Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 In any case Robert Campbell has done Mayhew a great favor. He can now say my work is for the general public. If you want to see the changes I made and much of the original material, go read RC.But of course, that's not what he's about. He's about no one seeing it.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Hsieh emailed me. If anyone wants to read it, she posted it on her site. She asked me to post it here, but I prefer not to. Not because of any particular reason other than she asked me to. But people can go here to read it. I responded. Later down on her site (see here) she complained about my response. She's lying in what she claims. I would normally say mistaken, but my gut tells me she lies. When someone is as hostile as she is for no good reason, that person usually lies to keep the hate boiling.Hsieh was pretty rude in her email to me and all I did was respond, saying if she wished to address me offline, I was going to insist on good manners. I continued that I didn't care what she posted about me online, but offline, I didn't have time for people who are openly hostile in their communication messages. That's it.Nothing more.Nada.She now claims that I refused to consider removing Mayhew's article based on her email and that I want her to suck up to me. That's a lot of knowing for someone who doesn't know jack. And that's what I am calling a lie.Based on that, I claim Diana Hsieh is a liar.I don't expect reasonableness from her, but for some of the more confused but interested readers who don't know what to make of all this, I will explain something about myself. People who know me already know this. (They can judge Hsieh using their own standards. I judge her using mine.)I used to have a serious drug problem. When I cleaned up, I had to make some drastic decisions just to survive. First-principle-type value judgments. Not pose. Not opinion. Not hope. The Real Deal. I made several such decisions and here's how I did it. I simplified my issues and became as ruthlessly rational on fundamentals as I could. These intitial principles have served me very well since then and they have not changed.The one that pertains to the present situation is the following. I had always been a very tolerant person of people who were rude to my face. I tried to be above it all and I have walked away from being called every name in the book many times. People get envious when you build stuff and the audience, fame, etc., come. They show up and want some for themselves. I know this because I have lived it over and over. (Actually, you can always count on some nasty folks showing up to use the audience you build to show off their asses.)The net result of my tolerance is that disrespect grew and these people often destroyed my projects. That was one of the things that hurt a lot back then. I didn't deserve it, but I reacted poorly. I went off into the chemical la-la land where things don't hurt and nasty people are not mean. Well, back here in reality, things got real serious. I was almost dead and I wanted to live. So I did some real heavy soul-searching.People treated me rotten? OK. That's on them.I reacted poorly? OK. That's on me.What was I going to do about it? I embraced sobriety. That's what I did. That was my part. (At least part of my part.)Then I decided I had to make a personal policy of how to deal with nasty mean people. I came to the conclusion that they were not going to go away, and when they were around, they would not stop their crap unless something stopped them. Why? Who the hell knows? That's just what they do. I think they like being nasty and mean. (Based on what I have observed so far, Hsieh is one such person.)So I came up with my policy. I don't care much what a person says behind my back. If I find out about something really unfair or destructive, there may or may not be hell to pay for that person. It depends on the situation, my interests and my evaluation at the time. But there is a Big Bad within this frame. I will not tolerate a person being disrespectful to my face.Say what you want behind my back, but don't say it to my face.I'm not talking about playful banter, nor am I talking about when a good friend gets so upset he goes over the top. I'm certainly not talking about disagreeing with me. Hell, I'm not even talking about an occasional slip and apology when the dust settles from someone who ought to know better. I'm talking about a new person barging into my life (online, like here on the forum, or off) trying to bully or scratch a neurotic itch. Or just a plain old obnoxious mean nasty person trying to see how much he or she can get away with. My policy is that I won't stand for it. The first thing I do is shut down communication until communication gets back to polite. That's just for starters. I go downhill from there if the person persists in staying in my face and being obnoxious. Of course, if the person goes back to polite, I react accordingly and my communication valve opens again.I have learned that if you do not insist on respect, nasty people will not treat you with respect. And if nasty people don't want to treat me with respect, then they can go treat whoever they wish however they wish, but far, far away from me.This is not a request. It's a condition for talking to me.This, also, does not apply just to Hsieh. It applies to everybody. And it