Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Roger Bissell]

Ellen Stuttle has indignantly rejected this formulation, more than once now, but I see the point of PARC as

(1) The moral perfection of Ayn Rand

(2) The Satanicity of TheBrandens™

As in apocalyptic religion (e.g., The Final Combat of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness), each requires the other.

Robert Campbell

Robert, whether you call it "demonizing" or "scapegoating" or "Satanicity," it is clear that, because Objectivism has not achieved culture-wide domination in our lifetime, ~someone~ has to be blamed. And judging from how not only Nathaniel and Barbara, but also David Kelley, Chris Sciabarra, and...YOU...have been so vigorously trashed by a gang of Pecksniffian losers, it is nothing short of astonishing to me that Ellen Stuttle, a supposed devotee of Carl Jung, does not see the cultish aspect of PARC. But then, I guess some people just see what they ~want~ to see -- or acknowledge what they ~want~ to acknowledge.

By the way, there is ~another~ important aspect of cultish behavior that everyone should be on the lookout for. Any group who believes that they, and they alone, have THE TRUTH, will practice a very peculiar form of intellectual plagiarism. They will learn something from someone else that suits their agenda, then they will pretend they didn't learn it from that person, but instead came up with it themselves. You might find a bit of that alluded to in Anne Heller's book -- or in the online posts of our erstwhile comrades, if you read carefully enough.

REB

[Daniel Barnes]

Ellen Stuttle has indignantly rejected this formulation, more than once now, but I see the point of PARC as

(1) The moral perfection of Ayn Rand

(2) The Satanicity of TheBrandens™

As in apocalyptic religion (e.g., The Final Combat of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness), each requires the other.

I'm really surprised Ellen would strongly reject this formulation, as it seems a pretty clearcut reading. But then I haven't followed this all that closely, perhaps she has her reasons.

Valliant has certainly tried to deny the idolatrous nature of his book - I think even he knows it's not something you come out and say. He even includes a passing comment on the already-approved topic of her anger to give what's called "plausible deniability". After all, most people won't have actually read PARC.

But it's double-talk. The sycophancy oozes out of every para, not to mention the stifling sense of PC (Philosophic Correctness). Underneath its strange fantasias, the book hums with a uniquely apparatchik tension: have I been flattering enough? Are they evil enough? Perhaps just a little more of both can't hurt....It's written as if he's half expecting a cold future eye to be limning it for Psychologically Revealing Errors ahead of some dreaded ideological purge - hence the unintentionally hilarious moments such as his disclaimer about the "irrationality" of time travel. It's certainly quite unlike anything I've ever read.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Ellen Stuttle]

At the moment, there is no case for Frank's having fled from "an intolerable reality" in the mid-50s to a neighborhood bar. Evidence is needed for a positive case.

There's where things stand, however much screaming is employed in disregard of the absence of a witness.

Well, I for one am not really getting why this proposed time difference is very important, nor why a witness would make any difference to you here.

As I understand it, your interest in the date of Frank's drinking is to try to falsify a larger story; the narrative out there that Ayn Rand was a "killer of people."

Actually, my strongest interest is wanting to know what the truth of it was. The "killer of people" narrative is false on so many grounds it does piss me off. Weiss got her posthumous revenge, in a way she could never have imagined. I've been thinking that retroactively, I almost wish I'd slapped *her* when I had the chance. (My bet is that she's the unidentified "friend" Heller quotes as wishing Frank had struck Ayn.) I wouldn't have literally slapped Weiss, assuming prescience. I don't go in for slapping people. But, remembering times I saw Weiss, I'm seething in recall.

Further, we already have a witness as to the main thesis - in fact the author of that remark, Barbara Weiss - who had the dual advantage of both daily close, personal contact over a period of decades and who was not ideologically committed to the Orthodox Objectivist view of Rand.

I don't think it was "daily close, personal contact" -- nowhere near as close as Leonard Peikoff, and I don't think it would have been "daily" until maybe after the AR Letter ceased publication. This is a detail I wonder about, just what was the business and secretarial set-up. Weiss' relationship with Rand wasn't "over a period of decades" -- instead 15 years, by Heller's report. Since that would make the start of Weiss' presence 1963, if it was early '78 that Weiss left, I'm figuring that she probably was hired on for the Newsletter staff when the move was made to East 34th. She became Business Manager with the "To Whom It May Concern" issue, replacing Wilfred Schwartz.

