Alfonso Jones

I am glad to read that you are making this available via download. The course is excellent, and in fact bears repeated listening.

Bill P

I enjoy my Kindle, but it could be better:

1. The books are often quite expensive.

2. You can't share the books with another Kindle owner.

3. The book doesn't look the same way on the screen as it does on the "real" page. So if you have a book that says "see page 25" there is no way to figure out where page 25 is. For a book with end notes like Anne Heller's bio of Rand it's a waste of money. Footnotes are a pain as well.

I believe Adobe has an Epub format that solves the problem of point 3.

-Neil Parille

I'm also a Kindle owner. The problem of pagination is a serious one. For purposes of citation, it is a real difficulty to not be able to refer to page numbers in a specific edition.

Regards,

Bill P

For a bunch of individualists, you would think they would 'get' the idea that you must *judge people individually by what they actually advocate and their actual statements*, not what you think some long-dead authority they respect tells them they should advocate.

In somebody's words, "check your premises."

Bill P

And a happy birthday to Robert Campbell!

Good guy, and contributor of substance.

Bill P

And to help complete the picture, here is my response to Flitton's "scum" response, before he fled that thread along with his posted comments.

(snip to save bandwidth - - read Ed Hudgins' entire post above - it is very good!!!)

Excellent post, Ed. It is ironic how the phrasing in We the Living so often gets echoed by the denouncers. When it is phrasing which Rand had spoken by those she abhorred.

Comrade Sonia and more...

Bill P

I just received the following in an email - an interview with Daniel Pipes

Bill P

Will the farrago of condescension ever stop? I warn you now -- not out of politeless, but merely because these are the rules all of us must live by -- do not come within five meters of my person.

Or what? What's going to happen if he comes within five meters?

That's the strangest thing I've ever read by Dan. Does it have something to do with an anarchist"s ethos?

--Brant

I'd love to video the encounter--catch the tears or whatever: "Michael's now within eight meters, seven, six ...."

"Stop the insanity!"

"Can't we all just get along!"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ...."

Stranger and stranger . . .

Bill P

The Daily Show Goes To Iran

I get the message:

This item has been removed due to a copyright violation!

when I click on the link...

Bill P

Now the Washington guys are trying to do to everybody what they're been doing to American Indians from the get-go: screw them with socialism and welfare and the economic destruction of those and warfare. The applied evil and irrationality is about as perfect as they can make it. At least they aren't throwing disease contaminated blankets over the walls.

--Brant

Sadly, an excellent analogy. (I'm not sad because you made a good analogy, but because of the treatment of the American Indians.)

Bill P

Freedomfest 2010 notes

Here are some notes I took on FreedomFest 2010 in Las Vegas. Please note that these are strictly my impressions. If I am misrepresenting any of the persons named below, I humbly apologize. Obviously I do not speak for any of them.

(snip to save bandwidth)

Thanks for the substantial report, Dennis!

Bill P

Subject: Failure to See the Forest in Philosophy

I really recommend Peikoff's history of philosophy courses. There are some good texts such as W.T. Jones, but P and Rand are often better at essentializing so you need them as a complement. It's hopeless to debate with you guys until you've absorbed some of the basics, because you'll always take a nit and magnify it into an eagle.

I am quite familiar with Peikoff's history of philosophy courses, and the 5 volume W. T. Jones series.

No need for oneupmanship games. If you have something specific in one of these to cite as relevant, do so. Otherwise, remember something I often remind my students of . . . . purchasing the textbook and attending class will not confer knowledge on one, if they do not choose to think. Learning is not by osmosis, or by leaning one's head sideways and hoping the professor will pour knowledge into your ear.

Bill P

Subject: Failure to See the Forest in Philosophy

> Do you really compare yourself favorably to GHS in philosophical acumen, in particular the area of thinking in essentials? What would be the objective basis of this judgment on your part?

Bill, there is absolutely no comparison between George's actual understanding of philosophy, in fundamental and essential terms. The way to see this, if you yourself have a good understanding of philosophy is to read his posts and compare them to mine.

Philip -

I have compared your posts to his. That is why your attempted one-upmanship left me aghast.

Thinking in essentials is tricky, and requires maturity and breadth of perspective. The danger is that of confusing oneself by ignoring all the evidence / examples which does/do not fit with an attempted integration/generalization. In such a case, one is left claiming to have "thought in essentials" when in fact what they did was to make unwarranted generalizations, jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Bill P

George, try to stay out of fundamental philosophy. You obviously simply do not think in essentials in that area.

