The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Ellen Stuttle]

Not of course that this will have any effect correcting Michael's misapprehension: I have no animus against Barbara. Nor did Barbara tell me off, as I think Michael reported on some thread or other. The notion that it's all about Barbara, as Brant has repeatedly declared, is mistaken.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

If these people indeed want to discourage others from supporting Rand and her ideas in print, I have to wonder if they would prefer that people trash her and her ideas instead? Is that their goal?

Jonathan,

When it comes right down to it, I do think the Orthodox crew believes that one must present or support Ayn Rand's ideas using the formulas, precise interpretations, and expository strategies approved by them, after studying the intermediary authorities that they recommend, and obtaining clearance from persons highly placed in their circle. One must, in any event, never openly criticize Rand or any idea of hers; one must never openly criticize any of the highly placed persons who now stand in for her.

Otherwise, they assure themselves, one is functioning as "enemy of Objectivism" whether that is one's conscious intention or not. One is doing more harm than good, and might as well be taking the role of Whittaker Chambers and seeking to obliterate her ideas.

Their excuse for imposing these strictures that they are "protecting the Rand brand" and ensuring that Ms. Rand's ideas will be presented as she wanted them presented. Whether her way was, in fact, the only effective way to do so, or the best way, she is not around to instruct the ARIans in it, so, in fact, various of their senior figures, beginning with Leonard Peikoff, now exercise the authority that she once wielded directly.

They really do go for the most totalizing aspects of Rand's thinking (minus a few "nonphilosophical" opinions of Ms. Rand's from which Dr. Peikoff has granted them a dispensation). Embrace Objectivism whole and unaltered, or embrace a Zero. Endorse the received system of truths, or sink into abject nonobjectivity. Practice her morality as her vicar on earth interprets it for them, or forget about being ethical altogether.

They tend to cling to the Righteous Remnant mentality that one finds in Ms. Rand's more pessimistic writings (the mindset that led Leonard Peikoff to wish out loud that copies of Atlas Shrugged be stored in special containers and secreted in caves around the world, so after the coming Apocalypse, nuclear or otherwise, our distant descendants might one day rediscover them). They often declare that human beings must embrace their precise brand of Objectivism en masse, for otherwise Homo sapiens will perish. (How our species has lasted as long as it has without benefit of Ms. Rand's writings is a matter they prefer not to dwell on.)

So, yes, if it's not done their way, they'd much prefer it not be done at all.

They prefer not to see what they are doing as inhibiting the spread of Rand's ideas, even though many of their activities have that precise effect.

In the end, their efforts are not merely perverse and obstructionary; they're almost entirely in vain.

The ARIans were pretending over on amazon that Mayhew's Product Description didn't say what it said, but anything that might vaguely resemble competition to the Mayhew volume was basically "lamentable" or strictly bush-league. While they were doing all their turf protecting and issuing all their hypocritical denials about turf protecting, a quick look at the sales figures showed that the Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller biographies of Ayn Rand, wholly without their endorsement, are vastly outselling anyone's book of essays about Atlas Shrugged. Amazon, from its tracking of past purchases, was helpfully bundling in the two non-ARIan biographies for prospective purchasers of the Mayhew volume—but not suggesting to purchasers of the biographies that they bundle with the Mayhew volume.

Burns and Heller will be bringing Rand's ideas to the attention of many more people than the activities of any ARIan ever will.

And the ARIan response will be, as it has been so far, to run down Burns and Heller.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle really doesn't know Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion.

Apparently, she has never bothered to look at the Table of Contents.

Among the changes in the Introduction, she claims, were

-- adjustments needed because of the changes in the chapters included (taking out the references to the deleted Younkins and Fram-Cohen chapters, adding a reference to a new chapter by Criss).

In the first printing, Chapter 23 was "Human Productivity in Atlas Shrugged" by Jack Criss.

In the second, corrected printing, Chapter 22 is "Human Productivity in Atlas Shrugged" by Jack Criss.

That's why, in a recent post, I listed Mr. Criss as one of the contributors (to the corrected edition) who were being slimed by Messrs. Boeckmann and Cline.

