Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I just now became aware of this.I saw that Hsieh is hollering copyright violation (amidst hollering insults about me--what a piece of work...).I'm not unreasonable, though. I'll think about it. I think there might be a case for fair use here since a full-fledged discussion over a scholarly controversy is involved and no commercial element is at stake. The issue is over Mayhew's shoddy scholarship standards, thus the discussion here is well within "nonprofit educational purposes" as defined by the USA statute.My initial inclination is to request Dennis to keep up exact quotes of several of the passages he commented on and summarize the others. But not yet. I want to think about it first.Whatever decision I make, it will most definitely not be due to any attempted bullying from Hsieh. It will be due to my moral compass and legal understanding. Her opinon has zero value to me, except maybe for occassional entertainment value.While I think about this, Hsieh is welcome to have her copyright attorney contact me. If anyone from over there is reading, since Hsieh requested it...I can't find any way to get in touch with the owner of that web site, the odious Michael Stuart Kelly. If someone knows, would you please pass along the message that he is to remove that immediately, leaving only the link? Or can someone send me his e-mail address?... my email is below. I personally have no wish to post it (or anything else) on her site. mikellyusabr@yahoo.comAs to Robert Campbell's work, there is simply no way to demonstrate the descrepancies between versions without publishing the different versions side-by-side. There is no intent to commercialize this material on OL, but instead offer a scholarly analysis. I am very pleased to see that his work is making some of the Rand admirers on the fundy side sit up and say, "Wait a minute. That doesn't seem right." Well it isn't. There's no other conclusion I can think of and claim any kind of rational validity.Footnotes exist. They are in common use within the USA culture. They should be used if a person wants to paraphrase Ayn Rand like Mayhew did, especially if he is presenting his paraphrases as her work. You don't have to be the world's greatest genius to use footnotes, either. Someone of Mayhew's profile didn't use them because he didn't want to. Shame on him.It's time for the bullying and cult behavior to stop and time to start presenting Objectivism to the world in a rational maner.And... if it's time for me to stand up to these bullies, at least on this issue, well, I guess it's time...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Comrade Sonia has repeated her complaint about Mayhew's rant being reproduced here, never mind Fair Use. This from someone who posts private correspondence without permission. Back in the day, on MDOP, I thought she was just a twit. Now, hell, she's beneath contempt.Dennis,Our posts crossed. I forgot about Hsieh's posting of Chris Sciabarra's emails without his permission. What a hypocrite Diana Hsieh is!Anyway, as I said, I am thinking. I want to do the right thing, even if those hypocrites do not.btw - Your parody is hilarious...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 George,Diana Hsieh likes to bully people by threatening them with meritless copyright litigation.Even when her bullying seems to working against her own interests...She went after Mike Renzulli a couple of years ago when he proposed to play her Introduction to Objectivism lectures that she had given at The Atlas Society at meetings of his local organization.The target of her wrath in that case was apparently The Atlas Society.You lose track of the double-think after a while.Robert CampbellI didn't know anything about Hsieh until I heard about her despicable campaign against Chris Sciabarra, during which she published excerpts from his private correspondence. There is little doubt in my mind that she did that to gain favor with the ARI crowd. What a bi...uh... what an unpleasant person she is. GhsApparently she succeeded she lecturing at this year's ARI conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) Anyway, as I said, I am thinking. I want to do the right thing, even if those hypocrites do not.btw - Your parody is hilarious...Not that you'd welcome a suggestion from me, but if you're concerned about the "Fair Use" issue, why don't you write to Mayhew himself and ask if he objects to having the piece in full posted here?You can find his email address at his university website: link.I doubt he'd be happy about its being posted as a lead item with ND's interpolated remarks, but possibly he wouldn't object to the full piece as written, uninterrupted, being used as an opener.Ellen Edited March 31, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Daffy Duck Comments on Diana Hsieh<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 My initial inclination is to request Dennis to keep up exact quotes of several of the passages he commented on and summarize the others. But not yet. I want to think about it first.Alternately, let me know which parts you feel I didn’t comment on, and I’ll invoke again my inner James Valliant to provide additional repartee. I doubt he'd be happy about its being posted as a lead item with ND's interpolated remarks, but possibly he wouldn't