New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Peter]

Ted Keer wrote:

That's called projection, James. Believe me, you, being an actual good person, are in the minority among Objectionists.

End quote

Did you mean Objectivists, Ted? Was that a Freudian slip or psychological projection? For after all, what do we Objectivists object to? Evading, superstition, psychologizing, and the initiation of force including coercion. Our word is our bond, so I would not even flippantly, call us Objectionists. Now calling Objectivists, the good guys, is not psychological projection.

Ninth Doctor wrote:

I have met true believers in the flesh though, and it ain't pretty.

End quote

Geez, Doctor. Have you ever met anyone more blunt and less likely to dissemble than an Objectivist like me? (unless I am obviously joking.)

I have known several Objectivists not tied to the management of ARI or TOC or any other organization, and they are virtually always righteous, reasoning and reasonable people. Look for people who are “fans of Rand” and that is also the case.

The people I am leery of who still claim to be “the fans of Rand” are anarchists. There is a doubtful history there, which I will not go into. I would especially be leery of any of them trying to sell you virtually anything, including their real name.

I would trust Rational Anarchist Ghs to be who he seems to be, after a 20 year plus association with him, through the web and his books. He is a decent, erudite individual with a lot to offer.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Roger Bissell]

No, I don't post anonymously or with a handle.

I might have picked on another James, but I couldn't think of one (on this board).

That's called projection, James. Believe me, you, being an actual good person, are in the minority among Objectionists.

Objectionists meaning people who post on Objectivist internet sites? I've found that in person, the ratio of psychos to seemingly decent people improves dramatically. I have met true believers in the flesh though, and it ain't pretty. I've never met anyone like Perigo or his to-remain-unnamed OL analogue in person. Given my sample size, I should have by now, unless they're shut-ins.

An Objectionist is someone who isn't aware of the truth of Roger Bissell's quote of me in his signature line.

Now, Ted -- I hate to challenge you on something you seem so certain of, but damned if I don't recall concocting my signature line out of my own fevered mind, rather than quoting you for it. Anyway, I've been using it at least since I joined Objectivist Living almost 5 years ago (December of 2005). Do you recall anyplace that our paths met before that, where you wrote that (or a similar) line in your posts or emails? I've googled the quote, and found nothing even similar, neither by you nor anyone else, except for a comment I made recently in reply to your post about the different meanings of "Objectivism".

Interestingly, in 2006, Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics, spoke critically of Ann Coulter's critique of the secular humanist leanings of political liberals by saying: "Authentic Christianity is not a weapon with which to bash one's political enemies."

Perhaps the phraseology was "in the air" during the mid-2000's. Perhaps the fluoride in the drinking water tweaked two or three people's neurons in just the right way. Perhaps Parham and I both channeled a thought Ted had not yet (?) put into words?

Whatever. The more Objectivists who agree with some equivalent of my signature line (quoted, or not, from Ted), and act like they actually agree with it, the better an Objectivist movement there will be, and the fewer Objectionists there will be. Same for the other ism's.

REB

[kiaer.ts]

Ted Keer wrote:

That's called projection, James. Believe me, you, being an actual good person, are in the minority among Objectionists.

End quote

Did you mean Objectivists, Ted? Was that a Freudian slip or psychological projection? For after all, what do we Objectivists object to? Evading, superstition, psychologizing, and the initiation of force including coercion. Our word is our bond, so I would not even flippantly, call us Objectionists. Now calling Objectivists, the good guys, is not psychological projection.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter, you have already dramatically taken your leave of me twice before based on imagined insults. Have you forgotten?

You respond to direct questions (what is your source for the claim that 99% of a certain minority engages in gay sex - and which minority is it?) with the lyrics from Shaft.

When told that the motto you have been sporting for years, which you think means fidelity to thinking, is wrong, you say you don't care what it means--i.e., you don't want to think about it--and that you have been misspelling it intentionally because you think if you spell it correctly, people (whom you can't hear!) might pronounce it incorrectly.

Then, you send me a private email telling me that if I don't answer you the way you like, you will have no choice but to consider me as stupid as a poster here who uses a pseudonym whom you don't like.

I feel like I am being stalked by Cliff Clavin.

If you want a serious answer, drop the insults and the nervous fag jokes (not offensive - just boringly unfunny) and drop the drama and the touchiness. Try going back and providing some serious answers to questions I have asked you before.

Otherwise, go away kid, you bother me.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Rich Engle]

I'm still waiting for a discussion of GLBT issues around here that has any contemporary nature, or use. And I'm a hetero, for Chrissakes.

