Jonathan13

And how do we know that the new guy is in error, versus that his critics are? By whose interpretation and aesthetic response do we judge? We can all declare that we're guided by Objectivism, and therefore that each of our differing tastes and interpretations are the properly integrate ones, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Then, unless someone can actually provide some proof (which Rand admits is not possible without the missing "conceptual vocabulary") it's basically just an irrational shouting match in which one side is just posing as being better and more integrated Objectivists.
As Tyler is suggesting, I think people should like what they like. Instead of asking if it meets Objectivism's criteria or approval, why not start with the assumption that, being an admirer of Objectivism, you probably like it for some reason that is consistent with Objectivism, perhaps even without fully recognizing it yet. So instead of heading down the path to a guilt trip and self-repression, why not ask a different set of questions, such as, why does this resonate with me? Others tend to see it as bad and icky and depressing, but is that the way that I see it? Does it make me feel powerful? Inspired? Rebelious? What virtuous thing about it am I responding to?
J

And how do we know that the new guy is in error, versus that his critics are? By whose interpretation and aesthetic response do we judge? We can all declare that we're guided by Objectivism, and therefore that each of our differing tastes and interpretations are the properly integrate ones, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Then, unless someone can actually provide some proof (which Rand admits is not possible without the missing "conceptual vocabulary") it's basically just an irrational shouting match in which one side is just posing as being better and more integrated Objectivists.
As Tyler is suggesting, I think people should like what they like. Instead of asking if it meets Objectivism's criteria or approval, why not start with the assumption that, being an admirer of Objectivism, you probably like it for some reason that is consistent with Objectivism, perhaps even without fully recognizing it yet. So instead of heading down the path to a guilt trip and self-repression, why not ask a different set of questions, such as, why does this resonate with me? Others tend to see it as bad and icky and depressing, but is that the way that I see it? Does it make me feel powerful? Inspired? Rebelious? What virtuous thing about it am I responding to?
J

Hey everyone, see what I'm talking about?
Thin-skinned mischaracterization of my posts, smugness, condescension and bitterness. Throwing gasoline on the fire.
J

How are you not understanding that that's exactly what I'm doing?!!!
I'm explaining to young, amateur philosophy hobbyists and unskilled promoters of Rand's ideas how to curb their irrational instincts, unearned and unwarranted hubris and zealotry, and improve their methods.
You're reaction seems to be quite defensive. Reread what I've written. I've said good things as well as critical things. I've written that OO is generally a good place, that it has improved greatly, but still has a lot of room for improvement, and the same is true of the "official" Objectivist organizations. They should be eagerly inviting criticism and debate on Objectivism, especially from academia, rather than running away from it and doing the best to prevent it.
The owners and moderators here should be doing the same thing, albeit on a smaller level. No insult intended, but you're not experts here in any of the relevant arts or sciences. When someone like, say, Daniel Barnes (from the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog) shows up here, celebrate it as an opportunity for intellectual smackdown, rather than snarkily impeding him behind the scenes and then banning him.
Do you have confidence in Rand's and your own ideas? If so, then act like it. Actions speak louder than words.
J

And how do we know that the new guy is in error, versus that his critics are? By whose interpretation and aesthetic response do we judge? We can all declare that we're guided by Objectivism, and therefore that each of our differing tastes and interpretations are the properly integrate ones, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Then, unless someone can actually provide some proof (which Rand admits is not possible without the missing "conceptual vocabulary") it's basically just an irrational shouting match in which one side is just posing as being better and more integrated Objectivists.
As Tyler is suggesting, I think people should like what they like. Instead of asking if it meets Objectivism's criteria or approval, why not start with the assumption that, being an admirer of Objectivism, you probably like it for some reason that is consistent with Objectivism, perhaps even without fully recognizing it yet. So instead of heading down the path to a guilt trip and self-repression, why not ask a different set of questions, such as, why does this resonate with me? Others tend to see it as bad and icky and depressing, but is that the way that I see it? Does it make me feel powerful? Inspired? Rebelious? What virtuous thing about it am I responding to?
J