has been that way for quite a while. Like I said, those who know me already know this about me.I try to treat others that way. Sometimes being a forum traffic cop does not allow me to be exactly the way I would prefer, but I try as best I can.I believe that treating people with respect is a good thing. I'm talking about morals here. Respecting others is a morally good thing. If you are going to request something of someone, good manners are the minimum of what the person being approached can expect. So, in addition to being moral, that's just common sense. But since when has anyone ever been able to accuse an ARI fundy of common sense? I sometimes suspect that ARI fundies equate using good manners with people they don't like with weakness and appeasement. Frankly, if a person believes this, he or she needs to grow up. I had a friend in Brazil (Djalma) who used to put it this way. "There is never anything wrong with good manners. You can take them with you whereever you go, the world over, and they will always be welcome. On every street, in every home, in every office. Good manners are your best travel companions."And so they are.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Mayhew's article is posted on OL? I've not seen it here, just the link.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Brant,Are you even reading this thread? It would be helpful to read it if you want to comment on it.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 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.Michael,If any of Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum answers had been printed in The Objectivist or the Ayn Rand Letter, I'd have known about them before I started this project. I own the complete run of The Objectivist and have read everything in it more than once. I don't own the complete run of the Letter, but I've read every article in the past and know where to find copies of ones that I don't have. Since I was not a regular reader of The Objectivist Forum, I bought the bound reprint in case I need it for reference.The three answers that Mayhew claims were edited by Rand herself (along with how many more?) appeared in The Objectivist Calendar, a skinny little monthly listing of public speeches by Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and a few others, along with notices about the availability of Peikoff's courses on tape. It was published from 1976 to 1979. I've never seen a copy and don't know where to find one. Richard Lawrence doesn't list it over at the Objectivism Research Center. I suppose the Ayn Rand Archives are keeping a complete set, but they've yet to answer my query about recordings of some of Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum speeches, so that pile of monthly sheets in some repository in Irvine, CA isn't going to be doing me a whole lot of good.If I can get the edited answers from The Objectivist Calendar, I'll post them here (or, if they are identical to the answers as they appear in the Mayhew book, I'll note that they are).But I'll have to see them in the Calendar first. There have been way too many mysteries in the editorial process, so far as I'm concerned. Appeals to deep dark secret sources have very little persuasive value. I won't reference the Objectivist Calendar on Mayhew's word alone (besides, I wouldn't know the dates or pages for any of the items). Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) Later down on her site (see here) she complained about my response. She's lying in what she claims. I would normally say mistaken, but my gut tells me she lies. How about giving Comrade Sonia the chance for a quid pro quo? She has to take down all her unauthorized material from Chris Sciabarra. Then she’ll have some standing to discuss copyright issues. Still, no one can ever reasonably trust her again, so what’s really in it for her?Mayhew's article is posted on OL? I've not seen it here, just the link.See the first post on the thread, his piece is there complete, formatted using the quote function, with my commentary inserted in between.The three answers that Mayhew claims were edited by Rand herself (along with how many more?) appeared in The Objectivist Calendar, a skinny little monthly listing of public speeches by Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and a few others, along with notices about the availability of Peikoff's courses on tape. It was published from 1976 to 1979. I love how he built up to that gotcha. I’d never heard of The Objectivist Calendar before either, and if he didn’t cite it how should you know about it? And that’s the only example he gives, the only defence he offers to how many? 30-50 examples you’ve transcribed? I bet this case, the one about the Nazi march in Skokie, IL is another example: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=90522 Edited March 31, 2010 by Ninth Doctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) Brant,Are you even reading this thread? It would be helpful to read it if you want to comment on it.MichaelI've read the thread but seem to have missed something. Opps--I found it. I was looking for it without the interjections.