In the Introduction to the first printing, Jack Criss's chapter wasn't mentioned. Obviously a mistake—whose I don't know. In the Introduction to the second printing, it is mentioned.

Ms. Stuttle also keeps saying that two of the six authors cited in the corrected Introduction are contributors to the volume.

Two of the authors cited in the Introduction are not affiliated, even honorarily, with the Ayn Rand Institute: Robert Hunt and Mimi Reisel Gladstein.

One of them is a contributor to the volume: Mimi Reisel Gladstein.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The notion that it's all about Barbara, as Brant has repeatedly declared, is mistaken.

Of course, it isn't all about Barbara Branden.

It's all about Ellen Stuttle.

Although persons who fail to appreciate that it's all about Ellen Stuttle might occasionally catch a little "animus."

As to whether Barbara Branden ever told Ms. Stuttle off, I'll be inclined to believe that she didn't when she says so herself.

Ms. Stuttle's testimony is, to put it mildly, unreliable.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nor did Barbara tell me off, as I think Michael reported on some thread or other.

This is BS.

I never reported anything of the sort.

And if it did happen somewhere else, this is the first I ever heard of it.

But isn't it odd that Stuttle would say this?

Michael

EDIT: As to animus, I never said anything about what Stuttle feels toward Barbara. A really vain person does not need to like or dislike someone to attack that person. She merely needs to feed the beast within.

With respect to behavior, I do know that if nobody stands up when Stuttle rambles on, she always ends up on the attack against Barbara, insinuating that Barbara was less then honest in The Passion of Ayn Rand and outright embracing some of the sliming Valliant and Perigo constantly try in their different manners.

(Echoing somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind): Oh... my my... I do so depart from the highbrow euphemisms... how unthinking of me... "dishonest" is such a vulgar term... when one is to agree with Valliant and Perigo, let's call Barbara's motives "novelizing," shall we?

Oh ho ho... That's rich... that's rich... I bet Stuttle can come up with a dozen other enlightened genteelisms for lying...

[psychoanaleesis]

This is silly. Here's how the game is played.

1. You slime a person and claim there is all kinds of evidence backing you up.

2. When pushed about it, you become evasive and make snarky comments all basically saying, "I know many hidden truths that you don't."

3. You insinuate that it is even worse than people imagine, but because you are such a good person, you will not disclose the full extent of the slime so as to not damage the person being slimed.

4. When really pushed against the wall, you admit the lameness of your real evidence and say someone else told you.

5. Then you coyly ask why didn't the person objecting ask you about this in the first place.

Michael:

Just a quick observation. I think you've just defined the characteristics/qualities of an actual O-Liar here for an Objectivist would not indulge in charades and more so, would not take anyone's word for it in the spirit of thoroughly believing hearsay nor taking it as gospel truth for this would amount to "faith" nor passing something which you have an inkling to be fraud and selling it to your good neighbors. Clearly this was not a case of persuasion but a degree in perversion. Persuasion is a phenomenon where I, the subject, gets convinced of an idea but then again, I get to test that idea (merely a hypothesis) for myself and then let the facts decide on whether that person (persuader) a chance in future transactions and of course recommendation to others.

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Lee

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

David,

Sadly, several people who call themselves Objectivists, and others who profess interest in Objectivism, do engage in this stuff.

Even more sadly, when the tribal heartstrings are pulled, even more people who call themselves Objectivists, and others who profess interest in Objectivism, allow themselves to become influenced by it.

Being involved with Objectivism is not a guarantee of good character. A person has good character because he or she chooses to have it. Objectivism is merely a tool--a body of ideas--to help implement that choice. But it also can be used as a tool for justifying bad character and/or neurosis.

You can find many concrete examples of both.

Michael

[psychoanaleesis]

David,

Sadly, several people who call themselves Objectivists, and others who profess interest in Objectivism, do engage in this stuff.

Even more sadly, when the tribal heartstrings are pulled, even more people who call themselves Objectivists, and others who profess interest in Objectivism, allow themselves to become influenced by it.