You're all wrong about the "not ideologically committed to the Orthodox Objectivist view of Rand." You'd have had trouble finding anyone more committed -- at least from anything she said to outsiders, and from things she did -- prior to her revelation and change of viewpoint, her "seeing the light" (so to speak, not quoting her) just after Joan and Elayne had left.

This is just the sort of testimony one would hope to find, one would think. It's the equivalent of having the view of someone who drank with Frank, or was with him when he didn't, every day for years. And it applies to the master thesis that's in play, if you like, not one of its rather oblique corollaries.

Thus I would say this would be extremely valuable, and worthy of serious consideration.

Yet it seems to me you've simply waved away Weiss' eyewitness assessment, which was based on years of daily dealings one-to one, aside in favour of what seems to be mostly your own handful impressions from a distance. AFAIK you didn't meet Rand, right? Let alone work with her on a close daily basis for years. I can't help but think it's because it's a powerful falsification of your personal beliefs about Rand - testimony far stronger than anything yet summoned by anyone in this third-level issue of the date of Frank's drinking.

Sorry, Daniel, it's not a falsification at all. It just makes me have a more negative view of Weiss than I already had.

Also, there are some details she said which diverge from details I was told by others close to Rand (including Allan, not just others who stayed). I'm not going into those right now.

I'll tell you what: I'm pretty all out critical of Rand, and if someone like Weiss (as opposed to Binswanger, say, or Peikoff) had stood up and said, "no, Rand was a really terrific person in every respect" or "she's not as bad as they say, it's all been exaggerated" then I for one would take that seriously. But she didn't. In fact, what she said basically corroborated the main narrative that has emerged over time.

Would you mind clarifying your reasoning here? Why would you accept, say, (should it ever be forthcoming) Ventura's testimony if you don't take Weiss'?

I'd have to see Ventura's testimony before deciding what to make of it. Weiss' testimony I think includes quite a bit of spiteful revenge. She's someone who I thought, from observations and reports, harbored such sentiments. You might note that Barbara did not quote the kind of remarks from Weiss that Heller not only quotes but features. (Where Heller is getting her Weiss material is from Barbara's interview. Weiss died a number of years ago, I'm not sure how far back.)

Ellen

Edited January 27, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert,

Jim Valliant claimed there was no Don Ventura. He claimed Barbara made up the other witnesses. He claimed Barbara lied when she said she heard to the typewriter story from Rand. He claimed Barbara lied when she said she met Rand in 81. He claimed Fern Brown lied about having seen Rand take her name from a typewriter. He claimed Rand was telling the truth when she implied NB financially exploited her.

As you note, where is Ellen 2.0's admonishment of JV for any of the crapola in his book? This is garbage that deserves to be deleted, not "edited."

If Ellen 2.0 wants to withdraw from the fray that's fine by me. Yet she is happy to mix it up with Anne Heller and, I imagine, Jennifer Burns and Barbara.

Yet when it comes to Jim Valliant it's one big "blank out."

-Neil Parille

Neil,

Once more, I am not your surrogate for fighting your battles with James Valliant. PARC is not my concern at the moment. The new books are, especially the Heller. For Christ's or Galt's or whoever's sake -- Christ would probably appeal to you more than Galt would -- PARC, as Robert Campbell has gleefully announced, isn't even in print at the moment.

I'm quite aware of the errors in PARC. A minor point: the first you list isn't an accurate statement of one of them. Valliant didn't say there weren't witnesses, he said there wasn't reason to think there were.

Ellen

Edited January 27, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Robert,

Jim Valliant claimed there was no Don Ventura. He claimed Barbara made up the other witnesses. He claimed Barbara lied when she said she heard to the typewriter story from Rand. He claimed Barbara lied when she said she met Rand in 81. He claimed Fern Brown lied about having seen Rand take her name from a typewriter. He claimed Rand was telling the truth when she implied NB financially exploited her.

As you note, where is Ellen 2.0's admonishment of JV for any of the crapola in his book? This is garbage that deserves to be deleted, not "edited."

If Ellen 2.0 wants to withdraw from the fray that's fine by me. Yet she is happy to mix it up with Anne Heller and, I imagine, Jennifer Burns and Barbara.

