MisterSwig

Based on my personal interactions with James, I do think that he is capable of evasion in order to preserve something other than the truth, whether it's a friendship or his own opinion on a matter. But in this case he could simply agree with Leonard that Kira's case is unfounded, that there's nothing suspicious about Leonard giving a mansion to his nurse. What's truly perplexing is that James failed to mention the case at all. Here we have the FB letter, and Leonard claiming that he needs protection from being enslaved, yet neither James nor Leonard mention this horror in the video. They both seem pretty content with life actually. As for your speculation about James advising Leonard to quitclaim the mansion, this assumes they planned for Kira's probate action. If so, James should have also advised setting money aside for future legal expenses. The fact that Leonard needs to beg for money at this stage of his life is itself a red flag regarding his mental competency to manage his money.

I should have explained. I'm not against dictionaries, and I'm aware that words can have more than one definition. I did not consult a dictionary in this case because we're comparing my idea of "gossip" to yours. Appealing to the authority of a dictionary would defeat that purpose, in my opinion.

I don't want to spend much time on tone, but thank you for the apology. Your tone only slightly bothered me. I understand your tendency toward colorful language, but I did not know you were recovering from a troll encounter. I chalked it up to you being passionately in favor of Leonard. I'm mostly bothered by repeated, crude hostility and incomprehensible hyperbole. Insults are boring and distracting, unless the critic makes it funny or attached to a solid point. And if someone exaggerates or fantasizes so much that I can't understand the message, how am I supposed to respond? It can be exhausting having to sort out the genuine meaning behind poorly worded hyperbole, especially when the confusion exposes deeper issues. But even here I often enjoy digging into deeper issues to the point of exhaustion, if I have the time. So I am not bothered by much when it comes to language and communication. As a lover of language, I appreciate the writer's flair and sometimes will study unique examples until I better grasp the meaning and intention. Thus, I'm not merely tolerating hostility and exaggeration, I'm evaluating it and possibly learning from it, because I value language and communication in general. Regarding persuasion through war metaphors, I have no strong opinion. I suppose the particular context is highly relevant. Generally my thought is that warlike rhetoric should be reserved for enemies. And when trying to persuade friends, a more peace loving rhetoric is appropriate. If Rand had considered conservatives more friend than foe, perhaps she would have changed the metaphorical context of her related articles. Actually, it would be an interesting study to track changes in her rhetoric toward conservatives. At first she sided with them, but ultimately ended up declaring them dead.

Without consulting a dictionary (intentionally), I believe the genus of "gossip" is something akin to "idle or casual conversation." We could debate the finer details and differentia, but I don't see what tracking and inference of others has to do with the concept. You can probably reduce every communication-related abstraction to the fact that we track people and make inferences. That's how we gather base-level knowledge of other people and things, by observing and evaluating. But wouldn't including all that in the concept of "gossip" defeat the purpose of forming concepts? It would bust the crow, and then how would we differentiate between gossiping and, say, reporting and testifying?

To answer your questions, I'm evaluating the evidence in this case because I'm deciding whether to support Leonard. He's asked for help, and so I'm compelled to respond to someone who's had a great influence on my life. As it stands, I don't agree with him. I don't know why I should interject myself in the case. Are you asking if I plan to contact the lawyers? I am not. I'm not merely signaling something. I argued for having much doubt about Leonard's case. I won't be supporting him morally or financially. I have no interest in starting a movement against Grace. I don't agree that we're gossiping. Gossip is the idle sharing of information without direct evidence or proof. It's second-hand banter, not even direct testimony. On the podcast we dealt with direct evidence in the form of the FB letter and the video interview. We also referred to evidence from public records related to the mansion. It wasn't all gossip. Gossiping would be if I heard from a friend who talked with Leonard privately, then I told you what my friend said that Leonard said. So, no, I don't see why you should disparage the use of "evidence" in this context. Evidence can be used in daily life to support a conclusion, choice or action. It can also be used in court to support a case, verdict or sentence. Gotta run. Later I'll respond to other ideas.

I'll discuss the ideas once you've finished editing your reply. Perhaps in a couple days when I have more time.

