Mike Hardy

Well, I had in mind his relationship with NBI students. When Ayn Rand lost her patience with those who misunderstood her, he backed her up and attacked the latter. With her, it was emotion; with him, it seems to have been often calculated. The person attacked would remember that _she_ attacked him; _she_ would remember that NB backed her up; only he would know that he was doing it to keep students in fear and awe of him. That's the impression that _his_ (Nathaniel Branden's) book left me with, long before I heard of Valliant. That's what I had in mind when I said probably Valliant can succeed in convicting NB of the things that NB had already, if not very explicitly, confessed to in his book. I read Neil Parille's initial posting in this thread all the way through this morning. Where he shows Valliant falsifying a quote from Barbara Branden's book, about Ayn Rand's reason for (allegedly) not telling her relatives her new name, is a smoking gun if true, and I'm going to dig out both books and check for myself. -- Mike Hardy

Ellen, is the little "Edit" postscript referring to the fact that you misspelled "buoyant"? Are you testing us to see if we can spot that? -- Mike

OK, I've printed out the long initial post in this thread and will read it. I've read some parts of Valliant's book and not others. My impression _so_far_ is that probably he successfully convicts Nathaniel Branden of the things Branden already confessed to in _Judgment_Day_, except that Valliant is explicit about them. Branden stops somewhat (not much) short of explicitness in saying that power lust was a big part of his motive in his NBI carreer. I was rather puzzled by Valliant citing what he says are contradictions in Barbara Branden's book (I still have to dig her book out of storage to check for myself). They're just the sort of thing I'd have expected a dishonest biographer NOT to do. Eventually it occurred to me: Valliant works every day in a setting in which it makes sense to construe contradictions in someone's story as evidence of dishonesty. It must be habitual for him. But this is a quite different setting. Maybe this thread will incite me to have another go at getting through Valliant's book. -- Mike Hardy

Well, "I don't know about art, but I know what I like". I like Vermeer's _Geographer_ (and other things among his stuff). -- Mike Hardy

He might say: Eye dew knot no, J; eye half knot scene London's Derriere bear. E- ___ I think Roll & may be wading four a statue of limitations to run out be four he posts a gain (he hasn't posted on ATL2 recently ether). If he comes back, I'm wondering if he can tell us how to tell, just by looking at her, weather a woman is a heterosexual or a thespian. -- Mike Hardy

I should also add that he was wrong to think that his work would never make any difference to "the amenity of the world." But it he'd used arbitrary axioms, then that would have been right. -- Mike Hardy

I'm NOT working to disagree with you. But look: G.H. Hardy and his ilk did NOT believe in _arbitrary_ axioms, even if they said they did. Believing in doing research with no applications is not at all the same thing as believing in arbitrary axioms. And if they used the word "arbitrary" they probably meant something like "arbitrary" if one were to judge ONLY via the canons of deductive logic, and were just callously disregarding philosophical distinctions. -- Mike Hardy

Could you be specific? Which mathematicians do you have in mind who do that? And __who__ claims that mathematics is purely deductive (other than non-mathematicians or those who don't care about philosophy)? Why __physics__, specifically? Are you claiming physics is the only science to which mathematics is applicable? What about statistics applied to psychology or to economics? What about applications to financial markets? Is it not true that even in its "pure" form, mathematics relies heavily on induction for concept-formation? -- Mike Hardy

That is greatly exaggerated. SOME mathematicians may usually have in mind applications that non-mathematicians can use, but often applications are to others areas of mathematics, which in turn are applied to other areas of mathematics, etc., and applications to the "real" world may show up 50 years later. Not true. One CHECKS the correctness of the end result by using only deduction. How one GETS the end result is another matter. Concept formation, in particular, is involved, and is an inductive process. And it's an vitually overused cliche to say that mathematicians rely heavily on "intuition" (although there might not be much agreement on how to define that term, if anyone were to examine it). Only if you construe that in the light of my qualifications above. -- Mike Hardy

I first heard of the Affair in 1977, and I had no idea that made me one of apparently very few, not including even Leonard Peikoff. An alumnus of Vassar College told me that he'd heard it from a philsophy professor there named David Kelley. He included the part about the two spouses' consent. -- Mike Hardy

