william.scherk

There's this thing called google. Do your own damn research. You are making the claim. Since you haven't indicated any support whatsoever for your contention, we can safely set it aside as 'unwarranted.' Without a warrant, your claim has no content to evaluate. If you are too lazy or stupid or crabby or belligerent to offer a warrant for your assertion, your claims take on a whiff of nut butter. I will be clear -- I believe that you got your impression of 'government censorship' from the conspiracy-mongering crankholes. The Ventura shows are a cornucopia of hysterical kookery -- that you swallow this shit whole is disquieting. Must we conclude that you too are a crank of the first order, at least on this subject? I say yeah. I say you are unable to separate the crackpot from the credible. You have let your nets out, but have no means to examine your catch for its value.

FEMA DEATH CAMPS !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N31mx1mmtkA This is the CENSORED video OMG !! But the Gummint is moving to remove it !! Hurry !!

All right. I will work on one . . .

Notable inversion of the Peikovian dicta comes in Iran, where a thirty year old fatwa from Khomenei ushered in a world of legal and religiously-supported sex changes. You can be hanged for gay acts, but encouraged by the clergy state to surgically move yourself into Chador world. I can only imagine the coercion that might operate against identified gay-ish men to adopt the flesh of the other gender. Details in this BBC brief.

William, It could be worse. In my day, crank was crystal meth. I am older now, but was a time in my early years of adulthood when I relished disabusing those whom I considered mistaken or deluded of their religious notions. Now in the late summer of my years I am not so enthusiastic. The sun has set on a few of these things. Where in the world of solid notions can I set Intelligent Design, Dianetics, or I Met God? I was irked by AristotlesAdvance because he was in the wrong location. If he was truly burning with zeal to correct the evul evolutionist Darwinian liars and fools, then he was entering the arena only to hang out on the lower mezzanine, far from the real action. If he had been really challenging himself and others with the acuity of Intelligent Design he would have been in other forums devoted to these issues. Not that we are stupid or uninformed on OL, but ID refutation is not a specialty skill here. It was funny that Neil popped in here, but funnier still is the gravid civility that attends his appearance. As for combining Dianetics + Objectivism , I am curious to see how long it may be before we discover how that works out. There is ever irrationalism in human affairs. What is somewhat discomfiting is that the sun has gone down on certain questions for Objectivists small o and large, and for most rational thinkers, yet here they are again. Whether ID or Dianetics or straight-up "Vulcan Mind Meld with God," I wonder at the reception.

Have you yourself gagged your way through the establishing text of Scientology, Adam? Here's some lines that set my BS meter pinging, from SOLO: I don't really think Hubbard made any claims that are that strange [ . . . ] The core of Scientology is not its metaphysical views (though LRH developed Dianetics based on his investigations in this area), the point of Dianetics is to use Tech to clear the mind and to become Non-Reactive [ . . . ] [W]e are energetic beings which make use of physiological processes (such as human bodies) and bond with them. I have a low bar for woo, is all. There is no reason a bright, friendly, talented person cannot be a crank on some topics -- or be otherwise deluded, obsessed or delimited by spiritist zeal. I can appreciate that person but discount the bunk. That said, I think Chu-hua is the best of the bunch. She might be crankish on Dianetics, but she is neither crabby nor arrogant nor smug -- as the others on my shortlist seem to be. I have no doubt that her reason will lead her to abandon Scientology in the long run. The other guys are probably doomed to be married to their faith. The word crank has sting but does its job. I love the way Wikipedians introduce their page on Crank: A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task. Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term however does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.

The hard question, especially when applied to one's own accounts, even more so when applied to the experience of meeting the master of the universe, good old grand old god. In a world that contains ecstatic religious hallucinations from every faith, I simply add Neil to the list of claimants. A big month at OL -- an Intelligent Design crank, an I Met God crank, an anti-Muslim crank and now a Dianetics crank. Engrams, holy spirits, immortal beings, fingers of creation! Onward, upward, Objectivists!

Enlighten us with the meaning of a "masculinized brain" please. Differences are found in several areas. Here is a brief overview with details. Essentially, human brains will develop to the female norm without hormonal cascades.