No, there are not.
That is, at least until the day that music is shown to comply with Objectivism's criteria for music via Rand's proposal and prediction that someday, someone will discover and define an objective "conceptual vocabulary" of music, which she stressed is currently missing. Until that time, music preferences and choices are, in her own words, to be treated as a "subjective matter" because "no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music" until such a vocabulary is identified. She added: "No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others. Where no objective proof is available, it's every man for himself -- and only himself."
Of course, if someone ever does discover that elusive objective "conceptual vocabulary," then there would be forms or styles of music which be either compatible or incompatible with Objectivism.
J

Um, sorry, but I'm not following your thinking there.
First of all, I did not say that the article is a "refutation of Objectivism." Rather, I said it was a "refutation of the Objectivist position on Kant."
Do you see the difference between what you claimed that I said versus what I actually said? It's a significant difference.
As for your question about packing up our books and going home, what does that mean? Are you saying that if Rand was shown to be wrong about anything, then she was wrong about everything, and we might as well give up on existence? Are you saying that you can find no value in Rand's errors being corrected?
If you're asking what we should do when confronted with information which very powerfully lays out evidence which claims to refute our positions, or Rand's, the answer is not that we should pack up and go home, but that we should study the evidence and the arguments against our positions, we should set aside emotions and then rationally consider the arguments, we should then offer rational counter arguments if we have any, and if we gave none, then we should learn from and accept reality and correct our mistaken positions.
But it doesn't end there. When discovering that we were mistaken about one aspect or another of a philosophy, we should cultivate our curiosity and recognize that we should apply the new knowledge to other aspects of the philosophy to which it is naturally connected. We should ask ourselves and investigate if the mistake has tainted any other parts of the philosophy. Was the mistaken idea in anyway a part of the foundation of other, higher ideas in the hierarchical structure? If so, it will necessarily have an effect on the merits of those ideas, and, if we value truth and reality, we should be eager to rationally explore and discover what consequences there will be to the strength of those higher ideas when we remove the defective bits below them.
What we should not do is look at all of that as being too much work and therefore deny the reality of the defective brick in the foundation. We shouldn't take our books and go home, but should be happy to correct those books, and, more importantly, to study new ones and to be not merely open to learning, but eager. We should be grateful to open our eyes and admit to error. We should be happy to say, "Kant wasn't the evil man that Rand and Peikoff misportrayed him to be, but held views that were quite similar to Rand's in more ways than not."
That would be the rational, Objectivist thing to do.
Meanwhile, I doubt that "major" Objectivists will be taking up the challenge offered by such articles as George H. Smith's. They're missing opportunities to correct, advance and promote Objectivism. The ship was built to sail, but they prefer to keep it safe in the harbor.
J

I haven't been arguing against civility, but against the instances where people have been censored for their views regardless of how polite they were.
And you're still not hearing what I've been saying. How would I promote intellectual and productive discussions? Invite and encourage criticism, and then answer it, if you can. If you can't answer it, then reconsider your opinion. Challenge people to try to demonstrate any ways in which Objectivism is wrong, or ways in which they think it might not have sufficient proof to back up some of its assertions. Dare them to try to knock Objectivism's block off.
Treat philosophy as an objective science. Science doesn't exclude, prevent and resent testing and criticism. Objectivism is a proposed theory. Many of its supporters have self-graded it as superb, if not perfect. Well, the next step is inviting people who are not its supporters to test it and criticize it. The next objective step in the process is to encourage doubters and the harshest critics to throw everything they've got at and try to disprove any or all of it.

Jonathan. It's great to see your contributions to this forum, I thank you.

The value in engaging experts is that, more often than not, they know much more than you do, and you can learn from them. They often have deeper and broader knowledge, and think of valid criticisms which wouldn't occur to people with less knowledge and experience.
The phrasing about "paying homage" in the quote is bluff. It's a transparent copout, a sort of poisoning of the well, as a means of excuse-making. The issue at hand is not "homage," and it is dishonest to assert, without evidence, that all academics are motivated by evil -- that they're in it for homage. The reality is that they are usually incredibly deep thinkers who have gotten where they are on intellectual merit, and they question everything. The brightest minds in academia would bring up dozens, if not hundreds, of questions that have never occurred to Peikoff. They would demand evidence where he has never been challenged by followers to provide it. He would have a very hard time backing up some of Objectivism's assertions which he has accepted but never thought to consider whether they need backing up with proof.
 
