atlas Shrugged celebration in Washington, DC, last October, Doug Rasmussen made a special point of mentioning of several academics who are either "neo" or are working in areas next door to Objectivism.

Doug thought it was necessary because David Kelley had apparently employed a Peikovian definition of Objectivism in some earlier remarks to the effect that there were hardly any Objectivists in academia.

Surely there is more to TAS's worldview than Peikovianism minus the intolerance...

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; I must look at both David's and Doug's remarks.