The thread subtitle says “Brace yourself”, that’s called fair warning. If WSS produces something for this one, it’ll probably go even further. I didn't mean to offend but to surprise. The glamourous creatures were the subject of Peikoff's rant. They are who he was talking about. Ted's points are solid. The brains/hormones/bodies/gonads don't always align into a happy whole. Peikoff is out on his own branch of morality here, morality fueled by personal ignorance and revulsion, and so we get heartless, thoughtless dicta from the grim old moralist. He doesn't appear to have inquired into transsexual reality at all. I don't know if I will gin up another video. Maybe. I like that his rants exists on Youtube and not just in the roll of irrelevancies on peikoff.com. On a positive note, I doubt that there is anyone taking psychosexual advice from him or the Party Of Crab. What the Living Examplar of Hardline Objectivism thinks about gender issues does not feature in any serious discussion, let alone in actual deliberations. People will do what they want with their bodies.

Wikileaks was not responsible for the email releases of Climategate, though Assange claimed to have broken the story. Steve McIntyre dismantles that claim.

Berlinski went head to head with Christopher Hitchens earlier this year, in a debate sponsored by the Fixed Point Foundation. Here's the first of several Youtube videos covering the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-mS5nr-dU8 Part two, Part three, Part four, Part five. I don't really understand why the faceless new member with the fake name is digging in his bag of woo and presenting it to OL members. If Aristeeto wanted a thorough discussion with those who have grappled with Berlinski's output, why not engage with folks like Mark Perakh, or engage with the folk at Talk Origins? There are tremendous, lengthy, detailed and well-structured discussions that could likely answer his queries or inhabit his nightmares. Not to disparage OL members or our grasp of evolutionary theory and its discontents, but evolutionary discussions elsewhere are often much more informed and focused. I suspect that Aristoothbrush has had no luck in the specialized forums, due to his cranky nature. He has lately dropped in to SOLOpassion, crank meter in the red zone, and been put to moderation. Maybe next he will pop up in OO.net or RoR and snarl out some flabby animadversions on the Dang Evulutioneers. As it is so far, I haven't got much more than slogans and epithets from the murk of AA's cranky posts -- so he goes into the Ignore pot for me. There is not enough time in the world to correct or respond to anti-abortion or anti-evolution loons who have already dismissed interlocutors as True Believers or Dishonest Monsters.

Your cue for comment was MSK's post on Perigo's announcement of his prostate tumour. MSK wrote "I do hope his suffering ends soon and he is restored to health. I wish this for him as I wish it for any human being. I suspect many here on OL feel as I do." You could have hopped in right there, with a hearty hear hear. What did you write, Greybird? Nothing. A few things bear remarking on the news -- some find telling that Perigo himself was pleased with the painful demise of Frank Zappa. We may wonder if the news and the eradication efforts will be accompanied by a new-found zeal for fairness, honesty and value-discernment in Perigo's opinion-making. It looks like you only find one thing remarkable about the news and reaction: that some folks don't valourize Perigo. So what? Why not comment on the news of the day, instead of only chastising? Surely an example of proper behaviour will do the same work as your usual vexed snipe. Perigo starts his news by claiming his enemies (among whom you yourself) the Brandroids will be rejoicing. He is talking about you, Greybird, when he writes, "The good news for the aforementioned dregs is: I have cancer. The bad news is: it's eminently curable.." He's talking about you. He is saying you will find good news in his cancer and bad news in its cure. Do you comment on this? Nope. What is the value of your late intervention, then? You don't name anyone who did wrong, and you don't quote your findings of 'character assassination.' It comes off as a pox on all who have commented on Perigo's illness and his behaviour, and a pox on all those who haven't. I'll now be looking for some kind of 'best wishes' post to SOLO -- if you have anything positive to say. In any case, an atmosphere of bile, character assassination and revulsion seems to be a sort of background radiation to much Objectivish commentary. If Perigo really believes that hearts are small and none here extend the basic decencies, what does that say about his sense of life?