Yet when it comes to Jim Valliant it's one big "blank out."

-Neil Parille

Neil,

Once more, I am not your surrogate for fighting your battles with James Valliant. PARC is not my concern at the moment. The new books are, especially the Heller. For Christ's or Galt's or whoever's sake -- Christ would probably appeal to you more than Galt would -- PARC, as Robert Campbell has gleefully announced, isn't even in print at the moment.

I'm quote aware of the errors in PARC. A minor point: the first you list isn't an accurate statement of one of them. Valliant didn't say there weren't witnesses, he said there wasn't reason to think there were.

Ellen

Yes, but why aren't you, Ellen, fighting James Valliant? Why are you giving PARC a pass "at the moment"? Is compartmentalization a virtue?

--Brant

giving a pass is sanctioning that thing Ayn Rand, God bless her, wasn't about--now who is diminishing Rand?

Edited January 27, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Crap is crap and it's all on the ARI side. Everybody else is searching.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] it is nothing short of astonishing to me that Ellen Stuttle, a supposed devotee of Carl Jung, does not see the cultish aspect of PARC.

Roger (and Daniel),

Caveat emptor. Robert Campbell chronically distorts in his descriptions of what people on his enemies list say and think. I do see that PARC has a cultish aspect, though I disagree with Robert as to the exact weighting of that aspect. Unlike Robert, I see it as having some valid aspects.

Btw, I wouldn't describe myself as a "devotee" of Carl Jung, any more than of Ayn Rand. I think there's a lot of value in Jung's work, I've studied it extensively, I was on the board of directors of the Connecticut Association for Jungian Psychology for about 19 years, till health problems intervened. (It's an organization which offers lectures and workshops geared to a level understandable by the general populace. Small attendance, lucky if we get 50 at an offering, but I always found the programs personally valuable.)

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

[...] it is nothing short of astonishing to me that Ellen Stuttle, a supposed devotee of Carl Jung, does not see the cultish aspect of PARC.

Roger (and Daniel),

Caveat emptor. Robert Campbell chronically distorts in his descriptions of what people on his enemies list say and think. I do see that PARC has a cultish aspect, though I disagree with Robert as to the exact weighting of that aspect. Unlike Robert, I see it as having some valid aspects.

Btw, I wouldn't describe myself as a "devotee" of Carl Jung, any more than of Ayn Rand. I think there's a lot of value in Jung's work, I've studied it extensively, I was on the board of directors of the Connecticut Association for Jungian Psychology for about 19 years, till health problems intervened. (It's an organization which offers lectures and workshops geared to a level understandable by the general populace. Small attendance, lucky if we get 50 at an offering, but I always found the programs personally valuable.)

Ellen

Oh, for Cris' sake: From flower to flower whatever the flower partakes is what I give the flower for flower's sake! I like this one and I like that one even the meat-eater regardless what the meat-eater dos ate!

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Yes, but why aren't you, Ellen, fighting James Valliant?

What for, Brant? To please you, when I have other issues on my mind at this time?

Why are you giving PARC a pass "at the moment"? Is compartmentalization a virtue?

I'm not giving a pass to any part of it with which I disagree by not discussing it. There's stuff in Passion with which I disagree, too, which I'm not discussing at this time, and might not ever discuss.

There's stuff in other books about Rand with which I disagree, which I'm not discussing at this time, and might not ever discuss.

At this time, I'm discussing some issues I'm thinking about at this time.

And guess what, all this pressure you and the others are putting on is only succeeding at slowly angering me; it isn't going to work at getting me to do your bidding.

Good night, Brant.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

deleted by bg

Edited January 27, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dear Brant,

You're drunk.

'Night again.

ES

[Brant Gaede]

deleted by bg

Edited January 27, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

deleted by BG

Edited January 27, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

deleted by BG

Edited January 27, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

At the moment, there is no case for Frank's having fled from "an intolerable reality" in the mid-50s to a neighborhood bar. Evidence is needed for a positive case.

There's where things stand, however much screaming is employed in disregard of the absence of a witness.

Well, I for one am not really getting why this proposed time difference is very important, nor why a witness would make any difference to you here.

As I understand it, your interest in the date of Frank's drinking is to try to falsify a larger story; the narrative out there that Ayn Rand was a "killer of people."