Exactly. I'm also not about "appearing" to be strong and confident. I'm asking people to actually BE strong and confident. If they are truly confident, I'm asking them to behave as confident people do, rather than like people who are afraid.
 
Objectivism is fabulous on many levels. But it also has some errors. They should be admitted to and corrected.  And eagerly and happily so! I've brought up many issues in which Objectivism is wrong in my personal area of expertise, art and aesthetics. I've raised issues and given countless Objectivists the opportunity to attempt to answer. Once in a while, on very rare occasions, Objectivists will admit that I've pointed out obvious problems, and that the Objectivist Esthetics needs to be thought through more carefully, and repaired. That's a good Objectivist response. Unfortunately, a much more common response among Objectivists is to deny the reality of the errors, to dig in their heels, and to twist themselves into pretzels (and censor and ban the criticism). It's as if they think that if they admit that Rand was wrong about anything, then her reputation will be destroyed. The reverse is true: When people see Rand's followers defending an obviously mistaken position, that's what destroys Rand's, and their own, reputations as thinkers.
J

How are you not understanding that that's exactly what I'm doing?!!!
I'm explaining to young, amateur philosophy hobbyists and unskilled promoters of Rand's ideas how to curb their irrational instincts, unearned and unwarranted hubris and zealotry, and improve their methods.
You're reaction seems to be quite defensive. Reread what I've written. I've said good things as well as critical things. I've written that OO is generally a good place, that it has improved greatly, but still has a lot of room for improvement, and the same is true of the "official" Objectivist organizations. They should be eagerly inviting criticism and debate on Objectivism, especially from academia, rather than running away from it and doing the best to prevent it.
The owners and moderators here should be doing the same thing, albeit on a smaller level. No insult intended, but you're not experts here in any of the relevant arts or sciences. When someone like, say, Daniel Barnes (from the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog) shows up here, celebrate it as an opportunity for intellectual smackdown, rather than snarkily impeding him behind the scenes and then banning him.
Do you have confidence in Rand's and your own ideas? If so, then act like it. Actions speak louder than words.
J

Rand's recognition that there is not an objective "conceptual language of music" is the recognition that music does not present objectively identifiable, intelligible subjects and meanings, as is her statement that music "cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon."

Jake, are you saying that you believe that a medium which lacks a "conceptual language" and which cannot "convey existential phenomena" can be called "objective," and that it can present "intelligible subjects and meanings"?




Yet when it comes to visual abstraction and composition, I'm suddenly supposed to not only believe that there is a limit on "our" ability to get to know reality, but that I and others don't experience what we experience because you or Rand don't experience it as well?

Here's the problem: In pondering the effects of music, Rand says that a man "experiences it as an indivisible whole, he feels as if the magnificent exaltation were there, in the music – and he is helplessly bewildered when he discovers that some men do experience it and some do not." But she also asserts that the "color symphonies" of abstract visual art produce "nothing, in the viewer's consciousness, but the boredom of being unemployed." Which is not true of all men. Just as "some men" do not experience what Rand experienced when listening to music, Rand did not experience what I and others experience when looking at abstract paintings, and she arbitrarily dismissed our experiences simply because she did not experience them. Rather than considering the possibility that she was among the "some men who do" when it came to music, but among the "some men who don't" when it came to abstract art, she imposed her personal responses (or lack thereof) as the universal standard, and claimed to know the content of others' consciousnesses, despite the fact that they have very clearly testified that they were very stimulated by abstract art -- as stimulated as Rand claims to have been by music -- and anything but "bored" from being "unemployed."




So your view is that music doesn't have to be currently objective, but we can simply assert that it will be objective at some point in the future, and you imagine that the same device can't be applied to abstract visual art? Do you think that those who experience strong emotions and deep meanings when looking at abstract paintings can't apply the same method and assert the notion that, despite our current limits of knowledge of abstract visuals, someday someone will discover an "objective conceptual language" of abstract art, and therefore abstract paintings should also currently qualify as art along with music?




