Kat Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Well, that one certainly set off my trusty bullshit detector!Kat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 In the early 1970ths Reason did an Ayn Rand issue. This issue had a picture of Miss Rand on the cover. Reason was subsquently called by Miss Rand's attorney tearthening to take Reason to court. The person who they had called said he had no choice take them to court but he had one question. The question was when can I come and take Miss Rand's deposition. The lawyer said he get back to them. There was no case of Reason vs. Ayn Rand. The bluff was called. I suspect that in some cases had people remember that someone and someone being sued both must answer questions of their attornyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Chris G,Not only do parties to suits have to get deposed, under the rules of evidence, as they have evolved in American civil law over the past century, each side gets to conduct a massive "fishing expedition" amongst the other's documents.I kinda doubt that Leonard Peikoff really wants the defense lawyers for someone he has sued engaging in voluminous "discovery" and pawing through truckloads of in-house documents from the Estate of Ayn Rand.Robert C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Robert; This event occured when Miss Rand was still alive. I'm sure she didn't want to answer questions on a host of topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Robert; This event occured when Miss Rand was still alive. I'm sure she didn't want to answer questions on a host of topics.Chris,I'm sure Ayn Rand didn't want to answer questions on a host of topics.I'm not convinced that Leonard Peikoff does, either.Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I just read another comment about Rand's interest in legal action. It concerns the album 2112 by Rush. The person relating the story is an ARI insider, Robert Nasir, in a Solo Passion post.... Rush was never sued by Ayn Rand.More specifically, my best information is that Henry Mark Holzer never brought suit against the Polydor label for releasing Rush's album 2112, despite the obvious and direct parallels between the album's story and the plot and incidents of the novel Anthem.As I recall from a conversation with Dr. Peikoff in 1990, Miss Rand gave Dr. Peikoff the 'OK' to inquire about a whether legal action would be appropriate, and Dr. Peikoff approached Counselor Holzer about the issue. Holzer told Dr. Peikoff that he wouldn't be able to sue Polydor. When Dr. Peikoff inquired, "why not?" Holzer replied, "because they're a client of mine, too." As it wasn't an important issue to Miss Rand, she simply dropped the matter.Isn't it strange that Holzer is not said to have advised Peikoff that Anthem was in the public domain in the USA? (The USA only entered the Berne convention in 1989.) He was a USA lawyer anyway. Rand would have needed a Canadian lawyer where her book was still under copyright.You can bet your boody that the Polydor lawyers had that angle all sewed up in 1976 when the album was released. At the first sign of trouble, I have no doubt production would have been transferred to the other side of the border from Canada immediately. Public domain seems like a painfully obvious fundamental legal concern in proposing copyright litigation. I wonder why something like that never gets mentioned in these stories...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Maestro, just a small point.As one working in the ghetto of the poorest city inside the poorest city in the U.S., I can assure you that the proper spelling you want is not "boody," but "booty." I would prefer "bootie," but it just isn't the coin of the realm. If you really want to emphasize verbally, you say it like this (phonetically): boo -tie(!)For instance, if one writes normally "Check out that bitchin' bootie," the most normal talk would be:"Yo, cheks out dat bitchin boo -tie!"rdeAlways There To Help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Rich,Thanks for the tip. I got the work "boody" from producing J.J. Jackson in Brazil, and he was usually too strung out to pronounce the "t" correctly. Come to think of it, back then, I was too.I guess I just learned it all wrong...Time to straighten up my act.BootyThere.Now I'm a good Objectivist. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 (edited) You'll be OK. Just practice for a week or so. Find a partner you're comfortable with. Ex:"Baby, that boo-tie got some back today!" (To Kat)That should put you on punishment/lockdown for a few days.rdeMo and Mo Heppin' my bruthas. Edited September 13, 2006 by Rich Engle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now