Being involved with Objectivism is not a guarantee of good character. A person has good character because he or she chooses to have it. Objectivism is merely a tool--a body of ideas--to help implement that choice. But it also can be used as a tool for justifying bad character and/or neurosis.

You can find many concrete examples of both.

Michael

Good points. Do correct me Michael, but those people who have the habit of bringing out their, "I'm an Objectivist" trump card in a discussion are frauds. That is to say, if you claim to use Objectivism or know it by heart, why do you still need to convince other people that you are? Further, if you're right- just stand by it. If you're wrong or have been duped - admit it when asked. If you're not sure, say so and then try to find out more (to the best you can relative to your degree of interest on the matter)...Either way, you're not really fooling anyone.

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Lee

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do correct me Michael, but those people who have the habit of bringing out their, "I'm an Objectivist" trump card in a discussion are frauds.

David,

Many of them are frauds. Many of them are not. Playing that Objectivist trump card generally is a mark of tribal thinking, which I suppose could be called a fraud in itself. But many otherwise good people get caught up in trying to belong to some kind of elite group they call Objectivists.

Since these last are good people who do not try to damage other people for no good reason, I prefer not to call them frauds. From what I have observed, these folks either change later in a "What on earth was I thinking?" kind of way, or they keep to the background--leading good productive lives--and try to ignore the malicious stuff practiced by some of their tribe members.

The real frauds are the power seekers and those who make a career out of trashing other people to show themselves off (usually show themselves off to their tribe).

Michael

[Jonathan]

[Addressing something Jonathan said: There were no typographical mess-ups in the original Introduction. The changes from the first version to the second version were:

-- adding of citations and references to sources, plus adding a footnote;

-- taking out a few phrases which were inaccurate or had used directly borrowed unquoted wording;

-- adjustments needed because of the changes in the chapters included (taking out the references to the deleted Younkins and Fram-Cohen chapters, adding a reference to a new chapter by Criss).

Ellen

Are you saying that you saw a copy of the original Introduction in the state that it was in when it was submitted to the publisher's production crew, and that comparing it to the first printing of the book is the means by which you've determined that there were no mess-ups in the first printing? If not, how have you determined that Younkins (or anyone else whose material was altered in the second printing) didn't include "proper citations and references to sources," or the footnote, or quotation marks that may have contained the "unquoted wording"?

Your having seen the first and second printings is not enough to conclude that there were "no typographical mess-ups in the original Introduction" (if by "original Introduction" you mean the Introduction that was printed in the first edition), or that any means of attribution hadn't been accidentally omitted due to the production crew's errors or to software glitches.

J

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

The ARIans were pretending over on amazon that Mayhew's Product Description didn't say what it said, but anything that might vaguely resemble competition to the Mayhew volume was basically "lamentable" or strictly bush-league.

I think the ARIans have a right to their opinion of the quality of others' books, but if anything is lamentable it's making accusations without evidence, and I think its comical that they're suggesting that others are bush-leaguers while they themselves are not understanding (or pretending not to) that the inclusion of a comma makes a sentence mean something other than what they say it means.

Clearly someone screwed up on the first printing of the Younkins book. If it was Younkins, I have no problem with the ARIans (or anyone else) saying so, as long as they back it up with evidence.

J

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jonathan

[Robert Campbell]

Jonathan,

On page 92 from Roderick Long's chapter in the first printing, there was what was supposed to be a block quotation in smaller type, and didn't end up that way.

In the corrected printing, also p. 92, it's a blockquote in smaller type.

Robert Campbell

Edited March 23, 2010: I've deleted the page scan at the request of the publisher.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Addressing something Jonathan said: There were no typographical mess-ups in the original Introduction. The changes from the first version to the second version were:

-- adding of citations and references to sources, plus adding a footnote;

-- taking out a few phrases which were inaccurate or had used directly borrowed unquoted wording;

-- adjustments needed because of the changes in the chapters included (taking out the references to the deleted Younkins and Fram-Cohen chapters, adding a reference to a new chapter by Criss).