"I've seen the best minds of my generation . . . "

So why not leak this comment onto the wrong thread. Hey! EVERYBODY'S DOING IT!!!

Which is fine, for me . . .it gives it that organic, real feel.

Phil would not approve, but . . . <--hint for other Phil Fans<tm> to resurrect and worship at the PhilThread; O, Brother, Where Art Thou?

I've always been a fan of hijacking, but it depends on the pirate. But eeeew, how fluffy! Arguing over the venerable and forever-loved REB's sig lines.

Jesus, this is like one of those uber-fagged out designer shows.

Meanwhile, over here at the UU church, we had the very good service and celebration for GLBT that is done, prior to coming out day. We read some of the names of people that killed themselves after being driven to it. We did a lot of good things and played some damn fine music.

I don't even know what GLBT has to do with induction, but I'm starting to get a glimmer. I guess it does, if you think on it.

Wow! But you guys are still great to read, really. I truly mean that, that is no cynical.

r

[Peter]

Ted wrote:

". . . (what is your source for the claim that 99% of a certain minority engages in gay sex - and which minority is it?) with the lyrics from Shaft . . . Otherwise, go away kid, you bother me."

I did not claim that. The article was quoting black men who engaged in same sex, er, sex. It must be a prison thing.

Sorry, Ted, but you are funny. I won't write you off list again.

I have known about the "exact latin" for ten years when Ellen Stuttle corrected me in the letter I already published, and thank you for correcting me again. I have been using my version for all that time because I prefer it. Latin purists might not like it, but it is now a slogan with a specific meaning to me. Like "Semper Fideles" may mean something to a US Marine that is not strickly part of the motto.

I won't bother responding to your posts again. Unless I forget. Or unless you ask me something that I wish to answer.

Good by Ted.

Das Boot Kaboodle. Xray is more to my taste. ANGELA!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Independent Objectist

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

LOL

Shayne

--I'll take Jim's sense of life estimate over that of cynical crybaby whiners any day.

[9thdoctor]

Now, Ted -- I hate to challenge you on something you seem so certain of, but damned if I don't recall concocting my signature line out of my own fevered mind, rather than quoting you for it.

While we’re picking on you, Ted, exactly where does your sig line come from? I’ve also used that quote (ahem, and this was before you made it your sig line), referencing it to an article by Christopher Hitchens (his piece on holocaust denier David Irving), but he in turn indicates that it comes from Popper. My reading of Popper is very limited, do you know where it can be found in his work?

[To Peter:]Then, you send me a private email telling me that if I don't answer you the way you like, you will have no choice but to consider me as stupid as a poster here who uses a pseudonym whom you don't like.

I feel like I am being stalked by Cliff Clavin.

I feel my ears ringing. Maybe I just picked the wrong pseudonym.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlphTDrT_Yk

[Selene]

Peter Taylor [L]) and Ted [R] ????

Edited October 15, 2010 by Selene

[kiaer.ts]

Now, Ted -- I hate to challenge you on something you seem so certain of, but damned if I don't recall concocting my signature line out of my own fevered mind, rather than quoting you for it.

While we're picking on you, Ted, exactly where does your sig line come from? I've also used that quote (ahem, and this was before you made it your sig line), referencing it to an article by Christopher Hitchens (his piece on holocaust denier David Irving), but he in turn indicates that it comes from Popper. My reading of Popper is very limited, do you know where it can be found in his work?

[To Peter:]Then, you send me a private email telling me that if I don't answer you the way you like, you will have no choice but to consider me as stupid as a poster here who uses a pseudonym whom you don't like.

I feel like I am being stalked by Cliff Clavin.

I feel my ears ringing. Maybe I just picked the wrong pseudonym.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlphTDrT_Yk

No, Dennis, I don't know what the original Popper is, or where to find it. But I had heard that idea stated similarly before I had heard Hitchens say it.

As for Bissell, that's between him and me.

As for Peter, it is one thing to get an email from him, after he has twice (now thrice) defensively given me the kiss of death, asking me to justify positions which he attributed to me, but which I do not hold. That can be understood, since my ideas do lie well off any conventional spectrum, and I am sometimes enigmatically brief. And I like explaining myself. But to be preemptively insulted as if it were a motivation for me to reengage in conversation, and as if his disrespect for the person with an alias were no different from an incontrovertible fact of nature, that's quite another.

I find it hilarious that certain people here have the sense to sense that there's some sort of dispute--they sense blood in the water--but are unable to see it as anything other than another opportunity to crack beside the point jokes. At least Peter is actually interested in the issues, even if he has a hard time asking about them politely, and without jumping to conclusions. That's infinitely more respectable than posters here whose sole sociometaphysical concern is personality, personality, personality.

