WGD

I have to apologize to David for having a flame war on his excellent site. Also Matt and Mike, I don't know you and you don't know me. I'm used to sparing with people I know. I though this site was like a Dojo, where you fight to develop your skills and have fun. After words like weasel were used, I thought it was approprate for "wars." No apology for anything I said about Klein or Kelley. They wish to destroy Objectivism and rip people off. Apprentice "...I'm reporting it..." What? Are you six years old.

I just saw Dr Brook on Fox News. They identified him as a former intelligence officer in the Israel army. Fox found that out from his bio. He didn't keep secret.

"Dude" this has been an argument about a non issue. I hope your arguments on important issues are not as lame. But for someone who has "argued with so many marxists I can't even count anymore" you sure curled up in a fetal position quickly. But at least you fought, Matt folded so fast, I don't know how he thinks he'll make it as a philosophy professor.

Shawn identifies himself as an employee at the bottom of the ad ([email protected]). Then Shawn gave his "facts" for his argument in the April post. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when someone gives his opinion but covers up his interest. If in a movie ad a review says "two thumbs up," that's a good review. But if the review is from the vp of the studio, that changes everything.

I'm sorry Apprentice. That "pages 1 (2)" at the bottom of the page means other posts to this topic are on page 1.

How do you know he has oil connections? Are you psychic or did someone tell you. But you know his connections, don't you.

Matt I never said Shawn didn't believe Kelley was right. Your argument is backwards. Your example proves my case. Scientist alway identify their source of funding. Cheney has always tells people where he worked. Leftists might use that info as an attack but that's because they have no arguments. Professionals in every field report anything that will be viewed as biased up front. Just watch cable news programs. But no, I don't think your argument is pathetic.

Atlas 51184, I hope your "final paper" makes more sense. The honesty issue is important. The line "He always comes across as Professional, intelligent, and straightforward" just sound different coming from an employee. This topic started with Klein posting an ad on Feb. 17th. Klein leaves ads all over the net, thats his job. "...reeks of Marxism." Marx said that a mans thinking comes from his class, outside of his control. How does that fit here. Klein is in control of himself, he's just paid by Kelley. Don't use terms you don't understand. "...other things to do than to respond to random posts on random blogs." That makes alot of sense, since that is what he did here. Is your use of "also" an example of good English? I've never seen "a)" used by itself before. "Besides(why is this word here?), he didn't even make a full argument," Are you his mother? What ever I think of Klein its not that he can't argue his case. The line of attack in your last sentence contradicts the argument of your first sentence. Are you still upset about your Feb. 20th meltdown????

On March 26th at www.dianahsieh.com/blog, Diana Hsieh compared Op-Eds from ARI and toc on the subjects of Valentine day, Christmas, The Passion, and "Under God" in the Pledge. "Garmong's analysis is clear, engaging, and true--i.e. all that the TOC Op-Ed is not." "All in all, the sharp contrasts between the quality, clarity, insight, and the objectivity of the articles produced by ARI and those of TOC ought to be deeply troubling to any serious advocate of Objectivism who also suports TOC. Since the moral is the practical, a bit of premise-checking seems to be in order."

S. Klein, if your so concerned about honesty, why didn't you admit your paid by David Kelley? With no response on www.dianahsieh.com/toc/statement.html , I guess you believe it is correct? Or this from March 26th - www.dianahsieh.com/blog - where she talks about the lameness of TOC's intellectual work.

Also, ARI did not have an archive in 1992.

From the December 1965 Objectivist Newsletter. In October, 1964, Ayn Rand received a letter from L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress, which reads, in part, as follows: "Among the most widely discussed philosophies of our time is that associated with your writings. In your fiction and essays you have made the Objectivist philosophy an issue affecting many levels of public discourse. When the history of our times is written, your work will have a prominent place." "In order to insure that your work will be the subject of informed study, I invite you to place your manuscripts and personal papers in the Library of Congress. Here they will join a distinguished manuscript collection which includes the papers of most of the Presidents, statesmen, jurists, artists, writers, scientists, and philanthropists. In fact, all phases of our national past are documented through materials in the Library's Manuscript Division." Miss Rand replied that she would be honored to accept the invitation.