object to the full piece as written, uninterrupted, being used as an opener.Perhaps Mayhew will learn a lesson from this. The lesson being, here’s what happens when you turn to Comrade Sonia. Originally I also wanted the man to have his say, unadorned. Then, everyone could answer or comment fairly. Did he not expect there'd be a discussion on OL? As it is, the formatting is such that you can easily read his piece without my interpolations distracting you too much. Besides, the part about the codicil stuffed inside Russell’s Teapot, that one makes me laugh out loud, and I wrote it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) It is interesting to watch the high guest-to-user ratio going on with the thread this morning. Sniff, sniff...OK, now when you're done, run back and...I don't think anyone knows who wrote this song, or I'd cite it. Anyway, for intermission purposes:THE DOGS' PARTYThe dogs held a convention, they came from near and far.And some dogs came by taxi, and some by motorcar.And at the registration, they all signed in the book.And each dog hung his asshole upon a separate hook.One dog was not invited, and this aroused his ire.He ran into the meeting, and there he shouted "fire!"And in the mass confusion, the dogs forgot to look,And each dog grabbed an asshole, from off the nearest hook.The dogs ran from the meeting, they scattered far and wide,And which dog had which asshole, they never could decide.And now whenever dogs meet, on land or sea or foam, Each sniffs the other's asshole, in hopes that it's his own.(melody is "The Church's One Foundation.") Edited March 31, 2010 by Rich Engle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Not that you'd welcome a suggestion from me, but if you're concerned about the "Fair Use" issue, why don't you write to Mayhew himself and ask if he objects to having the piece in full posted here?You can find his email address at his university website: link.Stuttle,That's actually not a bad suggestion.I'm not sure about the present context, but I'll think about it.My biggest doubt is not fair use. I'm pretty secure on that. It's that people who bully tend to take any gesture of reasonableness as a precedent for more bullying. The problem does not end when you are reasonable with a bully. It grows. Standing up to the bully works a hell of a lot better.This doesn't mean I consider Mayhew a bully. I judge him to be wrong (dead wrong) in his editorial policies according to normal standards of scholarship, hell, according to simple rational standards using the law of identity (Rand is Rand, A is A, Rand is not Mayhew, A is not non-A--yet he presents Mayhew as Rand to the public, i.e., non-A as A), but I don't know about him bullying. I don't know enough about him to say. I do know that he is surrounded by bullies. And he requested his piece to be posted on the site of one.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 My initial inclination is to request Dennis to keep up exact quotes of several of the passages he commented on and summarize the others. But not yet. I want to think about it first.Alternately, let me know which parts you feel I didn't comment on, and I'll invoke again my inner James Valliant to provide additional repartee.Dennis,Your comments, in addition to the nature of this physical support (discussion forum), are precisely the strongest elements that characterize the fair use. I'm not a legal authority or copyright law attorney, but that's my understanding.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I don't think that, having chosen to unleash his complaint on Diana Hsieh's website, Robert Mayhew is in any position to object.But, hey, if Michael wants to contact him...The worst that could happen is that Dr. Mayhew will not deign to reply.As he has already announced he will not deign to do, should Campbell the pseudo-scholar email him.Robert CampbellAlpha Bête Noire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I don't think that, having chosen to unleash his complaint on Diana Hsieh's website, Robert Mayhew is in any position to object.But, hey, if Michael wants to contact him...The worst that could happen is that Dr. Mayhew will not deign to reply.As he has already announced he will not deign to do, should Campbell the pseudo-scholar email him.Robert CampbellAlpha Bête Noire'Pseudo-scholar', I like it! That's me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) It is interesting to watch the high guest-to-user ratio going on with the thread this morning. Sniff, sniff...OK, now when you're done, run back and...Comrade Sonia posted the Mayhew tirade on objectivismonline.net as well, which probably accounts for some of the new guests.I think it's a good opportunity to invite Hsieh's readers to consider posting here on OL, and for them to look at doing so a means of practicing arguing against opponents who won't be banned or moderated for speaking truths that certain people don't want to hear. It could be an important first step toward Objectivists getting out into the real world and answering real criticism instead of cowering in their little online sanctuaries where uncomfortable truths are not tolerated.JP.S. I didn't see a copyright notice on Mayhew's tirade. Edited March 31, 2010 by Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I don't think that, having chosen to unleash