Ellen

Are you saying that you saw a copy of the original Introduction in the state that it was in when it was submitted to the publisher's production crew, and that comparing it to the first printing of the book is the means by which you've determined that there were no mess-ups in the first printing? If not, how have you determined that Younkins (or anyone else whose material was altered in the second printing) didn't include "proper citations and references to sources," or the footnote, or quotation marks that may have contained the "unquoted wording"?

Your having seen the first and second printings is not enough to conclude that there were "no typographical mess-ups in the original Introduction" (if by "original Introduction" you mean the Introduction that was printed in the first edition), or that any means of attribution hadn't been accidentally omitted due to the production crew's errors or to software glitches.

J

By "original Introduction" I mean the wording as it appeared in printed copies of the first edition of the book. I have a pdf made from photos of the hard copy of the first edition -- the one that was re-called and redone.

I'll use the paragraph about Milgram's work on the 2nd page to illustrate why the wording in the printed first edition couldn't have resulted from production crew error or software glitches.

The paragrah in the first edition began thus:

Rand was a dedicated and disciplined artist who made many additions, subtractions, and other changes. Her purposeful revisions were of both the small and large types. She would: [...].

The paragraph in the current book begins thus:

As illustrated and described in the original archival research of Shoshanna Milgram Knapp (1998), Rand was a dedicated and disciplined artist who made many additions, subtractions, and other changes. Her purposeful revisions were of both the small and large types. She would: [...].

What followed in the first edition was a list of 11 numbered descriptions separated by semi-colons. Point 5 of this list was:

5) omit references to actual historical people and places while still making the desired point; [...].

What follows in the current book is a list of 10 numbered descriptions separated by semi-colons. Point 5 as quoted above has been deleted and the following points renumbered.

The deleted point 5 was inappropriate to include in a discussion specifically of Atlas Shrugged, since Atlas was conceived from the beginning as not taking place in "real time." Its geography is that of the U.S., but the story transpires in an alternative-reality world.

To have produced what was printed in the first edition from the copy for the current edition would have required the neat deletion of an initial clause, leaving a coherent first sentence -- plus, and here is the clincher, the insertion of a numbered point "5" with re-numbering of the points which followed.

The only procedural error which could have resulted in what was printed in the first edition being a mistake would have been if Younkins (or whoever mailed the copy to the printer) sent a non-updated disk to the printer instead of a revised later disk. But this explanation for the uncredited material hasn't been profferred by anyone.

Most of the other differences between the first and second editions of the Introduction are also ones which would have required knowledge of the meaning of the words to make the changes. The appended reference section might have been dropped by printer error or software glitch. The unquoted wordings, however, would have had to have been added to the text by someone who understood their meaning and relevance. Those wordings aren't present in the corrected text. So, again, the only procedural error which could have produced the text that appears would have been if the printer was sent the wrong disk.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ms. Stuttle really doesn't know Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion.

Apparently, she has never bothered to look at the Table of Contents.

Among the changes in the Introduction, she claims, were

-- adjustments needed because of the changes in the chapters included (taking out the references to the deleted Younkins and Fram-Cohen chapters, adding a reference to a new chapter by Criss).

In the first printing, Chapter 23 was "Human Productivity in Atlas Shrugged" by Jack Criss.

In the second, corrected printing, Chapter 22 is "Human Productivity in Atlas Shrugged" by Jack Criss.

That's why, in a recent post, I listed Mr. Criss as one of the contributors (to the corrected edition) who were being slimed by Messrs. Boeckmann and Cline.

In the Introduction to the first printing, Jack Criss's chapter wasn't mentioned. Obviously a mistake—whose I don't know. In the Introduction to the second printing, it is mentioned.

I never saw a copy of the first edition, as I have told you. I wasn't aware that the book included a chapter by Criss. The Introduction, as you say, doesn't mention that chapter.

Ms. Stuttle also keeps saying that two of the six authors cited in the corrected Introduction are contributors to the volume.

Two of the authors cited in the Introduction are not affiliated, even honorarily, with the Ayn Rand Institute: Robert Hunt and Mimi Reisel Gladstein.