Hi Michael, Thanks for taking the time to listen and respond to the episode. I always appreciate your feedback, even when we disagree. Maybe Scott, Ed and I should have engaged in more gossip, but that's not my style. I, for one, was attempting to focus on the known facts and form opinions based on the best evidence available. Another general point, you tend to lump us together in your criticism, but I think our opinions and styles were varied enough to warrant a more individualized criticism. For example, Scott tended to favor Leonard, while I had some harsh criticism of the FB letter. Also, I characterize my opinion as "preliminary," so it's not my intent to "litigate" the case in any sense of that word. I say we're still in the fact-finding stage of the case, with the presently known facts pointing to some very suspicious activity on Grace and Leonard's part. However, as I say in the episode, the suspicious activity could be explained due to Leonard being a lonely, old horn dog with the financial means to buy a younger bride. As for the elephants in the room: 1. Watching Leonard speak Obviously Leonard speaks coherently in the interview with James. But they did not discuss the case, nor did Leonard make any significant, life-altering decisions during that interview. So it's not a great example of his mental competency in making such decisions. Also, when Grace entered the picture, both Leonard and James reduced her to "a pretty face," which I found weird, and she clearly didn't want to stick around for the video when Leonard asked her. As I'm sure you know, elderly people might retain the ability to hold conversations and even tell stories about how they once stiffed a waiter at a fancy restaurant, but that doesn't mean they're mentally competent to control their bank account in the face of undue influence from those holding some power over them. I also point out in the episode that Leonard failed to mention the $3.7 million mansion while asking us to condemn his daughter as evil and the idea of conservatorship as slavery. 2. James is a lawyer Yes, James is a lawyer, but was he acting in the capacity of a lawyer while interviewing Leonard. I don't think so, and therefore I don't think it's relevant. Leonard was being interviewed by a heavily biased friend. The legal system wasn't being represented. And if James were Leonard's lawyer, I'd trust him even less to act against Grace, since he would be doing what Leonard wanted him to do as his lawyer. Also, James wouldn't want to risk his friendship with Leonard by exposing facts like the gift of a mansion to Grace. 3. Peikoff imitates Rand You say Rand, during schisms, demanded that people choose who to follow based on her standing and nothing else, and that Peikoff has routinely imitated her in this behavior. I don't think we ignored this. Pretty sure Scott brought it up in some form, since he was the one mostly defending Peikoff and relating how Peikoff is treating his daughter to how he treated David Kelley. Maybe we should have covered this aspect more, but I happen to disagree with the notion in general. I don't think Leonard is standing on authority. He gives an argument. The problem is that, like I said, he wants us to pick a side while omitting relevant facts such as his gift of a mansion. That's suspicious. 4. Grace is black. I don't know whether she's black. She looks Hispanic to me. Should we have made something of her race? Why?

I sensed the BS from the opening line: "In the end, it wasn’t CNN, the New York Times or The Washington Post that exposed Ye’s explicit antisemitism." Huh? Back in October WaPo published a piece calling Kanye antisemitic for his "death con" tweet. And this new article even links to that old article. Clearly the MSM had much involvement in the exposure of Kanye's alleged antisemitism. It appears that now they don't want the credit. Which is the real story. Why doesn't WaPo want credit for helping to expose Kanye? At the end of the article the author states a so-called "irony" in amplifying a problem by acknowledging it. Another confused, BS line. You amplify *awareness* of the problem, which is a good thing. Not ironic, unless your goal was to conceal the problem by exposing it.

Sure, but I don't try to swat digital flies. That's what the block button is for, when necessary. And I've only had to block a few people. I do, however, engage serious opposition if there's any to be found. BTW - That article was garbage, as I'm sure you detected. I tend to avoid MSM reports on such things. I watch alt-media or alt-commentary, and if there's anything interesting, I dig up the original sources. In this case, I watched Kanye's interviews themselves, instead of relying on reports. I frankly don't trust any news source these days, if I can help it

I don't know why you censor yourself, and I wasn't insinuating. I accept that you don't want to spend your time swatting flies. But did you expect to have to swat flies for spelling out that word on this thread? Here you are swatting because you *didn't* spell it out. It works both ways. For the same reason I say "pseudowoman" instead of "transwoman," I say "nigger" instead of "n-word." I don't want to spend time swatting that voice in my head asking why I'm censoring myself among friends.

The only way to change this is for good people to stop censoring themselves. Just say "nigger" if you want to refer to the word. Instead you say "n-word" which makes us all think the word anyway. As for Kanye, I never liked him. I still don't like him. He's some kind of Christian nationalist, playing at being Christ-like by declaring his "love" for everyone, including Nazis. Except he seems to have more distasteful things to say about Jews than Hitler. I think he feels like a gimp, that's why he wears the mask. I don't think he's a genius. If he were, he wouldn't have signed the contracts about which he's currently bitching. He's a simple hedonist, and hedonism is what sells in today's culture, whether you're lusting after whores or Jesus.

Apparently the running boards on old cars were important because back then cars were built with high clearance to negotiate dirt roads, and the running boards made it safer to enter and exit the vehicle. The boards also kept road dirt and debris from hitting the doors. As more roads were paved, high clearance became less important, and so running boards could be left off regular cars. They are still used however on trucks and some SUVs

It was a real pleasure to interview our very own Michael Stuart Kelly on the latest episode of Ayn Rand Fan Club. We discussed his history in the Objectivist movement, running this forum, his friendship with Barbara Branden, the anti-Trumpers with TDS, his theory on cognition, identification and evaluation, plus much more. Check it out! PS - I beat you to linking the interview!

Can't say I've noticed this. But if true it might be related to how traditions are passed down through parent to child. If you don't have children (or care about children in your family like nephews or nieces) then you probably don't care much about passing along traditional ideas and practices. So you don't pass along your ideology in any meaningful, consistent manner. Unfortunately there are leftists who make children and who become teachers, and so they do spread their ideology in a semi-consistent manner, infecting the culture with collectivist ideas and practices.

I watched some of the trial but simply lost interest. Depp needs to stop doing drugs. His brain is fried enough as it is; he can barely talk. Or was that supposed to be a symptom of his crippling shyness? Heard is difficult to believe, reminds me of deceptive, lying women I've known. And for such a pretty girl, what's with the weird makeup that looks like two big bruises on her cheeks? Was that supposed to remind the jury of a battered woman? I watch The Behavioral Arts YT channel and he does a decent job indicating the subtler signs of deception in Heard's testimony. I'm glad the jury wasn't fooled, and hopefully her career as an abuse survivor is over. I'm sure she gave worse than she got.