his complaint on Diana Hsieh's website, Robert Mayhew is in any position to object.But, hey, if Michael wants to contact him...The worst that could happen is that Dr. Mayhew will not deign to reply.As he has already announced he will not deign to do, should Campbell the pseudo-scholar email him.Robert CampbellAlpha Bête NoireARIans do a lot of deigning, do they not?About the nick "ARIans." I've used the term for years, and some kind of nasty reference to Nazis never occurred to me. I use it in the same spirit that I call members of Atlantis II "A2ers" and members of Objectivist Living "OLers." It's a convenient shorthand, that's all.Besides, ARIans are much closer to Scientologists than to Nazis. Where the Nazis would kill dissenters, the Scientologists will only smear and sue them. 8-)Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Don't count on a reply. I wrote him a few years ago with a question about a paper he delivered to the ARS/APA in 2005 (why did Rand as the coiner of "psycho-epistemology when the evidence points to Barbara Branden?), and I'm still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 In a jam like this one, there comes a point when you have to take a cue from religion: it’s revelation time. I nominate Harry Binswanger to have a convenient memory of a conversation, or of an unrecorded Q&A session, where she articulated a completely different position on homosexuality. If he’s reliable on the Hospers thing, why not use him here? Because it’s not his turn? Ok, then find someone else. Who's left?I attended a lecture in LA during the mid-1970s where Alan Gotthelf went on an extended rant against homosexuality during the Q&A. I will never forget his chief argument, to the effect that gays fake reality during the sex act, because one man always plays the feminine role. It was excruciatingly embarrasing to listen to such blather defended in the name of Objectivism.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I attended a lecture in LA during the mid-1970s where Alan Gotthelf went on an extended rant against homosexuality during the Q&A. I will never forget his chief argument, to the effect that gays fake reality during the sex act, because one man always plays the feminine role. It was excruciatingly embarrasing to listen to such blather defended in the name of Objectivism.GhsLOL, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Besides, ARIans are much closer to Scientologists than to Nazis. Where the Nazis would kill dissenters, the Scientologists will only smear and sue them. 8-)There was some murdering or attempted murder in the history of Scientology--it had to do with putting rattlesnakes into mailboxes. It may have been a one-time thing. The 1970s, I think. This doesn't contradict what you wrote, however.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I attended a lecture in LA during the mid-1970s where Alan Gotthelf went on an extended rant against homosexuality during the Q&A. I will never forget his chief argument, to the effect that gays fake reality during the sex act, because one man always plays the feminine role. It was excruciatingly embarrasing to listen to such blather defended in the name of Objectivism.GhsLOL, Heterosexals, of course, never pretend their dumpy partners are glamorous hollywood movie stars--or sheep.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 It is interesting to watch the high guest-to-user ratio going on with the thread this morning. Sniff, sniff...OK, now when you're done, run back and...Comrade Sonia posted the Mayhew tirade on objectivismonline.net as well, which probably accounts for some of the new guests.I think it's a good opportunity to invite Hsieh's readers to consider posting here on OL, and for them to look at doing so a means of practicing arguing against opponents who won't be banned or moderated for speaking truths that certain people don't want to hear. It could be an important first step toward Objectivists getting out into the real world and answering real criticism instead of cowering in their little online sanctuaries where uncomfortable truths are not tolerated.JP.S. I didn't see a copyright notice on Mayhew's tirade.Since OL is referenced in the article those interested who didn't already know about OL will drop by to check it out. --Brantcat jumps out of the bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I attended a lecture in LA during the mid-1970s where Alan Gotthelf went on an extended rant against homosexuality during the Q&A. I will never forget his chief argument, to the effect that gays fake reality during the sex act, because one man always plays the feminine role. It was excruciatingly embarrasing to listen to such blather defended in the name of Objectivism.GhsLOL, Heterosexals, of course, never pretend their dumpy partners are glamorous hollywood movie stars--or sheep.