--Brant Edited March 31, 2010 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Robert,That's more than fair.Let me be public right now in case anyone is doubting. You have 100% support from me for your research here (no more and no less). For whatever may come.btw - That "Objectivist Calendar" thing is weird. I had presumed it was the "Objectivist Calendar" section in The Objectivist and I had put on my list for looking up stuff. I haven't read The Objectivist from cover to cover. (I have the bound version giving volumes 5-10 and the bound version of The Objectivist Newsletter.) I have skimmed it all, though, several times and I do not recall seeing Q&A responses in it. But I was going to check just to make sure.The way this new "Objectivist Calendar" thing came out feels like a Get Out of Jail card from the board game, Monopoly. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I think if someone is going to publish a short article like Mayhew did on a free and public site, he can't expect it not to travel and be commented on.In any case Diana can ask Michael again, no? But was she really charged by Mayhew to complain about this? Mayhew could ask Michael.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I love how he built up to that gotcha. I'd never heard of The Objectivist Calendar before either, and if he didn't cite it how should you know about it? And that's the only example he gives, the only defence he offers to how many? 30-50 examples you've transcribed? I bet this case, the one about the Nazi march in Skokie, IL is another example: http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=90522ND,Her comments about the Nazi march in Skokie are from 1978, so the time frame is right. If she put an edited version of them into The Objectivist Calendar, it gives us a total of 4 such items (the others are supposedly Kissinger 1976, Solzhenitsyn 1976, and Roots 1977).Maybe there's a rule for these cases, namely that changes that make an answer longer aren't Mayhew's. When I can get the data, I'll test it.I'd never tracked the number of answers I've transcribed and posted, the main reason being that I have a few more to go (and want to get back to, now that most has been said that needed saying about Diana Hsieh and Robert Mayhew's recent outbursts). But I figured it was more than 50, so I went and counted.As of today, I've transcribed and posted 141 answers (as they appear on the recordings; a few of these were chopped into smaller pieces by Mayhew). Most of these I transcribed from scratch on my own. For the Q&A from the 1976 Philosophy of Objectivism series, I've been using Roger Bissell's transcriptions, after checking every word against the recording. Roger's transcriptions are high quality, and they have made my work much easier, but I've still ended up making many small corrections to them.Alas, I'll never rise above the status of pseudo-scholar. For Robert Mayhew has so declared.And from Robert Mayhew's verdict, there is no appeal. Robert CampbellAlpha Bête Noire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I’d never heard of The Objectivist Calendar before either, and if he didn’t cite it how should you know about it?I thought "The Objectivist Calendar" was a calendar with photos of Mistress Hsieh and other Randian dominatrices in tight leather outfights. Damn! I was looking forward to getting that calendar.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 As of today, I've transcribed and posted 141 answers (as they appear on the recordings; a few of these were chopped into smaller pieces by Mayhew). D’Oh! So I’ve way underestimated your productivity. I saw there were 16 pages to the thread, and looked at one and saw 2-3 transcriptions, the rest of the posts on the page were comments. So, I used an inappropriate sample size and estimating methodology, and if Mayhew gets wind of it he’ll call me incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 I’d never heard of The Objectivist Calendar before either, and if he didn’t cite it how should you know about it?I thought "The Objectivist Calendar" was a calendar with photos of Mistress Hsieh and other Randian dominatrices in tight leather outfights. Damn! I was looking forward to getting that calendar.GhsDon't they sell syrup of ipecac where you live? They carry it at CVS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 George,I know it was a typo, but it's so inspired, I hope you won't correct it away."Tight leather outfights."Just what an Objectivist dominatrix would want to wear...Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 but I've still ended up making many small corrections to them.Alas, I'll never rise above the status of pseudo-scholar. For Robert Mayhew has so declared.And from Robert Mayhew's verdict, there is no appeal. I think I know a way around this: "Pseudo-pseudo-scholar." Maybe they'll accept it.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 George,I know it was a typo, but it's so inspired, I hope you won't correct it away."Tight leather outfights."Just what an Objectivist dominatrix would want to wear...Robert CampbellHow do you know it's a typo? Maybe my subconscious is so fiendishly clever that even my conscious thoughts can't keep up with it.I would rather believe this than believe I am a crappy typist. I'll let it stand. It is funny.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I’d never heard of The Objectivist Calendar before either, and if he didn’t cite it how should you know about it?I thought "The Objectivist Calendar" was a calendar with photos of Mistress Hsieh and other Randian dominatrices in tight leather outfights. Damn! I was looking forward to getting that calendar.GhsDon't they sell syrup of ipecac where you live? They carry it at CVS.I can just see some OLers Googling "syrup of ipecac" so they can figure out what the hell your're talking about. 