Actually, my strongest interest is wanting to know what the truth of it was. The "killer of people" narrative is false on so many grounds it does piss me off. Weiss got her posthumous revenge, in a way she could never have imagined. I've been thinking that retroactively, I almost wish I'd slapped *her* when I had the chance. (My bet is that she's the unidentified "friend" Heller quotes as wishing Frank had struck Ayn.) I wouldn't have literally slapped Weiss, assuming prescience. I don't go in for slapping people. But, remembering times I saw Weiss, I'm seething in recall.

Further, we already have a witness as to the main thesis - in fact the author of that remark, Barbara Weiss - who had the dual advantage of both daily close, personal contact over a period of decades and who was not ideologically committed to the Orthodox Objectivist view of Rand.

I don't think it was "daily close, personal contact" -- nowhere near as close as Leonard Peikoff, and I don't think it would have been "daily" until maybe after the AR Letter ceased publication. This is a detail I wonder about, just what was the business and secretarial set-up. Weiss' relationship with Rand wasn't "over a period of decades" -- instead 15 years, by Heller's report. Since that would make the start of Weiss' presence 1963, if it was early '78 that Weiss left, I'm figuring that she probably was hired on for the Newsletter staff when the move was made to East 34th. She became Business Manager with the "To Whom It May Concern" issue, replacing Wilfred Schwartz.

You're all wrong about the "not ideologically committed to the Orthodox Objectivist view of Rand." You'd have had trouble finding anyone more committed -- at least from anything she said to outsiders, and from things she did -- prior to her revelation and change of viewpoint, her "seeing the light" (so to speak, not quoting her) just after Joan and Elayne had left.

This is just the sort of testimony one would hope to find, one would think. It's the equivalent of having the view of someone who drank with Frank, or was with him when he didn't, every day for years. And it applies to the master thesis that's in play, if you like, not one of its rather oblique corollaries.

Thus I would say this would be extremely valuable, and worthy of serious consideration.

Yet it seems to me you've simply waved away Weiss' eyewitness assessment, which was based on years of daily dealings one-to one, aside in favour of what seems to be mostly your own handful impressions from a distance. AFAIK you didn't meet Rand, right? Let alone work with her on a close daily basis for years. I can't help but think it's because it's a powerful falsification of your personal beliefs about Rand - testimony far stronger than anything yet summoned by anyone in this third-level issue of the date of Frank's drinking.

Sorry, Daniel, it's not a falsification at all. It just makes me have a more negative view of Weiss than I already had.

Also, there are some details she said which diverge from details I was told by others close to Rand (including Allan, not just others who stayed). I'm not going into those right now.

I'll tell you what: I'm pretty all out critical of Rand, and if someone like Weiss (as opposed to Binswanger, say, or Peikoff) had stood up and said, "no, Rand was a really terrific person in every respect" or "she's not as bad as they say, it's all been exaggerated" then I for one would take that seriously. But she didn't. In fact, what she said basically corroborated the main narrative that has emerged over time.

Would you mind clarifying your reasoning here? Why would you accept, say, (should it ever be forthcoming) Ventura's testimony if you don't take Weiss'?

I'd have to see Ventura's testimony before deciding what to make of it. Weiss' testimony I think includes quite a bit of spiteful revenge. She's someone who I thought, from observations and reports, harbored such sentiments. You might note that Barbara did not quote the kind of remarks from Weiss that Heller not only quotes but features. (Where Heller is getting her Weiss material is from Barbara's interview. Weiss died a number of years ago, I'm not sure how far back.)

Ellen

Revenge for what?

--Brant

Edited January 27, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen and I have a few points of contention. Thank God I won't see her in the afterlife!

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Revenge for what?

--Brant

I figured you'd delete that series of posts, Brant. I made copies of them in case.

Revenge for what she (Weiss) did to herself, and then blamed on AR.

Ellen

Edited January 27, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

[...] it is nothing short of astonishing to me that Ellen Stuttle, a supposed devotee of Carl Jung, does not see the cultish aspect of PARC.

Roger (and Daniel),

Caveat emptor. Robert Campbell chronically distorts in his descriptions of what people on his enemies list say and think. I do see that PARC has a cultish aspect, though I disagree with Robert as to the exact weighting of that aspect. Unlike Robert, I see it as having some valid aspects.