Diana Hsieh is now dealing with her own dethronement, and the demarcation of her own quasi-independent duchy, silently. My mirror neurons are perhaps overactive at the moment, but I feel empathy for the former princess. She may very well be facing a time of intense emotion, intense to the degree that she feels torn in her allegiance. She may even be feeling the emotions of a defector. Cult-busting social psychologist Margaret Singer had some striking advice* for former members of groups. Only a few may actually pertain to the former princess, but those few that do are particularly poignant or/and hilarious to consider. I have taken extreme liberties with the original text of Dr Singer, replacing 'cult' with 'ARI' for the extra bathos. Post-ARI After Effects After exiting ARI, an individual may experience a period of intense and often conflicting emotions. She or he may feel relief to be out of the group, but also may feel grief over the loss of positive elements in ARI, such as friendships, a sense of belonging or the feeling of personal worth generated by the group’s stated ideals or mission. The emotional upheaval of the period is often characterized by "post-ARI trauma syndrome": [ . . . ] The period of exiting from ARI is usually a traumatic experience and, like any great change in a person’s life, involves passing through stages of accommodation to the change: Disbelief/denial: "This can’t be happening. It couldn’t have been that bad." Anger/hostility: "How could they/I be so wrong?" (hate feelings) Self-pity/depression: "Why me? I can’t do this." Fear/bargaining: "I don’t know if I can live without my group. Maybe I can still associate with it on a limited basis, if I do what they want." Reassessment: "Maybe I was wrong about the group’s being so wonderful." Accommodation/acceptance: "I can move beyond this experience and choose new directions for my life" or... Reinvolvement: "I think I will rejoin the group." Passing through these stages is seldom a smooth progression. It is fairly typical to bounce back and forth between different stages. Not everyone achieves the stage of accommodation / acceptance. Some return to ARI life. But for those who do not, the following may be experienced for a period of several months: flashbacks to ARI life simplistic black-white thinking sense of unreality suggestibility, ie. automatic obedience responses to trigger-terms of ARI’s loaded language or to innocent suggestions disassociation (spacing out) feeling "out of it" "Stockholm Syndrome": knee-jerk impulses to defend ARI when it is criticized, even if ARI hurt the person difficulty concentrating incapacity to make decisions hostility reactions, either toward anyone who criticizes ARI or toward ARI itself mental confusion low self-esteem dread of running into a current ARI-member by mistake loss of a sense of how to carry out simple tasks dread of being cursed or condemned by ARI hang-overs of habitual ARI behaviors like chanting difficulty managing time trouble holding down a job Most of these symptoms subside as the victim mainstreams into everyday routines of normal life. In a small number of cases, the symptoms continue. * This information is a composite list from the following sources: "Coming Out of Cults", by Margaret Thaler Singer, Psychology Today, Jan. 1979, P. 75; "Destructive Cults, Mind Control and Psychological Coercion", Positive Action Portland, Oregon, and "Fact Sheet", Cult Hot-Line and Clinic, New York City. The url of the original is http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studyrecovery/study_trauma.htm

I note that a post eerily similar to Starbuckle's "bullshit" note appeared in a thread of open commentary at Noodlefood. It lasted some 30 minutes before Lady Banhammer noticed. On the subject of Harriman's "I pee on a free-floating mattress of straw named 'critics'" at his not-quite-a-blog, he has added more material. What is marked in Harriman's effort there is the blithe no-naming and no-citing of said critics. As an intellectual product, it reeks of the third-rate. That he is a princess deemed infallible by Peikoff makes him secure enough to be smug. Harriman's arrogance is complete . . . it is as if McCaskey no longer exists and so need not be named. How sad for Objectivism that challengers are deposed rather than debated. The dissenters are silent and so Long Live The Party. As for the Hsiehs, perhaps a flurry of ironic condolences are in order in the open comment threads. Their little bad person bums must be smarting right now.

The Hsiehs have just published their 'closing thoughts' on The Kerfuffle. It is a marvel of balance-beam gymnastics. "Now that ARI has explained recent events and its future policies, we do not regard further debate on those matters as fruitful." Yes, back to toeing the line, suitably chastened. Everyone shut up, thank you.

Yup. The answer being that the Single Vigorous And Authoritative Voice Of Reason hadn't uttered a peep until Brook's discursion. They sat on their hands and let things fester. What irks is that Harriman becomes a New Holy Person. How the heck did that happen? How did Harriman become Arbiter Magnificus between physics and philosophy? How did he manage to climb up to Mount Untouchable? So now the 'Hsieh Party,' itself only marginally less orthodox than the Org, is about to choose to step away from the lure of ARI appointments and support and lectureships and so on. So that The Single Correct Line can carry forth . . . so that the Church Remains Magnificent. What a choice.