The point is that it's also possible for people to enjoy abstract visual art on the level that Rand enjoyed music "without conceptualizing it." It may not be possible for you to enjoy abstract art, or for Rand, or for many others, but your lack of emotional response is not the universal standard by which to determine what is or is not art, just as the "some men" who don't experience what Rand experienced while listening to music are not the standard by which to determine whether or not music is art. Your method comes across as an attempt to deny others' abilities and sensitivities because you don't possess them -- if you don't experience something, why, then no one else does either, and they're either lying or delusional if they say that they do. The idea that Jake or Rand might have some limitations compared to others when it comes to the appreciation of visual composition is apparently not a possibility to be considered.




That wasn't a statement about only the visual arts. It was a statement about Rand's requirements for all of the arts. The requirement of intelligibility in all art is one of the reasons that it's important for Objectivism to assert that one day an objective language of music will be identified: the possibility that music is ultimately, by its nature, not a purely objective medium is apparently an idea that is not to be entertained.




If there can be different criteria for different art forms -- if music can be art despite not currently fitting Rand's definition and criteria for all art, if some art forms don't have to be directly mimetic or intelligible, or if some art forms don't have to "re-create reality" -- then visual art can be subdivided according to different criteria as well: Realistic visual art can be said to be that which presents identifiable likenesses of things from reality, but abstract art achieves its effects in a different way: it's a compositional artform which, like music, affects "some men" by directly stimulating their emotions through an objective means that has yet to be discovered and identified.




What I was doing was expecting to be able to apply Rand's definitions, criteria and principles to all art, or to apply her exceptions to all art. I don't think it makes sense to have definitions and criteria, and then ignore them or have all sorts of exceptions which are applied selectively or abritrarily.

If something ceases to be art because it does not present an objectively intelligible subject, then music is not art, since it doesn't present an objectively intelligible subject. If music is art despite the fact that some men don't experience anything while listening to it, then abstract visual art is art despite the fact that some men don't experience anything while viewing it. Is art a "selective re-creation of reality" which excludes utilitarian objects? If so, then architecture, which Rand said does not "re-create reality," and which is utilitarian, is not art according to her definition and criteria. Or, if architecture can be an artform in a special "class by itself" despite not "re-creating reality" and being utilitarian, then other utilitarian objects which don't "re-create reality" can also be art in special classes by themselves. Etc.

J

Obviously neither I, nor anyone else here, can speak on behalf of Ayn Rand or any of the "heirs"/"leaders" of whatever we consider the "Objectivist movement" to be.
But on behalf of myself and my relationship to this site, what I can say is that I welcome informed criticism, and hope that I can rise to the challenge to meet it, to the best of my ability. Insofar as I "moderate" here, my interest is in preserving and promoting a civil environment for the purpose of fostering discussion about Objectivism and related topics. I think that's a worthy goal.
But silencing those who have dissenting viewpoints? No. That's not what I do, and (whatever may have happened in the past) I do not believe that's what the other moderators on this board do, either.

What does Travers mean? Isn't he disagreeing with Rand here? Wasn't her position that one should be able to be merely exposed to a work of art, and then, just by looking at its content, understand its meaning? What else does Travers think a viewer needs?


 
 
Did you notice that none of those questions are about aesthetics? None of them are about visual artistry and visual expression. None are about the aesthetic effects of visual phenomena on the viewer, or about the artist's technical artistic skills or deficiencies, or about composition, choice of range of color palette, internal visual consistency, lighting, perspective, vantage point, angle, etc. Travers seems to have the mindset of downplaying or removing aesthetics from art. I wonder why.

Rather than being about visual art qua visual art, Travers' questions are about only one small aspect of visual art -- the narrative. In effect, he treats visual art as if it were literature, and he seems to be unaware of the expressiveness of all other elements of visual art. His doing so makes me wonder if he has any real knowledge of those other elements.

J

Heh. That reminds me of a previous exchange that we had in which you asserted that I was misrepresenting Rand, probably due to your not having carefully read her writings on aesthetics. You believed that you were representing what she "really said."
 
I easily demonstrated the falsehood of your position, here, and especially here. But I got no admission of error from you. Why is that?
 
And here you are once again suggesting that the natural, default assumption should be that I'm wrong about anything that I say about Rand on the issue of aesthetics.
 
What's eating you, sNerd? Why do you continue to be so upset about my accurately reporting Rand's position, when you're not interested enough in the topic of aesthetics to actually study what she wrote? Why do you have a need to believe that she held positions that she didn't?
 