[Starbuckle]

Rich Engle wrote: "I'm still waiting for a discussion of GLBT issues around here that has any contemporary nature, or use. And I'm a hetero, for Chrissakes."

This is not a gay board.

[Brant Gaede]

Rich Engle wrote: "I'm still waiting for a discussion of GLBT issues around here that has any contemporary nature, or use. And I'm a hetero, for Chrissakes."

This is not a gay board.

This is not not a gay board.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

No shit!

And only now this comes to me. Brant, how can I thank you for your profound, pedantically petulant, and far from obvious edufication. Damn, do you publish flash cards, too?

Jesus . . .it might as well be lately, and not even a good one.

rde

Film at 11: 3 wounded in sword fighting incident on obsucre philosophical website--millions start skipping to school every morning.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've just read portions of the discussion on Noodlefood about The Logical Leap.

I am so glad that Travis Norsen and John McCaskey were near enough ARI center to be heard in their raising criticisms, else the result might have been Peikoff's "solution" to the problem of induction being codified as official O'ism. Bad enough that people who think of themselves as Objectivists are faced with dealing with the issue of what to make of the book. But suppose there hadn't been informed criticism from within the ARIan-persuasion ranks......

Ellen

[Starbuckle]

Ellen Stuttle wrote: "But suppose there hadn't been informed criticism from within the ARIan-persuasion ranks...."

Then it would have come (as it will anyway) from without the ranks. Part of the problem for the practice of an alleged philosophy of reason by those who specially credit ARI-approved views because they're ARI-approved (or putatively Rand-approved) is precisely the assumption that somehow being orthodox and official should be a balance-tipping consideration when determining what the appropriate assessments of various arguments and achievements might be. Even mastery of a body of powerful ideas (Rand's) to an extent not likely among most intellectuals doesn't really weigh in favor of some official-orthodox view when it comes to questions beyond the basics--inasmuch as the utility of that expertise has been so often perverted to derail (or try to derail) open discussion. As Tracinski argued, the complete bust-up of any official dispenser of Randian orthodoxy would be the best outcome of the latest fracas, though it seems unlikely in the near term.

The retreat from orthodoxy by the Tracinskis, McCaskeys etc. is a good thing, and it should happen a lot faster. But there will probably always be a Remnant of Objectivist true believers, chronically wagging their fingers at the apostates. Maybe the number of people praying toward Irvine is something like 973 at present. If we can get it down to 107 or lower, nobody's going to be paying any mind to their latest crazed email memos. But beyond that, being reasonable in one's intellectual investigations isn't about being obedient to texts either (let alone the guardians of the texts), even the texts that have delivered the best insight.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Starbuckle

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ellen Stuttle wrote: "But suppose there hadn't been informed criticism from within the ARIan-persuasion ranks...."

Then it would have come (as it will anyway) from without the ranks. Part of the problem for the practice of an alleged philosophy of reason by those who specially credit ARI-approved views because they're ARI-approved (or putatively Rand-approved) is precisely the assumption that somehow being orthodox and official should be a balance-tipping consideration when determining what the appropriate assessments of various arguments and achievements might be. Even mastery of a body of powerful ideas (Rand's) to an extent not likely among most intellectuals doesn't really weigh in favor of some official-orthodox view when it comes to questions beyond the basics--inasmuch as the utility of that expertise has been so often perverted to derail (or try to derail) open discussion. As Tracinski argued, the complete bust-up of any official dispenser of Randian orthodoxy would be the best outcome of the latest fracas, though it seems unlikely in the near term.

The retreat from orthodoxy by the Tracinskis, McCaskeys etc. is a good thing, and it should happen a lot faster. But there will probably always be a Remnant of Objectivist true believers, chronically wagging their fingers at the apostates. Maybe the number of people praying toward Irvine is something like 973 at present. If we can get it down to 107 or lower, nobody's going to be paying any mind to their latest crazed email memos. But beyond that, being reasonable in one's intellectual investigations isn't about being obedient to texts either (let alone the guardians of the texts), even the texts that have delivered the best insight.

No, Starbuckle. I doubt that any reviews or criticisms will come from without. In scientific venues when you don't seek out and utilize peer review, you are completely marginalized.

Jim

Edited October 16, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[George H. Smith]

While we’re picking on you, Ted, exactly where does your sig line come from? I’ve also used that quote (ahem, and this was before you made it your sig line), referencing it to an article by Christopher Hitchens (his piece on holocaust denier David Irving), but he in turn indicates that it comes from Popper. My reading of Popper is very limited, do you know where it can be found in his work?