One of them is a contributor to the volume: Mimi Reisel Gladstein.

Lester Hunt's a contributor to the volume. I didn't notice that the Hunt listed in the References of the current Introduction was a different Hunt.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

In Steve Horwitz's chapter—it's p. 237 in the first printing—in the second-to-last paragraph, there is no closing quotation mark after the single quote following "make money." Consequently, the reader loses track of what were Ayn Rand's words and what are Steve Horwitz's.

The corrected printing (p. 227) closes the quote in the right place.

This kind of error appears frequently in the first printing.

Robert Campbell

Edited March 23, 2010: I've deleted the page scan at the request of the publisher.

[Robert Campbell]

In my chapter, p. 325 in the first printing, I quoted a little stretch of dialogue between Jim and Cherryl Taggart. In my manuscript as I submitted it, Jim and Cherryl's statements were marked off from each other with single quotes.

In the first printing, the single quotes all went disappearo, destroying the dialogue.

In the corrected printing, the passage appears on p. 315, with its single quotes restored.

Robert Campbell

Edited March 23, 2010: I've deleted the page scan at the request of the publisher.

[Brant Gaede]

For the record--

I, Brant Gaede, have a lot of vanity.

It's the icing on my ego cake!

Look, but don't eat!

--Brant

don't blow out my candles, either

[Robert Campbell]

Edited March 23, 2010: I had posted the first page (p. 345) of Ed Younkins' old Chapter 34 from the first printing. It was deleted from the second printing.

I've deleted the page scan at the request of the publisher.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle now excuses her failure to recognize an error in the first printing of the Introduction to Ed Younkin's volume on Atlas Shrugged.

I never saw a copy of the first edition, as I have told you. I wasn't aware that the book included a chapter by Criss. The Introduction, as you say, doesn't mention that chapter.

This is so lame, I have to wonder whether Ms. Stuttle has been granted access to the Diana Hsieh playbook.

When confronted with evidence of Tara Smith's conspicuous failure to cite Nathaniel Branden on self-esteem, Dr. Hsieh once declared that Dr. Smith must simply not have "consulted" anything by Dr. Branden while writing her book on Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

To which the obvious follow-up was ... people being in the habit of consulting what they deem relevant, why did she not consult a source that she and everyone in the vicinity knew was relevant?

Same here.

If you want to know what's in the first printing of a book, and copies of said printing are not merely extant, but require neither the combination to a vault nor a route bypassing museum security—why not get off your duff and ask to see or borrow a copy?

Yeah, I believe that Ms. Stuttle never saw a first printing.

But whether she saw a copy isn't a terribly interesting question.

The interesting question is why she didn't see one.

Could it be that Ms. Stuttle indulges in intellectual sloth at odds with the hyperinquisitive image she customarily projects?

Could it be that what some unnamed sources had to tell her elicited such a high degree of subjective certainty as to banish any felt need for further information?

If the latter, I should think that sources so authoritative and so convincing deserve to be generally known. That way everyone could benefit from their remarkable insights.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

To have produced what was printed in the first edition from the copy for the current edition would have required the neat deletion of an initial clause, leaving a coherent first sentence -- plus, and here is the clincher, the insertion of a numbered point "5" with re-numbering of the points which followed.

I'm not following the relevance of the editing of the fifth item. Are you saying that Shoshana Milgram Knapp had previously listed the same eleven items in regard to all of Rand's work, and that Younkins erred in including item 5 in a volume of essays on AS because it is the one point that applies to her other work, but not to AS?

Do you have a copy of the work by Shoshana Milgram Knapp in question? I don't, so I have no way of knowing if Younkins was actually using her words without crediting her, of if he was stating similar ideas in similar terms. Can you post examples of what was allegedly "borrowed"? (I'm thinking here of all of the times that I've read something that Rand wrote, and I then wrote about my opinions only to discover later that dozens of people before me had already written basically the same thing).

The only procedural error which could have resulted in what was printed in the first edition being a mistake would have been if Younkins (or whoever mailed the copy to the printer) sent a non-updated disk to the printer instead of a revised later disk. But this explanation for the uncredited material hasn't been profferred by anyone.