Btw, I wouldn't describe myself as a "devotee" of Carl Jung, any more than of Ayn Rand. I think there's a lot of value in Jung's work, I've studied it extensively, I was on the board of directors of the Connecticut Association for Jungian Psychology for about 19 years, till health problems intervened. (It's an organization which offers lectures and workshops geared to a level understandable by the general populace. Small attendance, lucky if we get 50 at an offering, but I always found the programs personally valuable.)

Ellen

Ah, but in the deepest depths of The Temple lies the un-understandable!--except to the elite!

--Brant

I know enough psychology to know crap! Jargon is crap!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dear Brant,

You're drunk.

'Night again.

ES

I wonder where there is an eyewitness who can testify to this slanderous novelization of events.

Stuttle claims she has the text of deleted posts, but she has no signed statements as far as I know. Anyway, where is the proof that the posts allegedly deleted by Brant were the product of alcohol abuse? Even if Brant said he was drinking in them, he could have been just expressing himself in a cantankerous mood or a quirky mood or testing her or mixing paints in booze bottles (oops, that belongs to another similar topic) or something else he prefers not to share. And, of course, she could alter e-text by the simple delet key and type in something else.

Does Stuttle know of anyone who was there and saw Brant drink? Anyone at all who can testify to this?

I mean, she publicly states as fact that Brant is drunk, obviouly meaning that Brant is a drunk.

So where is the evidence?

If Stuttle cannot produce any, I have to conclude that she is trying to smear Brant as an alcoholic. She is obviously trying to get at someone or something else, so smearing Brant as an alcoholic will help smear the other person or thing.

Maybe Don Ventura is available...

Hey Brant,

Do you paint?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I tried to do a search on Barbara Weiss to see why she is so discredited in Suttle's eyes.

All I found was that Stuttle does not like her, objects to her negative statements about Rand--especially her "killer of people" statement, found her "heavy and unprepossessing" and "negligent of cleanliness," and heard stories about her from people she does not name.

I once had an encounter with a very rude person in my only visit ever to the office of The Ayn Rand Letter. I wrote about it back in 2005 in one of my first posts to online Rand-land (see here). From the descriptions I have read and timing, that rude person could very well have been Barbara Weiss. But really I can't say with 100% certainty.

This led me to a curious thought, though. If that truly were Barbara Weiss and Stuttle ever encountered her one-on-one, I have no doubt that the woman I encountered would have called Stuttle on her bullshit loud and clear and in public. And knowing Stuttle, that would have stung.

This would explain to me Stuttle's catty remarks about weight, cleanliness, stories from others, etc. far more than her disagreeing with Weiss's statements. I've seen Stuttle disagree with others who have known Rand but later fell out with her. I have not seen Stuttle treat them with that level of personal bitchiness.

It's speculation, I know. And, after what I've seen Stuttle do, I don't really care what she writes if she decides to comment on this. I don't trust her remarks one way or another. But deep in my heart where I have learned hard lessons about people from being screwed over by so many of them who have behaved as Stuttle behaves, I believe there is a there there.

I believe Stuttle's antagonism to Barbara Weiss is personal--from a blistering one-on-one encounter, not intellectual.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I tried to do a search on Barbara Weiss to see why she is so discredited in Suttle's eyes.

All I found was that Stuttle does not like her, objects to her negative statements about Rand--especially her "killer of people" statement, found her "heavy and unprepossessing" and "negligent of cleanliness," and heard stories about her from people she does not name.

I once had an encounter with a very rude person in my only visit ever to the office of The Ayn Rand Letter. I wrote about it back in 2005 in one of my first posts to online Rand-land (see here). From the descriptions I have read and timing, that rude person could very well have been Barbara Weiss. But really I can't say with 100% certainty.

This led me to a curious thought, though. If that truly were Barbara Weiss and Stuttle ever encountered her one-on-one, I have no doubt that the woman I encountered would have called Stuttle on her bullshit loud and clear and in public. And knowing Stuttle, that would have stung.

This would explain to me Stuttle's catty remarks about weight, cleanliness, stories from others, etc. far more than her disagreeing with Weiss's statements. I've seen Stuttle disagree with others who have known Rand but later fell out with her. I have not seen Stuttle treat them with that level of personal bitchiness.