8-)Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I can just see some OLers Googling "syrup of ipecac" so they can figure out what the hell your're talking about. 8-)George,You know me that well already?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I can just see some OLers Googling "syrup of ipecac" so they can figure out what the hell your're talking about. 8-)George,You know me that well already?MichaelIf truth be known, I had to Google it too. Never heard of the stuff. But then I've never been bitten by a snake -- not literally, anyway. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriggenbach Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I can just see some OLers Googling "syrup of ipecac" so they can figure out what the hell your're talking about. 8-)George,You know me that well already?MichaelIf truth be known, I had to Google it too. Never heard of the stuff. But then I've never been bitten by a snake -- not literally, anyway. 8-)Syrup of ipecac is not just for snakebite. It's appropriate whenever an emetic is indicated.JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I can just see some OLers Googling "syrup of ipecac" so they can figure out what the hell your're talking about. 8-)George,You know me that well already?MichaelIf truth be known, I had to Google it too. Never heard of the stuff. But then I've never been bitten by a snake -- not literally, anyway. 8-)Syrup of ipecac is not just for snakebite. It's appropriate whenever an emetic is indicated.JRYeah, I know, because the Wiki article told me so. I was just looking for a clever exit line, as I always do. It's an addiction.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Biggers Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 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.--BrantThe scientologists are certainly capable of violent acts and some have been quite willing to put into practice Hubbard's "fair game" dictum ("anyone who attempts to harm scientology through making public accusations against the Church is considered 'fair game' and any act against them is fully justified by scientology ethics").However, the incident referred to, putting a rattlesnake in the mailbox of a declared enemy, was committed by members of Synanon, an entirely different cult, and now defunct.The actions of some orthodox Randroids towards those who have dared to criticize some of the ARIan leaders is more akin to the practice utilized by some religious sects, ostracizing or "shunning" of dissidents. Occasionakly, shunning is accompanied by denunciation, although the denunciations more often emanate from groups or individuals informally affiliated with ARI. In these cases, it appears to me that their motivation is not to convert the apostates (the shunned are "unclean," probably evil, and unworthy of rehabilitation), but to curry favor from ARI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 The scientologists are certainly capable of violent acts and some have been quite willing to put into practice Hubbard's "fair game" dictum ("anyone who attempts to harm scientology through making public accusations against the Church is considered 'fair game' and any act against them is fully justified by scientology ethics").Does this include forcing dissenters to watch "Battlefield Earth" over and over again?Waterboarding? Okay, I can understand that. Even some electricity applied to the testicles might be justified. But Battlefield Earth? There has to be a limit to what those people will do. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 (edited) Robert,That's more than fair.Let me be public right now in case anyone is doubting. You have 100% support from me for your research here (no more and no less). For whatever may come.btw - That "Objectivist Calendar" thing is weird. I had presumed it was the "Objectivist Calendar" section in The Objectivist and I had put on my list for looking up stuff. I haven't read The Objectivist from cover to cover. (I have the bound version giving volumes 5-10 and the bound version of The Objectivist Newsletter.) I have skimmed it all, though, several times and I do not recall seeing Q&A responses in it. But I was going to check just to make sure.The way this new "Objectivist Calendar" thing came out feels like a Get Out of Jail card from the board game, Monopoly. MichaelThe Objectivist Calendar came out after the Ayn Rand Letter closed. My memory is that it was put out by Barbara Weiss. I think it published only intermittenly. It stopped when the Objectivist Forum started. The Objectivist Calendar in the Objectivist and Objectivist Newsletter did not have items from Rand's q&a's at Ford Hall Forum. Edited April 1, 2010 by Chris Grieb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Chris G,Mayhew says the last issue of the Calendar came out in June 1979. Twenty issues in 36 months, from June 1976, would not make it a monthly, would they? More like a sorta bimonthly.I wonder whether the Calendar ended its run when Barbara Weiss quit working for Ayn Rand.Has anyone who was on the scene then kept these in a file or a box somewhere?Robert C 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