J

A person's character has nothing to do with judging any of their actions to be immoral. Their character, or their having behaved morally for 99.999999% of their lives, has no bearing on whether or not they misbehaved in one specific circumstance. It is illogical to cite a person's character in judging whether or not her slapping someone was immoral according to her own philosophy. It is anti-Objectivist to cite character in such a situation.
 
J

Branden didn't lie about aspects of his romantic involvement with Rand. He only lied about his involvement with another woman, and if we accept Dr. Peikoff's position on "privacy lies" being moral, then Branden was being perfectly ethical in lying to Rand, since his affair with Patrecia was none of her business. Branden had no contract of romantic exclusivity with Rand, and was not obliged to inform her of the nature of his relationships with others.

 

 
The issue here is not what an average judge might think under the current mixed-philosophy culture, but what position Objectivism takes. Objectivism doesn't accept "gray areas" just because someone doesn't want to find Ayn Rand guilty of having initiated force. The slap was the initiation of force. The initiation of force is immoral according to Objectivism. The slap was therefore immoral. Objectivism doesn't play favorites by considering who initiated force and whether or not we like them and want to overlook their use of force.

J

There was no breach of contract. Roark had no contract with the owners of Cortland. He only had an agreement with a co-conspirator to commit the fraud of passing off his work as someone else's. Roark intentionally hid his involement in the project from its owners, and he did so for the purpose of denying them their right to not hire him.

Keating had a contract with the owners of the project, but he violated it by passing off Roark's work as his own. When people enter into a contract with the purpose and intention of committing fraud and violating the contract themselves, they don't have the right to claim that their contract was violated by the other party.



Yes, The Fountainhead dramatically portrays the idea of an individual's creative independence and integrity, despite the fact that the hero of the novel behaves immorally by Objectivist standards. My view is that the novel is about the hero's artistic integrity, not his ethical lapses. He fits Rand's concept of bad boy heroes illustrating rebelliousness and independence: the idea isn't to focus on any aspects of their behavior that are immoral, but to focus on the sense of life that they portray, regardless of the unethical particulars. Rand's view was that the actions of a "noble crook" in a work of literature are not to be taken literally and as an endorsement of his vices.

J

I just noticed a newly reblogged post on honesty:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=26164#entry313639

And it reminded me that no one has answered my request, earlier on this thread (in post 234, as well as earlier posts), that Marc K., or anyone else, should provided evidence or quotes from Rand which support Marc's Peikovian assertion that closed-system Objectivism holds that it is moral to lie for the mere sake of protecting one's privacy when one is not being threatened with the initiation of force.

I was hoping that by now such evidence would have been provided, or the assertion withdrawn, since without evidence the assertion must be treated as arbitrary (as "a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort," and "a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality").

J

I am disappointed you would simply lump me in with any other forum member.  I am not a member of any clique, subgroup, commune, or gang.  I addressed you individually as an individual.
 
 
Secondly, I am disappointed you would accuse me of adopting a "tactic" as though my statements were disingenuous or intended to deceive. 
I find that insulting and disrespectful and in fact not consonant with reality: I was respectfully engaging in an exchange of ideas.
 
 
This is below the threshold of normal forum etiquette, and certainly below what I would expect from an Objectivist.
 
 
 
UPDATE:  Everyone, I have received no PMs regarding EITHER the example piece of music I suggested, or the video posted/linked to by Nicky.
 
If I get 4 or more responses in re. either of them I will let everyone know the results.  

I created it using the methods that I mentioned in the first post: orthographic masking, projection and in-camera masking, negative/positive film alignment, multiple exposures, time exposures, color, diffusion and distortion filters, and selective dodging and burning.
 
The petals are just a blast of light shot through a very wide lens on chrome film, and then reshot as double exposures at severe angles onto another piece of chrome film. I put that on a light table and reshot it eight times while rotating the camera 45 degrees between each exposure. I did that twice so as to get two sets of eight. I then made a high-contrast negative and a high contrast positive copy of those two eight-set chromes so that I would have a knock-out (the high-contrast positive) and highlight/shadow plate, which was created by taking slightly unfocused shots on chrome of the high-contrast negative copies.
 