--Brantyeah, and they "fake reality" when they use birth control too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 OK.I finally read everything. I only became aware of this issue last night quite late. So I skimmed most of it. And the parts I did focus on, I wanted to think about.Let's start with the academic stuff. If Robert wishes to make additions to the entries where Mayhew used material from The Objectivist instead of Rand's actual lectures, I believe that would be the correct thing to do. In fact, my suggestion would be to leave all three so the reader can see things for himself.Second, as to copyright violations, the authority I prefer to use is the USA government, not the opinion, however obnoxious and bossy, of this person or that. There's a lot of controversy surrounding fair use and the line is blurred between an outright violation and fair use. The way I see it, the present case and Robert's comparisons fall within the blur, not clearly on one side or the other. But, in my understanding, it falls within the blur on the edge of the fair use side, not on the infringement side.Under normal circumstances, even that would be enough to lead me to request alterations. But there are a few other things on the table right now. The first is I honestly believe that ARI scholars are interested in presenting a sanitized view of Ayn Rand to the general public. Mayhew places great emphasis on the fact that his public is a targeted one. All quotes below are from this hyperlinked thread on Noodlefood.And he thought it best to make this material available to the broadest audience possible: to those who read Rand's novels and non-fiction, and would be interested in the additional information that such a collection contained, namely, her views on a wide variety of issues, many not discussed elsewhere. On a related point, Penguin Books would not have published and widely distributed a complete, unedited transcript of the Q&A (nor would any other non-academic publisher). Moreover, such a transcript would not be terribly accessible or as appealing to the general reader--to a typical fan of her novels. And since the book was aimed at such a reader...This annuls for me the complaints Mayhew makes that the true material from Rand is available in the Archives. The Archives material does not have the purpose of addressing the general public. The attitude that the general reader is not to be trusted with the truth since he will not purchase it is a slippery slope that leads, quite frankly, to political propaganda.This is not necessary. It's just too easy to align productive commercial interests with the truth and still be persuasive to the general reader.Since the attitude conveyed by Mayhew is that of a mind-reader--see his various comments, several erroneous ones I might add, on what he knows Robert Campbell to be thinking as a good example--it is reasonable to conclude he mind-reads the general public using the same criteria. The way I have learned to target customers is through demographic analysis, spending habits, split testing, etc. I have no doubt New American Library does these things. So if this issue starts getting really ugly, it might be a good idea to write to New American Library and ask them what criteria they used in their customer targeting that justified the attitude that Ayn Rand's words needed to be significantly changed at times from her original pronouncements to be properly understood by the general reader. And why the more extreme cases should not be footnoted. And if they have any tests showing whether general readers would buy more copies by being misled through ham-handed slanting than if they had footnotes available.Speaking of people buying the book, since this thread and Robert's comparison thread are devoted to discussing the book, I believe it will be only fair to include Amazon advertisements for it. This may not be the general readership that Mayhew is targeting, but it still should sell a few copies for Mayhew. And no doubt general readers who might buy will appear from the search engines. So I will place ads (with my comment) as an addition to the opening posts of each thread. Tastefully, of course.Will I include an affiliat link? Why not? The buyer will pay the same price anyway, and at 4% on a ten dollar book, I (OL) will get 40 cents per book sold, receivable after two months or more for Amazon's processing. I'll make sure to use that for financing the skyscraper we will erect to house OL's financial ventures. As to Dennis's chop-chop of Mayhew's piece, I see no copyright infringement, but fair use instead. I was not aware last night that he had at first posted the article without his interline commentary. As it now stands, it's OK in my understanding. If Mayhew personally contacts me and requests that his full piece not be used, as courtesy to the author, I will work it out with Dennis so that some parts are summarized.I don't intend to contact Mayhew, though. I have decided that after thinking it over and reading everything carefully. In his piece, he said:... Campbell made it his mission to demonstrate on "Objectivist Living" the extent of my sins (see here). I spent an unpleasant couple of hours the other day reading his 'work', and the sycophantic and malevolent comments that followed most of his 'revelations'. I won't be returning.