The line in question is: "A case has not been refuted until it has been stated at its strongest."

I don't know where this particular formulation comes from, but the sentiment is most famously associated with J.S. Mill. In On Liberty, Mill wrote:

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavoured to see the reasons of both in the strongest light. So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I find it hilarious that certain people here have the sense to sense that there's some sort of dispute--they sense blood in the water--but are unable to see it as anything other than another opportunity to crack beside the point jokes. At least Peter is actually interested in the issues, even if he has a hard time asking about them politely, and without jumping to conclusions. That's infinitely more respectable than posters here whose sole sociometaphysical concern is personality, personality, personality.

I detect the aroma of Eau de Phil here. You brought up his off-list complaint about an anonymous poster, now you complain that someone noticed and tried to have some fun with it? What issues, anyway? The McCaskey thing has slipped into the doldrums, though I bet it’ll get plenty windy again.

I doubt that any reviews or criticisms will come from without. In scientific venues when you don't seek out and utilize peer review, you are completely marginalized.

There's a new "Editor Review" on Audible.com, here's a couple choice quotes:

Peikoff knows his philosophy and Harriman knows his science. Prepare for the brave new worlds of quantum mechanics and string theory to be crushed between them.

...

If you have an interest in Ayn Rand's theory of concepts and are willing to wade through all the physics, this is the book for you. Or if you have an interest in physics and are willing to sit through the hyperbole and didacticism that are threaded throughout the Objectivist interpretation, this is the book for you.

http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_1?asin=B003R2TBJO&qid=1287238505&sr=1-1

I don't recall Harriman tackling QM or string theory in the book. If so, it was just a brief dismissal.

The line in question is: "A case has not been refuted until it has been stated at its strongest."

I don't know where this particular formulation comes from, but the sentiment is most famously associated with J.S. Mill.

Thanks, yes that’s a good treatment, but lacks the epigrammatic punch of Ted’s mystery quote.

[Peter]

Ellen Stuttle wrote:

But suppose there hadn't been informed criticism from within the ARIan-persuasion ranks......

End quote

Starbuckle responded:

Then it would have come (as it will anyway) from without the ranks. Part of the problem for the practice of an alleged philosophy of reason by those who specially credit ARI-approved views because they're ARI-approved is precisely the assumption that somehow being orthodox and official should be a balance-tipping consideration when determining what the appropriate assessments of various arguments and achievements might be.

End quote

Epistemological point well taken. And a Psycho-Epistemological point, even more well taken. Along with the new Atlas Shrugged movie perhaps there could be a sequel to “The Passion of Ayn Rand.” (which reminds me to check if Netflix has that film for a timely re-viewing?)

I wish Miss Efficient Thinking played by the lovely and compelling Barbara Branden and Mister Basic Relaxation and Self-Esteem played by Nathaniel Branden would be more forthcoming.

George H. Smith quoted John Stuart Mill in a quote that was meant to be irrelevant to this discussion but is, none the less, overwhelming relevant in this case:

So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up.

End quote

Sorry, I need to be serious. This latest uproar could be the final straw – not legally, for Leonard or his successor will still own the rights to Ayn Rand’s name – but, oh I don’t know – could Barbara and Nathan do some philosophical and personal articles on this subject perhaps for the Atlas Society Magazine?

Or our two closest “eye witnesses” could offer a subscription site to their respective web addresses and address the subject in a substantive way. What they have suffered in the past has new relevance and the article would have a cathartic affect on ALL OF US and all who come after us.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Independent Objectivist

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Mike Renzulli resupplied the link to Noodlefood and Ninth Doctor redirected him here.

Thanks for the link Mr Renzulli. (Michael Stuart Kelly, I won’t grab any big chunks of their discussion for OL but) I really liked this response on the Noodle site.

Peter Taylor

T Norsen 10/13/2010 08:34 PM in reply to North Bridge

North Bridge: "Can an essentialized account ... be accurate? Or is a high level of detail required for accuracy, so that essentialization necessarily implies imprecision?"

Of course an essentialized account can be accurate. But let's remember the context here. One of the main points of the theory of induction proposed in The Logical Leap is that generalizations arise by applying *previously-formed* concepts to newly-grasped causal connections. So if it turns out that -- in just the cases that Harriman uses to ground his theory -- the scientists didn't in fact possess the concepts in question prior to grasping the novel causal connections, that is a serious problem for the theory and/or the case made for it in the book. That is, what's at issue here is not the possibility of accurate essentializations per se, but rather which of the following two essentializations (if either) is accurate: (a) inductive generalizations arise by the application of previously-existing concepts to newly-grasped causal connections, or (B) inductive generalizations and new concepts arise simultaneously and are jointly based on grasped causal connections.