I then sandwiched the second eight-set chrome with the unfocused shadow chrome from the first eight-set, as well as with second eight-set's knock-out, and I punched the entire sandwich with holes to match registration pins (a method of aligning multiple exposures on a light table). I exposed that onto a new piece of chrome, then covered the sandwich with the shadow chrome made from the first eight-set's high-contrast copy, slid it slightly upward, and then exposed the new chrome once again to achieve the highlights. I removed that sandwich from the light table and repeated the same double exposure process with the first eight-set sandwiched with its knock-out positive.
 
The flower's anther was created pretty much in the same way, but it began with two exposures of light on very grainy film which was then reshot on high-contrast film.
 
The stem was just a time exposure streak made by a random panning of the camera while aimed at a light.
 
Once I had the petals on a chrome, the stem on another, and the anther on another, I combined all three using the sandwich/knockout method described above, along with additional pops of the strobe and colored gels to achieve the coloration as well as the background fade. Each plate exposure on this final chrome also had an accompanying diffusion exposure, which was a pop of the strobes with a steel-wool scratched piece of glass placed over the lens.
 
J

I don't think that's true. Branden was not "generally dishonest about his emotions towards Rand," but toward the end of their romantic years together he was confused about how he felt about her and about the fact that his feelings toward her had changed. Keep in mind that she was something of an authority figure in his life. She was his employer and mentor and was acting as his counselor in regard to his personal romantic relationships while having an affair with him. His entire concept of romantic love had come from her theories. He was being expected to follow her notion of romantic love, and he was being pressured and unfairly judged when he was discovering that that notion wasn't meshing with his reality.

At worst, he might have been guilty of withholding from Rand the information that he was having a romantic relationship with someone else (Patrecia). But that relationship was actually none of Rand's business since she didn't have a promise of exclusivity from Branden -- she was not married to him and they had not publicly entered into any romantic contractual agreements, so he did not need her consent to see anyone else, nor did he owe her any right to be informed of any other relationships that he might have had with anyone else.



If there was nothing wrong with the relationship between Rand and Branden, why did they keep it a secret? Why did they hide it from even their closest friends and associates? Why did Rand put Peikoff into the position where he went out and publicly denied the affair? Rand often publicly boasted about her relationship with her husband, saying that he was her highest value and such. Why did she not do the same with Branden if there was nothing wrong with multiple romantic relationships? The actions of those involved gives the impression that they were very concened about what others would think, no?

J

Note to moderators: If you delete this post, will you please give me the courtesy of notifying me and explaining why rather than doing it anonymously and without notifaction or explanation? Thanks.

That would have been moral and logical, but I think that it also would have had a very negative effect on the aesthetic impact and power of the novel. Rand was an artist first and foremost, and she knew what she was doing. She put her artistry ahead of notions like morally perfect heroic characters. If she hadn't, this forum wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be discussing her work.
J

I don't think that's true. Branden was not "generally dishonest about his emotions towards Rand," but toward the end of their romantic years together he was confused about how he felt about her and about the fact that his feelings toward her had changed. Keep in mind that she was something of an authority figure in his life. She was his employer and mentor and was acting as his counselor in regard to his personal romantic relationships while having an affair with him. His entire concept of romantic love had come from her theories. He was being expected to follow her notion of romantic love, and he was being pressured and unfairly judged when he was discovering that that notion wasn't meshing with his reality.

At worst, he might have been guilty of withholding from Rand the information that he was having a romantic relationship with someone else (Patrecia). But that relationship was actually none of Rand's business since she didn't have a promise of exclusivity from Branden -- she was not married to him and they had not publicly entered into any romantic contractual agreements, so he did not need her consent to see anyone else, nor did he owe her any right to be informed of any other relationships that he might have had with anyone else.



If there was nothing wrong with the relationship between Rand and Branden, why did they keep it a secret? Why did they hide it from even their closest friends and associates? Why did Rand put Peikoff into the position where he went out and publicly denied the affair? Rand often publicly boasted about her relationship with her husband, saying that he was her highest value and such. Why did she not do the same with Branden if there was nothing wrong with multiple romantic relationships? The actions of those involved gives the impression that they were very concened about what others would think, no?

J

Note to moderators: If you delete this post, will you please give me the courtesy of notifying me and explaining why rather than doing it anonymously and without notifaction or explanation? Thanks.

Wow, it's weird that Rand didn't have a Russian accent when she was younger.

J