(and, speaking about Robert) ... or sent me an e-mail asking what was going on. (I would not respond to such an e-mail now.)In light of these public commets, it's reasonable to presume that Mayhew would be hostile to me if I contacted him offlline and/or not respond. I can't be sure without trying, that's true, but why bother? It's pretty clear he is aware of what is going on here. And we are aware that he is aware. Let him be the one to pursue his interests if he believes such are truly his interests. Now about attitude. I find it highly amusing to read something like this coming from an ARI fundamentalist:Not Campbell. He accepts one of the policies he falsely attributes to his enemies (the ARIans), at least in the case of his enemies, namely, that wherever there is (what he takes to be) error, the motive must be dishonesty or some other flaw (like arrogance or slavish devotion to A.R.I.).Dayaamm!This is one of the main complaints people have about ARI fundies! That's exactly what they have been doing for years to everybody else when questioned about uncomfortable matters concerning Rand, except from the other end. Sorry to be the voice of reality here, but if you can't take it, don't dish it out. (Actually, I'm not really sorry. )Now for an essential issue. This is vastly more important than all the quibbling, and I alluded to it at the start.Campbell and many others (e.g., see George Reisman's Amazon 'review') see no difference between Ayn Rand's Estate hiring a person to edit her unpublished extemporaneous remarks, after her death, and someone changing the wording of Rand's published works without her permission while she was alive. Of all the context dropping committed by these people, this may be the worst.Let's leave the mind-reading aside because I do believe that both Robert Campbell and George Reisman (and even Mayhew's "many others") do see that difference. The real issue is how to interpret the things the ARI editors do and apply the correct standard.Let's start with scope. If taken at face value, Mayhew's comment could lead to someone "playing it dueces wild" (to use a typical Randian expression) when "editing." But even that is not the fundamental issue. I believe the real issue is deep-rooted disrespect on the Mayhew side for the general reader who has not been properly instructed by Rand fundamentalist disciples, as opposed to respect for the general reader on the other. Essentially George Reisman and Robert wish the general reader to be able to think for himself without having to jump through a lot of hoops to get at what Rand actually said. Mayhew & Co. treat the general reader as if he were not intelligent enough to rationally come to his own conclusions without being limited by incomplete information filtered through them.Presenting incomplete information to the general public in a strong slant is one of the essential elements of propaganda. In a war of ideas, propaganda only works if you have guns to back it up. The public will swallow a lot to keep from being shot. That's why it works for a while for governments. On the free market, though, the truth always emerges. As it is doing.My unsolicited advice to ARI fundamentalists is to learn proper persuasion techniques and to give up the gross propaganda-like practices they try to use to mislead general readers. This goes from scapegoating, to the way they frame their rewrites of Rand's works, all the way down to their inept attempts to skew public polls on the Internet (like on Amazon).It's an old saying but a good one: The truth shall set you free. And it shall set Ayn Rand free one day, too. I believe that with all my heart and mind.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Anyway, as I said, I am thinking. I want to do the right thing, even if those hypocrites do not.btw - Your parody is hilarious...Not that you'd welcome a suggestion from me, but if you're concerned about the "Fair Use" issue, why don't you write to Mayhew himself and ask if he objects to having the piece in full posted here?You can find his email address at his university website: link.I doubt he'd be happy about its being posted as a lead item with ND's interpolated remarks, but possibly he wouldn't object to the full piece as written, uninterrupted, being used as an opener.EllenThis won't work. Just link the article. The real issue is RC's quoting Mayhew material in the "Rewrite Squad" thread and refusal of the hoity-toity to "sanction" this place with other than the briefest of replies, if that. They must be fastidious above all else. That's why Diana had to take so many baths a few years ago, slimming and bashing people, to get into an acceptable appearance for ARI-land atoning for previous inadvertent transgressions like being Nathaniel Branden's Webmeister.--Brantlike a virgin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriggenbach Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 'Pseudo-scholar', I like it! That's me. Nah, you're a military man, aren't you? Colonel Semanticist, or something like that?JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Dayaamm!I forgot about the stuff about Roger Bissell.I'll have to look it up to comment correctly. Mayhew's adjective, incompetent, is not an adjective I associate with Roger.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) I've gone ahead and instructed our Director of Global Security, Gomez "Knuckles" Rosenberg, to park himself here for awhile and do some blatant visitor profiling. It's all good fun until somebody starts the finger-poking-in-the-chest thing. This is where it's so convenient to have a brawny employee packing a non-opposable thumb. He's ex-Ringling Brothers, so he's familiar with what to look for. Rosenberg, Relaxing in His Sarasota, Fl Home Edited March 31, 2010 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