There is no reason why they wouldn't go and get him "after" the end of the novel. He has friends in Galt, Dagney, Reardon, and Francisco. But his role in the story was the honest -"average" man and how his life is effected by the prime movers of society. The average person is effected government by actions against others.

Dianah M Hsieh has been a supporter of Kelley for years. She is in the Phd program at U. of Col. at Denver. She's not a supporter of ARI but she seems to be seriously interested in Objectivism. This is an interesting post. It also shows the consquences of TOC take on Objectivism. www.dianahsieh.com/toc/statement.html

Conspircay theory? That's not too much of an ad hominem. Everybody holds ideas because they think there useful and right, to them. Kelley hasn't gone under cover as an objectivist. His skepticism is right out in the open: who am I to know? Maybe I have something to learn from this marxist. His use of "tolerance" is as an anti-concept. He can't play his intellectual game if Ayn Rand sets the rules, so you destroy the rules. Dude, maybe you need to take Kelley's advice:"Objectivity is the ability to step back from our own thinking, so that we can see it critically, through the eyes of someone who does not share our outlook, our own preferences, our idiosyncrasies."

Post-moderns want to destroy philosophy but they still teach and write, so the destruction has a purpose, no standards. Kelley is a PMS objectivist: post-Modern subjectivist. He wishes to destroy Objectivism. He covers himself with slogans of individual rights, etc. Kelley was NOT kicked out because of libertarianism- he was on the masthead of a libertarian newsletter from at least 1985 and spoke at a Cato seminar. It was because of "A question of sanction." The Objectivist theory of concepts is the foundation of all Objectivist principles. But Kelley wishes to destroy the need for even forming concepts. DK:"When we formulate moral principles, we may abstract from such differences of degree; we omit measurements, as Ayn Rand explained. But when we apply the principles in forming moral judgements about particulars, we must reintroduce the relevant measurments." His whole approch is to reject principles. He has to be tolerant, because when he reintroduces the the measurement, he's back where he started. In kelley's universe, when you stand by principles you "indulge in moral hysteria." DK:"concept of evil applies primarily to actions, and to the people who perform them." People's cognition drive their actions.

David Kelley is a post-modernist. "I owe a great deal to my teacher and advisor at Princeton, Richard Rorty." Richard Rorty is one of the leading PM teachers in the world. PM philosophers attack the very concept of philosophy-the idea that philosophy is a specifically delimited subject requiring a definite methodology. See The black hole of contemporary philosophy by Gary Hull. Kelley's open/close debate, his spliting reason from reality, how he can't judge any one"who am I to know," etc. is all modern philosophy. He uses terms with meanings he gives them. Communists kill people not the peolple teach communism so they get a free ride.

Here's Ayn Rand's words near the end of the artical. "Who would enforce the fairness doctrine in education? Not the executive branch of the government, which is the distributor of funds and has a vested interest in uniformity, i.e., comformity. The doctrine has to be invoked and upheld by private individuals and groups. This issue could become the goal of an ad hoc movement...appealing to whatever element of 19th century liberalism still exists in the minds of academic liberals... If a fairness movement enlisted the talents of some intelligent young lawyers, it could conceivably find support in the courts of law, which are still supposed to protect an individual's civil rights. It must be remembered firmly that a fairness doctrine is not a string on the universities' freedom, but a string on the government's power to distribute public funds."

Your example of "pragmatism/practicality" is wrong like your view of libertarianism. The fairness doctrine was a government control of the airways. Non- estabishment ideas were kept off the air because you would have to give equal time to everybody. Reagan ended it in '87, Rush went national in '88.

Excommunication????? ARI's December 1993 newsletter said "Announcement: Due to irreconcilable (non-philosophical) disagreements with ARI's Directors, Edith Packer and George Reisman have been asked to step down from the Institutes Board of Advisors." Peikoff, Snider, and Packer(she is also an attorney) were the original Board of Directors. Binswanger and Schwartz were added to the board, announced Dec. 1986. By the end of 1987 Packer was moved down to the Board of Advisors because-Snider has said she was a massive pain and in everybody's business. The letters at Jeffcomp prove that and she doesn't protest that part. Packer and Reisman pulled there stuff from 2nd Ren. Books and started their own service. I think when Peikoff had his heart-attack in 92, she was worried the board of ARI would control the estate and she wouldn't, so she started to bother everybody.