The Pope has uttered his rancorous remarks on the kerfuffles, and now comes the ARI ukase. Why the long dragged out wagon train of silence till now? From the Central Committee: Dear ARI supporter: On September 3, 2010, John McCaskey resigned from ARI’s Board of Directors on the condition that he be permitted to publish an e-mail Leonard Peikoff had sent to Arline Mann, co-chair of the Board. That e-mail was in fact published by Dr. McCaskey on his personal website. What Dr. McCaskey published has caused a clamor—one continually reinvigorated by statements of “fact” and commentaries from a small group of people who lack the full context. Unfortunately, ARI’s Board of Directors did not foresee the extent to which this would happen. Our willingness to let Dr. McCaskey release Dr. Peikoff’s e-mail and our silence since the resignation have caused much confusion among our supporters and for that we apologize. So I am now writing to you, on behalf of ARI’s Board of Directors, to rectify the matter. We realize that one cannot understand and evaluate what occurred at the Board level from a single e-mail, and we did not expect anyone to try to do so. Dr. Peikoff’s private e-mail was informal, unedited, and not written for publication. We regarded the events and discussions leading to Dr. McCaskey’s resignation, like many Board matters, as private and confidential to the organization. However, it did not remain so. We are now providing additional information that we hope will answer questions you may have. To begin, Dr. McCaskey’s service to ARI’s Board and his considerable contributions to the spread of Objectivism, especially his creation of the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship (a separate organization affiliated with ARI) are recognized and appreciated. However, in early August 2010, Dr. Peikoff raised the question of whether Dr. McCaskey should continue to serve on ARI’s Board. Dr. McCaskey had indicated that he did not and could not support a significant intellectual project funded by ARI and championed by Dr. Peikoff and ARI’s Board. The project, David Harriman’s new book, The Logical Leap, presents Dr. Peikoff’s ground-breaking theory of induction, and illustrates the theory’s essentials through an examination of the history of physics. In essence, Dr. Peikoff viewed Dr. McCaskey as having a serious conflict in this regard. The Board began a discussion of how to resolve the matter. On August 30, 2010, Dr. Peikoff reiterated his views quite passionately in his e-mail (and also in subsequent conversations). In these communications, Dr. Peikoff presented the terms and timeline he expected ARI’s Board to meet in order to resolve the conflict. At all times, Dr. McCaskey’s unfavorable attitude toward this major ARI project and Dr. Peikoff’s view on the matter were the only issues, not any personal views Dr. Peikoff had about Dr. McCaskey’s moral character. The substantive issue that Dr. Peikoff raised—whether a person who does not support a central ARI project should sit on the Board—was itself a very serious one. In addition, the Board had the practical, moral, and fiduciary responsibility to avoid needlessly damaging our important relationship with Dr. Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff founded ARI, served as its first Board chairman, and has continued to provide ARI with moral, financial, and practical support over the 25 years of ARI’s existence. As Ayn Rand’s heir, he has been very generous in giving Ayn Rand’s materials to the ARI Archives, with much more planned for the future. In these and many other ways, Dr. Peikoff’s ongoing support is important to ARI; we are certainly interested in hearing his thoughts and analyses, and we give them due weight in our deliberations. As ARI’s Board deliberated whether Dr. McCaskey should remain on the Board, he offered to resign. (Note that there was no request made by anyone that Dr. McCaskey resign from the Board of Directors of the Anthem Foundation.) ARI’s Board believes that the right outcome was reached—that Dr. McCaskey is no longer a Board member. Let me turn now to some of the wild rumors and accusations that have been circulating. First, there was no attempt to quash Dr. McCaskey’s criticisms of The Logical Leap. To the contrary, Dr. McCaskey may now freely express his views about the book and has done so; he no longer has a conflict of interest given that his obligations as an ARI Board member have come to an end. More widely, ARI is dedicated to fostering a rational, vigorous discussion of Objectivist ideas and of innovations based on them. Every day at ARI, we engage in a critical discussion of philosophical, cultural, and political issues—with our staff, Objectivist intellectuals and activists, and a range of non-Objectivist thinkers and educators. But, at the end of the debates, ARI presents one, consistent position on each issue that we’re prepared to take a stand on. ARI has done so since its founding, as a matter of basic policy. It is this consistency, and the high quality of our scholarship, that has set ARI’s work apart from the many voices in the culture. What are the implications of this for individuals who work with ARI? It depends on the relationship involved. Is the person a Board member, an employee, a guest lecturer, etc.? For instance, a Board member cannot undercut ARI’s major projects; an employee may present publicly only ARI’s official position (when we have one), not his particular view; an ARI guest speaker must show that he maintains an appropriate understanding of Objectivism. We are careful in selecting whom we will work with, including guest speakers. There are ongoing internal reviews, which consider any new developments. If a guest speaker exhibits views that are significantly at odds with ARI’s, or has poor methods of communication, or poor thinking skills as related to a specific topic, or just poor judgment, for example, we may not allow this person to appear on our stage. But we do not expect all Objectivists to agree with or adopt all of ARI’s positions; anyone is free to act and work independently of us. Contrary to the charges some are making, parting ways with someone from your organization who is not on board with a major project does not constitute censorship, authoritarianism, or being dictatorial. If the controversy around Dr. McCaskey’s resignation has caused you to have doubts or reservations about ARI, please set aside the selective reports, slanted histories of old conflicts, and rampant speculation—and consider the actual facts. Take a look at ARI’s track record, its work and successes in promoting Ayn Rand and Objectivism, its mission, and its considerable achievements. ARI is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, and in the past 25 years, much of the necessary groundwork has been laid for ARI’s mission to succeed. I, along with the ARI staff and the Board of Directors, deeply appreciate your ongoing support of the Institute. We look forward to working with you to achieve our shared goals. Sincerely yours, Yaron Brook