Just curious: Which if any of Peikoff's courses did you take? They would have helped you with that.

Philip - - -

This post of yours is laughable. Do you really compare yourself favorably to GHS in philosophical acumen, in particular the area of thinking in essentials? What would be the objective basis of this judgment on your part?

Bill P

I sure hope this isn't true, but if it is there appears to be no way to stop it now. I found this article on www.beforeitsnews.com

(snip)

Perhaps if humanity is very, very lucky, some may find a way to avoid the mass extinction that follows and carry on the human race.

Gulch -

Are you serious?

Bill P

Phil,

Can you point to a single publication by Peter Schwartz that expresses original insights or presents arguments of such cogency as to account for his moderate prominence in Rand-land?

Is there an issue on which Schwartz does not take an original position but has given the best presentation of a standard position?

Have you ever heard tell of Schwartz displaying unusual management skills, or adeptness at charming donors to give money to the Ayn Rand Institute?

And if he has no great ideas, doesn't write especially well, has no new insights to confer, gives evidence of no special management talents, and can't charm prospective donors, well... then what would explain his moderate prominence in Rand-land?

Robert Campbell

Robert -

You just cast a net which will catch more than a few fish in orthodox Objectivist-Land.

Bill P

I didn't realize it was something they were thinking of republishing, I thought it was probably just superceded formulations from Dr. Branden's self-esteem work, plus Nixon era political commentary, and little bit of god knows what else mixed in. So nothing marketable today, but I wouldn't know, I haven't heard them.

I haven't heard them in many, many years. But one example of what this set of discs included is the following: at some point in 1973, I asked Nathaniel if he thought one or two Seminars might be profitably devoted to discussion of aesthetic questions. He said he thought that would be worth doing. I wrote the questions for the two sessions and recruited the other participants - one of them was Wendy McElroy - and we gathered at Nathaniel's house in Beverly Hills to record.

I'd love to hear those discussions again.

JR

I'll send Leigh an email in a week telling her people are interested. Right now it's the Fourth weekend and then everybody's going to Sin City.

In his prime Nathaniel could speak extemporaneously at length with such quality the material was practically ready for publication. Ayn Rand could too in the early 1960s. This material is both good and important and an historical record of Objectivism's main mind at the time.

--Brant

Brant -

Agreed. Please advise Leigh of strong interest in these materials being made available.

Bill P

Heh.

I just went over to SLOP after a small break from doing that and one of the first things I saw there was this:

I fight evil wherever I find it. I fought Adonis and Kelly on Objectivist living site as I fought many others like them on this site. Incidentally I don't post anymore on Objectivist living since I've been moderated and banned.

I wonder what really goes on in the heads of people like that. They certainly do not value precision. Here is what I wrote about this person's posting restrictions:

Leonid has decided not to stop with the direct insults, so rather than keep deleting his posts, I have moderated him for a while.

If he refuses to understand property rights correctly, he now has a concrete example to help with his concept formation.

I'll let through the stuff that is not directly insulting to me.

That's not a ban. It can't even be "interpreted" as a ban.

So, Mr. Leonid either practices a very sloppy form of rhetoric, has a horrible memory or he is a liar.

I suspect all three. But no matter what the case, my policy stands as I presented it. Nothing has changed.

I have been relieved, though, that he has stopped posting on his own. Let me tell ya', being a traffic cop in charge of a nonstop barrage of sloppy irrationality mixed with cherry-picked facts is a barrel of laughs. A person with Mr. Leonid's form of epistemology can only drag a discussion of ideas on a very difficult issue (like the Israel-Palestine issue) into the gutter of bigotry, whether he is a bigot or not. And trying to keep that from happening is not the easiest task I have ever set for myself.

A person needs to make a commitment to precision if he wants his ideas to be taken seriously on a forum like OL. Just mouthing off and trying to piss people off doesn't cut it. Ideas are serious. And so are the people who discuss them here. I intend to keep that spirit alive on OL.

Michael

Michael, Michael ---

You're casting pearls before swine if you expect reform from Leonid. Don't expect a pork chop in return.