Let me also answer Bill, who wrote: "If you agree with Travis Norsen, you must be interested in deep philosophical ideas but if you disagree your just a well meaning common man. That's really your argument?" This wasn't my argument. I acknowledged that "philosophy for Rearden" has a place. (And by the way it is entirely possible to be "interested in deep philosophical ideas" as a non-professional in the "phil for Rearden" sense.) I just don't think you can solve the problem of induction at that level. No doubt a solution -- presented and validated at the Ragnar level -- could subsequently be presented accurately and fruitfully for Rearden. But there's something wrong in trying to work on such a problem at the Rearden level -- especially if one is openly hostile to possible counter-evidence offered politely and privately by Ragnars.

End quote

[Robert Campbell]

I doubt that any reviews or criticisms will come from without. In scientific venues when you don't seek out and utilize peer review, you are completely marginalized.

Jim,

If you mean no reviews or criticisms will come from outside of the Ayn Rand Institute, I think you are mistaken. For instance, Harriman's book will be reviewed, and almost certainly further discussed, in the pages of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, where no ARIan presently dares to contribute and few will admit reading.

But if you mean no reviews or criticisms will come from outside of Rand-land, you are obviously right.

No history or philosophy of science journal is likely to review Harriman's opus. I wonder whether his publisher has bothered to send the review copies.

David Harriman's book will draw no more attention outside of Rand-land than Jim Valliant's has.

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks, Robert, for the Mill.

It's hardly a "mystery quote", Dennis. It's Hitchens.

But the sentiment has been around since at least the Scholastics.

[Jonathan]

No, Starbuckle. I doubt that any reviews or criticisms will come from without. In scientific venues when you don't seek out and utilize peer review, you are completely marginalized.

And when you fear peer review, resent constructive criticism, and use whatever power you think you have to silence those who offer corrections to your errors, you'll have earned not only marginalization, but contempt.

I think we're at a point where the 'official' Objectivist 'movement' is like the Titanic right after hitting the iceberg. There was the initial shock, to which everyone reacted, and now all is calm, and it seems to many that everything might be okay. Well, the ship is going down.

There's really only one or two ways to repair the damage, and they're probably not going to happen. Peikoff most likely will not recognize his errors or accept responsibility for his idiotic behavior. He probably won't apologize or take any other rational steps to undo the harm he's caused. And most of his acolytes won't have the guts to stand up to him, and will probably keep their silence, or otherwise try to devise ways of eternally delaying judging his behavior, thus permanently tarnishing their own intellectual independence and moral integrity.

J

[Peter]

Robert Campbell responded to James Heaps-Nelson:

If you mean no reviews or criticisms will come from outside of the Ayn Rand Institute, I think you are mistaken. For instance, Harriman's book will be reviewed, and almost certainly further discussed, in the pages of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, where no ARIan presently dares to contribute and few will admit reading.

End quote

Outside the box analogies, any one?

Of course, Ayn Rand was the originator and leader of a philosophical system and movement. Did she really want her philosophy “to grow” after her death?

Was Ayn Rand a copyrighted entity? Objectivism is only what she wrote.

Was Ayn Rand a Philosophical queen, or a queen who had to gain supremacy over a particular jurisdiction? If not, did she behave in a “queenly fashion?”

Was Ayn Rand a dynamo? And her Students of Objectivism, parts of the machinery?

Was Ayn Rand the head of a corporate empire? You agree with the boss, unless what the boss is going to do or say might hurt the boss, or the corporate empire. And you disagree at your own risk. Does that partially describe Rand or the Ayn Rand Institute?

I am talking about analogies that pertain to the facts of reality, including the facts of reality that were going on inside Ayn’s mind and are still going on in the minds of her associates and students.

I wish I had a truth serum or an alien device that would make everyone involved in Objectivism speak only the truth. And not only the truth, but what they might confess knowing they were about to draw their last breathes. (This analogy may be too macabre! But what would Ayn or Leonard, or Barbara or Nathan, or David or the several Robert’s say on their death beds? Now that would make a great movie beginning, like in “The Titanic!”)

It is weird to think outside the box, isn’t it?

Independent Objectivist

Peter Taylor

[Robert Campbell]

Thanks, Robert, for the Mill.

Ted,

It was George who provided the passage from Mill.

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks, Robert, for the Mill.

Ted,

It was George who provided the passage from Mill.

Robert Campbell

Yet more of Barbara's shenanigans, eh?