This strikes me as very strange. There are only eight ARI Board members left: Michael S. Berliner, Arline Mann, Yaron Brook, Carl Barney, Harry Binswanger, Peter LePort, John B. Ridpath, Tara Smith.

Thus Spoke The Emperor Emeritus, which speech begat a response from the PhD with a podcast . . . Leonard Peikoff Explains By Diana Hsieh Leonard Peikoff has posted a statement explaining why he demanded John McCaskey's resignation from ARI's Board. People interested in this matter should read it. I should mention, for the sake of clarity, that Craig Biddle is the magazine founder and I'm the PhD with a podcast. Paul and I will comment on this statement and some other matters later, likely early next week. Until then, and thereafter, I can only ask that my Objectivist friends and supporters, however upset, strive to be calm. We're all in danger of saying things in the heat of anger that we'll later regret, and I'd recommend against that. My hope has always been that the Objectivist movement not self-destruct over this issue, and I still think that's possible. My super-strict comment policy will remain in force on this post.

More entrails for the entrail-readers to grope. Full text: PEIKOFF VS. AN ARI BOARD MEMBER November 05, 2010 (The context of undisputed facts in this issue is not repeated here.) 1. Dante’s phrase does not necessarily imply moral criticism, as Ayn Rand (who often used it) understood. It is merely an eloquent way of saying that in certain extremely negative situations—whether pertaining to poor behavior, poor penmanship, or a poor manicure —there is also a positive element, but that it is not enough to diminish the negative essence. 2. Since I was writing an extemporaneous, private email to two people with the same context of knowledge as mine, not a statement for the general public, I did not aim for objectivity by means of a running philosophic commentary replete with definitions, step-by-step proofs, and answers to possible objections. But when McCaskey asked me to allow him to make my unedited letter public, I had to agree, because I did not want to give him the opportunity to charge that I was engaged in a cover-up. 3. Because some people have turned the dispute into a moral issue, I should state the full truth, which is not stated in the letter: I have, for years, long before Harriman’s book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual. Had I held a more positive estimate, I would have attempted first of all not to demand his resignation, but to discuss the book with him, understand his viewpoint, and see if together we could resolve and/or delimit his problems with it. But given my opinion of him, intellectual discussion was impossible to me. 4. Despite my view of McCaskey, I never expressed it publicly; it is not my goal to broadcast moral assessments without reason, or to issue blessing or excommunication to self-proclaimed Objectivists. But my goal is to judge the qualifications of those given leading positions of authority in running the Institute, and thus of power in guiding the course of the movement. My concern with this goal does not imply a lack of confidence in Yaron, who has done a splendid job. But the latter does not imply that he and I always agree on suitable Board members. Ultimately, someone has to decide who is qualified to hold such positions and where the line is to be drawn. An organization devoted to spreading an ideology is not compatible with “freedom” for its leadership to contradict or undermine that ideology. In theory. the best judge of such contradiction would be the person(s) , if he exists, who best understands and upholds the ideology, as evidenced objectively by his lifelong intellectual consistency, philosophic attainments, and practical results. In practice, the best judge would be the person, if he is still alive, who founded the organization and defined its purpose, in this case as a step in carrying out a mandate given him by Ayn Rand. On both counts, only one individual qualifies: me. (I have retired from books, classes, and official position, but not from perception and evaluation.) McCaskey is free to advocate in any medium whatever he wishes and even to regard himself as an Objectivist, which indeed he may in some form be, for all I know; I have no interest in finding out. My interest is not to ferret out disagreements with Ayn Rand, but to strip them of the imprimatur of the Institute, and thus to diminish the practical consequences of such viewpoints. In other words, my role in this connection is to remove from the existential center of the movement any influence which I evaluate as harmful in practice to the spread of Objectivism. To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm. When McCaskey was appointed to the Board, I said nothing, just as I have not objected to the fact that a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other. In all these cases my personal dislike was irrelevant. It is only when I perceived harm in practice that I have taken action. And I have set the requirements for such action high. In the 25 years of ARI’s existence, I have vetoed only two individuals prior to McCaskey. If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn’t. And if, as seems possible, my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too. P.S. Ayn Rand would not have sought to defend herself against a similar attack. She would have regarded such an attack as contemptible, and an answer to it on her part as a moral sanction of the attackers, implying as it does that their charges are worthy of consideration. I am not as strong as she was.