Most of the other differences between the first and second editions of the Introduction are also ones which would have required knowledge of the meaning of the words to make the changes. The appended reference section might have been dropped by printer error or software glitch. The unquoted wordings, however, would have had to have been added to the text by someone who understood their meaning and relevance. Those wordings aren't present in the corrected text. So, again, the only procedural error which could have produced the text that appears would have been if the printer was sent the wrong disk.

The first printing of a text might read:

Apples not only taste good but are a great source of vitamins A and C. In their natural, raw state, their nutritional value is...

The second, corrected printing might read:

As Dr. Harry Cornhole’s research indicates (1852), apples not only taste good but are a great source of vitamins A and C. In their natural, raw state, their nutritional value is...

And the material that was originally submitted to the publisher (prior to the first printing) could have read:

Apples not only taste good but are a great source of vitamins A and C.* In their natural, raw state, their nutritional value is...

* As reported by Dr. Harry Cornhole (1852).

The dropping of a footnote could explain things. Without seeing Younkins' final draft, I don't think we can conclude that he didn't intend to credit Shoshanna Milgram Knapp.

And there are other possible explanations as well. Unless it's clear that Younkins directly plagiarized Shoshana Milgram Knapp's work (in which case you should be able to post just a few sentences comparing their work as proof), it's possible that Younkins was not aware of the similarities of his ideas and hers until after his book was published in its first printing and someone complained about it, and it's possible that he or the publisher then caved in to legal pressure, perhaps recognizing that it would be cheaper and less of a hassle to credit her for ideas than to incur the expense and setbacks of the possible threat of litigation.

J

[Robert Campbell]

The deleted point 5 was inappropriate to include in a discussion specifically of Atlas Shrugged, since Atlas was conceived from the beginning as not taking place in "real time." Its geography is that of the U.S., but the story transpires in an alternative-reality world.

I'm not sure I get this. Not the first time I've found one of Ms. Stuttle's arguments to be on the strained side...

Atlas Shrugged is, in some sense, placed in an "alternate universe." The deliberate use of odd made-up titles for officials of the United States government and the absence of elections are among the signals to the reader.

But does the Wayne-Falkland Hotel in Atlas Shrugged function all that differently, from, say, Cosmo-Slotnick Pictures in The Fountainead?

Is the alternate-universe quality of Atlas Shrugged supposed to keep readers from likening the Taggart Terminal to Grand Central Station?

It strikes me that point #5 hasn't entirely lost its relevance where Atlas Shrugged is concerned.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

To have produced what was printed in the first edition from the copy for the current edition would have required the neat deletion of an initial clause, leaving a coherent first sentence -- plus, and here is the clincher, the insertion of a numbered point "5" with re-numbering of the points which followed.

I'm not following the relevance of the editing of the fifth item. Are you saying that Shoshana Milgram Knapp had previously listed the same eleven items in regard to all of Rand's work, and that Younkins erred in including item 5 in a volume of essays on AS because it is the one point that applies to her other work, but not to AS?

She didn't list all eleven items as applying to all of Rand's work. The lectures were on research she'd done on Rand's literary drafts, not just those of Atlas.

The relevance of the point #5 being in the first edition pertains to the question you asked about why it couldn't have been a printer's-staff error or typographical glitch. Those types of errors might mess up or delete material, but they wouldn't insert a full meaningful phrase relevant to the topic into the text. It's not a case of something deleted or garbled but of something meaningful added.

Do you have a copy of the work by Shoshana Milgram Knapp in question? I don't, so I have no way of knowing if Younkins was actually using her words without crediting her, of if he was stating similar ideas in similar terms. Can you post examples of what was allegedly "borrowed"? (I'm thinking here of all of the times that I've read something that Rand wrote, and I then wrote about my opinions only to discover later that dozens of people before me had already written basically the same thing).