It's speculation, I know. And, after what I've seen Stuttle do, I don't really care what she writes if she decides to comment on this. I don't trust her remarks one way or another. But deep in my heart where I have learned hard lessons about people from being screwed over by so many of them who have behaved as Stuttle behaves, I believe there is a there there.

I believe Stuttle's antagonism to Barbara Weiss is personal--from a blistering one-on-one encounter, not intellectual.

Michael

I met Barbara Weiss only once when I was at NBI in New York. My memory is pleasant and brief. My only visit to The Ayn Rand Letter office was a meeting with a personal friend from Washington. The only other person at the office was Elayne Kalberman. This was following the opening of the "Night of January 16th".

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

I don't think you or I or anyone else should get into battles with Valliant over PARC.

However, I think it is appropriate for someone to ask him whether, in light of the new books, he stands by his claims of dishonesty with respect to Fern Brown, Barbara, and Nathaniel on a few specific issues.

-Neil Parille

Edited January 27, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

Dear Brant,

You're drunk.

'Night again.

ES

I wonder where there is an eyewitness who can testify to this slanderous novelization of events.

Stuttle claims she has the text of deleted posts, but she has no signed statements as far as I know. Anyway, where is the proof that the posts allegedly deleted by Brant were the product of alcohol abuse? Even if Brant said he was drinking in them, he could have been just expressing himself in a cantankerous mood or a quirky mood or testing her or mixing paints in booze bottles (oops, that belongs to another similar topic) or something else he prefers not to share. And, of course, she could alter e-text by the simple delet key and type in something else.

Does Stuttle know of anyone who was there and saw Brant drink? Anyone at all who can testify to this?

I mean, she publicly states as fact that Brant is drunk, obviouly meaning that Brant is a drunk.

So where is the evidence?

If Stuttle cannot produce any, I have to conclude that she is trying to smear Brant as an alcoholic. She is obviously trying to get at someone or something else, so smearing Brant as an alcoholic will help smear the other person or thing.

Maybe Don Ventura is available...

Hey Brant,

Do you paint?

Michael

Whatever Jim Beam says is not to be trusted.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen Stuttle has indignantly rejected this formulation, more than once now, but I see the point of PARC as

(1) The moral perfection of Ayn Rand

(2) The Satanicity of TheBrandens™

As in apocalyptic religion (e.g., The Final Combat of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness), each requires the other.

Robert Campbell

[...] it is nothing short of astonishing to me that Ellen Stuttle, a supposed devotee of Carl Jung, does not see the cultish aspect of PARC.

Roger (and Daniel),

Caveat emptor. Robert Campbell chronically distorts in his descriptions of what people on his enemies list say and think. I do see that PARC has a cultish aspect, though I disagree with Robert as to the exact weighting of that aspect. Unlike Robert, I see it as having some valid aspects.

Does Ms. Stuttle need to be quoted back to herself, as her allies Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant so often do?

She indignantly rejected my characterization of PARC.

It wasn't any waffling and weasling about "exact weighting."

It was a flat-out denial.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

Actually, my strongest interest is wanting to know what the truth of it was. The "killer of people" narrative is false on so many grounds it does piss me off.

What does "killer of people" mean? From reading some of Rand's own comments, as well as those of her dedicated supporters, I get the impression that she could be, at times, what could be called a "killer of people." I can't see anyone claiming that that side of her was the essence of who she was during her entire life, but I think it would be foolish to deny the existence of that side of her.

I think of all of the negative "philosophizing" and "psychologizing" that Rand did of people she didn't like (or whose works she didn't like), most notably some of the greatest creators of all time. If, in her own writings, speeches and Q&A sessions, she could hiss with contempt over some of the world's greatest man-made beauty, I don't find it unreasonable that someone who was close to her for a decade or more might frequently see such unjust and disproportionate contempt aimed at lesser mortals.

Weiss got her posthumous revenge, in a way she could never have imagined. I've been thinking that retroactively, I almost wish I'd slapped *her* when I had the chance. (My bet is that she's the unidentified "friend" Heller quotes as wishing Frank had struck Ayn.) I wouldn't have literally slapped Weiss, assuming prescience. I don't go in for slapping people. But, remembering times I saw Weiss, I'm seething in recall.

I don't know anything about Weiss or why you have such anger for her. I'm interested in hearing your reasons for believing that she is "untrustworthy" and that her testimony is to be rejected.

J