Bill P (smiling)

<br />

<br />It could be that PowerPoint documents created with a Mac simply aren't compatible with those created in Windows.<br />

<br /><br />Steve,<br /><br />This is not what Microsoft claims about PowerPoint files. They are supposed to be the same in the Mac OS and in Windows.<br /><br />In practice, I've found some problems with foreign language characters and logical symbols. But there aren't any of either in the PowerPoints from my talk.<br /><br />Robert Campbell<br />

I pass PowerPoints from Office 2008 for Mac to and from Windows Office 2007 and Windows Office 2003 several times per week - - as a Mac user who has about 200 students of whom 90% are using Windows. Two types of problem can occur:

1) Minor formatting differences (items moving slightly on the slide - - if you have created a slide where exact placement of items on the slide is vital, better check it!)

2) If items are not saved in proper format (PowerPoint X - 2004, NOT 2007) then those who use Office 2003 and have not downloaded and installed the free viewer can't open the presentation.

That's about it for problems - and I receive presentations from students several times per week and send them presentations at least once per week. No problems, given that I always "save down" into the 2004 version of PPT as noted above.

Bill P

My advice was not to that particular publisher, it was to the author who agreed to publish in that form. (Also, if I recall, the answer I got from R. indicated -he himself- did not wish to break up his magnum opus.)

I understand that you wrote to Riesman with your advice. What I don't understand is why you seem surprised that he didn't respond with profuse gratitude.

Here's a tip that will prevent you from acting like an egghead in the future: Authors generally don't respond well to unsolicited advice, especially when that advice is given after a book has been published and it's too late to do anything about it.

Ghs

George -

I'd like to suggest a refinement of what you say: Authors generally don't respond well to unsolicited advice. The exceptions, when they occur, tend to be when the advice comes from an author they respect, with a formidable track record of publishing. If one wants to be taken seriously in giving advice to an author, the first piece of advice is to wait until one's advice is solicited. The second piece of advice is to make certain that you are highly successful at publishing.

Bill P

Sarah -

Welcome to OL. You'll find that you can spend hour after hour just exploring old threads. I urge you to follow your interest - and post per your interest. Don't worry about how old a thread it. If you have something interesting to say, others will likely respond.

Bill P

Saw the show. Yaron didn't get to speak much but the publicity AR and Atlas Shrugged received was significant. I expect a spike in the sales of her books. That's a good thing.

Just watched the show (in the Air France courtesy lounge at Paris/CGD airport).

Anyone expecting long speeches from Yaron Brook (or Vince Flynn, for that matter) is surely disappointed. What happened - a push for viewers to engage with Term Limits and Atlas Shrugged.

Not that bad of an idea, after all.

Bill P

Who is Comrade Sonia

Ba'al Chatzaf

Character in We the Living. Diana H.'s behavior has caused some to term her "Comrade Sonia." Read We the Living to see why.

Bill P

I'm amazed and wish them well. I doubt if I'll be able to stand watching it.

--Brant

Somewhere, pigs are flying. Also, rumors are that temperatures in hell have dropped precipitiously.

Bill P

I was rereading Letters From an American Farmer, (1782), by J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur, when I happened across a passage that I quoted many years ago in a Knowledge Products script that I wrote on the American Revolution. This passage, which appears in the chapter "What is an American," is one of my favorite passages from early American literature, so I thought I would share it.

[America] is not composed, as in Europe, of great lords who possess everything, and of a herd of people who have nothing. Here are no aristocratical families, no courts, no kings, no bishops, no ecclesiastical dominion, no invisible power giving to a few a very visible one....We are a people of cultivators, scattered over an immense territory, communicating with each other by means of good roads and navigable rivers, united by the silken bands of a mild government, all respecting the laws, without dreading their power, because they are equitable. We are all animated with the spirit of an industry which is unfettered and unrestrained, because each person works for himself. If he travels through our rural districts he views not the hostile castle, and the haughty mansion, contrasted with the clay-built hut and miserable cabin, where cattle and men help to keep each other warm and dwell in meanness, smoke, and indigence....We have no princes, for whom we toil, starve, and bleed; we are the most perfect society now existing in the world. Here man is free as he ought to be.

For more on Crèvecœur, see the Wiki article.

Ghs

Letter XII is described as including his views on American Indians. Anything interesting in that one?

Click on the link to the Wiki article to find where the book of letters is available online.

Letter XII can be found at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/CREV/letter12.html

Regards,

Bill P

You're really into the thin stuff now, Xray.

--Brant

punch it up! punch it up!

Brant -

If you can understand when Xray gets "really into the thin stuff" you are a connoisseur of gruel.

Bill P