Apparently someone recorded it and is willing to provide an mp3 file of it: link That is interesting. I wonder if this November 2nd meeting/session was what had been advised/advertized as the November 8th 'guidance' session. I also wonder at the idea that the 'contents' of the session are covered under standard confidentiality agreements, as several folks on Noodlefood and at SOLO (OAC Student Mike Mazza) have argued. It struck me that this is kind of like a private course of instruction the 'trade secrets' of which are confidential, or proprietary. Like with a technical course in electrical engineering, the class notes belong to the teacher, the copyright in the instructional material belongs to its authors, and the 'unique' message that the student paid good money for is also covered under that kind of agreement. But what I don't get is how a OAC student/attendee/customer can be held to an even tougher standard: the customer may not say what was said at the guidance session, and may not paraphrase . . . nor identify a speaker. He is seemingly thwarted from saying something like "we learned about transistors. My instructor showed us how this was the key to the entire modern world of electronics." If I understand Mike Mazza correctly, the no-talking on topic rule is forced by the form of the contract between OAC and its students. You may learn, but you are going to be hard pressed when you get home and folks ask, "So. Big guidance class today, huh? What did you learn? What was it all about? What was the bottom line, or the message?" The poor customer of OAC seems bound to say, "I can't tell you what I was taught, or just how I learned it, but I can give you general impressions of what I now believe may be the ARI position." It seems crazy. Does anyone else understand these confidentiality strictures in a different light?

Dude, you need to get laid, and to get your snout out of other people's crotches. The paragraph above sounds like it came from someone who loathes the very notion of homosexual activity. This rhetoric is ugly, brother, and only serves ugly ends. Please turn down the knobs on this kind of wordsmithery.

Do you have a reference or link to share?

I'm Canadian. Up here any two otherwise unattached people of legal age may register a formal spousal partnership and have this partnership recognized as a marriage in every jurisdiction. As far as I can tell this has not yet led to dire or horrifying consequences. If a person wants to make an exclusive, legally recognized loving partnership with another person, and enjoy the exact same benefit in law as any other married couple, they may do so without prejudice in law. This kind of partnership means that the spouses are each other's next of kin. They may divorce. They may adopt. They may request fair disposal of spousal assets in the case of separation or divorce. They inherit at the death of the spouse. They may file joint tax returns. They may raise their children together. They may enjoy (or endure) the same legal framework for their partnership as any other committed couple. Do you care about the fact that Canada has this kind of marriage? Does it matter to you personally? On the top ten list of outrages against Sacred Language, does this one actually rank? You may fall in love with another man. You may move in together and may wish to make a formal committment to each other, to be exclusive partners. You may wish that this partnership be legally recognized. You may wish to refer to your partner as your spouse. You may wish to parent children together. You may wish to have your partner/spouse act as your next of kin if you are incapacitated, so that no person may tear you asunder . . . Up here you can do all these things with the partner of your choice. You can go formalize this kind of relationship and put it on a simple legal footing. I wonder what you would say if a future partner of yours suggested you make a lasting legal committment to each other, to have and to hold, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, in the eyes of your community. Would you be disgusted with him? Would you be outraged? Would you consider this a reason to break up?

Thanks for both the summary and the indication of those previous threads. To review all the posts in which you wrote about sacrifice, I used the OL advanced search function, seeking posts by George H Smith with the keyword 'sacrifice.' Here's a link to those results. Interesting, involved, thoughtful posts. We may be in agreement that some of the examples Rand used (and which I cited above) can be confusing. I took away from your varied posts a signal lesson, from Rand: do not mask your best actions under the cover of 'sacrifice.' Seems a good bit of advice. "I sacrificed the best years of my life to you damned kids !!" "I didn't sacrifice my marriage for you to spurn me, you lying fraud !!" "I sacrificed my health and the use of my legs fighting your damned war !! -- don't dump me out on the back ward of Walter Reed."