Ellen, this is the first time I've heard it suggested that you are of Caucasian descent (Roland might say "dissent"). If you'd posted your photograph, weed halve known that. (If you post one wear [sic] you don't where [sic] any close [sic], I promise not to tell you're [sic] husband.) -- Mike Hardy You know, I think most of my puns are advertent (if you'll pardon the expression), but I may have let another one into my comments quote above. Don't anyone tell Ellen that, though. -- Mike Hardy

I'm glad to hear that; I'll buy it. Have you finished the novel you said (a few months or years or centuries ago) you were working on? -- Mike Hardy

Ellen, this is the first time I've heard it suggested that you are of Caucasian descent (Roland might say "dissent"). If you'd posted your photograph, weed halve known that. (If you post one wear [sic] you don't where [sic] any close [sic], I promise not to tell you're [sic] husband.) -- Mike Hardy

They might be the ones who say that. Wow, I was sleeping on the job. Didn't call attention to the two missing punctuation marks... E- ___ Malpractice most foul. Or should I say "most fowl"? Chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks, and swans, but not pheasants? Should we try to recruit Roland Pericles to post here, to set us straight about these important philosophical questions? -- Mike Hardy

Aren't those the one's who say "Why should I need to learn to read? I've got a TV set! -- Mike Hardy

Dr. Meredith Grey is the protagonist. It's set in a hospital in Seattle. -- Mike Hardy

Oh god..... George Smith is normal??? I had no idea! He's been outed!! -- Mike Hardy (Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

Oh god..... George Smith is normal??? I had no idea! He's been outed!! -- Mike Hardy

Ellen, what is the relationship between the "testing" you're talking about, and _experimenting_?

Ok, I misspelled "impostor." Happens to the best of us. Ms. Editer [Editor] Ellen, you realize the part about the 16-year-old female opera singer who comes to me and says "Bless me Father for I have sinned..." and tells me about her feelings of guilt about all the things I've told her are immoral, including her capacious mammalianity, being liked so much by Andrew Lloyd Webber at that audition, etc., is all strictly hypothetical? As is the part about my not really being a priest? It's God's way of testing your faith. You know, I've always suspected Roland Pericles has written something called "Tomb It May Concern", but I've never been able to locate that in the library....

O god.... is Ellen starting to figure me out?? What if she finds out I'm not really a priest? Ellen, would those colorful confessions start getting less entertaining? (Or ... maybe _more_---they could become pure fiction.) And if you find out I'm also hearing confessions from another woman---a 16-year-old opera singer whom I've taught to feel guilty about her substantial mammalian attributes, to very entertaining effect--- will you then publish a paper titled "To Whom it May Concern" denouncing me? (Geez, I'm starting to sound a bit like Jeff Olson---I should get help.)

Ellen, did Valliant actually say he expected that? I'd have thought it was obvious he intended his book for an audience of those familiar with this controversy. Obviously (or at least it seems obvious to me) if a biography gives wrong impressions of its subject, the remedy would have to be another, better, biography. -- Mike Hardy

L.N. Subtle, I'm glad two sea your back from Yurp. To everyone else, and L.N. too: I have a confession: I like things to be simple. That's probably why I prefer Unix to Microsoft Windows and to Macintosh. All these numerous clickable things and menus on this web site annoy me. Am I the only one? Where's the most appropriate place in this complicated site to post a book review? (At some point I may opine at some length on Craig Ferguson's novel, _Between_ _the_Bridge_and_the_River_. Short review: I liked it and I'm looking forward to the sequel. It's largely about power lust in religious movements, and sectarian strife. Lots of puns and word-based humor. One Latin-based pun that L.N. Subtle will like (maybe?) and I sent an email to the author telling him that one was pretty good, for a Protestant.) -- Mike Hardy

I remember that line, and I never noticed the whole joke--the contradiction! Thanks, Mike! Now I'm trying to think in what situation Francisco said it. Without looking it up, my guess is, knowing AR, he was speaking to an intellectual. He was speaking to a journalist. The journalist said "Do you deny that blah blah blah blah?" He could quite truthfully have denied the proposition in question. But he wanted to leave a false impression for secret purposes of his own. So he said "I never deny anthing." -- Mike Hardy

One of my favorites is Francisco's statement: "I never deny anything". -- Mike Hardy