I don't have the tapes. I've heard them but don't own them. I don't know if he was using exact words or not, but the issue isn't one of "stating similar ideas in similar terms." It's stating the results of research, conclusions from archival research of the drafts of Rand's novels. It's not an issue of "I think such and so about Rand's work." It's conclusions drawn from examining the source material directly. There's no way Younkins could have gotten the facts he was listing except from Milgram's research. No one else had done this research.

Consider a parallel example: Suppose someone were to list conclusions from Sciabarra's examination of the Rand transcripts and not say who had done the examining, where the information came from.

The only procedural error which could have resulted in what was printed in the first edition being a mistake would have been if Younkins (or whoever mailed the copy to the printer) sent a non-updated disk to the printer instead of a revised later disk. But this explanation for the uncredited material hasn't been profferred by anyone.

Most of the other differences between the first and second editions of the Introduction are also ones which would have required knowledge of the meaning of the words to make the changes. The appended reference section might have been dropped by printer error or software glitch. The unquoted wordings, however, would have had to have been added to the text by someone who understood their meaning and relevance. Those wordings aren't present in the corrected text. So, again, the only procedural error which could have produced the text that appears would have been if the printer was sent the wrong disk.

The first printing of a text might read:

Apples not only taste good but are a great source of vitamins A and C. In their natural, raw state, their nutritional value is...

The second, corrected printing might read:

As Dr. Harry Cornhole’s research indicates (1852), apples not only taste good but are a great source of vitamins A and C. In their natural, raw state, their nutritional value is...

And the material that was originally submitted to the publisher (prior to the first printing) could have read:

Apples not only taste good but are a great source of vitamins A and C.* In their natural, raw state, their nutritional value is...

* As reported by Dr. Harry Cornhole (1852).

The dropping of a footnote could explain things. Without seeing Younkins' final draft, I don't think we can conclude that he didn't intend to credit Shoshanna Milgram Knapp.

Such an error could explain a Reference section being left out. However, wouldn't it be rather weird for the text also to be missing all the (X work) notices?

As I've said several times, I think "plagiarism" is too strong a charge. I don't think he was trying to take unwarranted credit. However, the mistake with the Milgram work was a serious one because of the material used being original research.

And there are other possible explanations as well. Unless it's clear that Younkins directly plagiarized Shoshana Milgram Knapp's work (in which case you should be able to post just a few sentences comparing their work as proof), it's possible that Younkins was not aware of the similarities of his ideas and hers until after his book was published in its first printing and someone complained about it, and it's possible that he or the publisher then caved in to legal pressure, perhaps recognizing that it would be cheaper and less of a hassle to credit her for ideas than to incur the expense and setbacks of the possible threat of litigation.

Again, the issue isn't "similarities of his ideas and hers." It's stating conclusions which could only have been gotten from her work.

Ellen

[Dragonfly]

It strikes me that point #5 hasn't entirely lost its relevance where Atlas Shrugged is concerned.

I really don't understand what the problem is. Point #5 is "omit references to actual historical people and places while still making the desired point". Why couldn't Rand have made such changes when writing AS? In fact she does still mention historical people and places, like Aristotle and Patrick Henry, not to mention America, California, New York, Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, the Statue of Liberty etc. So I think it's very well possible that she originally included more actual historical people and/or places, for example the Empire State Building, the Grand Central Station or Immanuel Kant, and later decided to omit those or change their names (for example Taggart Terminal obviously is the Grand Central Station in disguise).

[Ellen Stuttle]

It strikes me that point #5 hasn't entirely lost its relevance where Atlas Shrugged is concerned.

The points pertain to the course of Rand's successive editing of her drafts. In The Fountainhead Rand had references to historical people and actual places which she later took out. There wasn't this editing process with Atlas; she didn't delete from the text what wasn't in it to start with.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

I think we're in agreement here.

Point 5, which Ms. Stuttle claims is not relevant to Rand's writing of Atlas Shrugged, appears to be quite relevant to Rand's writing of Atlas Shrugged.

Whether or not Ms. Stuttle thinks so.

Whether or not Dr. Milgram thinks so.

Whether or not Dr. Younkins thinks so.

Robert Campbell