Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

OismForever

Regulars
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OismForever

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. The very first entry for "Sanction" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon is: "To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it" I believe that is what ARI is doing when it licenses Ayn Rand to appear in a calendar with Che Guevera on the cover. I too would like for Binswanger or Peikoff to weigh in on it. But, I doubt that will happen. As I said earlier...putting her in that calender is literally grouping her with a man that would probably have her killed if he had the chance and is the opposite of her in every way except for his belief in an almighty. If Hitler had been on th
  2. That is true. But do you think that in some way grouping them together or allowing her to be in a calender with Chi on the cover is giving sanction to him being honored? O
  3. This was my first letter to them. Hello, Can I ask why ARI would allow Ayn Rand to be featured on a calendar that also features communists? Thanks, **** ***** For the last time. I want to discuss the issue of whether or not it was apprpriate for them to grant permission for her name and picture to be on that calendar. You are free to debate my decorum or approach to complaining. But, you can do so without my further participation. It is a peripheral issue that has nothing really to do with whether or not their decision is right or wrong. I could have phrased things better
  4. I am not a regular on this board. So I am not familiar with your posts or your reputation. But, you are not making a very good impression on me thus far. You are doing your best to try and fit a square peg into a round hole and define to me what I was saying and thinking as if you know better than I do. Whatever. This threat has completely lost its topic and there is no point in continuing this arguement with you. O
  5. We have to break this down to the very issue of what you found to be "incredibly arrogant" in my letter. And, as best I can tell you took issue with me saying "I can personally guarantee you that not one person alive that knew her would say she would have given permission to have been included on that calendar." I am only referring to what she would have done while she was alive. Because at that point the issue or arguement about her opinion post-death had not come into play. I never argued whether or not it would have been different post mortem. But, I think the issue is splitting hair
  6. I never approached the debate about how Ayn Rand would have felt about her picture being used after her death. But, I honestly cannot see any reason why she would have felt any differently. Your arguement has evolved during this discussion to try to find a point of attack you can be right on. If that is what you want to do then fine. I never intended for this thread to be a debate about who was more rude in their emails me or ARI. I just wanted to explore whether or not others believed it appropriate for her to be in the calender. You have made your arguement as to why you think it is
  7. You cannot on one hand agree that Ayn Rand would not have allowed herself to be in the calender and then also say that me stating that to ARI was "incredibly arrogant". What you attacked me for was saying I guarantee she would not have allowed it. I stand by that statement and think most informed people would agree with me. But, you make some good points. And I can almost live with that rationale. But, having Guvera, a communist revolutionary on the cover does not sit right with me. Maybe I am too touchy about it. But, I just have a very profound love for her work and her ideas. And, se
  8. Here is a response she gave once to being asked to allow an excerpt of her work to be printed in the Chicago Sun. "I cannot let my name appear as that of a contributor to the Chicago Sun, because this would amount to an endorsement of its policy and an acceptance of its inexcusable insult to my book. I do not cooperate or collaborate with Collectivism." The last sentence is the key. The bottom line to me is, does anyone really believe Ayn Rand would have given permission to be included in a calender that has Che Guvera on the cover? I do not believe it is "incredibly arrogant" to say
  9. Good point. And that is true. But, I do think it is implied, or else the calender makes no sense. Think of the kind of person who would want to have it? Either an Atheist who wants to be reminded that great people were also atheists. Or a theist that wants to be reminded that there were bad people that were atheists. O
  10. I make such a statement because I have spent the last 20 years reading ever published word she has ever written. And, I would be willing to wager that Binswanger, Peikoff any of them would agree that she would not have allowed her picture to be used in that context. It may sound presumptious to you. But, if you are as familiar with her work as I am, you wouldnt have much doubt. Would it be presumptious to say "I can personally guarantee you that Ayn Rand would never have appeared at a communist meeting"? If not, then what is the difference between the two statements? One may seem
  11. No its a response that says "I do not neccesarily agree with you that I was presumptious" I do not think I was being rude. And of course her letters are not a "complete inventory of her mind" but Ayn Rand was consistent and not prone to contradictions. Instead of debating who was rude or arrogant in the email. What am I really interested in discussing here is the validity of the arguement. Is it appropriate for permission to have been given for Ayn Rand to be on a calender that has Che Guevera on the cover. O
  12. Perhaps. But, I am certain from her repeated and consistent denials to people asking for permission to use her name or material in "Letters to Ayn Rand" that I am on terra firma with regard to her position on such matters. BD
  13. I saw the following auction on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/2008-Atheist-Calendar-...1QQcmdZViewItem It is a calender with Che on the cover, that features prominent atheists and Ayn Rand has her own month. I thought the concept was offensive and emailed the seller, who informed me that she was on the calender with permission from ARI. So, I emailed ARI. Here are my emails and their responses: Dear Mr. ****, Thank you for your email regarding the inclusion of Ayn Rand’s image in the Atheist Calendar, which features a known communist. Richard Ralston, who handles image rights an
  14. The first edition was done in red and in green cloth. They are from the same first printing run though, only differing in the color of binding. Then came the larger one in Red, Green and Blue with the "errors" it is a second edition. Any bookseller who knows their trade has the ability to find out this information. This particular seller goes out of his way to insist that this book is a first edition, first printing. If he did any research at all, he would know that it is false. You are right though, there are a ton of auctions on ebay that also falsely make this claim. I wish ther
×
×
  • Create New...